This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Furry fandom article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17Auto-archiving period: 3 months

See also: Talk:Yiff Archive

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a contentious topic. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator.

	Furry fandom was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result August 11, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed September 19, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed September 3, 2016 Peer review Reviewed
Current status: Former good article nominee

This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Furry Top‑importance Furry fandom is within the scope of WikiProject Furry, an attempt to better organize and improve the quality of information in articles related to furry fandom. For more information, visit the project page.FurryWikipedia:WikiProject FurryTemplate:WikiProject Furryfurry Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Sociology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. LGBTQ+ studies This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies Culture Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CultureWikipedia:WikiProject CultureTemplate:WikiProject Cultureculture Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

To-do list for Furry fandom: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2019-02-16 Fix remaining issues highlighted in the good article review Check references for suitability and consideration of bias in use (both positive and negative) Obtain more high-quality images that represent the fandom, in particular its artwork General polishing consistent with increased positioning in Wikipedia's article grading scheme and perfect article criteria Create a section about "fursonas", as this is a highly important part of the fandom. Archive/refactor talk page

This article is substantially duplicated in one or more external publications. Since these publication(s) copied Wikipedia, rather than the reverse, please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source: Chus Martinez on Plushophilia, 2014

@BirchTainer: what recent history updates are you looking for? The most likely reason there aren't any is because there isn't anyone reporting about it, so there aren't any sources to use. If it's more localized history like what happened to FA, that belongs better on the page about FA. -- Reconrabbit 14:01, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

there are plenty of sources on the history, they were wiped by an editor however in 2022. This version of the page shows a much more complete history section https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Furry_fandom&oldid=1072857388 (the actual section is not very well structured, but it has much needed information. Also I'm not sure what you mean by FA. BirchTainer (talk) 14:12, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article was reverted in 2022 following this talk page thread which raised issues that a lot of the sources (especially in the History section) were cherry-picked, I would say that much of the information presented in the History section at that time is fairly inconsequential to the entire fandom (since a lot of it is centered around the public perception of the fandom and a retrospective from Daily Dot). I can try and find the useful parts and put them back in but it was a worse written article then than it is now overall. -- Reconrabbit 14:31, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this book would be useful if anyone has it, but right now I can't even find a reliable source for the date FurAffinity (FA) was started. What good would it be to include "historical notes" on when YouTube Furry War was going on? Much of the old history section was just notes on when the first furry conventions were held in different countries as well, which would go better in Furry convention anyway. -- Reconrabbit 14:54, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is an 800 page book free to read which presents original survey data and interpretations of the same.

• Plante, Courtney N. (2023). Reysen, Stephe; Adams, Camielle; Roberts, Sharon E.; Gerbasi, Kathleen C. (eds.). Furscience: A Decade of Psychological Research on the Furry Fandom. Texas, USA: International Anthropomorphic Research Project. ISBN 9780997628838.

Access the text through https://furscience.com/publications/

If anyone is looking for explainer context from researchers then this is what you cite. Currently this wiki article is citing an earlier 2016 research from this team. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:17, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've started to use it in some capacity. Seems like a good resource for the whole thing. -- Reconrabbit 18:41, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the article contains a large amount of misinformation, as well as never addressing the digital side of the fandom (OCs, dedicated OC artists, etc.). Can someone please address this issue? TurtleBryan1831 (talk) 23:27, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point out any specific supposed misinformation? And if you've got more good sources for that that'd be great. Ringtail Raider (talk) 01:10, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The main issue at hand is that the information is solely from an outside knowledge point, and doesn't have any information about certain inside-fandom topics that are very important. As for sources, there isn't much I can CITE, because the sources that are needed involve actually speaking with people. The main issues in terms of misinformation are regarding the sections like "lifestyle" which are outdated and incorrect (according to a poll conducted by an acquaintance of mine, who is an active member in the fandom). TurtleBryan1831 (talk) 23:29, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You seem not to understand what Wikipedia is for. It is a tertiary source, an encyclopaedia (or something that attempts to be one), which summarises published secondary reliable sources. We do not engage in original research, which is what "actually talking to people" would involve. Engaging in such research isn't something the average contributor is qualified to do, and would open up articles to all sorts of potential biases, intended or otherwise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:39, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand now that Wikipedia relies solely on published, reliable sources and does not permit original research or direct interviews. My apologies for not fully grasping that policy.

However, that does not change the fact that there are multiple instances of incorrect information. Wikipedia is meant to be reliable in its objective, and so a false subject basis is not something you can fully defend.

Additionally, as stated in WP:5P2, information needs to be accurate, which, where the article currently is, the information isn't accurate. You cannot change the information at hand, whether it is or isn't personally obtained, because the facts and statistics are still facts and statistics. And said facts and statistics contradict the outdated information in the article. TurtleBryan1831 (talk) 00:27, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the accurate facts and statistics? Until they surface to be cited then Wikipedia will remain "inaccurate" (e.g., accurate to the point when the cited sources were published). -- Reconrabbit 01:19, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the accurate facts and statistics are in the subject being discussed in the article. One would have to actually research the topic before someone else can cite it. TurtleBryan1831 (talk) 02:04, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so presumably we have to wait for the FurScience/Anthropomorphics Research folks to finish their next study. As all the statistics are based on inherently limited surveys the info on this page will also be limited. Wikipedia is (ideally) a tertiary source after all. -- Reconrabbit 02:12, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So theres this guy named "Jax" on YouTube who's doing a series called "Project FURI" that he calls "the most indepth study about furries, ever," so could we list it when its done? Swedepride (talk) 23:09, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Swedepride: Convenience link: https://youtube.com/watch?v=OO0qB36bK7s

Unfortunately, it's unusable because it's a self-published source. A source needs to be published by a reputable publisher (with fact checking, good editorial scrutiny, etc.) in order to be usable. HyperAnd (talk) 00:56, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused whether or not this article is about furries or a group of furries who are known as a furry fandom. If it is not about a group of people, I feel like making it clearer would be useful. Lemur3215 (talk) 18:22, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Members of the furry fandom are known as furries. Defining "furries" as a group of people is basically the same as describing the "furry fandom", which is a term referring to the collective. What would make this clearer? Moving the "Members of the fandom, known as furries" closer to the top? -- Reconrabbit 18:25, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That might actually help. I think It is just not very clear from seeing the article that there is not a group of furries called the furry fandom. Lemur3215 (talk) 14:03, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]