Talk:Talking animal: Difference between revisions

Aren't people really animals?? 66.245.30.110 19:49, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

Can your read or only write? Try to track from animal. Mikkalai

"talking animal" and "furry" are the same thing

For over two decades, furry fandom has been defined as the appreciation, promotion, and production of stories and art about anthropomorphic animals, as well as the exploration, interpretation and examination of humanity and human values through anthropomorphic expression. There is no appreciable difference between "talking animal" and "furry."

Additional information and clarification can be found here and here. Xydexx 01:58, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Not necessarily, there are different varieties of "talking animal" as the text of the article points out. Furry is a relavent link, because it has to do with talking animals, but there's definitely a difference. --Krishva 05:59, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

I've noticed both the links pointed out are created by people in the furry subculture, but not in the literature/animation/comic industries (for fictional talking animals) or anybody in animal research (for such cases as the parrot, and the dolphin's language). In addition to that I see no reference to the Furry subculture in this article, so it may be considred biased to say that Furry and Talking Animal are one and the same.

It can be said Furry has aspects of the Talking Animal, but the Talking Animal is definitely not the same as Furry, or a subset of it. -- Grumpyhan 07:11, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Furry fandom is about animals with human characteristics. Talking animals are animals with human characteristics. It seems pretty obvious the furry fandom and literature/animation/comic industries (for fictional talking animals) are one and the same. —Xydexx 07:21, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

I quite doubt that; there is no supporting evidence that Talking Animals can be considered to be Furry just because both have animals which are anthropomorphized, because that would be saying English and Chinese are the same because both are languages. I see nothing obvious about talking animals in literature/animation/comic industries, as to call (as an example) the talking animals in Narnia furries is extremely inaccurate. -- Grumpyhan 07:31, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Your analogy is invalid: It would be like saying English and Chinese are languages. Furries and talking animals are anthropomorphized. It's more like the difference between "Good Day" and "Guten Tag"— used by different people, but means the same thing. —Xydexx 17:57, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

It is an incorrect analogy because it was to point out your analogy is equally invalid, and Good Day and Guten Tag may mean the same but it does not mean both (if such an article exists) should share an article, but rather both should be included in Greetings along with "Good Day" in other languages.

I wrote on the Furry Talk Page how Furry and Talking/Funny Animal aren't considered the same; you may want to read that. -- Grumpyhan 00:17, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Just because they aren't considered the same by you doesn't mean they aren't considered the same by anyone else. They've been considered the same by furry fandom for two decades. ("Funny animal" is sinply the outdated term for "furry".) Thus, I've taken the liberty of flagging this article as I believe (as Krishva will surely agree) all sides of an argument should be presented here. Since the issue of Furry and Talking/Funny Animal is debatable, it should be stated as such. This article presents a severely biased point of view, and the fact that you remove comments stating that an issue is debatable or some people do not agree with a certain point proves that. —Xydexx 23:48, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

...What?

Not only have I not removed any comment stating that this issue is debatable, there wasn't even any! Funny animal has never been an outdated term for furry (most professionals in both arts and scientific fields I mentioned have never, ever called them furries), and how can you say this article's neurality is disputed just because it doesn't say "Talking Animal is actually Furry"?

I'm not sure what makes you so persistent in going everywhere (incl Funny Animal) to claim that Furry=a lot of terms, and while I admire your spirit in upholding your beliefs, making up things in order to show that you are right is not correct behaviour on Wikipedia. This may be jumping into conclusions, but I presume you took little time to read any supporting evidence I have mentioned, as all I have seen coming from your POV in the Talk pages is "furry=talking animal, period".

I have added a short category that is similar to the Funny Animal article, though I find it irrelevant and little to do with the article. -- Grumpyhan 00:07, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I think a better question to ask might be why some people are so persistent in removing any references to furry from these articles.

I have been nothing but forthright in ensuring these articles remain NPOV, and have provided supporting evidence that funny animal was a term used for furry, which you deleted. When one considers the thriving genre or artwork and stories which has developed over the past twenty years as a direct result, it is patently ludicrous to claim anthropomorphized talking animals and furries have nothing at all to do with each other.

I'm sure many will agree with me that suppressing facts you don't agree with is not proper behavior on Wikipedia. —Xydexx 20:44, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me, I was expecting an apology from you for making up facts about me removing things which never existed in the first point, not continuing to assert that I am persistent in removing them. The link you have given me was not only not removed, it was in funny animal, it wasn't removed by me (I deleted the incorrect description that it suggested that funny animal was an old term now used as furry, and no matter how much you try to say it is the other way round, I have given proof after proof that your view is erroneous), and it is the exact same link which I have pointed out in Funny Animal that it never suggested that furry was the new term for funny animal. Not only have I not even suppressed your (admittedly strange) opinion, I wrote a new category for it - only for you to write more lies about me on this talk page.

Also, this is Talking animal. It is not Funny Animal. These are two very different articles. The fact that you cannot distinguish this fact (and several others: including making up facts about me, personally attacking the user Krishva, having a lack of understanding of the Neurality tag (you were supposed to put the "cleanup" tag, if it was even necessary), not giving substantial proof other than a few weak - and disputed - urls to show your case) gives me doubts as to whether you actually care about wikipedia at a whole, but rather you only want to let it be known that furries are really interesting and important despite how the general populace have entirely no idea who they are. If my suspicions are correct, I would suggest that you make your own opinion-airing website (if you do have one) more popular and debated, rather than go into wikipedia and completely disregard its given etiquette. If not, please give me more proof that you are correct (not "my argument tactics are correct" - that is all you have been doing) and stop touting the three links you are throwing everywhere. -- Grumpyhan 04:05, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Fred Patten, who documented the origins of furry fandom in A Chronology Of Furry Fandom, states it was around late 1983 or early 1984 that the fandom coalesced out of SF fandom and comics fandom. Mr. Patten is founding member of the Cartoon/Fantasy Organization, has written articles for Starlog and Animation Magazine, and was winner of the 2003 Ursa Major Award for Best in Show: Fifteen Years of Outstanding Furry Fiction. You can continue to trivialize Mr. Patten's accomplishments if it makes you feel better, but the connection between talking animals and furries is pretty ironclad at this juncture. Besides, if you're incapable of responding with anything but wild accusations and personal attacks against me, then there really is little reason to continue this discussion. —Xydexx 01:03, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

When did I trivalize his writing? I said this article does not support your assertions, not that the it is a bad one. If you bring up a Stephen Hawking article in a biology conference people will look at you funny (although this is an exaggeration of what you're doing here - you just gave me an article that suggests little to nothing that people, other than a select few, called talking and funny animals "furries"). And making up wild accusations about you? You made things up about my conduct here and tried to claim otherwise?

After observing that your inability to make a sound argument for your own case (and descending into making things up or about the other party or insulting them), and that you are the only one to assert that furry has anything to do with talking/funny animals, I'm convinced that the statement is POV and will remove them. -- Grumpyhan 05:00, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Ongoing NPOV Concerns

There has been an ongoing campaign by certain individuals of systematically (and unnecessarily) removing references to furry fandom in these articles. Petty personal vendettas against furries do not belong on Wikipedia. Please keep this in mind with future edits of this article. —Xydexx 00:52, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There has been an ongoing campaign by certain individuals of systematically (and unnecessarily) adding references to furry fandom in these articles. Petty personal vendettas of furries do not belong on Wikipedia. Please keep this in mind with future edits of this article. —MWMiller 02:41, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)

For the uninitiated, I think what User:Xydexx is trying to say is that by disagreeing with him*, I am immediately branded as a person who has a "personal vendetta" against furries, never mind that he has been making things up about my activities in both this and the Funny Animal articles and making personal attacks at my direction. Seeing that Xydexx has chosen to suddenly return after declaring that he no longer wants to be part of the discussion (see above section, and Talk:Funny animal) and declaring that I am apparently some form of bigot, I find the reversion of both articles extremely biased and POV (notwithstanding the fact that only Xydexx, as far as I can tell, is supporting the "Funny/Talking Animal = Furry" viewpoint).

Ah, me. I'm not as patient as User:Prangton on Funny Animal, but I'm willing to allow a few days to pass, for Xydexx to convince me with statement(s) not limited to three URLs of furry-created pages and accusations against my character, before concluding whether I should remove the NPOV sections from both articles.

• It's possible that my being part of a team merging the Furry and Furry fandom articles and also speedily deleting the non-notable Doug Winger article are facts considered by Xydexx, because, of course, aiming to improve articles and delete non-encyclopediac one are what one does as vendetta-like activities.

-Grumpyhan 11:48, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)