Talk:Furry fandom

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 The main issues in terms of misinformation are regarding the sections like "lifestyle" which are outdated and incorrect (according to a poll conducted by an acquaintance of mine, who is an active member in the fandom).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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@TurtleBryan1831 I have made some changes. Obviously there are still problems since sourcing a big chunk to a 2001 Usenet post is not great. But please let me know if this is an improvement (especially to the "lifestyle" section). -- Reconrabbit 21:00, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

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)

@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)

I mean hopefully Lavender-of-the-sillies (talk) 21:19, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

How is it the most in-depth study when it just talks about FWA? -- Reconrabbit 14:45, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Why is they not a section devoted to this? There is a whole separate article about criticism for the Brony fandom. Why is they not one here? Tyler Robinson is a furry, that is a fact Ajron Bach (talk) 09:48, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

The Public perception and media coverage section already covers this. A lot of the brony criticism page seems to be in relation to the original show vs the types of fan content made and the behavior of some of its fans in contrast to that. There also was a lot of media coverage due to the perceived novelty of the fandom I'd assume. Furries are a much larger, older, and more nebulous group in comparison. If you've got any specific sources or ways to improve this section though feel free to post them for review. Ringtail Raider (talk) 10:25, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Okay, that’s fine. I do think we still need to add that he was involved in the fandom in the Assassination of Charlie Kirk article. Looks like it’s missing. I’m not trying to funnel hate and mistrust towards the fandom and non-furries, but I think it’s important anough to add into the article. It’s a controversial and very divisive topic and issue all of this, but be bold, with in reason. Ajron Bach (talk) 10:21, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

The article "Furry fandom" should only be providing information that is relevant to the subject. When individuals are named, like David Benaron or Samuel Conway, it's because they have been expressly linked to the fandom that contributes to their notability. It wouldn't make sense to start listing people who were notable for things completely irrelevant to their participation in furry. -- Reconrabbit 12:10, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

But Branden Hole is listed as an Mlp terrorist Ajron Bach (talk) 13:14, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Criticism of the My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic fandom is a broad article that has room for information like this. His relationship with the fandom was described in several sources. There are also academic works that describe bronies and criticism of them in depth. Furries seem to lack that depth of coverage and information like "there was a furry who killed someone" is not relevant to the broader topic. If somehow an article like Criticism of the furry fandom existed (which would be hard to manage and fairly lopsided given the lack of academic coverage) maybe it would be appropriate to include there but only if there was discussion of how the furry fandom influenced him/why it was relevant (as it was for Hole) and potentially the broader response from the fandom (which is so huge that there wasn't really one in the first place). -- Reconrabbit 14:30, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

That’s a fair point Ajron Bach (talk) 14:34, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

I ment to say that Branden Hole was a Mlp fan who became radicalized and committed murder in the name of his idolagy. There is far left extremeists in the Brony fandom too, who may not be terrorists but certainly support it Ajron Bach (talk) 14:37, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Please find sources to support your arguments. -- Reconrabbit 15:00, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

I will before editing or claiming anything. Mis- and disinformation is rife in this day and age, from both sides of the political dive, we need to try and see through all of the mistrust and sectarianism/tribalism 🤝 /) /) Peace Ajron Bach (talk) 15:04, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

/) /) -- Reconrabbit 15:27, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree, Recon Ajron Bach (talk) 14:37, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

They should be more academic coverage and research into furrydom Ajron Bach (talk) 15:18, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

In general, there is a rule to not have controversy sections, per WP:CRITS: "An article dedicated to negative criticism of a topic, as well as one dedicated to accolades and praises is usually discouraged because it tends to be a point-of-view fork, which is generally prohibited by the neutral point-of-view policy... Other than for articles about particular worldviews, philosophies or religious topics etc. where different considerations apply (see below), best practice is to incorporate positive and negative material into the same section." The same applies here. Historyday01 (talk) 13:31, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Okay Ajron Bach (talk) 10:21, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Also, criticism sections can become a place where people dump all sorts of negative things and can become an issue to manage as well. Historyday01 (talk) 12:29, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Well, yes. That’s true Ajron Bach (talk) 08:33, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

How relevant are feral characters to the fandom at large? Furscience barely touches on them (there's a graph showing that less than 10% of furries would describe their character as more feral than anthro) and I couldn't find any free usable images of feral art (presumably why a non-free image is used). I don't know that it should be the first image someone sees after scrolling down though. -- Reconrabbit 15:15, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

anecdotally feral art/sonas are decently common, but thats moot if no sources cover it. it might be worth mentioning that plenty of characters that enjoy popularity in the fandom are themselves feral/non-anthropomorphic, e.g. The Lion King ArkHyena_woop! (she/they/it) 16:13, 12 March 2026 (UTC)