Talk:Fur and Loathing

Furry
Yes, furry fandom has objected to this episode...but shouldn't we have links? Some links? Any link? Lots42 01:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You mean a reference for the statement? A link to the episode? Please be more specific. GreenReaper 03:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * A link to a well-written objection and critque to the episode. Lots42 12:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure thing. We gots lots. Let me add a couple. GreenReaper 05:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Problem is blogs can't be used as reliable sources and what Lots42 was asking for was some third party overview. I think this would be OK, although other coverage would be needed. (Emperor 17:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC))


 * That is as reliable (or not) as any of the blogs. It is the opinion of an individual furry fan (PeterCat) - that's why it has "I" in it. As director of Anthrocon's art show, PeterCat is a reasonably good source, but so are the others. Kay Shapero was an extra on the set, while Ursula Vernon is a moderately acclaimed furry artist and Andrew Mutchler is an experienced con-goer, so they should know what they are talking about. PeterCat's information is actually out of date in at least one particular - recent surveys and hard counts of attendance in fursuit parades at conventions put the fursuit figure at about 15%, though it would have been lower at the time CSI was written. If you prefer, we could try using some news reports which mention CSI, but they will likely not have as much detail, just something like "furries blame shows like CSI for spreading disinformation" (as opposed to "furries think the show was inaccurate in these particular ways..."). GreenReaper 18:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. It's hard to get much more official then a director at the Anthrocon (which, for newbies, is a big furry convention, far, far different then the one shown in this CSI episode). Lots42 00:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Opinions
While I still maintain a bit on how the episode had a skewed focus on furry-dom, I do not feel the current text does this nuetrally. Especially the bit about 'some people expected no less'. Lots42 (talk) 22:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Notability
I can say from recent personal experience that this episode is considered so notable in relation to furry fandom that editors of reliable sources (in this case, the most popular newspaper in the USA) require that mention of it be added to coverage, if only as an example of misrepresentation by the mass media. GreenReaper (talk) 00:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I replaced the dead link from the Pittsburgh news article, as it has seemingly been erased from the web; I don't know if this is due to controversy.--Soulparadox 12:00, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I moved the information to the Reception section and posted statements from the articles themselves instead of the tone-biased "example of misrepresentation by the mass media". -AngusWOOF (talk) 17:49, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Excessive Lead section
I removed a segment of the Lead section, as an article of this size does not require a Lead section of this size, and the subject is covered in the Plot section that immediately follows.--Soulparadox 12:01, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Article cleanup
The plot needs a better source for the details. IMDB is okay for date of broadcast, but is not reliable for user-submitted summaries. I also removed the titles for the two stories as those are not official (provide episode reference if i am incorrect in that assumption). It should summarize what happened in that episode so it does not need to end with a trailer-like cliffhanger. You can also cite reviews of the episode such as the newspaper articles in the reception section, or official sites for the details.

For the names, I used last name convention, but if in the CSI world they prefer using the first names, please redo that in the Plot.

I added a Reception section for controversies and reactions surrounding the show and its impact on furry fandom culture. If someone can find the Pittsburgh article, maybe from waybackmachine, you can add more details there. I tried to keep it balanced in tone by countering each objection with a response.

Regarding the trivia section, it should be integrated into the plot. The detail about the title and quote references to the novel can be placed in Development. If the convention filmed was an actual convention, then that detail can go in Development section as well. However, if it is customary for CSI episodes on wikipedia to have cultural reference sections, you can remove that statement. -AngusWOOF (talk) 17:59, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

"Fur+and+Loathing+(CSI+episode)" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Fur+and+Loathing+(CSI+episode). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:45, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

That Episode
This page has gained some prevalence, to the point that you can search up that episode and this pops up. This has been mentioned across the internet. Should we devote a portion to this? Evenite (talk) 05:17, 7 November 2022 (UTC)


 * So prevalent, it's the first link when you google "that episode". Not anything else. Just "that episode". סשס Grimmchild.  He/him, probably  20:17, 8 February 2023 (UTC)