Talk:/mlp/

Mare Fair?

Something about Mare Fair, /mlp/'s annual convention, would be nice to have.

Perhaps list first Mare Fair as part of notable events? 176.193.189.61 (talk) 20:50, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Dogpatch Express not a reliable source

Source being used for latest edit is not considered a reliable source and is currently involved in atleast two defamation suits. Article itself full of libel and poorly researched with Internet screenshots used as primary sources.

Article has currently been removed from own site due to unfounded claims being taken action against. 152.117.115.249 (talk) 04:46, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Pinging GregariousMadness to alert him of this discussion. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 04:47, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Dogpatch Press has been used in various news publications without comment for facts; the source and the author have been extensively used by WP:RS like Time (WP:TIME), The A.V. Club (WP:AVCLUB), Rolling Stone (WP:ROLLINGSTONE), and many, many more. Per WP:USEBYOTHERS, which states The more widespread and consistent this use is, the stronger the evidence. For example, widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability for similar facts, whereas widespread doubts about reliability weigh against it., this source is certainly reliable for controversies within the furry fandom or fandoms adjacent to it. This topic is exactly in the realm of what Dogpatch Press is known and reliable for. In addition, the paragraph that uses this as a source clearly uses the source with attribution; nowhere does it say that the accusations are true, but rather that the expose stated as such, which is factual and verifiable (WP:V).

Article has currently been removed from own site due to unfounded claims being taken action against. This is no indication that this is true at all. The entire website has been taken down, not just the article. Considering that the author has been exposing controversies in the furry fandom for over a decade now, it is extremely questionable to believe that the whole website was taken down for this reason. –GM 04:53, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

This article is libelous and contains many factual inaccuracies, among which are:

> Mare Fair was founded with money milked from silver coin sales and cryptocurrency

The project financials show all proceeds were donated to an external charity, and a letter from the recipient charity confirms this. No money from the silver coin project was used to fund Mare Fair.

> Mare Fair is associated with cryptocurrency

Mare Fair cannot accept donations via cryptocurrency and is not able to pay anyone with cryptocurrency.

> Kyle Foster had any leadership position at Mare Fair

This is patently untrue, Kyle Foster was never in any leadership position at Mare Fair.

Kyle Foster was not a founder of Mare Fair.

> Mare Fair offered a furry DJ payment in cryptocurrency to perform

Mare Fair would not invite a furry DJ to perform at their event and they cannot pay in cryptocurrency. Mare Fair does not pay musicians and requires all prospective musicians to apply as seen in their websites from 2023, 2024, and 2025.

> Joshua was responsible for the silver coin project

As stated in the Board of Directors Meeting Minutes on 2022-09-24, Lunar Harmony was elected to head and run this project.

> Joshua owns Mare Fair or founded Snowpity, Inc.

Mare Fair is run by Snowpity, Inc., which is an IRS recognized public 501(c)(3) charity. There were 5 original founders. Details can be seen in their IRS Determination Letter and their Articles of Incorporation to confirm this. No single individual can own a 501(c)(3) charity.

The allegations of any zoophilia among its founders is also blatantly false and may be considered defamatory.

The fact the cited article is so full of false statements makes its trustworthiness questionable at best and this particular article should likely not be used as a reliable citation. 2600:1700:36A0:D9A9:E437:F040:CF41:5B (talk) 05:11, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Here is a discussion regarding source on Wikifur discusing unreliability as source https://en.wikifur.com/wiki/Talk:Dogpatch_Press 152.117.115.249 (talk) 04:52, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

This discussion was from 8 years ago, only a few years after Dogpatch Press began. It has since then seen a huge number of uses and citations as a reliable source from undeniably reputable sources, so this discussion is moot. –GM 04:54, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that the cited article contains multiple allegations that easily fall under WP:BLP, so I feel a little more scrutiny of its sourcing is warranted, especially the verifiability part. Several of the claims made in the article are demonstrably untrue and while that may be OR, it should absolutely considered to evaluate the source of a BLP case. As is, the article section pretty much goes against at least WP:BLPSPS, WP:BLPGOSSIP, WP:GRAPEVINE, and maybe most importantly WP:BLPCRIME. Dogpatch Press may be reliable enough for general furry news, but BLP has far higher standards than what is essentially a fandom blog. Please reconsider at the very least the references to actual people. 2A02:810A:B8F:9600:BAE3:F49E:6A06:F53 (talk) 03:04, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

These new IP users are being brought to this Wikipedia article from another /mlp/ thread who are trying to bury the info

None of the accused are being named so the paragraph follows Wikipedia's WP:BLP policies MFDoomFan123 (talk) 04:19, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't see anywhere on the BLP page that pseudonyms are considered different than actual names, they still identify the person (the article also IRL-names them, but I see that is allowed per a recent RfC).

This also doesn't address the issues with the reliability of the source. This is a about a pony convention, at best tangentially related to the topic that Dogpatch Press may be somewhat reliable on. lists a mere 10 articles over 13 years. None of the citations of Dogpatch Press by other sources noted in the above-provided list are about the pony fandom. Horse News would be a better source about ponycon drama than this, obvious bias for this convention aside, and probably has at least the same amount of mainstream citations on this topic (zero).

I understand the factual issues noted by the other IP above are presumably considered OR and mostly cite primary sources that I assume are inadmissible and therefore challenging this section of the wiki article would probably require another published article that does this research, however I think that at least the specific accusations against IRL people, even if pseudonymous, should be removed until a better source comes along as currently these are quite heavy claims from a sole source of questionable reliability and accuracy on the specific topic. Maybe the named claims could be replaced with something akin to "According to the exposé, a person involved with the convention has been accused of hosting bestiality and another of sexual abuse of animals." 2A02:810A:B8F:9600:4BE5:5217:9CAC:A908 (talk) 19:49, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Horse News was considered unreliable in May 2024 and unfortunately, I would have to agree with their assessment. It simply doesn't have enough uses by reliable sources that would qualify for use by WP:USEBYOTHERS (trust me, I've looked), unlike Equestria Daily (which I've written an essay about at WP:EQD). The reason Horse News can be used as a source in the Horse News subsection (as it already does, source 24) is because it would qualify as an acceptable use case of a WP:PRIMARY source.

As for the BLP issues, it does seem that the full name of a person is distinct from a pseudonym or an alias per Wikipedia policies. For example, WP:BLPNAME states Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. Here, the Dogpatch Press article does include both the full name and the pseudonym of the people mentioned, so one could argue that purposely omitting the full name in favor of only including the pseudonym in the page is a valid middle-ground.

As for reliability, I am skeptical that the argument This is a about a pony convention, at best tangentially related to the topic that Dogpatch Press may be somewhat reliable on. works because I find that too narrow. While pony and furry conventions are distinct, they are both fan conventions. For instance, I would consider a reliable source on anime conventions to also be one for furry and pony conventions. Either way, the paragraph does currently seem to follow WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and WP:INTEXT appropriately, so as you mentioned, until we have a better source that explicitly repudiates these facts, this is probably the best we can do right now. –GM 14:40, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

The Horse News mention was a joke, but good to know.

I do not agree on the BLP topic. The quoted BLPNAME section doesn't refer to pseudonyms or any sort of dissimulation of names, it even specifically cautions against identifying individuals at first as opposed to merely naming them. It should also be noted that in topics like this with a high amount of online interaction, a pseudonym will in many cases be more identifying for knowledgeable readers and search engines than the actual name. Additionally, as also referenced in the quotation, omitting the pseudonyms will not lead to a significant loss of context. I therefore continue to advocate to removal of the pseudonyms and addition of a phrase like the one I proposed above.

I also do not agree on reliability. As you state, pony and furry conventions are separate and while there is some overlap I'd not expect someone familiar with one to be automatically familiar with the other. Anime cons are an even further step. There's also a clear display of this in the article itself – it seems in large part based on information brought to the author's attention by sources instead of their own research. Someone familiar with the topic would've been easily able to note multiple of the issues brought up by the other IP above, at the very least that one of the accused wasn't involved with Mare Fair leadership. In my opinion a source that is already just USEBYOTHERS, focused on an only adjacent topic and has rarely ever reported on the topic in question is of quite questionable reliability and in combination with the arguably poor research should be treated with more caution, at least for BLP topics. 2A02:810A:B8F:9600:84AD:6429:ACBA:BEB2 (talk) 20:39, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia uses Neutral Point of View, should we also include the fact that any site with user uploaded content can have illegal content uploaded? The accusations are just that-- accusations.-~2026-27632-74 (talk) 13:38, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Article is being raided by /mlp/ to try and censor information

See this thread

Dogpatch Press was also DDoSed and crashed by /mlp/ because of the article MFDoomFan123 (talk) 05:06, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Mare Fair factual inaccuracies

This article was recently modified to include the claims there are allegations of zoophilia against its founders. However, the cited source only states one of the founders had removed user generated and uploaded bestiality content from a site they run. There are no allegations of actual zoophilia contained within the article, just allegations a video existed which was removed.

Also, neither Snowpity, Inc., nor Mare Fair have made any announcements of a breach of contract, whereas this article states, "In October 2025, Mare Fair lost its venue for future events in what its organizers described as a breach of contract." This is a false statement and is not cited.

The statements about the venue moves make it sound as if the controversies surrounding Mare Fair were responsible for the venue moves. However, the first venue was demolished and the organizers purposefully moved to a bigger venue after year 2.

Also, mention of cryptocurrency continues to be included here, whereas neither Mare Fair nor Snowpity, Inc., has ever done any verified business with cryptocurrency. This continues to be rumors that are being spread on social media platforms such as Twitter and BlueSky with no factual basis.

The article also states Lightsolver was in leadership at Mare Fair, but this has never been the case and cannot be cited from any trustworthy source. It is more rumor from social media.

The bestiality content on the pony.tube site was removed before the article was published and not as a result of that article. It should be noted the article cited clearly states this was removed before publishing. 2600:1700:36A0:D9A9:E437:F040:CF41:5B (talk) 05:19, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Mare Fair logo

Is it possible that the text about it resembling genitalia, which is just an opinion and not based on anything reliable or documented, is removed but the image remains? Is there a good reason to keep the text there? It seems spurious, not factual-~2026-27632-74 (talk) 13:33, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Analysis

What kind of person write these """analysis"""!? Did they even watch the show or lurk the board!? I bet a fair share of oat that they never set a foot on /mlp and are now viewed as """specialists""" despite having it all wrong. Heck, the show is even viewed as a society centered around and ruled by female characters. What are /rgre (Reverse Gender Roles in Equestria) threads? Also, the majority or /aie (Anonymous In Equestria) shows a highly functional, female ruled/centric society. What about at least indicating that these analysis are a load of crap? ~2026-38000-83 (talk) 02:56, 3 July 2026 (UTC)