A short, one sentence summary of why the Titanic sunk would just mention the iceberg. A longer talk of why the sinking happened as it did would bring in more ancillary details, like the ship's construction. That doesn't change the importance or necessity of the iceberg, but neither does that make less important points irrelevant. They are there to answer more detailed questions, e.g. "Why didn't it sink slower or faster?"
Likewise, a sentence or short paragraph summary of origins of furry fandom should not mention historic anthropomorphism, but I think it can be used to make a point or two if going into more detail. The pre-fandom history doesn't make the fandom more tradition-based, it doesn't make furry more important, it doesn't mean furries should be taken more serious, or mean such historic stuff is central to the fandom. It shouldn't be used for such reasons, and none of that is why I think it is relevant. The historical context just provides another detail or two in discussion of the fandom's origins when examining in more depth. Unless someone is actually misusing it (and I think flowery or loose language should count), I don't think a knee-jerk rejection is appropriate.
I get a vague sense of importance here being viewed as black and white, when I only meant relative importance within a rather narrow context.
A short, one sentence summary of why the Titanic sunk would just mention the iceberg. A longer talk of why the sinking happened as it did would bring in more ancillary details, like the ship's construction. That doesn't change the importance or necessity of the iceberg, but neither does that make less important points irrelevant. They are there to answer more detailed questions, e.g. "Why didn't it sink slower or faster?"
Likewise, a sentence or short paragraph summary of origins of furry fandom should not mention historic anthropomorphism, but I think it can be used to make a point or two if going into more detail. The pre-fandom history doesn't make the fandom more tradition-based, it doesn't make furry more important, it doesn't mean furries should be taken more serious, or mean such historic stuff is central to the fandom. It shouldn't be used for such reasons, and none of that is why I think it is relevant. The historical context just provides another detail or two in discussion of the fandom's origins when examining in more depth. Unless someone is actually misusing it (and I think flowery or loose language should count), I don't think a knee-jerk rejection is appropriate.
I get a vague sense of importance here being viewed as black and white, when I only meant relative importance within a rather narrow context.