Talk:Otherkin/Archive 7

Self-references

WP:ASR is not about using Wikipedia articles as external references; it is about not naming Wikipedia as the name of this collective work, as it might be published under many names. Vashti 11:17, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Please read circular reference. We cannot reference ourselves to prove ourselves right. Anything written in that other article should be referenced, and thus those references should be brought in here, not us referencing another article. You may also wish to read this discussion. violet/riga (t) 11:30, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I think you may be right. I would like to draw your attention, though, to WP:CITE#Citing Wikipedia, which states "Avoid duplicating references on a single topic unnecessarily — put the references in the most specific Wikipedia article on that topic, and not in other articles that link to that article.". My reading of that indicates that, in this case, the references should be in Furry lifestyler, not here, and we should simply wikilink to that page. My apologies for the confusion. Vashti 12:07, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I would agree with that then. Thanks. violet/riga (t) 12:20, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Violetrega, I'm not going to debate you on the internal reference thing (I'd have to look it up), but be aware that your first revert to try to get rid of it put back in countless highly POV statements that were removed by consensus. I see the newer change didn't do that, so hopefully that was just a mistake and will not be repeated. DreamGuy 11:51, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry but if you check the history (and the diff) you'll see that I only removed that reference. violet/riga (t) 11:53, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, my mistake... There were a ton of changes recently and it looks like I garbled what went where. I couldn't see Hipocrite leaving such outrageous statements there and you came right after him, but I see he had used up three reverts already so probably was just trying to avoid a 3RR violation. Sorry for that. DreamGuy 11:59, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Not a problem - that's the problem with revert wars, sadly. violet/riga (t) 12:21, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, the little evening revert war kinda fed up the article. Whatyagonna do. I don't want to runafoul of 3rr, so if someone could revert the changes to "A parallel has also been drawn between otherkin ..." - no such parallel has been drawn to my knowledge, so either find the drawer or go back to my sentence structure. Thanks! Hipocrite 12:38, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

You mean the transvestite statement? That parallel most defintiely has been drawn by some otherkin and some therianthropes. That's where they came up with that whole species thingy. It should be clear (if it's not) that it's some otherkin drawing the comparison and not anyone else. The Therianthropy article already went over that. Some therianthropes claim that, others are offended by it, outsiders tend to call both sides nuts. DreamGuy 12:48, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Cite please. Random internet message board would be fine. Hipocrite 12:50, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

How about [1] this? It's the reference that the claim was linked to. Vashti 12:58, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, that's linked to "drink blood," but yes, it suffices for me. Thus, my project today is to clean up the footnotes. Hipocrite 13:06, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

....argh, that means the footnotes have got screwed up as well. I think I'm going off to cry in a corner, or at least find some chocolate somewhere. :) Vashti 19:37, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Relation to clinical lycanthropy

to me, this seems like saying wereolves and wolves are related, Ifthey were both (physically) real , they wouldnt be realted, totally different species, ya kno? uit also seems a thing of bad taste to try to link an entire subculture to a mental disorder....Gavin the Chosen 15:49, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

They are related, though, seeing as how werewolves look like wolves, etc. Friday's comment about the broken arm is exactly what I mean. And in any case, consensus looks like it's against you. ~~ N (t/c) 17:29, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

appearance sould not warrent simmilarity. thats like saying there should be a see also for emporer on thwe emporer penguins page, it doesnt make ansy sense.Gavin the Chosen 17:32, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

All right, point taken. But still, clinical lycanthropy and otherkin are related, because they're both about people who identify with animals. Just as... oh... paintball and airsoft are related (games where people shoot each other with non-dangerous air guns). Stating this is not in any way an attack on otherkin; it's just pointing out a similarity. In any case, consensus is against you and I doubt you'll be able to convince anyone of your position. ~~ N (t/c) 20:56, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Just to offer an opposing example here, couldn't you use the same argument for placing a link to paedophilia in an article on children's charities (they're both about people who like children, after all, it's just a matter of degree and pathology). I suspect someone who wanted to add a theory to such a page that people who work in children's homes do so because of paedophilic tendencies, or a link to paedophilia from the Barnardo's page, would, at a minimum, be asked to quote good sources backing up their theory. Surface similarity and what "everyone knows" shouldn't be enough to justify adding controversial theories that are questioned by members of the group being discussed - in my opinion it should be required to cite sources that such theories can be taken from. Isn't including only material that is supported by good sources, in fact, a cornerstone of Wikipedia? Vashti 09:03, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that good sources are supposed to be used for pretty much everything. But we're pretty far from that in this article. The only reputable sources I've seen at all that relate remotely to otherkin are the ones used in clinical lycanthropy. If we wanted a high standard of verifiability, I'd say otherkin should redirect there. But, of course, there are many who'd hate to see that happen, so instead this article is full of dubious sources. Friday (talk) 14:37, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

True. It does seem to me, though, that we need some way to determine the objective validity of controversial claims like this. It's one thing to insert material saying "x believes y" which nobody questions, but if we're going to have month-long flame wars about one addition or another it has to be determined by some way other than whose opinion is most plausible. While I still think the sources used for citing what beliefs people have expressed are valid for that purpose, I am concerned that we're edging towards including unverified opinion in the fields of science and medicine. I'd willingly see this article include only material from paper-published sources if it's going to keep the unverified opinion of laymen from being represented as encyclopaedic fact. Vashti 16:02, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

You know, I think you're right. I'd be perfectly willing to go with no link. ~~ N (t/c) 14:33, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Comparing having a link to clinical lycanthropy here to having a link to "paedophilia in an article on children's charities" is absolutely not at all even remotely similar to what's under discussion here, and to even suggest that it is shows extreme levels of bias. The old pedophilia (or other outrageous emotional accusation of wrongdoing) comparison is one of the oldest and most unfair debating tricks in the book. IF the comparison were to an article about, say, child brides, whiere the activiies are the same but possibly rooted from different causes, that would be a more accurate comparison. DreamGuy 17:30, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

It is, in fact, a valid comparison; look up the British epidemic of convictions of children's home staff for abuse. Someone might feel very justified in proposing such a theory, but they would still need to prove it, no matter how obvious it seemed to them. Vashti 17:49, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding us... But, regardles, whether you think those two terms are linked or not, that is not a good comparison to what's being discussd here, as in your case it is not part of the normal association and when it does happen it's interjection wholly disapproved of unwanted attention. Normal child care has no features in common with pedophillia. On the topic being discussed, normal otherkin beliefs do have features of clinical lycanthropy. The only separations between the two concepts is severity and that an individual diagnoses is necessary. You should really stick to the topic at hand instead of making outrageous inflammatory false analogies to try to support your side. DreamGuy 18:55, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

I have every faith in the ability of User:Friday and User:Nickptar to inform me if they think I am indeed "making outrageous inflammatory false analogies", as I do in their ability to pay attention to the discussion at hand and not get sidetracked by the fact that it invokes an emotive subject. Did you find those sources to support your claim about which "normal otherkin beliefs" have features of clinical lycanthropy yet? Vashti 19:18, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

You seem to be under the belief that only people you want to talk with are allowed to express opinions. You are, indeed, making outrageous and inflammatory analagies that are completely false for what's being discussed. And, of course, you're back to your old habit of pretending that the sources that I already pointed out to you (i.s. the clinical lycanthropy article itself and the sources it refers to there) were never given. It looks like your strategy here is to try to sidetrack the conversation and then use that to make false claims about the discussion here. You need to stop operating in bad faither here pushing your POV that no mention can be made of anything you think might somehow be construed as negative to the topic. This is all about Neutral point of view not only saying nice things about a group. DreamGuy 19:43, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

See [2]. The link between otherkin and clinical lycanthropy is about as tenuous as the link between child care and pedophilia, and thus the mention of pedophilia is entirely valid. It would be unencyclopedic to speculate that child care workers have pedophilic tendencies; why would it be encyclopedic to speculate on whether otherkin have clinical lycanthropy? ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 20:09, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't see anything about otherkin on that page, and I think DreamGuy has a good point regarding the "child bride" example. Count me 'undecided' for now. Vashti, by the way, I think your pedophilia analogy (even if incorrect) was hardly outrageous or inflammatory. ~~ N (t/c) 22:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't see anything about otherkin on that page... that's sort of the point. ^_^

Aside from that, the article describes symptoms markedly different from the claims of otherkin. The resemblance to CL basically ends at "these people feel some sort of connection to an animal". ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 23:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Ugh. You refer to a site discussing one case and then from that try to declare that because otherkin beliefs don't fit that one case that they are somehow completely unrelated? That isn't a fair comparison. Besides which, the actual part of that page you linked to when it mentions the definition of lycanthropy in a clinical sense shows a huge resemblence to otherkin. It says "delusions of being a wild animal" (note: not transformation, etc. like some people try to use as a difference) and "Delusions of being a wolf or some other feared animal". The only difference here is that otherkin have delusions of either being a wild animal or a mythical animal of some sort. To say that those are "markedly different" is an extremely POV (and, frankly, rather bizarre) argument. DreamGuy 06:45, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. This case study describes a woman who was so disturbed that she was hospitalised after presenting herself sexually to her mother. This is what I was getting at in the second paragraph of this comment. Otherkin may or may not have higher levels of depression, personality disorders and what all - there's probably a really interesting study in that which, please god, someone will do eventually - but of one thing I'm convinced, we aren't all locked up and so convinced that we're unthinking animals that we're trying to have sex with our mums. This is what I meant by a qualitative difference. Vashti 23:23, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

The determination of clinical lycanthropy has been used to describe a mental condition that is clearly described in this article and which can be verified. Some who are Otherkin are indeed misdiagnosed with this, despite the fact that they lack the main criteria and the minimum number of the secondary criteria, and they do not conform to the disease as outlined in the DSM-IV. Despite this fact, Otherkin have been diagnosed with this because of the lack of anything else that clearly fits. As the American Psychiatric Association begins to unravel the mystery, they will most likely either create a new disorder or declare that it isn't abnormal. In either case, common misdiagnosis takes time and requires more data to undo. FWIW, I am doing original research and plan to publish within the year. RedHeron 17:03, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I believe that there is a very simple way to prove that reference to Clinical Lycanthropy is inappropriate for an article on Otherkin. We are all agreed that the definition of Clinical Lycanthropy is "a psychiatric syndrome that involves a delusional belief that the affected person is, or has, transformed into an animal." Since not all Otherkin believe themselves to be animals, even mythical ones, this definition does not apply to the otherkin belief. "Nonhuman" does not automatically mean animal; people who consider themselves elves, fae, and other sentient mythological beings that cannot be classified as animals also fall into the otherkin classification. Jarandhel 14:16, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

By the way, the response to that is: "since not all fruits are sweet, then Fruit should absolutely not mention Sugar"? D. G. 21:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

If I may put in my two cents I don't understand the strong animosity about even so much as mentioning clinical lycanthropy in this article. An article about people who think they're animals versus an article about people who think they're animals. Obviously if you fill in the deatils from there they are two different tacks by far and as Jarandhel notes not all otherkin believe themselves to be animals. I just feel that when all there was to be done was, to relate the two articles to assist readers in encountering a wide variety of related information, it has been turned into an unjustifiably emotional thing, with so much as the linking to the Clinical lycanthropy page being taken as an accusation against all otherkin of being insane, whatever that might mean. It may be that it happens that the otherkin community has its own ideas, such that they take pains to disassociate themselves from any psychological syndromes. But this is Wikipedia, not Otherkincommunitypedia (or Gimmietpedia, or Youpedia). D. G. 21:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Furry lifestylers

There are also elements of the furry community, sometimes called furry lifestylers, that hold such "species dysphoric" beliefs about various animal species.

It's pushing it a bit (well, a lot) to imply that furry lifestylers are by definition species dysphoric; the phrase itself is actually fairly rarely used within furry. I'm a fur myself, but don't consider myself species dysphoric, and nor do a lot of other furs who consider themselves lifestylers. If this page were not protected, I'd have edited the above sentence to say something like:

Some furry lifestylers (a subset of the furry community) also hold such "species dysphoric" beliefs about various animal species.

Loganberry (Talk) 00:43, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Recent quietness

Discussion on the topics that keep this page protected have become quiet over the last fortnight. We still have people here interested in reaching consensus on page content, right? Or has the discussion over this page been happening somewhere else?

Also, are the polls on this page still meaningful? Consensus can't really be sought with a poll, is my belief. The situation looks ripe for another archive page if they are going stagnant without a follow-up, and I think continuing discussion would be beneficial to the eventual unlocking of this page. -- Soir (say hi) 00:50, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

My main opinion is that the page doesn't need to be protected. But I suppose that's not overly helpful. Friday (talk) 16:38, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, if other people agree, we should have this page unprotected, then.. but weren't people fussing over whether clinical lycanthropy has anything to do with otherkin? No point sparking another revert war. -- Soir (say hi) 19:56, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

There seems to be no consensus, but as there's no arguing either, I'll unprotect it if there's no opposition. ~~ N (t/c) 22:08, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Unprotected and removed all mention of clinical lycanthropy and p-shifting. ~~ N (t/c) 17:16, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Consensus on CL

As noted above, if we've no consensus, no edits can be made with the claim of consensus. I realise I may be throwing oil on a fire here, I'm trying to avoid that and be fair. I think that, as a matter of definition itself, CL relates to Otherkin through Therianthropy and not really by itself. (Otherkin doesn't appear to concern transformation or any related factor of change other than 'Realisation', such as it is - which isn't transformation at all. CL seems to fix on the transformation aspect, happening or has-happened. Both have links to animals, sure, but lots of things have that! It seems different enough to me, although I suppose there is an indirect link in there. Is that enough to go on See Also for this page? It was already on therianthropy last I saw. I may need more opinion on this. ^^)

I think the confusion may come from the way the opening paragraph notes people who 'describe themselves as non-human', but otherkin appears from the sources to be a little more than simply that. Maybe we should tighten up the opening definition to help this? I put a sentence in as a possibility, I'm at your mercy to be shouted at if it's somehow wrong. ^_^; -- Soir (say hi) 21:45, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Clinical lycanthropy does not depend upon the transformation aspect. It's the delusional belief of being an animal, per the article description and the cite given above (where they inaccurately described the symptoms as completely different). Otherkin feature all the therianthropes plus magical beasts as well, which are qualitatively (as far as the mental disorder is concerned) no different from the real beasts. Heck, with the therianthropes often thinking they are werewolves, that would count as magical beasts also. Arguably one could claim that otherkin also feature humanoid (nonbestial) creatures which by there nature would not be "animals" per clinical lycanthropy, but those are a subset of otherkin and not the whole thing, and it would still be a related concept in any event. DreamGuy 06:50, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I copy a bit of the Clinical lycanthropy article at current: "Clinical lycanthropy is a psychiatric syndrome that involves a delusional belief that the affected person is, or has, transformed into an animal." Words to this effect are repeated twice in the 'symptoms' paragraph. Reading the article seems to give the impression I mentioned initially: whether this is just how the article is written or not, I don't know. ^^ I'm not convinced of the werewolf angle above though either: there are therians who believe themselves to be wolves, this is more than marginally different to the myths of mystical changes under the full moon, although the aspect of some degree of transformation within therianthropy will continue to connect the two. (And as far as I'm aware therians are more than happy to disassociate themselves with the popular myths, which makes fair sense.) But at least to what I've seen Otherkin and Therianthropy do overlap, and occasionally get used in place of one another, which is just fine for a See Also link since we don't lose anything by its presence. (Wow, I spend a lot of words to say nothing!) -- I suppose I'll just note not to claim consensus edits before we know what consensus is. ;) -- Soir (say hi) 02:04, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Is, or has transformed... the is part is separate from the ahs transformed part. Clinical lycanthropy doesn;t depend upon the idea of transformation. I don;t think that sentence is unclear, but if it is it should be clarified there and not taken under the alternate reading. DreamGuy 03:51, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the distinction between CL and Otherkin is a matter of perspective. One is a cultural or spiritual perspective, one is a medical perspective. CL is a diagnosis. If Bob believes he's actually a rabbit, he might call himself an Otherkin. If he explains this belief to a psychologist, the psychologist might apply a diagnostic label to him. IMO, the difference between spirituality and illness isn't as well defined as the current copy makes it sound. I could have a spiritual belief that I'm Jesus, but if I explain that to the right (wrong?) people, they may well stick a psychological label on me. Friday (talk) 19:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I would welcome a section that mentions that distinction in a neutral way, speaking of diagnoses of individual cases. In fact i used to have a section specifically discussing that very point until pro-Otherkin POV-pushers took it out because they didn't want any mention of medical problems whatsoever. The version that was there earlier today simply claimed that otherkin should not be confused with clinical lycantrhopy, thus giving the impression that they are completely separate with no overlap, which is unsourced opinion. DreamGuy 23:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Removal

While it is remotely simmilar aqt a glance, clinical lycanthropy has little or nothing to do with spiritual beleifs , which iswhat , when read ing the article, Otherkin is. at the same point, Otherkin is not a medical disorder, which clinical lycanthropy is, again, they do not beliong togeather, besides, there is a link to it on Therianthropy, which is a bit closer, so it was removed. Adding in seems grasping at straws. If anyone can find me a nice paper or some source that shows a direct corrolation, id gladly take a peek.Gimmiet 17:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I personally have no opinion on the link issue, but thanks for bringing this to the talk page. ~~ N (t/c) 18:08, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh for God's sake, Gabriel/Gavin/Gimmiet just comes back from a month block and already he's pushing the same POV that was rejected long ago. How tedious.

It's related, conceptually if not directly (and the direct relationship is something that can be debated both ways, taking a stand on it violates NPOV rules), so it clearly without a doubt, needs to be listed as a See also, and the attempt to remove it is nothing more than POV pushing at its worst. Again. For which he was already banned.DreamGuy 03:49, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Give him a little credit, he took it here after making the change for once. But I do tend to agree with you that the link should be there. ~~ N (t/c) 03:52, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

NPOV/OR/DISPUTE

This article is full of NPOV statements, original research (message boards are not useful sources for factual information), and tons of dubious if not outright false statements. It needs to be rehauled from a factual point of view stemming from recognized psychological studies of this "sub-culture" and the inherent problems with the claims they posit, if not deleted outright. Agriculture 05:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Citations please? ~~ N (t/c) 05:29, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

You are missing the point, you and yours need to provide citations for the claims you make, we'll dig up plenty on the truth for you this weekend if you like. Agriculture 05:32, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Please do not talk about "me and mine". I personally make no claims, and know absolutely nothing about the subject of this article other than what I've read in the article; I've just taken an interest in it because of certain other users. That said, you said you have "recognized psychological sources". I assume you can provide links. ~~ N (t/c) 05:34, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Being as kind as I can, I will suggest you reread my original post. I did not claim to have "recognized psychological sources" at my finger tips. I said the article needs to be rehauld from a factual point of view stemming from such sources. I.e., the current view as derived from message boards frequented by 12 year old kids is insufficent and unencyclopedic. Agriculture 05:50, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I find nothing wrong with it, and I do find it wrong that you're attacking N for simply asking to state reason for your belief in the NPOV'ness of the article. - MasterXiam 15:52, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Cease and desist your attempt at character assassination to push your POV MasterXiam, there are no attacks in my above comments and certainly non directed at N. Attempting to assassinate my character by making up false accusations is no way to go about arguing your point. Agriculture 16:29, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Are you claiming that the majority of people at those boards are 12 years old? If so, I think your research is lacking, and you might want to back up that claim (the counter is not needed, as no claim to average age is made in the article). Otherwise, am I missing some part of the WP protocols where one belittles and insults a group in order to further their point? Otherwise, if you simply mean there is the possibility that a 12 year old would show up on such boards, couldn’t the same be said about WP?AtomicDragon 17:18, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, using personal stories from message boards is about like personally interviewing someone on the street. It's not a reputable source, and you're essentially doing original research. This article has been tricky because different folks in the Otherkin movement come by and they all have their own ideas on what it's about. But please, there's no reason for acrimony. If we can work toward consensus on which sources are acceptable, we'll be in a great position to clean this article up. Friday (talk) 16:04, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

There are many otherkin that instead of writing simply about themselves, will instead write about what they have observed in the community as a whole. Those would be a case of an outside person analyzing the various personal claims in an effort to describe the group. Would this be considered a more acceptable source since it is actually doing the research? If not, can you be much more specific about what is considered a credible source and what is not? This term is thrown a around a lot during the deletion process, but WP's policy doesn't spell it out leaving it way too ambiguous. Without a more precise meaning, I’m afraid some people may just throw it at anything they dislike, preventing actual work towards an actual solution.AtomicDragon 17:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

This is clearly original research, Wikipedia defines the term pretty well. Agriculture 17:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

People are still debating this, using the original WP definition, so I think it is not very clear. Hence this warrants discussion. AtomicDragon 17:18, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Fine, then use the standard originally proposed. Peer-reviewed resources which are regarded by the community of degree holding experts. If wikipedia prints anything which has a web page, we better start parading the Time Cube around as fact. Agriculture 17:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not need to equate the claims as fact to have an article on it. After all, there is an article on the Time Cube, since it is a cultural phenomenon of some impact that people may bump into and want to look up. As I understand the NOR policy, one cannot use such questionable sources as fact, but can use those sources for information about the source itself (the political magazine example). In both the Time Cube and Otherkin case, this means that the websites will not be used to state their claims as fact, but instead to state what their claims are. As the policy says, there is no clear definition, especially for non-academic topics, so we need to work this out ourselves.AtomicDragon 17:38, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that this whole argument has gotten rather silly. The idea that peer-reviewed resources accepted by degree-holding experts are needed to have an article regarding certain spiritual beliefs is absurd. The Wikipedia article on Catholicism clearly does not follow that standard, and the majority of its sources about their beliefs are written by Catholics themselves. Likewise Buddhism. I suspect the same will hold true for most spiritual beliefs. To suggest that an article on Otherkin requires academic studies from outside the community of those who hold the belief in order to describe what the beliefs are is clearly only an attempt to suppress discussion of the subject. Citing sources written by the Otherkin community in an article on Otherkin is entirely appropriate, and the articles on other spiritual beliefs are the precedent which proves that. Jarandhel 15:07, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

My objection to this article was never that it presented Otherkin beliefs as fact. If it did that, it would be clearly inappropriate, and easy to fix. Such things have been fixed before as I recall. My objection is that it presents a certain specific view of Otherkin which cannot be verified. Thus, it functions as an original research magnet and there's little hope of consensus. If we could agree on what sources were acceptable to everyone, it would be a good first step. Friday (talk) 19:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I see plenty of citations from published works at the bottom. What other verification do you need? Being an author myself and doing original research on the Otherkin, I have a wide array of books, including most of those published at the bottom of the list. Most of my research supports what has been written, and I'm curious to know what you consider 'verifiable' if not a published work? I can certainly provide the ISBN numbers if necessary, or you could if you looked them up on Amazon.com (which is where I bought most of them). I fail to understand or agree with your point of view so far. The whole point is that first-person observation is considered irrelevant here. Friday, it it your particular viewpoint I have to disagree with, however: it is a general consensus within the community and always has been (with only minimal contention, ever) that Otherkin believe that their condition may be related to reincarnation. It's referred to in The Veil's Edge briefly, and so an undisputed fact (the belief, not reincarnation). In addition, the 1986 article about the Silver Elves clearly talks about an elven spiritual heritage and has been referenced. I contend that you, who are not a member of the Otherkin community, are the only one who contends the veracity of the statement. I don't see anyone from within the community contending any of it! You require publications and other references, which is reasonable, but in this case sets an unreasonable expectation of source material. If I stated: "The sun is a hot gasball," would you require my removing that statement on the basis that I didn't reference a published work? Being an author myself, I can tell you that not everything published is checked for authenticity (only the really good stuff, like textbooks, is really authenticated). Having spoken with an historian named Kerry Ross Boren, I can also tell you that more than 50% of what he has published is theoretical and has little factual basis in history. The fact that he's been published frankly amazes him sometimes, and he also is a little more careful since people started referencing his works. The point I'm trying to make is that limiting this particular article on the basis of OR is flatly unreasonable, because I have yet to see any contention by any member of the Otherkin community as to the factual basis. In addition, having done a lot of OR on the subject over the past two years, I can say that most of his info appears to be dead-on accurate (and the stuff that isn't is still close enough not to warrant dispute). Declaring something as OR does not make it OR unless you are now going to require the same thing of any belief system, such as Hindu, the Baha'i faith, Krishna, or even Christianity. Referencing the works of other authors is simply not reasonable when there isn't enough to reference from, especially when the links directly to OR clearly show that what he's talking about is not only factual, it was unsolicited (unlike the bulk of my OR). I contend that this is not OR, but reference to members of the community who are, in fact, an authority on the subject. Otherkin is a "new" enough thing that not a lot of recent publications even talk about it. RedHeron 17:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I am from the otherkin community and I still think that there are a lot of issues with sources in this article, so please don’t assume it is a case of otherkin vs. others. Not everything has to be sited, since the point is things should be easy to verify from someone reading the article. Calling the sun a hot ball of gas can be verified from nearly any source of information on the sun, and is something with a wide spread understanding. A lot of the stuff on otherkin is much harder to track down and verify. And lacking this ability to verify, I don’t think something should be in the article, despite how accurate it appears to me.AtomicDragon 22:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

The real question is, then, is how much fixing can we do before we step on the toes of people who believe that the article is not-POV currently? Let me propose a format:

Sections in need of help

Intro

Passage: The otherkin subculture is made up of people who describe themselves as non-human in some way, usually as a mythological or legendary creature. [1] Many otherkin do not deny that they have a human body but believe that they possess non-human souls, which they consider their true selves. Noting this, different groups within the subculture can have quite different beliefs about themselves.

Otherkin should not be confused with role-players [2] [3]. The distinction is that otherkin truly consider themselves to be non-human in some manner. Role-players, while often playing non-human characters, do not generally believe themselves to be non-human.

Concern: Many otherkin do not deny that they have a human body.... is OR. Noting this... is OR. The distinction... is badly written, and totally irrelevent.

Proposed change: The otherkin subculture is made up of people who describe themselves as non-human in some way, usually as a mythological or legendary creature. The community...

Comments

• I propose this change. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:21, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
• I believe it's an improvement too. I've put it in. Friday (talk) 00:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Could you please try to spell out your concerns and so forth, as I cannot follow this abbreviated shorthand commenting you are using here. Can you just say what you mean in normal language? DreamGuy 23:10, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Are you talking about the abbreviations "POV" and "OR"? That's point of view and original research. These policies will be very important guides for improving this article. In a nutshell, they mean we must be neutral and use reputable sources. Friday (talk) 00:19, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I think DreamGuy is refering to the wording above and not the abbreviations (sorry if I misunderstood), in which case I would kind of agree. The above format of suggesting a change could be useful, I just think the wording of the comment used in that case is a little hard to understand. AtomicDragon 02:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I do think the writing was unnecessarily abbreviated, but the OR wasn't catching on to me, because I was thinking you were going for some logincal and/or thing, and, frankly, I don;t see how those sections could be considered to be original research so the thought that that's what you meant never eoccured to me. There are plenty of sites of Otherkin discussing their beliefs. It's not original research to note that these sources say they have a human body. I mean, come on, it's right there in black and white on tons of web pages. DreamGuy 06:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Spiritual Beliefs

Passage: Otherkin most commonly believe themselves to be human in biology but "other" in spirit, often attributing this to reincarnation or a "misplaced" soul. These otherkin most commonly claim to receive visions and memories from their past lives. The otherkin community also has a relatively high proportion of people who claim to have multiple personalities. These people may describe internal personalities with different otherkin types and sometimes include entirely separate souls amongst their number. A parallel has also been drawn between otherkin and transsexuality, resulting in the neologism trans-speciesism: the conviction that one is in a body of the wrong species. [11] A number of self-identified contemporary shamans have found their theories and techniques compatible with otherkin beliefs. ^

Concern: Riddled with POV & OR. No sourcing for this ("high proportion of people who..") that need sources. (^ points at nothing, 11 is a message board). 11 points wrongly - should be 17.

Proposed change: remove section. Salvage the only sourced bit, putting it in the new, much shorter article: A parallel has also been drawn between otherkin and transsexuality, resulting in the neologism trans-speciesism: the conviction that one is in a body of the wrong species.

Comments:

• I propose this change. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Agriculture 16:12, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree this paragraph is poorly worded given the sources, and much of it is not backed. However, the opening line about differing spiritually and attributing it to reincarnation is somewhat accurate from my observations. The commonality of this aspect makes it seem likely to me that there would be sources covering it, but if I am mistaken or until such sources are found, it should be removed. I will check the sources when I get a chance later assuming someone else doesn’t find/remember an appropriate one first. Also, even if sources are found, it will probably be pretty hard to justify the "most" or even "common" descriptions, but I think replacing that with simply saying otherkin "includes" people with such beliefs may give a compromise. AtomicDragon 21:05, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

DreamGuy's revert

DreamGuy made this revert, taking out a newly added section:

  Similarly, otherkin should not be confused with persons 
  afflicted with clinical lycanthropy: the distinction 
  is one of spirituality versus psychiatric illness.

I believe an attempt to explain the relationship between Otherkin and Clinical Lycanthropy is better than just sticking a link in "See also". But I also agree that the above is a bit of a blatant assertion. Instead of outright removal, can we improve on the above somehow so it's acceptable to everyone? Friday (talk) 00:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

The only definite distinction between "Otherkin" and clinical lycanthropy is a trip to the psych ward to be diagnosed. Agriculture 00:48, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

As I said on DreamGuy's talk page, it can be considered analogous to the distinction between the formal ritualized cannibalism of Catholicism, and actual cannibalism. It can be argued that everyone who has spiritual beliefs is mentally ill in one way or another, but that's a whole other issue. Should Oral Roberts have been institutionalized as soon as he claimed that God spoke to him? Otherkin don't pee on things to mark territory. Clinical lycanthropes don't speak. One is a belief system, one is a mental illness. DS 04:20, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Catholics don't believe Jesus was human, so there is no cannibalism.

And if someone claimed "oh, I'm an Otherkin, so it's not cannibalism to eat these people", they'd be locked up, and rightly so. DS 12:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't see Catholics actually eating human flesh. Do you? Moot point, go make up another justification that makes no sense and try again. Agriculture 14:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

a) I said it was analogous; all analogies are flawed if you go into them deeply enough. b) Are you denying the miracle of transsubstantiation? I don't see how the idea that the host and wine have somehow, in some sort of spiritually essential way, become human flesh and blood is no more outrageous than the idea that a human could, in some sort of spiritually essential way, be a wolf or a bear or what-have-you. DS 15:16, 6 October 2005 (UTC) (this got lost between edit conflicts; sorry)

Should it be discussed, maybe. Should Oral Roberts be considered insane? Yes. "Otherkin" are just Clinical lycanthropes who have avoided medical diagnosis. It's not a spiritual belief system to believe you really have the soul of a creature that HAS NEVER EXISTED. Agriculture 04:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

If you're willing to accept the existence of the soul in the first place, I don't see the problem. DS 12:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Popular belief includes the soul. It does not include Unicorns from magic gumdrop land. Souls are notable, people having the souls of gumdrop fantasy land are not. Agriculture 14:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

"Popular belief" has included unicorns and dragons for centuries - where do you think fantasy authors got the ideas in the first place? Consider the dragon in the Chinese zodiac, for instance. Anyway, the point is not popular belief, it's Otherkin belief. What about reincarnation? There is no proof that the Dalai Lama actually has the soul of the previous Dalai Lama, but considering Buddhists to be mentally ill one and all isn't done. Also, please stop talking about gumdrops; you're making my teeth hurt. DS 15:12, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Some beliefs don’t require the creature’s existence. Similar to how a person can say, "That cloud looks like a dragon," or, "That statue is a dragon," despite dragons’ nonexistence, a person may spiritually identify with a dragon’s form. Of course not all otherkin are like that, and some can get quiet extreme. Milder otherkin beliefs can lack testable/falsifiable claims about the real world and hence lack delusions, precluding them from clinical lycanthropy. And from personal experience, I know of otherkin that psychologists said were not CL or something parallel. Of course, as personal experience, that does not belong in the encyclopedia article (unless confirming valid sources are found), but I do think it suggests the possibility of specific counterexamples. Following from the definitions, I think people with CL can fall under otherkin, making CL a subset of otherkin. But the above leads me to think CL doesn’t theoretically apply to all otherkin. Saying that all people claiming to be otherkin would be diagnosed with CL sounds kind of unsubstantial to me. It may be a valid criticism, but I would think is far from fact without much better sources since it seems to be making a rather broad psychological claim.AtomicDragon 06:43, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

As I put above, "I would welcome a section that mentions that distinction in a neutral way, speaking of diagnoses of individual cases. In fact I used to have a section specifically discussing that very point until pro-Otherkin POV-pushers took it out because they didn't want any mention of medical problems whatsoever. The version that was there earlier today simply claimed that otherkin should not be confused with clinical lycanthropy, thus giving the impression that they are completely separate with no overlap, which is unsourced opinion." DreamGuy 06:27, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with DreamGuy, there is no basis for calling Otherkin truth. No facts support the "belief", quite the opposite in fact. It is more than just a superficial similarity to clinical lycanthropy, and the full ramifications of this issue should be explored by any article on this topic. Wikipedia isn't here to provide a happy shiny flowers and gumdrops view of your personal psychosis, it's hear to present the facts so people can learn about truth. Agriculture 06:32, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the comparison is very limited between otherkin and CL. Therianthropy is a bit closer to CL, but not much. It's the difference between spirituality and psychopathology, which has already been mentioned over and over.

I think we do need some mention of CL and the similarities and differences between it and being otherkin, but that's as far as it should go. Perhaps we could cite some examples of both and let people make up their own minds? Tom 07:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Agriculture, you say that there are no facts to support the beliefs of otherkin. That may be true; however, it is a fact that people do hold these beliefs. Your constant assertion that otherkin are psychotic is very much a POV. Karnanyd 09:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Of course there are no facts to support the beliefs. You can say exactly the same for (e.g.) Hinduism. It's a belief system. It doesn't need to be supported by the facts. If you sit down and have a polite, friendly conversation with an Otherkin, they'll usually be willing to admit that, well, no, there's no objective scientific proof of it... and they'll also tell you that that's not the point. Some Otherkin are more extreme/less willing to discuss the issue than others, of course. Could you explain how it's more pathological than a belief in angels, or in Ganesha? DS 12:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

The difference you guys are missing is this: notability. I can't just go out today, invent my own freaking religion, and expect Wikipedia to have an article on it. A "spiritual belief" held by angsty teens and propagated by their angsty blogs does not a notable religion make. Yes, like the "gothic subculture" this can be covered because lets face it, angsty teens are a part of our society. However, it is a far cry from a notable religion. Representing it as such is spreading misinformation just because some of these angsty teens happen to edit Wikipedia. I'm sorry, but no. Agriculture 13:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but the Afd tells me that the community feels this article should be included. If it were a notable religion, our worries would be over, as there'd be plenty of information available from reputable sources. Maybe our best hope is to avoid controversial statements about Otherkin beliefs, and concentrate only on things that pretty much any Otherkin would agree with. Unfortunately, this still amounts to "original research" which we're supposed to avoid. But maybe it's the best we can do. Friday (talk) 14:27, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

No matter whether you consider otherkinism (is that a word?) a religion, a subculture, or a mental illness, NPOV is still the same. We should cite and note anything that psychologists have said about otherkin. We should cite and note what the otherkin themselves say. We should not change the article to push the idea that otherkin are crazy. Or that they're not. (And it's not pro-Otherkin pushing if you fail to make it clear that they're crazy.) It's simple. ~~ N (t/c) 20:57, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Wow, lots of discussion. One thing we would all do well to remember is that the talk page is for discussion of the article, not Otherkin in general. I'm sure there are forums and whatnot that are good venues for general discussion of this topic. It is not our place to criticize spiritual beliefs, no matter how silly they seem to us. I didn't understand the communion/cannibalism analogy, but I'll try one: anorexia. Anorexia is considered a disease by mainstream medicine, and a lifestyle choice by certain others. The lifestyle and the diagnosis are not the same thing, but they're clearly related. I don't have exact words in mind yet, or I'd have put them in, but I really think we can do better. Instead of simply saying "X should not be confused with Y", I still think we can explain the relationships and let readers decide for themselves. Friday (talk) 14:21, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

And I note Wikipedia covers Anorexia as a disease. Excellent point. Agriculture 14:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, WP does both, see Pro-ana for the "lifestyle". But, from that article, the fact that this is considered an eating disorder by the mainstream is very clear. Otherkin is less clear (since it hasn't gotten the kind of media attention that pro-ana has), but I still believe it's a similiar situation. A pro-ana lifestyler could be diagnosed with an eating disorder, if seen by a doctor. Some kinds of Otherkin could be diagnosed with other "disorders", if seen by a doctor. Whether we can assert such a thing without a source may be a matter of contention. Friday (talk) 14:45, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

That's because it can, and does, kill. In what way do claims of being Otherkin negatively affect physical health?

As long as someone is able to function in society - regardless of whether he sets out milk in a bowl for brownies, or claims he has the soul of a grizzly bear, or worries that a giant invisible man in the sky will throw him into a pit of fire if he masturbates, or won't eat perfectly good ham because humans aren't "meant" to eat pig meat, or insists on wearing a big puffy turban and growing a beard - I don't think it's reasonable to describe their beliefs as pathological. DS 15:12, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

It's not up to us to decide what is or isn't pathological. Doctors can do that for us. OCD rarely kills, but it's considered a "disorder". Friday (talk) 15:21, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it is up to doctors to diagnosis stuff. My awkward and lengthy comment above was just meant to show that I think there can be examples of otherkin that are not CL, so that stating all otherkin are diagnosable with CL or that there are otherkin not diagnosable is not a matter of definition and hence require sources either way, i.e. leaving it to the doctors to diagnosis it. In the other direction, I can’t think of even a theoretical example of a CL that wouldn’t fall under otherkin, so that seems to follow more from definition, and wouldn’t need a source beyond a definition of CL unless some one can come up with such an example. AtomicDragon 20:05, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

TAG REMOVALS

All this has been covered before, in the talk archives, it was decided thatt he tagwss dont belong. why not just go with what was decided, instead of rehashing all this?Gimmiet 15:14, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[About my previous removal of the tags] While the boilerplate messages might be an appropriate result of the talk on VfD, adding them on *top* of the deletion notice was... well, pushing an agenda. I have no problem with tags once the deletion notice goes. Now that the delete is gone I have no problem with 'em. Sorry if some people felt my removing them was out of line. Coren 02:26, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

You don't seem to have any understanding of what the boilerplates are, they aren't for deletion but notes on ongoing discussions on making the article better. Don't mess with stuff you don't understand, go read [[3]] and gain a better understanding of Wikipedia. Agriculture 06:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Go read WP:NOT. The issue is being called to question. It is not decided. Some members of Wikipedia have decided this needs further review, Wikipedia allows for it. Agriculture 15:19, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

It has alreadyh been decided, it doesnt become more or less important becasue you want to dredge it up. These issues have been dedcided already.Gimmiet 15:23, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I see a discussion section on the talk page about these disputes. I don't see that you've been involved in it. Similiar concerns that have come up and been dealt with in the past don't prevent us from having these concerns now. Friday (talk) 15:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me for saying so (or don't, I could really care less) but you seem to fail to understand what Wikipedia is, and what Wikipedia is not. Just because something was decided in the past doesn't mean it cannot be rexamined at a future date. Am I vandalizing the page in question by changing it to suit my views? Or am I discussing the issue here on talk, working towards an initial "here's what we need to point out" and then going to propose a task force to study the issue and find good common ground? The second thank you.

This is Wikipedia, not Gimmietpedia. Articles are not static just because you say so. The discussion on Otherkin has in the past included far too many who cannot stay NPOV on the issue. The article is thus clouded by OR and dubious statements. This needs to be addressed, we are doing so in discussion. The tags on the page alert outside readers that this discussion is going on.

Now please stop vandalizing the article by removing the tags, and thereby disrupting the process. Agriculture 15:31, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

i never said that i owned this place, i s9implt said that this issue has been done, over and over, and it was already decided, over and over, so all your doing, really, is wasting everyones time with your opinion that this needs to be adressed again.Gimmiet 15:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

This article has recently been AFD'ed, there are others who feel the same way. No one who is being objective about the issue can look at the article now and say it is NPOV. And no, you aren't being objective about it. There is absolutely no harm in discussion, so it is my belief you want to supress such discussion because you are afraid you will loose. That isn't the way it works. Instead of wasting all of our time, why not be productive in your discussion instead of whining that you want your way. Agriculture 15:36, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that this warrants more discussion if there are people still around want it and that Gimmiet may be over reacting if simply trying to drop the tags. However, please be a bit more understanding of the other side, since it is not much of a discussion if you already assume your position to be the only way to go. Some people do think this article is more NPOV than others, and simply stating that people with opposing views are trolls, nonobjective, or clearly incorrect is not conductive of discussion and does not help. Along with several demeaning statements towards otherkin and others, this is becoming quite uncivil.AtomicDragon 20:21, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

an you please try assuming good faith for a little while, and cut with the childish accusations , now then, i was trying to stimulate discussion with what i did, and it seems to have worked, and no im not whining.Gimmiet 15:40, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Discussion was already taking place. You were trolling. You know it. I know it. They know it. Agriculture 16:00, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Go read WP:POINT. It's an important policy. ~~ N (t/c) 21:00, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Gimmiet's revert

Gimmiet made this revert, which I can't say I understand. I see the tags he removed were already added back in, but I don't know why the new intro was taken out. This intro was discussed on the talk page, with two editors who liked it and nobody who objected. I'm putting the new intro back in for now, but if anyone disagrees, please feel free to discuss it. Friday (talk) 15:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Whoops, my mistake. I see the new intro wasn't taken out, exactly. The old parts were just put back in. I still don't like the two paragraphs that were put back in, but I suppose I'll leave them alone for now. Still, if anyone disagrees with edits that have already been discussed on the talk page, I think discussing them before changing it back would be helpful. Friday (talk) 15:26, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I have reverted to the version without the two paragraphs, persuant to discussion above. I do not deny that I am using a computer to type this. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

How's that new-fangled "computer" stuff work? You youngsters have all the fancy gadgets. I'm using an abacus to type this... - Tεxτurε 21:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Biological beliefs (boldness alert)

I started trying to improve this section. There were a bunch of unsourced "otherkin may believe" statements that I didn't like. The only stuff that was sourced related to dragons and vampires, which already have their own articles. So, in the end, I ended up taking out the whole thing. If anyone disagrees and/or feels this is too bold, feel free to put back whatever you think is appropriate, and I won't be offended. Friday (talk) 22:02, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with most of the removal, since a lot of it seems kind of redundant with other articles, or this article itself, or otherwise not in the sources. The one exception that I wonder if it is salvageable is the reference to phantom limbs. It definitely needs to be reworded in my opinion from what it was, but those claims are mentioned in one of the otherkin.net essays listed as source #11.AtomicDragon 22:42, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion debate

This article survived an Articles for Deletion debate. The discussion can be found here. -Splash^talk 22:49, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

modification of mine

so,what does all think of my lastest change? i think its good, because its not so long as the old version, but it does make some distinctions that need to be made, and it stops cl9inicallycanthrooy form being just an unexplained see also.Gimmiet 17:39, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Not sure what "Role players" is doing in there - is role playing spirituality or an illness? Friday (talk) 18:05, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

should it be removed then?Gimmiet 18:07, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I took a crack at explaining role-playing better. I'll try to do the same with CL. Friday (talk) 18:23, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

please leave the clinical lycanthropy thing alone, its small and consise and accirate, so i think it should be left be.Gimmiet 18:25, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure I like that last one. I was sure I read in some of the sources that people will say things like "I'm a >insert book series here< type dragon" or "I'm a elf a la >insert RPG here<" when explaining their identities. But of course a specific source is better than "I think I remember reading something..." I suppose we both made an error: I spoke about how Otherkin derive their identities without a source, and you spoke about how things might seem to outsiders without a source. Friday (talk) 18:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

well yeah, but your words arent flase, and niether are mine, because they dont seem to be rpg stuff to other otherkin... sorry if its overly deductive, but it seemed reasonableGimmiet 18:34, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure I can see what you intended by changing "overlap" to "some apparent overlap". Is there a difference? Can we just agree on whether or not there's overlap and either remove the assertion or the weasel words? Friday (talk) 18:42, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

There is clear coorelation, but no clear causality. The current revision (While there is some overlap between the role-playing community and Otherkin, and some Otherkin beliefs are similiar to those found in role-playing games, many Otherkin stress the difference between "playing" a nonhuman and actually believing themselves to be nonhuman.) is reasonable to include, though it needs sourcing. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Posers v real Otherkin

I think some of the disagreements that have come up in the past involve the issue of "wannabes" vs "real" Otherkin. Some folks say that those who identify as a cartoon character are just playing games, whereas the "serious" Otherkin would identify as a more "real" creature.

Can we all agree that we're in no position to judge who's a legitimate Otherkin or not? I believe, if we're going to use people's personal stories as sources, we must take at face value any such stories. In other words, this article should describe the beliefs of anyone who calls themselves "Otherkin", not just some specific subset who consider themselves the "real" Otherkin. Thoughts? Friday (talk) 18:40, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

This is obviously true. ~~ N (t/c) 19:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

This is kind of an idea central to many otherkin communities, that you can't/shouldn't try to tell who is a real otherkin or not and should only take the accounts at face value as you suggest. So I would hope that any otherkin that come here can handle things as you suggested... AtomicDragon 19:40, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

CL

G, your proposed insert regarding CL is badly written. It is also OR. If you want to work on the change here, on talk, I'm happy to do so. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:55, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I was thinking about something like: "When psychologists have encountered people who identify themselves as nonhuman, they have sometimes made a diagnosis of Clinical lycanthropy." I think this is nice and neutral, and it avoids calling it a "disease", which some may object to. But where would such a sentence go? I wouldn't want it just sitting there by itself. Friday (talk) 19:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

The only way I can see to insert CL outside of seealso is to mention the possiblity that some of the otherkin who believe they can pshift are suffering from it, though that reeks of OR. What's wrong with seealso? Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:07, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely nothing, unless you're Gimmiet. However, I think Friday's idea is very good, if sourced. ~~ N (t/c) 19:11, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't thinking about a source; I intended it to just be a restatement of the definition of CL. But I'll look at the sources that Clinical lycanthropy uses and see if one of them would work. Friday (talk) 19:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

To respond to Hipcrite's post, llimiting the mention to belief in p-shifting is not an accurate way to handle it, as, again, clinical lycanthropy does not depend wholly upon belief in the transformation process, as the sufferer could belief he has already been changed or always was changed, etc. If there's going to be a mention we need to make sure that it doesn't only target specific otherkin based upon a layperson's understanding of the clinical lycanthropy disorder. DreamGuy 22:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

The sentence sounds a bit awkward to me unless it were sourced. I’m not sure if I can articulate why though, and I think there should be a way to include CL in a similar way. Maybe it is because it sounds like it is applying to the whole more than intended, to me at least. I’m possibly thinking along the simpler lines, "Some otherkin have been considered diagnosable with CL," although what Friday suggested is probably better worded than what I could come up with. Still smells of OR, just less so I think. AtomicDragon 19:40, 7 October 2005 (UTC) (After some thought, what Friday suggested is far better than what I was thinking of at first.) AtomicDragon 19:48, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

plewase note, about why its badly written, imnot one whos overly gifted with wrting encyclopedically, im more fictioon, and as for the sentance by atmoic, i would have to ask that something like " Otherkin are not autoamtically suffering from clinical lyanthropy, and the percentage of sufferes of clinoical lycanthropy among the otherkin communityt is ( at least likly) the same as among the mainstream culture, misdiagnosis aside, that would mean that there are very few." or hop it down, but the intent of the words should be thus, becaue thats relly how it is, is it not??Gimmiet 19:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

"At least likely" shows that your statement is original research. I suspect those words are true, and they seem fairly well phrased, but they need a source. ~~ N (t/c) 19:58, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

the statiscs are likly available for standard humans so to speka, with rates of clinical lycanthropy, i thought thoswe would be a goodstarting point... and like i said, im more a fiction writer, everything ha a slant...Gimmiet 19:59, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

The point of NPOV is that the slant should be as small as possible. If you want to make your statement, you have to find the rate of CL diagnosis among otherkin (which has probably not been studied). ~~ N (t/c) 20:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

stating that its likly should be admissable.Gimmiet 20:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I do agree that what you are saying, if cleaned up well, do describe how things are very well from what I've seen. But unfortunately, I have yet to come across a decent source on most of that. So until there is some external way to show that things are that way (or maybe that they are not that way) we will probably have to hold off on that level of detail.AtomicDragon 20:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Claiming that the sufferers of CL in the otherkin community is at the same percentages of the nromal population is not only wholly original research (well, more "wild supposition based upon one's own bias" as there's no real reserach at all, original or not), but it's also counter-intuitive. A statement like that absolutely cannot be listed without firm verifiable sources to back it up, as it is clearly being created to advance a pro-otherkin agenda. DreamGuy 22:08, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

please ignore his op inion in this m atter, he olnly goes to the opposite becasue i hae an opinion, he does sthis oyt of spite.Gimmiet 22:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Whether he is doing it out of spite or not, I think his point is valid and cleanly stated. I agree with him. Any claim about the prevalence of CL in the otherkin community, including comparing them to the normal population or say that it happens a lot, is a very specific claim. Without any sources, I think we will have to avoid all claims about the prevalence and worry about how/if a general connection should be made between the two topics. AtomicDragon 23:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Sources

I noticed that the footnotes have gotten out of synch with the article. I've made a couple small edits to start fixing this. I also removed the urban dictionary source. I'd rather see a statement not sourced at all than using that as a source, personally. Can we come to any kind of agreement on what IS a good source, though? It seems clear to me that the standards for this article may be different from what would be expected at other articles, simply due to a lack of good sources. Personally, I think the Village Voice article is by far the best one I've seen listed. Friday (talk) 19:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

This is kind of what I was wondering about. With several people disliking the sources, can we get a more precise concept of what would be a good source? The Village Voice looks very good, but sources outside the community seem a little lacking for the time being. My opinion on sources, short of finding more like the Village Voice one, is to use essays/write-ups discussing the group as a whole (as opposed to personal accounts to remove OR concerns) and possibly stick to ones sponsored/posted in a community setting (e.g. otherkin.net essays) so as slight help with avoiding sources just being somewhat random/individual people. Any comments on that or possibly a way to make it more objective? AtomicDragon 19:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

im pretty good at finding posers and fakers among this group, so if u like i could weed out which ones are wannabes...Gimmiet 20:00, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Does anything make otherkin.net a reputable source? It's just somebody's website who happened to get that domain name first, as far as I can see. I see no reason to give it more credit than any random blog or geocities page. Village Voice, at least, is an actual paper that's been around a while. To me, an article in a pre-existing publication counts for more than some random website. Friday (talk) 20:10, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Otherkin.net seems to be a central hub of various otherkin communities and often host essays from a variety of people. This leads me to think it is not equivalent to just a random blog or a random person’s webpage. I agree that Village Voice is much better as an actual paper, and I do not mean to suggest that otherkin.net is close to more reputable. I am just suggesting that there may be many more sources that are better than a random page, and I think they may be useful sources unless many better sources comparable to the Village Voice are found. Feel free to correct me if I missed something, it has been a while since I’ve gone through otherkin.net in detail.AtomicDragon 20:23, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Otherkin.net is by non posers, who try to deal with issues such as doubt . id saty rthta makes themm closer to credible then some random faker blog.Gimmiet 20:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

As said above, we cannot judge who's a poser and who's not. ~~ N (t/c) 20:40, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

but its totally obvious whos a poser.... ... admittedly thats an opinionGimmiet 20:42, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

dreamguy and (poaaibly not and) aqnon ip edit

im not really interested in getting blocked again, soheres why feel that last edit has to go.. " or some other mental illness" is both mean, and unessessary, it wse ems to be trying to inply DreamGuysw POV in this matter, which, as he stated, was that they are all loonie, and that just has no place in te articel, unless uhe can find a souce, which he refuses to cite, repeatedly.Gimmiet 23:08, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

That quote seems to come directly from a cited paper that surveyed various publications. Since it is cited, I think it is valid. There maybe a question of whether it belongs in the article or not. I think it currently has its place, especially with NPOV as there is a lot of criticism of otherkin. This looks like a much better attempt than previous expressing the other side of things.AtomicDragon 23:18, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

its not NPOV, and the citation is only for the earlier part, the " or some other mental illness" is needlessly rude, and ggrasping at straws;.Gimmiet 23:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

"It is observed in different mental disorders" and "It is mainly found in affective and schizophrenic disorders but can be a symptom of other psychiatric disorders as well" are two quotes from the abstract of the cited source. So both the first half and second half of that sentence are cited. The statement is about as flat and straightforward as possible, so I don’t see how to make it any less "rude" without changing the validity. Do you have any better ideas on wordings that convey the same cited information?AtomicDragon 23:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

its an attempt to oush his own point of view abot how he thinks they ara all nuts, so it should be removed,Gimmiet 23:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps. Perhaps not. You don't know. But as AD has pointed out, it's sourced, so the motivation of adding it is not a reason to delete it. ~~ N (t/c) 23:34, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, thinking that all otherkin are nuts is a POV. However the POV is rather common and part of NPOV is describing all sides fairly. This claim does not go outside of that which is cited, so may effectively be considered a "fact": some people claiming to be nonhuman have been diagnosed with mental illness. This statement does not say that all otherkin are diagnosable with it, nor does it say that all people claiming to be nonhuman have been diagnosed. Maybe a better lead-in can be made for the statement, so that fits in better? Do you have any suggestions? We just need to make sure it doesn’t add information that is not sourced, and that it fairly treats opposing/criticizing points of views.AtomicDragon 23:43, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

For crying out loud, I never put anything in the article saying that they are all nuts or anything like that. Gabriel is again reverting based solely upon his desire to remove anything that might possibly be construed as saying anything potentially bad about even a percentage of them. Not to mention his apparent claims here and elsewhere that I am editing under an anon IP (especially with his long history of sockpuppets) is just ridiculous. I have three reverts a day to use, and have never been afraid to use them. The other editor has a long edit history.DreamGuy

Extraneous reference to totemism

The paragraph beginning with "Sometimes a combination of non-human natures is professed..." has been edited some and now flagged for requiring citing. This paragraph looks pretty wordy in addition to not being cited. It is basically just saying that otherkin can be confused with totems and spiritual guides in cases where there are multiple animals identified with. Totemism is already connected later in the page, so I think this paragraph is not really needed. I wanted to check before removing it though, as there have been some recent edits and it looks like people may want to keep it. (By the way, isn't about time to archive some of this talk? I wasn't sure if there was more to doing that than just moving stuff to a new archive page.) AtomicDragon 05:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

It Doesn't look like very much in this article is very well cited.Sg'te'gmuj 19:41, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

In general, clearly citing the works at the end is a time-honored and accepted practice. If I had to reference every word, any article I published might very well be rendered illegible. Instead of removing it, why not include a reference to the later paragraph and merge the information in? RedHeron 18:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I’m suggesting that the paragraph is redundant, so that is why I think it can be removed. I don’t see what extra information in it can be cleanly added to what is farther below other than maybe a reference to spiritual guides. I'm just posting it here in case there was a different interpretation due to the confusing nature of the paragraph in question.AtomicDragon 18:59, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Redundancy is fine to remove, but what I'm saying is that maybe we keep a reference to the later paragraph, and then rewrite the later paragraph to include the information that is not redundant. Red Heron 15:43, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

my edit

There Seems To Be Some Kind Of Dispute Going On, But Still, I Prefer The Version I Saved Just Now, Upon Reading Both That Version And Its Immimdaite Predessessor, I Think That This One Is MOre Informative.Sg'te'gmuj 19:41, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

So incredibly sockpuppet of Gabriel/Gavin/Gimmiet... DreamGuy 21:08, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

The edit you made suggests a confusion between spiritual beliefs and a medical condition. My issue with that statement is that otherkin in general is not purely spiritualism. Some otherkin make various claims beyond spiritualism, including biological claims. The definition of otherkin is vague enough to not be restricted to just those with only spiritual beliefs.AtomicDragon 23:22, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I suppose you can consider it a spectrum (heh, "otherkin-spectrum disorder"), since there's no Church of Otherkin passing down official decrees as to what's orthodoxy and what's heterodoxy, and all individuals have to make their own choice. The point I'm making is that, although the behavior-and=beliefs of some otherkin may well and truly be fairly categorized as psychopathological, this statement cannot be made for all otherkin, unless one wishes to extend the psychopathological umbrella to cover a far wider array of beliefs-and-behaviors than might be preferred. We may acknowledge that John of Patmos and Joan of Arc, for example, were schizophrenic for believing that God was speaking to them, but this does not mean that every Christian Saint (or "Jesuskin", as they might be called) who claimed to hear the voice of God was in some way mentally ill. DS 17:59, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Blanket statements are rarely more than overgeneralizations. Adding the words in general to the beginning of a sentence can do wonders for making a statement that is true of the bulk of Otherkin without it being true of all Otherkin. While it's true that there is no Church of Otherkin, there is also no Church of Solitary Wicca and no Church of the Divine Spaghetti, but all spiritual beliefs are still spiritual beliefs and do not require a central authority to be a belief system. Also, there has never been a psychological research study done on the Otherkin as a community, although there is data gathered on individual Otherkin that clearly points to the fact that there isn't a clear diagnosis available, so proxies are used such as clinical lycanthropy to determine that there is a mental disorder that seems to be dysphoric or delusional in nature. According to the DSM-IV, clinical lycanthropy is based on the fact that people believe they are changing or can change their physical form, and is thus properly included because it is, in fact, a clinical misdiagnosis. My own thought is that it is probably best to include the fact that misdiagnosis is a problem (using clinical lycanthropy or schizoid disorders in general as examples) in order to assist those who are trying to do clinical research and using WP as a research source. The claim that there is a biological difference is not one that is generally accepted in Otherkin society: proof has to be offered. There is, however, a fair amount of something akin to phantom limb syndrome that a lot of people seem to have reported, and this is summarized in those articles on Otherkin.net as well. It is therefore not OR and is perfectly acceptable as reference material, especially considering that most of those articles have been online for a good number of years. RedHeron 18:22, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure if misdiagnosis is necessarily an issue as far as WP. Although it is likely that some otherkin have been misdiagnosed, my thoughts are coming from not that some otherkin fall under CL, but that people with CL fall under the concept of otherkin. So those would not be cases of misdiagnosis. Unfortunately, I think before we can discuss how often otherkin are misdiagnosed with CL, we need better sources on it since we don’t even know how often otherkin are diagnosed with it, let alone misdiagnosed.AtomicDragon 18:57, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm mostly concerned because I'm writing to two civilly-committed (i.e., in a psychiatric hospital) people who claim to know two more people (though I have yet to receive a response from the other two) who are in psychiatric care because of their beliefs in this regard. Both of these two have been diagnosed with clinical lycanthropy for admitting that it's possible that they could change, whether or not they actually believe that they will. This is, on my part, OR, and thus inadmissible to WP, but my cross-section of Otherkin is only 200 people and that's a bloody high percentage, from a statistical perspective. Also, misdiagnosis is an important topic of conversation among many of the Otherkin that I have encountered. While we don't have to use CL, I believe that the mention of at least rumors of misdiagnosis could be appropriate, mainly because the field of psychiatry does have a history of diagnosing things it finds to be abberant behavior, such as the Native American belief system, up until the late 1980's. There's evidence that it has happened in the past, and it is a primary concern to those affected. Misdiagnosis should at least be mentioned in passing, even if not CL or any of the general schizoid disorders. Red Heron 15:32, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I would be careful with some of these claims, as I’ve seen similar ones get exaggerated quickly by defensive people. If there is mention of a person ending up in some level of psychological care, often people assume that it is because of their otherkin beliefs and talk of misdiagnosis ensues. So far, the common result is the person returning with their beliefs still intact/unchallenged by a psychologist they were seeing for other more normal reasons (depression, ADD issues, etc.). But I wouldn’t be surprised if there are people out there that take the belief system too far, resulting/because of psychological problems, just like others have done with just about any belief system. AtomicDragon 18:47, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

References and sources

The sections above were getting long and convoluted. In response to RedHeron, I realize that some of the published works are verifiable sources. But, they're listed as "General references" and not actually used as sources. IMO, it'd be better if they were used as sources, but if people want to use personal websites and message board posts instead, I guess that's their choice.

Anyway, I've sorta come to the conclusion that this article is a bit like Mall Goth. It probably can't help but be OR. But, people feel it's better off being included than not, so here we are. Different articles need different standards, I guess. A self-published book or message board posting would never fly as a source for George W. Bush, for example, but that's at least in part because there's an abundance of better ones available. I'd still like to see this article improved WRT verifiability, but I realize what is an "improvement" to me, may well not be, in the eyes of people who are involved in this subculture. Friday (talk) 18:07, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

As I said in an earlier comment, I think you and some of the others here are looking for sources that are more scholarly and objective than is reasonable to expect for an entry on a belief system. Looking at the entries on other belief systems, such as Catholicism and Buddhism, the majority of sources for such articles generally are sites or books published by the adherents of those belief systems, speaking about their own beliefs. What reason is there to hold the Otherkin belief system to a higher standard with regard to verifiability than other belief systems are being held to on Wikipedia? Jarandhel 13:06, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

The sources for Catholicism are reviewed globally by experts on theology, people who dedicate their lives and academic careers to the study of the religion. The sources cited for otherkin are written by angsty teens and read by almost no one. It's a huge difference, don't pretend it isn't. Agriculture 13:13, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can't agree. First, your assumption that the sources cited for otherkin are written by a bunch of angsty teenagers is very much in error. The average age of the authors of the otherkin FAQ, the first source cited, was around 25; the youngest person involved in it was probably myself at (when written) 18. I'm now 24. The owner of the elven realities webring, the third source cited, is presently 35. Tiernan, the author of the fourth source cited, is at least in her fourties by now if memory serves; though possibly late 30s. Malcolm, the author of the fifth source cited and owner of Otherkin.net, is in his thirties I think; possibly fourties. Getting the idea yet?

Secondly, to expect that the adherents of a small, recently evolving belief system match the adherents of a large, long established belief system by dedicating their lives and academic careers to its study is absurd. Nor is such a standard used for the sourcing of articles on other, smaller belief systems, such as Wicca or Asatru or even the supercategory Neopaganism. The sources cited on Otherkin are thus quite appropriate for the subject, and adhere to already established precedent. Besides, the original objections had to do with the sources being written by otherkin, instead of about otherkin by *outside* experts. Degrees in theology don't change the fact that fundamentally, the majority of sources on Catholicism are written by Catholics, instead of by other experts about Catholics. Jarandhel 17:22, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Agriculture. You are making an apples-to-oranges comparison. Also, if you are going to sign your edits as User:Jarandhel, please register that username and do so. android79 13:50, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I can't agree. Agriculture is the one making an apples-to-oranges comparison by demanding that sources for an article on otherkin have degrees in theology equal to authors on Catholicism, or otherwise credential themselves as experts when such a standard has never been applied to smaller belief systems like Wicca or Asatru. Furthermore, the original objection was not that the sources were not written by authors sufficiently qualified in the subject they were speaking of, but that they were written by adherents of the otherkin belief system itself rather than being by outside experts. Agriculture has been consistently pushing for this article to be sourced only by "recognized psychological studies of this "sub-culture" and the inherent problems with the claims they posit", or deleted. I believe Agriculture's agenda with regard to this article is fairly clear, he doesn't want it written in a truly Neutral POV but in a POV critical of the Otherkin belief system. Jarandhel 17:34, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

One distinction is that Wicca, Asatru, etc. are notable enough to be known to a substantial degree outside the community and have a good amount of outside-community material written about them. Also, the material published by Wiccans etc. themselves reaches a significantly broader audience (including outside the community) than that written by otherkin. I still agree with your general point. ~~ N (t/c) 18:06, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

That distinction would matter much more if such outside sources were being referenced as significant sources in the articles on Wicca and Asatru. They are not. And the question here has not been is Otherkin a belief system that is well known enough to warrant an article on it, it has been whether the sources used are appropriate. Thank you for your support on the general point, though. Jarandhel 18:16, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I don’t think the issue is that the sources are by otherkin, but just the nature of the sources. If an otherkin were publish an article in a mainstream paper/magazine then I think it would likely be considered a better source than a paper self-published through the web.

It would be unlikely for an outside person to dedicate themselves to understanding a smaller belief system like otherkin more than its adherents, so I would think that things said by the adherents would at least more accurately reflect what the claims are. There are still biases and issues of quality at time, of course, and sometimes larger publications can act like a filter for that, to some degree. The other issue is that criticisms are more likely to come from the outside, so with such a small group lacking outside sources, there would be likely much less sources to support any criticism. But in the end, I think it is kind of inevitable that some sources will be by otherkin, the issue is still of the quality of those sources. AtomicDragon 18:36, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

That position presumes that a mainstream paper/magazine would be appropriate for such an article about otherkin beliefs. But would it really? Does the average person on the street know or care about otherkin beliefs, any more than they may know or care about Asatru beliefs, if they themselves are not otherkin nor asatru? Even books published about Otherkin (and several such projects are in the works at this time) are likely only to be published by metaphysical publishers, not mainstream ones. The primary sources of information about Otherkin beliefs at this time, and likely for quite a few years in the future as well, are sites published by otherkin about themselves. The same is true of other fringe belief systems such as Wicca and Asatru, or even vampire lifestyle. The main mention of that last belief system in the mainstream press has been when people have gone off the deep end and killed others because of it, other references to it in regular media are analogous to the mention of Otherkin in the Village Voice article. Jarandhel 19:28, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. If something hasn't been covered in reputable sources, it's not appropriate material for Wikipedia. See WP:V and WP:NOR. As for Wicca, I can walk into any major bookstore and find tons of books about it. Most of them aren't going to be very scholarly, sure, but there will be books. To me, a magazine article, or a book (published by a non-vanity publisher) counts for more than someone's personal website, but others may disagree. Friday (talk) 19:35, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I have referred to WP:NOR already.

"Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged. In fact, all articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research," it is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.

In some cases, where an article (1) makes descriptive claims that are easily verifiable by any reasonable adult, and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, a Wikipedia article may be based entirely on primary sources (examples would include apple pie or current events), but these are exceptions."

Otherkin is such an exception, it precisely follows the criteria of making only descriptive claims that are easily verifiable by any reasonable adult and makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims. Jarandhel 20:17, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Further, this quote from WP:NOR##What_counts_as_a_reputable_publication.3F precisely speaks to the issue of the these kinds of self-published sources being reputable:

For non-academic subjects, it is impossible to pin down a clear definition of "reputable". In general, most of us have a good intuition about the meaning of the word. A magazine or press release self-published by a very extreme political or religious group would often not be regarded as "reputable". For example, Wikipedia would not rely only on an article in a Socialist Workers' Party magazine to publish a statement about President Bush being gay. However, if that same claim was in The New York Times, then Wikipedia could refer to the article (and to the sources quoted in the article). The political magazine could, however, be used as a source of information about the party itself.

Jarandhel 20:35, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I guess we're just interpreting this differently. If this article was about the London Otherkin Club, their own newletter would indeed be a proper source for information about their organization. However I don't see that the situation here is the same; this article is meant to be about Otherkin in general. As their beliefs vary widely (from the websites I've seen), this makes it difficult to give much detail about what those beliefs are. On the other hand, as long as we stick to maknig statements that everyone can agree on, maybe we're OK. Friday (talk) 20:45, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

To some extent, yes they do vary widely. However, the same is probably true of most belief systems. Not all Catholics, for instance, agree that homosexuality is sinful, even if official Church Doctrine says it is. Christians in general have little in common other than they consider themselves followers of Christ; their individual interpretations of that vary widely. This problem is even more notable in pagan circles; not all wiccans come close to sharing the same beliefs, for example. As you say, as long as we stick solely to dicussing those things which are held in common, we're probably alright. Jarandhel 21:04, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Issues on specific sources

Seems like it may be hard to agree on what sources in general are good. Would it be better to talk about specific sources? I've removed a few more that aren't used, but there'a more I don't like. But, if a source is being used, I don't quite feel right about removing it without discussion. Here's ones I currently don't like, and why:

1. "Defining Otherking" from kinhost.org. The kinhost faq has not been updated in several years. It contains nonsensical quotes like Some people in the otherkin community believe that they inherited genes influenced by non-human genetic material. It occasionally manifests to a greater or lesser degree in some otherkin. Thus, I consider this a poor source.
2. "Vampyres and elves": This is a usenet post(!) from 1996.
3. "What are Otherkin?" formerly from ezboard. Seems to have been moved. It's just some random forum. Forum posts are notoriously poor sources.

Those are the ones that stuck out as blatantly bad upon looking through them so far. Thoughts? Friday (talk) 18:38, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

The usernet post is there as a source showing the term in early usage. Maybe that is an issue of OR, but for right now it looks like a valid source for how it is being used. The kinhost site seems to be updated every so often, and was updated a couple months ago. The FAQ itself has not been updated, but I don’t think that alone means it is a bad source, since there may not be anything to really add to it. That quote may not be well written, but I think it is not nonsensical, simply saying that some otherkin claim to be genetically different from humans, and that these genes/claims (the quote is unclear on that) show up in various degrees for otherkin. So I don't think the faq is bad per se, but I would be happy to see it replaced with a better source. AtomicDragon 19:01, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Might be better to talk about specific sources, yes. My reactions to the ones you've listed are Keep, Keep, and Keep. Here's why:

1. "Defining Otherkin" may have quotes that you believe are nonsensical, but the statements are not made as fact but rather as what people claim to believe, and it is quite true that some people in the community claim to believe they may have nonhuman genetic material. Nor is this an isolated belief found only in the otherkin community, many traditional cultures have similar beliefs. [This account] is one example of people believing themselves to be descended by blood from beings that others consider only myths. As for it not having been updated in some time, the fact is that most of the common questions asked on otherkin mailing lists and forums have not changed much since the FAQ was written. It still serves its purpose.
2. "Vampyres and Elves" is a usenet post, that is true. However, the article deals with a culture that primarily has taken shape on the internet and through mediums such as mailing lists and usenet. Moreover, Tiernan, the author of that specific usenet post was the moderator of the now-defunct Tirnanoc mailing list and IRC channel, one of the first major otherkin forums. Thus, she could speak with some authority about the community itself.
3. "What are Otherkin?", while I completely disagree with its contents, is also written by the owner of a prominent Otherkin forum, though one that has become prominent far more recently. It is not just "some random forum". Some of those listed as comods, such as DanOdea, have been around in the community as long as Tiernan has. Frankly, its focus is on an interpretation of Otherkin that I don't agree with, and I don't tend to associate with those on that board, but in the interest of NPOV it should be included. Jarandhel 19:14, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, in #1, it's the bad writing, not the content of what they were apparently trying to say, that makes me call it a poor source. Two of us couldn't figure out what the "It" in the second sentence refers to. Surely there are sources we can use which have clearer, more comprehensible language. Maybe it's not fair to judge an entire website on the basis of bad writing, but I have a hard time taking kinhost.org seriously with content like that. Friday (talk) 19:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I see. I'm not sure how the confusion arises when these sentences are in a section labeled "genetic otherkin", and specifically are in response to the question "What do you mean by 'physically other than human'?". The "it" in the second sentence refers rather plainly to the nonhuman genetic material mentioned in the first. Jarandhel 20:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

With regard to the quote from Kinhost.org/OtherkinFAQ/Being Otherkin and being the main editor and author(s) of the quote in question: the "it" in question is the direct object of the sentence prior (the "genetic material"). The FAQ resides in an archive of an older version of my website. It is outdated, and continues to be maintained because many websites have referenced it. The FAQ was written by committee over an Internet chat session, during which I edited the discussion into Qs and As and garnered the group's approval. I have been requested by the owner of Otherkin.net to reference people to the Otherkin.net wiki from the page, as it serves as a more modern and up-to-date collaborative repository for Q&A. In the meantime, I apologize if the subject of the second sentence was unclear. In any case, genetic expression and genetic "variations", "mutations", and oddities that are clearly not typical within the human genome are being mapped and they sometimes express themselves in odd, often minor, ways. Given that there are exceptionally minor genetic differences between humans and, say, chimpanzees, any minor variations assumed to be part of the human genome may or may not be human in origin. One may argue "Well, they're in the human genome now." but I don't know how I would feel if it were my ostensibly non-human genes expressing themselves, as I make no claims to a non-human genetic heritage. I always feel uneasy arguing with subjective experience. If you say you have a headache, would you rather I hand you the analgesic, or should I order an MRI so I can prove it to myself first? I don't argue the point; if you want proof get your own MRI. People describe their experiences; I write about it. Crisses 03:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Proposed Edit

I'd like to remove the paragraph that states "Sometimes a combination of non-human natures is professed, such as being both elf and werewolf, or dragon and cat. However, professed situations like these are often confused and interchanged with having spiritual guides and totems, having multiple past lives as different creatures, and having more than one spirit or being residing in one body." Presently, it is marked as needing sources, but I think it has a more fundamental problem in being too POV. It states that otherkin who believe they have multiple nonhuman sides, such as being both elf and werewolf, are generally mistaken when they really have multiple spirit guides, totems, past lives, or personalities that are these different beings rather than being of mixed nature. This is a personal interpretation of the available data, and is something not even the otherkin community is in agreement about at this time. Therefor, I think it appropriate to remove it entirely.

Thoughts before I make such an edit? Jarandhel 20:56, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

A few more thoughts on sections of this article that need changing.

1. "While there is some overlap between the role-playing community and otherkin, and some otherkin beliefs are similiar to those found in role-playing games, many otherkin stress the difference between "playing" a nonhuman and actually believing themselves to be nonhuman."

   This sentence, while entirely accurate, is completely unsourced and there does not seem to be any source that easily leads to that conclusion unless we combine the introductions of multiple otherkin forums whose descriptions state no role playing. That would be rather awkward to cite in that manner.

2. When psychologists have encountered people who identify themselves as an animal, they have sometimes made a diagnosis of clinical lycanthropy or some other mental disorder. [10]

   It's pretty easy to demonstrate that this reference is inappropriate. First, not all otherkin believe they are animals, not even mythical ones, many consider themselves elves or fae or other sentient humanoid mythological beings, so the belief system has no direct tie with the definition given for Clinical Lycanthropy. Second, no data is offered on individuals who have been diagnosed as having clinical lycanthropy or any other mental disorder based on their belief that they are otherkin. It merely assumes such individuals exist, without any source for that conclusion other than the authors own bias. This section should be sourced with something that actually refers to adherents of the otherkin belief system who have been diagnosed with CL or other mental disorders, or removed.

Not this argument again... It's not saying all otherkin believe they change into animals, it's saying that those that do are sometimes diagnosed with CL or another mental disorder. That's strictly factual,relevant to a good portion of the article, verifiable, and one of the few things in this entire article with actual reliable scholarly articles to that effect. If anything, there should be an additional line pointing out that other mental disorders have been diagnosed for some people who have thought of themselves as nonhuman even if they don't think of themselves as animals. You've got the whole no original research policy turned completely on its head here, trying to use it to mean the exact opposite of what it does by trying to remove one of the few solid cites on the page. DreamGuy 07:35, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

If it's verifiable, then verify it. It's currently an unsourced, "common sense" claim. Jarandhel 12:05, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

And to clarify, I'm saying it's unsourced because currently the only source used points to an article that talks about clinical lycanthropy itself, not about its relationship to the otherkin belief. We're all agreed that the definition of clinical lycanthropy is "a psychiatric syndrome that involves a delusional belief that the affected person is, or has, transformed into an animal." To some, like DreamGuy, it may seem obvious that otherkin is such a delusional belief, but if you follow the link to the article on delusion, you'll see that the psychiatric meaning and the popular meaning of delusional don't match up... a delusional belief in psychiatry is necessarily pathological (the result of an illness or illness process), not simply false. Further, Otherkin do not believe they "are" animals in the sense that those diagnosed with clinical lycanthropy do. To use an analogy, a man who believes fervently that he is or has transformed into a woman may be considered delusional; a man who believes himself to spiritually or mentally be a woman trapped in a man's body is not however, he is transgendered. There is thus a clear difference between clinical lycanthropy and even those portions of the otherkin community who do believe themselves to be animals in human bodies. Jarandhel 12:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

The discrepancy here, I think, is that you are speaking about only people that claim directly to be otherkin. The way the word is used though, it usually applies to anyone claiming to be nonhuman, whether or not they use/know the word "otherkin." The result of CL, is there are documented cases of people with the belief (delusional though, and with the psychological definition) that they are or can become a wolf. This falls under the general definition of otherkin.AtomicDragon 16:24, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

No, I'm not speaking just about people that claim directly to be otherkin. Clinical Lycanthropes don't claim to be wolves trapped in human bodies, they don't claim to be mentally or spiritually wolf or even that they might have wolf blood in their ancestry; they claim that they already are a wolf or physically turn into one. That doesn't in any way fall under otherkin. The otherkin belief falls far closer to the definition of Transmigration given in reincarnation, "a theory of inter-species embodiments", and even those claiming to be biologically otherkin (as seen in the reference in the article) believe they have nonhuman ancestry, *not* that they are completely 100% nonhuman in body. It's also primarily people who believe themselves to be elves that claim the biological thing in the first place, so references to a disease where someone believes themselves to be an animal are completely off base. Jarandhel 17:37, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Your understanding of what clinical lycanthropy is is very substandard. I'm afraid it's you who are using original research here -- by falsely claiming the two have nothing in common -- and not te side mentioning the simple, objective and matter of fact statement that some people who think they are animals are diagnoses with mental illnesses. The way we have it is factual and sourced, the reasons you give for trying to remove it are opinionated and at odd with the facts. DreamGuy 19:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

It's also important to note that clinical lycanthropy is already referenced on the Therianthropy page, which would be the otherkin for whom such a diagnosis would be most relevant. Even there, it is mainly present in sections which explains how Therianthropy is not the same as clinical lycanthropy; to mention it here as well, particularly without such a disclaimer, is both redundant and inappropriate. It seems to be an attempt to do an end-run around the fact that information on clinical lycanthropy was placed in sections which deny any automatic link between clinical lycanthropy and the therianthropy subculture in the therianthropy article. Jarandhel (talk) 17:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the term otherkin simply refers to those that believe they are not human in some way. So that means one can’t say, "Otherkin are people who think they are not human in these particular ways." I know there are plenty of people that stick with just spiritual claims and even some biological otherkin that would not fall under CL, but those are still not the people I am referring to or thinking of, nor do I think the term otherkin is limited to just them.AtomicDragon 22:22, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Can you cite that usage? I have provided a source which clearly discusses otherkin and clinical lycanthropy together from the perspective of the Otherkin community. [4] Specifically, they note: "Clinical lycanthropy is not a community, nor have I heard of communities of them; it is listed here for disambiguation." I suppose in the end the question comes down to: is this article about a subculture's use of a term, or is this article about the subculture by that name? If the former, you may be right and all that believe themselves to be other than human should be included in the article, as the otherkin subculture would certainly consider them otherkin; including starseeds and indigo_children and maybe Emperor_of_Japan since a basic tenet of Tennoism is that he is descended from the Goddess Amaterasu and is literally a kami incarnate. We'd pretty much have to seek out every mention of a belief that someone is in some way other than human and include it; whether or not they had ever heard of the term much less the community of people referring to themselves by that name. Doesn't that seem more than a little out of place for an article about a subculture? Plus, it should also be noted that if we're going to make a long list of people the otherkin believe are otherkin regardless of whether they use the term for themselves, we'd also have to include a list of actors and musicians like David Bowie and Orlando Bloom... Jarandhel (talk) 23:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

The source you linked to includes a definition of otherkin that is rather vague, and it links to several other sources that define otherkin as simply people that think they are non-human. And people such as some of the Asian emperors and some Native Americans have been considered otherkin under that definition. We wouldn’t need to list all of them just like an article on any other belief system would not list every member or mention of itself. Shouldn’t an article on the "otherkin" cover what otherkin are as its first goal? It would make more sense to me to have the article be about what term means and the subculture be covered in a section, unless a separate article was made for the subculture (which I don’t think is appropriate at this time).AtomicDragon 20:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think an article on the otherkin subculture should cover people who believe they are nonhuman as its first goal; it should cover the subculture that originated the term and self-identifies with it. Other cultures have their own terms they can use. This article is not to educate people about the "proper term" to use for such things, it is to inform people of the subculture calling themselves it and their beliefs. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The primary purpose of this article should not be the definition of a term, it should be the subculture who calls themselves by that term. Jarandhel (talk) 21:00, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I’m not suggesting a dictionary entry giving a simple definition of the word. I’m suggesting it should be an article covering various aspects of the word, in this case a belief system. I would consider the community an aspect of the belief system, not the other way around due to the parallels drawn with other belief systems outside of the community. And I am not suggesting that an article on a subculture should include those outside it, I am suggesting that this is an article on more than a subculture.AtomicDragon 21:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

1. Otherkin sometimes believe themselves to be human in biology but "other" in spirit, attributing this to reincarnation or a "misplaced" soul. A parallel has also been drawn between otherkin and transsexuality, resulting in the neologism trans-speciesism: the conviction that one is in a body of the wrong species. [11].

   Trans-speciesism in this section should not point back to Otherkin; while the term can be applied to otherkin as an explanation for their feelings and beliefs, it is not exclusive to the otherkin belief system, and as is noted later is also used by furry lifestylers.

2. Most of the rest of the article, down to the portion on otakukin, is entirely unsourced. Further, the section on otakukin does not seem to deal with the subject of Awakening, so is probably inappropriate for the section it is presently in. Sources should really be added, and the whole thing cleaned up a bit.

I might have a go at trying to clean it up in the next few days. Thoughts on any of these proposed changes? Jarandhel 23:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

The original quote you started off with is already being discussed above in another section. I think a lot of "some" usage keeps it NPOV, but there are other issues it seems.

Do you mean the one about totems, or about roleplaying? (Not sure if you meant the first item on the list, or the first in this section.) Jarandhel 17:37, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the third quote of the list can be repaired instead of removed. What if "resulting in the neologism" is replaced with "described by the neologism" to make it sound nonexclusive?

I'm sorry, I wasn't clear... I have no problems with the quote itself, but the wikilink "trans-speciesism" points back to the otherkin article itself rather than to a separate article on trans-speciesism. It should really either be an unlinked word, or point to a different article. Jarandhel 17:37, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, I thought there was a source for the first quote of the list, but some sources were removed due to being 404. If I actually remembered correctly, is it possible to use an archive.org version of the source? If not, there is not a source, than I agree it should be removed, but I would be kind of surprised if one of the faq’s didn’t cover that.AtomicDragon 16:34, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I think it probably cited hiddenlair's rules, and the description of the elven-realities webring. However, these are individual forums, not a statement overall about the relationship between otherkin and roleplaying, and have already been removed by Friday as "unused sources". Jarandhel 17:37, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I haven't read this all in detail yet, but, if I was in error in removing any sources I thought no longer worked or weren't used, I apologize. Please don't hesitate to put them back. I want us to have more, better sources, not fewer. I have no problem with an archived version of a no longer working source being used if none better are available, it just didn't occur to me at the time to try that. Friday (talk) 23:29, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

You might have been in error about it being used or not, but I'm not sure it should be added back. Both sources used are only the rules for individual forums, and don't speak in general about the otherkin belief not being a form of roleplaying. Possibly, taken together, they could be seen as evidence for that; however citing the rules pages for multiple forums seems an awkward way of addressing that, especially given that rules can change without notice, as seen with the case of hiddenlair. Ultimately, I'd have to ask if it's important enough to look for a source to support the claim, or if we can simply delete it? It seems to me that, as the beliefs of otherkin are described in the article, no one would confuse it with roleplayers anyway. Jarandhel 01:08, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Reversions

I've had to revert this page twice now to remove vandalizing references to "werehouses" by user "DG", who apparently also has a beef going on with Gimmiet if you follow his even more vandalizing edits on What Wikipedia is Not. Gee, wonder who that could be? Since he's vandalizing official policy pages, I'm thinking he won't be around for too long, but could the people who actually care about this article keep an eye on things and help revert when necessary till then? Otherwise, it's likely to need more than three reversions a day to remove this stuff. Jarandhel (talk) 04:41, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Never mind, re-read the Three Revert Rule policy page and noticed it doesn't apply to correcting simple vandalism. Help keeping an eye on it and making sure it gets reverted as soon as possible when vandalism occurs would still be appreciated, though. Jarandhel (talk) 13:27, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Won't be around for too long? I've been around since 2003. Look it up. D. G. 00:03, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Making unsupported accusations of sockpuppetry really isn't helpful, Jarandhel.

As for someone who's "been around since 2003," you might have bothered to learn not to vandalize by now, DG. android79 00:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry you don't think I'm being helpful in this regard. My past experience dealing with trolls on mailing lists has led me to look for patterns of this type when a troll makes himself known and then work to either verify or disprove the connection between accounts. In my experience, if people are innocent of sockpuppeting, generally they understand that an honest attempt was being made to deal with someone behaving in a manner detrimental to the forum. I'm hopeful that, if I am incorrect about the connection between these users, DreamGuy will understand my reasoning and realize I was acting in good faith by stating this theory in the hopes that someone with actual access to user IP logs could check. Jarandhel (talk) 03:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

DG doesn't seem like DreamGuy to me, and any reasonable man reading this talk page would have a beef with Gimmiet. That said, the fact that his edits are constantly reverted indicates some discussion is necessary on his part. ~~ N (t/c) 00:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

A beef? Maybe. A big enough one to take directly to an official policy page? That strikes me as a bit deeper seated, as does the persistent vandalism directed at this particular page, to be just someone passing through at random; especially not a user that's been around long enough to apparently be seriously running for arbcom. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe DG really is "Domingo Galdos," as he claimed on my talk page before editing it back to his initials. Is there any way to check the IPs being used and actually find out one way or the other? Someone "not seeming" like another person based on writing style, which can be purposely changed by the writer, doesn't seem like a great method for determining whether or not something is a morph account. Jarandhel (talk) 03:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Or you could assume good faith. Please stop with the unfounded accusations. android79 03:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

As for learning, well, they say that learning is a life long process which never ends at some particular defined point, you know. D. G. 00:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Give me a freaking break, Jarandhel... the edit histories are nothing the same and I've never made trollish edits of any sort, and in fact I remove them on sight. DreamGuy 02:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I think I've already explained my reasoning. If you're really not him, I certainly apologize for thinking you were. However, I'm sure as a reasonable person you can understand why I feel it would be best for all concerned if that could be confirmed in some concrete manner like comparing IP addresses. DG apparently does not have a history of trollish edits either, or he would not still be around after several years let alone running for arbcom; yet it can hardly be argued that his recent edits have been done in good faith, can it? This doesn't seem to be a situation where the mere reputations of those involved can resolve the matter. Jarandhel (talk) 03:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I can't tell you how absurd that request is. Here's how we resolve the matter: WP:AGF. The only person empowered at the moment to do IP checks is David Gerard, an arbitrator, and if you asked him to do one based on "DG = DreamGuy! OMG!" I don't think he'd take you very seriously. android79 03:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Apparently, his policy is to only do such checks if they relate to an ongoing arbcom case anyway. Jarandhel (talk) 04:20, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

You're in luck. I happen to be up for arbitration because Gabriel/Gavin/Gimmiet complained about me "being rude" to him (when it consisted of undoing his edits and telling him his edits broke policy, much like everyone else here did). Since this allegation of yours could be considered directly related (as DG happened to bring up G/G/G), you can request that DG and my IPs be compared. I'm all in favor of you bugging David Gerard on your theory that anyone with DG as their initials must be the same guy. DreamGuy 10:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Werehouses

The information is true and cited. Why do you keep reverting? Just because it sounds silly to you? How would you like it if people deleted the Otherkin article because it sounded silly to them without investigating further? You have to admit they'd be within their rights-- if they took the same stance you are taking. But they're not within their rights.

It is disgusting that the same people who have been so rejected by society just for believing they may in fact be dragons or elves are again acting like elitist magicians, rejecting those who think they might really be houses, or might really be jews.

Please reinsert the information on werehouses. D. G. 00:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Please read WP:POINT. DreamGuy 10:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. No more trolling, please. android79 11:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Alright, you've got me there, I suppose. Making a point I was, and you're right to remind me of the policy on that. With all due respect, though, I honestly can't see, though, how the point can be seriously argued against, if one is to hold by the same standards that the rest of the Otherkin article is held against. I am certain that there are people out there who are deluded into thinking they are houses. Nevertheless I see I was probably wrong to press the point. I apologise for forcing you to convince me, DreamGuy.

By the way, I'd really like to know where Jarandhel is coming from on accusing me and DreamGuy of being one and the same. That has struck me as the most bizarre part of this whole thing, one that has entertained me, even, as I can't understand it. In any case, to conclude, I give up; sorry. I thought I might sow harmony in such a disjoint and poor article but instead found myself sowing disharmony. D. G. 20:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

To tell you the truth, initially I found it pretty amusing, if rather pointed, but this article has been a bone of contention amongst a large set of editors for quite some time, one in particular who is fond of breaking the 3RR, sockpuppetry, and general harassment, and who is now fortunately blocked for a long period of time. Humor probably isn't the best way to make your point here. android79 00:03, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Please don't do that again. android79 11:02, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about that. It was absolutely an accident, that last time. I think probably when I was putting together one edit revision with Silence's edit revision, his reinsertion of it must have come with it, and I didn't notice it. D. G. 22:07, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

That's what I figured. No harm, no foul. To tell you the truth, I'm tempted to BJAODN the werehouses thing... android79 12:56, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Dreamguy's Edits

DreamGuy's made two edits to Otherkin today that I think should at least be discussed here.

1. He's reverted a change that I made to the article removing Clinical Lycanthropy from the "see also" section. The basis for this change was the fact that clinical lycanthropy is already mentioned in another part of the article, and whether or not it should be mentioned at all is under dispute, so having it mentioned twice gives undue weight to it when the only connection between it and Otherkin is that DreamGuy thinks the symptoms match. This is armchair psychology, unsourced and unencyclopedic. Further, in the Talk archives of this article, it's clear that Clinical Lycanthropy was originally added as a "see also" at a time when all mention of it had been removed from the article. Clearly, that is no longer the case. The only actual sources other than sites mirroring wikipedia content which relate the otherkin subculture with clinical lycanthropy are a [page by otherkin themselves], who provide it for disambiguation against spiritual lycanthropy and nothing more, and [some comments by kuro5hin.org members] in an article on clinical lycanthropy where members "can't resist" drawing parallels with otherkin. I believe that, if Clinical Lycanthropy continues to be mentioned in this article at all when it is clearly more appropriate to the Therianthropy article and has already been dealt with there, that mention should be rewritten to reflect the claims of both sides of the argument and sourced to these cites and any others than can be found relating the subculture and the disease, rather than simply sourced to an article on clinical lycanthropy and attributed generally to "psychologists" on the basis of a wikipedia editor feeling the symptoms match the beliefs of the subculture.

2. He's also cleaned up some wording, and mostly I think he's done it well, but in the process he's inserted some language seemingly taken from the definition of clinical lycanthropy to describe the otherkin belief system: "otherkin who believe they are or can change into". Given the continuing dispute over clinical lycanthropy, this can hardly be seen as an NPOV edit or incidental wording. I also continue to feel that the claim being made is very POV and that, without a source, it should go entirely. He seems to agree, as in the description section of his edit he said it should really go entirely, so could we all agree just to remove the paragraph beginning "Sometimes a combination of non-human natures is professed"?

I don't feel that I can revert or alter these changes of my own initiative in entirely good faith at this time; I would like to ask that we try for consensus on this issue.

(Unsigned, but by User:Jarandhel)

It gets tiring to here the same old arguments that have already been discussed and decided earlier brought up over and over.

The claim that listing Clinical Lycanthropy is "armchair psychology, unsourced and unencyclopedic" is complete nonsense, as the information IS sourced, aand is one of the only pieces of information in the entire freaking article that has a source that meets the normal standards of WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research policies. And, frankly, the See also section doesn't even NEED to have sources, it just needs to be an article about some topic with related subject matter, which clinical lycanthropy most definitely does, as agreed by consensus time and time again.

Also, the idea that my clean up of a section already noted by previous editors as being full of mystical sounding language and promoting these concepts as if they were real somehow was to add information from the definition of clinical lycanthropy is absurd. That's a neutral, matter of fact way of describing their beliefs. It's certainly a heck of a lot better than what had been there previously.

These kinds of long-winded complaints about extremely minor, obvious and unobjectionable edits added to your nonsensical accusations of sockpuppetry earlier makes it look like you are playing chicken little here, wildly flailing around screaming your head off about nothing at all. I can only imagine that you have the same problem as has been exhibited by many of the supporters of otherkin who have previously fought over this article: being so far attached to one side that adding simple NPOV looks like a dastardly evil plot to destroy the article. I mean, get a grip here. DreamGuy 19:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

1. I'm sorry I was unclear; I was saying that it should really be removed entirely, but at the very least should not be present both in the article AND also as a see-also. I also continue to believe the claim is poorly sourced, essentially all you are saying with the source is that there is a condition called clinical lycanthropy with certain symptoms. The source itself does not connect those symptoms to the otherkin belief, you feel the two match. That is you making a diagnosis. As a compromise, I have changed the wording of your section to match the definition of clinical lycanthropy given in the clinical lycanthropy section "believe they are or transform into" rather than the more general "identify as", and added sources which make clear both the Otherkin position on clinical lycanthropy and the fact that people outside the community see a self-evident connection. I've closed with a statement that at this time there are no known psychological studies of the otherkin community evaluating the claims of either side. I believe these are things we can all agree upon?

2. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, maybe you really do see that as a clear and succinct way of describing the beliefs of otherkin. As an otherkin, I don't, and a quick search on the terms otherkin an "are or transform into" also comes back empty so it's apparently not a way they commonly describe their own beliefs. It's also the exact terminology used in the article on clinical lycanthropy, as you know, and there has been a great deal of debate on this very talk page over whether that definition fits the actual beliefs of otherkin or not. Regardless, that entire section was removed, so really the point is moot. Jarandhel (talk) 13:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

We've been through this several times before, so I doubt anyone will change their minds, but: In my opinion you don't need a source to suggest a connection between a group of people who think they're animals and a group of people who think they're animals. The definition of Clinical Lycanthropy is enough to establish the similiarity. Friday (talk) 16:38, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, we have been through this before, but a) Most otherkin do not claim to be "animals"; the subset that do is referred to as Therianthropy and their relation to clinical lycanthropy is already discussed in their own article where it is specifically noted that spiritual therianthropy is not the same as clinical lycanthropy. b) "think they're animals", even for the portion for whom it is correct, is being used in two different senses; therianthropes primarily claim to be mentally or spiritually nonhuman, clinical lycanthropes claim to actually physically be or physically transform into animals, where objective observation proves that it is only happening in their minds. c) Allergies and the common cold both have sneezing as a symptom; suggesting people have one or the other based on the fact that they sneezed is a diagnosis. Same thing here. Even if it seems like common sense to some editors. d) I think this point is already moot; as I said before, can't we all agree on the section being factual as it now stands? I'm satisfied with it as long as the opinions of both sides are included, as well as the disclaimer that no actual studies of otherkin have yet been done to evaluate the claims of either side, so that people don't get the wrong impression that those diagnosed as having clinical lycanthropy were members of the otherkin subculture. Jarandhel (talk) 17:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

No, no, no.... you keep trying to claim that clinical lycanthropy is limited to those who believe they physically transform and then try to claim that that has nothing to do with otherkin, when physical transformation is NOT the only way someone gets diagnosed with clinical lycanthropy and some otherkin (specifically some lycantrhopes, go figure) think they DO change anyway. You are bsaically sitting here trying to define a psychiatric term on your own to support your view. That's original research, which is no allowed here... oh, so, you say we have been through it before... so what name were you using earlier? Considering that you jumped in to make totally spurious sockpuppet accusations and to run to policies that someone with your limited editing experience would never have heard of, I think we should know your full edit history and why you keep making accusations against editors you should have no experience with and so forth. DreamGuy 21:40, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

It's a plain text reading of the clinical lycanthropy article: the symptoms are a delusional (false) belief that they are, or have transformed into, an animal. Believing that you mentally or spiritually are, or are transforming into an animal, by definition cannot be delusional as it cannot be observed to be false, so they must be referring to physical. That's not original research, that's the definition as given. Though I'll also stress that this is an encyclopedic definition of clinical lycanthropy, not a medical one. Simply put, we really do not know the medical definition, the full range of symptoms, or how to make a diagnosis; nor are we qualified to do so. Implying that otherkin and clinical lycanthropes are the same is original research unless it can be sourced back to a professional who makes that claim. All we can say in this article, and remain encyclopedic, is what both otherkin and their detractors say about the subject, and note that there has been no professional study of this. And yes, we have been through it before, if you just go up the page and look at the section labeled "Proposed Edit" from five days ago you'll see my name making these exact same arguments. It's the same arguments being repeated again and again, and all you can counter with is that my understanding of therianthropy is "substandard" according to you. Well, guess what? If we had a credible source offering an opinion on otherkin and clinical lycanthropy, my understanding wouldn't mean squat, we wouldn't HAVE to interpret what the symptoms of clinical lycanthropy actually are because a professional would have already given his opinion on whether or not the symptoms apply to otherkin. That's the entire problem with including it! Including it, as things stand, NECESSARILY involves us having to interpret what the symptoms described in the article mean and whether they apply to the otherkin belief.

"the symptoms are a delusional (false) belief that they are, or have transformed into, an animal." <-- i.e., the medical definition of it can't possibly be related to otherkin, since in medicine they're not really animals, but in otherkin, they clearly really are? just wondering if that's the idea of this argument. if you're going to play the all-ideas-are-equally-valid card, well, the medical establishment's ideas are hardly of zero value. this statement is however as polemic as all of yours, so you may disregard it if you wish.

"Simply put, we really do not know the medical definition" <-- Yes we do.

" the full range of symptoms," <-- Yes we do.

" or how to make a diagnosis;" <-- Yes we do.

" nor are we qualified to do so." <--- I'll give you that one.

"Implying that otherkin and clinical lycanthropes are the same is original research" <-- That's right. It would be, if anywhere it said so. But with all due respect it must be a pretty poor intellect that works on such extreme shades of black and white that it can't tell the difference between merely X & Y are somehow related, however that may be, and X IS Y. D. G. 02:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

"Believing that you mentally or spiritually are, or are transforming into an animal, by definition cannot be delusional" That's not only original research, that's just plain logical fallacy. Your reading of the condition is wrong. Your justification of the beliefs as inherently impossible to be related is humorous and, I suppose for those of you in your camp, honorable, but it's completely unrelated to how Wikipedia operates. Yes, you are going in circles, yes, you said the same thing earlier and haven't changed waht you said since - YES, that's your problem... You keep saying the same wrong things over and over and hope that somehow that means you'll prevail. DreamGuy 08:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're simply wrong. Read the wikipedia article on delusion. "In the most recent Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, a delusion is defined as: A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everybody else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary.". (emphasis added) Transformations that occur in the mind or soul would not be based on external reality, let alone proven false by incontrovertable and obvious proof to the contrary; thus, if clinical lycanthropy is defined by psychiatrists as being a delusional belief that one is or has transformed into an animal, it must be a belief based on external reality; thus, physical rather than mental or spiritual. The definition of delusion also goes on to state: "The belief is not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person's culture or subculture (e.g. it is not an article of religious faith)." Thus, delusional doesn't apply to the otherkin belief. QED. That's a plain-text reading of the definition of delusion. If delusional doesn't apply, then "a delusional belief that one is or has transformed into an animal" also does not apply. And that's not original research, it's simple reasoning. Jarandhel (talk) 12:57, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

You keep saying that people who are otherkin of the spiritual or mental kind are not capable of being CL, and I think others actually agree with this (at least I do). But as I’ve said before, that isn’t the point. There are some otherkin that make biological claims, which can fall under the psychology definition of a delusion. As mentioned before, this is the group that CL would have relevance to. I don’t think mentioning it being only a spiritual/mental thing has any relevance to the CL debate, unless you want to debate the idea that there are some biological otherkin, and the sources that include mention of that.AtomicDragon 22:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

As for running to policies that someone with my limited editing experience should never have heard of? Name one. NPOV? OR? They're both linked to in the history of this article, which I read in full already. So are a lot of other things, and more are linked to from the articles discussing those policies. I've also had editors, starting with Friday, point me to links to additional information about Wikipedia. I might be new to Wikipedia, but I'm hardly new to the internet, and I know enough to make myself familiar with the rules of a given forum if I'm going to participate there. If you think I'm a sockpuppet, though, or have acted generally in bad faith in any way, feel free to start a complaint about me. Frankly, I don't think you'll get very far, considering every contentious editing decision I've brought here for discussion first, and haven't reverted any of your edits. If I was pursuing a vendetta against you, do you really think I'd bring it to the talk page to discuss and try to reach consensus, rather than simply reverting or editing over what you'd already written? I really think you need to calm down, I explained before what the basis for me thinking DG was a sockpuppet of yours was; you have a history with Gimmeit that is very clear just from reading the archives of this talk page, you appear to have a general animosity for otherkin since you keep saying that they changed the name of their community specifically to escape diagnosis, and your initials just happened to be the same, all at once. I've also apologized if I was wrong. I'll be very clear now, I have not edited here before under any other name, nor anonymously. If I had, don't you think I would have known to sign in and sign with four tildes rather than editing anonymously in the beginning and trying to sign it by hand? Jarandhel (talk) 22:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Things new editors wouldn't know, like sockpuppet allegations, tracking down of prior edits to try to come up with that accusation in the first place, and so forth? Running off to SlimVirgin to complain, just like previous editors did because they knew she liked to side against me (though at least now she's refraining from getting involved here after her support for Gabriel blew up in her face)? There's sure a heck of a lot more reason to believe that you aren't new here than than I am the same as the DG editor. How about this: when you are proven wrong on your sockpuppet allegation, instead of giving a mealy-mouthed apology, admit that you are too biased to be trying to make edits here and go away? DreamGuy 08:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

That's funny... *you* are the person who first taught me the term sockpuppet; your use of the term was in the archives of this talk page when I read them. I've previously always referred to the concept as morph accounts; I've had to deal with trolls and spammers using them in the otherkin community on many occasions. I'm not sure what you mean by tracking down of prior edits; you mean how I checked User:DG's recent contributions and found he'd also vandalized What Wikipedia is Not making that flame about User:Gimmeit? That was simple, I did a search on reverts and vandalism and found the procedure that you're supposed to follow to see if someone is a persistent vandal. It tells you right there to check their other recent edits. And "running off to SlimVirgin to complain?" I went to her because it was clear from the archives and related pages that she had been involved in the dispute before. If you actually look at her talk page archives, you'll see it wasn't just you I approached her about. I also approached her about Agriculture and Friday. I also asked her what could be done to address the matter; not for her to jump in and help directly. I would hardly have needed to ask that question if I was experienced as you wish to believe I am. And no, since I'm quite sure I'm not a sockpuppet despite your own allegations, I hardly think that being proven wrong about you and DG would make me "too biased" to continue editing here since obviously you don't consider yourself that biased despite being wrong on both factual matters and your suspicions. By the way, anyone who wants to verify that I've had a pretty long history in the Otherkin community, feel free to check out my website: [http://wanderingpaths.heliwood.org/articles/jarinawakening.html] That particular essay has a link to the internet wayback archive with one of the first essays I wrote for the otherkin community after joining it, dating back to 1999. Although my interpretations have changed since then, it should be sufficient to establish my identity. Unless you seriously think that in 1999 I was already preparing an alternate identity for the purposes of trolling you on wikipedia, years before you joined it,; or that I would abandon some prior sockpuppet account and use my main internet identity for that purpose. Sorry, but you're just not that important. Jarandhel (talk) 12:57, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

This kind of overlaps with discussion elsewhere, but is there really that much debate over whether people identifying with nonmythical animals are otherkin or not? I know there seems to be a lot of debate when it comes to things like vampires and aliens. Unless I missed one, none of the sources seems to exclude animals, and those that don’t mention it are not making an all inclusive list (saying otherkin includes dragons and elves doesn’t exclude others depending on the wording). Also, as I understand it there is still overlap with the CL, despite the therianthropy stuff, because I thought that was for people who think they can shift into something while otherkin is for people that think they are something. So I would think that a person who believes they are an animal, without any shifting involved, would fall under the otherkin definition.AtomicDragon 21:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, there is. Many otherkin, for whatever reason, believe that one of the more important aspects of being otherkin is the connection with magic. This is also one of the reasons that alien-kin are so controversial. Therianthropy can be either those who always consider themselves animal, or those who switch, both are generally welcomed in the Therian community. In the otherkin community itself, though, you don't get a lot of people claiming to be wolf-kin or jaguar-kin or bear-kin or any other animal; much less claiming to be human and simply shift into animal form. Closest would probably be those claiming to be kitsune, which is a type of mythical sentient fox-spirit from Japan.

What forums do you frequent, by the way? I know I haven't seen you on KinFrontiers or Elven-Realities, which are probably the most central lists in the community, and you're definitely not a member of my own lists Wanderingpaths and Vor'jenhunting... well, not unless you're going by a different name there, anyway. I'd kind of like to know where in the community you're getting your information from. I know things have gotten a bit splintered in recent years, particularly after the HOPE organization was kicked out of the main portion of the community back in 2000 and eventually decided to start its own group on MSN... Jarandhel (talk) 21:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Not a lot is not the same as none or exclusion though... And I am not on one of the main otherkin sites, but on a dragonkin site. You can contact me elsewhere if you want to get into that information.AtomicDragon 21:35, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

No need, it's called "[Google]". I see you've been on there since 2003. That answers all my questions. Jarandhel (talk) 14:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I think it is very telling that we're seeing an argument between two avowed otherkin. It's pretty telling when y'all have a fight over your separate delusions when they collide, and it certainly bouys the suspicion that a lot of this crap qualifies for OR. Agriculture 14:10, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

With all due respect, that's ridiculous. Does a disagreement between two Wiccans make the article on Wicca OR? Jarandhel (talk) 14:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I just said it bouys the suspicion, not confirms. Besides I know you kids want to believe you're as legitimate as Wicca, and lets face from the stand point of a reality check you both are (as you're both wrong). From the stand point of credibility and cultist base, you're lagging and far less notable and credible. I still can't find any otherkin books at the Bookstore, but see plenty of Wicca ones. What is truly ridiculous is a bunch of kids pretending to be dragons and werewolves. Agriculture 14:59, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint you, but I'm 24. Most otherkin don't really fit your stereotype of children playing pretend. Don't believe me? Very simple proof; look at the photos of past otherkin gatherings for yourself. [[5]] [[6]] [[7]] [[8]] [[9]]. Jarandhel (talk) 15:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Just because you can drink alcohol doesn't mean you aren't a kid. 24 is still very much a kid, and this isn't even going into the notion of the ever present man-child (like the comic book guy on the simpsons). Agriculture 15:22, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

People disagree in nearly every major field, from experts to amateurs, from the most established to the most insignificant fields. After all, this is not the only WP article using the talk page. Now please stop with the insulting, demeaning stuff, as that has no place in this discussion and only gets in the way of things.AtomicDragon 22:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Furry aren't otherkin?

The statement "however, furry aren't believed to be otherkin." previously appeared in para. 3. What is this supposed to mean? This is vague. I have changed it to "furry are not considered otherkin." which is more correct though still equally vague, as it ought to be "furry are not considered otherkin by the French", where "the French" is replaced by whomever it is that does not consider any furry to be otherkin. D. G. 21:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Should this claim be here at all? My understanding was that some furries actually identify with their fursona in the same way that some otherkin identify with an animal. Not all furries are like that, but some are, making that part of the group otherkin (Maybe there is a more precise term for that subset of furries, as I don’t know the terminology that well and have found a lot of it ambiguous).AtomicDragon 22:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I am wondering too. I'd like some sort of answer or consensus on this because as it is the statement isn't adequate and ought be removed. D. G. 22:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Depends, there are some otherkin forums that are not welcoming of furries, and there are some forums that overlap. On the whole, there's no real consensus in the community as to whether or not furries, even those who identify with their fursona, are otherkin. There are, however, furries that identify with their fursonas in a manner similar to how otherkin see their nonhuman sides. There are also furries that do not. It's a hard issue to address, but I think a source I've previously cited would be useful here, as it also goes into the relationship between the furry and otherkin communities. [[10]] Jarandhel (talk) 23:53, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I only think it appears like a "hard" issue if one tries to treat the groups as a whole, since neither is all inclusive. I think how it is worded now is much better, but in the end I think it rather simply comes from the definition. I don’t think how welcome one group is into another affects the definition though.AtomicDragon 20:52, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Just jumping in here... Not all otherkin are furries, not all furries are otherkin. There is a portion of both who identify with the other group. There are a lot of sub-cultures in furrydom, some of which identify the nature of their soul with that animal that they represent themselves as a furry, some of which see the entire thing as role play or sexual kink with no dirrect connection to their self identity. Making a statement that furries aren't otherkin is inaccurate, but saying that they are is also inaccurate. What I am trying to say is that people need to be aware that some furries are otherkin, but not all are. Those furries that are otherkin must meet the definition of otherkin (whatever that is going to be), and those furries that don't meet that test... well they aren't otherkin are they? They are just meerly furries.

It should also be noted that, at least as of three years ago, not all Furries were aware of the idea of "otherkin" and would readily take the label to themselves had they known of it. -Auron 10-18-05

To me, this issue is another indication that Otherkin is an emerging phenomenon and is currently too obscure for there to be a good encyclopedia article about it. Even the Otherkin themselves cannot agree on who's part of what group. We had another editor a while ago insisting that Therianthropes were not a subset of Otherkin, even though from the definitions it seems clear that they are.

I realize that similiar gray areas exists in topics that are well established. However, in those cases, we have something at our disposal that we don't seem to have here: experts. In a religious question, we can find respected scholars of religion and quote from them. Who, if anyone, is regarded as an expert on Otherkin? Some may want us to believe that the people who wrote the FAQs on certain websites are the experts, but there's no evidence I've seen to support this assertion. Regarding someone as an expert because their name is on the FAQ is circular reasoning and won't do; I want to know who's an expert before I consider their word reliable.

I don't see much of a way around this problem, other than to tread carefully and make only the most general possible statements. The more specific we get, the more we need good sources. Friday (talk) 15:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Probably unsurprisingly, I disagree that this indicates what you think it does. I think the issue is more along the lines of whether or not Catholics should be considered Christians... or perhaps even more appropriately, if Messianic Jews should be considered Christian or Jewish. There are likely some on each side who would argue either way, and it has less to do with it being an emerging phenomenon than there being ideological and cultural differences between the groups.

In the case of Otherkin and Therianthropes, such differences stem primarily from the fact that the subcultures are largely separate. Therianthropes have their own forums, own mailing lists, and even their own jargon such as "mshift" and "pshift" that is not in general usage within the otherkin community. There are also ideological differences relating to the association with real animals vs mythical creatures; some otherkin feel that you can't spiritually be something that is not sentient, and some therians think that you can't possibly spiritually be something that never existed. There are others on both sides who are quite open to both. One of the main things to note, and I think this helps clear up a lot of confusion, is that Otherkin is ONLY a blanket term used to describe those who believe themselves to be nonhuman INSIDE the otherkin subculture itself. Outside of that subculture, those with such beliefs may use quite different terms. Faeid, Inhumans, Sayuneldi, and "Faeborn and Astral Entities" are other phrases I've seen used by people who believe they are mythical nonhumans but do not wish to associate themselves with Otherkin. They have their own subcultures.

As for who can be considered experts on otherkin; within the community itself, those considered experts are generally those "community elders" who have spent a significant number of years in the community and have worked to help better it, usually by creating and maintaining websites, mailing lists, other forums, or real-life gatherings. They are generally well respected, quite prominent in the community, and recognized by name to most of those active in the subculture. I think that's really the best standard of expert we can ask for, when referring to a subculture's beliefs; is it really that different from the standards applied to experts on the Wiccan or Neopagan religions? Yes, there are more Wiccans and Pagans that have been published, but does publishing alone make you an expert on a subject? I think anyone who has actually read Llewellyn's general lineup would agree that many of these authors have become "experts" only because someone agreed to publish them, and not through scholarship or experience. Douglas Monroe, author of the 21 Lessons of Merlyn, is one great example of that; his entire text (and its sequel) are based around a forged text and his own mystical revelations, with elements of other traditions liberally added in as "authentic celtic tradition."

All of that said, I agree that we should try to keep things as general as possible and not delve too deeply into the specifics. The otherkin subculture has at least as loose an association of beliefs as neopaganism; often, each person has a different understanding of it once past the superficial similarities. Trying to get too specific is merely going to result in us trying to catalog all the ways otherkin disagree on specifics while agreeing on the general concept, and the point is going to become lost amidst the details. Jarandhel (talk) 16:30, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

"species dysphoric"

Explain this quoted phrase. D. G. 21:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

It's a synonym to the term "trans-speciesism" already defined in the article; the feeling that one's spirit and body do not match up, akin to being transgendered but with species identity rather than sexual identity. Jarandhel (talk) 23:55, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Proposed template

-Silence 02:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

The most obvious disagreement will be over which sources are "unauthoritative". Personally, I consider somebody's personal website to be a very poor source, but there are plenty of editors who apparently disagree. Friday (talk) 16:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I like everything but the color. android79 16:55, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Hasn't this already been settled in the AfD debate? The consensus seemed to be that the sources used were appropriate for the article; that people could be primary sources for their own beliefs and that this article could use only primary sources as long as it was making only descriptive claims, which it is. I particularly think User:Antaeus_Feldspar, User:A_Man_In_Black and User:Nickptar made cogent arguments regarding the appropriateness of the sources used. Do we really need to keep rehashing this? If the consensus was that the sources used were unencyclopedic, the article would have been deleted already. Jarandhel (talk) 17:20, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe this was settled by the Afd at all. Many people just said "It's a valid topic, keep it" and made no comment on the issues of verifiability and original research. Yes, some folks weighed in and said they thought the sources were appropriate, but not everyone felt the same. The people suggesting "clean up" indicates to me that some editors do not particularly endorse these sources. To me, the Afd decided one thing: the article stays. How to clean it up is a matter for discussion on the talk page, as has been ongoing. In your conclusion If the consensus was that the sources used were unencyclopedic, the article would have been deleted already, I think you're assuming a level of consistancy that simply doesn't exist in Wikipedia. Friday (talk) 17:32, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Considering the entire argument to delete it was based on its sourcing, and the supposed lack of verifiability, I'd have to say that I disagree. If it keeps being asserted here that the sources used are improper, and we keep deleting parts of the article because they cite primary sources on otherkin belief, eventually the article gets whittled down to a stub at best. That's simply deleting the article piecemeal rather than in the one fell swoop that would have occurred had the vote for deletion gone the other way. Jarandhel (talk) 17:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

One of my chief problems with the footnotes is that so many of them link to the same site, and they're so pervasive; I've never seen an article so heavily footnoted. I've seen ones that have relied heavily on one or two sources before, but those ones haven't been riddled in almost every line with the page number of the claim. I don't know; it's just something I felt we should be aware of. A good article should be an exercise in moderation, not excess: there should neither be major unsourced claims nor an overwhelming number of citations—especially to the extent that we're linking to a single website eleven times on one article page! -Silence 18:07, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Otherkin.net is used heavily as a source in this article, but the reason for that is quite simple; it is one of the most central sites in the Otherkin community and has become a repository of writings by different groups within the community who may not even speak to one another due to interpersonal conflicts. You'll note that most, if not all, of the articles cited from that site are written by different people from within the otherkin subculture. It also has the largest index of otherkin related websites, mailing lists, and forums that exists within the community, as well as the only existing directory of otherkin with contact information, consisting of over 700 entries. That's 700 otherkin who have trusted this site with contact information of one sort or another. That's a pretty significant resource for a subculture. Jarandhel (talk) 20:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

700 entries is miniscule when it comes to an internet site. Those sort of numbers would not even rate the site as notable for a deletion debate. We also do not know if those are legit discrete users who actively believe these things or whether it is people doing studies on fringe societies for school, playing DreamGuy 21:21, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh for crying out loud, voting to keep the article instead of deleting the entire thing in no way certifies all the sources used in it as respectable... User:Jarandhel's comments above are just absurd. The delete discussion was whether there were so few legit sources that the entire topic deserved to be ignored, which is untrue, as there are plenty that document it's existence as a blief among a small subculture on the Internet if nothing else. On the other hand, specific claims about otherkin should be sourced to the most reliable sources we can get, and individual one off mentions on tiny sites don;t cut it. That site owner could show up and try to put that here directly and it would be a violation of WP:No original research, so it's not any different for us here to cite that same individual's opinion here. DreamGuy 21:21, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Wait, I understand not putting OR in the article itself, but can’t we cite other people’s OR if it elsewhere? Isn’t that what most citations amount to, just with different levels of authority and checking involved in the sources? And I think 700 can be small for many things, but it is more than just a personal site when it comes to such a small group.AtomicDragon 21:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Using someone else's research (a "secondary source") is most certainly allowed; it's downright encouraged: it's what makes Wikipedia sourced-based research rather than original research. The question is the reputability of the source. If someone with a Ph.D. in Sociology writes a paper on Otherkin, that would be a great source. (If a hundred Sociologists do it, that's even better, of course.) The problem with otherkin.net as I see it is, there are no known credentials of the person who edits it or the people who supply the essays. Some of us consider it a reputable source, some of us do not. Even as a collection of information from different people, I'm still skeptical of it. The editor can pick and chose which essays to publish, and thus advance one particular POV. If we had a lot of similiar sources, it might be possible to pick through them to try to assemble a "neutral" picture of what Otherkin is about, but I'd still consider that a dicey proposition at best. Friday (talk) 21:55, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

The problem of using "just some guy"'s page as a supposed source is it's no different from if the person came here and tried to post it. The person is no more reliable as a source of original research if he starts up his own page before coming here instead of coming here directly. Hell, we've had more than one editor in the conversation on this talk page talk about just making their own page somewhere else so this article can cite it. That's ridiculous. Whether you as an editor want to chalk that up as violating the no original research rule or the verifiability rule, that's fine, but the fact is it's equally bad either way. DreamGuy 08:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

If it wasn't for "just some guy"'s web pages, this article likely would not exist. Friday (talk) 16:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Is that supposed to defend your point? Agriculture 16:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Definition

In my opinion, certainly this article must define "Otherkin". This word does not appear in any dictionary I've ever been able to find. So, thinking of the reader, certainly it's proper for the article to begin with some kind of definition of the term, as it currently does. If (as appears to be the case) there's no firm definition of the term, the article should make this clear to the reader. I think we all need to consider the topic from the perspective of an outside reader who has no prior knowledge of the subject. At one time there was talk of making a Non-human identity subculture article to cover all the bases, but it's not our job as editors to invent a new umbrella term that does not already exist. Friday (talk) 21:13, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm of the view that roughly the definition is along the lines of "Otherkin: this is the word used by the otherkin community to refer to themselves." After all, that is what it is-- a neologism invented by them. This is an encyclopaedia, not a dictionary. The Otherkin article is about the otherkin community, the otherkin people. It's not a dictionary definition. And if it were it could definitely not remain a valid, undeleted article. It just couldn't meet any standards. 71.248.221.76 22:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, this is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary—and that in no way implies that we can't define any words in the encyclopedia. In fact, you'll find that almost all full-fledged Wikipedia articles take the time to carefully define unfamiliar terms in the articles concerning those terms. They even often include sections on etymology, dictionary staples. Wikipedia not being a dictionary doesn't mean that we can't define terminology when doing so would benefit our readers, it means that we can't only (or largely) do that. -Silence 22:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Controversial text

I've added text to the article which is similar to some coming from Vampire lifestyle. It's fairly controversial but as undeniably factual as it's use the aforementioned article. Agriculture 14:23, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but unsourced information is not undeniably factual, even if taken from another article. It also uses weasel words. "many outside this group view"? Who? The claim needs to be sourced. Jarandhel (talk) 14:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Who? Mainstream America. It's not unsourced, conduct a poll yourself. Go to random people on the street and say "I believe I'm a magical animal!" see what happens. Mainstream media (CSI for example) has covered public reaction. It's notable, and I'll fight for it's inclusion so long as it remains on the Vampire article. What is notable there, is notable here. Besides if you want only concrete sources, we need to delete the whole fucking article as your sources are invalid. Agriculture 15:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Conducting a poll would be original research. The fact that you need to conduct a poll to support it shows that it's unsourced. CSI is fiction, it can't "cover" public reaction; it portrays a fictional public reaction. And no, the sources I've used are appropriate to the claims that are being made; you have made claims with no sourcing whatsoever. And if need be, I'll simply take the argument to the vampire article and get it removed there, as the exact same problem applies. Jarandhel (talk) 15:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

"Conducting a poll would be original research. The fact that you need to conduct a poll..." <-- Your mistake there, Jerremiah, though, is that you don't need to conduct a poll; thus the statement is flawed. D. G. 05:20, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

By definition what applies to Vampires applies here as they are "otherkin" as well. Every source you cite is OR. Blogs and message boards are not valid sources. Neither are teenage web pages. Does Alex Chiu's theories deserve a page claiming they are credible? How about The Time Cube? These sites are cited only as examples of the crackpot theory not to support the claims of the crackpots making this shit up. Otherkin is no more credible. Just because it's on the internet doesn't make it true. Agriculture 15:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

The point is not to determine if the beliefs are credible, any more than an article on paganism would be about determining if those beliefs are true or not. The point of this article is to write about the subculture who believe it; and that is easily verifiable by their own words. I'm sorry, but your argument just doesn't hold water. Jarandhel (talk) 15:22, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually my argument does hold water Jarrie. By your standard any crackpot with a webpage deserves a Wikipedia entry for his personal delusion. I'm sorry but no. This is Wikipedia, not Facebook. Agriculture 15:24, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

It's not credibility that matters. Wikipedia does not hold an opinion on credibility. It's verifiability (that they make certain claims, not that those claims are true) and notability, and the AFD shows that people think otherkin have enough of those. Your statement needs a source. ~~ N (t/c) 15:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Same thing, a source or belief which isn't credible is by definition unverifiable. The statements on this article are unverifiable beyond the blogs, message boards, and personal web sites of a handful of kids who profess these "beliefs". It's OR and has no place here. The AFD just says people (and I note a lot of them are Otherkin fanboys) think there should be an article, it says nothing about the credibility of the sources. Agriculture 15:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Now you say it's from a WP article. You mean the vampire lifestyle one? The claim on that page is about vampire-lifestylers, not about otherkin. You can't copy the wording from a page about a different subject and call that a source. (I am also inquiring on Talk:Vampire lifestyle if the claim in that article is sourced.) You say it's on the Internet - then find a site! You call otherkin "alleged bunny rabbits" - please refrain from ad hominems. ~~ N (t/c) 16:21, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I happen to agree that personal websites don't count for much when it comes to verifiability. But, the Afd consensus was clear: reputable sources or not, the article stays. Certainly we can make an effort to replace bad sources with good ones, though. It's not about determining whether the beliefs are true- that's obviously way outside our scope here. So far we can't even determine whether a given website accurately summarizes the beliefs of Otherkin, or whether it's all just the personal view of the site owner. So yes, we do have a verifiability problem, IMO. Friday (talk) 16:24, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

We still have plenty of verifiability problems. The vote was not on whether everything in the article should stay as is, it was whether it should be removed completely and totally under the idea that it wsa 100% unverifiable. It's not 100% unverifiable, because we can verify that there is a small group of people who identify themselves this way. A good portion of the claims they make about themselves, as well as how common each belief is within the subculture is and which ones are accepted by mainstream otherkins (kind of an oxymoron there), are all largely unverifiable following Wikipedia standards. Just because poeple voted not to toss 100% of everything out does not mean that 100% of everything stays, or even that we don't need to toss out 90% of what's here out. The deletion vote wsa on a very narrow topic and we should not confuse ourselves over what the consensus there meant. DreamGuy 08:15, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Possible published source?

The recently published book, "Not in Kansas Anymore: A Curious Tale of How Magic is Transforming America" by Christine Wicker discusses Otherkin, according to this review. The author is an experienced newspaper reporter, and the publisher, HarperSanFrancisco, is mainstream, so it should be a reputable source. Might be worth checking out! FreplySpang (talk) 15:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Several published sources have already been added by me in the past few days; I've linked to online copies of an article on otherkin published in PagaNet News, a pagan print magazine, and also to an online copy (from print.google.com) of Willow Polson's book, published by Citadel Press (a division of Kensington Publishing Corp) with section mentioning the otherkin community. I've also linked it to the online copy of a schedule of a college seminar which included critical mention of otherkin, which seems a fairly credible source that the subculture actually exists. Jarandhel (talk) 15:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I feel that actual, published books count for much much more than someone's web site, so I'm glad to hear it. I'm not saying a book is automatically more accurate, but it is more credible. A peer-reviewed paper would be the ultimate, but that may well be asking for too much. Friday (talk) 16:27, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

You should note, then, that two of the published sources refer directly back to otherkin.net and rialian.com; the village voice article, and the paganet news article. Veils Edge, the book by Willow Polson, also refers to Rialian the owner of Rialian.com. If you're willing to accept these printed sources as credible, would that credibility not also extend to the sites they endorse as credible primary sources on the community they describe? Jarandhel (talk) 16:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Using a personal website as a primary source in order to create the book (the secondary source) is fine. Wikipedia is not meant to be a secondary source created in this fashion. Using someone else's secondary source is fine. Really, I don't know why you're so set on convincing people that particular personal websites are reputable sources- if better sources are available, let's use them! Friday (talk) 16:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Friday, the rules on Original Research on Wikipedia say that Wikipedia is not meant to be a PRIMARY source. It is by nature a secondary source, and they all say that we are allowed to cite primary sources so long as we make only descriptive claims, which is what this article is all about. I referred to the relevant portions of the WP:NOR policy previously on this talk page. Jarandhel (talk) 17:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

WP is not a primary or secondary source. It's meant to use primary and secondary sources. Secondary sources are generally better, IMO. Friday (talk) 18:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but on the WP:NOR page it clearly says some articles can be written using only primary sources. By definition, such articles would make wikipedia a secondary source. You clearly want to make wikipedia solely be a tertiary source, but that is not policy. Jarandhel (talk) 18:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think this is what Friday is saying or wants at all. Secondary sources are preferred, especially when primary sources are of dubious value. android79 19:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

(Edit conflict- Yeah, what Android just said.) Articles can be written using only primary sources, yes. But, this is rare. In general, it's harder and less desirable. Anyway, Wikipedia is a "third source"; it's meant to use primary and secondary sources, as I said. This is not my desire, it's fundamental- it's what makes WP source-based research, rather than original research. Friday (talk) 19:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think you've read Wikipedia:Reliable_sources very thoroughly. What you're describing as a third source is the definition of a secondary source given there. "A secondary source summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources. A tertiary source usually summarizes secondary sources." And we're not talking about writing this article ONLY with primary sources; we've used several secondary sources already and have also referred back to primary sources to flesh it out beyond a stub. That IS source-based research, rather than original research. To quote WP:NOR once again, "Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged. In fact, all articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research," it is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." Jarandhel (talk) 19:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Isn't it obvious? He is Rialian the owner of Rialian.com Agriculture 17:01, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Nice try, thanks for playing, but I've already linked to [my own website] once on this talk page. There are pictures of [me] on Ri's site, though, if you look for them. Not to mention that I'm 24, while [Rialian] (being the owner of the elven realities webring I've mentioned before on this talk page) is 35. You're not very good at this, you know... Jarandhel (talk) 17:22, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

The guy who thinks he is secretly a bunny rabbit is insulting me. Wow. Agriculture 17:26, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

And vice versa. Come on. Do better than him. ~~ N (t/c) 20:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Regarding primary vs. secondary sources, original research, etc.: everyone participating in this discussion should read or re-read Wikipedia:Reliable sources, specifically the parts about personal websites. android79 17:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources guideline is less relevant than the WP:NOR policy, which says: "For non-academic subjects, it is impossible to pin down a clear definition of "reputable". In general, most of us have a good intuition about the meaning of the word. A magazine or press release self-published by a very extreme political or religious group would often not be regarded as "reputable". For example, Wikipedia would not rely only on an article in a Socialist Workers' Party magazine to publish a statement about President Bush being gay. However, if that same claim was in The New York Times, then Wikipedia could refer to the article (and to the sources quoted in the article). The political magazine could, however, be used as a source of information about the party itself." The nature of the claims being made is the question; the websites claim to represent what their own subculture believes, it is not inappropriate to cite them as primary sources on their subculture's own beliefs. Jarandhel (talk) 17:49, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Android hit the nail on the head here. From Wikipedia:Reliable sources, A personal website or blog may be used only as a primary source i.e. when we are writing about the subject or owner of the website. But even then we should proceed with great caution and should avoid relying on information from the website as a sole source. This is particularly true when the subject is controversial, or has no professional or academic standing. To me, this is a great explanation of why otherkin.net is not a reliable source. If the article was about the website, that's one thing. But it's about Otherkin, which isn't the same thing. Friday (talk) 18:43, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

It also says: "Widely acknowledged extremist political or religious websites — for example, Stormfront.org, Hamas, or the Socialist Workers' Party — should never be used as sources for Wikipedia, except as primary sources i.e. in articles discussing the opinions of that organization or the opinions of a larger like-minded group". I think the otherkin subculture counts as the larger like-minded group in that example. Jarandhel (talk) 19:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Write an article about otherkin.net instead of about Otherkin, and you're exactly right. This point has been brought up several times before. Friday (talk) 19:08, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

What part of "larger like-minded groups" (ie, the subculture itself) would necessitate the article being about otherkin.net? You're not being logical here. Jarandhel (talk) 19:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Agree. You seem to make sense, mostly - except that otherkin are not a unified group and no one site, clearly, can present "the otherkin view". ~~ N (t/c) 20:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I agree. No one site can. I just don't agree that means we can't use any sites as sources at all, any more than the fact that no one book on wicca can represent "the wiccan view", or no one source on furries can represent "the furry view" mean that we cannot reference wiccan or furry websites in the articles on them. Look at those articles, please, the precedent is clearly there. Jarandhel (talk) 21:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Reverts

This is getting ridiculous. There is NO basis for describing Clinical Lycanthropy that broadly, the description is "a delusional belief that the affected person is or have transformed into an animal", not some nebulous "or are otherwise nonhuman in some way". This is a purposeful attempt to describe Clinical Lycanthropy in a way that more closely equates it with otherkin beliefs than its actual definition. The addition of "or some other mental disorder" is also nebulous, unsourced POV. It is inappropriate for an encyclopedic article.

Finally, the quote by an otherkin on the subject of Clinical Lycanthropy is highly relevant; it clearly states the otherkin opinion of Clinical Lycanthropy and whether or not it applies to their community. That article has also been included (through mirroring) in a major Otherkin resource site: the Draconity Resource Project, which has itself been cited elsewhere in this article for information on the neologism trans-speciesism used by the Otherkin community. Jarandhel (talk) 23:16, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

"Otherkin" are not qualified to diagnose their mental state as they are typically not mental health professionals. Agriculture 05:25, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

"Human beings" are not qualified to diagnose their mental state as they are typically not mental heBold textalth professionals. -Silence 05:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Which means nothing so ever. Thank you ever so much for adding your heap of useless to this conversation. The point is just because some Otherkin site says "We don't have CL", it doesn't mean they don't. Agriculture 05:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

For the umpteen zillionth time, User:Jarandhel, you can't simply declare to know what clinical lycanthropy is and to declare that it's only for peole who think they physically transform, because that's not what the article here says it is and that's simply not right anyway. The statement about it not just being clinical lycanthropy but other mental disorders is not POV, it's simply a statement of fact... It was agreed upon by other editors earlier as being objective and straight from the scholarly source cites (which again I'll remind you is the only source for this entire article which meets standard reliability guidelines for sources instead of grabbing whatever we can to have something or another to document this fringe belief). On of the other disorders is, of course, schizotypy, which the pro-Otherkin editors who edited this article months back agreed was a standard diagnosis so much so that they mentioned it and cited it but then argued against it (which was removed as blatantly POV and original research). Similarly you can't quote just some guy (I'm sorry, just some fantasy creature trapped in a guy's body) in some statement that is worded incomprehensibly (I swear, was the guy -- oops, creature -- on drugs when he typed that? it makes no sense) as if it has any purpose whatsoever to be in an encyclopedia. That's about the most clear cut example of a worthlessly unreliable source as you can have. DreamGuy 08:06, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

It's a plain-text reading of the articles on clinical_lycanthropy. Clinical lycanthropy is defined as "a delusional belief that one is or has transformed into an animal". NOT that one has transformed into an animal "or is otherwise nonhuman in some way". You are purposely over-generalizing to make it seem like there is more of a connection between clinical lycanthropy and otherkin beliefs than can actually be supported. THAT is POV.

It is also not original research to note that the claim being made by those with CL is physical transformation. For one, the definition of delusion involves claims made about EXTERNAL reality, not about the mind or soul. For another, the entire article on clinical lycanthropy speaks of people feeling that they have transformed into animals, it speaks about the affected people feeling that their bodies are changing and showing unusual activity in the parts of the brain known to be representing body shape. Show us a source that says Clinical Lycanthropy involves delusional beliefs that one is an animal or nonhuman in a way OTHER than physical!

And the claim that CL is related to Otherkin is OR as well; you have no mental health professionals making that claim, ALL you have is your claim that they by definition overlap and that it's common sense to view them as related. Sorry, but ONLY a mental health professional can determine that kind of relationship unless we're also prepared to let wikipedia editors expound on the "obvious relationship" between Medium_(spirituality) and either MPD or schizophrenia. If we're going to mention CL at all, the claims of both sides need to be made clear, as does the fact that NO mental health professionals have yet done a study on otherkin so the claims on *both* sides are being made by people who are not professionally qualified to do so.

As for the statement about "or other disorders", I'm sorry but it's not a fact. It's a misreading. The statement from the source on Clinical Lycanthropy says that it is "an idiosyncratic expression of a psychotic-episode caused by another condition such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder or clinical depression". That does not mean they have been diagnosed with additional disorders, it means that clinical lycanthropy is itself a symptom rather than an ultimate diagnosis. The CL article specifically says "The authors go on to note that although the condition seems to be an expression of psychosis there is no specific diagnosis of mental or neurological illness associated with its behavioural consequences".

The "pro-otherkin" editors months back did not agree that schizotypy was a "standard diagnosis". User:Vashti has kept an archive of that version of this article, and what it said was "It has been suggested that otherkin may be suffering from schizotypal personality disorder or clinical lycanthropy." It never said anything about professional diagnosis, and also noted that it has become a common suggestion made against many religious groups including Catholics and Christian Fundamentalists.

Finally, nothing about the statement that Orion made was incomprehensible. I'm sorry you don't seem capable of understanding it. It made very clear what the otherkin position on whether or not their beliefs are related to clinical lycanthropy is; and as both claims are being made by lay-persons rather than professionals, both sides should be represented if either is going to be. Jarandhel (talk) 17:56, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Your argument seems to rest on the idea that spiritual and other internal beliefs cannot be classified as delusions. I ask once again, what about the otherkin that have external beliefs? The article, as taken from several sources, does refer to otherkin with biological beliefs. These constitute physical beliefs that can qualify for delusions. As long as there are some claims that some otherkin that have biological components to their beliefs, then there is the possibility of a connection of some of these to CL. The spiritualism/internal belief defense may work for some kinds of otherkin, but does not work for other kinds unless the term otherkin can be shown to exclude those people.

A lot of your points look to me like they have the tone that they are trying to stop CL from being applied to every person that falls under the otherkin term. I don’t think CL can even come close to applying to all such people, but it seems like it could apply to some, and that is all that I think was meant by the original mentioning of it.AtomicDragon 09:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, my argument rests on the fact that no professionals have made studies of the otherkin community, let alone suggested that otherkin beliefs are connected with clinical lycanthropy in any way. DreamGuy claims that, by definition, the otherkin belief system and clinical lycanthropy are related. I contend only that wikipedia editors are not qualified to assert such a relationship, and that in the absence of a professional making such a claim which can be cited, that claim is unencyclopedic. It is an extrapolation built on his own understanding of clinical lycanthropy, a personal theory that there is a relationship, nothing more.

DreamGuy brought the argument back to whether or not CL involves beliefs in physical transformation, and sadly I let myself get sidetracked to again refute his claims that it does not. If you look back at the statement that I originally made in this section, I was not arguing that the definition of clinical lycanthropy should be written to include mention of physical beliefs, I was arguing that it should not be written so broadly as "believe they have transformed into animals or are otherwise nonhuman in some way". That is not the definition of clinical lycanthropy as given in the article on clinical lycanthropy, it is the definition of otherkin and it has been used in this article as if the two are synonymous; presumably to reinforce the idea that they are connected. That is not NPOV, and needs to be removed. Secondly, as the claims of a connection between CL and otherkin currently being made are made by laymen only (some people on kuro5hin.org and DreamGuy) either the claims of lay otherkin on the subject should be included or the entire section should be removed. I'd prefer to see the latter happen, but am prepared to accept the former as a compromise. Allowing only lay-persons with a critical opinion to have a say is clearly unacceptable.

As for your thoughts on my tone: I really don't need to prevent CL from being applied to every person that falls under the otherkin term. For one thing, no psychologist has ever publicly claimed that otherkin beliefs and CL are connected in any way. For another, common sense should show the public that no members of the otherkin subculture are likely to have CL; the symptoms involved don't exactly lend themselves to the formation of an internet subculture. And the topic of this article remains the internet subculture by that name; not the broader usage of the term popular in that culture meaning anyone at all who believes themselves to be nonhuman in some way.

The question involved here isn't "is this article likely to hurt the image of the otherkin subculture"... if that was my concern, I'd hardly have included information on an actual college course that calls it "nonsense in the news". The question is accuracy and neutrality, not to mention the reputation of wikipedia for being unbiased. Allowing information on CL to be included because one (or more) editor(s) have a theory that they may be connected, when no professional in the field has made such a claim, can only hurt that reputation. Jarandhel (talk) 16:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

This statement: "The "pro-otherkin" editors months back did not agree that schizotypy was a "standard diagnosis". User:Vashti has kept an archive of that version of this article" is pointless, as that was not the version from months ago I was talking about, but rather a version from back before Vashti was here. If you look at answers.com, which repurposes Wikipedia.com content, the version they had there when I last checked had schizotypy listed as agreed upon as a diagnosis, as do some of the other sites that discuss it. It's from several months back now.

And if you think what the total freak said about clinical lycanthropy you were quoting made sense, it probably has more to do with you being so far into the movement that you understand catch phrases and can anticipate what he's trying to say, but as it was written it was completely garbled and rambling.

And this is also nonsense: and as both claims are being made by lay-persons rather than professionals -- Professionals made the criteria for Clinical Lycanthropy, that's what's being discussed, not the claim that all of them are crazy or whatever. We absolutely do not need laypersons talking out of their ass here, even if it happens to be some doofus on some website you like. DreamGuy 03:53, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Answers.com says "the most common disorders quoted", actually, not the most common diagnosis. And from the context, it's clear that they are quoted by lay-persons. "These unusual beliefs have led to frequent suggestions from both within and without the otherkin community that its members are mentally ill." There are mention of otherkin who have been diagnosed with things, but no mention of particular diagnosis were made, nor was a connection drawn between their beliefs and the diagnosis. Nor were there any cited claims by medical professionals that such beliefs are themselves signs of any disorders.

Professionals did make the criteria for clinical lycanthropy; however, a professional is not claiming that the criteria and the otherkin belief overlap or are related in any way. You, and some anonymous internet users commenting on kuro5hin.org are the ones putting forward that theory. I also note that though you keep removing the claims made by a lay-person who is an otherkin, you clearly have no problems with the claims made by those on Kuro5hin being included even though they too are lay-persons, since you haven't touched that source. Jarandhel (talk) 16:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Only reliable sources?

It seems like we're never going to stop disagreeing, and a recurring issue is reliable sources. We all have to realize- if a source says things you agree with, this does not make it "reliable". We're going for verifiability, not truth. Honestly, a quote from an Otherkin guy who has no known credentials or reputation cannot seriously be taken as authoritative. Can we all agree to use only reliable sources, as explained in Wikipedia:Reliable sources?

To me, this guideline makes things pretty clear: Under "Using online sources", it explains very well why all websites are not created equal. Here's a relevant bit: Publications with teams of fact-checkers, reporters, editors, lawyers, and managers — like the New York Times or The Times of London — are likely to be reliable, and are regarded as reputable sources for the purposes of Wikipedia. At the other end of the reliability scale lie personal websites, weblogs (blogs), bulletin boards, and Usenet posts, which are not acceptable as sources.

To me, otherkin.net surely looks like a personal website. Yes, I know that multiple authorship is claimed, but this isn't enough. I could have my friends write essays and put them on my website, and it's still my own personal website.

For otherkin.net, we have no evidence that there are legitimate reporters, fact checkers, etc involved in it. The WHOIS record shows ownership by "Otherkin Network, T Windtree, PO Box 593", etc. Presuambly "T Windtree" is a person's alias. Yes, "Otherkin Network" sounds like it's trying to sound like an organization, but is there any evidence that such an organization exists outside of otherkin.net? None that I've seen. The website itself does not claim ownership by any established organization, that I've seen. The pages just say "Copyright Otherkin.net". I don't know how it could be any more clearly a "personal website", unless perhaps every page had "This site belongs to Gary" plastered all over it.

I'm not saying we should instantly rip out the stuff from unreliable sources. But, since better sources are apparently available, we should agree to not use personal websites as sources, and replace them with reliable sources as soon as we can. Also, we should stop adding new information, if it's supported only by an unreliable source. Is this acceptable to everyone? If we cannot come to agreeement on what sources are reliable, I think we're just going to have the same arguments over and over. Friday (talk) 17:44, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, T Windtree is short for Tirl Windtree, which is a person's alias. He started it, and he maintains the technical side of it, with occasional contributions to the content. I think, though, you miss the distinction between a personal website and a community website. It's a simple fact that Otherkin.net has been contributed to by a wide range of people in the community. It's also a simple fact that the print sources agree that Otherkin.net is an authoritative source on the subject of otherkin. You're also not making a distinction between the nature of the claims being made. The sites being referenced are appropriate sources for the claims being made; they are products of the subculture that is being written about, which is itself an INTERNET SUBCULTURE. I'll point out that the article on filk primarily references personal websites, as does the section of the article on shapeshifting referring to transformation enthusiasts. This is because they too are examples of internet subcultures with little representation outside of the internet. Yet they are considered authoritative sources on themselves. Likewise the entire article on the Furry_fandom. Realistically, if we trim out the websites, we're not going to be left with very much. The book by Willow Polson is on another subject, with a brief aside on otherkin in one chapter. The Village Voice article focuses on otherkin, but puts in a great deal of personal interpretation that makes the otherkin subculture sound like a modern luddite movement with "anti-modern" sentiment, when a large number of otherkin make their living in the IT field and even those who don't are often geeks to one degree or another, as could be expected of an internet subculture. That leaves us with Michelle Belanger's article as the primary source on this. And she gives a brief overview which points back to the exact same websites you claim are "just personal websites". As does the Village Voice article for that matter. If you're not willing to accept that these websites are community websites and representative of the subculture rather than "just some guy's personal website", then it seems like you are arguing that the articles based on them cannot be valid sources either. I don't see how you can reasonably have it both ways. Jarandhel (talk) 18:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Can we actually draw a line though? Quite frequently the two extremes get mentioned, major journals/newspapers and personal websites. And as the policy mentions, this is a spectrum. So how exactly can we specify where the line is between it being a personal website with a collections essays to say a person running a small, specialized news-like service collecting articles from people they know? My own opinion on it is that there is still a reasonable amount of information that is consistent between several sites, even if there is potential bias, so is it possible to use the information but with a better labeling of its questionability or potential bias? For example, something along the lines of, "One self-labeled otherkin community makes the claims that..." with maybe some better flowing words.AtomicDragon 09:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

This is a spurious argument: "print sources agree that Otherkin.net is an authoritative source on the subject of otherkin." as what some print sources here and there choose to use as their own references (and quite obviously out of desperation for some better resource) in no way validates them as sources for an encyclopedia. If this argument were true than we could start filling up the Ancient Egypt articles with the claims that their mythical gods were actually encoded references to microscopic proteins, as I've seen occasional print sources refer to people with such bizarre unauthoritative claims as if they were experts, when they obviously are not. DreamGuy 03:39, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it is not just some print sources here and there; every print source so far who has written on the topic of the otherkin subculture itself, rather than including it as a brief mention in a larger work, has referred to Otherkin.net and Rialian.com as prominent sites within the subculture, and reliable sources for more information. Your argument is also illogical; the claims being made are entirely different. Your example concerning microscopic proteins and egyptian myth would obviously need professionals in both the fields of egyptology and microbiology to answer. In this instance, though, the claims are being made about a subculture in which these people have participated for years and are prominent members, contributing to sites written both for and about that subculture by members of the subculture. It is reasonable to expect them to be able to answer questions on the subculture itself. That is why they are acceptable sources. Jarandhel (talk) 16:09, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Templates

I can see the reasons for templates 1 and 3 (totallydisputed and controversial3). I'm a little confused, though, about template 2, the one that says this article reads like an advertisement. Considering I (a "pro-otherkin editor", given that I am part of that subculture) have inserted the two most solidly anti-otherkin sources in the whole thing (a college seminar on critical thinking referring to the otherkin belief as an example of "nonsense in the news" and comments in an article on kuro5hin.org that actually accuse otherkin and clinical lycanthropes of being the same thing or related) I have to ask; what would be necessary to include in this article (or take out) in order for it NOT to read like an advertisement in your view? Because I'm really not seeing what makes it an advertisement to describe the subculture's professed beliefs. Jarandhel (talk) 18:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

NPOV Violation

This article is absurdly biased towards the Otherkin, who, in my opinion, are morons. I will state that this is a obviously false concept. The entire concept is based on elves, and other fantasy races out of Tolkein. They don't exist. That's the simple problem with it;the entire concept is based on things that don't exist. Pages like this cause articles to appear in newspapers decrying Wikipedia as a failed experiment. It is, if this is hight quality....RPGLand2000 00:49, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• "This article is absurdly biased towards the Otherkin, who, in my opinion, are morons." - Whenever a comment begins like this, you know that absurd bias has met its match! Watch out, POV warriors!
• Wikipedia's job is not to say "this belief is right" or "this belief is wrong", it's to record noteworthy beliefs. That's what encyclopedias do (among other things). I'd argue that the "Otherkin" belief is little more ridiculous than Christianity, Buddhism, or Wicca, and significantly less ridiculous than Scientology, etc. If we're going to eliminate all absurd, unsubstantiated, unfalsifiable, and self-indulgently blind-to-the-world beliefs from from Wikipedia, we'll have to cut out tens of thousands of articles, including our entire religion coverage. And that wouldn't do anyone any good; better to have articles like this so that people can understand these bizarre concepts and beliefs. If the article's biased, fix it by removing and enhancing POVed statements and bringing it more in line with any other unsubstantiated spiritual belief. Just don't act like this belief is anything special. It's not. I fail to see a huge credibility gap between elves and deities. -Silence 03:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

RPGLand, you do know that the concept of elves and other mythical beasts existed long before Tolkein was even born, don't you? Tom 08:50, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, not in the form they're almost universally understood today. Elves were more often little goblins, not mystical, enchanted forest beings of unearthly beauty, pre-Tolkien. So he's right that the entire high fantasy common conception of elves, and numerous other fantastic creatures, derives almost directly from Tolkien's works; it's almost like much of the fantasy writing of the last few decades has been fanfiction. Also, relying on a single author's conceptions, terminology and races has led to a lot of stagnation in much of the fantasy genre; drawing from a single person's work rather than directly from thousands of years of worldwide cultural mythology is taking its toll. So his criticism of that notion in general is valid, although he failed to provide any real reasoning for his criticism. It's just that, again, Otherkin isn't special in having a lot of Tolkienesque imagery, and is far less reliant on the Middle-Earth books than many modern games and series and communities. So it's a waste of energy to focus attacks here. -Silence 09:11, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

That's very true but most of the otherkin (at least in my experience) identify as more classical creatures than modern-fictional creatures. I've also heard it suggested that Tolkeins notion of elves etc. are something of an archetype which is why they are so successful. Tom 09:35, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

IMO the Otherkin belief system is much more comparable to say, Past life regression than to most religions. But, really, talk pages are meant for talking about the article, not about the subject of the article. If there are NPOV problems, give us specifics. You can tag a part of the article as being questionable, or (perhaps better yet) quote the relevant sections here and tell us why they're nont neutral. Friday (talk) 14:33, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• whenever somebody invokes "Tolkein", you know that an erudite dialogue is to follow :) That said, the article is not very strong on academic references. There is, after all, clinical lycanthropy, and "otherkin" may be the identical phenomenon, described not medically but culturally. The problem is that as soon as it becomes a subculture, lots of people will "tag along" because they consider it cool, and not because they suffer from the medical condition at all. Until we have a psychological monograph discussing the phenomenon, we can safely chalk this up as Category:Internet culture. It may be a notable internet culture phenomenon, but it's still not "serious" in the sense that a religion or a clinical condition is serious. dab (ᛏ) 11:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Similar article needing help

Well, it was a long, rough fight, but this article is a lot more NPOV than it used to be, though it still has issues. Anyone who helped out though might be interested in checking out the Vampire lifestyle article... It used to be an article about how people dressed up as vampires for fun, and the people who really believeed they were vampires took over, making a lot of involved claims mostly without any sort of reality check or skeptical viewpoint. The actual lystyler section has been whittled down to almost nothing, just a bit where the vampires heap scorn on the lifestylers for just playing dress up. The discussion on talk is also trying to change the name of the article away from lifestyler to something else, thus destroying the original purpose of the article and erasing the history there. We could use a team of people who are used to debating these kinds of issues to move in and be bold to salvage the page. DreamGuy 14:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality is Suspected

This page still says it's neutrality is suspected. Is this still the case? I see the discussions have died down about the page. If there are still problems, what are they, and how can they be addressed to everyone's satisfaction? If not, then can we remove the glaring sticker on the article saying that there is a debate over the neutrality of the article? The Crisses 12:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I've removed it for now, since there's not really activie discussion or a list of specific issues. Friday (talk) 00:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

Gimmiet, please provide justification for your removal of content from the article. android79 15:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

the material removed is to far into "left" or "right", whichever you xhgoose to be the anti otberkin side, besides, a mnor mention in a university course about other things doesnt seem noteworthey.Gimmiet 15:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The material was in the Reaction section, which may include criticism. It's perfectly valid; the concept of Otherkin is obscure and minor enough that discussion as part of a university course is noteworthy. You also removed some categories; what about those? android79 15:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

a minor mention in as unitevity course about somethnig so differnt and, well derogatory, is not worth mentioning. as forthe categories, its noyt stritly a religion, and new age does not apply at all.Gimmiet 15:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

It is, indeed, a minor mention, but I don't know what you mean about "somethnig so differnt". It's a course on irrational beliefs, and most criticism of Otherkin involves the idea that such beliefs are irrational. I don't see it as derogatory.

As for the categories, I'll agree that Category:New religious movements may not be appropriate, but a cursory Google search indicates that there is some overlap between the New Age and Otherkin communities. android79 16:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Otherkin has overlaps with a lot ofthings, but its not, in my opinion, significant enough to mnerit a categorization.

would you appreciate it very much if people called your path irrational or worse? prolly not... hence, its a derogatory mention...Gimmiet 16:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, all we have against the inclusion of that category is your opinion. I've attempted to back up my claims with a bit of (admittedly quick-and-dirty) research.

"Irrational" is not derogatory. It means contrary to rational thought, or contrary to reason and science. In the sense you describe, belief that one is an Otherkin stems from faith, which is, by definition, not grounded in rationality. android79 16:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

back when in ages past the earth was thougth to be flat, saying it was round was irrational. back before copernicus, saying the earth was notthe center of all things was also irrational. that doesnt mean it was true.Gimmiet 16:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Once again, you are misunderstanding the definition of "irrational". Saying the world is round and not at the center of the universe is based on science and reason - rationality - regardless of the popular belief at the time.

Since you've reverted this article twice, I'd be fully justified giving you a week-long timeout per your ArbCom case. Consider this your last warning. android79 16:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Please note that I have reverted the removal of the Wooster reference to the pre-revert war version. I have no strong belief either way on this change, but it is not mentioned whatsoever as being an issue on this talk page. If there is broad consensus that the Wooster reference is not worth including, please reach such agreement first, and remove the reference second. Please do not revert war. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The Wooster reference was reverted again. The remains no discussion about this removal. Please discuss any disputed information on talk if there is disagreement, and reach a consensus, or engage in WP:DR to gain more views. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I thought this was probably the best reference in the whole article, and should stay. It's one of the few things that indicates that this is more than just an obscure internet phenomenon that nobody outside the community is aware of. Friday (talk) 16:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

In all fairness, that's not how the refernce was used. If the reason to include the wooster reference is "look! It exists," it should go in the intro, and should read something like "The subculture has gained some level of notability. In a 2002 blah blah blah blah" Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

True. I still don't see that it's a bad reference tho, and it seems to be used in a reasonable way. Friday (talk) 17:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I put the reference back also. Yes, this particular course sounds like it's critical of otherkin, but that's ok. It's entirely proper and normal to use sources from more than one side of an issue. Friday (talk) 17:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Pov check and NOR

POV check

Just looking for opinions on POV

NOR

The follwing statements appear to be OR or badly/unsourced. It's pretty thick. I won't start hitting the {{fact}} up just yet, but it's bad. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The word is an Internet-derived neologism primarily used by members of that subculture and is somewhat fluid in definition, sometimes being broadened to also describe those who consider themselves to be animals, aliens, extradimensional beings, and other non-human entities.

Some claim that they are human in a physical sense but non-human ("other") in a mental or spiritual one.[5] Many otherkin attribute this discrepancy to reincarnation or a "misplaced" soul.

There are also otherkin who believe themselves to be biologically non-human. These otherkin consider themselves to be physically members of the species they associate themselves with, or at least directly descended from the species through intermarriage with humanity. This belief is rarer within the subculture and sometimes the subject of criticism from otherkin who do not share it. Some otherkin who do not necessarily claim that they are genetically non-human do profess to have non-human sides that have somehow influenced their physical bodies.

It was originally coined when it became clear that a new subculture of people identifying themselves as a number of different mythological creatures, such as fairies, unicorns, and satyrs, and not just as elves, was emerging.[10]

Many otherkin, however, stress the difference they see between pretending to be a non-human and actually believing oneself to be non-human. [16]

There are older beliefs concerning non-human ancestory which considerably predate the otherkin subculture. There are families in Orkney that have long claimed to have selkie ancestors, and many clans (especially royal families) throughout the world had a claim to a divine or otherwise non-human ancestor. Similar beliefs are found in some traditional Native American tribes.

Although the otherkin community is a diverse and loosely-defined one and lacks an explicit ideology, some beliefs are especially common. Otherkin tend to have a number of New Age sensibilities and to be very open to supernatural concepts, particularly belief in the soul or spirit. Other common beliefs in the otherkin community include animism, Neo-Paganism, totemism, possession, reincarnation, and other paranormal events. However, just as some otherkin believe that they are physically non-human and some don't, not all otherkin believe in the literal existence of these concepts.

Some hold these beliefs not as a search for the truth, but as a way to help understand and explore themselves. Indeed, as the community has expanded and become more self-analytical in recent years, a number of otherkin have begun explaining their association with non-human imagery as nothing but an exercise to help become in touch with their "true selves".

Some otherkin claim to be combinations of different non-human species, such as elf-werewolf or dragon-cat hybrids. Others believe that they are able to mentally or astrally change between different types of nonhuman beings or even that all otherkin are capable of this.

Despite the general conviction in the community that otherkin are born, not made, there is no clear definition of what constitutes "otherness." One effect of this is that anyone who asserts mainstream otherkin status is very unlikely to be contradicted by the community itself, though more specific claims, or attempts to ascribe specific qualities to all otherkin, are more likely to meet opposition.

Despite the rather open nature of the subculture,

In some circles, the same term has come to refer to any grandiose claims about one's identity, particularly when they make one appear superior in some sense to the majority of people.

The otherkin subculture describes the process of beginning to identify oneself as otherkin as Awakening. The process of Awakening has been compared to that of religious revelation or religious conversion. Depending on the individual concerned, it can be either a very sudden or gradual process, and can be a pleasant, self-validating experience, or sometimes a traumatic one.

Many otherkin maintain that their perceived non-human traits are innate, not acquired. In the Awakening process, they generally believe that something is being revealed about themselves that had previously been hidden. Otherkin frequently attest to lifelong feelings of alienation or loneliness, or of homesickness for places they have never seen or cannot identify. They may claim higher levels of psychic, magical or spiritual awareness; on the other hand, some claim none of these things.

In most cases, although there may have been prior vague feelings of detachment from humanity, self-identification specifically as an otherkin is triggered by encounters with or references to otherkin. However, it is not uncommon for people to state that they awakened independently of the community or before they had ever heard of the concept of otherkin.

It is imperitive people pay attention to this section - I will begin adding {{fact}} all over the article shortly unless some of this stuff gets cited or deleted. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. android79 19:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Go to town. DreamGuy 23:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

why cut down whats there? its as accurate as it can get without going too much towards either the prsiaing or detracting side of things... why not just leave it be?Gimmiet 19:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Please review WP:NOR and WP:V. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

You can avoid it being cut down by adding references to reliable sources. android79 19:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)