Talk:Therianthropy

is there any one here veiwing this page who has seen the goofy stuff on the internet that their saying about therianthropes i saw this one that said that there is no difference between lycanthropes and therianthropes i was so pissed, and they we the kind of poeple who thought lycanthropes were actual werewolves! i was so pissed they didn't even have a chat room to bitch them out on!!!

-very angry-

yes i too am pissed.

alot of people miss interpret what a therianthrope is they don't even know what a lycanthrope is most of the time so i am here to end the confussion.

therianthrope, a personal belief were he or she believes they have the spirit of an animal inside them, they (being a therianthrope myself) undergo a mental shift Italic textNOT PHYSICAL!!!!Italic text and durring that shift they have sharp hearing accute scences and clearer vission, but i feel its unfair to us as therianthropes to not be able to do what our hearts desire for me thats run and play in the falling snow, feel my paws in the rain soaked dirt, and i can't do that because of societies expectaions of NORMAL.

Uh, the article already mentions the "animal spirit" belief and the mental shift aspect. I don't see what "confusion" it is that you're complaining about. Also, I should mention for future readers who see this discussion, the two comments above were posted only 16 minutes apart and from an identical IP address, so I suspect this is just one anon who's in violent agreement with himself. Bryan 02:28, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You don't suppose two people might share an IP address? ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 13:52, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Of course it's possible, but the coincidences pile on top of each other rather obviously in this case. Identical IP address, posts only 16 minutes apart on the same fairly obscure talk: page, both expressing the same IMO rather peculiar outrage, and both with the same idiosyncratic capitalization and bad grammar. This isn't a court of law, so that's quite enough coincidence to convince me it was just one guy. Bryan 15:59, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Dude, these people are whacked out!

honestly, who could mistake these two subjects as being the same? lycanthropy is a medical state, not a sipritual, or like the smaller number of people who believe in therianthropy,psycological state, like so many of them believe. just do a search for Therianthropy on any search engone, they will all clarify this subject much better then i can.

-Cory

your thinking of lyncanthropy as ther medical state. a common error.

Gabrielsimon 21:41, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

sorry, missed a bit...

sorry, its Cory again, just wanting to say, that being a Therianthrope, I think that the vast majority of these people out there DO NOT believe that this is only a mental shift, as is clearly stated. for gods sake people, if you want that, check the section on LYCANTHROPY, thats a completely different thing, so check that out if you need further clarification.

Totems & fakers

I have problem with the objectivity of this comment:

"However, there is a strong, though ill-defined, notion that a therianthrope is one who feels they are the animal inside, rather than having an external connection such as a totem or spirit guide, and those who claim external connections are sometimes shunned as fakers."

It seems that the issue of totem animals is more popular in some communities than others. Everyone seems to have different ideas about the popularity of certain beliefs with therians and otherkin. Personally, I have never heard of anyone being looked down upon for believing they had a totem or a spirit guide. Nor do we have to conceptualize this whole thing in the typical internal/external binary; a spirit guide or totem, though it may be an independent entity, could still be a core part of a therian's identity. Putrescent stench 20:10, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree. I've deleted this. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 04:06, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Reverts by Eequor

Eequor, please stop reverting this article. I have added factual information about the historical use of the name, as Webster's dictionary defines it, as described in the werewolf article, and as used in folklore. Having the entire article be nothing but information on a modern subculture/religious faith who believes that they have wolf (or cat or dog or whatever) souls in them would be like blanking the entire vampire article and replacing it with information about modern day fringe groups who believe that they are undead. I think it's pretty over the top for you to blindly revert the article and then label it as "attempts to insert POV material" on the requests for comment page. All I am attempting to do is get neutral information about the actual meaning of the word into the article instead of just the views of a subculture that is trying to appropriate the word to their own ends. This has nothing to do with POV. DreamGuy 07:57, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

I invite you to do a google search for sites which connect therianthropy to metamorphosis. There are very few. [1] If it cannot be verified that there is any such use of the term which predates modern usage, we need not discuss that idea at all and it would be POV to insist on its inclusion.

Also see dictionary.com, which incorporates Webster's. There is no entry for therianthropy [2], but there is an entry for theriomorphism [3], which is the term earlier used. You are welcome to start the theriomorphism article, but there is no place for that here. You might also start therianthropism if you are interested in the religious perspective. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 08:14, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Webster's 20th century unabridged dictionary copyright 1976 has "therianthropic", defined as "that combines human and animal form, as the centaur." The second Google hit on "therianthropy" is [4], which states "A Werecreature (or Were for short) is the general term for a Therianthrope." The fourth hit is [5], which is all about shapeshifting werecreatures of various forms. While none of these web links is necessarily authoritative, they certainly seem to draw enough of a connection to be worth mentioning here on Wikipedia. Bear in mind that Wikipedia articles aren't supposed to be prescriptive; we can't tell people what a particulat term should mean, we can only describe how it's being used. I think both meanings should be described here in this article. Bryan 08:30, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

To be blunt, definitions linking therianthropy to ancient mythology which are written by therianthropes are useless for establishing a definition of therianthropy. Therians will, naturally, be likely to gloss the word for similar concepts, because their expected audience would make the same connections. See Revisionism.

An essay which quotes Webster's verbatim can be found at [6]. [7] also references Webster's, again without a definition for therianthropy. It should be stressed that therianthropic generally does not refer to people crossed with animals, but to deities which are partly animal. Most of the Egyptian deities are therianthropic. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 08:52, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Eequor, but you are completely wrong. The definition of therianthropy which claims it is a spiritual sharing of an animal soul is the one that is doing the revisionism here. Therianthrope has long history in folklore meaning a man-animal generic (i.e. not just wolves) transformation. The roots of the word exactly parallel the formation of lycanthropy but replacing the part that means wolf with the prefix that means animal. Unabridged Websters has it, and it's common in folklore circles. I heard of this term used long before anyone ever got it into their head to try to use the word to mean the version you seem to want to push. It seems odd that you want to discredit online sites linking the term to man-animal transformations when your definiton wouldn't exist at all without online sites pushing it. DreamGuy 13:49, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's one of the term's other meanings - it has several. That means that Wikipedia's article should mention that there are several different meanings of the term. The hardbound copy of Websters I have open in my lap right now mentions both gods and centaurs as examples. If modern spiritual therianthropes claim the word has a particular meaning, then by all means this article should describe that meaning. But it doesn't mean that they get some sort of exclusive 'right' to it. Likewise for anyone who objects to that particular meaning of the word. Bryan 16:38, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Bryan here. I think the best solution would be two different articles, the one discussing the old meaning of therianthropy, the other the spiritual one, so everyone can edit their "own" article without interference in terms of general definition from others. --Conti|✉ 17:05, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

To clarify, the "old" meaning is also a current meaning, it's just that a modern subculture has co-opted it. Since the group in question is more common online than elsewhere, it's difficult to find online sources that have the real meaning. I would prefer the article be kept as one, with the main meaning at the top and the split meanings as sections. Splitting into two articles means purposefully trying to keep the Therianthropy (spiritual belief) article separate for the pruposes of isolating it from being updated for neutrality. For example, claims that it has nothing to do with lycanthrpopy are false, claims that none of them believe in physical shape change is wrong, even within that subculture. The article was put here by someone or some people who were clearly trying to put the best possible spin on it and denying all other views as valid. It needs updating for NPOV whether on this page or moved to a new page, as its bias should not stay no matter where it is. Better, though to keep them together. DreamGuy 02:21, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

I agree to your points to the (spiritual) theorianthropy NPOVing, I just don't see why that couldn't be done when the topic would've been on its own topic. The problem I now see is that both of you would like to have "your" topic (original meaning vs. spiritual meaning) as the main part of the article, and it would be hard to come to a consensus on that. I propose to let the original meaning stay here and move the spiritual one to Therianthropy (spiritual) (or something like that). At least I don't see a problem with NPOV when doing this. --Conti|✉ 03:38, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

The amount of information concerning the "old definition" seems very minimal, and since it is supported by dictionary definitions, I see no reason not to include it. The use of the word in any instance other than in a dictionary, though, is very uncommon. Usually, I've only seen the word compared to lycanthropy, referred to as a nonspecific term for a shapechanger, but even then, such as in Adam Doublgas' The Beast Within: A History of the Werewolf, the author usually neglects to use the word when talking later on about non-wolf shapeshifters, using the inaccurate "lycanthrope" instead. I don't see any need for separate articles, as starting with the dictionary definition and then discussing the modern subculture associated with the term seems sensible enough, and I don't think there is enough information about the use of "therianthropy" outside out of the subcultural use to justify a separate article for that. The statements, "Some people use the word lycanthropy as a synonym for therianthropy, but in truth, lycanthropy is completely unrelated to therianthropy. A lycanthrope is not a therianthrope, nor vice versa" are also biased and in fact false, at least from a purely semantic point of view. The distinctions between the dictionary definition and the subculture, and between the subculture and clinical therianthropy, are enough. The sentence about therians not believing physical shapeshifting being possible, though, is not biased. It says "many" not "all," which does not allow for the possibility that there are a few marginal cases out there of therians who believe this is possible, but go to almost any therianthropy site and you will usually see the disclaimer that physical shifting, beyond very slight shifts (eye color shift or subtle movements of facial structure), is generally regarded as impossibile, or at least not very likely. There are even essays about warning newbie therians trusting people who claim they can physically shift, because such people have taken advantage of such newbies in the past. See http://www.shifters.org/guide1.htm . I think the sentence can remain as it is. Putrescent stench 21:37, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree with P.S. above. The dictionary definition can be the lead, as I had it, with brief info and the subculture can take up the bulk of the first subsection below. I have no intention of developing this article into a separate article on the accurate usage of the term, mainly because the lycanthropy article already covers all animals and not just wolves. I image a quick see the article on lycanthropy for more information would be all that was needed beyond just the short facts already listed, and the bulk of the page following can then be used for a NPOV of the spirituality movement. DreamGuy 01:08, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

What the heck?

OK, recent restructuring just went and made the problem we corrected earlier worse... It's now sectioned out but the sections that used to be about the accurate, historical and folklore meaning of the word have been changed to the meaning invented by the modern subculture and the bits about the accurate meaning have been fractured, split up and strewn here and there so it makes no sense. DreamGuy 16:20, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, looking at the old version of the article, I don't see any section (expect for the lead section) that deals with the meaning outside of the subculture anyways. What exactly is wrong with the current revision in your opinion? Maybe it would be best to simply add a section or two about the historical meaning of the word. --Conti|✉ 18:09, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

The problem with it is that the subcultural definition was taken outside of the subculture heading and placed under the main heading as if it were the only or main meaning. There were whole paragraphs of information that applies only to the subculture that were falsely labeled. And it's not the "historical meaning of the word" it's the real meaning of the world, still used in folklore, mythology, etc. DreamGuy 17:06, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

I am reviewing and I kind of see what DreamGuy may be trying to say. I'm going to move a couple of paragraphs and re-title them, see if that helps. If not feel free as ever to start the traditional revert war.

I have made no textual changes (bar minor formatting), but have separated out the paragraphs that relate to "modern uses of the term" (grouped with scholarly and traditional uses under "terminology") separate from "subculture". The aim being that maters related to the modern use/adaptation of the term are described as such, and matters related to the subculture of modern therians, are described as such. I think this probably is better as some aspects of theriantropy were described as if they were aspects of the therian subculture. I think that is at least part of the point DreamGuy seems to be trying to make, and hope this helps address some of them if so. FT2 01:38, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

You reintroduced the problem again. I keep separating the two major meanings: scholarly and subculture. You keep splitting the sections up so that the subculture meaning shows up in different headings. The whole question about furries, etc. in later subsections only makes sense related to the the subculture meaning, not the scholarly meaning. And calling the subculture meaning "modern uses" implies that the scholarly one is now not used, which is false. Do you understand what I am getting at here? "Therian subculture" is presented as a separate topic from the so-called "modern uses" breaks the link between the two and makes it so organizationally it could just as easily refer to the scholarly meaning of the term, when it doesn't. And adding "has been commonly used" to describe the subculture meaning of therianthropy is stating that it is common when it's not, it's very much a fringe concept. And the ytherianthropy versus clinical lycanthropy section is written only from the stance of the subculture meaning being correct and not the broader meaning. The two need to be very clearly delineated, because they are not the same at all. DreamGuy 17:20, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

I know I already proposed this, but what exactly speaks against two articles for the two meanings of therianthropy? It sounds very logical to me, that way one article can pretend that therianthropy is a subcultural thingy, and the other can ignore that, and everyone will be fine. Would anyone oppose breaking the article in two? --Conti|✉ 17:45, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

There are three main problems with the idea of splitting the article: 1) That the bulk of what should go into a scholarly therianthropy article is already covered to a large extent in the lycanthropy article, largely from the 1911 Encyclopedia (which served as a base) having used that term for all animals instead of just werewolves, 2) the idea that separating the articles means people can say whatever they want and that it won't be changed (especially this "pretend that therianthropy is a subculture" crap -- it's a fact, and I really don;t get how anyone can deny it, unless they are living in denial or something) is silly, because one article or two, if something is false it needs to be changed, regardless of whether there are people supporting the cause who want to put up misleading information and feel they should have an article all to their lonesome, 3) I can see arguments over who gets the therianthropy article and who gets the hypothetical therianthropy different meaning -- not really exactly but we wanted to split it off article. DreamGuy 15:03, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

1) This can be fixed, whether there are two articles for therianthropy or not. Someone just has to do it. 2) Stating "Therianthropy is a subculture..." in Therianthropy (subculture) is not false. The article will be about the subculture of people calling themselves therianthropes, therefore therianthtropy is a subculture (in that context). The word may also have other meanings, but that's what disambiguation messages like "For the scholary use of the word, see Therianthropy" are for. You may not like it, but the word "therianthropy" was adapted (or taken over, however you want to call it) by a subculture, and you have to live with that. 3) Because the scholary usage of the term was there first, I propose to keep that usage on Therianthropy and move the subcultural meaning to Therianthropy (subculture) or something. Alltogether, I still don't see a reason not to split the article, at least not from the reasons you mentioned. I don't have a problem with both meanings being in the article, but apparently it's a big problem to put these two meanings in one article. --Conti|✉ 13:49, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

2 articles isn't really needed, if it can be split into 2 articles it can be split into 2 sections in one article. But with respect, I think DreamGuy is wrong. a subculture is a part of a culture - a group of people, their social and modes of interaction, etc (see subculture). It is possible for a person to self identify as therian on the basis that they (for example) feel they have an animals soul, and not be part of or within the subculture. So you haven't got "scholarly" vs. "subculture", but "scholarly" vs. "modern uses" -- sub culture (ie the subculture adopted or entered into by those who self identify as therian) is a logically separate matter. I have tried to address this by leaving your organisation, but tweaking the titles of the section so that instead of being called "subculture" it is called "modern subculture uses", which is accurate, with "subculture" then a section within that which describes the subculture itself. FT2 12:29, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

Got to strongly disagree with you here. The Therian group (actually, if this is split, that's probably what the subculture spiritualists should get as a title) appropriated a word that existed (and was and is in use with that meaning) and changed the meaning (to the "spiritual" end of things) and now apparently gets upset when people use the word in it's real meaning in the outside world. Therians are a small group whose internal meaning for the word -- regardless of the fact that they are vocal on the Internet and as such are the main people using the word online -- does not match what scholarly sources historical and modern use it for. The specific reason this is a subculture is because your hypothetical therian who self-identifies themself as having an animal soul probably wouldn't have gotten the idea to do so unless they read something online about the subculture already. People can identify themselves as a member of a subculture without knowing other members first-hand. Further, without the subculture, anyone who identified themselves as having a soul of an animal, etc., would be identified by some other pre-existing term: totem, clinical lycanthropy, etc. You (and the original version of the article we are discussing) tried to interpret the whole world based upon therian views and not how the rest of the world thinks. Keeping the article (regardless of whether it as one or splits) so it only shows the therian-viewpoint is not encyclopedic. DreamGuy 15:03, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

DreamGuy, the structure of the article now seems accurate. Of course it could use some tweaking. However I am still kind of bewildered by how adamant you seem about proclaiming that therianthropy is really a widely used term outside of the modern usage. You claim that people are being biased when stressing the subcultural use of the term, but I am highly skeptical of the term being used in mythological scholarhip and anthropology as you claim. Can you cite a number of print works besides dictionaries? And do the dictionary appearances include examples of that word being used in a quote? I'm curious because 1) I don't really understand your aggravation and your insistence on the wide usage of term when I see little evidence of such usage, and 2) I saw from your user page that you are interested in mythology; I am as well and try to be accurate with these things, but I have read what I consider a broad range of works about mythology and folklore, particularly shapeshifting and animal-related myths, and I have only run across this term once. As I said it was in the Douglas Adams book, and even then it was only mentioned once, but the author later referred to other shapeshifters as "lycanthropes." I think "lycanthropy" and "anthropomorphic" are the terms much more commonly used for what you seem to be talking about. Of course, I may be wrong, and I welcome any evidence to the contrary, especially since it will give me new material to read on the subject :-)

If you still have problems with the structure of the article, which your comments seem to suggest, can you quote specific sentneces and say why you think they should be moved/removed? Let's try to work together on this and make this a respectable article.Putrescent stench 11:24, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What's wrong with fringe?

Subculture certainly works, as the subheading has it, but fringe I think is more specific and a way of varying the terms.

Subculture: "In sociology, a subculture is a culture or set of people with distinct behavior and beliefs within a larger culture. "

Fringe: "By extension, any cultural manifestation not in the mainstream can be said to be on the fringe."

Fringe is more precise, as it's not in the mainstream. Subculture is a term for any sort of group. Therians are very definitely fringe, simply as objective reality. DreamGuy 17:57, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

"A fringe group" simply sounds not too nice to me. It sounds as if that's just a small group of people, not so many that they do form their own subculture (which they do). But I'm not a native english speaker, so I might not be the best one to judge here. I don't want to fight over such a detail anyways, I just thought "subculture" fits better. :) --Conti|✉ 18:21, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

I don't see fringe as being an appropriate term because of the connotations associated with that word. "Fringe" is usually associated with extremist views, such as this example from dictionary.com: "Those members of a group or political party holding extreme views: the lunatic fringe." Also, fringe does not require any kind of cohesive culture, just a radical departure from the "norm." In that sense, subculture is actually more precise. Again from dictionary.com: "A cultural subgroup differentiated by status, ethnic background, residence, religion, or other factors that functionally unify the group and act collectively on each member." I also don't quite understand your comment about therians being definitely fringe "as objective reality." Can you rephrase that?Putrescent stench 17:19, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Don't really mind me, I am only here to say that the greek word "theros" means "summer" and that "therion" is the word you're looking for. I edited it.

Apparent vandalism

Who is that went back through the page and changed "non-human animal" into "animal" in several places? It took a great deal of time to go through the article and add in "non-human" in order to correct repetitive implications that humans and "animals" are different entities. The word animal includes humans. Saying something like "some human traits, and some animal traits" is like saying that a dog has "some canine traits, and some mammalian traits". If something is a human trait, then that automatically makes it an animal trait as well.

I suspect this was an act of vandalism by some religious person who believes that humans aren't animals. Yet the word "animal" comes from the Latin anima, meaning "spirit, soul, or breath of life". It is defined by the very things that such religious types think humans possess which other animals do not. Thus, saying that a human is "not an animal" is essentially the same as talking about round squares and portable holes. It's completely non-sensical.

I'm reverting the page. --Corvun 03:37, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

that would be user:DreamGuy Gabrielsimon 03:52, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

What you're calling "vandalism" actually is not, it's just a differing usage of an overloaded word. If you'll check out [8] you'll find that the second definition listed for "animal" is "An animal organism other than a human, especially a mammal." So it's entirely valid to say something has "some human traits and some animal traits", by some definitions of "animal." Please be more careful before tossing around accusations of vandalism. Bryan 04:30, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Also, the reversion undid far more than the "non-human" bits; it undid everything 24.41.11.250 did after DreamGuy, as well as DreamGuy's other changes. I've de-reverted while trying to leave in the "non-human" bits you wanted back, if there are any missing please just re-add them rather than doing a wholesale revert. Bryan 04:38, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

OK, this is messed up...

• Gabrielsimon, you might want to check the page history before you accuse someone of doing something they did not do. I did not go through and change the "non-human animal" instances back to "animal". In fact, simply taking a few seconds to look at the changes I made shows I didn't change a single instance of non-human animal to animal.
• What Bryan calls "DreamGuy's other changes" weren't other changes at all, because I didn't do what you both accused me of (Although in Bryan's defense at least he didn't make emotional accusations, he just accepted the word of another editor without checking).

My bad. I checked the diff of your last edit and saw that it had changes in it that weren't the removal of "non-human", but somehow missed the fact that that's all that there were in it. :) Since I don't think the "non-human" qualifier really matters one way or the other I wasn't paying much attention to that. Bryan 06:58, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

• And Corvun, you really need to watch what you are doing... If you look at the history of the file, in some of the places you were complaining about the word "animal" being there, they were that way in the last version of the file as you had it. You must have missed them or something when you went through making edits. You can't just revert several edits by more than one editor while focusing one one issue while ignoring all the other things that were changed.

People need to stop throwing around false accusations and take the time to look at what's going on. DreamGuy 05:34, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

how could you say that with a straight face? Gabrielsimon 05:37, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Because I actually check things before I edit them. I know you love to blind revert things while ignoring other people edits and comments (like Witchcraft, Lilith, Missing sun motif, etc.), so it's rather bizarre for you to sit there and insinuate that I do, especially when it comes immediately after you making a false accusation against me. DreamGuy 05:59, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

None of this makes any sense. How come when I reverted, I reverted to DreamGuy's version of the page? I'm not getting the correlation. These new meds suck. --Corvun 15:08, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

You didn't revert to my version of the page. I think you went back to your version (undoing all of the edits I made and those of the IP address anon user as well, most of which had nothing to do with what you were complaining about) and then corrected some mistakes you had had in your version and then yelled at us for it, claiming that some religious person had undone your work. I don't know, but whatever it was you did made no sense and was unjustified. DreamGuy 23:51, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

Looking this article over, it seems to have a number of instances of sentences where the NPoV principle is violated. In particular, that but about mental illness near the beginning is singularily blatant. Although this article is not entirely offensive, I feel that it is absurd to regard these people as though they were in fact insane (which they quite arguably are not). A significant reworking of this page is required in order to remove the bias that this line of thinking is in fact complete nonsense. Some citations would also be nice. Falcon 16:43, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Is this the bit about mental illness that you're referring to?

In cases where someone actually believes to personally change into an animal form, or to possess supernatural non-human animal traits, the term clinical lycanthropy is often used. This is widely considered a form of mental illness, though many anthropologists would point out that its religious precedent in shamanic cultures is extensive. Likewise, people who call themselves shapechangers as a form of social identification are generally not considered ill by mental health professionals unless their beliefs interfere with the normal functioning of their lives. This can be a touchy issue, as the line between what the Western mind passes off as a strange or alternative belief and what is considered a mental illness can be quite blurry and may be drawn differently by different people.

If so, I don't see what's particularly POV about it - it's in the "scholarly use" section and it describes how psychologists and such approach the matter. Some people who believe themselves to be part animal are indeed considered to be suffering from a mental illness. Later on in the same paragraph it even goes on to point out that this sort of thing is not considered a mental illness in all situations, still in the "scholarly use" context.

I also don't get the impression that this article has a bias that 'this line of thinking is in fact complete nonsense' - could you provide some specific examples? Bryan 18:00, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

My mistake. What this page actually needs is refactoring. Falcon 18:43, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

If anything this article is too far toward the side of true believers having removed factual information about mental illness. For someone to try to complain that it's violating NPOV the other way is absurd, especially coming from an editor with a long history of highly POV pro-otherkin style comments in articles he created and then edit warred to preserve (see, for example, Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Vampire_lifestyle where he considers an article as it existed after I abandoned it because I couldn't get anywhere against his and USer:Gabrielsimon's highly POV edits as a featured article candidate and other editors tell him he is way off). I would suggest in the strongest possible terms that this editor discuss in detail any changes he wants to make on these talk pages before doing them. Numerous editors on both sides of the issue have spent a lot of time and effort making this page as close to NPOV as possible with the least objections we can get over straying from that ideal considering the polarization of beliefs on the issue. Many pro-otherkin editors have agreed that the version that exists is the best compromise. DreamGuy 19:46, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

if you can change the mormon aticle and the article about christianity to include information about mental illness, then i would support you adding that infomration here. until thn, i will not support it, for it would not be sonistant within the encycllopedia.Gabrielsimon 19:49, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that's a reasonable approach. Wikipedia is not consistant! Sure, it might be great if it were, but that's easier said than done. What is or isn't in a different article is not relevant to what should be in this article. Friday 20:04, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Mormon? Huh? That sounds like a complete non sequitur to me. Mormons have not been identified with mental illness (at least in any way I have heard of, the Rational Emotive Therapy calls all religions mental illness but they don't single any religion out). Therians specifically overlap with the symptoms of a mental disorder... the only thing that really keeps them separate is the question of whether their belief is a severe dysfunction in their lives or not. Of course the therian want to claim that they have nothing to do with the mental illness, but that's a highly POV position. Anyone who had clinical lycanthropy would obviously refer to themselves as some sort of therian or otherkin (assuming they have heard of the term) instead of admitting mental illness. We need to be very clear walking the line between saying whether it applies or not, as that really can only be determined by a licensed professional on a case by case basis and not from any sort of sweeping generalizations. DreamGuy 20:43, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Merge with Otherkin?

Is there a difference between the subculture aspect of therianthropy and Otherkin? Sounds to me like they should be merged. Friday 03:13, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

It looks to me like the word "therianthropy" is a neologism. The first two dictionaries I checked did not even have the term. To me, this strongly suggested that this word should not be used for the name of an article, and it should (at best) be a redirect. Friday 03:59, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Errr... you realize that there are a lot of words that are so specific to a field that they aren't going to be in standard dictionaries, right? The term is definitely not a neologism, it's been around for at least a century under the scholarly definition. You'll also note that the scholarly definition has no business at all being merged with otherkin. The subculture term has been around a lot longer than the term otherkin has been, so it's silly to call this one a neologism and suggest merging to the other when if anything that one would be more neologistic. DreamGuy 05:25, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

OK, well I at least see that the merge tag isn;t in the scholarly area... of course if the subsculture part goes away (which I am not recommending), the scholarly part may as well redirect to lycanthropy since sloppy usage over the last couple of centuries has that term being used for what this one means. DreamGuy 05:29, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

(Edit conflict, but here's my response anyway) I know that this article asserts a scholarly definition. If this can be supported, by all means this is no neologism. However the internet is so overun with the subculture-related term that I couldn't easily verify the scholarly version. I was trying to figure out what the most generic name for this phenomenon was. The closest scholarly definition I could verify so far is "lycanthropy". Friday 05:33, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

PS. What field would "therianthropy" be specific to? I suppose that's a stupid question, it must be folklore, anthropology or mythology? Still, a source would be great. If we're going to assert a scholarly definition for a word that's not in any dictionaries I can find, we should source it with a scholarly source. Friday 05:36, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, mostly mythology I guess. It's referenced in a number but heck if I can think of a specific source offhand that's guaranteed to have it. There are quite a few that specifically break it down into the proper word for specific animal forms changed into, simply by swapping in the appropriate prefix, and then with therianthropy as the blanket term. Good candidates would be Sabine Baring-Gould's The Book of Were-wolves (which is online a few places) and some of Montague Summer's work (probably online)... and I'm sure I ran across some of these alternates in some anthropology works discussing the beliefs of various tribes, I just wouldn't know where to start there. DreamGuy 09:50, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Appropriate pronouns

(I would like to revert the change from "someone...they" to "someone...he or she", does everyone agree? Evidence from Fowler's Modern English Usage, 2000 ed.:)

they, their, them. 1 one, anyone, everybody, nobody, etc. followed by they, their, them. Over the centuries, writers of standing have used they, their, and them with anaphoric reference to a singular pronoun or noun, and the practice has continued in the 20c. to the point that, traditional grammarians aside, such constructions are hardly noticed any more or are not widely felt to lie in a prohibited zone. Fowler (1926) disliked the practice ("few good modern writers would flout the grammarians so conspicuously") and gave a number of unattributed "faulty" examples, including the following: The lecturer said that everybody loved their ideals; Nobody in their senses would give sixpence on the strength of the promissory note of that kind.

The evidence presented in the OED points in another direction altogether. From the 16c. onward they has often been "used in reference to a singular noun [or pronoun] made universal by every, any, no, etc., or applicable to one of either sex ( = "he or she")". The examples cited by the OED include: Every Body fell a laughing, as how could they help it- Fielding, 1749; If a person is born of a... gloomy temper... they cannot help it- Chesterfield, 1759; Nobody can deprive us of the Church, if they would- W. Whewell, 1835; Now, nobody does anything well that they cannot help doing- Ruskin, 1866. Similar constructions are presented in the OED for their (from the 14c. onward) and them (1742-). All such "non-grammatical" constructions arise either because the notion of plurality resides in many of the indefinite pronouns or because of the absence in English of a common-gender third person singular pronoun (as distinct from his used to mean "his or her" or the clumsy use of his or her itself).

Modern examples of they, their, and them used with singular reference may be found in this book in the articles for several of the indefinite pronouns, and also in the separate articles for THEIR and THEM. The process now seems irreversible.

Vashti 09:22, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

id fix it myself, but i cant, ive already changed that page today, and im rying to be good with the whole 1rr thing, but i do agree with what youve written, Vashti. Gabrielsimon 09:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I already fixed it as part of a series of fixes... of course Gabriel if you hadn;t just blindly reverted my changes it would have already been right, because I fixed to by going back to the way I had it. DreamGuy 09:41, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

blaming me for your mistakes is not a healthy way to be, it prom,otes delusion. Gabrielsimon 09:42, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

DreamGuy, you changed it *from* "someone...they" *to* "someone...he or she". I want to put it back to "someone...they". Vashti 09:53, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

your proof probly is enoug to allow you to make that change with enuogh evidance to back it up, i saw go for it. Gabrielsimon 09:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Probably, but there have been several recent reverts here and I'd rather go for consensus first. Vashti 10:01, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

you and i are two, to his one, that sounds like majority, plus you brought some lovly proof. Gabrielsimon 10:02, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

My mistake, I assumed when we were talking "appropriate pronouns" that we'd actually be discussing appropriate pronouns and not totally messed up pronouns. I read the first line and he said he wanted to revert to the he or she version, which is what I did, but I see now that his first line was worded ambiguously and that he didn't want to revert it to he or she but from he or she.

I am completely flabbergasted that there is actually a source out there claiming that they is singular pronoun. I can't see that flying here at all... if you strongly object to he or she than I suggest we find some other way to say the sentence in question, because this rule is firmly established in the rules of English usage. DreamGuy 10:11, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

a group, being singular, is still also referred to as they. Gabrielsimon 10:12, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Not only is that wrong (groups are it, not they...), but it has absolutely nothing to do with what's being discussed. DreamGuy 10:23, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

nmemebers of a group are they, even if a group is an it, thus there is some leeway, now , if you cant see that, perhaps its time to go to sleep. Gabrielsimon 10:27, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're just plain wrong. The group itself is an it, if you refer to plural things within the group it's a they, but that's not the group. There's a difference. DreamGuy 10:38, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

DreamGuy, the source I quoted is one of the authoritative references for English usage, with historical references. What's your source? Vashti 10:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Chicago Manual of Style, AP Stylebook, APA Stylebook, Scott Foresman Guide are all my sources. It's not unusual for some to sometimes recommend something different. If Fowler's says that they are completely out in left field... That's a pretty fundamental rule there, and it appears that they are confusing the fact that errors are frequently made with the idea that that makes it right. Parallel structure is key. They is a plural pronoun. It's uses as a singular pronoun is sloppy and incorrect. I don't know of a single English or journalism professor who would have let a somene be a they. DreamGuy 10:38, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

outdated, sorry. Gabrielsimon 10:39, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

"OUTDATED"??? All four of those sources are outdated? Where did you come up with that idea? Gee, mighty convenient there. DreamGuy 10:42, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

And, heck, reading the section quoted above for contextt, it's clear that they consider he or she preferrable. DreamGuy 10:42, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

just give it a rest, child. Gabrielsimon 10:43, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Calling someone a child is a very insulting thing to do. You need to give your abusive comments a rest and only reply when you have something on topic to say. DreamGuy 11:13, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

You think the clumsy use of his or her itself is indicative that they consider "he or she" preferable? Vashti 10:55, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I think that "not widely felt to lie in a prohibited zone" (which I would disagree with strongly, and so would other manuals of style) is not at all the same thing as saying "is not only OK but the way you should do it instead of the other way". DreamGuy 11:13, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Okay. Well, is it okay now? Vashti 11:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Not the smoothest, but at least it's not wrong, so OK. DreamGuy 11:24, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

This is truly disturbing. People here want to revert from he "he or she" to "they"? Am I getting this right? While we're at it, let's stop conjugating our verbs, remove the word "the" completely, write the entire article IN ALL CAPS, and get rid of any pucntuation marks that might exist here.

They, them, their, etc. are always plural, period. And to say hardly anyone notices them? Bull. Seeing such deplorable manglings of the English language is so jarring and jolting that I cringe every time I hear them, and seeing even one singular they in an article or book makes the rest of it seem as though it were written in crayon by a 4 year old. --Corvun 18:39, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

People interested in this controversy may want to check out Singular they and Disputed English grammar. FreplySpang (talk) 22:01, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Manual of Style archive (gender-neutral_pronouns) and Wikipedia:Civility might also prove informative. Vashti 22:15, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

recent changes b me

include the deletion of he derogatory strange, and the changeing of controversial to difficult, becasue there doesnt seem to be any edidance of a controversy, and since its npot all westernes who beleive tis a mental illness, insterion of SOME, and becasue its clear that most who think its a mental illness do not know enough about therianthropy to make a fair call, i interted the word Uninfomred. Gabrielsimon 02:05, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

"Uninformed" appears POV in this context, in my opinion. It suggests that people who pass off therianthropy as an "mental illness" simply don't understand the situation, and that if they were to learn more they'd change their minds. You imply above that some people who think it's a mental illness do know enough about therianthropy to make a fair call, what about them?

As for the word "controversial", that seems more informative to me than "difficult" or "interesting" - "difficult" and "interesting" don't specify what sort of difficulty or interest is involved, "controversial" at least indicates that the difficulty in question is a controversy. This is a pretty minor clarification, but it seems reasonable to me since we're having a controversy about it right now. Bryan 05:40, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

uninformed might be a bit harsh, i admit, how would "usually underinformed" do instead? Gabrielsimon 06:30, 4 August 2005 (UTC)