Talk:Therianthropy

Move or new section

I have to agree with previous commentary that this should really be two pages. One about therianthropy as a concept in mythology and one about the modern subculture. While I appreciate that these are related topics, having read some of the material available on both sides, it seems quite clear that they are heavily distinct, with the subculture being based only tenuously on the mythological concept. There are completely sufficient sources to produce two separate pages much like the pages for Vampire Lifestyle and Vampire are separate. If nothing else, this would hopefully stem the constant flow of vandalism that this page experiences. I appreciate that it would be a big job to make such a drastic change but, from the activity on this page, one feels confident that there are plenty of keen contributors who would be up for the challenge. Tommarquand 10:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Children of Lir

The children of Lir are incorrectly described in the illustration. They did not have the power to turn into swans. They were turned into swans by a spell cast over them by their wicked stepmother.

Rconroy (talk) 10:21, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Including / Expanding on Modern Therianthropy

I'm here of one who believes something about this page should drastically change. Specificly about the notion of Modern Therianthropy.

I understand that Therianthropy and Modern Therianthropy (aka the subculture/experience/identification from more recently) are two different things. The issue however is that the majority of the Modern Therian community just uses 'therianthropy', ends up at this page and gets confused. Not only because currently 'Therian' is categorized under 'Psychiatric Aspects', which gives the impression it's something psychiatric that needs psychiatric help and therefore does not only harm to the Modern Therian community but also to parents being unfairly putten into mental healthcare by their parents who visit this wikipedia page.

I believe that therefore, Modern Therianthropy eitherway has to be mentioned in this wikipedia page. Further info on it either being given underneath it in it's own section (to clearly seperate it from regular Therianthropy) or in another wikipedia page (about that, a little further more info why that's a problem)through a link.

I personally am going to seperate therian from clinical lycanthropy under a different heading, simply to undo the damage of people unfairly lumping it in with the psychiatric condition. Because at this point there has been no clear indicators or proof that Modern Therianthropy is psychiatric or a mental condition.

But, Modern Therianthropy by now (2 july 2020) has a known history of 27 years old. The first online mentions afterall having be publicied on Alt.Horror.Werewolves (usenet group) in 1993. Modern Therianthropy clearly exists as a concept and experience and more so as an online phenomen (community, subculture, ..). It deserves being recognized and given information about. Even if just for the many people who stream here onto 'Therianthropy' and do not find what they are looking for or leave confused and misinformed (thinking it's a psychiatric condition)

I wrote a detailed edit, sourcing to original archived pages of therianthropy being first discussed on the internet. Including discussion, date, place and person. The Therian Community expressed to, for once, be satisfied with the correct representation and historical clarity. This sadly was undone because of the sources not being reliable. Appearently these have to be something along the lines of someone else talking about those first discussions rather than litterally the archived first discussions.

The Modern Therian community is too small (yet heavily growing), but most of all not given attention from outsiders other than regular and curious people. No scientists writing paper about them, no trustworthy sites writing about them,.. Not without trolling, saying completely inaccurate things, negative subjective opinions etc. By this, there simply are non of such sites or books written by others about Modern Therianthropy. By this, it would be impossible to ever have a page about modern therianthropy. Because all that exists of it, is writings on forums, talk about experiences (as it is an experience/belief/identity/..)by individuals on forums, archives of the first ever mentions of it or its terminology etc. But, non of these can be used as a source as it's multimedia.

In short, one cannot ever write about an online community. Because of being forbidden to use online social material (such as forum posts), even if it only exists there: on forum posts. As long as it isn't so wellknown, that it is written about by reliable outsiders. Other than to troll or ridicule or without being too vague.

There are a few websites out there that are collectives of information (such as linking & talking about the archived discussions of modern therianthropy in 1993), but all are owned by therians and may still be found to be too subjective. example: http://www.theriantimeline.com/ , http://projectshift.therianthropy.info/, https://therian.fandom.com (why: A; are independant, B. have editorial oversight and C. fact-check for accuracy and are no usergenerated content but rather talk about the user generated content, include archived material etc)

But, I don't believe these could ever be enough to 'source' everything. Exactly because modern therianthropy can only be found (loose from the in-real-life happenings ofcourse which aren't exaclty able to be sourced) on forums, through usergenerated content etc.

So, even if I did put time into creating its own page for Modern Therianthropy, lose from Therianthropy (but linked within it to help prevent the confusion) I'd never have enough sources to link I believe.

Anyone has any thoughts on how to fix this issue? Or advice? PD PinkDolphin (talk) 21:00, 2 July 2020 (UTC)PD PinkDolphin

If the info doesn't exist in reliable sources according to Wikipedia's standards then it might as well not exist at all. Wikipedia isn't the place to start popularizing or legitimizing something. I'm sorry but that's not our purpose. The existing section will have to suffice, and also it was a good idea to add that section title like you did. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 22:26, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I've managed to find quiet a few serious papers and writings, such as:

• "An Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis of Identity in the Therian Community" : https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262685394_An_Interpretative_Phenomenological_Analysis_of_Identity_in_the_Therian_Community
• http://theriantimeline.com/guide_for_professionals
• "Spirituality and Self-Realisation as Other Than Human The Otherkin and Therianthropy Communities": https://www.academia.edu/12572512/Spirituality_and_Self-Realisation_as_Other-Than-Human_The_Otherkin_and_Therianthropy_Communities
• "The Beast Within Anthrozoomorphic Identity and Alternative Spirituality in the Online Therianthropy Movement": https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259732127_The_Beast_Within_Anthrozoomorphic_Identity_and_Alternative_Spirituality_in_the_Online_Therianthropy_Movement
• https://liongoatsnake.tumblr.com/post/165837981250/what-academics-are-saying-about-the-modern#_edn7 (not the blog itself but the linked academical papers and serious writings at the bottom)
• "Therianthropy: Wellbeing, Schizotypy, and Autism in Individuals Who Self-Identify as Non-Human" : https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HPmGIlRmjPBCaSRNyYAhs1_SP9I4By04/view
• "On Having a Furry Soul: Transpecies Identity and Ontological Indeterminacy In Otherkin Subcultures": https://anthropolojamz.wordpress.com/2015/09/16/johnston-on-having-a-furry-soul/
• "Clinical Interaction with Anthropomorphic Phenomenon: Notes for Health Professionals about Interacting with Clients Who Possess This Unusual Identity " : https://academic.oup.com/hsw/article-abstract/40/2/e42/660814?redirectedFrom=fulltext (the actual paper that you can download here: https://www.academia.edu/32966699/Clinical_Interaction_with_Anthropomorphic_Phenomenon_Notes_for_Health_Professionals_about_Interacting_with_Clients_Who_Possess_This_Unusual_Identity actually speaks of therians too besides furries)
• "In Educational, Psychological, and Behavioral Considerations In Niche Online Communities (chapter 16: Some People Aren’t People On The Inside.)": https://books.google.be/books?id=LwSXBQAAQBAJ&pg=PR16&lpg=PR16&dq=In+Educational,+Psychological,+and+Behavioral+Considerations+In+Niche+Online+Communities+chapter+16&source=bl&ots=mWU_byvQTK&sig=ACfU3U0CpCm-p2O44iLIuceQIS6eecoX1g&hl=nl&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiqyfTq2b7qAhWlzIUKHbDTCcQQ6AEwAXoECAsQAQ#v=onepage&q=aren't%20people%20on%20the%20inside&f=false (tho it mostly speaks of otherkin, the experiences described are those of therians mostly)
• maybe one of these will be reliable enough: www.academia.edu/Documents/in/Therian

I also still wonder if http://projectshift.therianthropy.info/, http://www.theriantimeline.com/ and any of the articles on here https://houseofchimeras.weebly.com/informative.html may be 'good enough'?

It's not at all about popularizing or 'legitimizing' something, it's about aknowledging the existence of something that's clearly been going on for the past 27 years. Not either do I mean to say 'this is a Real experience' to validate them, just 'this is something people claim to experience and it has an entire subculture, community,.. etc behind it'. If reliable sources can be found, I think that just as with related pages the section deserves a bit more detail. If it becomes too much we can consider linking to a completely seperated page ofcourse. But atleast it's a fact then of just moving information, rather than deleting everything but one sentence.

If anyone is curious enough to check out any of these links and could give their opinion on which they think are or are not reliable or interesting, plz be free to answer. I'll go over those details, and looking for more writings, papers, research, etc over the upcoming weeks. PD PinkDolphin (talk) 22:39, 8 July 2020 (UTC)PinkDolphin

Sorry I can't get into all this in-depth, but: it's not enough that something is published on academia.edu since nearly anyone can upload stuff there, and this is hopefully helpful: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Scholarship. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 04:54, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Isn't it more important who it was written by and the quality of it's content, rather then where it was uploaded? Most of these papers can be found elsewhere (ex: https://academic.oup.com/hsw/article-abstract/40/2/e42/660814?redirectedFrom=fulltext on 'oxford academic Health & Social Network')but are not able to be read through there (or only when paid 50$) while they are publicly readable on the links I linked here (aka academia.edu)PD PinkDolphin (talk) 12:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)PinkDolphin

The publisher/source and/or author determine whether it's a 'reliable source' here; perceived 'quality' doesn't. It is indeed useful to have free links at hand, but we can't just think something's a reliable source because it poses as a scholarly paper. Sorry about my tone, I'm not trying to be disparaging but I'm trying to make the point that not every dissertation paper passes the WP:RS test, and random papers by students typically wouldn't pass it at all. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 14:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Berserkers

The "bear shirts" of Scandanavia (I think). Not a word about them! Don't see too much here from Africa either. Vendrov (talk) 06:43, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Therianthrophy

Voice of scientists 103.118.50.71 (talk) 00:47, 10 August 2022 (UTC)