Talk:Therianthropy/Archive 1

This archive page covers approximately the dates between Aug 23, 2004, and Jul 31, 2005.

Original Discussion

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. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 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. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 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)

Examples

Should the page contain examples? I am thinking about for instance this tiger guy that has got fangs operated onto him. I think he's quite famous. 惑乱 分からん 21:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Therion

Doesn't "therion" more accurately mean "beast" than "wild animal"? --Arny 03:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• You are correct especially in the sense that therion θηριον is used in koine Greek of the Bible.Sochwa 23:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Otherkin

Can someone please, please, explain to me what the difference is between (spiritual) therianthropy and otherkin. I'm so confused. :-( 86.142.179.66 21:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The difference is that therians (in terms of therianthropy) believe they are an animal. Otherkin do not necessarily believe that at all: otherkin may be dragons, or elves, whereas therians might be wolves and falcons. Falcon 02:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Heh, you have reason to be confused. Generally, Otherkin relate to mythological beings; Therians relate to animals that do exit or have existed. The main observable difference is that Otherkin usually claim to be Otherkin whereas many Therians refuse the appelation. Nevertheless, various Ortherkin are more likely to socialize than Therians with Otherkin. In other words, the Otherkin community and the Therian community tend to be distinctly separated.

It's interesting that you have four "Therianthropy vs." sections in the article, yet you don't actually cover the confusing one. 86.136.82.105 23:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that it should be merged with the article on therianthropy because otherkin refers to somebody who besides maybe feeling they are an animal soul, it also includes someone who has an affinity to a soul that is neither human or animal such as elf, or angel. Hello! --Lighthead 23:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

In contrast to Lighthead's opinion, I do bleive that the two should be merged. However, due to distinct differences between the two subjects it would be wise to add Otherkin in the format of Lycanthropy. (i.e. another bullet in the Examples section)Terane 18:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I (who consider myself to be otherkin) am of the opinion that the article on otherkin should not be merged with therianthropy, not least because therianthropy does not only refer to those people who feel they are an animal soul - but also those people in myths who can turn into animals. Furthermore, if anything (not that I advocate this - I maintain the articles should be separet) I would say that therianthropy should be subsumed into otherkin, as Otherkin as I understanding it (the having of a non-human (albeity usually applied to mythical) soul) is a wider ranging predicate than therianthrope. - 1:37, 4 March 2007 (GMT)

I agree that Otherkin and Therians are distinct. Put into simple terms (useful only as a discussion point, not as a definition, Otherkin have (or claim) a connection to some mystical or otherworldly heritage, such as fey (fairy), angelic, or similar non-human non-terrestrial origins. Therians, in contrast, claim or have a connection to non-human but terrestrial creatures, namely animals of various types. Yes, there are parallels. Just as baseball and golf are similar in that they both involve hitting a ball with a stick. But their differences far outweigh the similarities. For this reason, the two articles should be kept separate, even if one does reference the other for comparison and contrast [Coragryph: 9 June 2007]

semi-protected

I've protected this article from editing by nameless IP's and new users. Over the last couple of days it's been targeted by one or more persons editing from various related IPs. FreplySpang (talk) 15:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you guys mostly therians or what?

Seriously, why do you all check this article so much? I know that the werelist site has a section on wikipedia.

Yeah, this will probably get reverted, but I'm just interested. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.204.67 (talk • contribs)

Several people keep this article on their Watchlist because it's a bit of a magnet for inappropriate additions. FreplySpang (talk) 17:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Mostly, if you edit an article, it remains on your watch-list. It could be for a minor grammatical error, a wikilink addition, or a deletion of badly worded text, but by default it will be watched in future, on the basis editors who showed an interest may well continue to have an interest. Thats why. FT2 (Talk) 18:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

In popular culture

Why are you removing this? The idea that therianthropy and its derivatives in various forms exist in popular culture should be noted. It is most certainly NOT "totally worthless fictioncruft" or some such. --Jesse Mulkey 17:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Since it appears that DreamGuy doesn't want a popular culture reference section, I have created a new page based on his advice here: Therianthropy in popular culture. --Jesse Mulkey 21:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Woops...

Sorry about that, Dreamguy. I didn't realize I hadn't read to the last version before trying to revert the vandalism Curps had missed. I must have been too pissed off by TFV to wait. Coyoty 20:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation

I'm seeing quite a lot of tension in this talk page between two viewpoints - the therian viewpoint and the mythology viewpoint. Except that they aren't really two viewpoints so much as they are two subjects. I thought. Time for disambiguation? I checked out other subcultures and their related mythologies. The vampire subculture and the vampire folklore page are two separate articles. The otherkin subculture is a separate article from the articles on the folklore of creatures such as elves, dragons and so on. The furry subculture is a separate article from the many types of funny animal, mythical and fictional, that inspire the furry subculture. For that matter, the biker subculture is a different article than motorcycles themselves. Nothing else has subculture material and other material mashed together into one article. But then I look at the therianthropy article and see why. It has very little other than the subculture material. There's not enough mythology to make more than a stub if it were split off. So I decided to be bold and do an expansion that would then justify the disambiguation that's aching to happen. The new therianthropy mythology article can be seen at Therianthropy (mythology), the new subculture article is at Therianthropy (subculture) (the original contents of the Therianthropy article were divided between those two as I thought they should go, feel free to reshuffle, I did not delete anyone's stuff, it is all in there somewhere) and the Therianthropy in popular culture article has been renamed Therianthropy (fiction) in preparation for what I am now doing, creating a Therianthropy disambiguation page. If for some reason I was way too bold in doing the disambiguation and I offended everyone, please don't just revert, since a lot of added material is in the new articles, including citations that had been missing before.Blue *Milk Mathematician 23:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

And User talk:Curps apparently auto-reverted it in less than a minute. I hope that was a program keyed simply to revert anything major, and not just someone who did not even look at my stuff for one minute, who reversed two days of painstaking, highly cited article writing that took me about 20 hours, and I DID NOT DELETE ANYTHING THAT WAS ALREADY THERE, only added material and disambiguated.Blue Milk Mathematician 00:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Me likey. EDIT: I would say go for it, since nobody else has noticed you. Go for it, and don't worry about being bold. I certainly think your move is an improvement. 86.143.156.110 18:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, i would strongly oppose any attempt to disambiguate here in the way mentioned above, as it's completely pointless and unencyclopedic. Being able to ramble on incoherently is not a rationale for such a change. DreamGuy 19:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Blue Millky guy, you should be aware that the risk in being bold is that you will be overruled and that your work will be reverted. That's the problem when you do things without discussing them first. We can see from my response and the edit history here that your actions are opposed by the regular editors here, especially as the way you did it violated a number of policies, so I have redirected all the ridiculous fork files you created to this article, as it should be. If in fact there were new things added to those separate articles, instead of whining about it, move them here to the real article and see if they pass muster with the rest of the editors, or at least take the time to try to explain what you are doing. So, yeah, being bold is fine, but when what you do is undone by other people, you have no right to complain and try to act like people were unfairly screwing up your work. DreamGuy 19:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, Putting Mythology in the Main Article Then

I will follow your advice and put all my work on therianthropy in mythology back into the main article to see how it is received by the group. However, I wanted to refute your accusations:

• 1) I wasn't trying to be sneaky, and I did take the time to explain what I was doing, that is why I posted about this issue on the therianthropy talk page, plus the talk page of nearly every individual who had edited "Therianthropy" within the last two months, plus the talk pages of the disambiguation pages I'd created (or edited, in the case of Therianthropy (fiction)).

• 2) I wasn't complaining. I was under the impression that my work was being auto-reverted, since the individual who reverted it (Curps) did so in less than one minute (showing that my work hadn't even been read through) and because Curps's page said that Curps was on vacation. Therefore, I was trying to initiate discussion to understand the situation and see what others felt.

• 3) I was under the impression that my work was liked, because I only got positive or neutral feedback on it for quite some time, until DreamGuy replied on this talk page. Therefore, I thought it was either an auto-reversion or people who had gotten so used to vandals that their trigger fingers were itchy for the "revert" button and they mistook me for a vandal. This impression was strenghthened by the fact that, even though this article was edited VERY regularly, nobody had anything to say about my work on the talk page here except for one user who liked it, until DreamGuy posted above.

• 4) The way I did it did not violate a number of policies, not even the WP:FORK as I understand it. I explained everything I did as I did it, and I gave my reasons why, in considerable detail (what DreamGuy called "ramble on incoherently" above, apparently he wants to reprimand me for not explaining myself while simultaneously reprimanding me for explaining myself too much). The disambiguation page was created, as I said, as a placeholder and possibly permanent page showing the individual disambiguation links, and so that there wouldn't be anything that appeared sneaky in my going around making links to point at my newly created page on mythology (that is, I wouldn't appear to be trying to re-route links without doing the neccessary disambiguation). I was not trying to spawn useless mirror pages, I simply followed the instructions on the disambiguation instruction page. It wasn't my fault that the original page got reverted, thus creating redundancy.

• 5) My work was not "reverted multiple times and strongly opposed" as DreamGuy said, it was only reverted once by Curps, apparently accidentally, and then once by DreamGuy himself (when he erased all my original work by making Therianthropy (mythology) and Therianthropy (subculture) into redirect pages). It was not "strongly" opposed as DreamGuy said, at least not by anyone other than DreamGuy who cared to post on talk pages about it.Blue Milk Mathematician 03:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with Dreamguy. I didn't see any concensus before the changes were made, and wasn't sure if I had missed something. The method and style of the changes did disturb me, but I didn't have the opportunity or desire to take care of it at the time, and decided it was someone else's problem. (Sorry, DG.) I'm watching too many topics already and this wasn't a priority. I didn't respond to you or complain because I didn't feel like it, and it didn't mean I approved of your changes. The subject doesn't need so many different articles. Coyoty 19:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you were too busy to disapprove on a talk page. I really would have stopped what I was doing if I had any idea that it wasn't reverted by accident. I was hoping that I'd receive guidance and opinions, good or bad, which is why I put notes like this one that I put on your talk page, but when I got ignored, I assumed "none of these people care enough to oppose me" instead of "they all oppose me, but don't care enough to mention it". I'm not really about whining about getting my stuff reverted. I was only whining about being insulted so badly and accused of rule-breaking when I'd acted in good faith. Blue Milk Mathematician 23:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Moved

My mythology additions were removed from therianthropy because they supposedly belong in lycanthropy, according to DreamGuy. I guess therianthropy is being shaped as an article that is entirely resistant to mythology about therianthropy, so I moved my therianthropy mythology section there. All of my sources are cited. I'm writing about this here because I don't want to be accused of being "sneaky" again. Yes, I'm totally honest about what I'm doing.Blue Milk Mathematician 01:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Citations?

Currently, therianthropy breaks Wikipedia rules about no original research and verifiability and using websites as reliable sources. Therianthropy resists all mythology-based material, so it is almost entirely about a subculture with statements supported by websites. The only reference material cited is an 1886 work and a 1933 work, which could not apply to a subculture that started in the 1990s.

Published sources that could be used for citations do exist, three books:

• Cohen, D. (1996) Werewolves. New York: Penguin. ISBN 0525652078
• Greene, R. (2000) The Magic of Shapeshifting. York Beach, ME: Weiser. ISBN 1578631718
• Steiger, B. (1999) The Werewolf Book: The Encyclopedia of Shape-Shifting Beings. Farmington Hills, MI: Visible Ink. ISBN 1578590787

I had added in parenthetical citations using the MLA style manual to the subcultural portions of the therianthropy article, but they got reverted in all the confusion I inadvertently caused. If anyone wants to, they can add in my old citations that got reverted. Otherwise, I'll probably manually add the citations back in myself after a week or so, if nobody objects. This means you need to actually disagree with me on a talk page this time, instead of hoping I'm telepathic and will pick up your silent disapproval and then getting pissed afterwards. Blue Milk Mathematician 23:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Done

Okay, I've added this stuff back in now. I might add a bit more later on, I think I lost the file of some of the material I was meaning to add. Blue Milk Mathematician 19:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

External Links?

Each time anyone adds external links of any sort, the whole section gets deleted, often because of nearby vandalism. However, considering how extremely Internet-based the subculture is, some sort of external links section seems almost required. Three or four good links would do it, we don't need a gigantic list. Here are my suggestions, roughly in order of quality:

• Werelist (would be a top choice, except it is down at the moment, this has been added at least 3 times)
• Wereweb (another top choice)
• The Therianthropy Resource
• Therian (a good furry view of therianthropy)
• Shifter FAQ
• Shapeshifting

I'm totally open to other suggestions, I think we should have something! Suggest all the external links you want, vote thumbs up or down on any that stand out, and then in a couple of weeks, let's actually add the 3 or 4 best ones (unless we get lots of "no external links at all" votes). Blue Milk Mathematician 14:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Eh, seems all right so far, but I'm still leery. Therianthropy sites -- being about a topic that is necessarily subjective -- are hard to judge on quality. And there are a lot, and most people are interested in promoting their pages, so it may be difficult to stop the links list from getting huge. I don't think discussion pages like the first link are really encyclopedic, either, but I'll wait before/if consensus is reached on that issue to remove it.

Sorry for adding my opinion late, though, looks like you've already decided to put one in by now. Switchercat 21:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Going in

OK, looks like nobody objects, so I'm putting them in now. If the entire links section gets deleted again I'm going to just put it back in unless someone gives a reason this time. Blue Milk Mathematician 03:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

They've been taken out again. I've restored the two that seemed best to me. Bryan Derksen 02:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Should we note Therianism?

A few beleive we should since this is a redirect from Therianism. Otherwise, what's the point of redirecting it, if it's not mentioned here. Suttle contrasts between the two, but they still are relivant majorly to some. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mix Bouda-Lycaon (talk • contribs)

I have never heard "therianism" used as a term with a different meaning from "therianthropy," and even if I had, I'm not sure the distinction made is common enough to be notable. Could you cite examples? Also, sign your posts, eh? Switchercat ^talk_cont 22:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I mean, I know it's another term for therianthropy, but the two words don't seem to express different concepts. Best just stick in a word about how "therianism" is an alternate terms, if its neglect bothers you. Switchercat ^talk_cont 23:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Oct 12 Cleanup

I cleaned up and NPOV'd a bunch of this article. Right now it's pretty bad, by the way. I guess I'll read up a bit more on the subject and try to help out. Voretus the Benevolent 16:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

AfD?

My first thought on coming across this page was to AfD it. The article is a neologism covered by 90% original research, has very few and poorly cited reliable sources, and very clearly owns it very existence to a POV causing it to fail wikpedia's policy of neutrality without even having to really get into the body of the article (which also fails POV). I would contest most of the basic assumptions the article puts forth by an obviosly biased source. Even the title is POV; Therianthrophy is made up word. It was created by an internet community to help give their group a more "scientific", "official" or "legit" sounding label. Otherkin, lycnathrope, were-(what ever creature), shapeshifter and the such was just getting them laughed at. The section on "Scholarly use of the term" can only be there to try and help justify or help legitimize the "modern usage" section. Why? Because as I've already said Therianthrophy is largely a made up word and has zero "scholarly" use at all. This artilce is a joke.

Still, some people have obviolsy put alot of work into this article and the presentation and formating of the article are actually pretty darn good. The tone of the article reads like an essay but it also strives to try and be scientific and neautral with results that are hit and miss. There is obvious a suprisingly large, even disporportional, number of editors on wikipedia that deal in some way shape or form the entire Otherkin, were, "Therian", New Age, neopaganism, etc realm and I find it hard to believe that some higher standard hasn't been adopted here. The title of this article needs to be scrapped but, in light of the amount of work that has gone into this article, does the possiblity exist that some other eidtors would be interested in a merge/redirect of qulaity and sourcable info to Shapeshifting or lycanthropy or some other more appropriate article? NeoFreak 07:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't remove it entirely

I actually created a Wikipedia account just to make this post. A friend of mine recently mentioned the word therianthropy. I was curious about it so I looked it up in Wikipedia and this was the page I found. If this page hadn't existed, I would have possibly had to hunt around for ages to find a credible source regarding what the term actually meant. Pedantry aside, this seems like a reasonable page to me, but I'm just a layman who isn't obsessed with updating or commenting on Wikipedia pages. Keenman76 16:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)Keenman76

There are alot of things that are useful or of interest to some people that don't qualify for an article in wikipedia. In my opinion this is one of them. Still, if this article has created interest in wikipedia and added another member to the community than it has done some good :) I'll leave you some links on your talk page to help you get started in wikpedia should you choose to stick around. Thanks for your input, make sure you add your thoughts to the article's deletion page as it will do the most there. As a side note you might want to check out the wikifur. NeoFreak 16:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Not a neologism, established phenomenon

As I noted in my comments against the proposal to delete this page, a quick search of google books shows the word 'therianthropy' used (for the same meaning as used in this article) in 1915. The word has been used more significantly in the last 10 years, but some of my research hints that it may have been in use (in criminal trials) as early as 1570.

The lack of citations in this article is definitely a problem, and it does need to be cleaned up and turned into something more encyclopedic. However, it's a spiritual phenomenon that has been documented by rigorous researchers as existing in stone age tribes. NickArgall 02:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

As I've also said, since the word is a Greek conjunction you can no doubt find it in use somewhere. Still, it is neither an accepted or widespread academic term nor is it used in Reliable Sources in the manner that it is portrayed in the article. The article uses it to describe a demographic of New Age adherants to a particular belief system. Neologism. NeoFreak 02:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to merge from Otherkin

All the sources of a rigorous standard about Otherkin are in the context of 'belief in being an animal', ie, therianthropy. Otherkin belief can (and should, IMO) be regarded as a variation on therianthropic belief and be treated in 1 or 2 paragraphs in this article, as opposed to a separate article. NickArgall 02:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The reason Otherkin has a seperate article is because it is in common use in that subculture; however, I agree with the merge on the basis of the Otherkin article/subculture/religion not being notable enough at the moment to merit its own article. Titanium Dragon 03:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd say they should be merged into a single page. As I understand, therianthropy is with animals that exist and Otherkin is for animals that don't really exist, so they are quite similar besides that. --CF90 22:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Not really; otherkin is used as a pretty broad term. It encompasses therianthropes, mythics, elves, and vampires, among other odd things. Titanium Dragon 03:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

TD, it looks like you have a more nuanced understanding of 'Otherkin vs Therian' than myself or CF90, can I suggest you do the first run of the merge text? My understanding is the essentially the same as CF90. NickArgall 05:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that sounds very resonable. NeoFreak 02:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

'Therianthropy' has a mere 36,000 hits on Google (25,000 for 'therianthropy without otherkin' in advanced search), Otherkin (which includes the therian subculture) has 209,000 (goes down to 202,000 without therianthropy). If anything, the merge should go the other way, as 'otherkin' is obviously the dominant term that people will be looking for. Otherkin have been getting mentioned as such on television and in print media, both in fiction like cop shows and in serious non-fiction articles. It is the dominant term, and therianthropy is not.Thespian 00:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Except that this is no longer an article that says much about the subculture, instead it is mostly a mythology article, so in its current state it would suffer greatly from a merge to otherkin. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 02:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

However, the current note at the top of the Otherkin is regarding a proposal to merge that article into therianthropy. I was thus addressing that, which would be completely inappropriate. Frankly, I think this is a stub, with very little real information, and selective bits pulled to support its existance, by self defined 'therianthropes'. It's not NPOV if it's being wholly edited and defended by therianthropes themselves. Thespian 06:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I would not like to see the merge. Otherkin is an distinguishing term from Therianthrope, and it could be argued that Therians are a sub-division of Otherkin, just as it might be argued that Otherkin are a sub-division of Therianthropes. I suggest that the Otherkin stub remain as it is.

Split to Therianthropy and Therianthropy (subculture)

• Support: I support the split as they are too dissimilar to lump together in one article. Also suggest renaming Therianthropy (mythology) to simply Therianthropy as that is the more generic usage. --Justanother 19:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, as discussed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Therianthropy. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 20:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, I think that a prod should probably be put on Therianthropy (disambiguation) if the split goes through. Does this seem like a good idea to others?Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 20:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Otherkin do not necessarily believe they are animals - the great majority of otherkin I've come across have a dominant humanoid form, not animal. Therefore the merge makes no sense. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Clodaus (talk • contribs) 09:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

Without looking again, I got the clear impression from the Otherkin article that they feel that they ARE animals that have a human form in this incarnation. OK, I lied, I am looking again. I just looked again at both and now I am kinda confused as both terms seek to be so broad that they end up meaning the same thing. I see that therian feel that they have an animal aspect, i.e that their spirit is part animal and that they switch to that "nature"? While otherkin have the same idea but lean toward mythical creatures? In that case I would strongly support merge from otherkin as a subset or variation on the theme of therianthropy. And this goes way beyond totemism. --Justanother 16:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The topic is very confusing, which means that we have to be careful that the confusion doesn't taint the actual article and lead to a confusing article. My impression is that the original "Otherkin" were mostly people who thought of themselves as elves, who were gradually joined by people who thought of themselves as dragons and other mythical-creature minorities. However, therians seem to have had a separate (and earlier?) origin as an offshoot of the furry subculture and therians focus on "shifting" instead of reincarnation as their main belief. At some point, the definition of "Otherkin" was expanded to include the psychic vampire subculture as well, which certainly pre-dates the original definition of Otherkin. Which begs the question, is the current definition of "Otherkin" pointlessly large? And should subcultures that developed separately (therians and the psychic vampire subculture) be included under the label? These are hard questions, but they need to be adequately answered before we can do much towards building non-confusing articles. Unfortunately, most of the print sources seem confused themselves, which might mean that these articles are doomed to be either small or confusing until better sources gradually come into print. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 17:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, having some experience in an analogous area and at the risk of sounding trite, I think that articles should be written so as to make them more understandable and that aim generally requires that the editors contributing understand the subject material from a sympathetic viewpoint (putting themselves in the hooves of believers, so to speak). You seem to have that sort of understanding so I support your efforts, if you care to, in fixing the articles to make them specific to the usage they cover and not overly general or confusing. I have found that that can often be done using only the refs already present but just presenting the topic in an understandable manner while removing flagrant POV. --Justanother 17:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to sound harsh or dismissive but I think we should first fix the article as it is. Once we figure out what and how many diffrent articles and subgroups we can get reliable sources for then we can talk more realistically about splits. NeoFreak 01:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It's nice to have an opportunity to agree with NeoFreak here - let's focus on putting together good-quality content and defer judgement on splits and whatnot until we've got a collection of content that can be sorted through. My suspicion is that we'll have a lot of difficulty finding secondary sources on the contemporary subcultures, but I'll be very pleased if I'm wrong. NickArgall 05:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

There is a LOT of information in "The Magic of Shapeshifting" by Rosalyn Greene (already listed in references) on the subculture. However, that book treats "therianthropy subculture" as a minority usage, only using that term a couple of times, and instead uses "shifter subculture" most of the time. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 16:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

If it remains one article, it certainly needs to be organized so that the academic/mythology material and the subcultural material are more clearly separate. Otherwise, we keep having problems where it looks like the academic citations are supporting the subcultural stuff, which simply is misleading. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 19:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think either problem is going to be a concern. I have some likely sources for the subcultural material incoming (as available) on interlibrary loan, and proper use of inline citations should avoid any misconstruction of what references what. On a related note, I've heard some mention of possible use of the term pre-1900 in conjunction with claims of lycanthropy and some 1920s uses in psychology that were off-handedly mentioned as "dubious". Anyone able to scare up concrete examples of either of those? Serpent's Choice 07:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I seem to be the 'historical use defender' guy, I'll make some enquiries at the library later this week. NickArgall 00:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Therian people?

Shouldn't there be some listings about known people who actually claim to be Therian, such as groups or organizations, clubs, Therian philosopheers, writers, etc... something?

There was, but most of it was edited out (see earlier versions of the page) mainly because of lack of citations. Also see the split template and Therianthropy (subculture). Also, please sign your posts in the future. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 22:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep them seperate!

Otherkin and therianthropy, despite their similarities, are considered different by the groups themselves. Both are very subjective belief systems, which is why it can be difficult to provide citations, especially for otherkin, which is a more recent split off.

Otherkin is a highly controversial variation that's often rejected, even by the more open groups, such as wiccan. As an otherkin myself, I'm potently aware of such criticisms, despite having no "official" source to cite it from. Therianthropy is a much more accepted variation, as it pertains only to Earth creatures, and has roots in a considerable number of different metaphysical and religious points. If memory serves, hinduism is a faith in which animal reincarnation is accepted. In such, therianthropes are a bit more accepted.

Considering otherkin tends to involve more difficult to believe ideas, it's more commonly rejected, even by the more tolerant circles. So, though otherkin are (usually) more tolerant and open minded, accepting others of a larger variety of groups (so long as they, in turn, are accepted, of course), otherkin are generally considered a distinct group, being only universally accepted by other otherkin.

In such, despite the similarities between the two, they really should be seperate articles. I've noticed the otherkin article changing size and shape a great many times thus far, but hopefully, it will settle into a solid explaination of otherkin. It's the view of the outsider, who's not actually involved in the spiritual subtleties, that suggests merging the two points. Yes, from a distant view, they seem barely distinguishable, but once you're in it, you realize the difference. However, there should be links from one to the other, as point of comparison.

RubyCona 15:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC) RubyCona, Dragon Otherkin RubyCona 15:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Otherkin and therianthropy are variations on the same concept. While there are diffrences between the two both communities largely overlap and there is not enough sourcable information to really warrant two full and distinct articles. Also, in the future please do not put in any information to either article that cannot be backed with reliable sources or use the "minor edit" function unless the edit is a small grammer, link, format or typo fix.NeoFreak 15:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

There is also a concern with the mythological/folkloric/anthropology aspects of therianthropy. If Otherkin and Therianthropy do get merged, it would be pointless to include any of these other parts of Therianthropy in the Otherkin article, since the ONLY points of similarity are the subcultures. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 22:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

RfC response

I see no evidence that therianthropy is the usual term for this phenomenon, either in folklore or elsewhere. I think the article intends to say that those who consider themselves shape-shifters self-identify as such. It is asserted that they actualy believe this, but I do not see how this could be proven.

The key reason to separate the folklore elements is that they are verifiable and notable by the ordinary standards, and the the presentation of this material should not be distorted by the discussion of the present-day self-identifiers. There is an immense amount of such folklore material, and it would make a good article, and I do suggest having it separate. What the correct name should be is unclear, but I doubt it should be therianthropy; one advantage of not using that name would be avoiding the negative connotations of unverifiable cult associations. I think those who want to keep the parts together are at least partially motivated by a fear of deletion of a separate article on the cult aspect for lack of verification. To someone from outside altogether, this is a good reason to separate the articles, so as not to delete the verifiable parts.

If here are two groups of self-identifiers with different concepts using different names, it would be in accord with WP practice to give them separate articles, as is done for religions and cults of all sorts, assuming they can prove a group identity. DGG 00:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this is exactly what I've been thinking. Regardless of when the term might have been coined, it is not commonly used outside of the culture of therianthropes. A quick search of Google books for 'therianthropy' shows it being used in a pile of fiction and gaming books, a couple new age texts about armchair primitivism, and two scholarly books (one from 1915, one from 2003). That's not by any means a complete study, but I bet it maps out. The current self-identifying therians don't want to be mistaken for otherkin because, well, a lot of people think that otherkin are nuts. But to be honest, if someone says to me, "My soul is actually that of a panther," I'm going to think the same (therians never seem to realize that their soul is that of a boll weevil). People who come from cultures with a long tradition of soul and spirit animals, such as the Japanese, Chinese and some of the Native American tribes, do not use this term; it's a western term, created whole cloth to describe something they didn't quite understand, and then adopted by a usenet group. It's not the term for the spiritual practice, and the article as it stands should be merged into otherkin.Thespian 18:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. The term IS used by academics in folklore/mythology/etc. studies, and it's very nonencyclopedic for us to ignore how academics and experts use the term versus what a bunch of fringe culture Internet people use it for. Just because some bizarre thing is talked about on the net more than the professional version doesn't make it more correct, more important, and so forth. That logic would turn Wikipedia into not an encyclopedia but just a fanlisting for Internet jargon and nonsense. To the contrary, this being an encyclopedia it should focus more on the academic meanings and provide genuine information on topics other than what some loners who think up some way to make themselves sound cool decide to label themselves. Therianthropy as a popular culture phenomena barely rates any mention at all in this encyclopedia, but if it is going to be mentioned, we're damn sure going to mention the accurate term and the academic information also. To do so otherwise is a blatant abuse of WP:NPOV policy. DreamGuy 02:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

And I should further note that "The current self-identifying therians don't want to be mistaken for otherkin because, well, a lot of people think that otherkin are nuts." is laughable, because they are the same thing. We can;t go around changing encyclopedia articles to protect the sensibilities of people who want to create artificial distinctions between themselves and other people for purely POV-pushing reasons. DreamGuy 02:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Therian Temple?

Attention The URL discussed below will attempt to put a trojan (virus) on your computer. Fair warning. NeoFreak 13:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Ick! All the more reason to delete it then. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 14:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

VIRUS ACCUSATION NOT TRUE-POTENIALLY LIBEL —~~tolerant

See this edit comparison. Can we safely delete this? As far as I know, the Therian Temple is widely regarded as a hoax website created merely to promote an overly expensive self-published book, and has no standing at all in the therianthrope/otherkin subculture. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 19:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

-"As far as you know"* should not be the limitations of Wikipedia. "Church of Satan" Satanism is widely regarded by "Devil Worshippers" as a "hoax" because they do not recognize existence of a literal anthropomorphic "Satan" deity, yet it IS an existing school of thought. It is questionable how you choose to define "standing" in the 'community'? Is wikidpedia only an informational resource on what is "liked" now? Your personal opinion should not affect the content of an informational resource such as Wikipedia. ~twoCents

First, note that the unsigned statement above (see this history comparison and this one too) was added by the same ISP that added the link to begin with, so it is not a neutral view. I was hoping to attract some neutral observers to agree or disagree with my assessment. Secondly, the ISP above is arguing somewhat the reverse of the ordinary rules. If in doubt about an external link that seems of little relevance, especially if it seems like an advertisement, the default is to remove the external link. In other words, the editor that added the material is being asked to provide reasons that satisfy the guidlines of WP:EL, especially external link advertisement guidlines. Advertising and hoaxes, both of which the site seems like it might be, are not taken lightly in Wikipedia, and using a self-published work as a source is generally frowned on because a self-published source will rarely meet the requirements of WP:N. Unless the editor can provide some policy-based reasons for keeping the added material and external link, it will probably get deleted soon. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 05:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The article creator had two days to argue for keeping the material according to policy, and has not come up with anything. I saw another editor had deleted the link, so I went ahead and deleted the rest of the material (since its claim to validity rests mainly on a self-published book, it probably could never have satisfied WP:V anyway). Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 19:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

---Weren't almost ALL religious texts originally self-published?~hm?

Yes, but the verbal concept of a "therian temple" provokes in me all manner of wrath and outrage. Why? Because this is hardly a cult, and I for my part (and those who would agree with me, naturally) don't feel that anyone can claim to be a particular overriding authority on the topic. I would be rather loathe to believe the words of the author of a book that claims to be such a compendium, let alone one promoted by spamming Wikipedia and advertised on a website containing malicious code. Falcon 07:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

What malicious code??, can you show or prove this accusation in ANY way?~~tolerant

Paragraph 4

I have added the 4th paragraph (as of the posting of this message) because I think that an article which deals with therianthropy and which people are talking about splitting into (subculture) and (mythology) really should make at least some mention of what the subculture is presently, in addition to making some cursory mention of what it is other than people who believe they are part animal, which could be taken in quite a few different ways. I really would that it not be removed without at least some discussion, naturally; I'm certain that some external references could be dredged back up from the carnage embodied in the previous versions. Falcon 06:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you want to dredge those sources up that is fine but until then this article has more than enough unsourced material without having more added. I've reverted it back to the previous version. NeoFreak 07:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The article has less unsourced material than the majority of articles in Wikipedia! Why is this one being held to a higher standard than any other? Falcon 07:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Because of the subject material and the penchant on this page for extensive original research such as the material you just put in. Most articles that are devoted to New Age-ish groups and subcultures esp ones based on the internet and not firmly grounded in reality have a tendency to attract bogus material. Bottom line is this is a controversial subject and so anything that goes in here needs to be sourced with reliable sources. If it is not sourced I'm going to remove it without a second thought and will continue to do so. NeoFreak 07:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I would be considerably more wont to call such a thing common knowledge, rather than original research. I would rebut your position because there are very few published works on this kind of thing, and yet they still verily exist by virtue even of the number of individual and separate people unanimously committing certain data to this very article. I would far rather that the removal of bogus material be left to those who actually find it to be bogus, rather than having each sentence without a footnote removed. Why? I'm going to write an essay to this effect. Falcon 07:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

A lack of reliable sources is also an indicator of a lack of notability and is the definition of a lack of verifiability. I'm happy that this conversation is sparking a want to right an essay. I'm really not going to argue this with you because I don't have too. If you want to add sometihng, source it or don't bother. NeoFreak 08:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to start an argument so much as a discussion over what ought to be done with this article. Honestly, I really think there's no need for every sentence on this page to generate a new footnote with a new reference; it is that kind of overzealous squabbling that prevents anything productive from being accomplished here, in addition to driving off perfectly well-meaning (albeit less stubborn) contributors. Further, the whole thing depends very heavily on what exactly it is that constitutes a reliable source. I hold that it changes situationally. While the word of many independent persons might mean nothing in the context of science, it means a great deal in the context of philosophy, or that of a statement that a group of people say something. I'm sorry you don't seem to want to discuss it, though. Wikipedia is run by discussion. Falcon 08:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you need to reread the policy and guidline sections. Your basic assumptions such as reliable sources "changing situationally" tells me that you are not familiar with them. NeoFreak 08:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the policies ought to be changed to better reflect reality, then. Falcon 05:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

And you get to define what reality is? Go read our policies and follow them. If you don't like them, make yor own encyclopedia. DreamGuy 02:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Therianthropy (mythology)

That's really all that needs to be done. Just please point out that this article is about the mythology of therianthropy and not the subculture. I'm not even saying a subculture article has to be created. But people going on wikipedia to try learn about therianthropy as the subculture may see this and get very confused. Also the links should be made both to categories of the mythology and of the subculture. Because right now there are several links to much less harsh articles on therianthropy, but the stuff in the article seems like it could basically discredit anything that those positive articles say. If somebody goes in to look at those links after wikipedia's already told them it's a clinical disorder then it just seems like the ranting of the insane, or at least mildly disturbed. The article's received a ridiculous amount of editing for trying to make it NPOV, but now there's a fairly obvious POV that therians are either liars, or semi-crazy people. And since after 3 days nobody responded to this, I made a change myself I simply made it perfectly clear that the section about psychiatric therianthropy is an entirely different thing from the therianthropy of the subculture. Hopefully that'll at least get somebody's attention so the matter can be discussed.Anon 16:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, it got my attention, in that I reverted your obvious POV-pushing edits. It's not for you, an anonymous person out in cyberspace somewhere, to ty to claim that people who think they turn into animals are not nuts. You would need a verifiable and reliable source from a professional saying that. We also are not saying they ARE nuts. The information is just presented in an encyclopedic way. Worrying what subculture thinks or wants or so forth isn't encyclopedic. See especially the undue weight section of the NPOV policy. DreamGuy 02:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd Edition Monsterous Manual called therianthropes as such; it may have been responsible for its popularization among those who called themselves such. Titanium Dragon 15:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Hm, I honestly don't mind that it was deleted. It's not like I put a ton of work into it. I'm just saying that the article should point out that it's about mythology and not the subculture. People that think they turn into animals are indeed crazy, but therians in the subculture do not believe they turn into animals. And in that case I was only making sure to point that out. Also if the article is going to be about psychiatric disorders and mythology then the links should go to those categories. All the links currently go to sites about the subculture when the article has nothing to do with it. And I just made another small edit, because that seems to be the only way to get in a conversation with the people "managing" this article. I was wondering though, how exactly does that book phrase it?. Anon 20:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

External links removal restored

DreamGuy's deletion of the entire external links section was just reverted (see this edit). I had stopped trying to revert this article because of DreamGuy's continued attempts to argue me down by sheer force on places such as Werewolf fiction, but now that there's another supportive editor, I plan to support the existence of an external links section on this article. Now there are two editors here who think that an external links section is needed, and that DreamGuy's wholesale deletion is not according to policy. I'm just making this note here to keep track of the situation and allow others to comment if they have opinions too. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 18:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh look, Mermaid's following me around again to make harassing edits on yet more pages. Don't mind him, he's just a chronic wikistalker.

Fact of the matter is that wiki projects are EXPLICITLY mentioned as NOT meeting WP:EL rules, so that one absolutely cannot be listed here.

And the spammy, linkfarming, self-promotional, nonencyclopedic, fanwank, just some kid's blog crap links you try to shove onto all sorts of articles also fail policy. You seem to have been on a crusade to oppose anyone actually following WP:EL guidelines after some sites you tried to spam got deleted by a strong consensus of editors on Talk:Dragon and elsewhere, and you've been going around undoing my edits on tons of other pages since then. Your kind of petty harassment simply will not work. DreamGuy 19:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I also restored some of those links and I am not any sort of "stalker". I happen to think you're simply wrong on this matter, and your hyperbole is not helping the matter any. You're taking an overly dogmatic view of Wikipedia:External links. Firstly, it's just a guideline, not an absolute line-in-the-sand policy. Secondly, what it says is that "Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors" are normally to be avoided. "Normally" means there can be exceptions, and in the case of WikiFur I think it satisfies the description of having "substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors." Finally, the fact that you call it a "competing" wiki and consider that a bad thing suggests a misunderstanding of Wikipedia's mission. We're not competing with anyone. Bryan Derksen 01:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree; the use of the word 'competing' threw up a huge red flag for me, and concerns me more than the link to WikiFur is (WikiFur, is one of the top 5 wikis on Wikia for actual content pages). WP:EL is a guideline, not a hard and fast Law. From my edits people can see that I'm generally first in line on replacing fanwank with actual citage, and I am in agreement that the WIkiFur should stay. Also DreamGuy: I found your language in your comment to be aggressive and a failure to assume Good Intent, and feel you should be aware that your tone will not help the argument. The argument is over content on this page, Therianthropy, and I do not accept the argument that 'you were wrong before!' as a guarantee that the links are incorrect *here*. --Thespian 06:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with DreamGuy 100% that the external links section needs to be clear, concise, encyclopedic and accurate. It is very often a mess in articles such as Therianthropy, Otherkin, Dragon, and were articles. By linking to another site the editors of wikipedia are basically endorsing it and saying that its information is good. I think, though, that WikiFur is a fair and rather expansive site for this article and quite a few other articles to link to. As a matter of fact I think alot of material here (wikipedia in general) could very well do to be Transwikied to WikiFur and more links to the site added; the information can be good but it is often lacking in the sourcing that wikipedia requires. Amateur "community" blogs/homepages and other such sites should be removed with prejudice but I believe WikiFur should stand. Also, don't read too much into the uasge of the word "competing" as that was the language used in the guidline or at least it was in the past. NeoFreak 16:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I checked the current version, the version from 6 months ago, and the version from a year ago and the only use of the word "competing" is in an unrelated context regarding links to commercial products being vandalized by competitors. Bryan Derksen 16:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

What, do you want to fight about it? I remember it being in there but maybe I'm wrong. Is this something that needs further exploration or can we get back to discussing the external links for the article? NeoFreak 18:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I just figured it was worth checking what the "letter of the law" said since it's what was being cited by DreamGuy as a basis for his actions. Bryan Derksen 22:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello, WP:EL is EXTREMELY clear on this point. "Links to be avoided" has "Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors." Wikifur DOES NOT count as as substantial history of stability and substantial number of editors. Furthermore, the number one thing listed there under to be avoided links is "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article." which certainly applies in this case as well. Anyone claiming "uh. but that page is ust a guideline" misses that MOST things on Wikipedia are "just" guidelines, like evolution is "just" a theory. There's no good reason to link to some minor wiki project, as it wholly fails reliability under other tests. Anyone here wants to disagree, go get the necessary consensus to change [[WP:EL]. Until that gets changed, Wikipedia has established a wide consensus that such links are wholly inappopriate, so it simply cannot be here. DreamGuy 03:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Oy. First you need to deal with the fact that there's a reasonable consensus right here that you're misreading the existing guideline, that WikiFur does indeed meet the criteria listed, and that "just a guideline" actually does put a meaningful limitation on the strictness with which WP:EL applies in any event. You are not the sole arbiter of what goes into this article, you can't just declare your POV the "winner." Do we need to take this through dispute resolution or something? Bryan Derksen 04:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The Wikifur link plainly violates WP:EL and has no value in any case, so I've removed it again. 2005 02:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal

I have posted this as a request to The Mediation Cabal, before this heats up into a full edit war instead of just a pesky case of revertitis on both sides. My request can be read here. --Thespian 04:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It's a pesky little thing to be fighting over, unfortunately. Bryan Derksen 04:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It is, and I do think its taking up too much time, and we're at an impasse, so since I think everyone involved *is* acting in good faith, I think this just needs someone else to help out. --Thespian 05:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello, all. I am willing to mediate this case, if all parties accept me as a mediator. I have never edited this page (or any Fur related pages, for that matter) and I have no bias towards either side of the dispute. Secondly, would anybody prefer the mediation case page other than the talk page for the mediation? Sean William @ 23:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, then. Instead of the case being "closed", it was added back to the list of cases needing mediators. Sean William @ 23:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems the case has since been "closed" again. So, where does that leave us? The dispute's still the same and DreamGuy has never been the sort to back down or compromise from what I've seen in the past. Bryan Derksen 02:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Please note, it was closed by DreamGuy, not by a mediator, who also made the Administrative notes stating that the problem was with WP:EL, so it 'wasn't valid'. In point, my problem has been with DreamGuy's declaratives, and all he did here was prove that he cannot in fact maintain a NPOV on this page because he is far too attached to his own interpretation of WP:EL, to an ownership level when it comes to not allowing those links on this page. Since he won't talk with anyone, and makes changelog comments like 'this is not to be discussed', we can at this point safely say he's been asked, and he refuses to speak with others on this subject, and take it to admin if his abusive, confrontational and own-y behaviour continues. He may even be right, I know that I can't assess it right now; I believe it belongs, as many others do. However, the mediation request was actually an attempt to get him to stop telling us all to back off when *he* wants things his way. --Thespian 06:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I've left a note about alternate solutions on the mediation page. There is no reason to "go to an admin" like you're reporting a crime or something. This is just a content dispute, an argument over the inclusion of material and that material's applicability to a policy or guideline, it happens all the time and there are a ton of different things you can do to resolve them without getting all worked up and offended or smashing the panic button. If the other avenues of resolution turn out with the same consensus as here then you won't have a problem. If it doesn't then it would seem that the consensus to add WikiFur doesn't exist. Regardless an outside opinion is needed before anything else is done. May I suggest WP:3O or WP:RfC? NeoFreak 14:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Please note, I went for WP:MEDCAB instead of WP:3O, which are basically the same types of external things, and you saw his reaction. DreamGuy doesn't think mediation is needed, because DreamGuy knows he is correct. He's not going to accept an outside opinion because he's already decided that mediation doesn't work on Wikipedia, and has said so. He's already said that WP:RfC won't work because this isn't up for discussion; 6 editors here telling him that he's making a mistake (4 that I don't know the politics of, 2 who I know are distinctly non-furry/therian/otherkin types) doesn't matter to him either. This isn't the only case of him removing 'competing' wikis from Wikipedia without regard for their content, simply by virtue of them being Wikis; there are posts about this on his talk page. At this point, the only reason it isn't an edit war is because the other editors have backed off while trying to find a solution, knowing that DreamGuy isn't going to stop imposing his interpretation on WP:EL on this page. At that point, since this is a repeating pattern that's only not WP:3RR because everyone else is behaving, I do believe it becomes adminable. --Thespian 18:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Much as I hate to suggest it over something so seemingly trivial but perhaps arbitration is the solution. DreamGuy has shown this sort of editing pattern for as long as I've known of him and while usually he's good about distinguishing between actually problematic material and non-problematic material his take-no-prisoners fighting style can cause a lot of problems when he's wrong. And there isn't really much that an admin can do in a case like this without some sort of official sanction. Some of the discussion above suggests that DreamGuy is involved in some other similar disputes right now, is this true? I've only been watching this particular page. Bryan Derksen 20:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFC would be a better step, instead of going to arbitration. Each side can say what they want to say, and the community will listen to both. Sean William @ 20:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd be fine with that too, I just worry that it would seem like a "piling-on" that would make DreamGuy even angrier. But I'm not experienced with the various dispute resolution options or with the larger scope of this situation so I'll follow others' leads here. Bryan Derksen 20:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Boy, you people don't get how things work here. Mediation is not proper for these kind of disputes, not because "I think I am right" but because mediator is just one person who cannot overrule policy. WP:3O was never an option because there were more than two editors involved. And calling for arbitration? Absolutely ridiculous. You claim I don't know what I am talking about the policies here and then demonstrate you aren't familiar with the policies or guidelines for anything you are talking about here. You guys dispute what WP:EL says, the correct route is to get people from that page to come here and take a look at it, not to flail around making moves that aren't following procedure and then get pissed off when I don't agree to them.

It's true that I end up frequently getting in disputes, but that happens when people not following policy insist on ignoring it and not looking into the proper way to do things. Not to mention I also have some wikistalkers following me around trying to cause grief (like Mermaid of the baltic sea above) because they are still upset about conflicts they lost on other pages. But I also have a great track record for being the side that ends up prevailing in the end, because I know the policies, participate in the talk pages for them, and follow them. The conflict on this page is an absolute no brainer, based upon what WP:EL says and other similar disputes that have been handled recently on this topic. DreamGuy 00:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Mermaid of the Baltic Sea hasn't posted on this talk page since the 13th. Please stop blaming "stalkers" for this disagreement, many of the editors here are not involved with your other disputes. And I have no hesitation in saying that you're usually on the right side of things, I've already said so at several points over the past few days, it's just that in this particular situation I think you've got your interpretation of the external links guideline flat-out wrong. Not that the guideline is wrong, note, but that your understanding of it is wrong. It's not something we can really agree to disagree on, unfortunately. Bryan Derksen 00:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

DreamGuy, I'm curious: In your opinion, what would you do to try to resolve this dispute? Sean William @ 00:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiFur link and WP:EL

I have restored the furry.wikia.com link in the External links section after substantial perusal of WP:EL and current practice on the project in general. Hopefully, this explanation will satisfy the concerned parties.

Our guideline on external links does caution against "Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors." Obviously, some links to other wikis, especially those at Wikia, are tolerated. In fact, there are over 8000 links to *.wikia.com currently in the English Wikipedia. Many are from Talk or User pages to be sure, but a substantial number are included as external links from articles. WikiFur is among those wikis linked, with over 100 such links, several of which have long acceptance at established articles. In fact, WikiFur has an entry in the interwiki map, to which no objections have been raised. There is even an attribution template to be used for GFDL-compliant material with origins at WikiFur (in use for at least one article). It is correct to say that WikiFur is not a reliable source for references (by definition, as it is a wiki) but WP:EL also says links may be considered to "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." It is a specialized sister project, not a competitor, and not one that is prohibited by either the letter or spirit of existing policy and practice. Serpent's Choice 21:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Other pages with incorrect links do not justify linking to a site that fails WP:EL. This is the most ridiculous argument in the world, as there are also plenty of links out there to tons of pure spam sites, and even people who sneak templates in to them to try to confuse people. WP:EL prevails over all that nonsense. Talk page discussion on WP:EL has made it extremely clear that my interpretation of the wiki link ban is also what it supported by a strong consensus of editors there. If you disagree with it, go try to get it changed there. In the meantime, thanks for letting me know about all of these improper links, I may go through and clear them all out, with the help of other people on WP:EL as well. DreamGuy 00:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

DreamGuy, the state of other pages doesn't enter into it. We believe you're simply incorrect to read EL has having an absolute "ban" on external links to wikis, and that in fact the criteria of EL allow for this, so there's no need to change anything on EL to include this link. I think you should hold off on starting some sort of crusade on the matter until this disupte is settled. Bryan Derksen 00:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, the state of other pages was what "Serpent's Choice" was trying to claim as his rationale for putting the link back, and if you admit he's wrong, then there goes his reasoning for put the link there. Again, as already explained, there is not an absolute ban on wikis, as long as there is a valid encyclopedic reason to do so. There isn't in this case, and this wiki falls very clearly on the low, low, low end of any wiki that could ever be linked to. It's an open and shut case. I think you people should hold back on your crusade to ignore WP:EL until you can get WP:EL changed to reflect your views, and since that will never happen the link cannot be there in the meantime. DreamGuy 00:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't "admit" anything on Serpent's Choice's behalf. And it's not an open-and-shut case by the mere fact that so many editors are in disagrement over it, if it were truly open and shut we wouldn't be still arguing. Bryan Derksen 00:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The editors who have participated in discussions about WP:EL in the past all call it open and shut, while the people who haven't don't. It's kind of like saying that it's still unknown whether the world is a sphere or not because some FlatEarthers insist that it isn't. DreamGuy 06:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The editors who participated in discussions about EL in the past do not get some sort of special authority to define the guideline or its application in the future. If that were the case then wouldn't the new contributors you're dismissing in this case wind up with the same special authority in future disputes due to their participation now? I somehow suspect you wouldn't want that. Bryan Derksen 14:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

And here we go. [9], [10], [11], [12] - it's ongoing as I write this. DreamGuy, please, you're only going to spread flames everywhere. Bryan Derksen 00:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I've requested intervention over at WP:AN/I#Rapid-fire external link removal by DreamGuy. Bryan Derksen 00:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I've responded there. I take no position on the question, but disruptive editing is not the way to request observance of policy in disputed situations. User has been warned, if it continues after warning, he will be blocked. I'm watching. DGG 00:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm keeping notes on which articles were affected so there shouldn't be a need to immediately revert all the removals that were already done, we can get back to them once this is sorted out or on an as-needed basis. Bryan Derksen 01:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Now that the debate of WikiFur and this article directly has been resolved (for the short term) I would suggest carrying any further discussion of the application of WP:EL to WikiFur over to that discussion page, Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Wikifur. This way it can be resolved in a centralized and finale manner. NeoFreak 01:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Probably for the best, yes. It was always a larger-scale issue than just this one article, this is just where I happened to notice it and get involved. Bryan Derksen 01:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I am now at a loss; even if the link is not appropriate here, I looked at the mass edits DreamGuy was making, and the WikiFur link would be *perfectly* acceptable on FurryMUCK. All this does is prove to me that he's playing by rules not content, not value to Wikipedia, nothing. Half of me wants to bow out of this not because I believe he's right, but simply because no one will ever convince him that he might be wrong. DreamGuy's bunkered down in his trenches and no one is ever going to convince him that he's wrong in his interpretation of WP:EL; no matter who it comes down from, he's going to insist they're wrong. One doesn't *enforce* guidelines. His log comments constantly state the equivalent of 'AND I'M RIGHT SO DON'T ARGUE'. I don't want to deal with this anymore. I hope he doesn't consider that a victory. All his attitude can do is drive editors who don't agree with him off of pages that he's taken an interest in, and that is a terrible thing for Wikipedia. --Thespian 07:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if the people disagreeing with me are doing so because they are disagreeing with Wikipedia policies -- which is the case here and elsewhere -- then driving those editors off until they are willing to follow policy is a good thing. So far everyone who has followed discussions on the talk page of the External links page has agreed with me, and the most vocal people disagreeing are a chronic spammer, a known wikistalker, and some miscellaneous people who seem to be acting more out of hurt feelings than a desire to follow clear guidelines. That should tell you all you need to know about whose side is right. DreamGuy 06:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. I'm disagreeing with you and I don't see how you get the notion that I'm doing it out of "hurt feelings". Isn't it possible that I simply consider you to be incorrect? Bryan Derksen 14:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Relax. Take a deep breath. Join the discussion at the guideline's talk page. I'm sure DreamGuy will do the same once he logs back on. After we establish a consensus there we can make the appropriate changes to the appropriate pages. Ok? NeoFreak 08:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Consensus has already been established on this topic by many diligent editors discussing the issue and former rules for what to do in these situations. It's called Wikipedia:External links. Many of the people here should go read it sometime, it's quite enlightening and would clear up any controversy right away with no room for any dispute at all. But some people unfortunately are deadset on ignoring it, or taking sections out of it completely out of context and trying to twist them to mean the exact opposite of what they say... some of them are clearly doing it out of longstanding malice and deception (like Mermaid of the Baltic Sea), while others appear to just be trying to rationalize away their own mistakes. DreamGuy 06:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Consensus has not been achieved, however, on whether your particular interpretation of EL is correct in this case. Please stop denying that there's even a conflict going on here, considering how much verbiage has been spent on it in the past few days it really is getting into flat-Earther territory to do so. Bryan Derksen 14:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

For the moment, my reply is in this diff but I hope to add more soon. Please be patient and thank you. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 16:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The WikiFur link from this page plainly violated WP:EL and was frankly embarrassing. The guideline is clear that such links should never be used not just because the blatant conflict of interest, not just because the Wiki in question does not meet the Wiki criteria of WP:EL but because the link was totally lame, without any semblance of being a reliable source that added value over and above this article. 2005 03:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The debate is ongoing so one can't really call the violation "plain". Please don't fan the flames by edit-warring while the larger-scale discussion over DreamGuy's interpretation is still up in the air, I'd rather not have to keep track of yet more articles to review once this is all over. Bryan Derksen 05:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not my interpretation, it's the extremely clear rules WP:EL gives us against spam and poor sites, just as User:2005 notes. And there is no edit warring here except when some person breaking rules goes and puts the spam back with absolutely no justification whatsoever. DreamGuy 06:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I did not "edit war" anything. Your statement that I did is a deliberate falsehood. You may like to engage in such childishness, but behave yourself. 2005 06:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring is the repeated reversion back and forth between two revisions of an article, or part of an article. In this case that's the addition and removal of the WikiFur link. Bryan Derksen 14:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I made one edit on one page. Name-calling that "edit warring" is childish, and just dumb. Please refrain from any such comments in the future. 2005 20:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It was the sixth time it was removed overall. I put it back two of the previous times myself, so I'm not perfectly clean either, but ever since this escalated into a major conflict rather than just a dispute over one silly little external link I've been advising everyone to back off completely and just discuss the matter first. There isn't a deadline to make the article perfect. Bryan Derksen 23:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no time limit, but the default should be to remove all instances of clear spam when they appear until such time as 1) the are OK'd overall by WP:EL policy as being something that can be linked to at all, and 2) that if they are OK'd as acceptable anywhere, they are approved by a clear consensus on each and every article that someone thinks it should be added to. Once we have a clear case of rampant linkfarming by someone involved with the site (as admitted by the person responsible), especially to a site that's a Google advertising delivery device, per WP:COI criteria it has to be removed. DreamGuy 17:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Nineteenth century uses of therianthropic

It may be of interest to mention uses earlier than the 1901 therianthropy ref cited. The historian and philosopher of religion Cornelis Petrus Tiele of Leiden is credited (here in 1895) with having dubbed certain religions therianthropic, so I looked it up and found it in 1892 here and in 1897 here with etymology. Based on how he used it apparently without definition in 1892, it must have been known at the time. In 1899 here he defines it, so maybe it wasn't as known as he had hoped. Perhaps the mention of religious historian Mircea Eliade should be supplemented with Tiele. Dicklyon 06:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

What does Cohen say?

Who has the Cohen Werewolves book? What does it actually say? I have a hard time believing it talks about usenet, so at least part of that paragraph likely needs to be cleaned up. Dicklyon 06:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't have it right with me, but it's at the local library, and I can get it and confirm this. It definitely mentions Usenet. A footnote in The Magic of Shapeshifting writes: "Daniel Cohen has also spoken of the [therianthropy] movement and its traces on the Internet ... See Werewolves ... pp. 101-107." Switchercat ^talk_cont 00:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Horus

What on earth is the picture of Horus doing on this page? Egyptian gods have no place here -- the Egyptians didn't actually /believe/ their gods had animal heads, they were only portrayed that way to assist the illiterate in differentiating between them (the gods). Archtemplar 23:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Egyptian gods had Theriomorphic forms. Woland37 16:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Archtemplar, do you have an actual source from an expert who claims that? It would seem to go against what is actually written in some of the ancient religious texts of the Egyptians. -- DreamGuy (talk) 19:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Imported from lycanthropy article

Here are some orphaned sources that were listed at the bottom of lycanthopy, much of the general shape-shifting info having been trasferred hither: Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Sources

• Ashley, L.R.N. (2001). The Complete Book of Werewolves. Fort Lee, NJ: Barricade Books. ISBN 1-56980-159-2.
• De Groot, J.J.M. (1901). The Religious System of China: Volume IV. Leiden: Brill. ISBN 0-7661-3354-0.
• Greene, R. (2000). The Magic of Shapeshifting. York Beach, ME: Weiser. ISBN 1-57863-171-8.
• Guiley, R.E. (2005). The Encyclopedia of Vampires, Werewolves & Other Monsters. New York: Facts on File. ISBN 0-8160-4685-9.
• Hamel, F. (1969). Human Animals, Werewolves & Other Transformations. New Hyde Park, NY: University Books. ISBN 0-8216-0092-3.
• Pijoan, T. (1992). White Wolf Woman & Other Native American Transformation Myths. Little Rock: August House. ISBN 0-87483-200-4.
• Pfeiffer, Thomas (2004). Le Brûleur de loups. Lyon: Bellier.
• Rose, C. (2000). Giants, Monsters & Dragons: An Encyclopedia of Folklore, Legend and Myth. New York: Norton. ISBN 0-393-32211-4.
• White, D.G. (1991). Myths of the Dog-Man. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-89509-2.

"Internet subculture"? Therian groups?

It is very offensive to actual Therians to have this article use the term "Internet subculture" to describe an entire group of people's real life beliefs and identities.

Therianthropy is a form of self-identification in regards to personal beliefs, not a "subculture", as if it were a fashion or genre like punk or goth. It is ESPECIALLY not only an "internet" phenomenon.

To say that Therianthropy/Therianism is an "Internet subculture" just because some of the people happen to communicate online is akin to saying that Christianity is a "literary subculture" because it happened to be written down in a book. Also the term Therianthrope was used in this sense as early as 1915, long before the internet.

Secondly, There is no reference anywhere in the article to any actual Therian-related Organizations such as Therian Temple or books about Therian-related occultism such as the Therian Bible (ISBN 978-0-557-01649-5). Even if it (as noted above) the group is small (although we have no way of knowing that for sure one way or the other), it being the first Therianthropic "religious" group is certainly word noting if Therianthropy itself is considered notable enough for an article.

Also the person above saying their (TT) site has malicious code is obviously lying-I just went to the Therian Temple site and there is nothing even abnormal about the code, not even any ads or pop-ups. We cannot just leave notable people or groups out of Wikipedia just because certain editors may not agree with their beliefs--I mean we have plenty of articles on various Nazis, but (hopefully) not everyone agrees with them.--Chicagomusicfan (talk) 10:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Here, here. Though the therian temple might not be the best example of therianthropy. . . --ConservapediaUndergroundResistor (talk) 01:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

And I removed the internet part of it. --ConservapediaUndergroundResistor (talk) 01:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Bring it on and get stuck in - the article is in need of sourcing - though it is a bit unclear what should be here and what should be in shapeshifting, plus lycanthropy has a bunch of shapeshifting stuff which is not wolf-related and should be moved to one of these articles too. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Therianthropy

Therianthropy as mentioned in the above article is a "Therianthropy as a subculture does not have any central dogma or tenets, nor any recognized authority", and yet here we are being bombarded with definitions that are uncited. Yes, I see the classical definition listed, but nowhere is anyone trying to show the reality of therianthropy -- and are quite frankly, mocking it.

The validity of portions of the third paragraph under 'Subculture social structure' is uncited, and frankly unfounded in the therian community. Therianthropy is in noway connected with the 'Bears', and is not wrought by video games (Please cite a scientific study, while I will agree it could be, I ask for your proof). There is no interconnection to anything referred to in this third paragraph, but possibly the "Werewolf: The Apocalypse" (remotely if that).

Terrorwolf 22:47, 26 November 2005 (UTC) TerrorWolf Pennsylvania State University

I will agree that I see no real connection between Therianthropy and role gaming except that some Therians might incidentally role game. Of all the Therians I know, only one might be described as a "Gamer" and the incidental gaming that the others have done does not seem to focus on Werewolves. Therians are just about the most "reality based" people I have ever run into.

As for Bears, I have noticed a lot of crossover between the Furry community and the Bear community but I don't know a single Therian associated in any way with the Bear community (which is rather strange since I do know several Gay Therians).

I don't see much connection between the Therian community and Otherkin except, perhaps the Draconics, and there does seem to be a subset of the Dragon community that seems to gravitate toward the Therian community.

Actually, though, Terrorwolf, it's going to be hard to produce much in the way of scholarly material related to therianthropy. The modern community didn't exist earlier than 1993 and Therians are a hardy bunch that simply hasn't presented much in the clinical arena and when they have, it has usually been for tangetial problems - not anything obviously related to Therianthropy.

There is weak research being carried on now but the methods available to individual Therians and other people currently interested have obvious shortcomings (small and nonrepresentative samples, etc.) and can only be used as pilot research. Nothing has had the time to appear in peer reviewed literature. Wolf VanZandt 11/28/05.

I would like to point out that as of 08/04/13 there have been quite a few thesis' - peer reviewed literature and lectures on therianthropy published by universities, and to see my suggestions below as to using the new published research for creating a seperate therianthropy community/subculture page. Emily 08/04/2013

Thanks, Emily. I try to keep up with the substantive research being done on therianthropy. I'm waiting for three reports to come out now, so there is a lot of interest in the academic world. I generally report my reviews on The Therian Timeline and have just finished (for the time being) a section on Therian psychology. I'll be working on sociology next - since I live in an intentional community with 6 other Weres and in a larger community of about 50, I'm getting plenty of anecdotal material. I don't get by here too often, though. The quality of therianthropological research has improved considerably since the last time I posted. I've made the statement several times in support of therianthropological researchers that they are working with some special situations that hamper their progress, such as difficulty in obtaining representative samples, but you have to start somewhere and I'm very appreciative of what has been done and I see some of the early errors being corrected, which is pretty much how sociological research proceeds. WolfVanZandt (talk) 19:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Several things

First of all, my edit may have been POV due to wording, but the fact is still true: therianthropy hasn't been studied, and therefore cannot be dismissed or confirmed. Second of all, why on earth is there more information here than on the article? --ConservapediaUndergroundResistor (talk) 21:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

It has been studied. See clinical lycanthropy, for one. But the parts that are just all "I feel like I'm part animal" by their nature can't be studied, so to say that it hasn't been studied and imply that it may be real is not only blatantly obvious but specifically written in such a way as to assume that the fact that it can't/hasn't been studied means there's some truth to it. The whole point is only there to make a point, not to give any valid encyclopedic information. It's pointless soapboaxing.

As to your second point, I have no idea what you mean. Lots of talk pages have more info than the articles, because the info on the talk isn't good enough to actually be on the article... so if you want the article to look more like this page, nope, sorry. DreamGuy (talk) 00:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh really? If one says that they feel as if someone is watching them, that most certainly can be studied. I would argue that this is little different: you are analyzing brain structure. --The Resistor 23:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

It has been studied, in both anthropological and theological thesis' and lectures (University of California, Sydney and Washington respectively), with a psychological thesis' currently undergoing examination by the University of Nottingham. Please see my below suggestions for use of these sources.

Shaman in a state of trance experiences therianthropic visions!

Why the relationship between trance (altered state of consciousness) and the therianthropic vision mostly painted in rock art and depict by many shamans has not been discussed in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.119.211 (talk) 12:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Removed piece of lede

Per my edit summary, I removed this section of the lede (as well as made some minor syntax changes):

Common day therianthropy (According to research) is a belief someone's spirit is crossed with another. Therians (Short for people who are therianthropes) do NOT go through physical shifts as what above states, they may go through metal shifts though. I do not know how the explanation above would relate to common day therianthropy.

I'm not trying to outright remove this idea from the wiki, but don't think that the tone or parentheticals are appropriate for the wiki. If anyone wants to put it back in, I suggest rewriting it to be more in line with the rest of the article (no first person POV, etc). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Havensfire (talk • contribs) 23:58, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Suggested move and sources

I know this has been suggested previously, but I'd like to bring it up again, and with some fresh ideas and sources. I'd like to suggest that the therianthropy (self identification) part of the current therianthropy article should link to a main article on the topic, constructed using the following sources (although yes, I'll reference them properly if we do make the actual article):

• A Field Guide To Otherkin by Lupa (book)
• Fang and Fur Blood and Bone by Lupa (book)
• Ontological Rebellion and Religious Dimensions of the Otherkin Community (University of California: article)
• Anthrozoomorphic Identity and Alterative Spirituality in the Online Therianthropy Movement (University of Sydney: article)
• Animal Imitators (documentary)
• The Ways: Do Werewolves Really Exist? (documentary)
• ”Sometimes I get the urge to how like a wolf" A news article interview Lanina. Originally in Swedish. (news article)
• Therianthropy As A State of Being (University of Washington: lecture)
• Creatures of the Night by Dr Gregory L. Reece (book)
• How Does the Adoption of the Term 'Therian' Impact One's Personal Identity? (University of Nottingham: article - not currently published)

These are all either documentaries, books, news articles, thesis' published by universities or lectures given in universities. Would these sources be considered all suitable and valid to be used? I can provide links to any of them if wished. Does anybody object to the change, now that it can be argued that therianthropy is a studied phenomena - considering the anthropological and theological papers? Would this move be immediately reversed if proceeded with, and under what grounds? Any objections to me just steamrolling ahead and getting something basic hashed out? Thanks! Emily 08/04/2013

Current list of references (last chance to complain guys! (who am I kidding, I'm sure it'll have to be redone afterwards))

• McDougall, Nick. Brauman, Laura. “Otherkin: Heart of a Human, Spirit of a Wolf” The Feed. SBS2 Australia 2013
• Joseph P. Laycock. “We Are Spirits of Another Sort”: Ontological Rebellion and Religious Dimensions of the Otherkin Community. Nova Religio: The Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions. Vol. 15, No. 3 (February 2012), pp. 65-90. University of California Press
• Kirby, Danielle (2006). "Alternative Worlds: Metaphysical Questing and Virtual Community Amongst the Otherkin". Sydney University Press. ISBN 1920898549.
• Robertson, Venetia Laura Delano “The Beast Within” Anthrozoomorphic Identity and Alternative Spirituality in the Online Therianthropy Movement." Nova Religio: The Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions 16.3 (2013)
• Pemberton, Justin. Coyote, “Animal Imitators” Natural History New Zealand Ltd, TLC 2013. documentary
• “What!? I Think I’m An Animal” Logo TV, 2013
• Otherkin Timeline: The Recent History of Elfin, Fae, and Animal People". 2011-05-31.
• “10 Ways to Meet a Monster: Do Werewolves Really Exist?” Science Channel, 2008
• Insidan, 2010-04-07, Lerner, Thomas “Sometimes I get the urge to howl like a wolf”
• "Therianthropy: A State of Being" Guest Lecture (Trevor Addie) ANTH-331 "Taboos" – American University (Washington, DC) March 5, 2013
• Reece, Gregory L. “Creatures of the Night: In Search of Ghosts, Vampires, Werewolves and Demons” IB Tauris, 2012.
• Chantal Bourgault Du Coudray (2006). The Curse of the Werewolf: Fantasy, Horror and the Beast Within. I. B. Tauris. ISBN 1-84511-158-3.
• Cohen, D. (1996). Werewolves. New York: Penguin. p. 104. ISBN 0-525-65207-8.
• Lupa (2007). A Field Guide to Otherkin. Immanion Press. ISBN 978-1-905713-07-3.
• Bryant, Clifton D (2001). Encyclopedia of criminology and deviant behavior: Sexual deviance, Volume 3. Brunner/Routledge.
• Earls, Christopher M and Lalumière, Martin L (2009). A Case Study of Preferential Bestiality Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38:605-609.
• Giffney, Noreen and Hird, Myra J (2008). Queering the non/human. Ashgate.
• Garber, Marjorie (1997). Vested Interests: Cross-Dressing and Cultural Anxiety. Routledge.
• Bonewits, Phaedra and Bonewits, Isaac (2007). Real Energy: Systems, Spirits, And Substances to Heal, Change, And Grow. New Page Books.
• Cárdenas, Micha. "CV, transreal.org". Retrieved 14 November 2011.
• Cárdenas M, Head C, Margolis T and Greco K (2009). "Becoming Dragon: a mixed reality, durational performance in Second Life". The International Society for Optical Engineering.
• Gerbasi, K. C., Paolone, N., Higner, J., Scaletta, L. L., Bernstein, P. L., Conway, S., & Privitera, A. (2008). "Furries A to Z (Anthropomorphism to Zoomorphism)". Society & Animals, 16, 197-222.
• Dave Jones. Savage, NightFireWolf, “Werewolves: The Truth From Those Who Are” Kentucky Area Paranormal Society Paranormal Radio, Para-X Radio Network. Podcast. — Emily 10/06/2013

Reference problem

If you read Gary Melhorn's The Esoteric Codex: Shapeshifters, you'll see that the first paragraph in 131.1: Human Shapshifting sounds awfully familiar. Too familiar. As in, it's plagiarism. Word for word right in there, and it's not even in the references. Just wanted to bring that to your attention. 72.45.37.29 (talk) 01:29, 16 March 2016 (UTC)Cecilia 3/15/16

Silkie

I'm a bit surprised no reference is made to the silkie myths of the Western Isles. Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 01:23, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

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)

@PD PinkDolphin Well, [I know this is late] you could for instance reference some of the sources from the (although little) amount that is here and maybe use some of your own sources.

I see that there isn't much in a way of speech about shifting. You know all the types, e.g. phantom or mental.

I know that you know these things (from your spectacular youtube) and you maybe able to use your platform to find sources. on maybe a community post or a video and pool a decently sized group of knowledge.

yes there isn't much in a way of studies but (by this point in time) there is considerably more than there must have been three years ago now.

ps you literally are the best. Geinky (talk) 15:34, 13 April 2023 (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)

Fringe Section | Shifting Section

This section seems to rely on a single source of potentially dubious quality. Kelryn (talk) 13:08, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

References for Modern Therianthropy

There are hardly any references for this section. I've never edited on wikipedia, so it'd be great if someone could find + add references or else alter the text to only include referenced content :) 2407:7000:A2DA:5000:4DC6:EAA4:4FB4:6D9C (talk) 11:53, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Good point, if I find any, will deff update this section JoBo GamerYT (talk) 19:09, 17 June 2023 (UTC)