From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Traits Section[edit]

I'm not entirely comfortable with the sentence: "Some otherkin (such as elves) claim they are allergic to Iron (and other examples of modern technology), whilst other Otherkin (such as dragons) claim that having no allergies is a sign of being an Otherkin."

It's the "such as elves" and "such as dragons" parts that bother me, specifically. That phrasing seems highly reflective of an otherkin POV (non-otherkin would not consider these individuals either elves or dragons), though I don't know of a better one that isn't far more cumbersome. I'm also mindful of the Paranormal RfA's finding that "Psychic" or "clairvoyant" and similar terms are cultural artifacts, not people or things which necessarily exist. A psychic may not have psychic abilities, nor does use of the term imply that such abilities exist. link It seems likely to me that similar reasoning would apply in this context, but that phrasing still bothers me. Perhaps because one is a mainstream cultural artifact and one is a cultural artifact of a much smaller group. --Jarandhel (talk) 15:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Replace with elfkin/elvenkin and dragonkin? — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 18:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Oooh, good call! --Jarandhel (talk) 02:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Recent publication[edit]

For those interested out there, it'd be worth looking into this article and adding information from it: The abstract is a poor description of the article; it's actually quite decent an exploration. Librarywild (talk) 08:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Bizarre subculture[edit]

The reference to 'one of the world's most bizarre subcultures' at the end of the article resolves to a marketing textbook with no page reference. Is this good enough? Should this be removed as unreferenced? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:31, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

It's an opinion at the very least, and one that violates NPOV. Whether the source is valid or not, it shouldn't be there as is. --Tathar (talk) 21:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
It's in the Reaction section and phrased as "... has been called...", I believe that's neutral enough. The book was published by Taylor & Francis. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 21:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

About the furry fandom navbox[edit]

I recently requested that the furry fandom navbox include this article and one other, both of which have substantial relationships to the Furry fandom article and furries in general. Since a lot of furries identify as their anthropomorphic animal forms (per the Gerbasi survey and article, Furries from A to Z) and are therefore similar to otherkin in the same way that therians are, the relationship between these groups is hard to dispute. However, I noticed that User:Jeraphine Gryphon removed the navbox template, claiming that otherkin had nothing to do with the navbox. I'd like to discuss the reversion, because I don't agree that reverting it was best for the article. --Tathar (talk) 21:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, my explanation went here: Talk:Species_dysphoria#Furry_fandom_navbox.3F. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 21:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for linking that. Perhaps the issue would be better resolved by addressing the other links instead? Even if otherkin and species dysphoria don't have a strong relationship to several of the links in the navbox, they're in a different section of the navbox anyway, they have a relationship to some other articles within that section despite its miscellaneous nature, they also have a relationship to a few other articles in the navbox, and they have a relationship to the article that the navbox is centrally focused on. Plus, there's the alternative of making the navbox collapsed by default. I remember from WP:NAVBOX that navbox links should be bidirectional; that is, if an article is linked to in a navbox, that article should also transclude the navbox. I'm going to go through WP:NAVBOX to see how well the navbox is following the guidelines though, since I can see other links in the navbox that are only tangentially related, such as Parahuman. --Tathar (talk) 22:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, it just occurred to me that there's no category linking this article to the Furry fandom article, and categories tend to have looser guidelines regarding article relationships. My only question is, should the otherkin category be added as a subcategory of the furry category, the other way around, or should they both be part of some other category? --Tathar (talk) 22:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Skepticism?[edit]

"WikiProject Skepticism is a WikiProject dedicated to creating, improving, and monitoring articles which make claims related to science and philosophy." Does this article make such claims? I'm not so sure this article fits within the WikiProject it was recently added to. --Tathar (talk) 11:51, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I think that the article may have been mistakenly added to the WikiProject due to an editor's mistaken belief that the WikiProject covers all articles about topics that people may be skeptical about, rather than the stated purpose of the WikiProject. I'd like to hear back from Dimadick about his reason for making the edit. --Tathar (talk) 12:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I noticed their claims about health problems from coming in contact with iron. Dimadick (talk) 09:16, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

(Full disclosure: I identify as dragonkin. I do not make any relevant claims other than that I identify primarily as a dragon.) The article indicates that only some otherkin make that claim, and that there is disagreement whether such an allergy would have anything to do with an otherkin identity. Is that enough to place the entire group within the WikiProject? --Tathar (talk) 00:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
By comparison, most articles on the New Age movement have been specifically included, even though not all proponents make wild claims. As with all Wikiprojects, the purpose is "To improve and clean up those articles which need help.", not to write polemics against the subject matter.Dimadick (talk) 07:23, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough. I was just concerned that the article's inclusion would result in those unfamiliar with the subject misunderstanding what claims are and aren't being made, and then editing the article based on their misconceptions and unintentionally reducing the article's overall quality. If that's not going to be an issue, then I'll take back my concerns about the article's inclusion. I still have concerns about the article's categorization in the WikiProject's list of topics however, since its current categorization requires the article to be about a subject that is religious in nature (nevermind the other issues with calling something a cult) and the article's subject simply isn't of a religious nature. At most, it is of a spiritual nature among those who identify as non-human on a spiritual level, but that basically amounts to "I have an X soul" or some similar identity claim. (Contrast this with the Kayan people (Burma) and the non-human ancestry claims that form the basis of their religion.) --Tathar (talk) 16:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, unsourced contributions and biased misconceptions would violate the NPOV policy and have to be removed anyway. As for the list of articles of this WikiProject, until a recent merger it focused on pseudoscience. The merger widened its scope to various typical subjects for skeptic publications, such as the paranormal and alternative medicine. Religious content is included but is not the sole focuse. Out of curiosity, has this subculture been influenced by traditional narratives of wolf-ancestors like Asena? Dimadick (talk) 07:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Actually, such an influence is highly unlikely. Few, if any, otherkin make claims to non-human ancestry, and any such claims would be met with skepticism from within the community. Also, there's a strong sentiment across otherkin subcommunities that people should rely solely on their own observations and feelings to determine whether the otherkin label applies to them, and what species or form they best identify as. This advice is meant to discourage people from being overly deferential and letting others tell them what to identify as. Because of this, I would infer that the indoctrination involved in the Asena narratives would necessarily be rejected as a basis for self-identification as otherkin, but it does not exclude someone from claiming an otherkin identity either. Though, that doesn't mean that otherkin can't point to such mythologies as evidence that the pertinent question of an individual's species identity versus species membership is not a new question. --Tathar (talk) 17:19, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
As for the merger, I didn't know about that, since I'm only recently hearing about this project for the first time. Could you explain the entirety of the new scope? From first impressions, the name makes it sound that any topic with skeptics (rational or otherwise) would be included in the WikiProject, but from viewing the topics already included, that does not appear to be the intent of the project. (As an aside, would it be helpful if I broke down the core otherkin claim into its subclaims? Maybe that could help categorize it better.) --Tathar (talk) 17:19, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Request for deletion.[edit]

Page needs to redirect to one or more of these:

People who believe they are elves are, pretty obviously, psychotic, whether or not they are otherwise more or less harmless or capable of holding down a day job. The content of their delusions is no more worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia than any other madman's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The page has a fair number of sources, so it seems unlikely that an AFD would be successful. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:54, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Intro quote[edit]

The last line of the introduction has a quotation mark after it. Is it part of the same quote as the preceding sentence? If so, we should move the reference after the full quote. If not, then we need to source it. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:54, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

External links[edit]

Should we link to in the external links section? I'm not so sure right now. Especially because it contains pages like this (detailed negative personal info about otherwise non-notable people, it's like linking to Encyclopedia Dramatica). — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 10:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

It is an important resource to the community, that contains various information about its history. The information contained in that particular article is for safety. Shiro Ulv (talk) 10:56, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

When you talk like this, you talk with an agenda instead of following Wikipedia's rules. This link doesn't meet stanard WP:EL rules. DreamGuy (talk) 20:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


I don't think we can add at this time if the malware thing isn't sorted out. (Don't go there if you don't have an anti-virus program.) — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 11:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

There is no malware on the site, as it is a PDF file. Overzealous anti-virus programs such as Avast! can false flag URLs and files, as is occurring here. A discussion to add this link has already occurred, with the general opinion being that it is relevant. Shiro Ulv (talk) 11:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Mythical Creatures?[edit]

Is that necessarily the case? I thought some people identified as tigers and wolves, which are not mythical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:A901:C500:D1BC:340D:D38:F26A (talk) 18:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

They sure aren't for cartoon characters. DreamGuy (talk) 01:24, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
That was my understanding as well. This article would be well served to point out if Otherkin includes the hardcore furries who believe themselves to be part/fully non-human animals or if that is a distinct group. Wisnoskij (talk) 21:53, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
People who identify (partly) with known, real-world animals (occasionally even plants or other forms of Earth life) are called "therians" and mentioned in therianthropy (as well as in this article). Otherkin don't identify (in part) with really existing animals (beings), although I think they describe their condition as "species dysphoria", too. A common term for both I've encountered is simply "Kin". --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:32, 28 May 2016 (UTC)


Come on, get real. Notability to be mentioned has everything to do with Wikipedia. Not all sources are equal on all articles, and this is a bizarre argument. You might as well put that on ALL articles because you argue it has a supposedly reliable source and notability doesn't count. DreamGuy (talk) 20:41, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

@DreamGuy: I really don't understand what you're talking about. Wikipedia:Notability applies to article topics, not article content/specific sentences. I honestly can't figure out what your argument is for removing the mentions of fictional/cartoon characters. And what do you mean by "supposedly reliable"? How are those sources not reliable? — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 20:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
If you don't understand, you probably shouldn't be editing. WP:UNDUE is a good one if you need a summary page. This article is not for your POV or FRINGE views. Just because somebody somewhere says something you like doesn't mean it rules out majority opinion. This is not your personal soapbox. An opinion for cartoon characters does not overrule the notable statement by countless others.DreamGuy (talk) 01:24, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
@DreamGuy: What "notable statement"? You continue to mix up notability and undue weight, don't blame me for getting confused by what you're trying to do here. Maybe you're the one with the POV if you're offended by the fact that fictionkin are a subgroup of otherkin. That's not my problem. Reliable sources say that it is so it stays in the article. 'Undue weight' is not relevant, it's not like we've dedicated even one full paragraph to discussing fictionkin, maybe that would be undue. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 09:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Third opinion[edit]

Searchtool-80%.png Response to third opinion request:
I personally don't see a problem with JG's addition; the sources appear to be valid. And DreamGuy, you really should try to be more civil with your comments. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 00:45, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. And by the way, the article has been like that for a long time until just recently when the mentions of fistional identities were removed. I can't see a valid reason for their removal. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 11:09, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism December 2015[edit]

Someone redirected it to the Borderline Personality Disorder page. I reverted it.2605:A601:533:E901:59D2:2A8C:8828:17E7 (talk) 05:28, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

can we please delete or redirect this article?[edit]

I am just curious why this article exists in the first place. This isn't a normal trait, this is most certainly a mental disorder. Why hasn't it been deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:48, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

What's the actual reason you want this deleted? If you hate otherkin then go on and complain about it on your tumblr, Wikipedia isn't the place for editors with an agenda. If "this isn't a normal trait, this is most certainly a mental disorder" is your actual reason for deleting this article then I invite you to check out our articles in Category:Mental and behavioural disorders and Category:Abnormal psychology. This article exists because the topic is notable and the content is verifiable, that's all we require here. We don't censor topics based on personal biases. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 09:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
WP:IDONTLIKEIT. clpo13(talk) 09:41, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't think the article should be deleted, but it should treat the topic as a symptom of mental illness. One problem with this may be that sufferers generally do not seek out the help they need (like Moregellons sufferers) and so there might not be much psychiatric literature about it. But that could be looked in to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

History and context[edit]

Doreen Virtue wrote about a similar phenomena, her idea was that people whose souls were from other dimensions are living on earth and she's been publishing books about it since the mid 90s, such as in the book "The Lightworkers Way". Also this link, but it's recent

I don't know how much this influenced Otherkin subculture but its a very similar concept — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:22, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

We have an article about starseeds, we would need a reliable source to connect those two things, otherwise it's original research. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 17:58, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

In the old days we just called these people freaks and weirdos[edit]

I know it's part of your ideology now that if people think they are this and that, like a 50 year old man thinking he's a 6 year old girl, then he must be. These kinds of articles denigrate from Wikipedia's credibility as a reliable source of information. It's anything goes on this website. Most, if not all the other webpages on the subject of the Otherkin overwhelmingly agree that these people are just stupid freaks and weirdos and should not be afforded any respect. I think there needs to be an international hashtag movement to get Wikipedia to improve on its standards and to stop treating these complete nuts as a legitimate minority group. #GetYourActTogetherWikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:40, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Who exactly are you talking to? Wikipedia is edited by volunteers, this article has been written and edited by a ton of different people. You're more than welcome to join in and make it better if you imagine that you can. But honestly, you probably need to read our content policies first. This is an encyclopedia, we don't call anyone 'freaks' or 'complete nuts' in Wikipedia's voice. Your opinions might be more welcome on Tumblr. This talk page is for discussing how specifically to improve this article, not for general rants about the topic or about Wikipedia. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 21:50, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Let's unpack that barrage of hateful, dehumanising prejudice used to fashion a carefully crafted narrative that appeals to the "transgender predator" moral panic and tries to capitalise on the right-wing histrionics surrounding that queer cryptid, which makes Bigfoot almost appear like solid, established science. First, note that in mainstream discussions, the prototypical transgender person is always male-assigned, their female-assigned counterpart passed over in near-total silence, and this example is no different. Second, the choice of an adult person as example, since transgender children cannot be easily demonised as dangerous deviants and perpetrators of heinous crimes (only as victims of a sinister "transgender lobby"). Third, the assumption that transgender people are deluded, hence seriously mentally ill, believing themselves to be what they are patently obviously not – instead of feeling detached from and (usually) uncomfortable to some (often major, not infrequently crippling) extent with their assigned gender (which can easily lead to psychological troubles and consequences as harsh as suicidal tendencies if left untreated), while (typically) harbouring a profound longing and desire to live and to be perceived as their "chosen" or identity gender. Fourth, the implied assumption that mentally ill – and by extension, via the preceding assumption, transgender – people inherently pose a grave danger to society (instead of, as is the case in the real world, being far more likely to be victims than offenders of serious criminal acts). Fifth, the conflation of mental illness in the form of delusion, pedophilia, child sexual abuse, transgender and otherkin in order to portray unconventional, minority, rare or stigmatised identity perceptions as somehow completely unacceptable and in need of ruthless pushback. Sixth, the choice of the epitome of "creepiness", an older adult man (of never explicated sexual orientation), at the age when they are considered the "creepiest", about 50, too old to be likely judged attractive, but too young to be likely judged frail and harmless. Seventh, the choice of a little girl as the man's "target persona" to imply that he would specifically endanger the most vulnerable (at least to sexual abuse) members of society (apart from, you know, the disabled or mentally ill) – and also those most likely to be judged "cute" and appeal to our protective instincts, an appeal to emotion if I ever saw one –, children at the age of about 6, by seeking out their company – presumably to prey on them sexually. Of course, in reality that makes no sense, because a man who believed he was a little girl would presumably behave like one, which might look utterly goofy, eccentric or weird to outsiders (another way to portray transgender as wrong and shameful, by having the putative transgender person come across as absolutely ridiculous – an older woman behaving in a boyish way, for example, not to mention other possible constellations, would be percieved much more positively), but not pose a grave danger at all, considering that little-girl behaviour does not involve preying on other children, luring them into dark corners and sexually abusing them, as is clearly implied here! Note further the implied assumption that typical sexual abusers are creepy, weird strangers ("Slavering Beasts"), while the actual fact is that they are rarely strangers but usually family members or other acquaintances who have gained the victim's trust already. (Not to mention that I've never heard of a transgender person who intended to "transition to child", as it were, or live as a child; transgender is about changing your gender only, not your age, considering that the desire to change to a younger age medically or surgically is an absolutely mainstream preoccupation in our society, and feeling like a child inside, childlike behaviour in adults, and longing one could be a child again is not exactly rare, either.) The amount of hateful, stupid and wrong is breath-taking here, and makes one wonder which side rightfully deserves to be called "mentally ill", "freak" or "weirdo". As usual, bigoted right-wing fanatics construct an actually delusional mirror world by inverting the roles of perpetrator and victim – "freaks" and "weirdos" are almost invariably on the receiving end of abuse (of all kinds), not those who dish it out. Instead of questioning the alleged sinister "gay agenda", it is necessary to put the right-wing agenda under the lens, namely the preservation of the ability to bully, hurt and torture all those who do not fit into the narrow worldview of hateful zealots in denial of their own giant privilege. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
This is not a forum. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 06:02, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
You know, every time someone makes this page redirect to that person IS improving Wikipedia, just as you suggest--and then you call the change "vandalism" and revert it. This kind of thing is why Wikipedia has lost so much credibility in the past several years. And let's not even get started on the number of pages that are "protected" from similar improvements, where IP bans are handed out for trying. "The encyclopedia anyone can edit," indeed. "Anyone" who's PC and doesn't hurt anyone's feewings with the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:400:8001:6EC0:CC50:6D44:6398:3734 (talk) 03:09, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

NPOV Fringe[edit]

This article needs to be deleted according to NPOV Fringe as it stands as a skub that could lead people down the wrong pyschological path if followed. Wikipedia is an ever expanding encyclopedia that aids in the documentation of many things in the world, a little known internet subculture is not one of those things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


@Jeraphine Gryphon: JFYI, the association I see between otherkin and nonbinary gender is provided by the conceptual bridge of Xenogender and the fact that there is, indeed, a substantial overlap between otherkin (and therians) and people with unconventional gender identities (gender variance, transgender); however, I do understand that this connection is not blindingly obvious, and Xenogender is a very obscure concept that's, to my knowledge, even not well-known in the transgender community. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:57, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I know about the substantial overlap but that's only because I spend too much time on that blue hell site. Other than that the connection is not obvious, and I think we both know that it's damaging to make frivolous connections between otherkinnery and transgenderism, because that's what transphobes do, because both concepts are equally ridiculous to them. I think it's better to avoid this here. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 05:59, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
While I don't disagree with your conclusion, I don't think trying to cater to the hangups of transphobes is a good reason for anything, though. Wikipedia is about documenting stuff that exists out there and is written about by RS, not what bigots think is or isn't respectable (that's an allusion to "respectability politics" tactics).
Don't forget there are still loads of 'phobes out there who believe that people with non-mainstream gender and sexual identities and preferences, even "regular" gays and lesbians (maybe even asexuals? haha), are mentally ill, dangerous "perverts", full stop, and didn't exist in the "good old days", while "normal" cishet men are civilised and principally unable to do nasty things such as rape (hence the common refusal to believe concrete rape accusations while simultaneously believing that rape is commonplace, but it is always committed by the marginalised, dehumanised Other, the "Slavering Beast"), so there's no way to win this game.
The concept of "species dysphoria", which was consciously modelled after gender dysphoria, provides a link between Kin and transgenderism already. Personally, I find the experiences of Kin unfamiliar and therefore odd, myself, but there are lots of conditions out there that I'll always have trouble with empathising just because I don't have them; there's no good reason to reject what you have never experienced as impossible or ridiculous out of hand, and it is utterly narrow-minded to do so. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:14, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

No mention of animals at all[edit]

I honestly don't really want to burn my hands on this article, in particular because I have not read any of the literature. However, I was under the impression that otherkin primarily refers to animals rather than fictional beings. Right now, the article says nothing about dogs, cats, etc, or even animals in general. The description section (the first section in the article) starts off with "otherkin largely identify as mythical creatures" and the rest of the article has a similar focus. This makes the later phrase "animal-human relationship pioneers" particularly confusing, as it is the first time "animal" is suggested in the article. ~Mable (chat) 12:32, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

It's probably mostly because normal animals are covered by the term therianthropy. Foxkin and so on usually call themselves therian. So the wider term 'otherkin' is used for the everything else. Sources that generalize this topic use the term otherkin since it covers everything (including therians). This article might be a little disjointed but it's controversial so every statement needs to be sourced. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 14:49, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
As a wiki, WikiFur is not a RS, of course, but I find their article on the topic quite informative and plausible sounding, and it also addresses the distinction between otherkin and therians here. So (as already basically stated in our article as well) otherkin (growing out of an elf-centred community) and therians are historically distinct communities, and while the general rule is that otherkin identify with beings that are not known to exist or have existed in physical reality but are products of the human imagination, while therian identify with real living beings (usually animals, though plant-kin are not entirely unheard of), exceptions seem to exist, where people who identify with real animals identify as otherkin and people who identify with, say, dragons, as therian. Therefore, using otherkin as an umbrella term is strictly speaking incorrect. In fact, there is no umbrella term (at least no widely accepted one); these are merely similar but unrelated subcultures in origin, though they have begun to associate or ally to some extent due to shared interests and concerns. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:31, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


There is significant room for improvement on neutrality of the article. The recent deletion petititon goes into... excessive detail, but worth skimming.

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Otherkin_(2nd_nomination) (talk) 20:20, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


Is there any point to the current tagbombing? I would propose we get rid of all the cleanup tags unless some reason to keep them is offered. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:54, 3 February 2017 (UTC)