Talk:Otherkin/Archive 8

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


Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.

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

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

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

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

It is, indeed, a minor mention, but I don't know what you mean about "somethnig so differnt". It's a course on irrational beliefs, and most criticism of Otherkin involves the idea that such beliefs are irrational. I don't see it as derogatory.
As for the categories, I'll agree that Category:New religious movements may not be appropriate, but a cursory Google search indicates that there is some overlap between the New Age and Otherkin communities. android79 16:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Well, all we have against the inclusion of that category is your opinion. I've attempted to back up my claims with a bit of (admittedly quick-and-dirty) research.
"Irrational" is not derogatory. It means contrary to rational thought, or contrary to reason and science. In the sense you describe, belief that one is an Otherkin stems from faith, which is, by definition, not grounded in rationality. android79 16:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

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

Once again, you are misunderstanding the definition of "irrational". Saying the world is round and not at the center of the universe is based on science and reason - rationality - regardless of the popular belief at the time.
Since you've reverted this article twice, I'd be fully justified giving you a week-long timeout per your ArbCom case. Consider this your last warning. android79 16:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

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

The Wooster reference was reverted again. The remains no discussion about this removal. Please discuss any disputed information on talk if there is disagreement, and reach a consensus, or engage in WP:DR to gain more views. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I thought this was probably the best reference in the whole article, and should stay. It's one of the few things that indicates that this is more than just an obscure internet phenomenon that nobody outside the community is aware of. Friday (talk) 16:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
In all fairness, that's not how the refernce was used. If the reason to include the wooster reference is "look! It exists," it should go in the intro, and should read something like "The subculture has gained some level of notability. In a 2002 blah blah blah blah" Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
True. I still don't see that it's a bad reference tho, and it seems to be used in a reasonable way. Friday (talk) 17:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

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

Pov check and NOR

POV check

Just looking for opinions on POV

That just about wraps that up. Removed Pov-check. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The word is an Internet-derived neologism primarily used by members of that subculture and is somewhat fluid in definition, sometimes being broadened to also describe those who consider themselves to be animals, aliens, extradimensional beings, and other non-human entities.
Some claim that they are human in a physical sense but non-human ("other") in a mental or spiritual one.[5] Many otherkin attribute this discrepancy to reincarnation or a "misplaced" soul.
There are also otherkin who believe themselves to be biologically non-human. These otherkin consider themselves to be physically members of the species they associate themselves with, or at least directly descended from the species through intermarriage with humanity. This belief is rarer within the subculture and sometimes the subject of criticism from otherkin who do not share it. Some otherkin who do not necessarily claim that they are genetically non-human do profess to have non-human sides that have somehow influenced their physical bodies.
It was originally coined when it became clear that a new subculture of people identifying themselves as a number of different mythological creatures, such as fairies, unicorns, and satyrs, and not just as elves, was emerging.[10]
Many otherkin, however, stress the difference they see between pretending to be a non-human and actually believing oneself to be non-human. [16]
There are older beliefs concerning non-human ancestory which considerably predate the otherkin subculture. There are families in Orkney that have long claimed to have selkie ancestors, and many clans (especially royal families) throughout the world had a claim to a divine or otherwise non-human ancestor. Similar beliefs are found in some traditional Native American tribes.
Although the otherkin community is a diverse and loosely-defined one and lacks an explicit ideology, some beliefs are especially common. Otherkin tend to have a number of New Age sensibilities and to be very open to supernatural concepts, particularly belief in the soul or spirit. Other common beliefs in the otherkin community include animism, Neo-Paganism, totemism, possession, reincarnation, and other paranormal events. However, just as some otherkin believe that they are physically non-human and some don't, not all otherkin believe in the literal existence of these concepts.
Some hold these beliefs not as a search for the truth, but as a way to help understand and explore themselves. Indeed, as the community has expanded and become more self-analytical in recent years, a number of otherkin have begun explaining their association with non-human imagery as nothing but an exercise to help become in touch with their "true selves".
Some otherkin claim to be combinations of different non-human species, such as elf-werewolf or dragon-cat hybrids. Others believe that they are able to mentally or astrally change between different types of nonhuman beings or even that all otherkin are capable of this.
Despite the general conviction in the community that otherkin are born, not made, there is no clear definition of what constitutes "otherness." One effect of this is that anyone who asserts mainstream otherkin status is very unlikely to be contradicted by the community itself, though more specific claims, or attempts to ascribe specific qualities to all otherkin, are more likely to meet opposition.
Despite the rather open nature of the subculture,
In some circles, the same term has come to refer to any grandiose claims about one's identity, particularly when they make one appear superior in some sense to the majority of people.
The otherkin subculture describes the process of beginning to identify oneself as otherkin as Awakening. The process of Awakening has been compared to that of religious revelation or religious conversion. Depending on the individual concerned, it can be either a very sudden or gradual process, and can be a pleasant, self-validating experience, or sometimes a traumatic one.
Many otherkin maintain that their perceived non-human traits are innate, not acquired. In the Awakening process, they generally believe that something is being revealed about themselves that had previously been hidden. Otherkin frequently attest to lifelong feelings of alienation or loneliness, or of homesickness for places they have never seen or cannot identify. They may claim higher levels of psychic, magical or spiritual awareness; on the other hand, some claim none of these things.
In most cases, although there may have been prior vague feelings of detachment from humanity, self-identification specifically as an otherkin is triggered by encounters with or references to otherkin. However, it is not uncommon for people to state that they awakened independently of the community or before they had ever heard of the concept of otherkin.
It is imperitive people pay attention to this section - I will begin adding {{fact}} all over the article shortly unless some of this stuff gets cited or deleted. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Sounds fine to me. android79 19:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Go to town. DreamGuy 23:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

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

Please review WP:NOR and WP:V. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
You can avoid it being cut down by adding references to reliable sources. android79 19:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Gimmiet, you have been given every opportunity to cite sources for the section that you want to remain in the article. It has no sources. It was removed because it has no sources. We cannot accept your say-so that it is "accurate". You also removed all of Hipocrite's {{fact}} tags, which, by a consensus developed here, should stay in the article. I guess I'll stop giving you advice if you're not going to follow it. android79 18:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

what with prepping to move soon, i dont rally have a lot of time to do muchb here, but there was no consesus, just one person doing what they wan ted. as far as i can see thats nothing close to consensus.... and his tags were misplaced at best. he treats this like a scientific atrticle, which it is not.Gimmiet 19:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Hipocrite proposed something. DreamGuy and I agreed. You were the lone dissenter, with the non-argument "it's fine the way it is", verifiability be damned, and were given plenty of time to find references for what you want to keep in the article. You did nothing. You can still restore the removed content, provided you do so with some decent sources.
If you feel the tags are misplaced, provide reasoning for that on this talk page. If you think Hipocrite has labeled something as needing a citation when a citation is already present in one of the listed references, well, show us the evidence. Otherwise, leave them be.
If you're not treating this like a scientific article, you shouldn't be editing it. This is an encyclopedia. References are required. Verifiability is non-negotiable. android79 19:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

read on the subject of awakening , becoming othgerkin and suchlike. its all there. that site is already cited on the page, hence THE SECTION is not unsourced.Gimmiet 19:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Verifing one at a time

I'm happy to go through the fact tags one at a time, so that's what we're going to do. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I propose that we do one tag a day, and in the event that the information is uncitable, delete the sentence in question. That will leave us with a working article. Obviously, deleted sentences can be reinserted if they are cited. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


Quote 1

"Many otherkin attribute this discrepancy to reincarnation or a "misplaced" soul." - please cite this. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

have you read the site, yet?Gimmiet 19:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

It's very large. Please link me the right page to look at. Thanks. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

hope this helpsGimmiet 20:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

It does not. Please link me to the cite for "Many otherkin attribute this discrepancy to reincarnation or a "misplaced" soul." Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

thius might be more he;lpfull

or perhaps this Gimmiet 23:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Hipocrite - «Talk» 00:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

History and Usage

Fact 1

"There are families in Orkney that have long claimed to have selkie ancestors" - cite please. I will require something more reliable than Hipocrite - «Talk» 00:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

first, i know not what is a selkie... second, isnt otherkin. net one of the better ones?Gimmiet 00:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC) is an acceptable source for opinions on the otherkin community. As you can see, I have attributed all statements by alone in the text as their opinion on the otherkin community. It is definitively not an acceptable source for historical or cultural facts outside of that community. Hipocrite - «Talk» 00:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

well, the wikipedia page on selkies shows that there is a lot of mytholohgy about selkies, or seals, turning into people and mothering semi human babies...Gimmiet 00:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

You will have to provide a source for the statement "There are families in Orkney that have long claimed to have selkie ancestors." If that source is Wikipedia, I will ask the same question at the source page untill I am provided a source in accordance with WP:V. Hipocrite - «Talk» 00:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

how about... 00:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

That fails WP:RS. "This book is not published yet, so it is not presently available for sale." Please do not google for facts that may very well be disputed or false. You will obviously need to do substantial research to verify this questionable claim. Hipocrite - «Talk» 00:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

is in the localo folklore, what more could you need?Gimmiet 00:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Prove it, following WP:V. Hipocrite - «Talk» 00:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

read the slekie page in wikipedia.Gimmiet 00:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

There is no discussion of this type of claim on the wikipedia web page for Selkies. Hipocrite - «Talk» 02:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

it prooves that this sort of thing is in thier folklore.Gimmiet 03:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

It says nothing about selkie ancestors. Please cite a reputable source saying something like "There are families in Orkney that have long claimed to have selkie ancestors" Hipocrite - «Talk» 03:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

logically now, folklore comes from somewhere. why dont YOU look up the stoiries that the folklore consists of? itll tell you the ledgendary times when such happened, and well, then you could move on and be more productive...Gimmiet 03:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Because I don't care to keep the sentence enough to put in the work. If you don't care enough either, we can take it out. Please review WP:V. Hipocrite - «Talk» 06:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

apathey is not really a good thing for this place.Gimmiet 15:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I have deleted this unverifiable claim Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Fact 2

"Many clans (especially royal families) throughout the world had a claim to a divine or otherwise non-human ancestor." Please cite a source for this statement. Because it uses the word "many," such a source will need to be academic in nature, and will need be be named - in the format "Professor Ronald said that many clans..." Specific examples can alternatively be added if cited. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

hjeres one, china, heres another, japan. royal families;.Gimmiet 16:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

You will need to cite a WP:RS for all of your claims. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

go rad the china article. also , who says they are my claims?Gimmiet 23:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

No. Cite an RS or I will remove the statement. Hipocrite - «Talk» 01:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Policy doesn't seem to be clear on this after a cursory review, but do we need cites for (moderately) common knowledge, e.g. that the Japanese and Egyptian royal families (at least) claimed descent from the gods? ~~ N (t/c) 01:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

That's not what the article as it's written says. Additionally, my understanding is that both cultures believed the emperor WAS a god, not a human decended from gods. Hipocrite - «Talk» 01:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I'm pretty sure the Japanese emperor claims descent from Amaterasu - but that's neither "common knowledge" nor "many". ~~ N (t/c) 03:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

"gods representative on earth" was what the japanese said, more or less a demigod...Gimmiet 01:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:RS Hipocrite - «Talk» 02:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

tryreading a page on japanese mythology.Gimmiet 02:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Try finding one, since you know more about this than me. At LEAST, find it in WP so we can use the source (if any) from that article. Do you remember where you learned that...? ~~ N (t/c) 03:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

read aboutthe japanese imperial court, and saw a historyt channel special...Gimmiet 03:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

If you want to include a claim, we cannot be expected to do your research for you. Sorry. Please try to properly indent your comments - it's only a couple extra characters. ~~ N (t/c) 03:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
look up the japanese empire, maybe the meiji era?Gimmiet 03:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
No. You have to do the work if you want the fact in. Hipocrite - «Talk» 04:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

how about you do some actual reading. go read the article i suggested...Gimmiet 05:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I have deleted this claim Hipocrite - «Talk» 11:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Gabriel, it's your choice to be lazy but we are under no obligation to do your work for you. Acting petulant does not further your cause in any way. ~~ N (t/c) 15:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the statement about the Japanese Royal Family and Otherkin links. It is not. It should not be used to "validate" or "justify" a controversial topic. The Japanese Royal Family are not members of the Otherkin community, nor have they ever spoken in favor of or against it. It is spurious logic to imply that because the Japanese Emperor claimed/claims to be descended of Amaterasu that he should have any link. That's why I believe this should not be mentioned. I'm not insulting the Otherkin, but such a statement is highly culturally offensive. If you want to link this off of the Otherkin page, I think it would be great, but as for an encyclopedia entry, it is inappropriate. KansaiKitsune 22:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
No objections here. android79 00:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

In Norse mythology Rig fathered the germanic race, therefore adherents to germanic heathenism (Asatru, Odinism, Anglo-saxon Heathenry, et cetera) would claim to be the descendants of the God Rig. This could be seen as otherkin. -Anon

Otherkin is a very recent movement based upon fantasy, not on religion. The article as written states this flat out. KansaiKitsune 19:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Fact 3

"Similar beliefs are found in some traditional Native American tribes." Please cite a RS for this statement. Hipocrite - «Talk» 11:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

please refer to the concept called SkinwalkerGimmiet 06:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

No. You have to find a cite for all information. That's how this works. If you don't like it, I can just remove all of the information that I find questionable. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I have removed this fact. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

\ sztop beoinmg a pissant andremoving the meat of the article if your not willing to put inj some dammned effort.Gimmiet 16:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Oh, that's rich. He's improving the article by removing uncited material. You've been given every opportunity to cite references for each and every statement that's been discussed, but instead you do some hand-waving and make references to vagueries like "folklore". You are missing the point: if it's not referenced, it can be removed at any time, by any editor. The onus is on you if you want it to be included to provide a reliable source for every statement. android79 17:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Hypocrite, you're being a prick. Kindly cease. -Anon

Coming from an otherkin point of view, even I can see that this article requires a great deal of trimming down before it becomes entirely factual. Just because you know something, does not mean everybody else will, and you will need to find a source in order to back your claims up.
As far as I can see, you haven't put any effort in to proving any of the marked quotes are true. Hipocrite is someone who is willing to put in the effort to weed out the dead wood. If you see something you know to be true that he wants to remove, find a reputable source, and cite it. This isn't a "factual till proven wrong" situation, and if you think it is you need to read the articles Hipocrite quoted. Macthorpe 17:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

first of all this is a relativly new username, so im not clearly anywhere on wiki yet. secondly, here, for the citation, even within wiki... its like werecreatures, which is overlapped with the otherkin phenomenon, isnt it? Gimmiet 18:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Please don't misrepresent yourself. You've been editing for a long time, almost as long as I have, just not under this username. android79 19:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

thats exactly what i said tho! its just a new name, so its not apparent as to how long ive been at this...Gimmiet 19:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Sorry, I took "not clearly anywhere on wiki yet" to mean "inexperienced". My bad. android79 19:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

all good.Gimmiet 19:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Gimmiet, with that last edit (and probably with the one before it) you've violated your revert parole. Do not revert again. Discuss the sourcing of your edits here, not in edit summaries. android79 19:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

sorry, just saw this now.Gimmiet 19:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Just saw what now? android79 19:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

the asking me not to revert thing... didnt notice it before , and had already done so... in either case, that article is a prime example.... and thus should be used as i placed it, shouldnt it?Gimmiet 19:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The "asking me not to revert thing" is not something I should need to remind you about. It's a part of your arbcom parole. You are fully aware of it. android79 19:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

why are people not patient enough to give me some damn time to = find what they are asking for...? its easier if they LEAVE stuff in and wait, easier on me anyway.Gimmiet 19:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

You should make a copy of the article in your userspace if you need the old version available to you. I would note that I have substantially documented the sentences I am removing in the section here. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

i have no idea how to do that... and did i erase some of your words? if so i apologize, wasnt on purpose.Gimmiet 19:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I have placed a copy of the article in it's pre-verification state at User:Gimmiet/sandbox

thanks... i think... but i still dont get why you dont wanna go looking for cites yourself, if veifibillity is so important...Gimmiet 19:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

What use would an encyclopedia be without the facts it contains being verifiable? Therefore, the onus is on the editor who introduces the statement to back it up, not on the reader to determine whether it is true or not as and when he reads it. By putting up statements that can't be verified you are potentially introducing incorrect information into an article, which is a complete contradiction to everything that Wikipedia is intended for.Macthorpe 20:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


Fact 1

"Otherkin tend to have a number of New Age sensibilities and to be very open to supernatural concepts, particularly belief in the soul or spirit." Please provide a cite for this. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Fact 2

"Common beliefs in the otherkin community include animism, Neo-Paganism, totemism, possession, reincarnation, and other paranormal events" Please provide a cite for this. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Fact 3

"As the otherkin community has expanded and become more self-analytical in recent years, a number of otherkin have begun explaining their association with non-human imagery as nothing but an exercise to help become in touch with their true selves." Cite as usual Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa...

Just a reminder that we need to stay cool when the editing gets hot. You people have been violating the 3 revert rule all day. Just, please, leave it be for now, Wikipedia is not on a deadline! And perfection is not required (this goes both about completeness and verifiability)! Additionally, from WP:EDIT: "Avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content or to express opinions of the other users involved." ≈ Ekevu (, ) 20:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Who, other than Gimmiet, has violated 3RR today? android79 21:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I have 2, perhaps 3 reverts today. This is not a violation of 3rr. If I was called on as a violater of 3rr, I would point to the extraordinary patience that I have had in dealing with ArbCom sanctioned Gabriel, and the massive amount of time I have wasted givng him the oppourtunity to cite sources one at a time rather than just doing the edit to the article in on fel swoop, and relying on gavins revert limit to enforce my preferred version. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely, Hipocrite, you are doing this with a patience that I can't muster. I wouldn't fault you for removing all of the uncited information from the article at this point, as it's clear Gimmiet, despite all of the time dozens of editors have spent trying to educate him on Wikipedia policies, is just going to continue on in his own way. android79 21:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Ekevu, you probably aren't aware of quite a bit of background information regarding this article. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gabrielsimon. android79 21:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Not doing this for my own health.

Ok, I'll done with the daily thing unless someone tells me it's valuable. Gimmet, what can we do to get you back into this editing process? Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

According to

Good lord, the phrase "according to" appears nine times in the text of this article. This is extremely clumsy and bad writing. I'm going to remove 8 of them unless someone can explain to me why it's a good idea to repeat the same phrase over and over and over like that. --Xyzzyplugh 05:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Because the source is not reputable. You can change the phrase however you want, but every time something is singlesourced from, that must be mentioned. WP:V. Hipocrite - «Talk» 05:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I don't know much about this topic. So you're saying that the article is full of content coming from a single source which is not reputable? Is this the best way of handling this? I'll add a Cleanup tag to the article. --Xyzzyplugh 14:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
There might be cleaner ways to deal with the single-source problem, but the cleanup tag isn't really necessary. The article is in good shape, at least structurally and grammatically. The content, however... android79 14:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
One thing that we know doesn't work is deletion. I consider nearly this entire article to be original research, and tried to delete it as such, but everyone wanted to fix it instead. It's not obvious how to fix it tho, since there don't seem to be any reputable sources that cover this topic. is just some random person's website. Friday (talk) 14:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, there is only a single non-web-based source for facts directly related to Otherkin. Perhaps it's time to give deletion another go. android79 14:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, I don't personally think it'll work any better this time. Removing the unsourced (or poorly sourced) stuff, as some have already been doing, seems less controversial. My personal preference to reign in the original research would be for most of the specific-type-of-otherkin articles (there are many) to become redirects here, and this page would briefly describe the various types but probably not have much detail (since having details requires better sources). This would involve removal of a lot of content, from many different articles, so it might be very hard to pull off also. Friday (talk) 15:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Deletion is not appropriate here. The term is clearly used in more places other than, as mention in that one college course shows. Deletion would only apply if the term were not notable or unproven. Instead of deleting the whole thing, alleged features of the belief system that are only single sourced and provide a level detail not seen elsewhere should be removed. It is some of the DETAILS that are under dispute, right, not the basics, right? DreamGuy 16:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you're right, but since the whole damn thing is basically supported by a single unreliable source, removing all of that detail would essentially reduce the article to a stub. I suppose that's okay, but deletion isn't much more drastic... android79 17:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Deletion standards prefer keeping an encyclopedic stub over removing the whole thing. DreamGuy 17:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

(Too much indenting.) Oh, don't worry, I'm convinced deletion isn't the answer. There will, of course, be quite the hubbub if certain users protest the reduction of this article into a stub. android79 17:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, looks like you all have your hands full here, I'll stay out of this one. Good luck! --Xyzzyplugh 22:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

" is just some random person's website"? That's as may be, but it's a site reflective of the beliefs of an entire community. The articles at have at least 40 distinct authors, and it's my personal understanding that whatever consensus is achieved among those authors and articles is broadly reflective of whatever consensus exists among Otherkin in general.
Reducing this article to a stub doesn't seem like the answer. I don't see how reporting that "group X believes Y" is original research, and if the concern is that too many references go to, the solution isn't to not report those beliefs, it's to broaden the references: Otherkin Alliance, Kinhost, etc.
And the general lack of non-web-based sources is due to the community's relative newness; people have really only been gathering around this idea for about a decade. Baxil 00:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Using as a source for information on a community is alright, but really, it doesn't have polling data, nor does every otherkin go there. I'd say that using excessively is a bad thing. Aren't there any papers whatsoever on this phenomenon? Or, better yet, can we at least find other sources, such as pages by other otherkin? There are such pages, after all. Maybe look on 17:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

As an Otherkin myself, I can safely say that deleting or reducing this article to a stub would cause more harm than good. Wikipedia is a place I link others to often, especially this page, and there's no real reason to get rid of the article. It's true, is cited often, but is also a major web-site for otherkin. I'm sure that people would link to other material, were there more (and better) materials related to otherkin. This article can be expanded and shined up; there's no reason to remove it simply because a source is used repeatedly. --Cirya 06:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

clinical lycanthropy

if one actually reads the article about CL, they will find it is a MENTAL DISORDER, which is wholly different from a SPIRITUAL BELIEF ( bolding to be clear) hence, CL doesnt belong.Gimmiet 21:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Many things that are reputed to be belief are actually mental disorders. Political correctness is a very broad spectrum, so this is natural. One may believe they are a furry-footed woodelf, but that does not mean they do so out of their own coherence or have any perticular reason to believe such.
I propose that if a mental disorder be stated on Otherkin, it be stated on all religious articles here at Wikipedia. It's unnecessary discrimination. (Yes that first sentence was sarcasm and I do not expect people to comply - I was trying to put it in perspective so everyone else will understand) Clodaus 15:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

replaced "see also" link to Clinical lycanthropy

I've replaced the "see also" link to Clinical lycanthropy. It was removed with the comment, "the similarity between clinical lycanthropy and Otherkin is only really surfadce, anyone reading farhter into it will find they are wholly dis simmilar". I think this is a reason why the link should be maintained. A person who is unfamiliar with Otherkin and/or clinical lycanthropy might easily think they sound similar. Providing the link gives them an easy way to see how the two phenomena differ. FreplySpang (talk) 21:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

sorry about the spelling, btw, but i still miantain that spiritual beliefs shouldnt be classified along side mental disorders, which the linking seems to suggest.Gimmiet 21:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

(ec) I was making the same edit to restore it also, but mine failed because you'd already done it. I agree that it should be there - these are related, just as much as the other "see alsos" are related. Placing another article in "see also" is NOT to imply that the two topics are identical. Also, it's worth mentioning that this has been discussed a few times before- as I recall, only Gimmiet objects to the inclusion of this wiki link. Friday (talk) 21:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I was pretty sure that it had been discussed Quite Thoroughly before, and my recollection matches yours. Thanks for finding the examples below! FreplySpang (talk) 23:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

the point im making seems to have run past you Friday, without you noticing it.... odd, considering... anyway... mental disorders are NOT spiritual beliefs, and visa versa, unless your going to start adding links to paranoid schitzophrenia to christianity wiki pages, then this would be completly out of the norm, which would also merit its disinclusion.Gimmiet 21:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Putting clinical lycanthrophy into the "see also" section does not imply anything of what you are saying. 'Because people are mistaking one for the other, this belongs in the see also section. --Conti| 21:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

lots of people mistake things like stimgata for mental problems, but i wont likly see anything about mental disorder links on such a page, so why ifthat is the case, would one get to be here?Gimmiet 21:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

just looked, there is no mention of any mental iollness see also , hence, it is being removed.Gimmiet 21:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I think Joan of Arc is a good example here. It includes a bit that says Devout Roman Catholics regard her visions as divine inspiration. Other explanations posit hallucination, mental illness, or self-delusion. The article on Stigmata also addresses this issue- it says Similarly self-inflicted wounds can be associated with certain mental illnesses. Some people who fake stigmata suffer from Munchausen syndrome which is characterised by an intense desire for attention. . This seems like a reasonable way to handle such situations. Friday (talk) 22:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
As soon as you have incontrovertible proof that Joan of Arc faked it all because she was an Otherkin, go for it. She didn't claim she was a god or had a soul belonging to some other creature as Otherkin state that they do, she claimed to have been given messages by God. Gigantic difference. KansaiKitsune 20:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

and yet there is no see also link to an appropriate mental illness.Gimmiet 22:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

You're missing Friday's point, Gimmiet -- there is so see also link because those articles make the connection directly in the article text itself. This is as if ths otherkin article said "Some people feel otherkin may be suffering from clinical lycanthropy" and you have objected to this sort of language many times. Putting it only in See Also is actually holding this article to a more lenient standard than other spiritual topics, rather than a stricter one as you keep insisting. The See Also link should stay, unless it is added to the article text itself. Kit O'Connell (Todfox: user / talk / contribs) 22:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Reference formatting

Silence has expressed concern over the maintainability of the reference tags I put into this article. I had a look at Saffron as he suggested, though, and I'm not sure if that approach would here since most of the citations are web pages and don't fit into a Harvard-style citation format (there's no author, no year, and no page numbering). I suppose I could come up with some sort of custom Harvard-like mini-citation system to do something similar, but I'm a big fan of standardization so it will make me sad. Anyone have any other ideas or suggestions? The old-style ref/note templates aren't any easier to maintain, I've found lots of broken links and orphan references in the past few weeks as I've been going around converting articles over. Bryan 01:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't really see a big difference in maintenance, but my criticism on this is a different one: Articles with this kind of reference system are seriously ugly to edit. I don't see the need to put the reference directly into the text and not neatly somewhere at the end, all on one place. --Conti| 01:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Ease of editing is why I added so many line breaks in this case, they make the templates much clearer at a glance. The maintenance issue comes from having to keep things manually synchronized in two different parts of the article - if a bit of text with a footnote is removed, one has to remember to also go down to the bottom of the article and remove the corresponding line down there or one is left with an orphaned footnote and a broken backlink. It's also a hassle keeping the numbering straight, one has to manually sort the footnotes to make sure they're in the same order they appear in the article. If you move text around or add new footnotes you have to update the references section to reflect it. Bryan 01:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
The line breaks don't help that much when I try to read and edit the article in my opinion, but I see the advantages of this format. But a reference in the middle of a sentence is still very ugly, with or without line breaks. I don't really know a way around this without losing the advantages that are certainly quite useful, but I'd still like to be able to fluently read the text of an article. --Conti| 02:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
One notion I came up with a while back was to create a separate template for each reference, so that the tag would only contain (for example) {{Otherkin references/kinhost_faq_1_2}} with the full complexity of the cite template being over on that template page. But that would spread the contents of the article out over a lot of little sub-templates, which doesn't seem like a good idea either. Something Saffron-like might ultimately be the best bet, as kludgy as it seems to my tender sensibilities. :) Bryan 02:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh, another possibility that comes to mind is to actually reduce the number of references cited. There are only 33 sentences in this article, does it really need 25 separate references for them? (sentences counted by counting periods). If there are any references that can be reused for multiple data points then that'd be an excellent way to reduce the clutter, since the <ref> system allows named references to be referred to multiple times in a very tidy way. I just noticed, for example, that the first and fourth references are to the same material hosted at different locations. I'll merge them to demonstrate. Bryan 02:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Frankly, one of the biggest problems with reducing sources for this article is that there are individuals editing here who believe every single claim must have a source directly cited along with it, and if the sentences are not cited to their satisfaction (often including needing offline and/or academic verification, despite the subject of the article being the beliefs an internet subculture with their own websites about what they believe) they are removed as unsourced, thus reducing the article down to a stub. It leaves people trying to get information about this subculture out there in the position of needing to cite every single sentence, preferably multiple times in case one or more sources is not deemed good enough or conclusive enough. And still the article gets paired down the minute you grow tired of fighting for it. It's disheartening to edit from that position, particularly with no support. That's why I stopped.
By the way, if anyone was ever seriously interested in citations for the Orkney selkies thing that got deleted, here:
That's two. Neither was hard to find. The first was from the second result on google for the word selkies, for crying out loud.
Here also is a citation for the claims of the Japanese royal family:
Despite what has previously been said here, the emperor of Japan claims to be a descendent of the kami Amaterasu and himself a manifest kami or kami on earth, as the article describes. That is very similar to stated otherkin beliefs, enough so that it should be included here despite any claims of cultural sensitivity.
If anyone cares enough about this article to use them, go ahead. I'd add them myself to help flesh out this article again, but frankly I'm just too tired to get into the kind of editing battle that would be required to maintain this article in any meaningful way. Jarandhel [[User_talk:Jarandhel|(talk)]] 04:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, using templates would make things better to read, but then again we'd had the same problems again: When one sentence with reference gets removed, people had to delete the subpage as well, a thing people probably won't do. Saffron is also not very easy to read, IMHO, you have to look twice to find the end of a reference there. Is it possible to automatically reduce the font size in the edit box? References could be a bit smaller then, which would makes things much better to read, I hope. But that would need a change in the MediaWiki software, and I don't know if that's actualy possible to do.
Reducing the number of references would help a bit of course, but that wouldn't solve the problem in general. I'm not sure, but I think the number of references here are a result of a huge debate over the verifiability of pretty much the whole article, so only sentences survived that had actual references. --Conti| 02:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I hate to further defend my ugly idea of having separate templates for each reference, but if someone neglects to delete one of those then at least it doesn't clutter the article - just the database. :) Anyway, I kind of suspected that might be the reason for the immense number of references, since I've had a couple of werewolf-related articles watchlisted for a long time and otherkin-related conflicts kept spilling over into them. I guess I've finally become involved in one myself. I'll try removing the extra line breaks I added, see how that's recieved, and continue pondering how to improve things further. One thing I'm looking at right now is trying to find some way to consolidate the eight references more cleanly. Bryan 03:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not saying it's an ugly idea, it's just one which has its disadvantages as well. It would remove my main objection to this reference system, which is good of course, but then it has other disadvantages. People have to put more stuff on their watchlists if they want to counter vandalism, moving the article would mean moving alot of subpages as well, etc.. It's a shame that I come up with so many disadvantages, as it's the only solution that would make the actual articles nice and clean to read again. :) Hmm, another idea is using the comment tags (<!-- -->). I changed the first three paragraphs accordingly, does it look any better? --Conti| 03:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Heh. I was saying it was an ugly idea, I'm horrified that I came up with it but felt compelled to mention it anyway if only so I could force myself to come up with something better. :) The references wouldn't be subpages in the main article space, that's against subpage policy. I was thinking they'd be subpages of template:otherkin references instead. Anyway, the HTML comment tags are fine with me, I've had no problems with any of the formatting variations so far. How do they look to you? Bryan 03:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, right, you'd still have to watchlist them to find sneaky vandalism, tho. The text looks kinda OK with the comment tags, I think. I'd love something big and flashy like "REFERENCE ENDS/STARTS HERE!!!11", so it instantly catches my eye and I can skip the text until I see a similar notice again. :) But writing something in all caps is a bit silly of course, and using a different color or font is not possible, as far as I know. So I can't come up with any better solution than using the comment tags at the moment. --Conti| 03:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Nor I, though I have had some success with trimming down the total number of references through consolidation of redundancies (20% off :). Still haven't come up with a good idea for taking advantage of the fact that many are from, though. Anyway, if you're semi-satisfied with the comment tag idea, want me to put them in for the rest of the refs? Since I'm the one who started off this hassle I'm fine with doing all the heavy lifting and cleanup work. Bryan 04:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Sure, why not. I'd still be curious what others think about the readability tho, maybe it's just me and the others don't like it at all. :) --Conti| 16:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Done. The world wouldn't be very interesting if everyone agreed with everything... :) Bryan 17:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict) "most of the citations are web pages and don't fit into a Harvard-style citation format" - Then why did the previous edit try to create a Harvard-style citation format combined with the <ref> format? If Harvard-style isn't acceptable here, then don't use it at all: just put the raw text into the ref-tags. If it is acceptable, then there are only two feasible ways to use it: either do it Saffron-style, a two-tiered system, or use them in their originally-intended way and don't use "ref" tags at all, but simply include the Harvard tags in the article, which will link to the specific references at the bottom. There's no point whatsoever in burying full Harvard citations throughout the text; it makes it unreadably cluttered for editors and is completely redundant. -Silence 01:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
My mistake, I just looked at the text again and it's the similarly-constructed "cite web" and related templates, not the "harvard" one. So the problem is that either "cite web" must be used without the ref-tags and must be put in an organized way at the bottom of hte article, or all of them must be converted into raw text so it only consumes a line or two, not 8 or 9. -Silence 01:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
If it's just a matter of compressing them into a line or two in the edit window, then I can simply take the extra line breaks out that I added. IMO it makes it harder to edit that way, but I'll give it a shot and you can see whether it helps. I don't think converting to raw text is a good idea, templates are great because they can allow reformatting to be done more easily in the future. Most of the work I've been doing as I've been formatting references throughout Wikipedia has been to put raw text into appropriate templates, I was happy to see the refs on this article were already nice and tidy that way when I got here. Bryan 02:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Apparently the newly-instituted reference system doesn't work at all: if not all the refs can be integrated into the text, don't do any, it only causes inconsistency and confusion and makes it harder to keep them updated and working. Having most of the references hidden throughout the text and then a random assortment stuck onto the end is beyond inconsistent (not just to editors, but to readers: it suddenly switches from a numbered system accompanied by links to a bulleted system). -Silence 01:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Hang on here, I'm not following your objection at all. This is no different from the previous system in any way, the only thing that changed was that I took out the separate "notes" section header. If you put the "notes" section header back in it looks almost the same as it did before to the reader. Bryan 02:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Also, I'd appreciate a bit more assumption of good faith. What was a "bad job" about the reference formatting I did? We're disagreeing over the ease of editing and such, but I was very careful not to break anything when I did that work. Bryan 02:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Questioning some references

In the course of all this fiddling with formatting, I've also been looking at the content of the references and I've come across a few that trouble me. is given as a cite showing that the term "otherkin" is used by the vampiric community, but the term doesn't appear within it at all. I've also checked the Internet Archive,[1] since the cite's access date is May 2005, but the March 2005 version doesn't have it either so this doesn't appear to be a case of the referenced source being updated. So this URL doesn't actually support the information it's being used as a cite for. Does anyone have an alternative source?

The same also applies to for the therianthropy community. The URL is currently nonfunctional, but Internet Archive saves the day again [2] and doesn't contain the term "otherkin" in any of its saved versions.

Never mind these two, I just found that the reference backed up both of these cases. I've replaced them with it. Bryan 04:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

A discussion thread on the "Drink Deeply & Dream" web forum [3] is being used to support "all of these communities share similar core beliefs, but have members who do not consider themselves part of the overall otherkin community." I can't find the post in this thread that's supposed to be doing that. And even if I did, a web forum is hardly a reputable source to be citing for anything beyond the simple fact that a post was made to that forum. Does anyone have an alternate for this one too? Bryan 03:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Gimmiet/GabrielSimon indefinite block

Status change: Gimmiet has been indefinately blocked (see here). Because of past behavior, please watch for any possible socks. This page is a magnet for him, so notify SlimVirgin or myself if you suspect any edits, but please don't WP:BITE anyone. - CHAIRBOY () 09:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Spirituality Portal

Is it appropriate do you think, for this Otherkin page to make use of the Spirituality Infobox as shown on this page: ?

Is this Otherkin page listed within the Spirituality Portal: ?

Resorting References

I'm re-sorting the book references to reflect chronological order (which makes more sense, since the book references are unnumbered), and I'm also taking special care to re-affirm the ISBN and other information on each book just to make doubly certain.

Source Issues

I think there are way too many references to in this article. has no ability to state what the majority of otherkin think, or what many of them do - the phenomenon predates the site, it is a personal site, ect. I think its fine for some stuff, but relying on it to say anything about the otherkin community is silly, as it isn't a major bastion of it, at least as far as I can tell - I've known a number of otherkin, and as far as I know when I found out about otherkin that site didn't even exist. One site which I don't see referenced but which is far older, better travelled, and probably just better in general is draconity. It was the site I was referred to when I wanted to figure out what they were by the otherkin I knew. I'll ask those I know and see if they know of any other sites; if we do have to use some shakier sources, it'd be nice to at least have stuff confirmed by a variety of them, as the proprietor of any individual otherkin site is going to have their own take on it. Titanium Dragon 08:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

EDIT: Apparenlty my memory of the address is poor. Anyway, Baxil wrote [4] in 1999, which was the first document I was referenced to way back in the day. Its not like these people are paragons of mental stability, but it might be worth assembling a list of such documents so we can cross-reference claims to at least some degree, so if some site says "all otherkin like the color pink" we can refute it ("Baxil prefers green") or corraborate it. If you search for Draconity on google, it shows up below the draconity test. I think its probably worth noting the page Draconity in this article if it isn't already, as they were/are a large group of otherkin. Heck, [] would be an excellent resource for this article (and by excellent, I mean "another somewhat questionable source"). What really needs to happen is someone needs to con a psychology major into doing research on the subculture for their thesis or senior research or something; then we'll have a much better source. Titanium Dragon 08:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

History and usage

Debateable? Otherkin-like acting can easily be linked to shamanism and some forms of druidism.

The key phrase there is otherkin-like acting. Emphasis on like, or acting. The idea that a non-human entity can take on human form, is neither new, nor exclusive to otherkin. The article is to my understanding, specifically about the subculture of otherkin. The reference to the Imperial Family of Japan was rejected on this basis. Personally, the only circumstance I see in which these should be referenced in the history is as pre-existing beliefs which may have inspired the otherkin community, which I'm not entirely sure is the case anyway. At any rate this article is not here to prove the validity, age, or credibility of the otherkin community. It is to explain, describe, and otherwise provide information on the otherkin community, and it's beliefs.--Scandalous 22:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I find it very debateable claiming it started in an elven community in 1990's. Also, for some reason this article(and, plus the news articles) seem to very much line otherkin being very much fae-kind. This is grossly incorrect aswell.

And just a personal opinion, but i find very debatable of used as reference, they also support the weirdest form off "wannabe otherkin-ness" (otakukin) in a way, that they're basically claiming "otakukin is otherkin" which most, if not all otherkin would see humorous. (For those who do not know, otakukin in a nutshell is people claiming to be reincarnations of anime, and manga characters.)

Seeing as the term otakukin was coined by two members of the otherkin community, and has received some acceptance among other members as well, the claim "most, if not all" is spurious at best. Also, as it was a movement started within the otherkin community, there is a connection, even if it is the bastard child people don't like talking about. is one of the major websites dealing with the topic, which by default, makes it something worth being used as a reference, if for no other reason, than the fact that it is a repository of contributed material by various otherkin, some of which have vastly differing views. Aside from it providing hosting space, where explicitly do you feel it is "supporting" otakukin? --Scandalous 05:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
On a different note, your description, although reflective of a subset of otakukin, is incomplete, and thus inaccurate, much in the same way you feel it's inaccurate to refer to otherkin as fae-kind. --Scandalous 05:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It is nearly impossible to define Otherkin because it is currently used as a general category for a rather large hierarchy of therms. Otakukin is just one example. There's also Theranthropy, which I bring up because of the proposed merge. Therans are Otherkin, but Otherkin are not therans. Think of it as a pyramid:

   |        \
Therans     Otakukin

Because Otherkin make up a massive number of cultures (considering the nearly infinite races), they will include a little bit of every conceivable religion and belief system. Clodaus 15:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Therapeutic kinship

I was wondering if anyone feels this article could use a section on otherkin who don't actually believe they are the reincarnation of (insert mythic or mundane animal/plant/astronomical phenomenon/whatever here), but choose to identify with one as sort of a Dale Carnegie-esque confidence-building inner peace sort of thing. Y'know, psychological shamanism, rather than religious. I know I've met plenty such individuals; there seem to be enough of them to warrant mention. Unfortunately, I'm much, much too sleep-deprived to actually, well, do anything at the moment, so I shan't dig up a citation, or anything. If anyone would be willing to do all the actual work for me, I'd be much obliged. Otherwise, I suppose I'll Google around for a reputable source or two, probably some time next week. 04:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't know to what you refer; it sounds like something other than Otherkin 14:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that you may be onto something. Whether or not it is actually part of the Otherkin BELIEF SYSTEM is a different matter, but I beleive that it IS something to look into.Solon Olrek 17:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think they really qualify as otherkin. Indeed, I rather suspect psychology has a term for them; I'm not aware of it if they do though. Titanium Dragon 03:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I think your right now that I have had time to think about it. Which brings me to my new question. What would religions in which people focus on mythological/fantasy beings be classified as?Solon Olrek 18:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Dunno. I know very little about most religions; I'm only terribly familiar with about 15, and several of those are dead religions which haven't been practiced large-scale for millenia. I've heard of people referring to totems and such before, but I suspect they know little about the beliefs they're talking about too. Titanium Dragon 20:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Right now I am looking into the Wicca religion, and its really interesting. Other than Wicca, Christian, and a little of the Otherkin religion, I can't claim to be an "expert" on any religions.
Do you youself believe in the otherkin religion, or are you just an outside observer of religions?Solon Olrek 04:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Otherkin religion? To my knowledge (as one personally involved in this), no such thing exists. Being otherkin is a spiritual rather than religious thing.Rakeela 22:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
What is a religion if not a spititual beleif or practice. While most people consider religions to be widely practiced or sactified church habitating rituals, a religion is in itself nothing more than a beleif or spiritual practice one uses to enhance life.Solon Olrek 18:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

A religion has/is a set of laws. The ten commandments, for instance, makes Christianity a religion. Not all otherkin believe in Satan, and not all believe in Shiva. Not all believe you must pray five times a day facing Mecca. there are Christian, Hindu, and atheist kin out there. Believing you are kin is similar to believing that Elvis is really still alive; it does not change your religion, but it is a belief. See the difference? Asa Hearts 05:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


Forgive me if I'm behind but I couldn't find this anywhere above in the discussions page. What in the world is an "Abilities" section doing here presenting itself as fact? For instance, pyrokinesis. I certainly wish I had pyrokinesis. I don't and have never heard of anyone who does. Now I'm not willing to just delete it or anything, but it shouldn't be there.Rakeela 22:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't find the section. Did someone remove it already?Solon Olrek 19:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Deleted by Zetawoof in his revision on 2006-10-27 06:43:22, because it was unsourced. --Drake Wilson 06:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Yep - unsourced and kind of silly, too. "Advanced Irony", "Delusions of Grandeur", and "Unhealthy Tolkien Fascination" indeed. Zetawoof(ζ) 21:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
"Abilities" was included because Otherkin and Metaphysics go hand-in-hand within the culture. However, I agree that this page has nothing to do with Metaphysics aside from that connection, and should be saved for a separate article. Just providing some insight. Clodaus 15:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Popular Culture

Mr. Garrison's Fancy New Vagina seems to make a reference to otherkin; is this noteworthy? Are there any other similar examples of otherkin in popular culture? Titanium Dragon 05:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Otherkin Race Misconceptions in Listings

The article's list of common otherkin races seems to be fine at first glance...until you actually take the time to click on a link. Non-otherkin editors may not see a problem with such articles being associated with the Otherkin article, however being Otherkin myself I felt the need to bring it up.

I would first like to point out the link to the Demon article. The definition is stated as follows: "A demon is a malevolent supernatural being." According to the general population, yes. According to Otherkin, no. Though I do not qualify as a demon myself, I speak for all self-respecting otherkin who do when I say: that phrase can be rather offensive. "Demon" is a general categorization of a race, just like "Human". Saying all demons are "malevolent" is like saying all humans are...<insert whatever insult you'd like here>.

I am not suggesting the modification of the Demon article. I'm simply suggesting that the link be removed from this Otherkin article. It will raise many misconceptions relating to such a race. As an founder of an otherkin community, and over the years in general, I have had many disputes over this generalization. I look to educate the general population on Otherkin, first by removing all the general misconceptions that taint who we are and push us into the shadows of ridicule.

I myself am not going to remove the link, I'm simply proposing a modification.

Clodaus 10:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

If otherkin "demons" aren't Demons then why do they refer to themselves by that name? It seems to me as those links should stay. 09:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I think that Clodaus is right. if those links do stay, then they should be fixed. A demon isn't, in essence, always evil or satanic. There should be a seperate section in the Demon article that is dedicated to the meaning of the word as Otherkins use it. Maybe Clodaus could do it since he is of the religion himself.Solon Olrek 19:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Irrelevant. Why? Because this is an encyclopedia, and otherkin using incorrect defintions of words is not important enough to warrant editing that article. Unless and until otherkin become more prominent, the demon article should remain unchanged. Titanium Dragon 21:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
This really boils down to otherkin misuing a word, then trying to "educate" people that their incorrect definition is actually correct. That Clodaus decides to call himseelf a demon is his own business, but it definitely has no bearing on this article. He's about as relevant as the random otherkin plantkin guy - he's just one person and he isn't notable. Titanium Dragon 21:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Minor note: being "otherkin" is not part of a religion, it's simply a trait. I myself hold no religion. Also, defining "misuse" of the word is difficult. You have to first determine the word's origin. I'm not going to do that myself, which is why I'm not modifying the article myself, however there are two possible arguments:
1. The word is derived from actual otherkin
2. The word was created, and applied to otherkin culture
If I may now bring up another point. Words may have multiple definitions. When a human says "demon", chances are they're thinking of some horror movie. When Otherkin say "demon", they think of something entirely different. Therefore, it just needs a bit of clairfication. Add a footnote or something perhaps. Can anyone come to agreement with this? Clodaus 02:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Otherkin is a spiritual/religious belief, and one could argue (and many have argued) that otherkin are in fact a religious sect unto themselves. I think this is a reasonable analysis of the situation given the definition of a religion.
As for the demon situation, it doesn't "need clarification". Honestly, the whole section fails WP:V, which is why I think we need someone, somewhere to conduct an actual indepedent survey of the matter. I've heard of elves, dragons, gryphons, wolves, vampires (though they're arguably their own subculture/religion), and a smattering of others. You're not notable, and honestly I've not heard of many "demons"; as such, I challenge it being listed at all. Titanium Dragon 07:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

More complaints: The "common types of otherkin" is totally unsourced. The entire "elf" section reads like total nonsense and original research, and needs to be removed or sourced in their holy books (or posts, or whatever passes for it for this particular religious group). I know some of it is, but some of it is not. Nephilim are not a particularly common otherkin group, to my knowledge; I've never actually heard of one, though it would not surprise me at all. Then again, my experience is mostly with otherkin dragons and gryphons.

I think this section needs to be sourced and edited a considerable amount; the largest otherkin community I'm aware of is the dragons, though I've heard a lot about the elves. We need these to be sourced and links to papers or at the least appropriate websites with large member lists. Titanium Dragon 21:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I tagged this page with the Original Research tag; this article has been plagued by these issues for long enough and warrants the tagging, methinks. Titanium Dragon 21:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Might I mention that throughout history, demons have not always been seen as malevolent? For instance, to the ancient Greeks, demons were seen as nuetral, capable of choosing good or evil, just like any human.Asa Hearts 04:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for resolution

I propose we delete all of the "common otherkin types" until we can verify them. Right now, the only ones I can verify are dragon, elf, and vampire. Titanium Dragon 08:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I am fine with that. However, how do you propose on "verifying" these types of things. It was mentioned above that Otherkin-....ism....can be considered a type of belief system. If you have a wikipedia article on other religions (or any article for that matter), you list the gods/goddesses they believe in. Similarly, why not list the otherkin that Otherkin actually...believe in? And that includes the proper definitions. I propose we list them in here first, then move them over to the actual article once all otherkin have come to an agreement. Clodaus 23:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Verification is extremely difficult as there are virtually no reliable sources on Otherkin; almost all pages I'm aware of which reference them are written by otherkin or written by those making fun of Otherkin. As such, there is much bias in the pages, and the ones written by otherkin obviously implicitly implies their beliefs are real. Moreover, they're written by individuals, not groups, and there is no evidence to suggest there are large numbers of otherkin (more than a thousand). Moreover, only common archetypes are worth mentioning; the rest simply are not notable. To my knowledge, the largest otherkin communities are the vampires (and many would not call themselves otherkin), dragons, and elves - all three of which are fairly distinctive even within the otherkin community. Everything else appears sparingly; I've seen myriad numbers of claimed species but none nearly so notable. This is Wikipedia, not your personal webpage, and there doesn't need to be a "list" at all. Honestly, I think it'd be better just to list those three inline, rather than give them their own section, as most are simply non-notable. Having otherkin come in here and list what they are would not only be unencylopedic, it'd be original research, which not admissable to Wikipedia unless it is in a reliable source (and doing this would not be reliable).
Quite simply put, otherkin are not notable enough to list a hundred and fifty different species, ranging from platypus to oak tree. It'd be silly, and there's no reason to do it as it simply isn't notable. Titanium Dragon 08:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
If you're unable to verify the other races, how are you able to verify vampires, elves, and the like? As I stated above, it would be research enough to go out on the web and see the most commonly mentioned 'kin types, no different than any religion. Clodaus 00:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

A survey of Otherkin

If a survey of Otherkin was done, what sort of stuff would you want? It would almost certainly not be given to a truly random sample of otherkin, and would probably end up simply characterizing online Otherkin. Even so, it'd be useful to have actual statistics. So, what would we want to know?

  • What species of otherkin do they consider themselves?
This could have general categories, such as dragon, fairy, elf, demon, vampire, gryphon, ect., with a slot for "other" - without direction, many unusuable answers would be given.
  • What religion are you a member of, if any?
Again, could have many religions listed, probably would want to split up pagan into Wiccan and several subcategories.
  • How old are you (human age)?
Specify human age so they don't give answers like 3000.
  • How old were you when you decided you were otherkin?
  • What general category of otherkin are you?
Could have genetic, were, spirit, ect. in here. This section could get odd and probably needs better wording and input before the survey as to what categories should exist.
  • What else?

Even if it potentially couldn't be used in wikipedia due to its nature as OR, it still could give us at least some useful information. It could be put out in otherkin communities. It suffers severe problems, as it cannot be scientific as a survey, but at least we'd have something to go on. Titanium Dragon 06:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

If this issue can be put on hold for a few months, such a survey actually has been done and will be published next year. From [5]: "My current project is an introductory overview of the Otherkin subculture; just accepted by Immanion, the title is A Field Guide to Otherkin and it'll be out in March 2007." Lupa solicited surveys from all around the community for at least a year or two and the results of that will be in the book. Baxil 04:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Synonym:: Superhero?

Can we just quit beating around the bushes and call them superheroes?

...What? O.o --CF90 17:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability, Original Research and Reliable Sources

90% of this articles sources and statements fail WP:V, WP:RS per WP:V or WP:OR at some level, often all three at the same time. After you pull all the self published internet sources such as,, alt.vampyres, and original research this article is bare bones. In the future I'm going to be pulling all these rather dubious portions of the article and trying to find some actual sources to use here. Any help from the community that seems most interested in this article's existence would be very much appreciated. Failing finding acceptable sources is going to leave this article a very, very shallow stub. NeoFreak 15:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Self-published sources are acceptable in certain circumstances, see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources of dubious reliability: "Sources of dubious reliability should only be used in articles about themselves." It is ok to use and the like as a source in this article, although better sources are always welcome, of course. There is a really really long discussion in the arcive of this talk page about this topic. --Conti| 16:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
The reference to "dubious sources" would include individual's or organization's statements about themselves such as an author, political party or an NGO. In this instance it is a self-published source speaking about a "community" and a cultural/psychological/meta-physical phenomena. This clearly falls under self-published sources. In that case the use of these sources according to that policy are only appropriate when when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field or a well-known professional journalist of which the sources in question fail in both of these stipulations. For these reasons the Village Voice, Citadel Press and Lycanthropy sources are fine but the others are not. NeoFreak 16:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
So, we can use self-published sources about organizations, but not about communities? Where's the difference? Actually, the template you added supports my point pretty much. Self-published sources can be used as a primary source for the topic the sources are about. Otherwise we couldn't use homepages of games, television series and the like as a source about themselves, which would be a bit silly, IMHO. --Conti| 17:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
These websites are collections of people claiming to be animals and/or mythical creatures. This article is not about an organization, it is about a cultural/psychological/meta-physical phenomena. and vampire message boards cannot be used as authorities on this "community" of people. Not to make a moral comparison by any means but that's like getting the history of the Neo-Nazi movement from a white supremacy website. One, it's not representive of the entire "community", Two it's not accurate, Three it's POV and Four they are not experts in that entire field of study: they just know they don't like people that aren't white. If this article was about the website it would be appropriate but it isn't. See where I'm going with this? This is the reason the self-published rule exists. NeoFreak 17:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
These websites are from people claiming to be animals and/or mythical creatures. This article is about people claiming to be animals and/or mythical creatures. Therefore, we can use the websites as a source for this article. Of course, these sources are not likely to be neutral, but they don't have to be. We have to be neutral, not our sources. I'd agree that there'd be a problem if the disputed sources would've been the only ones cited in the article, but that's not the case. --Conti| 18:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Were this article to have a range of balanced sources it would not be as much of an issue but it doesn't. There is not professional opinion in this article at all, no real medical or psycological data, nothing. The problem is the article uses these unreliable sources as it's main source of info. The unacceptable use of self-published sources with zero credentials is laid out in WP:RS as wrong. I've already gone through and without these so called sources there really isn't much left to the article but "Otherkin are people that think they're mythical creatures on the inside and some people think they are freaks. The term originated amoung the elven community (whatever that really is) in 1996". Thats about it. These self-pubs can only be used if talking about themselves as in the first person. This article is not about as I've already stated. There is no problem with using some of these sites a a small sampling of opinion within this "community" but not a a primary source on the entire phenomena as they don't meet the criteria for WP:RS. NeoFreak 18:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
There -aren't- any professional opinions, no real medical or psychological data. In fact, the only thing we can really say is that it may be related to clinical lycanthropy. The reason these sources are being used is because there -aren't- better sources. Cutting useful information is not a good idea. If you could find some, that'd be great, but to my knowledge (and to the knowledge of otherkin I've spoken with, and fellow people who are familiar with them) they simply don't exist. Remember the rule that you can ignore other rules if they prevent you from making Wikipedia better. This article does contain some useful, difficult-to-source-reliably information, and I think it needs to stay on the basis of being useful and informative. Titanium Dragon 04:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
If a topic is so obscure to as have zero reliable or professional sources then substituiting poor self-published fan and community based ones is not an option. That's bad editing. If professional or jouranlistic sources don't exist for an obscure and questionable demographic then having possible members of said possible demographic self-publish sources on the internet under the guise of possibly being experts on the subject is also inappropriate. The pushing of a POV to create more than is there because of personal interest in the subject is the only explanation I can think of to explain why these "sources" got in here in the first place. NeoFreak 14:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm new to actually editing Wikipedia, though I usually anonomously contribute to discussion pages and use it for reference when I have something quick I need some background information about. Sorry if the formatting of any of my posts is off, due to this. This is my first actual contribution from this account, but I've read all policies as extensively as I can, and can't wait to be bold, and such. Anyway... the verifiability of this article is something I've long questioned, because, it does read like a POV article to advance a given opinion. The issue with articles published by the community itself, about itself, rests with bias. Negative lights of information, objective critique, facts that don't meet a desired outward image held BY the sites (which, due to their nature as held by individuals in the community, excepting incredible cases, cannot be considered from their first-face value to be neutral), will obviously be excluded.
Until critique of reasonable quality from both ends, to at least ameliorate the consequences of apparent bias can be established, I must declare that this article, in my mind, does NOT meet WP:V and violates WP:OR. This does not mean, on its face, that the articles should be removed, but it DOES mean that the onus is on the editors who wish them to stay, to prove why there is an exception under Wikipedia concensus policy for them. The onus is NOT on NeoFreak, or, now, myself, to justify why they should be removed. By their nature as original research not published by reliable or neutral sources. I must draw attention to one policy I've always admired: That this article, and Wikipedia, [NOT a soapbox.]
As such, I'm advocating continued removal of all information sourced to the disputed sources, although the situation, given the lack of published sources (Which as NeoFreak said, might mean that due to the lack of reliable information about the demographic, enforces the argument that they should be removed, not that they should stay) might be made better by the addition of frames of reference beyond those strictly of the community. Without contrast, neutrality cannot be drawn -here-, due to there being no sources or studies which can be taken as face-value unbiased.
Can we at least agree, those who edit this article, that Original Research is not allowed on Wikipedia, that studies done by people who are not experts or trusted journalists or in some way acting in an official capacity as regards the subject of the article is Original Research, and that by this logical drawing, those sources deemed disreputable by the current tag on the article, are just that: Not suitable for submission here, due to their potential for biased and slanted nature. They come FROM the community. We must NOT hold any illusions that there is not a vested interest in portraying one's own beliefs as superior to all others.
No article can truly be neutral, for none of us are truly neutral. But we can do better than citing a bunch of sources written by Otherkin community members. It's going to get me bricked, but would we utilize the remarks of evangelical Christians without a grain of salt, in an article about their beliefs? Would we take a Jets fan's opinion in an article about their losses, without checking to back it up? Would we utilize Nazi propaganda articles as fact in an article about the Third Reicht or Hitler? We might, if they were founded and well drawn, but we'd damn well want unbiased sources to back them up. And I've said my piece. Sorry if I went overlong or breached any rules of etiquette, as mentioned, I'm of the opinion the article could be better, and wish to cooperate with everyone to make it so. This is why, until concensus can be reached here, I'm not touching the article itself unless resounding support comes from -somewhere- and says it should be changed. Cheers. I'm willing to root for sources that are verifiable in some way, shape, or form. They may exist, we can't be sure. I just think this stuff should come out.
Raeft (Don't know how to sign or timestamp my posts yet)

Welcome to Wikipedia Raeft! Happy editing.

I'm starting the clean up of the main article. I've given it a few days and I've yet to see any response that would lend any hope to the idea that suitable sources are going to be found to replace the ones used here. NeoFreak 00:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

External Links

I'm looking for some help and input on cleaning up the external links portion of this article. My familiararity with the community that is represented in the links is not, I would imagine, as great as some of the other editors here. Any advice and input about briging the exteranl links section in line with wikipedia policy would be very much appreaciated. NeoFreak 01:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes, I'm going to visit several of these sites later today, check out their verifiability as neutral sources, or at least reasonably on-topic sources which do not overtly promote a non-encyclopedic bias (as external links should pass at least a cursory NPOV litmus test, or else be balanced by dissenting links.). I believe, though unsuitable for a reference, should be left, at -least-. It is fairly responsible, and if biased in the favor of the Otherkin community, is at least outweighed by being well-known and informative on their beliefs. Many of the others need trimming, but I'm going to follow up by reading all of their content to make sure we don't trim out some good information. Not all of it might be appropriate for the article, but, who knows, maybe some of it has redeeming value or can be added to the main body.

Raeft 18:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Book Refs

Well now that I've removed all the unsourced statements in the article. I was hoping those who originaly put up the book refs or are familiar with them can help me figure out which ones are still relavent and what material can be put back in with citations. I've already taken the liberty of removing the known self-published and fiction books from the list.

  • Adler, Margot (1979). Drawing Down The Moon: Druids, Goddess-worshippers and other pagans in America today. Viking Press. ISBN 0-670-28342-8.-
  • Cabot, Laurie (1989). Power of the Witch. Delacorte Press. ISBN 0-385-29786-6.- More on the Silver Elves
  • Carey, Ken (1991). Return of the Bird Tribes. HarperSanFrancisco. ISBN 0-06-250188-7.
  • Beaconsfield, Hannah (1998). Welcome to Planet Earth: A Guide for Walk-Ins, Starseeds and Lightworkers of All Varieties. Light Technology. ISBN 0-929385-98-5.
  • Mitchell, Karyn K. (1999). Walk-Ins: Soul Exchange. Mind Rivers. ISBN 0-9640822-4-1.
  • Virtue, Doreen (2002). Earth Angels: A Pocket Guide for Incarnated Angels, Elementals, Starpeople, Walk-Ins, and Wizards. Hay House. ISBN 1-4019-0048-8.
  • Polson, Willow (2003). The Veil's Edge: Exploring the Boundaries of Magic. Citadel Press. ISBN 0-8065-2352-2.- One of Willow Polson's books has a chapter on otherkin
  • Belanger, Michelle (2004). The Psychic Vampire Codex: a Manual of Magick and Energy Work. Weiser Books. ISBN 1-57863-321-4.

Just a notation with an explination of what it cites (and the subsequent re-entry of material if applicable) would be of enourmous help. Barring that or me being unable to find these books at my local library I'm going to remove them from the article. NeoFreak 11:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

One issue with the Book refs, and external links, is, as you've said above, verifiability. Some of them are books simply put in to pad things and make it look as if there was more to be cited from than there was. Actually, a lot of them deal chiefly with topics such as mysticism or the occult, from the blurbs I could find, and do NOT relate to Otherkin in any specific or verifiable way. The article is far cleaner, but with the lack of text, I think the stub heading is now appropriate. Additionally, I'm doing research into some of the books mentioned too. If I find anything, I'll throw it on here when I edit it out. Nice work trimming the fat. 17:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Err. the above was by me. Forgot to sign in. That said, I'm personally going to dig around FOR some reputable sources on Otherkin, so we can add to this article. It does not feel right to trim an article, no matter how unsourced and therefore inappropriate for Wikipedia, without trying to put something back in for the people who come to seek after. I'll look for some appropriate books. Cheers. Raeft 17:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Much appreciated and I agree in most circumstances. I'm assuming most of the refs, due to their New Age nature, just had small sections or passing reference to "Otherkin", transformation, lycanthropoy, etc. I was a little shocked to find that vampire novels were in the original listing of References. Kinda crazy. NeoFreak 17:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I've removed Bellanger's book again as the justification for its inclusion was that it was "a self-help book for Otherkin identifying as Psychic Vampires". My understanding is that "Psychic Vampires" do not think of themselves as non-human. Also her book is mainly, again from my understanding as I have not read the book, a collection of "magic spells" that will aid the user in "draining energy" from others. I don't understand how this relates to the Otherkin article and what portion of the Otherkin article it sources. NeoFreak 05:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Bellanger's book is not self-published, and 'vampire' vs 'human' can be regarded as a species difference. Removing things on the basis of what you've heard about a book you're unfamiliar with and haven't read seems rather odd for someone claiming to be 'rigorous'. However, I'm not inclined to get into an edit war. NickArgall 09:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not arguing that Bellanger's book is not a legit publishment. I'm saying her book is about "Psychic" or "Energy Vampires". If I understand this correctly these people do not think themselves to be possessing an animal spirit or psyche or being anatomically diffrent from anyone else. These folks do not consider themselves to be non-human, a defining characteristic of "Otherkin". This seems like a bit of a strech to include it as a ref to the Otherkin article. Do you own or have you read this book? Am I incorrect in this interpretation? NeoFreak 09:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Heya, all, me again. No, NeoFreak, you are, largely, not incorrect. The book itself does not discuss the issue of those who identify or believe themselves to be instances of a different species, or in some way linked to any of the races defined as Otherkin races, or in any way reflect directly on Otherkin. Psychic vampires, as addressed by the content OF Bellanger's book, as anyone who's read it will agree, are not identified as a different race. The book is a conceptual on the IDEA of psychic vampirism, and does not go into Elves, Demons, Dragons, blood-sucking Vampires, et al. except as by-references or bylines, and even then, only through speculatory innuendo. I agree with its removal. Raeft 18:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Haven't read the Bellanger book myself, but thought that I had formed an accurate understanding of it from conversations with Michelle Belanger. If it's not covered explicitly in the book, then it's not a valid reference, so I accept the removal. NickArgall 03:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Reliable sources?

How is the article on paganet any more reliable than many of the other sites? Is paganet a reliable source? Titanium Dragon 15:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

According to WP:RS no, it's not. NeoFreak 15:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Paganet really -isn't- a reliable source, as is true of most sources on this matter. I propose removal of the Paganet article's link, and will remove it myself unless dissenting opinion and reasons are given here by someone, or someone else beats me to it. Incidentally, thanks to Titanium Dragon and NeoFreak for your kind messages about how to sign my name, I now know how.

This said, I believe that the "Reactions" section needs references cited on it. I note it's been removed, but if someone reverts it or it gets put back. Like, where's the source for the fact that Otherkin have sometimes been diagnosed with Clinical Lycanthropy? Where's the evidence that said diagnoses have been -wrong- even? I mean, not saying it's not true, just that it's not documented. The same can even be said of stating that "Otherkin have been met with controversy". It's not controversy if only one point of view is presented. In this instance, the word "Controversy" is incorrect, because opposing points of view that meet WP:RS have not been presented. I'm also cleaning a few other things up with an edit, especially removing the line about Shamanic initiation in the intro.

This article is about Otherkin, the belief you can turn into an animal does not belong here, as Otherkin, according to the scope of this article, do not identify with animals. It seems to be an offshoot/continuation of the clinical lycanthropy line of thought. Otherkin are clearly defined as identifying with mythical beings.

Raeft 18:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

If the belief that you can turn into an animal does not belong here, then the clinical lycanthropy reference should be deleted. Let's apply the same standard of relevance to both the 'pro' and 'con' arguments. NickArgall 03:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Um, no. Clinical lycanthropy is documented medical condition. "Otherkin" is unsubstantiated New Age/USENET neologism. It is not a matter of being a "pro/con" argument. NeoFreak 10:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I concur with NeoFreak, but from a slightly different point of view. The shamanistic transformation thing might be valid in an article about Furry Lifestylers (to which this one links), but not in an article about beings who believe they can turn into or are mythical beings. Now, if it were linked more validly, I'd approve its placement, but for now. Clinical Lycanthropy has been extensively proven, by concensus, to be accepted here. Additionally, it is linked, because clinical lycanthropy evinces a similar phenomenon to believing you are something you are not (dysmorphia), despite not -being- the condition. It meets some of the diagnostic criteria. One is NOT the other. Cheers. Raeft 12:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not arguing that clinical lycanthropy should be excluded. I'm saying that the standard of relevance that includes that article on clinical lycanthropy should also include the documented history of spiritual belief about transformation into animals. The clinical lycanthropy article says 'animal', it does not say 'mythical animal' or 'animals, including mythical animals'. To rule that one of these is relevant and the other is not is to apply an inconsistent standard. 01:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC) (Dammit, I accidentally used five tildes NickArgall 01:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC))

Clinical Lycanthropy Revisited

The fact that clinical lycanthropy shares significant enough links to Otherkin spirituality that one might be linked with another on occasion, even if accidentally, has been vetted and cleared through concensus before, so it is not at issue here. Rather, the issue is one of how to phrase the relationship.

I believe that it is unfairly prejudicial to say that "Some otherkin have been diagnosed with Clinical Lycanthropy mistakenly". Chiefly because we have no proof of any case studies or detailed documents regarding Otherkin who WERE mistakenly diagnosed with Clinical Lycanthropy. In the opposite direction, we can't come out and say: "Otherkin beliefs ARE Clinical Lycanthropy", because that would be a) Inaccurate, and b) Defeat the purpose of this article. As such, I've changed the wording in the intro paragraph to:

"Accoding to diagnosis criteria put forth by mental health professionals, the belief that one is an animal or can be turned into an animal is termed clinical lycanthropy."

This is ALL that is directly supported by the reference tied to this sentence, not that improper diagnoses have occurred, not that Otherkin = Lycanthropy (Because it doesn't), and so on. Anyone think of better wording, or take issue with it, speak up, and we'll edit. Oh, and to anyone who's seen my continual edits, sorry. I'm new to getting all of my editing stuff in one edit, and frequently forget. New editor. This is kind of me testing my abilities on the whole editing for information. Raeft 19:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that's dead on. You're getting the hang of it, besides we all make mistakes when it comes to edits (look at my minor typo fix counts). NeoFreak 19:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm about to add to the external links discussion. I'm visiting some of those sites right this minute. Some seem inappropriate, but I wish to get at least two or three people agreeing before I edit anything out, to show concensus. Raeft 20:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't think you quite get why Lycanthropy is included yet. It's not because Otherkin are linked to animals as the belief in Clinical Lycanthropy runs: It's because the condition of being an Otherkin fits SOME criteria for Clinical Lycanthropy and has links in scope and application. The only difference IS the mythical animal thing. Hence, we're not saying Otherkin = Lycanthropy. The bit on shamanistic animal transformation belief belongs in an article on Furry Lifestyle. The Lycanthropy link belongs here not due to an animal association, but due to a sociological and psychological parallelism: Believing yourself to be, or be able to be transformed into something you are not. To use a neologism, "Dysmorphia". The animal link doesn't fit here, the link to lycanthropy, which, in all ways except the animal vs. Elf/Dragon/ElfDragon aspect, associates itself very closely, does. Then again, I'm not dead set against the shamanistic initiation line, I just want to ask if you really think, looking at it from an aspect of mental paralellism between Lycanthropy and Otherkin, not the animal aspect, that it fits? Barring that, I oppose the line's inclusion and say it fits better elsewhere, but, given it's a minor issue, and informative, won't press the point, though my vote is still against it, if others join concensus that it should be in. Raeft 02:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Otherkin don't have to be associated with mythological animals though; though many are, many see Otherkin as a blanket term and link it to any sort of animal. Titanium Dragon 02:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Also, technically, clinical lycanthropy only overlaps with some otherkin, not all of them. I do think the phenomena are related, though. Titanium Dragon 02:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Really? I hadn't known that Otherkin could encompass the belief one was linked to an animal. In that case, the line on shamanistic initiation fits. My apologies to Nick Argall for my own misconception. Raeft 16:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
No need to apologize, Raeft, I was using your definition of Otherkin, although Titanium Dragon's definition is one that I've seen used. What this last point indicates pretty clearly is that 'Otherkin' really is a neologism that is too unstable to have an article in its own right. We can keep arguing the point if you want, but now seems like a good point to walk away from that argument :) NickArgall 05:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
It's my understanding that Clinical Lycanthropy refers specifically to people who honest-to-god think that their physical body, the one everyone can plainly see is human, is that of an animal. In other words they actually don't realize that their phyical body is, in fact, human. This is very very different from Otherkin. We DO acknowledge the fact that our physical bodies are, in fact, human. It's kinda hard to miss the fact really, since we have to live in these bodies. I strongly feel that the language should reflect the fact that any link to Clinical Lycanthropy is nothing more than a misconception. I'd edit it myself but I don't feel like getting caught up in an edit war. -- Toksyuryel talk | contrib avatar 08:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Your understanding of Clinical Lycanthropy doesn't seem to match the definition provided by the PubMed abstract that was cited. NickArgall 05:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge to Therianthropy

Given that all of the most reputable sources about this phenomenon are in terms of 'animals', both from the clinical lycanthropy perspective and from people who believe it's healthy, I see no reason not to merge this into Therianthropy. It can have a paragraph or two under the heading 'Otherkin', perhaps saying "Otherkin is a recently-coined term that is used by a number of online communities (cluster of notes, perhaps even including somethingawful) to describe people who believe they have the souls of mythical animals such as elves, fairies, dragons and vampires." NickArgall 02:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm alright with the merge. It should be reduced from current form if it is merged, then, and possibly share some Therianthropy references if any are found appropriate for it. Raeft 02:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Eh. Honestly, otherkin seems to be used more often in the subculture. I don't think a merge is appropriate because they aren't really the same thing; otherkin is more of a religion. Titanium Dragon 02:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
After further inspection, I think its appropriate. Redirect Draconity and Otherkin to Therianthropy, add in a paragraph or two, and call it good for now. Unless more useful sources show up, this article is, I think, going to be quite marginal, and I don't think its worth keeping seperate as-is. Titanium Dragon 03:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
If therianthropy survies its AfD then wikipedia would be better served by putting Otherkin into Therianthropy and not the other way around. This is ONLY if some real sources can be found to support that usage of the term, otherwise we are creating original research by adapting something to a term or the other way around. NeoFreak 06:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
If we can't merge this to Therianthropy, we -do- have the sources to make this article, though it'd be short. Titanium Dragon 18:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
It's a touchy subject. Some Otherkin don't like the word Therianthropy as much as some Therianthropes don't like the word Otherkin. There are even those who insist that they are two different and seperate groups. And then there's people like me, who feel that these are just arbitrary labels, neither of which do a very good job of communicating our beliefs accurately. The words themselves have been the cause of much of the confusion about this topic really. There's also the very real occurance of certain elements in the community attempting to exercize an I'm-right-you're-wrong attitude and declare that only their definition is accurate. I have my own thoughts on the matter, but the issue has become so convoluted by this point that I don't feel inclined to weigh in. -- Toksyuryel talk | contrib avatar 08:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
The only Otherkin that would stand for that generalization would be those that actually consider themselves....animals. The majority of Otherkin I have come by have a dominant humanoid race, not animal. Unless every Otherkin race is an animal, the merge makes no sense, and is not justified. Clodaus 09:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Now we are dealing with slight diffrences in a very small group of people. Unless you can cite reliable sources (which is hard to do in a general overview) then getting into those kind of semantics is counter productive. This kind of subclassifications of splinter groups of subcultures and the total lack of sources is the reason alot of these articles are getting deleted or chopped down to begin with. We need to start with a broad scope and get into details as the sources emerge, not the other way around. NeoFreak 09:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Clodaus, you are factually incorrect. I suggest you investigate my history at, or ask Baxil who I am. I proposed this merge, and I've been its major supporter. NickArgall 02:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
If you really want to get into the subculture politics, technically we're both coming from the Draconity side of the equation, which (while generally considered a subgroup of Otherkin) has an identity all its own. Just not a big enough one to warrant a Wikipedia page these days.  ;) Baxil 08:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh come now, if a "dragon" goes clocktower sniper, then you'll be able to have an article of your own! It is a foolproof plan for gaining visibility for an unimportant group - look at Heaven's Gate. :P
And yes, the problem is that the elves also have appropriated the term. They're really the same thing - people who don't think they're entirely human - but uh, yeah, therianthropy doesn't exactly -describe- the elves (well, it does, sort of I guess, as elves are animals too ;) ), but they're a related group. I think we're better served by the therianthropy subculture article and this article becoming one, possibly under this page's title. Honestly, there isn't enough for two seperate articles and they're mostly the same thing anyway, same as the dragons are. Titanium Dragon 06:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Just for the record, after reading all of the votes to merge, I don't see a really compelling reason among them to merge, and only one compelling reason against merging (the rest is POV and therefore judgmental). I am opposed to the merge with lycanthropy, because of three very important points: 1) lycanthropy implies that a person believes that they are changing into, or have changed into a wolf (which I do not, and I am Otherkin), and therianthropy is likewise inappropriate (all therianthropes are Otherkin, but not all Otherkin are therianthropes); 2) The Otherkin belief seems to be taken less than seriously by many people, which makes it controversial, and merging it into a less controversial subject would mean that it's probably going to do nothing more than cause someone to try to edit it out of the subject it merges into and thus start the whole thing over again and make it just a silly circular argument--or, if merged the other way, removes a subject that has a long and well-documented history; 3) The removal of at least one section as violating NPOV seems to have been done with prejudicial and biased POV and was thus not done for NPOV reasons, according to what I'm reading in a lot of sections. I cannot support the merge either way, because while one encompasses another, the other has a long and well-established tradition of history and the other was a movement started within the past century (though my own research, which I have never included in my own edits of this article because it's original research, seems to imply that there is a very long and very hidden tradition of Otherkin). The fact that there is not much published on the Otherkin seems to imply that the Otherkin are rightfully wary of prejudicial treatment and that it is simply not in the best interests of Wikipedia (or the academic world in general) to simply do away with this entry to try to reduce the controversy. In addition, the vandalism of the entry in general has stifled any kind of hope that the topic will be treated with the sensitivity it needs. However, chopping the article and making claims of NPOV violations seems to have the support of the administration, so I'm sure that my own opinions on this will be likewise ignored, though I've given more than a year of thought to the article's content.Red Heron 02:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I think you make a number of good points. To merge in to Lycanthropy is to use a more specific term for a gernality, when there's a perfectly good general term. I don't think anyone is considering that anymore. I disagree with your statement "all therianthropes are Otherkin, but not all Otherkin are therianthropes" - I believe that the unifying thread of otherkin is that they share identity with animals, and that a rigorous treatment of 'therianthrope' means exactly that. Features used to distinguish between otherkin and therians don't seem to be based on a consistent standard. I agree that there's been a history of serious negative bias, users calling themselves 'fursecution' seem unlikely to have had positive intent. Unfortunately, the otherkin community has tended to be unable to distinguish between abusive scrutiny and constructive scrutiny, as exemplified by efforts to remove any mention of 'clinical lycanthropy'. I feel that the best way to address this problem is to demonstrate an ability to deal with these issues in a disciplined and effective manner. NickArgall 02:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Red Heron, do you have any reliable sources to back those assertions and claims about the Otherkin/therianthropy community or are they all original research from personal experiance and "facts" pulled from internet fans sites and discussion groups? NeoFreak 16:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm really, honestly trying to come up with an opinion on the merge one way or another, and I don't know what to think. On the one hand, the subculture(s) do use the terms in different ways to mean different things, and collapsing the articles together would be a net information loss. On the other hand, the vehemence against merge is largely rooted in subculture politics, irrelevant to the goal of an encyclopedia. So I don't see compelling arguments one way or the other. If it comes down to a vote, I'm a very weak keep -- especially since, within the next month or two, better sources on both sides will be arriving (including the Field Guide to Otherkin I mentioned up above), and it would be a pain to re-split the articles if the new sources strengthened the case to keep them separate. Baxil 08:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Draconity text

Per AfD requests for a possible merge I'm posting the text of the article before deleting it so that portions can be salvaged. -- Tawker 07:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Draconity is the state of being a dragon, draconic, or dragon-like. More specifically, it is a term used by many members of a subculture of people who believe themselves to be a dragon in a psychological, a spiritual, or far more rarely a biological sense. The term "draconity", along with the subculture that originated it, seems to have arisen in the mid-1990s through internet communication media such as Usenet newsgroups (particularly and IRC. Although many draconic individuals interact online, and some only declared themselves to be dragons after finding this subculture, many dragons claim to have identified themselves as such far prior to knowing the subculture even existed, although there is no evidence to support this claim.

Most commonly, draconic individuals base their personal definition of "dragon" upon traits they have found in spiritual self-exploration, which may differ greatly from the traits displayed by traditional definitions of dragons. Others will identify themselves with mythological standards such as European/Western and Chinese/Eastern dragons. Yet others adhere to the classifications found in works of fiction such as the Pernese dragons of Anne McCaffrey's novels and the classes of dragons as defined by Dungeons & Dragons and other related role-playing games.

The influx of dragons styled after role-playing game standards has become an issue of concern for some longstanding members of online dragon communities. The ease of use of many modern online forums for communications within the community, such as IRC and the more descriptive MU* interfaces (such as Alfandria), has attracted a number of dragon fans who use the sites as a medium for roleplaying purposes. There is some fear that this tends to dilute the population of "genuine" dragons and discredits the subculture as a whole. Being a fringe group, the draconic community is primarily visible online, but draconity-themed gatherings, often called "dragon gathers", do occur offline in various places around the world.

Draconity is often viewed as a subset of otherkin, and is thus subject to similar questions regarding its exact nature and the ramifications of such a belief on the individual, which are discussed in more detail in that article.

Draconity is featured highly in other cultures, notably the Chinese Culture. In the book, "Year of the Dragon: Legends & Lore" by by Nigel Suckling, Wayne Anderson, it reveals how the Chinese believe the first emperor was a dragon. To those that are born under all three signs of the dragon it is concidered to be very lucky as well as those that bear a draconic resemblance in some form or another.

See also

External links