Talk:Otherkin/Archive 8

message: Just looking for opinions on POV
:That just about wraps that up. Removed Pov-check. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV check 

message: ===== Quote 1 =====
"Many otherkin attribute this discrepancy to reincarnation or a "misplaced" soul." - please  cite this. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's very large. Please link me the right page to look at. Thanks. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Intro 

message: "Many otherkin attribute this discrepancy to reincarnation or a "misplaced" soul." - please  cite this. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's very large. Please link me the right page to look at. Thanks. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Quote 1 

message: "There are families in Orkney that have long claimed to have selkie ancestors" - cite please. I will require something more reliable than otherkin.net. Hipocrite - «Talk» 00:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Otherkin.net is an acceptable source for opinions on the otherkin community. As you can see, I have attributed all statements by otherkin.net 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

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

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

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: I have deleted this unverifiable claim Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fact 1 

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

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: look up the japanese empire, maybe the meiji era?Gimmiet 03:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No. You have to do the work if you want the fact in. Hipocrite - «Talk» 04:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I have deleted this claim Hipocrite - «Talk» 11:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: No objections here. android79 00:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Fact 2 

message: =====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)
thread_title:  Beliefs 

message: "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)
thread_title: Fact 1

message: "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)
thread_title: Fact 2

message: "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)
thread_title: Fact 3

message: 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)
replies: text: Who, other than Gimmiet, has violated 3RR today? android79 21:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Whoa, whoa... 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Not doing this for my own health. 

message: 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)
replies: text: (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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  replaced "see also" link to Clinical lycanthropy 

message: 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.
http://earthops.org/a-c-v/faq.html 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, 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 http://www.therianthropy.org/so/overview/therianthropy.asp for the therianthropy community. The URL is currently nonfunctional, but Internet Archive saves the day again  and doesn't contain the term "otherkin" in any of its saved versions.
:Never mind these two, I just found that the reference http://orion.animaltracks.net/compare.html backed up both of these cases. I've replaced them with it. Bryan 04:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Questioning some references

message: 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)
thread_title: Gimmiet/GabrielSimon indefinite block

message: I think there are way too many references to otherkin.net in this article. Otherkin.net 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)
replies: text: EDIT: Apparenlty my memory of the address is poor. Anyway, Baxil wrote  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, [www.draconic.com] 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)
thread_title:  Source Issues 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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.  Otherkin.net 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  History and usage 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: "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)
thread_title:  Abilities? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Popular Culture 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 : "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)
thread_title:  A survey of Otherkin 

message: Can we just quit beating around the bushes and call them superheroes?
...What? O.o --CF90 17:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Synonym:: Superhero? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: 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. .- 
*Cabot, Laurie (1989). Power of the Witch. Delacorte Press. .- More on the Silver Elves 
*Carey, Ken (1991). Return of the Bird Tribes. HarperSanFrancisco. . 
*Beaconsfield, Hannah (1998). Welcome to Planet Earth: A Guide for Walk-Ins, Starseeds and Lightworkers of All Varieties. Light Technology. . 
*Mitchell, Karyn K. (1999). Walk-Ins: Soul Exchange. Mind Rivers. . 
*Virtue, Doreen (2002). Earth Angels: A Pocket Guide for Incarnated Angels, Elementals, Starpeople, Walk-Ins, and Wizards. Hay House. . 
*Polson, Willow (2003). The Veil's Edge: Exploring the Boundaries of Magic. Citadel Press. .- 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. . 
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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Book Refs 

message: 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)
replies: text: According to WP:RS no, it's not. NeoFreak 15:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Reliable sources? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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  08:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Clinical Lycanthropy Revisited

message: 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)
thread_title:  Draconity text