Talk:Therianthropy/Archive 2

message: Basically, the subcultural phenomenon of therianthropy is a subset of Otherkinship.  A Therianthrope belive s/he has is psychologically, emotionally, or spiritually more connected to non-human animals, such as wolves, dogs, kangaroos, crows, or potentially even non-avain dinosaurus, than with humans.  An Otherkin has similar beliefs, but greatly expandedn.  The Otherkin may feel s/he has the psychological, emotional, or spiritually of any number of "mundane" species or "arcane species'. Kitsunes, Faes, Elves, Dragons, Gryphons, Vampyres, Gnomes, whatever.
So while a therianthrope would be considered a form of Otherkin, an Otherkin about be just about anything -- not just a therianthropel  --Corvun 08:59, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
it canalso be sargued, specially by therians, thaa therians are based on natural animals, or  tend to be, weathe extinct or not, and Otherkin are based on , by and large, more of the supernatural sort of creature.
Gabrielsimon 09:01, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a very useful distinction.  I was merely pointing out the overlap between the two.  For instnace, the Crow can be seen as both a natural and supernatural creature, do its signifcance in mythology and folklore.  Some people may even believe in Unicrons as real animals.  Theough Otherkin and Therianthropes are distinct from on another, there are many people who "compromise" the two --Corvun 09:19, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
Raven and coyotee are two tohers alongthe lines you might be trying to speakof, andif that is the  case then i understnad completely.
Gabrielsimon 09:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd suggest having a look at the Crow page.  Generally between the two, Crows are most associated with the spiritual realm.  Ravens are more conserned with the negative aspects of death; decay, decomposition, etc.  Ad far as the coyotes you mentionedl I agree.--Corvun 09:39, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
no no, notthe eurpoean thoughts  of Raven, the Haida Raven, the Trickster :) " raven who stole the moon" etc
Gabrielsimon 09:45, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Therianthropy & Otherkin 

message: "When people believe they change into an animal form (theriomorphosis), or possess supernatural non-human animal traits, the term clinical lycanthropy is often used.  This classification is a form of mental illness, though many anthropologists would point out that the belief has extensive religious precedent in shamanic cultures."
:Well, firstly, the classification is not a form of mental illness... clinical lycanthropy would be the illness. Subtle distinction, but as it is currently worded it sounds strange. Anyway, my question is what is the source for the anthropologists, and which shamanic cultures have this religious precedent? It would be good to clarify this, if only for NPOV and citation reasons. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:40, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: I've removed the merge tag because from what I can see here, the explanation here is not limited to the Otherkin subculture. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:42, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why I suggested a merge on the subculture section, not the entire article.  Friday 02:46, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Given how the subculture reacts to the words (A person claiming to a 'dragon' therianthrope would likely be laughed at, while a 'dragon' otherkin would be more accepted), I don't think a merge would be particularly justified.  They two words are no more synonyms than "Green Party" and "left-wing" are. 65.31.59.176 00:12, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good analogy.  To continue it, if there were only a few paragraphs of verifiable information on either the left wing or the Green Party, I'd be in favor of merging them, too.  Friday 03:52, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But since the "left wing" and "Green Party" are far from synonymous, I'd split an article that was about both of them into two. There's absolutely nothing wrong with an article only being a few paragraphs long. Bryan 04:32, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Friday, I'd say we've got enough information here to stop the entry from becoming a stub, so it seems reasonable to keep the two sections apart.  Well, that and an 'otherkin vs. clinical lycanthropy' section just seems a bit out-of-place to me.  The otherkin entry also specifically says that it focuses on mythological or legendary creatures, which might also make the reference to the furry fandom, which has a good deal of wolves, tigers, and other existing animals including. 65.31.59.176 15:44, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Otherkin merge 

message: As an Administrator, I am concerned about the unexplained deletion of an entire section of this article. I believe the customary practice is to copy the disputed text to the talk page - and then discuss it.
Also, let's all try to avoid personal remarks but confine our remarks to the article itself. I object to the tone of remarks like the following:
*pushing your bias onto articles left and right when you know they go against consensus
*stop whining and find something useful to do 
*you should take your own advice
*your consensus of one is not consensus to anyone else
*your POV-pushing ways will not be tolerated
This article is about humans transforming into animals - in fiction, legend and (possibly) real life. Let's talk about that subject, and how Wikipedia can present knowledge about it to the world: accurately and without bias. Uncle Ed 17:24, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
Good point. I actually didn't mean for my tone to be attacking when I said "you should take your own advice". My intent was to point out that Gavin's statement was inappropriate, not to literally say he should stop editing. Alas, tone is a finicky thing when writing. My apologies. Mistercow 19:30, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleted section and personal remarks