Talk:Otherkin/Archive 3

message: People who claim to be otherkin may be in complete denial. Sorry if my observations offend anyone.
Anyone who thinks they're otherkin are delusional, sure they may have some logic but have completely bought into some form of teenage-wiccan mentality of wanting to be 'something' other then themselves. Of course, you can't objectively prove the validity of otherkin. However, as a university psychology student I believe most people who believe they are otherkin suffer some form of depression/dissociative personalities. For a thesis i met up with certain friends and contacts online who believed they where otherkin, after interviewing 16 people I found the common pattern of otherkin phenomena happened like this
-Person learns of occultic arts, such as withcraft. After a few months of practising is completely convinced that magick works
-Person either exudes an internet persona that is egocentric, strong emphasis on self-importance. Possibly self-esteem issues(Narcissism?)
-Person becomes convinced by some form of higher figure, ie: someone claiming to be knowledgeble and have extra powers. Similiar to Covens and hierarchy.
-Person attempts to be far from 'normal'. Most notably associates themselves with the goth/emo/outcast subculture, doesn't want to conform, doesn't like authority.
-Persons where only children, or disliked their brothers/sisters
-Interesting to note that otherkin phenomena has only been big since the advent of internet. Possibly a person can be jealous or curious by the idea that there something more then human. Maybe people would go out of their way to become something to fit in with an assumed identity? (ie: someone who is aggressive may believe themselves to be a dragon, someone who is feminine may coincide with believing they're elves/fae).
-I am sure that none of the people i interviewed had schizophrenia or any REAL illness. However, many of the people i interviewed where very defensive covering their face with hands, biting lips, unable to maintain eye contact when describing things. I am likely to believe that these people are compulsive liars or cannot accept the idea that they may have deuluded themselves. I found half of the volunteers in questionnaires to be histrionic,narcissistic or schizotypical.
Sorry to offend anyone in this, i dont have problems with people who claim to be otherkin or have magical powers. Infact I found these people quite pleasant to talk too, but i think alot of these people are slightly disturbed. Anyone want to freely discuss this or ask me questions feel free. I don't want to edit the article but there is some sort of new psychological pattern emerging (like furry subculture and sexuality). User:Raddicks 8:15 23 July 2005
of the thoudans who  say they are otherkin, sixteen does not a really good survey make... good start though.  also, magic, in my personal studies of interivewing epople for the hell of it ( discusson groups) rarely has anything to do with thier laims to what they are.
Gabrielsimon 07:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-delusion? 

message: As attempted to explain in edit summaries, the tag was removed because this subject is in an "elite" few wo dont have much printed material written on them, so the websites, by anmd large, should be treated as one would treat text materials on any other subject, if it reads well, and is made well, irt should be given cedibillity, this is the reason for the removal of the aforementioned tag.  it is  very true that there is very little writen about Otherkin in printed media.
Gabrielsimon 23:03, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for explaining.  However from the discussion above it seems to me like there's no grounds for removing the tag.  Also, in order to understand this issue it is absolutely vital to understand WP:V and WP:NOR.  Your comments seem to me to strongly indicate that you do NOT understand these policies.  It sounds like you're arguing that this article should not be required to meet the standards set for this encyclopedia, and I'm afraid that the policies (and, presumably, most editors) will not agree with you there. I see your latest edit summary but you must understand: This isn't about YOU, it's about the article.  Friday 23:09, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

text: You very clearly do not understand what is meant by original research.  As many many editors have asked you before, PLEASE follow the rules.  See WP:NOR.  "Original research" does NOT strictly mean research done by the editor who added it.  I'm frankly astounded that you have not read the policy by now. Friday 23:23, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Thanks for being clear that you think this article should be an exception to Wikipedia standards.  I disagree, so please put back the tag you removed.  Friday 23:35, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: origional research tag removal

message: I read the article in response to the RfC.  I have not had time to read the article in detail to determine whether it meets the standards of verifiability by citing its sources.  Any claim that this article should not have to folllow the usual standards of verifiability is silly.  There are enough researchers who write about spiritual movements that there should be published articles about Otherkin if this is a spiritual movement as claimed.
What I do see in the history of the article is a 3RR violation by an editor who has already been the subject of a user conduct RfC for 3RR violations.  Robert McClenon 12:52, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The phrase "spiritual movement" didn't appear in the article originally; instead the word "subculture" was used.  Gabrielsimon changed it to "spiritual movement" some time back; since I was at the time trying to deal with a number of problematic changes that he was insisting on I let that one pass. Vashti 22:34, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Perhaps you could point me to that discussion in the talk pages, then, as I seem to have missed it entirely. Vashti 22:42, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: An Outside Comment

message: Off the top of my head:
The Village Voice article:
* 
The self-published books of the Silver Elves:
* 
* 
Supporting the claims of the Silver Elves regarding their existence in the 80s is their mention in one of Laurie Cabot's books:
* 
With regard to the existence of the vampire subculture, Katherine Ramsland published a book on it in the 1990s:
* 
Sources I can't personally verify:
The 1986 Circle News Network article citing the Silver Elves, and the older group, the Elf Queen's Daughters:
* 
Margot Adler's "Drawing Down the Moon" apparently had a reference to the Silver Elves as well:
* 
One of Willow Polson's books has a chapter on otherkin:
* 
Michelle Belanger writes books that are targetted primarily at the vampire subculture:
* 
: Thanks much.  I think books and magazine articles count for much more than websites.  Although, being self-published makes a book count for less, IMO.  I'd personally love to see the website references mostly go away and be replaced by things like this.  Friday 13:35, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, the problem is finding someone prepared to edit the article who has access to the books. Vashti 13:43, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Published sources

message: Sorry for the revert there, I thought you'd cut the section completely.  I don't agree that "Awakening" is an appropriate title for the section, primarily because the article is aimed at people who don't know about the subject.  Because of that, "Awakening" is a meaningless term that doesn't accurately sum up the section unless you already know what it's about.  As written, the subject heading sums up the contents and only then goes on to introduce the technical terminology. Vashti 10:45, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it's an immediate and obvious question to ask - how does one become otherkin?  The section goes on to tell you that otherkin call the process Awakening, and that they believe that being otherkin is something you're born with, but until you've read the section its title, and the index entry at the top of the page that goes with it, are both totally opaque and uninformative.  Can you suggest an alternative, accessible heading for this section? Vashti 10:59, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm afraid that's still meaningless gobbledegook.  I really would like to put the title back to how it was originally.  Remember we're writing for complete laypeople, not for a pagan website. Vashti 11:04, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

text: "Identifying as otherkin", perhaps.  I'm not happy with this rush to use "self-identifying".  "to identify as" is a common verb that *already implies* self-identifying.  If we were saying "identified as", then we'd need to specify "self-identified as", as that implies that something external has identified you.  But saying "x identifies as y" fairly specifically means "x identifies himself as" - "x identifies as gay", for instance.  It seems to me that adding "self-identifying as" is POV. Vashti 11:54, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  On renaming the Awakening section 

message: DreamGuy, could you explain what you mean by "stop stripping out the plural forms like that", please. Vashti 00:01, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Scratch that; I see the problem.  Okies. :) Vashti 00:03, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Markup