Talk:Otherkin/Archive 7

message: :There are also elements of the furry community, sometimes called furry lifestylers, that hold such "species dysphoric" beliefs about various animal species.
It's pushing it a bit (well, a lot) to imply that furry lifestylers are by definition species dysphoric; the phrase itself is actually fairly rarely used within furry. I'm a fur myself, but don't consider myself species dysphoric, and nor do a lot of other furs who consider themselves lifestylers. If this page were not protected, I'd have edited the above sentence to say something like:
:Some furry lifestylers (a subset of the furry community) also hold such "species dysphoric" beliefs about various animal species.
Loganberry (Talk) 00:43, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Furry lifestylers 

message: Discussion on the topics that keep this page protected have become quiet over the last fortnight. We still have people here interested in reaching consensus on page content, right? Or has the discussion over this page been happening somewhere else?
Also, are the polls on this page still meaningful? Consensus can't really be sought with a poll, is my belief. The situation looks ripe for another archive page if they are going stagnant without a follow-up, and I think continuing discussion would be beneficial to the eventual unlocking of this page. -- Soir (say hi) 00:50, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My main opinion is that the page doesn't need to be protected.  But I suppose that's not overly helpful.  Friday (talk) 16:38, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if other people agree, we should have this page unprotected, then.. but weren't people fussing over whether clinical lycanthropy has anything to do with otherkin? No point sparking another revert war. -- Soir (say hi) 19:56, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent quietness 

message: As noted above, if we've no consensus, no edits can be made with the claim of consensus. I realise I may be throwing oil on a fire here, I'm trying to avoid that and be fair. I think that, as a matter of definition itself, CL relates to Otherkin through Therianthropy and not really by itself. (Otherkin doesn't appear to concern transformation or any related factor of change other than 'Realisation', such as it is - which isn't transformation at all. CL seems to fix on the transformation aspect, happening or has-happened. Both have links to animals, sure, but lots of things have that! It seems different enough to me, although I suppose there is an indirect link in there. Is that enough to go on See Also for this page? It was already on therianthropy last I saw. I may need more opinion on this. ^^)
I think the confusion may come from the way the opening paragraph notes people who 'describe themselves as non-human', but otherkin appears from the sources to be a little more than simply that. Maybe we should tighten up the opening definition to help this? I put a sentence in as a possibility, I'm at your mercy to be shouted at if it's somehow wrong. ^_^; -- Soir (say hi) 21:45, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Clinical lycanthropy does not depend upon the transformation aspect. It's the delusional belief of being an animal, per the article description and the cite given above (where they inaccurately described the symptoms as completely different). Otherkin feature all the therianthropes plus magical beasts as well, which are qualitatively (as far as the mental disorder is concerned) no different from the real beasts. Heck, with the therianthropes often thinking they are werewolves, that would count as magical beasts also. Arguably one could claim that otherkin also feature humanoid (nonbestial) creatures which by there nature would not be "animals" per clinical lycanthropy, but those are a subset of otherkin and not the whole thing, and it would still be a related concept in any event. DreamGuy 06:50, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I copy a bit of the Clinical lycanthropy article at current: "Clinical lycanthropy is a psychiatric syndrome that involves a delusional belief that the affected person is, or has, transformed into an animal." Words to this effect are repeated twice in the 'symptoms' paragraph. Reading the article seems to give the impression I mentioned initially: whether this is just how the article is written or not, I don't know. ^^ I'm not convinced of the werewolf angle above though either: there are therians who believe themselves to be wolves, this is more than marginally different to the myths of mystical changes under the full moon, although the aspect of some degree of transformation within therianthropy will continue to connect the two. (And as far as I'm aware therians are more than happy to disassociate themselves with the popular myths, which makes fair sense.) But at least to what I've seen Otherkin and Therianthropy do overlap, and occasionally get used in place of one another, which is just fine for a See Also link since we don't lose anything by its presence. (Wow, I spend a lot of words to say nothing!) -- I suppose I'll just note not to claim consensus edits before we know what consensus is. ;) -- Soir (say hi) 02:04, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Is, or has transformed... the is part is separate from the ahs transformed part. Clinical lycanthropy doesn;t depend upon the idea of transformation. I don;t think that sentence is unclear, but if it is it should be clarified there and not taken under the alternate reading. DreamGuy 03:51, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I would welcome a section that mentions that distinction in a neutral way, speaking of diagnoses of individual cases. In fact i used to have a section specifically discussing that very point until pro-Otherkin POV-pushers took it out because they didn't want any mention of medical problems whatsoever. The version that was there earlier today simply claimed that otherkin should not be confused with clinical lycantrhopy, thus giving the impression that they are completely separate with no overlap, which is unsourced opinion.  DreamGuy 23:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus on CL 

message: === Intro ===
Passage: The otherkin subculture is made up of people who describe themselves as non-human in some way, usually as a mythological or legendary creature. [1] Many otherkin do not deny that they have a human body but believe that they possess non-human souls, which they consider their true selves. Noting this, different groups within the subculture can have quite different beliefs about themselves.
::Otherkin should not be confused with role-players [2] [3]. The distinction is that otherkin truly consider themselves to be non-human in some manner. Role-players, while often playing non-human characters, do not generally believe themselves to be non-human.
Concern: Many otherkin do not deny that they have a human body.... is OR. Noting this... is OR. The distinction... is badly written, and totally irrelevent.
Proposed change: The otherkin subculture is made up of people who describe themselves as non-human in some way, usually as a mythological or legendary creature. The community... 
Comments
* I propose this change. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:21, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you please try to spell out your concerns and so forth, as I cannot follow this abbreviated shorthand commenting you are using here. Can you just say what you mean in normal language? DreamGuy 23:10, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you talking about the abbreviations "POV" and "OR"?  That's point of view and original research.  These policies will be very important guides for improving this article.  In a nutshell, they mean we must be neutral and use reputable sources. Friday (talk) 00:19, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think DreamGuy is refering to the wording above and not the abbreviations (sorry if I misunderstood), in which case I would kind of agree.  The above format of suggesting a change could be useful, I just think the wording of the comment used in that case is a little hard to understand. AtomicDragon 02:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, I do think the writing was unnecessarily abbreviated, but the OR wasn't catching on to me, because I was thinking you were going for some logincal and/or thing, and, frankly, I don;t see how those sections could be considered to be original research so the thought that that's what you meant never eoccured to me. There are plenty of sites of Otherkin discussing their beliefs. It's not original research to note that these sources say they have a human body. I mean, come on, it's right there in black and white on tons of web pages. DreamGuy 06:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Agreed. Agriculture 16:12, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree this paragraph is poorly worded given the sources, and much of it is not backed.  However, the opening line about differing spiritually and attributing it to reincarnation is somewhat accurate from my observations.  The commonality of this aspect makes it seem likely to me that there would be sources covering it, but if I am mistaken or until such sources are found, it should be removed.  I will check the sources when I get a chance later assuming someone else doesn’t find/remember an appropriate one first.  Also, even if sources are found, it will probably be pretty hard to justify the "most" or even "common" descriptions, but I think replacing that with simply saying otherkin "includes" people with such beliefs may give a compromise.  AtomicDragon 21:05, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sections in need of help 

message: Passage: The otherkin subculture is made up of people who describe themselves as non-human in some way, usually as a mythological or legendary creature. [1] Many otherkin do not deny that they have a human body but believe that they possess non-human souls, which they consider their true selves. Noting this, different groups within the subculture can have quite different beliefs about themselves.
::Otherkin should not be confused with role-players [2] [3]. The distinction is that otherkin truly consider themselves to be non-human in some manner. Role-players, while often playing non-human characters, do not generally believe themselves to be non-human.
Concern: Many otherkin do not deny that they have a human body.... is OR. Noting this... is OR. The distinction... is badly written, and totally irrelevent.
Proposed change: The otherkin subculture is made up of people who describe themselves as non-human in some way, usually as a mythological or legendary creature. The community... 
Comments
* I propose this change. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:21, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you please try to spell out your concerns and so forth, as I cannot follow this abbreviated shorthand commenting you are using here. Can you just say what you mean in normal language? DreamGuy 23:10, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you talking about the abbreviations "POV" and "OR"?  That's point of view and original research.  These policies will be very important guides for improving this article.  In a nutshell, they mean we must be neutral and use reputable sources. Friday (talk) 00:19, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think DreamGuy is refering to the wording above and not the abbreviations (sorry if I misunderstood), in which case I would kind of agree.  The above format of suggesting a change could be useful, I just think the wording of the comment used in that case is a little hard to understand. AtomicDragon 02:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, I do think the writing was unnecessarily abbreviated, but the OR wasn't catching on to me, because I was thinking you were going for some logincal and/or thing, and, frankly, I don;t see how those sections could be considered to be original research so the thought that that's what you meant never eoccured to me. There are plenty of sites of Otherkin discussing their beliefs. It's not original research to note that these sources say they have a human body. I mean, come on, it's right there in black and white on tons of web pages. DreamGuy 06:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro 

message: Passage: Otherkin most commonly believe themselves to be human in biology but "other" in spirit, often attributing this to reincarnation or a "misplaced" soul. These otherkin most commonly claim to receive visions and memories from their past lives. The otherkin community also has a relatively high proportion of people who claim to have multiple personalities. These people may describe internal personalities with different otherkin types and sometimes include entirely separate souls amongst their number. A parallel has also been drawn between otherkin and transsexuality, resulting in the neologism trans-speciesism: the conviction that one is in a body of the wrong species. [11] A number of self-identified contemporary shamans have found their theories and techniques compatible with otherkin beliefs. ^ 
Concern: Riddled with POV & OR. No sourcing for this ("high proportion of people who..") that need sources. (^ points at nothing, 11 is a message board). 11 points wrongly - should be 17.
Proposed change:  remove section. Salvage the only sourced bit, putting it in the new, much shorter article:
A parallel has also been drawn between otherkin and transsexuality, resulting in the neologism trans-speciesism: the conviction that one is in a body of the wrong species. 
Comments:
*I propose this change. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Agriculture 16:12, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree this paragraph is poorly worded given the sources, and much of it is not backed.  However, the opening line about differing spiritually and attributing it to reincarnation is somewhat accurate from my observations.  The commonality of this aspect makes it seem likely to me that there would be sources covering it, but if I am mistaken or until such sources are found, it should be removed.  I will check the sources when I get a chance later assuming someone else doesn’t find/remember an appropriate one first.  Also, even if sources are found, it will probably be pretty hard to justify the "most" or even "common" descriptions, but I think replacing that with simply saying otherkin "includes" people with such beliefs may give a compromise.  AtomicDragon 21:05, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spiritual Beliefs 

message: Gimmiet made this revert, which I can't say I understand.  I see the tags he removed were already added back in, but I don't know why the new intro was taken out.  This intro was discussed on the talk page, with two editors who liked it and nobody who objected.  I'm putting the new intro back in for now, but if anyone disagrees, please feel free to discuss it.  Friday (talk) 15:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoops, my mistake.  I see the new intro wasn't taken out, exactly.  The old parts were just put back in.  I still don't like the two paragraphs that were put back in, but I suppose I'll leave them alone for now.  Still, if anyone disagrees with edits that have already been discussed on the talk page, I think discussing them before changing it back would be helpful.  Friday (talk) 15:26, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reverted to the version without the two paragraphs, persuant to discussion above. I do not deny that I am using a computer to type this. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How's that new-fangled "computer" stuff work?  You youngsters have all the fancy gadgets.  I'm using an abacus to type this... - Tεxτurε 21:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gimmiet's revert 

message: I started trying to improve this section.  There were a bunch of unsourced "otherkin may believe" statements that I didn't like.  The only stuff that was sourced related to dragons and vampires, which already have their own articles.  So, in the end, I ended up taking out the whole thing.  If anyone disagrees and/or feels this is too bold, feel free to put back whatever you think is appropriate, and I won't be offended.  Friday (talk) 22:02, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with most of the removal, since a lot of it seems kind of redundant with other articles, or this article itself, or otherwise not in the sources.  The one exception that I wonder if it is salvageable is the reference to phantom limbs.  It definitely needs to be reworded in my opinion from what it was, but those claims are mentioned in one of the otherkin.net essays listed as source #11.AtomicDragon 22:42, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biological beliefs (boldness alert) 

message: This article survived an Articles for Deletion debate. The discussion can be found here. -Splashtalk 22:49, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Articles for Deletion debate

message: so,what does all think of my lastest change?  i think its good, because its not so long as the old version, but it does make some distinctions that need to be made, and it stops cl9inicallycanthrooy form being just an unexplained see also.Gimmiet 17:39, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what "Role players" is doing in there - is role playing spirituality or an illness?  Friday (talk) 18:05, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I took a crack at explaining role-playing better.  I'll try to do the same with CL. Friday (talk) 18:23, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure I like that last one.  I was sure I read in some of the sources that people will say things like "I'm a >insert book series here< type dragon" or "I'm a elf a la >insert RPG here<" when explaining their identities.  But of course a specific source is better than "I think I remember reading something..."  I suppose we both made an error: I spoke about how Otherkin derive their identities without a source, and you spoke about how things might seem to outsiders without a source.  Friday (talk) 18:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure I can see what you intended by changing "overlap" to "some apparent overlap".  Is there a difference?  Can we just agree on whether or not there's overlap and either remove the assertion or the weasel words?  Friday (talk) 18:42, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is clear coorelation, but no clear causality. The current revision (While there is some overlap between the role-playing community and Otherkin, and some Otherkin beliefs are similiar to those found in role-playing games, many Otherkin stress the difference between "playing" a nonhuman and actually believing themselves to be nonhuman.) is reasonable to include, though it needs sourcing. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: modification of mine

message: I think some of the disagreements that have come up in the past involve the issue of "wannabes" vs "real" Otherkin.  Some folks say that those who identify as a cartoon character are just playing games, whereas the "serious" Otherkin would identify as a more "real" creature.
Can we all agree that we're in no position to judge who's a legitimate Otherkin or not?  I believe, if we're going to use people's personal stories as sources, we must take at face value any such stories.  In other words, this article should describe the beliefs of anyone who calls themselves "Otherkin", not just some specific subset who consider themselves the "real" Otherkin.  Thoughts?  Friday (talk) 18:40, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is obviously true. ~~ N (t/c) 19:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

text: This is kind of an idea central to many otherkin communities, that you can't/shouldn't try to tell who is a real otherkin or not and should only take the accounts at face value as you suggest. So I would hope that any otherkin that come here can handle things as you suggested... AtomicDragon 19:40, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Posers v real Otherkin 

message: G, your proposed insert regarding CL is badly written. It is also OR. If you want to work on the change here, on talk, I'm happy to do so. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:55, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking about something like: "When psychologists have encountered people who identify themselves as nonhuman, they have sometimes made a diagnosis of Clinical lycanthropy."  I think this is nice and neutral, and it avoids calling it a "disease", which some may object to. But where would such a sentence go?  I wouldn't want it just sitting there by itself.  Friday (talk) 19:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The only way I can see to insert CL outside of seealso is to mention the possiblity that some of the otherkin who believe they can pshift are suffering from it, though that reeks of OR. What's wrong with seealso? Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:07, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely nothing, unless you're Gimmiet. However, I think Friday's idea is very good, if sourced. ~~ N (t/c) 19:11, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I wasn't thinking about a source; I intended it to just be a restatement of the definition of CL.  But I'll look at the sources that Clinical lycanthropy uses and see if one of them would work.  Friday (talk) 19:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

text: To respond to Hipcrite's post, llimiting the mention to belief in p-shifting is not an accurate way to handle it, as, again, clinical lycanthropy does not depend wholly upon belief in the transformation process, as the sufferer could belief he has already been changed or always was changed, etc. If there's going to be a mention we need to make sure that it doesn't only target specific otherkin based upon a layperson's understanding of the clinical lycanthropy disorder. DreamGuy 22:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

text:  The sentence sounds a bit awkward to me unless it were sourced. I’m not sure if I can articulate why though, and I think there should be a way to include CL in a similar way. Maybe it is because it sounds like it is applying to the whole more than intended, to me at least. I’m possibly thinking along the simpler lines, "Some otherkin have been considered diagnosable with CL," although what Friday suggested is probably better worded than what I could come up with. Still smells of OR, just less so I think. AtomicDragon 19:40, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

text: "At least likely" shows that your statement is original research. I suspect those words are true, and they seem fairly well phrased, but they need a source. ~~ N (t/c) 19:58, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

text: The point of NPOV is that the slant should be as small as possible. If you want to make your statement, you have to find the rate of CL diagnosis among otherkin (which has probably not been studied). ~~ N (t/c) 20:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I do agree that what you are saying, if cleaned up well, do describe how things are very well from what I've seen.  But unfortunately, I have yet to come across a decent source on most of that. So until there is some external way to show that things are that way (or maybe that they are not that way) we will probably have to hold off on that level of detail.AtomicDragon 20:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Whether he is doing it out of spite or not, I think his point is valid and cleanly stated.  I agree with him.  Any claim about the prevalence of CL in the otherkin community, including comparing them to the normal population or say that it happens a lot, is a very specific claim.  Without any sources, I think we will have to avoid all claims about the prevalence and worry about how/if a general connection should be made between the two topics. AtomicDragon 23:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  CL 

message: I noticed that the footnotes have gotten out of synch with the article.  I've made a couple small edits to start fixing this.  I also removed the urban dictionary source.  I'd rather see a statement not sourced at all than using that as a source, personally.  Can we come to any kind of agreement on what IS a good source, though?  It seems clear to me that the standards for this article may be different from what would be expected at other articles, simply due to a lack of good sources.  Personally, I think the Village Voice article is by far the best one I've seen listed. Friday (talk) 19:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is kind of what I was wondering about.  With several people disliking the sources, can we get a more precise concept of what would be a good source?  The Village Voice looks very good, but sources outside the community seem a little lacking for the time being.  My opinion on sources, short of finding more like the Village Voice one, is to use essays/write-ups discussing the group as a whole (as opposed to personal accounts to remove OR concerns) and possibly stick to ones sponsored/posted in a community setting (e.g. otherkin.net essays) so as slight help with avoiding sources just being somewhat random/individual people.  Any comments on that or possibly a way to make it more objective? AtomicDragon 19:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Otherkin.net seems to be a central hub of various otherkin communities and often host essays from a variety of people.  This leads me to think it is not equivalent to just a random blog or a random person’s webpage.  I agree that Village Voice is much better as an actual paper, and I do not mean to suggest that otherkin.net is close to more reputable.  I am just suggesting that there may be many more sources that are better than a random page, and I think they may be useful sources unless many better sources comparable to the Village Voice are found.  Feel free to correct me if I missed something, it has been a while since I’ve gone through otherkin.net in detail.AtomicDragon 20:23, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

text: As said above, we cannot judge who's a poser and who's not. ~~ N (t/c) 20:40, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: im not really interested in getting blocked again, soheres why  feel that last edit has to go..  " or some other mental illness" is both mean, and unessessary, it wse ems to be trying to inply DreamGuysw POV in this matter, which, as he stated, was that they are all loonie, and that just has no  place in te articel, unless uhe can find a souce, which he refuses to cite, repeatedly.Gimmiet 23:08, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That quote seems to come directly from a cited paper that surveyed various publications.  Since it is cited, I think it is valid.  There maybe a question of whether it belongs in the article or not.  I think it currently has its place, especially with NPOV as there is a lot of criticism of otherkin.  This looks like a much better attempt than previous expressing the other side of things.AtomicDragon 23:18, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

text: "It is observed in different mental disorders" and "It is mainly found in affective and schizophrenic disorders but can be a symptom of other psychiatric disorders as well" are two quotes from the abstract of the cited source.  So both the first half and second half of that sentence are cited.  The statement is about as flat and straightforward as possible, so I don’t see how to make it any less "rude" without changing the validity.  Do you have any better ideas on wordings that convey the same cited information?AtomicDragon 23:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Perhaps. Perhaps not. You don't know. But as AD has pointed out, it's sourced, so the motivation of adding it is not a reason to delete it. ~~ N (t/c) 23:34, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, thinking that all otherkin are nuts is a POV.  However the POV is rather common and part of NPOV is describing all sides fairly.  This claim does not go outside of that which is cited, so may effectively be considered a "fact": some people claiming to be nonhuman have been diagnosed with mental illness.  This statement does not say that all otherkin are diagnosable with it, nor does it say that all people claiming to be nonhuman have been diagnosed.  Maybe a better lead-in can be made for the statement, so that fits in better?  Do you have any suggestions?  We just need to make sure it doesn’t add information that is not sourced, and that it fairly treats opposing/criticizing points of views.AtomicDragon 23:43, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  dreamguy and (poaaibly not and) aqnon ip edit

message: The paragraph beginning with "Sometimes a combination of non-human natures is professed..." has been edited some and now flagged for requiring citing.  This paragraph looks pretty wordy in addition to not being cited.  It is basically just saying that otherkin can be confused with totems and spiritual guides in cases where there are multiple animals identified with.  Totemism is already connected later in the page, so I think this paragraph is not really needed.  I wanted to check before removing it though, as there have been some recent edits and it looks like people may want to keep it.  (By the way, isn't about time to archive some of this talk?  I wasn't sure if there was more to doing that than just moving stuff to a new archive page.) AtomicDragon 05:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I’m suggesting that the paragraph is redundant, so that is why I think it can be removed.  I don’t see what extra information in it can be cleanly added to what is farther below other than maybe a reference to spiritual guides.  I'm just posting it here in case there was a different interpretation due to the confusing nature of the paragraph in question.AtomicDragon 18:59, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Redundancy is fine to remove, but what I'm saying is that maybe we keep a reference to the later paragraph, and then rewrite the later paragraph to include the information that is not redundant. Red Heron 15:43, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extraneous reference to totemism 

message: There Seems To Be Some Kind Of Dispute Going On, But Still, I Prefer The Version I Saved Just Now, Upon Reading Both That Version And Its Immimdaite Predessessor, I Think That This One Is MOre Informative.Sg'te'gmuj 19:41, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So incredibly sockpuppet of Gabriel/Gavin/Gimmiet... DreamGuy 21:08, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

text: The edit you made suggests a confusion between spiritual beliefs and a medical condition.  My issue with that statement is that otherkin in general is not purely spiritualism.  Some otherkin make various claims beyond spiritualism, including biological claims.  The definition of otherkin is vague enough to not be restricted to just those with only spiritual beliefs.AtomicDragon 23:22, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose you can consider it a spectrum (heh, "otherkin-spectrum disorder"), since there's no Church of Otherkin passing down official decrees as to what's orthodoxy and what's heterodoxy, and all individuals have to make their own choice. The point I'm making is that, although the behavior-and=beliefs of some otherkin may well and truly be fairly categorized as psychopathological, this statement cannot be made for all otherkin, unless one wishes to extend the psychopathological umbrella to cover a far wider array of beliefs-and-behaviors than might be preferred. We may acknowledge that John of Patmos and Joan of Arc, for example, were schizophrenic for believing that God was speaking to them, but this does not mean that every Christian Saint (or "Jesuskin", as they might be called) who claimed to hear the voice of God was in some way mentally ill. DS 17:59, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Blanket statements are rarely more than overgeneralizations. Adding the words in general to the beginning of a sentence can do wonders for making a statement that is true of the bulk of Otherkin without it being true of all Otherkin. While it's true that there is no Church of Otherkin, there is also no Church of Solitary Wicca and no Church of the Divine Spaghetti, but all spiritual beliefs are still spiritual beliefs and do not require a central authority to be a belief system. Also, there has never been a psychological research study done on the Otherkin as a community, although there is data gathered on individual Otherkin that clearly points to the fact that there isn't a clear diagnosis available, so proxies are used such as clinical lycanthropy to determine that there is a mental disorder that seems to be dysphoric or delusional in nature. According to the DSM-IV, clinical lycanthropy is based on the fact that people believe they are changing or can change their physical form, and is thus properly included because it is, in fact, a clinical misdiagnosis. My own thought is that it is probably best to include the fact that misdiagnosis is a problem (using clinical lycanthropy or schizoid disorders in general as examples) in order to assist those who are trying to do clinical research and using WP as a research source. The claim that there is a biological difference is not one that is generally accepted in Otherkin society: proof has to be offered. There is, however, a fair amount of something akin to phantom limb syndrome that a lot of people seem to have reported, and this is summarized in those articles on Otherkin.net as well. It is therefore not OR and is perfectly acceptable as reference material, especially considering that most of those articles have been online for a good number of years. RedHeron 18:22, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure if misdiagnosis is necessarily an issue as far as WP.  Although it is likely that some otherkin have been misdiagnosed, my thoughts are coming from not that some otherkin fall under CL, but that people with CL fall under the concept of otherkin.  So those would not be cases of misdiagnosis.  Unfortunately, I think before we can discuss how often otherkin are misdiagnosed with CL, we need better sources on it since we don’t even know how often otherkin are diagnosed with it, let alone misdiagnosed.AtomicDragon 18:57, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm mostly concerned because I'm writing to two civilly-committed (i.e., in a psychiatric hospital) people who claim to know two more people (though I have yet to receive a response from the other two) who are in psychiatric care because of their beliefs in this regard. Both of these two have been diagnosed with clinical lycanthropy for admitting that it's possible that they could change, whether or not they actually believe that they will. This is, on my part, OR, and thus inadmissible to WP, but my cross-section of Otherkin is only 200 people and that's a bloody high percentage, from a statistical perspective. Also, misdiagnosis is an important topic of conversation among many of the Otherkin that I have encountered. While we don't have to use CL, I believe that the mention of at least rumors of misdiagnosis could be appropriate, mainly because the field of psychiatry does have a history of diagnosing things it finds to be abberant behavior, such as the Native American belief system, up until the late 1980's. There's evidence that it has happened in the past, and it is a primary concern to those affected. Misdiagnosis should at least be mentioned in passing, even if not CL or any of the general schizoid disorders. Red Heron 15:32, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would be careful with some of these claims, as I’ve seen similar ones get exaggerated quickly by defensive people.  If there is mention of a person ending up in some level of psychological care, often people assume that it is because of their otherkin beliefs and talk of misdiagnosis ensues. So far, the common result is the person returning with their beliefs still intact/unchallenged by a psychologist they were seeing for other more normal reasons (depression, ADD issues, etc.).  But I wouldn’t be surprised if there are people out there that take the belief system too far, resulting/because of psychological problems, just like others have done with just about any belief system. AtomicDragon 18:47, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: my edit

message: Explain this quoted phrase. D. G. 21:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a synonym to the term "trans-speciesism" already defined in the article; the feeling that one's spirit and body do not match up, akin to being transgendered but with species identity rather than sexual identity. Jarandhel (talk) 23:55, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "species dysphoric"

message: -Silence 02:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The most obvious disagreement will be over which sources are "unauthoritative".  Personally, I consider somebody's personal website to be a very poor source, but there are plenty of editors who apparently disagree.  Friday (talk) 16:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I like everything but the color. android79 16:55, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Hasn't this already been settled in the AfD debate?  The consensus seemed to be that the sources used were appropriate for the article; that people could be primary sources for their own beliefs and that this article could use only primary sources as long as it was making only descriptive claims, which it is.  I particularly think User:Antaeus_Feldspar, User:A_Man_In_Black and User:Nickptar made cogent arguments regarding the appropriateness of the sources used.  Do we really need to keep rehashing this?  If the consensus was that the sources used were unencyclopedic, the article would have been deleted already. Jarandhel (talk) 17:20, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe this was settled by the Afd at all.  Many people just said "It's a valid topic, keep it" and made no comment on the issues of verifiability and original research.  Yes, some folks weighed in and said they thought the sources were appropriate, but not everyone felt the same.  The people suggesting "clean up" indicates to me that some editors do not particularly endorse these sources. To me, the Afd decided one thing: the article stays.  How to clean it up is a matter for discussion on the talk page, as has been ongoing.  In your conclusion If the consensus was that the sources used were unencyclopedic, the article would have been deleted already, I think you're assuming a level of consistancy that simply doesn't exist in Wikipedia.  Friday (talk) 17:32, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering the entire argument to delete it was based on its sourcing, and the supposed lack of verifiability, I'd have to say that I disagree.  If it keeps being asserted here that the sources used are improper, and we keep deleting parts of the article because they cite primary sources on otherkin belief, eventually the article gets whittled down to a stub at best.  That's simply deleting the article piecemeal rather than in the one fell swoop that would have occurred had the vote for deletion gone the other way.   Jarandhel (talk) 17:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

text: One of my chief problems with the footnotes is that so many of them link to the same site, and they're so pervasive; I've never seen an article so heavily footnoted. I've seen ones that have relied heavily on one or two sources before, but those ones haven't been riddled in almost every line with the page number of the claim. I don't know; it's just something I felt we should be aware of. A good article should be an exercise in moderation, not excess: there should neither be major unsourced claims nor an overwhelming number of citations—especially to the extent that we're linking to a single website eleven times on one article page! -Silence 18:07, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Otherkin.net is used heavily as a source in this article, but the reason for that is quite simple; it is one of the most central sites in the Otherkin community and has become a repository of writings by different groups within the community who may not even speak to one another due to interpersonal conflicts.  You'll note that most, if not all, of the articles cited from that site are written by different people from within the otherkin subculture.  It also has the largest index of otherkin related websites, mailing lists, and forums that exists within the community, as well as the only existing directory of otherkin with contact information, consisting of over 700 entries.  That's 700 otherkin who have trusted this site with contact information of one sort or another.  That's a pretty significant resource for a subculture.  Jarandhel (talk) 20:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 700 entries is miniscule when it comes to an internet site. Those sort of numbers would not even rate the site as notable for a deletion debate. We also do not know if those are legit discrete users who actively believe these things or whether it is people doing studies on fringe societies for school, playing  DreamGuy 21:21, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Wait, I understand not putting OR in the article itself, but can’t we cite other people’s OR if it elsewhere?  Isn’t that what most citations amount to, just with different levels of authority and checking involved in the sources? And I think 700 can be small for many things, but it is more than just a personal site when it comes to such a small group.AtomicDragon 21:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Using someone else's research (a "secondary source") is most certainly allowed; it's downright encouraged: it's what makes Wikipedia sourced-based research rather than original research.  The question is the reputability of the source.  If someone with a Ph.D. in Sociology writes a paper on Otherkin, that would be a great source. (If a hundred Sociologists do it, that's even better, of course.) The problem with otherkin.net as I see it is, there are no known credentials of the person who edits it or the people who supply the essays.  Some of us consider it a reputable source, some of us do not.  Even as a collection of information from different people, I'm still skeptical of it.  The editor can pick and chose which essays to publish, and thus advance one particular POV.  If we had a lot of similiar sources, it might be possible to pick through them to try to assemble a "neutral" picture of what Otherkin is about, but I'd still consider that a dicey proposition at best.  Friday (talk) 21:55, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

text: The problem of using "just some guy"'s page as a supposed source is it's no different from if the person came here and tried to post it. The person is no more reliable as a source of original research if he starts up his own page before coming here instead of coming here directly. Hell, we've had more than one editor in the conversation on this talk page talk about just making their own page somewhere else so this article can cite it. That's ridiculous. Whether you as an editor want to chalk that up as violating the no original research rule or the verifiability rule, that's fine, but the fact is it's equally bad either way. DreamGuy 08:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If it wasn't for "just some guy"'s web pages, this article likely would not exist.  Friday (talk) 16:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that supposed to defend your point? Agriculture 16:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed template

message: In my opinion, certainly this article must define "Otherkin".  This word does not appear in any dictionary I've ever been able to find.  So, thinking of the reader, certainly it's proper for the article to begin with some kind of definition of the term, as it currently does.  If (as appears to be the case) there's no firm definition of the term, the article should make this clear to the reader.  I think we all need to consider the topic from the perspective of an outside reader who has no prior knowledge of the subject.  At one time there was talk of making a Non-human identity subculture article to cover all the bases, but it's not our job as editors to invent a new umbrella term that does not already exist.  Friday (talk) 21:13, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm of the view that roughly the definition is along the lines of "Otherkin: this is the word used by the otherkin community to refer to themselves." After all, that is what it is-- a neologism invented by them. This is an encyclopaedia, not a dictionary. The Otherkin article is about the otherkin community, the otherkin people. It's not a dictionary definition. And if it were it could definitely not remain a valid, undeleted article. It just couldn't meet any standards. 71.248.221.76 22:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary—and that in no way implies that we can't define any words in the encyclopedia. In fact, you'll find that almost all full-fledged Wikipedia articles take the time to carefully define unfamiliar terms in the articles concerning those terms. They even often include sections on etymology, dictionary staples. Wikipedia not being a dictionary doesn't mean that we can't define terminology when doing so would benefit our readers, it means that we can't only (or largely) do that. -Silence 22:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition 

message: I've added text to the article which is similar to some coming from Vampire lifestyle.  It's fairly controversial but as undeniably factual as it's use the aforementioned article. Agriculture 14:23, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but unsourced information is not undeniably factual, even if taken from another article.  It also uses weasel words.  "many outside this group view"?  Who?  The claim needs to be sourced. Jarandhel (talk) 14:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Who?  Mainstream America.  It's not unsourced, conduct a poll yourself.  Go to random people on the street and say "I believe I'm a magical animal!" see what happens.  Mainstream media (CSI for example) has covered public reaction.  It's notable, and I'll fight for it's inclusion so long as it remains on the Vampire article. What is notable there, is notable here.  Besides if you want only concrete sources, we need to delete the whole fucking article as your sources are invalid. Agriculture 15:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Conducting a poll would be original research.  The fact that you need to conduct a poll to support it shows that it's unsourced.  CSI is fiction, it can't "cover" public reaction; it portrays a fictional public reaction.  And no, the sources I've used are appropriate to the claims that are being made; you have made claims with no sourcing whatsoever. And if need be, I'll simply take the argument to the vampire article and get it removed there, as the exact same problem applies. Jarandhel (talk) 15:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Conducting a poll would be original research. The fact that you need to conduct a poll..." <-- Your mistake there, Jerremiah, though, is that you don't need to conduct a poll; thus the statement is flawed. D. G. 05:20, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

text: By definition what applies to Vampires applies here as they are "otherkin" as well.  Every source you cite is OR.  Blogs and message boards are not valid sources.  Neither are teenage web pages.  Does Alex Chiu's theories deserve a page claiming they are credible?  How about The Time Cube?  These sites are cited only as examples of the crackpot theory not to support the claims of the crackpots making this shit up.  Otherkin is no more credible.  Just because it's on the internet doesn't make it true. Agriculture 15:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is not to determine if the beliefs are credible, any more than an article on paganism would be about determining if those beliefs are true or not.  The point of this article is to write about the subculture who believe it; and that is easily verifiable by their own words.  I'm sorry, but your argument just doesn't hold water. Jarandhel (talk) 15:22, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually my argument does hold water Jarrie.  By your standard any crackpot with a webpage deserves a Wikipedia entry for his personal delusion.  I'm sorry but no.  This is Wikipedia, not Facebook. Agriculture 15:24, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

text: It's not credibility that matters. Wikipedia does not hold an opinion on credibility. It's verifiability (that they make certain claims, not that those claims are true) and notability, and the AFD shows that people think otherkin have enough of those. Your statement needs a source. ~~ N (t/c) 15:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Now you say it's from a WP article. You mean the vampire lifestyle one? The claim on that page is about vampire-lifestylers, not about otherkin. You can't copy the wording from a page about a different subject and call that a source. (I am also inquiring on Talk:Vampire lifestyle if the claim in that article is sourced.) You say it's on the Internet - then find a site! You call otherkin "alleged bunny rabbits" - please refrain from ad hominems. ~~ N (t/c) 16:21, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I happen to agree that personal websites don't count for much when it comes to verifiability.  But, the Afd consensus was clear: reputable sources or not, the article stays.  Certainly we can make an effort to replace bad sources with good ones, though.   It's not about determining whether the beliefs are true- that's obviously way outside our scope here.  So far we can't even determine whether a given website accurately summarizes the beliefs of Otherkin, or whether it's all just the personal view of the site owner.  So yes, we do have a verifiability problem, IMO.  Friday (talk) 16:24, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversial text 

message: The recently published book, "Not in Kansas Anymore: A Curious Tale of How Magic is Transforming America" by Christine Wicker discusses Otherkin, according to this review. The author is an experienced newspaper reporter, and the publisher, HarperSanFrancisco, is mainstream, so it should be a reputable source. Might be worth checking out! FreplySpang (talk) 15:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Several published sources have already been added by me in the past few days; I've linked to online copies of an article on otherkin published in PagaNet News, a pagan print magazine, and also to an online copy (from print.google.com) of Willow Polson's book, published by Citadel Press (a division of Kensington Publishing Corp) with section mentioning the otherkin community.  I've also linked it to the online copy of a schedule of a college seminar which included critical mention of otherkin, which seems a fairly credible source that the subculture actually exists. Jarandhel (talk) 15:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I feel that actual, published books count for much much more than someone's web site, so I'm glad to hear it.  I'm not saying a book is automatically more accurate, but it is more credible.  A peer-reviewed paper would be the ultimate, but that may well be asking for too much.  Friday (talk) 16:27, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You should note, then, that two of the published sources refer directly back to otherkin.net and rialian.com; the village voice article, and the paganet news article.  Veils Edge, the book by Willow Polson, also refers to Rialian the owner of Rialian.com.  If you're willing to accept these printed sources as credible, would that credibility not also extend to the sites they endorse as credible primary sources on the community they describe? Jarandhel (talk) 16:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Using a personal website as a primary source in order to create the book (the secondary source) is fine.  Wikipedia is not meant to be a secondary source created in this fashion.  Using someone else's secondary source is fine.  Really, I don't know why you're so set on convincing people that particular personal websites are reputable sources- if better sources are available, let's use them!  Friday (talk) 16:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Friday, the rules on Original Research on Wikipedia say that Wikipedia is not meant to be a PRIMARY source.  It is by nature a secondary source, and they all say that we are allowed to cite primary sources so long as we make only descriptive claims, which is what this article is all about.  I referred to the relevant portions of the WP:NOR policy previously on this talk page.  Jarandhel (talk) 17:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: WP is not a primary or secondary source.  It's meant to use primary and secondary sources.  Secondary sources are generally better, IMO.  Friday (talk) 18:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but on the WP:NOR page it clearly says some articles can be written using only primary sources.  By definition, such articles would make wikipedia a secondary source.  You clearly want to make wikipedia solely be a tertiary source, but that is not policy. Jarandhel (talk) 18:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this is what Friday is saying or wants at all. Secondary sources are preferred, especially when primary sources are of dubious value. android79 19:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

text: (Edit conflict- Yeah, what Android just said.) Articles can be written using only primary sources, yes.  But, this is rare.  In general, it's harder and less desirable.  Anyway, Wikipedia is a "third source"; it's meant to use primary and secondary sources, as I said.  This is not my desire, it's fundamental- it's what makes WP source-based research, rather than original research. Friday (talk) 19:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think you've read Wikipedia:Reliable_sources very thoroughly.  What you're describing as a third source is the definition of a secondary source given there.  "A secondary source summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources. A tertiary source usually summarizes secondary sources."  And we're not talking about writing this article ONLY with primary sources; we've used several secondary sources already and have also referred back to primary sources to flesh it out beyond a stub.  That IS source-based research, rather than original research.  To quote WP:NOR once again, "Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged. In fact, all articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research," it is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." Jarandhel (talk) 19:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Isn't it obvious?  He is Rialian the owner of Rialian.com Agriculture 17:01, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice try, thanks for playing, but I've already linked to [my own website] once on this talk page.  There are pictures of [me] on Ri's site, though, if you look for them.  Not to mention that I'm 24, while [Rialian] (being the owner of the elven realities webring I've mentioned before on this talk page) is 35.  You're not very good at this, you know... Jarandhel (talk) 17:22, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

text: And vice versa. Come on. Do better than him. ~~ N (t/c) 20:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I think the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources guideline is less relevant than the WP:NOR policy, which says: "For non-academic subjects, it is impossible to pin down a clear definition of "reputable". In general, most of us have a good intuition about the meaning of the word. A magazine or press release self-published by a very extreme political or religious group would often not be regarded as "reputable". For example, Wikipedia would not rely only on an article in a Socialist Workers' Party magazine to publish a statement about President Bush being gay. However, if that same claim was in The New York Times, then Wikipedia could refer to the article (and to the sources quoted in the article). The political magazine could, however, be used as a source of information about the party itself."  The nature of the claims being made is the question; the websites claim to represent what their own subculture believes, it is not inappropriate to cite them as primary sources on their subculture's own beliefs. Jarandhel (talk) 17:49, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Android hit the nail on the head here.  From Wikipedia:Reliable sources, A personal website or blog may be used only as a primary source i.e. when we are writing about the subject or owner of the website. But even then we should proceed with great caution and should avoid relying on information from the website as a sole source. This is particularly true when the subject is controversial, or has no professional or academic standing.  To me, this is a great explanation of why otherkin.net is not a reliable source.  If the article was about the website, that's one thing.  But it's about Otherkin, which isn't the same thing.  Friday (talk) 18:43, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It also says: "Widely acknowledged extremist political or religious websites — for example, Stormfront.org, Hamas, or the Socialist Workers' Party — should never be used as sources for Wikipedia, except as primary sources i.e. in articles discussing the opinions of that organization or the opinions of a larger like-minded group".  I think the otherkin subculture counts as the larger like-minded group in that example.  Jarandhel (talk) 19:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Write an article about otherkin.net instead of about Otherkin, and you're exactly right.  This point has been brought up several times before. Friday (talk) 19:08, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What part of "larger like-minded groups" (ie, the subculture itself) would necessitate the article being about otherkin.net?  You're not being logical here. Jarandhel (talk) 19:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. You seem to make sense, mostly - except that otherkin are not a unified group and no one site, clearly, can present "the otherkin view". ~~ N (t/c) 20:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I agree.  No one site can.  I just don't agree that means we can't use any sites as sources at all, any more than the fact that no one book on wicca can represent "the wiccan view", or no one source on furries can represent "the furry view" mean that we cannot reference wiccan or furry websites in the articles on them.  Look at those articles, please, the precedent is clearly there.  Jarandhel (talk) 21:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible published source? 

message: It seems like we're never going to stop disagreeing, and a recurring issue is reliable sources.  We all have to realize- if a source says things you agree with, this does not make it "reliable".  We're going for verifiability, not truth.  Honestly, a quote from an Otherkin guy who has no known credentials or reputation cannot seriously be taken as authoritative.  Can we all agree to use only reliable sources, as explained in Wikipedia:Reliable sources?  
To me, this guideline makes things pretty clear: Under "Using online sources", it explains very well why all websites are not created equal.  Here's a relevant bit: Publications with teams of fact-checkers, reporters, editors, lawyers, and managers — like the New York Times or The Times of London — are likely to be reliable, and are regarded as reputable sources for the purposes of Wikipedia.  At the other end of the reliability scale lie personal websites, weblogs (blogs), bulletin boards, and Usenet posts, which are not acceptable as sources.
To me, otherkin.net surely looks like a personal website.  Yes, I know that multiple authorship is claimed, but this isn't enough.  I could have my friends write essays and put them on my website, and it's still my own personal website. 
For otherkin.net, we have no evidence that there are legitimate reporters, fact checkers, etc involved in it.  The WHOIS record shows ownership by "Otherkin Network, T Windtree, PO Box 593", etc. Presuambly "T Windtree" is a person's alias.  Yes, "Otherkin Network" sounds like it's trying to sound like an organization, but is there any evidence that such an organization exists outside of otherkin.net?  None that I've seen.  The website itself does not claim ownership by any established organization, that I've seen. The pages just say "Copyright Otherkin.net".  I don't know how it could be any more clearly a "personal website", unless perhaps every page had "This site belongs to Gary" plastered all over it. 
I'm not saying we should instantly rip out the stuff from unreliable sources.  But, since better sources are apparently available, we should agree to not use personal websites as sources, and replace them with reliable sources as soon as we can. Also, we should stop adding new information, if it's supported only by an unreliable source.  Is this acceptable to everyone?  If we cannot come to agreeement on what sources are reliable, I think we're just going to have the same arguments over and over.  Friday (talk) 17:44, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, T Windtree is short for Tirl Windtree, which is a person's alias.  He started it, and he maintains the technical side of it, with occasional contributions to the content.  I think, though, you miss the distinction between a personal website and a community website.  It's a simple fact that Otherkin.net has been contributed to by a wide range of people in the community.  It's also a simple fact that the print sources agree that Otherkin.net is an authoritative source on the subject of otherkin.  You're also not making a distinction between the nature of the claims being made.  The sites being referenced are appropriate sources for the claims being made; they are products of the subculture that is being written about, which is itself an INTERNET SUBCULTURE.  I'll point out that the article on filk primarily references personal websites, as does the section of the article on shapeshifting referring to transformation enthusiasts.  This is because they too are examples of internet subcultures with little representation outside of the internet.  Yet they are considered authoritative sources on themselves.  Likewise the entire article on the Furry_fandom.  Realistically, if we trim out the websites, we're not going to be left with very much.  The book by Willow Polson is on another subject, with a brief aside on otherkin in one chapter.  The Village Voice article focuses on otherkin, but puts in a great deal of personal interpretation that makes the otherkin subculture sound like a modern luddite movement with "anti-modern" sentiment, when a large number of otherkin make their living in the IT field and even those who don't are often geeks to one degree or another, as could be expected of an internet subculture.  That leaves us with Michelle Belanger's article as the primary source on this.  And she gives a brief overview which points back to the exact same websites you claim are "just personal websites".  As does the Village Voice article for that matter.  If you're not willing to accept that these websites are community websites and representative of the subculture rather than "just some guy's personal website", then it seems like you are arguing that the articles based on them cannot be valid sources either.  I don't see how you can reasonably have it both ways.  Jarandhel (talk) 18:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Can we actually draw a line though?  Quite frequently the two extremes get mentioned, major journals/newspapers and personal websites.  And as the policy mentions, this is a spectrum.  So how exactly can we specify where the line is between it being a personal website with a collections essays to say a person running a small, specialized news-like service collecting articles from people they know?  My own opinion on it is that there is still a reasonable amount of information that is consistent between several sites, even if there is potential bias, so is it possible to use the information but with a better labeling of its questionability or potential bias?  For example, something along the lines of, "One self-labeled otherkin community makes the claims that..." with maybe some better flowing words.AtomicDragon 09:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

text: This is a spurious argument: "print sources agree that Otherkin.net is an authoritative source on the subject of otherkin." as what some print sources here and there choose to use as their own references (and quite obviously out of desperation for some better resource) in no way validates them as sources for an encyclopedia. If this argument were true than we could start filling up the Ancient Egypt articles with the claims that their mythical gods were actually encoded references to microscopic proteins, as I've seen occasional print sources refer to people with such bizarre unauthoritative claims as if they were experts, when they obviously are not. DreamGuy 03:39, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it is not just some print sources here and there; every print source so far who has written on the topic of the otherkin subculture itself, rather than including it as a brief mention in a larger work, has referred to Otherkin.net and Rialian.com as prominent sites within the subculture, and reliable sources for more information.  Your argument is also illogical; the claims being made are entirely different.  Your example concerning microscopic proteins and egyptian myth would obviously need professionals in both the fields of egyptology and microbiology to answer.  In this instance, though, the claims are being made about a subculture in which these people have participated for years and are prominent members, contributing to sites written both for and about that subculture by members of the subculture.  It is reasonable to expect them to be able to answer questions on the subculture itself.  That is why they are acceptable sources. Jarandhel (talk) 16:09, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Only reliable sources? 

message: I can see the reasons for templates 1 and 3 (totallydisputed and controversial3).  I'm a little confused, though, about template 2, the one that says this article reads like an advertisement.  Considering I (a "pro-otherkin editor", given that I am part of that subculture) have inserted the two most solidly anti-otherkin sources in the whole thing (a college seminar on critical thinking referring to the otherkin belief as an example of "nonsense in the news" and comments in an article on kuro5hin.org that actually accuse otherkin and clinical lycanthropes of being the same thing or related) I have to ask; what would be necessary to include in this article (or take out) in order for it NOT to read like an advertisement in your view?  Because I'm really not seeing what makes it an advertisement to describe the subculture's professed beliefs. Jarandhel (talk) 18:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Templates 

message: Well, it was a long, rough fight, but this article is a lot more NPOV than it used to be, though it still has issues. Anyone who helped out though might be interested in checking out the Vampire lifestyle article... It used to be an article about how people dressed up as vampires for fun, and the people who really believeed they were vampires took over, making a lot of involved claims mostly without any sort of reality check or skeptical viewpoint. The actual lystyler section has been whittled down to almost nothing, just a bit where the vampires heap scorn on the lifestylers for just playing dress up. The discussion on talk is also trying to change the name of the article away from lifestyler to something else, thus destroying the original purpose of the article and erasing the history there. We could use a team of people who are used to debating these kinds of issues to move in and be bold to salvage the page. DreamGuy 14:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Similar article needing help 

message: This page still says it's neutrality is suspected.  Is this still the case?  I see the discussions have died down about the page.  If there are still problems, what are they, and how can they be addressed to everyone's satisfaction?  If not, then can we remove the glaring sticker on the article saying that there is a debate over the neutrality of the article?  The Crisses 12:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed it for now, since there's not really activie discussion or a list of specific issues.  Friday (talk) 00:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality is Suspected