Talk:Otherkin/Archive 6

message: DreamGuy, I believe it's been firmly established that it is against consensus to have references to clinical lycanthropy on this page, as you have refused repeated requests to demonstrate the link to otherkin from the papers you've cited.  I've removed it, again. Vashti 11:48, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
:Hello, it's already been explained thoroughly... the freaking article explains the link. It was bad enough that someone with a huge amount of bias removed the references from the article itself and justified it with a throughly screwed up twisting of what the No original research policy says, but it is beyond disgusting that even a See also link has been excised. And I think your "consensus" consists of you and the guy who has been blocked upteen million times for POV warring. 
:Considering that you never did come up with a real reason for its removal from the article, a see also link is absolutely positively necessary, unless you just want to give up any pretense of pretending to folow policy and just admit that you are removing information out of spite. DreamGuy 13:02, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
See also sections are for related topics. This article is about people thinking they are beasts and animals and stuff, that one is for people thinking they are animals... regardless of whether you think that this article itself should mention it, it clearly without a doubt fits see also criteria. It's not "original research" to list related topics. Any supposed consensus you tihnk you have for the article content has nothing to do with related topic links. DreamGuy 13:15, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
:My consensus includes User:SlimVirgin and User:PWhittle, as well as myself and Gavin.  The closest I could find for anyone supporting your point of view was User:Friday's suggestion that perhaps the literature on clinical lycanthropy might contain something relevant.  However, you have repeatedly failed to provide that something relevant, or to document a link between clinical lycanthropy and anything like the modern otherkin subculture.  In the absence of such a documented link, or even a documented suggestion of a link, there are no grounds for a See also which would imply the link without discussing it in the article body.
:You have been asked several times to provide cites from literature that support your position, rather than using the Wikipedia page as a reference, and you have not done so, despite being told repeatedly that your personal opinion is original research and not an encyclopaedic source.
:Plus, I think, given your expressed opinions on the subject, you should perhaps consider avoiding accusations of spite or bias on this topic. Vashti 14:57, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
::How does one justify not linking or discussing in the article body a psychiatric syndrome that explains the behavior of a subset of people who describe themselves as "Otherkin?" Is this article designed only for Otherkin who do not suffer from a delusion? Hipocrite 16:48, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing is that there is no research linking the phenomenon - by whatever name it goes - and any disorder, at least none that I have been shown.  In the absence of some sort of encyclopaedic claim, Dreamguy's opinion that clinical lycanthropy applies is no more valid or applicable than my opinion that schizotypy is likely to apply, or Gavin's that no disorder applies.  We can't just put our personal opinions in the article and say that it's encyclopaedic, because it's not. Vashti 01:08, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
Hoqw do you jusify tyrying to claim that all otherkin suffer from some sort of delusion?  thats highly POV.Gavin the Chosen 19:04, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Clinical lycanthropy redux

message: #~~ H Hipocrite 14:44, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: For mention of clinical lycanthropy in article ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Otherkin&diff=21514216&oldid=21512758 this form] or similar) and in see-also

message: #Second choice. First choice. I actually think most of Vashti's paragraph should be there (if it is, in fact, correct), but the clinical-lycanthropy part of it is original research. ~~ N (t/c) 14:32, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: For mention of clinical lycanthropy only in see-also

message: looks like No mentipon Of Clinical Lycanthropy, with the most first choices, wins.Gavin the Chosen 18:34, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just remembered Rakeela saying that physical change is a very, very rare claim. Therefore, I don't think any of "Vashti's paragraph" should be there. ~~ N (t/c) 17:29, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Or not, he seems to have signed on below. ~~ N (t/c) 22:49, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

text: You've said that now several times, but I don't think anyone is seeing your POV.  They are clearly related; I don't think anyone but you is going to try to suggest that they're not.  A subculture of people with broken arms, for example, is different than the medical condition of a broken arm.  But the two are related by virtue of the actual broken arm being the common tie.  Does that help? Friday (talk) 15:43, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: poll results