Talk:Otherkin

90% of this article is absolutely wrong and describes those who abuse this term. Why is that?
Why does this entre article describe the definition of the ones who stole the term "Otherkin"? Why does it describe these people why say it means they are something completely else with their entire being and use it to justify their weird social behaviour etc? It's embarrassing and ruins the reputition of the ones who use this term the correct way.

Being an Otherkin means the same as being a Therian, just it's the umbrella term for those who feel a spiritual connection to a mythical non-existing creature. It's nothing else but that. StarSuicune (talk) 12:17, 12 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Are there particular sources in the article that are invalid, or other sources that argue differently? The current sources seem to clearly define "otherkin" as a person identifying as non-human, similarly to this article; source #14, Otherkin Timeline: The Recent History of Elfin, Fae, and Animal People, Abridged Edition, even traces usage of the term through the 1990s.
 * Avoyt (talk) 18:32, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Abridged Edition... Everyone on the internet should know that this is the polar opposite of a valid serious source. Abridged describes nothing but a parody. StarSuicune (talk) 09:04, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with Avoyt that we need more specific information on what you're asking for. Tathar (talk) 11:41, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. I'm otherkin and this article is completely wrong. My identity as otherkin purely stems from not being comfortable looking like a human and wishing i could look like a different species. I find the appearance of the human body boring and uninteresting, and wish i could look more unique in a way clothing cannot fix. None of this has anything to do with religion or belief that I am literally part animal. It's all to do with the appearance I am comfortable with. Otherkin are one of the most discriminated groups in modern times because of articles like this. TidalTempestBM (talk) 08:58, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @TidalTempestBM Your personal experiences with the term "Otherkin" are not relevant to the contents of an encyclopedic article about the subject.
 * If there is to be an encyclopedia entry for "Otherkin" it should adhere to the most commonly recognized definition of the term as described in scholarly sources, as is the case for all of Wikipedia.
 * If this definition shifts, the article should reflect that. However, this article is not "completely wrong" simply because it doesn't reflect your personal relationship to the term. Agentdoge (talk) 05:24, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. This is strongly reminding me of a debate I ran into between some tarot card users, with one approaching them from a [pseudo-scientific] viewpoint of the cards representing psychological archetypes along Carl Jung and Joseph Campbell lines and useful as a form of cold-reading psychoanalysis, with the other insisting they were a form of powerful occult magic and deeply religio-spiritual, with each claiming the other was a "false practitioner", in an argument that to anyone not involved in the topic seemed somewhere between pointless and absurd, especially to people who use them simply as a form of entertainment. The vast majority of source material on tarot cards says they are a) playing cards used in a variety of mostly European games, and b) a form of divination called cartomancy (i.e., a belief in them having magical/occult/spiritual power); our own article on the topic reflects this sourcing, and does not address archetypal psychology interpretations because there is virtually no reliable sourcing for this, no matter the fact that there are people who approach them this way. If there is or becomes sourcing on otherkin/therianthropism as simply a form of body dysphoria with no spiritual or other subcultural aspects, then we can cover that. Maybe such sourcing already exists, but until editors have reliable sources on this in-hand, we can't do anything with the article content in such a direction, certainly not based on personal-experience/viewpoint anecdote. It is natural that various approaches to such things will exist among individuals, but we can't write based on their talk-page opinions. In short, if someone feels the article is "absolutely wrong", then they have to cough up reliable sources that their viewpoint actually deserves any due coverage, and even then it is certainly not going to prove that those with a different view of this are "abus[ing] this term" and not using it "the correct way", only that there are multiple noteworthy views/approaches. See also WP:NPOV: Wikipedia is not interested in any "righting great wrongs" fringe activism viewpoint-pushing. PS: This condemnatory urge seems very closely related to the censorious and pseudo-moralizing nature of kink-shaming; even though the otherkin thing is not centrally about sexuality, it certainly has that component to it, as does furry/plushy, the vampire scene, etc. Which is to say, the more judgemental someone gets about "the other side" on a matter like this, the faster and more firmly they should be ignored. PPS: There doesn't seem to be any reliable sourcing available anywhere to support the notion that "otherkin are one of the most discriminated groups in modern times", and crank, victim-posing claims like this tend to be rather offensive to people who are actually subjected to daily discrimination and worse because of their ethnicity, gender presentation, disability, etc. No one on the bus knows you feel like a wolf or elf.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:24, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Not just non-physical ones, even. Your personal emotions about the topic don't dictate things such as this. If needed, I will try and scrounge around for the archived evidence. 98.188.246.215 (talk) 03:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I feel that the beliefs section is the most wrong, but it could just stand out to me. I'm not sure though and I would like to learn some stuff so hit me with what you think i guess. TurtleDemon666 (talk) 00:37, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * ONLY a "spiritual connection?" Really, man? Have you seen the polls done on alt.horror.werewolves that have been archived? Absolutely ridiculous to claim such a thing. Spiritual AND psychological Otherkin have been around for years; it's disrespectful to narrow it down in such a way. 98.188.246.215 (talk) 03:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, @98.188.246.215 . I don't personally identify with this community, but I do try to keep a close watch on this article since it's very prone to vandalism. I can hopefully try to help you out with understanding some of the situation, especially since you're offering to find some sources for claims.
 * Have you seen the polls done on alt.horror.werewolves that have been archived?
 * Wikipedia's sourcing standards require verifiability and reliable sources. Usenet polls aren't going to work, nor frankly are a lot of the sources already in this article (why are we citing RPG rule books, for example). You can find more on how Wikipedia handles sourcing at WP:RS and information on usenet specifically here WP:PUS. This is why another user almost instantly reverted your otherkin wiki citaton; it fails our sourcing standards pretty badly and cannot be relied on.
 * Spiritual AND psychological Otherkin have been around for years; it's disrespectful to narrow it down in such a way.
 * My understanding from trying to keep vandals away from this page is that it's possible you may actually be able to cite this. There does seem to be some work discussing the religious and psychological elements of this group in peer-review, so it's entirely plausible the point you want to make has already been covered by sources Wikipedia accepts.
 * I'd caution you against thinking this article is going to end up going in a direction that everyone who identifies as Otherkin will accept, since a lot of it seems to be restricted to discussions on social media with only a tiny bit of bleed over into reliable sources. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 06:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I've just gone through and tried to clean up this article to a degree. The sourcing in it is still quite bad, but there's an extent to which this is so far outside what I usually edit that I don't want to be too heavy handed. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 07:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Umbrella
I think this article should add all of the different alterhumans that exist under this category. It helps people looking for the different alterhumans find the ones their looking for, under the Otherkin umbrella. As I want to write a google slide about therians, and I mentioned Otherkin. But I can't find anything that helps me figure out the alterhumans under this umbrella. Someone who knows all of them, please edit this. ABookForToday (talk) 16:16, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * On the face of it, this seems reasonable since alterhuman and alterhumans redirect to this article. However, this is not a dumping ground for stuff people made up one day that isn't covered by sources that are actually reliable and are actually independent of the subject. Wikipedia is not a subcultural slang database (for which see https://UrbanDictionary.com ). I'm sure there's some Battlestar Galactica fan out there claming to "identify as" a Cylon, but that doesn't make it encyclopedic.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:32, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Vampires and LARP
This article seems to ascribe the entire origins of this to an "elfkind" subculture, and is missing the fact that a vampire quasi-identity subculture active since the 1990s and started by Mind's Eye Theatre: The Masquerade, along with other LARP stuff which collectively also tended to overlap with various kink subcultures including furry, had an impact on this, and so has later cosplay subculture. I don't really care enough about the topic to do research on this, but someone who does, should. It's misleading to leave out the vampire and other LARP influence. Despite having already cited sources that go into and even focus on the vamp connections, our article says nothing beyond "The therian and vampire subcultures are related to the otherkin community, and are considered part of it by most otherkin but are culturally and historically distinct movements of their own, despite some overlap in membership" (and much of that reads as original research along "my sub-subculture is magically different from yours so nyah-nyah-nyah" lines). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:43, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

nominate for speedy deletion
this article has been problematic for a long time, including several requests for rewrite that never get followed up on. most of the sources are extremely suspect (self-published, not peer-reviewed, slanted POV, original research, etc). most of the naysayers have always been identified as members of this fringe community. aside from this, there's a long history of very bad faith argumentation in this page, among other references to it, based on highly offensive comparison to oppressed groups. 2605:8D80:405:1989:42AA:52D1:2A32:7C3 (talk) 23:13, 9 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Which criteria for speedy deletion does it fall under?  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 23:30, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Would you care to elaborate on any of your claims made such as what sources you think are faulty or how it meets the criteria for speedy deletion? Since you know about speedy deletion, the fact articles have to be nominated for deletion, and the history of this page, I presume you have an account, so why don't you log in and nominate it yourself if you think it's so bad? Despite what some may think about this, it is a documented phenomenon with professional researchers looking into it. --StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 03:23, 12 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I just came to the page to learn, and it seems fairly sensible to me. Oppose deletion. Fig (talk) 13:48, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Maybe use term alterhuman instead?
I'm new to editing articles and commenting or anything that needs an account on Wikipedia, but maybe use the term alterhuman? It tends to be more inclusive to other part of the community such as plantkin, or conceptkin.

also yes, I know that I'm probably doing this wrong but like i said, I'm new so sorry for any mistakes 65.117.164.210 (talk) 21:56, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * How would alter- be "more inclusive" than other-? About the only sourcing available for those ideas other than random internet schmoes' forum posts is another wiki (unreliable source, as user-generated content), Otherkin.Fandom.com, which uses otherkin as a generic/encompassing term, and they also have an article on alterhuman used the same way (so, it's what WP would call a content fork at best or even an outright viewpoint fork, though the site's content leans heavily toward toward the former term). Anyway, not only is it not WP's role to try to duplicate the content and scope of such a site (the material in which seems to be mostly invented on whim by people as they go along, and when based on anything at all but the editor's personal notions, is drawing almost entirely on Internet-forum neologisms and manifestos, mostly dating from 2014 and later. I.e., almost all of it appears to be "stuff I made up one day" combined with "original research". So, we're not in a position per the "notability" policy and "WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information" policy to just willy-nilly add such novel self-identity claims to our encyclopedic material. Even as to the page name, we're constrained by article titles policy, which mostly resolves to using the most common name in independent sources. For this entire subject area, truly independent sources barely even exist, and source usage in general is  in favor of "otherkin", with "alterhuman" barely attested at all .  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:40, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Needs image in lead
I think the lead needs some kind of image in it. CycoMa1 (talk) 13:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Rewrite
I brought this to WP:FTN, but it's been sitting as-is for a long time so I figured it could use a bit of an overhaul. I don't know much about this community/scene/spiritual tradition and don't want to be too heavy handed. I spent some time going through the cited sources that were here before and removed lots of self published sources, and a few big citations weren't supported by the good sources they relied on. There's still a lot from publishing houses that specialize in fiction, but I don't want to step on toes considering the spiritual/religious elements involved here and I'm not particularly qualified to evaluate them (nor do I want to buy those books to read them). If anyone else is willing to take a look, this page seems to have pretty constant issues with IP drive-bys and WP:RS.

Any extra set of eyes would be greatly appreciated. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 11:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)