Talk:Otherkin/Archive 2

Otherkin vs. Furry confusion
It is found that people confuse otherkin with not just furries as mere fans, but people heavily into furries. I was going with furry lifestylers, but now I believe that is not quite right. I'm hoping someone can come up with a more specific comparison. -Thodin


 * Don't pay too much attention to what PoE say, they aren't a reliable source. Do you have any sources that aren't blatantly anti-otherkin that associate them with fursuit sex? :) Vashti 22:17, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I have one that's taken down from the web, but I saved it on my hard drive. It's called "Dork Storm" and it lists the ten geekiest hobbies. It lists one as "furry/plushy" and it is the only geek-related hobby that the page says improves sex life. It also defined it as that. And yeah, as for PoE, I find good sites on that (strange sites but I like them). All their furry sites are yiff and vore. Oh and well the stuff from my own life is original research. Thodin 22:34, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Reorganization
After looking over this article, I have noticed that the main subject area could be broken down into several categories to aid the reader. First, it deals with what the concept of Otherkin is, but then goes into tangents about what Otherkin does not refer to and general tendencies of the subculture(s). Thus, I propose the following revisions under content subcategories:

-Theories on Otherkin nature. Perhaps this could be separated from (or have a subsection for) the psychological theories. --Not sure if this should go with the theories or in a separate section, but "ambiguity of the definition and effects this has had on the subculture." -Tendencies of the subculture (apart from otherkin natures). This would be things typical of cultural studies: customs, demographics (nationality, age, religion, etc.), and typical practices. -Otherkin natures (types and phenomena associated with being first otherkin and then specific types of otherkin; for example, not every type of otherkin is supposedly infused with great magical abilities [slug-kin, if someone is/claims to be slug-kin, likely would not be considered as magical as dragon-kin, for example]).

Other than that, I'd say expand on some areas and correct a few grammatical mistakes ("deities" is not spelled "dieties").

Well, I fixed my spelling error. Also for someone's robots removal, I've met otherkin who claim to be sentient machines in a past life but I left it gone. For Portal of Evil, maybe there is a better link. On the furries wiki they mention the connection to otherkin and say not to be confused with. That's the best evidence I have for the otherkin/furries confusion, so hopefully someone knows a link that's better. Thodin 15:14, 18 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Nice work on the article! Just one thing - do you have a reference for the bicameral mind stuff in relation to otherkin, or is it original research?  I'm going to reorganise the list of otherkin types as well, as I can't remember ever seeing anyone claim to be god-kin (although I'm sure there are some). Vashti 21:04, 18 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Did it. I've cut some of the examples as well, as it does smell a bit of someone pulling stuff off the top of their head - has *anyone* ever seen anyone claim to be goat-kin?  The ordering of the lists should give the more common types first now, to try and give some idea of their relative popularity. Vashti 21:19, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

The sources for the Bicameral Mind thing are the sources to the wikipedia's article itself, hence the link to that wiki, and the sources on that article are the sources for the otherkin link. The Bicameral Mind concept from the psychologist's book covers a wide range of topics, but it centers on how the otherkin receive their information--like things from past lives and what not. It also relates to visions. I find the idea quite fascinating.

The Bicameral Mind concept does not necessarily say something is right or wrong, but it is based on how someone such as an otherkin's neurology would receive the information. It also mentions oracles, people who talk to spirits (many otherkin are into the astral plane), the "multiples" concept, the whole astral entity taking you as a host. It's not original reseach since I'm just stating what's already in articles about that concept. Also you said you wanted a "relation between religion and schizotypy" and this is the closest I've found, but it is a theory.

And for the goat-kin, that's satyr. Also I've known kin who have claimed to have deities on them or speaking through them. See kinhost.org, the person is a multiple and look through all the multiples.

Thodin 07:17, 19 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay, but there's no source for somebody off-wiki saying "bicameral mind theory seems relevant to otherkin"? That's the part that I'm concerned about being original research - drawing a controversial conclusion for yourself and putting it into the article.


 * I think a satyr is pretty distinct from a goat, although certainly satyrs could be added to the list. I hear "goat-kin" and think of the four-legged things in fields eating hats. :)


 * Also, I do see the relevance to multiplicity, but perhaps then this theory should be over in that article and not over here? The theory may well relate to the astral plane and so on, but many otherkin don't do any of those things, and certainly none of them are required to qualify as otherkin.  I'm honestly not sure of the relevance to this particular article.  Convince me. :) Vashti 09:53, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

medical perspectives
what the heck does medical thoughts have to do with a spiritual movement, which Otherkin IS. if your not gonna add a medical perspectives thing to any other religious article, why not remove it from this one entirely? in short, it doesnt belong. im gonna remove it in ites entirety in about a half hour, as of this time stamp. Gabrielsimon 22:51, 18 May 2005 (UTC)


 * No, you aren't. I'm trying to work with you (as indicated below), but if you begin excising information you don't agree with wholesale, I will take this further.  Please don't make that be necessary. Vashti 22:56, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

would you like to put a medical perspectives section in the cristianity article then as well? if not, it gets removed from here. Gabrielsimon 23:03, 18 May 2005 (UTC)


 * So what you're saying is that you're going to remove valid information from this article, because you don't agree with it? I think that goes against several Wikipedia policies; are you sure that's what you want to do? Vashti 23:11, 18 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, if you really felt like it, you could add something about perhaps the so-called god helmet to Christianity, as it is relevant to the topic to at least a certain degree. Then again, that more properly probably has its own article already, though some mention of it might be appropriate. I don't really know, as I try to avoid most religion articles other than this one, a few related ones, and atheism, as I'm sure I'd probably cause edit wars. The medical issues section is most certainly relevant to this article. Titanium Dragon 01:15, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

the issue is not weather i agree with it or not, the issue is that its a pirituality issue, and medical perscpetives dont belong in a spirituality issue, unless your gonna put such a section in EACH and EVERY spirituality related issue. Gabrielsimon 23:16, 18 May 2005 (UTC)


 * In this case, they do, because virtually any otherkin you speak to will tell you that they've questioned their sanity long and hard because of what they believe. In fact, it's considered worrying if people *haven't* thought about the alternatives.  The theories are commonplace when otherkin are discussed (in other words, it's not just something PoE and co. rake up to discredit them).  Because this is a common theory about otherkin, it *should be* in the article - the article is there to put all reasonable sides of the argument, not just the ones you or I or Great-Aunt Maud happen to like.


 * I actually agree with you that there needs to be a much more general article on the psychology of religion, and believe it or not, it's been on my to-do list since my disagreement with DreamGuy. However, censoring articles isn't what Wikipedia is about.


 * I suggest that, rather than making any brutal edits to the article that will result in nothing but a revert war, we either reach some kind of consensus on this, or begin the dispute resolution process with a request for a third opinion. Vashti 23:24, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

then who shall send the request? and how will that be done? and its not cennsoring that i wish to do, as you may be able to see.... you can see that right? Gabrielsimon 23:29, 18 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with you that a disproportionate amount of space is given to the medical opinions. However, I also firmly believe that "the answer to bad speech is more speech" - rather than removing the medical section, which I hope after a lot of editing is at least now NPOV, we should be improving it with more perspectives, and certainly adding a great deal more about what otherkin are and do.


 * The Wiki dispute resolution policy even says: "When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it." - unless there's no other way, improve, don't delete.


 * If the request needs to be sent, I'll do it, but are we really going to be unable to reach agreement on this? Vashti 23:36, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

the origional sections wording makes it all sound like they are crazy, doesnt give the simplest thing of the other side of things any light. this is why i thought it was POV.

Gabrielsimon


 * It doesn't, though. It's neutrally worded (compare Jesus - they're really quite nasty about him).  There is a difference.  Encyclopaedic writing should describe its subject as if somebody completely neutral to it was describing it for a class - it should teach, not indoctrinate.  Starting from the assumption that the subject is gospel truth, so to speak, doesn't make for neutrality.


 * I think it's neutral - it goes into a lot of detail on why the suggested diagnoses may be incorrect, and cites sources for that. What specific bits of it do you think are POV? Vashti 00:02, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

personally i think the entire section makes it seem more like they are nuts, which i find wrong....

Gabrielsimon 00:14, 19 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I can only think that you haven't read it properly if you think the entire section is arguing that they're nuts. What do you think of it now, though? Vashti 00:33, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

About that third opinion you were looking for, I think it is absolutely vital that we have such elements (medical ones) both in this article, Vampire Lifestyle, and any other article relating to a religious belief that involves medical or psychological beliefs (with respect to photosensitivity, need for blood or supposed animal characteristics). However, we cannot go removing any information pretaining to a certain subject for no reason other than the fact that it contradicts someone's religious beliefs. There is absolutely no point in questioning whether someone with human DNA can biologically be a dragon or animal or vampire. It must simply be accepted that modern medical science dictates that such genetics are impossible. On the other side, though, these articles are about a belief, and therefore must most definately remain indefinately simply by virtue of the fact that people do in fact believe in this manner of thing. Furthermore, it is entirely possible that these peoples' beliefs are in fact correct, equally as there is that medical science (which is almost certainly not developed enough to pass unqualified judgement on these people) may alternatively be correct. Therefore, it is key that we have some kind of supported data or facts regarding the purported physiology of these people versus the medical plausibility thereof regarding current technology.


 * In short, in order to juggle POV rules and factual requirements, it is necessary that everything contained in this article (other than the fact that these opinions exist) must be stated as though it were an opinion regardless of whether or not you (as an editor) personally believe it is true. Falcon 19:07, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

falcon, if you dont know much about a subject, such opnions are invalid. please do some research.

Gabrielsimon 10:12, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

You have to cover medical perspectives since they are singnifacnt to many people's intial reactions to the otherkin thing (the other one I have seen involves people taking roleplaying way too seriously)Geni 12:05, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

all right then, add a medical p[erpectives section to the christianity and judaism articles,andill shut upabout it.

Gabrielsimon 16:38, 24 May 2005 (UTC)


 * What makes you think Falcon doesn't know the subject? I don't see anything wrong with his comment.  I continue to be amazed, however, by your continued bashing on people who are rewriting the section to be more sympathetic to otherkin, not less.  I think your problem is that you're offended by the mere presence of the section, when if you actually read it you'd see that, if anything, it concludes that there's nothing pathological about otherkin beliefs.  Regardless, we've had two outside opinions now, so unless you do want to ask outsiders for opinions I guess the section stays. Vashti 08:01, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Issue: quoting
Gabrielsimon and I have a disagreement over whether the subculture quote under "Medical perspectives" is valid.

I've quoted it as follows (irrelevant information replaced with an ellipsis):

"To be considered signs of a mental disorder, these atypical behaviors or mental events cannot be either ... individual variations that are expressions of a particular subculture (for example, coloring one's hair green and purple because one's friends are doing it). In neither case are the atypical behaviors or mental events a sign of an internal dysfunction: they are consistent with the norms (standards) of some social group to which the individual belongs."

It's been suggested that removing information from the quote is misleading, and that the whole thing should be given, like this (excised text in bold:

"To be considered signs of a mental disorder, these atypical behaviors or mental events cannot be either (a) culturally acceptable responses to infrequent situations (for example, grieving the death of a family member) or (b) individual variations that are expressions of a particular subculture (for example, coloring one's hair green and purple because one's friends are doing it). In neither case are the atypical behaviors or mental events a sign of an internal dysfunction: they are consistent with the norms (standards) of some social group to which the individual belongs."

What do people think? I don't believe the way it's quoted is at all misleading (although if it stays cut, I really must take that "either" out too). Vashti 22:56, 18 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I dunno; depression is a mental disorder, and often is triggered by the death of a family member or something similar. I'm not entirely certain that culture has anything really to do with a mental disorder; I'm pretty sure they are mostly characterized by maladaptive behavior. Of course, that definition pretty much includes every religion to some degree or another, but whatever. Titanium Dragon 01:23, 19 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Aye, but the question to hand is "can the beliefs and habits of a subculture be used as evidence of a mental disorder, in the absence of maladaptive behaviour?" The quote refutes that, which is why it's there - the religion or philosophy or whatever of otherwise healthy individuals shouldn't be considered pathological. Vashti 10:00, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Editing
Erm, why have we split spiritual and psychologic into two separate categories, then not explained the psychologic aspects? I mean, there are bound to be a few aspects of an otherkin's nature (if the otherkin is what he/she claims to be) that would be human, given the effect of hormones on psychology and the socialization process inherent in any culture. Thus, all human-form otherkin (as opposed to, say, a duck who thinks he's a rooster or a pig who thinks he's a dog [you know to what I refer]) will have a modicum of humanity. Even biologic otherkin would have that humanity in them, as the cross of human and whatever other entity that could cross with a human (I'm going with elf at the moment for the purposes of this discussion) would be more human than elf if the cross occurred fairly far back (as I'm betting many would claim, as it's a fairly common theme in mythology for a supernatural being to be in a human's ancestry). So despite some small chance of inheriting the complete haploid set of elf chromosomes fully intact (which is hardly going to happen, given crossing over and the number of meioses between the original elf and the biologic elfkin), there's some humanity going to be part of a biologic elfkin. However, at some point the spiritual aspects of the otherkin are going to manifest themselves in personality and such, which are parts of psychology. Basically, I would like a clearer distinction between psychologic otherkinness and spiritual otherness.

first, sign ourt posts, seconmd, thats not so easy. Gabrielsimon 06:32, 21 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Mainly because I didn't have time to write a section on the psychological wossnames, and there was no existing material on it in the article. :) Maybe "philosophical" would have been a better word; I was thinking mainly of the people who, rather than say "I have an elf soul", say "I associate with elves as a method of further understanding myself".  The split is there primarily to provide a structure to build on, and is based on the "biological, spiritual or psychological difference" from the older article, which I believe derived from otherkin.net.  Please feel free to contribute if you want to. Vashti 16:14, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about not signing a name, as I'm new and didn't know how to use the command.

I'm not sure what point I could make that would work as an effective edit (except for what I've already said, which I don't think fully addresses the point). The philosophic otherness intrigues me, though, so if a mysterious edit appears (which I promise will have a notification of change for the history), it will probably be the product of my musings. Iro 22:07, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Requests to editors
We've got another phantom editor - I thought it was Iro, but looking at the IP addresses I'm not so sure. Whoever you are, could you sign up for a user account, please? It makes it a lot easier to talk to you. :)

One of the things I'm trying to do at the moment is to provide sources for all of the information in the article, and (as Thodin observed) to provide decent structure and style for what has been a rather bitty and poorly structured article. I believe this is especially necessary given some of the extraordinary claims given here (compare the VfD on "Vampire lifestyle" for some of the accusations that have been made in the past).

Can I ask that people help out with this by providing sources for any new information they add, using Footnote3 style? Especially if you're going to add things like people's claims of having non-human biology, this is very important. Other things I'll mention in passing are Policy, especially impartiality (NPOV), and writing style.

I've also made more use of inline comments in the article than I should have, and this has been picked up on, so I'm going to cut some of these across to here - I suspect they only ought to be used when there is important information that needs to be pointed out to people editing the article. My mistake, sorry. Vashti 14:56, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I hadn't phantom-editted this article, as I knew it was a touchy subject (hence taking up discussion). I only "phantom edit," as it were, for typos and such. Thank you for thinking the newbie hasn't read the tutorial because he didn't wish to type the tetratilde, thus remaining anonymous. Iro 03:27, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, the alternative is to assume that people are ignoring policy. I assure you there are people on Wiki who are a lot harsher about this stuff than I am. Vashti 09:22, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Eh, no big deal. 68.91.132.61 22:06, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Draco18s's comments from the main article
[under "overview"]

Did the other communities spin off from the mainstream or did they evolve separately? Anyone? Bueller? [my comment]

A combination of both perhaps? I am not one to have been around long enough to know. Also is it possible that there is no origins to the term Otherkin, and that it came about as the result of a "stand alone complex"?

[under "bicameral mind theory"]

<-- This may be a interesting thought. I heard a voice at one time myself. "All Knowing," definately. However I did know that the voice was not my own, and eventually blocked it out. Sometimes I also seem to think as this section suggests, whereby /my own/ thoughts are seemingly not-mine and that I can, and have, refered to myself (in thought) in third person as a multitude of "voices" each with a distinct personality. Something to poner on, I think. ~Draco18s -->

Vashti 15:07, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Problems in recent edits
''Psycological difference offten turn up in changes in an individual's behavior. Not even Otherkin of the same type have the same impulses.''

''Some wolve-kin for example might have a craving for raw--or nearly raw--meat, while others would not. However most of these traits do seem to be widespread. Many dragon-kin for example exhibit a hoarding trait, weather they hoard things of value or triknets or just junk, nearly every one hoards something.''

''There are exceptions to this, even so far as going completely against it. A fuit bat -kin wanting nearly raw steak, for example.''

''Another examples of psycological behavior that isn't "normal" for being human, is noises: growling, purring, hissing, etc. Some even use these noises unconciously instead of "normal" pyscological responses to stimulous. Some of these may not even realise that do this until a friend points it out to them.''

I think these are behavioural differences that could apply however you explain your kin-ness, so I'd be inclined to move these further up to the main section heading and not have them under any of the sub-headings (I've renamed the former psychology section to make it clearer what it's actually meant as). However, I'm concerned that we're heading back towards the state the article was originally in, with a lot of information on therianthropes/weres/furries and vampires (who have their own articles at therianthropy and vampire lifestyle, as do dragons at draconity), and less that is generally accurate for otherkin.

One of the first things the article says is that otherkin has a specific meaning (mythology-kin) and an umbrella meaning (all the elves, fairies, dragons, vampires, werewolves and so on). However, I'm almost positive that specific information about the communities with their own Wiki pages is better done over on those pages. I would like to keep this page for specifics about the first meaning, and no more than generalities about the second. Thoughts?

''There may be cases in some types of Otherkin where biological differences may be more obvious. Such as a vampire having an extreamly low blood temperature. A normal temperature of 65 degrees farenheight (18 degrees Celcius) has been self-documented. The subject also exibits other bizare medical symptoms that would be considered fatal to a "normal" human, or where "normal" is fatal to the subject.''

This is going to need a good source, or it'll have to go. Sorry.

''However, most of those who claim to be Otherkin and are not (called RPers for the association with all of this to be role playing) are ussually found and routed. They may still continue to participate in the community, however is becomes common knoledge that they are jsut acting. It is also possible for an RPer to become despised by a community and forced out once they are found out.''

The problem with this paragraph is that it's POV (not impartial) - the article assumes that people who have been gangbanged by one community or another for being RPers actually are. This is very hard to determine, and certainly the Wiki article shouldn't assume that they are and refer to them as "RPers". However, the article probably needs something somewhere on "Elven Princess Syndrome", even if it just defines it. Need to find a reference for that. Vashti 15:17, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Just an idea: move totemism under the philosophy section, as that's one of the several manifestations of "connecting to a type of otherkind without being of that type" (unless, of course, I'm mistaken in your meaning). Iro 21:28, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


 * That's a good idea; it should probably be down there. Thanks. :) Vashti 07:08, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Plant Otherkin
Well I just found this site today. http://greenkin.qilora.com/ It's an otherkin who is from plants, with some biological aspects. I saw the new article outlines and they're very complex so I don't want to mess them up. I'm listing this here so someone will take care of it. Thodin 19:14, 26 May 2005 (UTC)


 * The thing is that, since the aim here is to write an article of encyclopaedic standards, every claim made by a single person or a couple of people probably shouldn't be incorporated. For one thing, the article would get pretty unwieldy if that happened, and secondly in the absence of multiple sources for this kind of information (due to the nature of the subject, most of the sources we have fit under Dubious sources quite nicely) one person's claims can't be considered reliable.


 * If there's evidence of this being a general trend in the community, it can go in, sure, but until then I would personally be inclined to leave it out. The page is fascinating, it just doesn't strike me as being wiki-safe yet. Vashti 07:44, 27 May 2005 (UTC)