Talk:Otherkin/Archive 4

Medical perspectives section needs to be restored
How did I miss the removal of this entire section? What a blatant POV move. It could use some editing down and cleaning up, but removing the entire section is completely indefensible. I do not believe that at all was what the one admin was talking about in that section referred to earlier, and even if it were, admins do not have any greater right to say what belongs in an article and what does not than any other editor. Their admin status does not grant them more weight on content disputes, as they will point out to you when you ask them. This move was an example of Gabrielsimon pruposefully misreading and exaggerating one person's comments so that he could remove a section that he disagreed with based upon his POV, an extreme violation of the NPOV policy. DreamGuy 08:35, August 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * I have archived the section, so if the decision is that it needs to go back it won't be a problem. I don't think admin have any more authority over decisions like this than anyone else, but I do expect them to form better informed opinions.  However, I would like to see the outcome of the NOR discussion before putting the section back. Vashti 10:47, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The section as it stood looked like original research because there seemed to be no medical sources saying e.g. that people self-identifying as otherkins are likely to suffer from schizotypal personality disorder, and yet there was a large section on that, which seemed to have been lifted from the DSM but without linking it to otherkins. That is a classic example of original research: using accurate information to build a case. However, if I misread or am misremembering what was there, I apologize. I'm writing from memory. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:53, August 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * The thing is that there is also, as far as I know, no literature saying that people who identify as otherkin are any more likely to be clinical lycanthropes than anyone else, which was (I think) the original contentious point that the section was built around. There is plenty of literature documenting clinical lycanthropy, but none linking it to the recently emerged non-human identity subcultures. Vashti 11:06, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I just read the section more carefully, and it's pure original research. Every claim would have to be referenced to a medical source, or at least to a reputable newspaper or similar that discussed the medical sources. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:16, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

The point here that some of you seem to be missing is that the definition of clinical lycanthropy fits Otherkin to a T... and that's not original research, that's just the facts. Nobody is arguing that the article has to say they fit the full diagnostic to officially be declared as having the disorder, but this is a question of someone being depressed and someone having full on medical Depression. The overlap there is clear and self-evident. It takes no interpretation whatsoever to see it. Denying it is a highly POV act, and trying to hide behind the concpet of baning original research is rather incomprehensible. If looking at sources and mentioning sources is somehow "original research" than anyone listing anything on any page that is strictly factual can be removed as alleged "original research". The sources are there. Trying to claim that they need to specifically mention these people by the term they themselves invented and gave themselves and was specifically chosen to distance themselves from the medical description is a bit of absurdity already well explained to you elsewhere. To still be trying to claim that is rather nonsensical, and I think either shows a very selective overinterpretation over the policy to fit a specific agenda or is just plain not very well thought out as applied to the rest of this encyclopedia. DreamGuy 02:54, August 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * I think you first of all need to stop implying that people who disagree with you have a hidden agenda. I, for one, have no interest whatsoever in defending otherkins, I can assure you. Do you have medical sources for what you want to say about clinical lycanthropy, because I couldn't see any medical sources referred to at all. Sorry if there some and I missed them. Also, please take the point about the schizotypal personality disorder section: that was a classic example of original research. Perhaps if you can paste here what your medical sources are, we could find a way to formulate a section that wouldn't violate NOR. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:05, August 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying there's a hidden agenda. Most of the agendas here aren't hidden at all, though some are POV and some appear to be simply wanting to prevail in an argument without listening to the other side. Note that I said nothing about the schizotypal personality disorder section. You said the entire section was original research. That's clearly false, as there is a well documented mental disorder exactly covering this topic. Perhaps the problem here is that you are attacking part of the (former) section and assuming that the entire thing is bad and unsalvagable. Have you even looked at the clinical lycanthropy article? DreamGuy 09:35, August 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * I can't say I agree with everything you're saying, but you may be onto something: It is possible that clinical lycanthropy contains the only (or the majority of) reputable sources on Otherkin?  Maybe most of the content should go there, and this article should be a relatively short explanation of the subculture aspect?  I think the Village Voice article is a nice source. I'd rather see this article based on that than the sources currently cited.  This article could be about how Otherkin view themselves, and clinical lycanthropy is about the medical view.  Not sure what to do with Therianthropy, though.  Friday 03:12, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Pasting this comment further down, as it appears to have been overlooked entirely.


 * It seems to me that where you're [DreamGuy] falling down is in the assumption that the otherkin community descended from the online lycanthrope community. This is demonstrably untrue; the two communities evolved separately in parallel, only later merging to some extent.  I've put up a timeline of this at User:Vashti/Otherkin.  Also, based upon what I've read about clinical lycanthropy, I would want to see the medical sources before I could comment; do you happen to have any links to online copies? Vashti 10:43, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * In addition, the problem we have is that *nobody* reputable is discussing otherkin, one way or the other, either to say that the disorder applies or that it doesn't. The beliefs of the otherkin believers are no more or less verifiable than your own, in this instance.  FWIW, I think someone who came under the care of a medical professional citing otherkin beliefs would be more likely to be diagnosed with schizophrenia or some kind of schizoaffective disorder; the milder forms of the belief (which might well come under schizotypy, but so might any number of other religious beliefs - Christianity even has peer-reviewed literature for it) are not, in my experience, likely to be considered an issue. Vashti 11:35, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * There were a large variety of things that fed into the lycanthrope and otherkin communities. The difficult part is the documentation. I met a handful of people claiming to be werewolves in the mid 80s. Groups were already going strong in the late 80s on the Internet. I talked to "dwarves", "werewolfs" "elfs" and so forth. The strongest group I saw were the lycans/weres/howlers. And yes that's original research in the sense that it's unverifiable, but if we're talking histories there it is. The goofy part is that the lycanthropes clearly overlapped the symptoms of clinical lycanthropy (and let me restress something I said a few times but I want to make entirely clear, overlapping the symptoms does not automatically make someone have the disorder, as those have to be disagnosed on a case by case basis) but someone picking something that had no animal parts (like, say, elf) has all the same symptoms just with a fictitious humanoid instead of a fictitious animal or part animal. But of course clinical lycanthropy itself is just a subset of other more inclusive and wide ranging diagnoses. It seems quite bizarre to argue that some groups of otherkin would be considered completely psychologically different from the rest based upon superficial differences (or, since the animal forms are largely pushed off onto therianthropy article here, that the otherkin get a complete pass). I don't see how this makes sense in the slightest. DreamGuy 09:35, August 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * it looks o me like everyone is of the o pinion that the medical perspectives secton actually doesnt need to be restored, hnking by consensus at least.

Gabrielsimon 08:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * And it looks to me like you aren't really reading the conversation, as the topic is still being discussed. Your POV is already well established, so no need to repeat it. DreamGuy 09:35, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

please cease this hostile tact, read the civillity policey, and maybe begin to see that many others here, including nikpter ( check my fourth talk page archive to see) agrees that what was the medical perspectives section was origional research, thus was ruightfully eliminated. may i suggest finding a source for youre medical  viewpoint? Gabrielsimon 09:38, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll repeat, do you have links to or copies of the medical sources that you could let me see for myself? As much as I'd like to, I don't have several hundred dollars to spend on paying for journal excerpts.
 * The only journal source I could find on the web was a letter describing someone who thought they grew fur. Now, I don't think that imagery of that nature is at all common in the *otherkin* community (although I've seen one or two claims of it in the therianthrope community); all I tend to see mentioned by otherkin is discussion of things like eye colour changes or wing chakras, which are not the subject - my eyes change colour, mainly because they're green-blue and any corneal irritation makes the green stand out.  Otherkin don't tend to discuss shifting, especially not p-shifting, unless they are one of the people who overlap with the therianthropes in claiming a wolf or animal nature.
 * But it's things like this that make it original research. *You* think that clinical lycanthropy clearly applies; *I* think that  there is a good case that schizotypy applies, but neither of us have sources that state that. Vashti 09:47, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * And I'll repeat: have you even read the clinical lycanthropy article? It's really incomprehensible to me how anyone can be claiming there are no sources. DreamGuy 10:16, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

ill saythis once then, and soicne you say its incpprehesible, listen closely, these are entirely unrelated issues. Gabrielsimon 10:22, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * And what makes you say that? I mean, other than your hugely biased opinion that nothing about mental disorders should be mentioned because it's allegedly disrespectful. A real reason, not just declaring you are right. DreamGuy 10:29, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

agaoin, show some civillity please, and this issue is something related to spirutality, not psychology. Gabrielsimon 10:34, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Again, looking for a real reason. You can't just claim it's "spirituality" because that';s only the view of the true believers in it. That's one side. Another side is psychology. DreamGuy 10:45, August 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * I have read it. Have you?  Clinical lycanthropy is a psychiatric syndrome that involves a delusional belief that the affected person is, or has, transformed into an animal.  Now, doubtless my extreme POV is blinding me here, in the same way as it's rewriting English grammar references at Talk:Therianthropy so that they disagree with you, but I don't see any reference to otherkin beliefs here, and it barely applies to the therianthropes.  I have never encountered an otherkin or therian who thinks that they are physically an animal.  With regard to the "past or current transformation", I can see how it could apply at Therianthropy, but I cannot see the relevance of it here, since otherkin virtually never claim *any* kind of *physical* transformation.
 * Plus, here's a question for you: have you even read the sources you insist on, or just the abstracts? Because reading the abstracts alone, I see a lot of references to the syndrome's being "generally associated with severe psychosis", "acute psychotic illness", and I think the burden is on you here to demonstrate that the term is applicable to people who have odd beliefs, but are plainly not acutely psychotic or hospitalised.  The "psychopathological and psychodynamical aspects" paper looks interesting, with its mention of a continuum from normal behaviour to full-blown lycanthropy, but that abstract alone isn't enough to justify inclusion, IMO. Vashti 10:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, I have read it, but you need to reread it. You are trying to claim that it doesn't apply because you supposedly don't know of otherkin or therians who claim they are physically an animal (and of course even there I find that very hard to believe, as that was pretty standard). Clinical lycanthropy is more than just that tiny restrictive interpretation you pushed onto it to try to exclude "spiritual" otherkin. And I've already explained how not all of them are full-fledged clinical lycanthropy sufferers (like over and over and over). Your argument is the same as having an article about depression and not including a mention about clinical depression because not everyone who is depressed has full blown clinical depression. Its the same thing, just a matter of degree, same with lycanthropy. You seem totally unwilling to read the information in context or to try to test out your logic on other topics to see if your arguments would still apply. DreamGuy 10:58, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

insisnting on something that everyonr els knows is wrong wont get you very far. Gabrielsimon 11:01, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm saying that *your word is not enough evidence that it applies*. I look at the abstracts and the Wiki article and I see mention of cats, dogs, frogs, horses, even bees, associated with animal behaviour or delusions of physical transformation.  I see no mention of elves, fairies, dragons or the kind of topics that this article deals with, and those subjects, even if you could find someone who believed that they had physically transformed, and didn't, say, have a dragon spirit or think that they had descended from elves, are qualitatively different from the ones under discussion in the lycanthropy section.  To go totally off into left field, the abstracts agree that lycanthropy is *extremely rare*; how do you account, for example, for the 58,000 Google hits for "otherkin" and the 463 hits for "clinical lycanthropy"?  That doesn't sound like the same thing to me - if otherkin are a manifestation of clinical lycanthropy, where are all the writeups of the explosion of this obvious psychiatric disorder? Vashti 11:10, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Where does this stand?
This may be a dead horse by now, but I think it's worth quoting a paragraph at the opening of WP:NOR:

"The phrase 'original research' in this context refers to untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts or ideas that, in the words of Wikipedia's founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a 'novel narrative or historical interpretation'."

Just so my POV is above board, I think otherkin are just plain kooky (but generally harmlessly so), so there you have it. However, any clinical information about otherkin and the applicability of any clinical disorders should be specifically cited. It is clearly interpretive to state that clinical lycanthropy applies to folks who like to believe they are reincarnated dragons, or some such; however obvious it might seem to you or me. If you don't have a credible psychiatric source stating that the diagnosis covers otherkin, then it's flat out original research, IMO. Parker Whittle 04:50, 6 August 2005 (UTC)


 * At the very least, Otherkin includes the therianthropes, who very, very clearly are exaclty what clinical lycanthropy is talking about. I don't think dragons are excluded from that diagnosis just because they are fictional animals. The only real point you'd have in your argument would be for the non-animal otherkin, like the wannabe elves and dwarves and such. Honestly, if otherkin don't fit clinical lycanthropy then nothing does, because it's an exact duplicate of the symptoms. Your argument here is the same as if a bunch of paranoid schizophrenics decided to get together and call themselves vigilkin and incorporated the diagnostic criteria for the condition into their philosophical beliefs. It would be ludicrous to ban mention of the fact that the group's creed duplicates the medical disorder until such time as some source specifically clarified the connection, and then the vigilkin could just rename themselves noidniks and try to dodge the mention again. What you are suggesting makes no sense. DreamGuy 05:09, August 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't dispute your argument, just your credentials for making it. Your argument about paranoid schizophrenics doesn't really hold, IMO, because it's not like a bunch of clinically diagnosed lycanthropes decided to call themselves otherkin. There are neurotic behaviors that a non-psychiatrist might feel are covered by paranoid schizophrenia, but would not be considered so by a physician. Otherkin may have issues, but I would argue, once again, that citation is necessary to make any diagnostic claims. A diagnosis is a statement of fact. Unless you can cite anyone making such a diagnosis, then all we have to go on is your interpretation of the disorder -- that is original research. Other than that, I commend you for your excellent work on the article. Parker Whittle 05:50, 6 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I have never said that all otherkin would be diagnosed as clinical lycanthropes, but I think the fact that the criteria for that diagnoses are strongly correlated with many features of otherkin and especially the therianthrope branch is an extremely relevant point. As I've said I don't know how many times already, of course' each person would have to be individually diagnosed and not just assumed to have the disorder, but that in itself doesn't mean the topic shouldn't be brought up at all. And I really don;t see how "credentials" even come into it. You claim it shouldn;t be here, I claim it should, what makes you think your credentials are better, and if you are not saying that why even bring it up? DreamGuy 07:28, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Therianthropy vs Otherkin?
I suggested a merge: the subculture section of Therianthropy should go here. Any reason not to do this? I almost wonder if the two articles simply represented different factions which ended up with seperate articles rather than reconsiling their differences. Note: part of why I suggest the merge is that it sounds to me like unverifiable or questionably-sourced information should be removed from the articles as much as possible. If anyone objects to this, I'd like to know why; specifically, what is the difference between the therianthrope and the otherkin subcultures? Friday 03:19, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Now that I look at things again, it seems just as reasonable that this article should merge to therianthropy. I don't know how to even resolve such a question with limited sources.  The different sites sometimes have different definitions. Friday 03:54, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * It looks to me like Otherkin identify as any one of various types of "non-human", and this is the most general term. Those who identify as some type of real animal are therianthropes.  Those who identify as mythical creatures (werewolves, dragons, unicorns, vampires, cartoon characters) have various subtypes, many of which have distinct names.  Is this reasonable?  Friday 05:15, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * That's an accurate summation, yes. The primary reason that I reject merging therianthropy, vampire lifestyle and draconity here is that those groups have their own subcultures under those names, and frequently reject any description of themselves as otherkin.  Equally, most otherkin would be outraged by any description of themselves as therianthropes; the term simply doesn't apply.  Although these days a lot of elves and fae and other mythological groups reject the term "otherkin" for themselves as well, they don't deny that the term itself applies to elves or fae collectively.
 * Here's a new idea, then: we could create an entirely new page at Non-human identity subcultures or something, and then merge all the pages there? Vashti 06:03, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Been lurking in this whole mess because it's very educational, but I think that's the most elegant suggestion yet (merging all the pages under Non-Human Identity Subcultures). Kit 08:39:46, 2005-08-02 (UTC)


 * Seems quite reasonable to me too. Then we can describe the various groups with terms that (hopefully) none of them will dislike and want to revert.  One thing I've noticed a lot: if you use a term to describe a group, and members of that group don't like the term, you're just asking for edit wars.  So this way I think we can avoid all that.  Friday 13:38, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * PS. Another thing I like about starting that new article, it's a chance to start fresh and try to give a more neutral, factual overview, without having to fight with people who've already invested in the various existing articles. Of course, once that article is in decent shape and we want to merge/redirect to it, some may disagree with that, but we'll have to deal with that sometime.  I assume none of the various groups would object to being categorized as a "Non-human identity subculture", to me the term is accurate and implied no judgement whatsoever.  Friday 14:40, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

'Non-Human Identity Subculture' Merging, Neologisms
I took the liberty of making a new subcat for this in the talk. Vashti, you seem most researched of the active people here. Does 'Non-human identity subculture' constitute a neologism which we would be coining with this article? i.e., would our solution reinvent our problem? Kit 15:27:24, 2005-08-02 (UTC)


 * Neologisms may well be a problem we already have. Therianthropy aaserts scholarly use of the term, but doesn't verify it.  No dictionaries that I've found have that term.  "Otherkin" is certainly a neologism, I'd say.  However, it is also obviously in use within it's own community.  Friday 15:32, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * First of all, I haven't read the whole discussion on this page because I currently don't have the time, so sorry if I'm saying something redundant.. I like the idea of creating something like Non-human identity subcultures, but I don't really see the point in redirecting all these pages there. It should rather be an overview, what all these subcultures have in common, etc., linking to these pages that will give more detail. We also have a general article on Religion, and detailed articles about each religion. --Conti|&#9993; 15:44, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Note: a brief article has been created for Non-Human Identity Subcultures by Khulhy (status as a sockpuppet for Gabrielsimon is in question). Parker Whittle 03:28, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * No longer in question, see Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Gabrielsimon/Evidence. User:Ketrovin was also proved a sock and is banned. DreamGuy 07:07, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * Yep, no doubt about it. Sad, but true. You guys have found yourselves an easy mark. Parker Whittle 07:32, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * He makes two sockpuppets and disrupts countless articles for months, and we get the blame? Be fair. Vashti 08:11, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * Thou dost protest to much, methinks. I wholeheartedly agree that Gabrielsimon cannot be excused for these behaviors. At the same I think some editors (not saying you're one of them) have been a tad eager to provoke him. Perhaps I should have said easy target. Parker Whittle 17:01, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Mm, whatever. Why don't we get back to discussing this article without the annoying interference of Gabriel and his socks? DreamGuy 01:04, August 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't blame you, the talk page is unfortunately long. The problem is that the specific articles contain what some editors consider original research and/or dubious sources.  There simply may not be enough verifiable information to give much more than an overview.  This is a problem we don't have at all with established religions.  Even lumped all together, I think the "non-human identity" subculture is an obscure topic.  Friday 15:54, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Kit, "otherkin" receives 57,000 hits on Google, and has appeared in print at least once (Willow Polson's "The Veil's Edge"), so I suspect it doesn't qualify as an Internet neologism for Wikipedia purposes. "therianthropy" is a less popular term, with only 13,000 Google hits, but this still passes the Google test.  While "therianthropy" is a pre-existing word, all but one of the first ten Google hits deals with this subculture.  "non-human identity" receives a bare 37 hits, but I'd argue that we aren't coining a neologism, we're choosing a phrase to head an umbrella page.  How successful that argument would be, I can't say. Vashti 16:07, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I see your point here, and I agree that this is an "obscure topic" by that definition. This means that we cannot verify most of what is written here by other things than original research and/or dubious sources (i.e. websites about the topic). But what is or should be the consequence of this? I don't think that for that reason alone such articles should be merged somewhere, even without scientific sources these articles are quite well written and informative for the reader. There are also dozens of other examples that would fit under the "obscure topic" category (see Furry, Kemono, Vampire lifestyle and quite many articles on Unusual articles..), so I think what you mentioned is more of a general problem of Wikipedia than one that's just about otherkins. Should we really remove anything unverifiable from these articles? Even if the policy says that, I don't really see the point of it. --Conti|&#9993; 16:29, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

At this point I think people have really gone too far in making suggested changes. So far I have seen no consensus at all for the idea of merging all these articles into one, and it's absolutely ridiculous to do so under the guise of getting rid of (falsely) alleged neologisms only to move them to an article that clearly is a neologism. Naming policy here clearly states that articles are named for how they are most popularly referred to. 'Non-Human Identity Subculture' is a complete nonstarter in that department.

I also don't think the claims that this will help start this "fresh" is a good plan at all, because instead of starting from an article over which many compromises to try to make it more NPOV have already happened (although the latest nonsense about removing all mentions of the existence of medical disorders specifically covering these conditions under rather bizarre claims of "original resarch" is not resolved by any means) you'd just be setting yourself up to refight all of that from the very beginning.

And I also most strongly, strongly object to the ideas suggested by Friday on Vashti's talk page that a whole new website be created and that that one be used as an alleged "reliable source". That's an obvious calculated attempted runaround of the no original research and verifiability policies. DreamGuy 20:25, August 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * Have you seen the websites that currently pass as sources? Almost anything would be better than that.  I was making a purely pragmatic suggestion.  I'm not saying it would be ideal, because it wouldn't. I'm merely saying it would be better than what we have now.  Friday 20:55, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Personally, I think Vashti should publish his original research on his own website not as a way of circumventing wikipedia policy, but because he actually has done some excellent research but much of it is not appropriate here. I thought this was the spirit of Friday's suggestion as well. Kit 01:08:43, 2005-08-03 (UTC)

personally im not to fond of the idea of merging all the non human subcultuires ontpo one artice, this is becasue i beleive that it should be wset up like religion, a small article that links to many, which contain details about the specific factions and groups. Gabrielsimon 03:02, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Friday asked me to comment here on the problem of poor sourcing. I'd say that as this is a weird subject, weird sources are to be expected. Try to find the most credible sources within the genre, and steer clear (if possible) of bulletin boards, blogs, and the like. Be careful not to state anything as fact, but write A says X, and B says Y, and stick closely to what the sources say, without elaborating or saying what you think it means: in that way, you avoid original research. As for the idea of Vashti putting material on a website to quote from, I've seen this done before, and so long as the material is good and it's done responsibly, it can work, though I'd have to see the end result before I could say for sure. It would depend on whether Vashti is already involved in that area of research &mdash; if he is, well and good, but if not, it will be harder to support the website as a credible source within the genre. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:41, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Archival
I think we need to archive some of the old discussions on this page now; who's with me? Is the RfC still active? Vashti 06:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

seems pretty quiet, that RFC. Gabrielsimon 07:56, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, please archive, this is getting unwieldy and might be scaring away people who might otherwise have valuable input in the active discusstions. Kit 07:53:46, 2005-08-04 (UTC)


 * Okay - how far down should we go? Some of this discussion is very recent, and still up for debate, is the thing.  We could go down as far as "Medical perspectives needs to be restored", but that's going to net the additional debate on the headings issue, the debate over the original research tag (what's happening with that, by the way?), and other semi-open discussions. Vashti 07:58, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * It seems like the original research tag issue is settled as are numerous other issues. Archiving this page seems like a timely idea now.Kit 01:29:32, 2005-08-08 (UTC)


 * Okay, I've archived more than half of it, but it's still too big. Vashti 07:11, August 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * The archival doesn't seem to have taken... the last working archive is from july... If you are looking for other things to archive, the completely pointless "looking over the edits" by Gabriel's sock can go, and the Non human identity whatever can probably go too, as I think that whole discussion is dead now, isn't it? DreamGuy 07:33, August 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * Whoops, my bad. It should be fixed now.  If we just whip pieces out of the page to archive, we're going to lose chronological order in the archive page; won't that be a problem? Vashti 07:43, August 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * Not sure that matters, but then I haven't read up on the policies for archiving. DreamGuy 08:28, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Headings--both neutral and accurate.
I realize I'm new here, but I've read that wikipedia favors bold action... after reading all the talk (and cross talk!) on this page, I took a stab at improving Vashti's headings. I think that by matter-of-factly stating "these sections are about what people believe," a lot of confusion and contention could be avoided. This way, nobody will mistake the statements for findings of fact... and those who hold such beliefs dear will not feel their beliefs threatened by potentially loaded words like "alleged", "purported", or "supposed." -Alexandra


 * Thanks for your edits, Alexandra, and first of all welcome to Wikipedia. :)
 * I've done some more editing on the article, as you'll see; I like your compromise regarding the text of the awakening section heading, and I think it should be kept. What I've changed back is the heading "ways of being otherkin", which, as far as I know, has never been considered controversial even when those section subheads were under debate?  (DreamGuy, please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here).
 * I'm aware that heading wasn't controversial, but first, "ways of being otherkin" doesn't exactly flow logically into the content beneath it... secondly, and more centrally to the change, was the idea that labeling the section thusly would head off any future/recurrent controversy with the contents beneath it.


 * With "Ways of being Otherkin" as the heading, we're leading off with the idea that that these are literal phenomenon, so any mention of somebody being an elf in a past life/other dimension or having elven DNA must be qualified with what some term "weasel words." I figured by adding the qualifier to the major heading, those who feel the text is too wishy-washy can tighten it up without coming across as saying "this stuff is literally, factually, incontravertibly real."


 * I'm not going to argue with the reversion... but in the event that it all flares up again, I hope the solution is kept in mind. :P


 * --Alexandra Erin 07:58, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Gabriel, what was your issue with the change to the article text that I made? It seemed neutral to me, and more accurate than it previously was. Vashti 07:49, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Welcome Alexandra. Please be bold and sign up for a wikipedia account -- it's easy, and it'll make it easy to keep track of your contributions. Welcome to wikipedia, too! I like the changes you made with the adjustments Vashti made. I think this improves the neutrality of the article a great deal. Kit 07:53:46, 2005-08-04 (UTC)


 * I think we have to agree to differ, there. Otherkin are unquestionably real - they're those who believe that they are in some way other than human, and the subculture is heavily documented (I won't say "well" documented).  The phenomenon is very real.  We can't make assertions that otherkin really are what they claim to be (for example, saying "otherkin are elves, fae, dragons, etc."), but saying that otherkin are otherkin is just a fact.
 * My major concern was that you appeared to have changed the "ways" section to "Beliefs about", and then lumped all the lower sections underneath it as also being beliefs, which didn't seem good for the article structure. Vashti 08:06, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't believe we're disagreeing, merely miscommunicating. I did not suggest that Otherkin are not unquestionably real. However, the things they believe in... the stuff of the meat of the article... are neither unquestionably real nor unquestionably imaginary... if they were either, there would not be so many people questioning both sides! To draw a comparison, it is the difference between someone saying "I don't believe in homosexuality as part of God's plan" and "I don't believe in homosexuals." We can very easily prove that gays exist... obtaining a copy of God's plan and showing where gays fit into it is a different matter entirely. (I know, from reading your participation in the talk, that you already understand this distinction... I'm merely demonstrating that I do as well.) Anyway, this is my rationale in changing "ways" to "beliefs"... we are making statements of fact on what people believe, not offering opinions about the validity or truth of those beliefs. If not "beliefs", then maybe "perspectives" could be included in the title? A glance at religious and spiritual articles shows this is not an unusual way of handling the existence of divergent viewpoints.
 * That said, the awakening/identification section was moved by accident. :P While changing it, I ended up erasing the text, and re-inserted it by hand with the wrong number of == around it. I was looking for a middle ground wording, not a re-organization of the article. I'm pleased to see a streamlined version of what I wrote is back in its proper place.Alexandra Erin 08:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * *nodnods* The thing is that changing the section heading to "beliefs about being otherkin" really doesn't describe what the section is about - the different ways that people interpret their otherkin connection, for want of a better way of putting it. The whole article could be headed "beliefs about...".  "Perspective" is a good one, but doesn't seem right to me either, because it implies a viewpoint on *all* otherkin, rather than just on oneself.  "Forms of otherkin belief" is another option we could consider, but that also seems lacking in some way.  We need something that explains the section clearly, but also makes it clear that these beliefs are *personal* beliefs that don't deny the others. Vashti 09:36, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * My problem with "ways" is that it sounds like an instruction manual... I don't think anybody's hit upon a perfect way to word it, which is why I'm neither ashamed to have thrown something up to see if it stuck, nor chagrined that it didn't.Alexandra Erin 09:50, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

you seem smart, AE! Gabrielsimon 08:22, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I thought I would give it a shot. I believe this organization is both logical and NPOV. I think 'Some Otherkin Beliefs' says both that these are the beliefs of some, but not all otherkin (expressing that this is a blanket term, not a rigidly defined one), and emphasizes that they are the POV of the belief holders. I also think this organization makes more sense -- most of it is part of the Overview, and the Beliefs subsections should be labelled as subsections as they are now. Kit 22:49:19, 2005-08-04 (UTC)


 * Did further tweaking. Sorry, didn't see the explanation on "some"... but not sure that's really an issue. When you say beliefs it doesn't mean "all beliefs of all members" DreamGuy 23:05, August 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * However, now we have one heading that doesn't describe the section it heads, and another that uses an impenetrable jargon term. Like I said before, "otherkin beliefs" essentially describes the whole article; you might as well just call the section "overview".
 * The heading of this discussion is "both neutral and accurate". Previously we had accurate headings that weren't necessarily neutral.  Now we've got at least one neutral heading, but in the process of trying to make the headings neutral, they've lost all meaning. Vashti 23:58, August 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, so how exactly have they "lost all meaning"? Otherkin beliefs refer to wht they think (which I would agree should also cover Awakening, especially to make it more clear again that we are talking about their beliefs), the rest of the article is supposed to be about them themselves. DreamGuy 00:26, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

The first 'Otherkin Beliefs' subheading really wasn't useful. Why not just call it all Overview after all? The tone of the article itself does or should make it clear these are all beliefs of the subculture's members anyway. We now have the physical/biological/spiritual subheadings, and Awakening as part of the overview.

One option if this is still not satisfactory is to monkey with the 'Overview' itself, changing it to something like 'Otherkin History and Beliefs' or 'Overview of otherkin history and beliefs' Kit 01:48:12, 2005-08-05 (UTC)

So, getting rid of overviews... like the first part of the current overview section could be moved to the top (above the section head splits) and then the subsections could become full sections? DreamGuy 02:37, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Like this? I think it looks pretty good now, a bit more coherent in structure. Kit 03:35:40, 2005-08-05 (UTC)

I'm really not sure how "identification" implies "correctness"... or how using the subculture's own word for identification removes that implication... especially when the issue is who or what a person identifies as, not what they are. If you say a person identifies as a social conservative, this statement ("so and so identifies as a social conservative") is TRUE no matter what their actual beliefs are, and where they fall on the ideological scale. They do identify themselves as a social conservative, right or wrong, and whether or not a useful objective scale of right or wrong exists. Ironically, by truncating the heading to Awakening, I think Dream Guy has skewed the article in the opposite direction than he intended. Alexandra Erin 06:43, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with this change. I did correct a typo though.Kit 07:12:21, 2005-08-05 (UTC)

looking over the edit history
I was looking at this articles edit history and I came across something strange. Why would Robots be included at one point, and why were they removed?

Ketrovin 13:32, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

anpother question, why is DreamGuyDreamGuy trying to make facts about beleifs, as in it is a FACT that they belive in past lives, or it is a fact thatthey believe in awakening, have to sound like they are scientific factsz " down is the direction things fall in" etc. why not leave the belifs alone? i would propose that even if they seem NPOV to people for proclaiming that this be allowed to stay without " scientific" viewpoints on it, becaue its really only about belief. Ketrovin 19:57, 5 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't understand what you are trying to say. My edits in question have nothing to do with scientific facts but simply clarifying the difference between proven facts and what people believe. For example, this article staright out gave the implication that past lives were a real actual noncontroversial thing that really happens, and I just clarified the sentence to show that we are talking about their beliefs and not that we endorse them. So, yes, it is about belief, but encyclopedia articles have to clarify the difference between claims and objective truth. That's the fundamental building block of the NPOV policy. DreamGuy 22:07, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * until you can proove it doenst happen, why not give those who say they have had one the benifift of the sdoubt?  as with other beleif style things, in the context of an article such as this one, that are primarily about beliefs, should it be stated as facts?  i would beleive this to be self evidant.

Ketrovin 22:10, 5 August 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, let's play make believe and assume you aren't User:Gabrielsimon on a sockpuppet account. As a new user, you should go read Wikipedia policies on NPOV and verifiability and so forth. It's all explained for you there. DreamGuy 22:43, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

its completely verifiable that the beliefs exist, so in this context of an article about beleifs, stating that its POSSIBLE that past lives affect otherkin isnt relaly nessessary. and please, ive had just enough of that sort of thing for one day. insisting on adding words likeyou are is simply not in good with this articles context, as its from a sceince  point of view, which really doesnt belong  in an article about beliefs. also, pleae, try to speak with a cheery voice, instead of the rather threatening undertones i seem to be picking up on. Ketrovin 22:47, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Just as in news articles about beliefs, an encyclopedia describes the beliefs as beliefs, and not as facts among the community being described. The facts recounted in this article are the beliefs of those identifying as otherkin. If there are facts that may be cited (properly referenced by credible sources) that attest to the actual biology of otherkin, then they should be included. Otherwise, DreamGuy has definitely improved the article. Parker Whittle 23:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

WP:NOR tag still necessary?
With the recent round of changes, I think this article is in excellent shape. It accurately reports beliefs as stated by people who identify as otherkin, and seems quite well referenced to that effect. I'd be happy to see the tag removed at this point. Parker Whittle 04:54, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think the sources are still largely blatantly ridiculous, which was my main reason for putting the tag there. I'd love to see the worst ones go away.  However it looks like folks who know much more about the subject than me are already working on it, so I'm not going to put up a fight on this issue.  Friday 05:22, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

HOw bout that until better sources can be found, we will keep looking, but the tag should still go, its an eyesore. Khulhy 05:23, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I think it would be great if even 25% of the articles I've seen were as well referenced. When discussing beliefs, such as Atheism, it strikes me as appropriate to reference the believer's own statements as to the nature of that belief. It's a common practice, as far as I can tell, on the Wikipedia, as well as other encyclopedias. At any rate, I removed the tag. If anyone seriously disagrees, it can certainly go back up just as quickly. Parker Whittle 05:58, 6 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Common practice, true. Explicitly forbidden by policy, also true.  Personally, I'd rather see personal experiences used than some of the web sites this article currently cites.  Friday 13:22, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


 * PS. To clarify what I mean.. a lot of sources does not IMO mean "well referenced". I took the time to actually read some of the websites used as references here.  They sound like they were written by children, and they say things that don't make any sense, even in the context of otherkin beliefs.  This is why I think we'd be better off without them.  Friday 13:26, 8 August 2005 (UTC)