This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
People who claim to be otherkin may be in complete denial. Sorry if my observations offend anyone.
Anyone who thinks they're otherkin are delusional, sure they may have some logic but have completely bought into some form of teenage-wiccan mentality of wanting to be 'something' other then themselves. Of course, you can't objectively prove the validity of otherkin. However, as a university psychology student I believe most people who believe they are otherkin suffer some form of depression/dissociative personalities. For a thesis i met up with certain friends and contacts online who believed they where otherkin, after interviewing 16 people I found the common pattern of otherkin phenomena happened like this
-Person learns of occultic arts, such as withcraft. After a few months of practising is completely convinced that magick works
-Person either exudes an internet persona that is egocentric, strong emphasis on self-importance. Possibly self-esteem issues(Narcissism?)
-Person becomes convinced by some form of higher figure, ie: someone claiming to be knowledgeble and have extra powers. Similiar to Covens and hierarchy.
-Person attempts to be far from 'normal'. Most notably associates themselves with the goth/emo/outcast subculture, doesn't want to conform, doesn't like authority.
-Persons where only children, or disliked their brothers/sisters
-Interesting to note that otherkin phenomena has only been big since the advent of internet. Possibly a person can be jealous or curious by the idea that there something more then human. Maybe people would go out of their way to become something to fit in with an assumed identity? (ie: someone who is aggressive may believe themselves to be a dragon, someone who is feminine may coincide with believing they're elves/fae).
-I am sure that none of the people i interviewed had schizophrenia or any REAL illness. However, many of the people i interviewed where very defensive covering their face with hands, biting lips, unable to maintain eye contact when describing things. I am likely to believe that these people are compulsive liars or cannot accept the idea that they may have deuluded themselves. I found half of the volunteers in questionnaires to be histrionic,narcissistic or schizotypical.
Sorry to offend anyone in this, i dont have problems with people who claim to be otherkin or have magical powers. Infact I found these people quite pleasant to talk too, but i think alot of these people are slightly disturbed. Anyone want to freely discuss this or ask me questions feel free. I don't want to edit the article but there is some sort of new psychological pattern emerging (like furry subculture and sexuality). User:Raddicks 8:15 23 July 2005
of the thoudans who say they are otherkin, sixteen does not a really good survey make... good start though. also, magic, in my personal studies of interivewing epople for the hell of it ( discusson groups) rarely has anything to do with thier laims to what they are.
Gabrielsimon
07:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
I think a lot of this article lacks in verifiability. I know there are lots of sources cited, they appear to be mostly from various otherkin-related websites. Ideally you want quotes from more reputable sources. There are quotes from a couple of .edu sites, but they're not even about otherkin. Anyone have thoughts on this? Friday 08:41, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
your thinking in wqys youd have to treat an article about science, etc. you cany think that way with an issue like this.
Gabrielsimon
09:01, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
I realize that there probably won't be very many legit sources on this topic. However, I don't think we should bend the rules, and risk making Wikipedia an object of ridicule. Controversial or strange topics need MORE verifiability than others, not less. Anyone think maybe this should merge with Vampire lifestyle and whatever additional specific-variety-of-otherkin articles are out there? If this is an established "spiritual movement", surely some respected person has written about it? On the other hand, if it's a bunch of kids playing vampire games online, maybe not. Friday 18:45, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
by your words, you sem to need to research this subject quite a bit more.
Gabrielsimon
02:22, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
also, vampire lifestyle i has very little if nothing at all to do with the otherkin issue. and why we dont merge all subgroups into one article i likly because of article size issues.
Gabrielsimon
02:56, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
although its not good in common practise, i feel it would be benificial if you were to listenin on some discussion grouprooms, if you can find one thats not about pathetic people trying to one up each other or some other childish thing... ill see if i can find something that would whet your appetiet for verifibillity when i get back froim work.
Gabrielsimon
08:57, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
again, if you yjink its all net ased, you reaslly havnt been reading,m and talking to many, now have you? Also you have to refute what, in your mind might be qestuionable, becasu of your unfamilliarity with this topiuc Gabrielsimon 16:18, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
As attempted to explain in edit summaries, the tag was removed because this subject is in an "elite" few wo dont have much printed material written on them, so the websites, by anmd large, should be treated as one would treat text materials on any other subject, if it reads well, and is made well, irt should be given cedibillity, this is the reason for the removal of the aforementioned tag. it is very true that there is very little writen about Otherkin in printed media. Gabrielsimon 23:03, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
if you can not find information in " scholarly" printed media, because it doesnt exist yet, what are you left with? you are left with many websites to go through. if thats all youcan findits what you must use, editors must have thier own discretion as to weather they think a site is a lone kook blathering on about stuff or its something thats back ed up by resaearch, and since its not hte editors own research it is not considered origional. as for the edit summary, i hav never seen you reinsert a tag on such flimsey grounds ( and yes, i have looked) Gabrielsimon 23:13, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
this article is one of a rew who are special in that its not paticulkarly easy to come across infomration that isnt "origional research" as termed inthe policey, so i propose an exception, an article specific bending of the rules, because otherwise there wont really be an article, except sources that state that the otherkin believers are insaine. Gabrielsimon 23:26, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
no. this article should remain free of that ugly thing. bewsides, ill put it back if and when my requests for clarity ever come to light... wait and see. Gabrielsimon 23:37, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
I've asked for comments on this article, in hopes of getting more people to comment on verifiability and original research. Friday 23:29, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
you just dont know how to leave well enough alone, do you? i saw anything you disagree with, you put up the RFC message. boo hoo.
Gabrielsimon
23:30, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Hi, I saw the RfC. In 2000 I edited the newsletter for a pagan organization in Texas and we had an article submitted about Otherkin (I remember because there was a big flap about it, most people in the org thought it was hooey, but it got published because it didn't violate editorial policy, which was not as strict as at Wikipedia, heh); I don't have all those back issues anymore, but the circulation was so small (less than 200) that it probably wouldn't help. Anyway, I don't find any publications in a quick Amazon search either. I happen to personally know that this is not strictly online and has been a pretty stable thing going on at least since 2000, but offline the group seems to be pretty insular and I don't personally know anyone in that community anymore. I read through
no original research and
verifiability, and I'm ambivalent. One the one hand they're not the best sources in the world, but on the other hand I'm not sure anything better can be found. I guess that wasn't very helpful, but it's my two cents. 10:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
That last comment is me. I put too many tildes. KathL 10:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
I read the article in response to the RfC. I have not had time to read the article in detail to determine whether it meets the standards of verifiability by citing its sources. Any claim that this article should not have to folllow the usual standards of verifiability is silly. There are enough researchers who write about spiritual movements that there should be published articles about Otherkin if this is a spiritual movement as claimed.
What I do see in the history of the article is a 3RR violation by an editor who has already been the subject of a user conduct RfC for 3RR violations. Robert McClenon 12:52, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
i changed it to spiritual movement, in response to someone wishing to delete the entire article, as i recall Gabrielsimon 22:38, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Also here from RFC. No article, including this one, is "special" in that it's free to diverge from policy for convenience. Wikpedia is one specific type of publication: an encyclopedia. As an encyclopedia it must base itself on external published sources.
Remember that the target audience of Wikipedia articles is the casual user, not the community of Wikipedia editors. Someone needs to be able to come here for the first time doing research on otherkin, read the encyclopedic article, and then verify that information against other sources elsewhere. Beyond grade school encyclopedias are starting points for research, not end points. "Wikipedia cannot contain original research" here essentially means "wikipedia cannot be a primary source".
It sounds like there aren't many alternative sources on otherkin, and that Gabrielsimon is trying to fill in that void. That's commendable and is an important academic function -- but the proper venue for publication of that research isn't an encyclopedia. I'm not sure what the proper venue is, although if nothing else there's always self- or web-publishing. Once there's a body of established primary and secondary sources available out there, then a Wikipedia article can be written based on them (barring conflicts of interest, of course -- it's not acceptable for an author to publish something on his own website and then copy it here citing the former; publishing in a respected publication and then coming here is a gray area).
In short: No-one's saying that development of sources on otherkin should be stopped. It's just that an encyclopedia isn't the place for new sources to develop. One can both do primary research on a subject and edit Wikipedia; it only becomes a problem when those two things are the same activity.
Since the current method of writing the article and conforming to policy appear to be exclusive, the former must give way to the latter, even if it is to Wikipedia's disadvantage in terms of total content. — mendel ☎ 20:58, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
lets have someone whos a little more experianced explaimn, shall we?
Gabrielsimon
23:02, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
oh ,adn friday its not a "condition" refering to it thusly likens it to a disease.
Off the top of my head:
The Village Voice article:
The self-published books of the Silver Elves:
Supporting the claims of the Silver Elves regarding their existence in the 80s is their mention in one of Laurie Cabot's books:
With regard to the existence of the vampire subculture, Katherine Ramsland published a book on it in the 1990s:
Sources I can't personally verify:
The 1986 Circle News Network article citing the Silver Elves, and the older group, the Elf Queen's Daughters:
Margot Adler's "Drawing Down the Moon" apparently had a reference to the Silver Elves as well:
One of Willow Polson's books has a chapter on otherkin:
Michelle Belanger writes books that are targetted primarily at the vampire subculture:
One thought occurs to me as a result of recent discussion: if Otherkin is a subculture rather than a spiritual movement, perhaps we can compare it to other subculture related articles. If a certain set of standards has already been applied to subculture articles and accepted, it seems reasonable to apply similiar standards here. I still don't think we should violate WP:V and WP:NOR, of course, but these guidelines are flexible. Does anyone know of comparable subcultures? Friday 00:15, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
compairing furry fandom and Otherkin is like compairing carrots and radishes, both vegetables, but ve4ry different... furry dfandm is a very different kind of subculture. Gabrielsimon 08:06, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
a lot of peopleactually enjpy amnd [practise scientology, just because you dont like it doenst make it nonsense, the samerule applies here. that you assume a lot of people would conider this nonesense is pov... Gabrielsimon 14:22, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
please, just as an excersize, remove yourself from your own opinions and exan ime the Otherkin thoughts and philosophy with an open mind, at least... i feel its a good idea for anyone who wites in this article to at least try that.
Gabrielsimon
21:00, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Sorry for the revert there, I thought you'd cut the section completely. I don't agree that "Awakening" is an appropriate title for the section, primarily because the article is aimed at people who don't know about the subject. Because of that, "Awakening" is a meaningless term that doesn't accurately sum up the section unless you already know what it's about. As written, the subject heading sums up the contents and only then goes on to introduce the technical terminology. Vashti 10:45, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
i find its a more fair phrase to put as the head then "becoming otherkin" becaseu as described, they already are otherkin, so how can they become what they already are?
Gabrielsimon
10:53, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
"Awankening the Otherness" or "Awakening the Other side"? or something like that maybe? less ambiguous,. and kinda point to " hey, heres where they tell you how they know what they are" etc Gabrielsimon 11:02, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
How about "self identifying as otherkin"?
Geni
02:04, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
that Does sound good. Gabrielsimon 02:13, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Okay, I think I've adjusted it somewhat for NPOV. Anyone like to comment on my edits? DS 23:13, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Actually, looking at this again this morning I think you're right about this. I'll have a look at changing the usage. Vashti 12:02, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
A question I think should be resolved as quick as we can is whether the OriginalResearch tag applies here. In similiar situations I've seen with the NPOV tag, people want to resolve these things fairly quickly. So it seems like it'd be useful to know whether folks agree or disagree. My main reason for thinking it should be there is that the sources given are dubious. I realize that this is a value judgement, but I'm not sure how to be NPOV about this issue. Friday 04:48, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
psudoscience isnt the same as beleif... but to go withthat for a moment... are you saying, say that the elnari and some dragonic otherkin are admissable beliefs but, say, someone who says hes, say, a centaur, would not be? Gabrielsimon 21:29, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
i must ask you to refrain from insterting the point of view that this group is the result of psychological disorders. Gabrielsimon 21:49, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
after reading both sections, i tend to agree with vashti. Gabrielsimon 22:03, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
so you are losing the battel to no matter how gently cal lOtherkin nuts? cry me a river. get over it man, go find someething usefull to edit. Gabrielsimon 00:10, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
I've suggested merges on a couple other articles, like Otakukin and Draconity. There is a potential concern of article length, but to me it sounds like parts of this article are going to go away. I'm thinking that if we remove the unverifiable stuff here, we could still provide a decent article here by explaining some of the subtypes. Thoughts? Friday 00:00, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
people like the very stubborn dreamguy would try to delete the information, based on thier POV... it would seem to be more trouble then its worth...
Gabrielsimon 00:04, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
I can see merging Otakukin, but I'd be very, very reluctant to merge Draconity, Vampire lifestyle, or other pages on major, distinct groups. Vashti 00:29, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
OK, I redirected Shiri (race) as that seemed pretty noncontroversial. I also redirected Species dysphoria to this page, as that was a substub with no hope of expansion beyond what is already covered here (although the Therianthropy article may cover the concept better than this article does, I'd have to compare the two, and maybe move that over because it applies to all cases and not just therians). DreamGuy 20:03, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
It sounds to me like recent conversations in Wikipedia talk:No_original_research#Proposals_for_exceptions_to_the_policy, plus a thorough reading of WP:V, lead us to have to remove (possibly significant) portions of the content here.
First off, does anyone agree/disagree that this is neccessary?
And second, if it is neccesary, how do we want to approach cutting things down? Friday 23:15, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
by the elimination of the completely unsourced and in my opinion bad faith section of medical perspectives, as per one of hte links yopu posted above, i bwelieve that the content has already been sufficuantly culled.
Gabrielsimon
23:18, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
DreamGuy, could you explain what you mean by "stop stripping out the plural forms like that", please. Vashti 00:01, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
People who claim to be otherkin may be in complete denial. Sorry if my observations offend anyone.
Anyone who thinks they're otherkin are delusional, sure they may have some logic but have completely bought into some form of teenage-wiccan mentality of wanting to be 'something' other then themselves. Of course, you can't objectively prove the validity of otherkin. However, as a university psychology student I believe most people who believe they are otherkin suffer some form of depression/dissociative personalities. For a thesis i met up with certain friends and contacts online who believed they where otherkin, after interviewing 16 people I found the common pattern of otherkin phenomena happened like this
-Person learns of occultic arts, such as withcraft. After a few months of practising is completely convinced that magick works
-Person either exudes an internet persona that is egocentric, strong emphasis on self-importance. Possibly self-esteem issues(Narcissism?)
-Person becomes convinced by some form of higher figure, ie: someone claiming to be knowledgeble and have extra powers. Similiar to Covens and hierarchy.
-Person attempts to be far from 'normal'. Most notably associates themselves with the goth/emo/outcast subculture, doesn't want to conform, doesn't like authority.
-Persons where only children, or disliked their brothers/sisters
-Interesting to note that otherkin phenomena has only been big since the advent of internet. Possibly a person can be jealous or curious by the idea that there something more then human. Maybe people would go out of their way to become something to fit in with an assumed identity? (ie: someone who is aggressive may believe themselves to be a dragon, someone who is feminine may coincide with believing they're elves/fae).
-I am sure that none of the people i interviewed had schizophrenia or any REAL illness. However, many of the people i interviewed where very defensive covering their face with hands, biting lips, unable to maintain eye contact when describing things. I am likely to believe that these people are compulsive liars or cannot accept the idea that they may have deuluded themselves. I found half of the volunteers in questionnaires to be histrionic,narcissistic or schizotypical.
Sorry to offend anyone in this, i dont have problems with people who claim to be otherkin or have magical powers. Infact I found these people quite pleasant to talk too, but i think alot of these people are slightly disturbed. Anyone want to freely discuss this or ask me questions feel free. I don't want to edit the article but there is some sort of new psychological pattern emerging (like furry subculture and sexuality). User:Raddicks 8:15 23 July 2005
of the thoudans who say they are otherkin, sixteen does not a really good survey make... good start though. also, magic, in my personal studies of interivewing epople for the hell of it ( discusson groups) rarely has anything to do with thier laims to what they are.
Gabrielsimon
07:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
I think a lot of this article lacks in verifiability. I know there are lots of sources cited, they appear to be mostly from various otherkin-related websites. Ideally you want quotes from more reputable sources. There are quotes from a couple of .edu sites, but they're not even about otherkin. Anyone have thoughts on this? Friday 08:41, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
your thinking in wqys youd have to treat an article about science, etc. you cany think that way with an issue like this.
Gabrielsimon
09:01, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
I realize that there probably won't be very many legit sources on this topic. However, I don't think we should bend the rules, and risk making Wikipedia an object of ridicule. Controversial or strange topics need MORE verifiability than others, not less. Anyone think maybe this should merge with Vampire lifestyle and whatever additional specific-variety-of-otherkin articles are out there? If this is an established "spiritual movement", surely some respected person has written about it? On the other hand, if it's a bunch of kids playing vampire games online, maybe not. Friday 18:45, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
by your words, you sem to need to research this subject quite a bit more.
Gabrielsimon
02:22, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
also, vampire lifestyle i has very little if nothing at all to do with the otherkin issue. and why we dont merge all subgroups into one article i likly because of article size issues.
Gabrielsimon
02:56, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
although its not good in common practise, i feel it would be benificial if you were to listenin on some discussion grouprooms, if you can find one thats not about pathetic people trying to one up each other or some other childish thing... ill see if i can find something that would whet your appetiet for verifibillity when i get back froim work.
Gabrielsimon
08:57, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
again, if you yjink its all net ased, you reaslly havnt been reading,m and talking to many, now have you? Also you have to refute what, in your mind might be qestuionable, becasu of your unfamilliarity with this topiuc Gabrielsimon 16:18, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
As attempted to explain in edit summaries, the tag was removed because this subject is in an "elite" few wo dont have much printed material written on them, so the websites, by anmd large, should be treated as one would treat text materials on any other subject, if it reads well, and is made well, irt should be given cedibillity, this is the reason for the removal of the aforementioned tag. it is very true that there is very little writen about Otherkin in printed media. Gabrielsimon 23:03, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
if you can not find information in " scholarly" printed media, because it doesnt exist yet, what are you left with? you are left with many websites to go through. if thats all youcan findits what you must use, editors must have thier own discretion as to weather they think a site is a lone kook blathering on about stuff or its something thats back ed up by resaearch, and since its not hte editors own research it is not considered origional. as for the edit summary, i hav never seen you reinsert a tag on such flimsey grounds ( and yes, i have looked) Gabrielsimon 23:13, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
this article is one of a rew who are special in that its not paticulkarly easy to come across infomration that isnt "origional research" as termed inthe policey, so i propose an exception, an article specific bending of the rules, because otherwise there wont really be an article, except sources that state that the otherkin believers are insaine. Gabrielsimon 23:26, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
no. this article should remain free of that ugly thing. bewsides, ill put it back if and when my requests for clarity ever come to light... wait and see. Gabrielsimon 23:37, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
I've asked for comments on this article, in hopes of getting more people to comment on verifiability and original research. Friday 23:29, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
you just dont know how to leave well enough alone, do you? i saw anything you disagree with, you put up the RFC message. boo hoo.
Gabrielsimon
23:30, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Hi, I saw the RfC. In 2000 I edited the newsletter for a pagan organization in Texas and we had an article submitted about Otherkin (I remember because there was a big flap about it, most people in the org thought it was hooey, but it got published because it didn't violate editorial policy, which was not as strict as at Wikipedia, heh); I don't have all those back issues anymore, but the circulation was so small (less than 200) that it probably wouldn't help. Anyway, I don't find any publications in a quick Amazon search either. I happen to personally know that this is not strictly online and has been a pretty stable thing going on at least since 2000, but offline the group seems to be pretty insular and I don't personally know anyone in that community anymore. I read through
no original research and
verifiability, and I'm ambivalent. One the one hand they're not the best sources in the world, but on the other hand I'm not sure anything better can be found. I guess that wasn't very helpful, but it's my two cents. 10:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
That last comment is me. I put too many tildes. KathL 10:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
I read the article in response to the RfC. I have not had time to read the article in detail to determine whether it meets the standards of verifiability by citing its sources. Any claim that this article should not have to folllow the usual standards of verifiability is silly. There are enough researchers who write about spiritual movements that there should be published articles about Otherkin if this is a spiritual movement as claimed.
What I do see in the history of the article is a 3RR violation by an editor who has already been the subject of a user conduct RfC for 3RR violations. Robert McClenon 12:52, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
i changed it to spiritual movement, in response to someone wishing to delete the entire article, as i recall Gabrielsimon 22:38, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Also here from RFC. No article, including this one, is "special" in that it's free to diverge from policy for convenience. Wikpedia is one specific type of publication: an encyclopedia. As an encyclopedia it must base itself on external published sources.
Remember that the target audience of Wikipedia articles is the casual user, not the community of Wikipedia editors. Someone needs to be able to come here for the first time doing research on otherkin, read the encyclopedic article, and then verify that information against other sources elsewhere. Beyond grade school encyclopedias are starting points for research, not end points. "Wikipedia cannot contain original research" here essentially means "wikipedia cannot be a primary source".
It sounds like there aren't many alternative sources on otherkin, and that Gabrielsimon is trying to fill in that void. That's commendable and is an important academic function -- but the proper venue for publication of that research isn't an encyclopedia. I'm not sure what the proper venue is, although if nothing else there's always self- or web-publishing. Once there's a body of established primary and secondary sources available out there, then a Wikipedia article can be written based on them (barring conflicts of interest, of course -- it's not acceptable for an author to publish something on his own website and then copy it here citing the former; publishing in a respected publication and then coming here is a gray area).
In short: No-one's saying that development of sources on otherkin should be stopped. It's just that an encyclopedia isn't the place for new sources to develop. One can both do primary research on a subject and edit Wikipedia; it only becomes a problem when those two things are the same activity.
Since the current method of writing the article and conforming to policy appear to be exclusive, the former must give way to the latter, even if it is to Wikipedia's disadvantage in terms of total content. — mendel ☎ 20:58, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
lets have someone whos a little more experianced explaimn, shall we?
Gabrielsimon
23:02, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
oh ,adn friday its not a "condition" refering to it thusly likens it to a disease.
Off the top of my head:
The Village Voice article:
The self-published books of the Silver Elves:
Supporting the claims of the Silver Elves regarding their existence in the 80s is their mention in one of Laurie Cabot's books:
With regard to the existence of the vampire subculture, Katherine Ramsland published a book on it in the 1990s:
Sources I can't personally verify:
The 1986 Circle News Network article citing the Silver Elves, and the older group, the Elf Queen's Daughters:
Margot Adler's "Drawing Down the Moon" apparently had a reference to the Silver Elves as well:
One of Willow Polson's books has a chapter on otherkin:
Michelle Belanger writes books that are targetted primarily at the vampire subculture:
One thought occurs to me as a result of recent discussion: if Otherkin is a subculture rather than a spiritual movement, perhaps we can compare it to other subculture related articles. If a certain set of standards has already been applied to subculture articles and accepted, it seems reasonable to apply similiar standards here. I still don't think we should violate WP:V and WP:NOR, of course, but these guidelines are flexible. Does anyone know of comparable subcultures? Friday 00:15, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
compairing furry fandom and Otherkin is like compairing carrots and radishes, both vegetables, but ve4ry different... furry dfandm is a very different kind of subculture. Gabrielsimon 08:06, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
a lot of peopleactually enjpy amnd [practise scientology, just because you dont like it doenst make it nonsense, the samerule applies here. that you assume a lot of people would conider this nonesense is pov... Gabrielsimon 14:22, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
please, just as an excersize, remove yourself from your own opinions and exan ime the Otherkin thoughts and philosophy with an open mind, at least... i feel its a good idea for anyone who wites in this article to at least try that.
Gabrielsimon
21:00, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Sorry for the revert there, I thought you'd cut the section completely. I don't agree that "Awakening" is an appropriate title for the section, primarily because the article is aimed at people who don't know about the subject. Because of that, "Awakening" is a meaningless term that doesn't accurately sum up the section unless you already know what it's about. As written, the subject heading sums up the contents and only then goes on to introduce the technical terminology. Vashti 10:45, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
i find its a more fair phrase to put as the head then "becoming otherkin" becaseu as described, they already are otherkin, so how can they become what they already are?
Gabrielsimon
10:53, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
"Awankening the Otherness" or "Awakening the Other side"? or something like that maybe? less ambiguous,. and kinda point to " hey, heres where they tell you how they know what they are" etc Gabrielsimon 11:02, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
How about "self identifying as otherkin"?
Geni
02:04, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
that Does sound good. Gabrielsimon 02:13, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Okay, I think I've adjusted it somewhat for NPOV. Anyone like to comment on my edits? DS 23:13, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Actually, looking at this again this morning I think you're right about this. I'll have a look at changing the usage. Vashti 12:02, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
A question I think should be resolved as quick as we can is whether the OriginalResearch tag applies here. In similiar situations I've seen with the NPOV tag, people want to resolve these things fairly quickly. So it seems like it'd be useful to know whether folks agree or disagree. My main reason for thinking it should be there is that the sources given are dubious. I realize that this is a value judgement, but I'm not sure how to be NPOV about this issue. Friday 04:48, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
psudoscience isnt the same as beleif... but to go withthat for a moment... are you saying, say that the elnari and some dragonic otherkin are admissable beliefs but, say, someone who says hes, say, a centaur, would not be? Gabrielsimon 21:29, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
i must ask you to refrain from insterting the point of view that this group is the result of psychological disorders. Gabrielsimon 21:49, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
after reading both sections, i tend to agree with vashti. Gabrielsimon 22:03, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
so you are losing the battel to no matter how gently cal lOtherkin nuts? cry me a river. get over it man, go find someething usefull to edit. Gabrielsimon 00:10, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
I've suggested merges on a couple other articles, like Otakukin and Draconity. There is a potential concern of article length, but to me it sounds like parts of this article are going to go away. I'm thinking that if we remove the unverifiable stuff here, we could still provide a decent article here by explaining some of the subtypes. Thoughts? Friday 00:00, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
people like the very stubborn dreamguy would try to delete the information, based on thier POV... it would seem to be more trouble then its worth...
Gabrielsimon 00:04, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
I can see merging Otakukin, but I'd be very, very reluctant to merge Draconity, Vampire lifestyle, or other pages on major, distinct groups. Vashti 00:29, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
OK, I redirected Shiri (race) as that seemed pretty noncontroversial. I also redirected Species dysphoria to this page, as that was a substub with no hope of expansion beyond what is already covered here (although the Therianthropy article may cover the concept better than this article does, I'd have to compare the two, and maybe move that over because it applies to all cases and not just therians). DreamGuy 20:03, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
It sounds to me like recent conversations in Wikipedia talk:No_original_research#Proposals_for_exceptions_to_the_policy, plus a thorough reading of WP:V, lead us to have to remove (possibly significant) portions of the content here.
First off, does anyone agree/disagree that this is neccessary?
And second, if it is neccesary, how do we want to approach cutting things down? Friday 23:15, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
by the elimination of the completely unsourced and in my opinion bad faith section of medical perspectives, as per one of hte links yopu posted above, i bwelieve that the content has already been sufficuantly culled.
Gabrielsimon
23:18, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
DreamGuy, could you explain what you mean by "stop stripping out the plural forms like that", please. Vashti 00:01, 1 August 2005 (UTC)