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. |
This archive page covers approximately the dates between Aug 2, 2005, and Aug 25, 2005.
Is there a difference between the subculture aspect of therianthropy and Otherkin? Sounds to me like they should be merged. Friday 03:13, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
(I would like to revert the change from "someone...they" to "someone...he or she", does everyone agree? Evidence from Fowler's Modern English Usage, 2000 ed.:)
Vashti 09:22, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
id fix it myself, but i cant, ive already changed that page today, and im rying to be good with the whole 1rr thing, but i do agree with what youve written, Vashti. Gabrielsimon 09:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
I already fixed it as part of a series of fixes... of course Gabriel if you hadn;t just blindly reverted my changes it would have already been right, because I fixed to by going back to the way I had it. DreamGuy 09:41, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
blaming me for your mistakes is not a healthy way to be, it prom,otes delusion.
Gabrielsimon 09:42, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
your proof probly is enoug to allow you to make that change with enuogh evidance to back it up, i saw go for it. Gabrielsimon 09:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
you and i are two, to his one, that sounds like majority, plus you brought some lovly proof. Gabrielsimon 10:02, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
a group, being singular, is still also referred to as they. Gabrielsimon 10:12, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
nmemebers of a group are they, even if a group is an it, thus there is some leeway, now , if you cant see that, perhaps its time to go to sleep. Gabrielsimon 10:27, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
DreamGuy, the source I quoted is one of the authoritative references for English usage, with historical references. What's your source? Vashti 10:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
outdated, sorry. Gabrielsimon 10:39, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
And, heck, reading the section quoted above for contextt, it's clear that they consider he or she preferrable. DreamGuy 10:42, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
just give it a rest, child. Gabrielsimon 10:43, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
They, them, their, etc. are always plural, period. And to say hardly anyone notices them? Bull. Seeing such deplorable manglings of the English language is so jarring and jolting that I cringe every time I hear them, and seeing even one singular they in an article or book makes the rest of it seem as though it were written in crayon by a 4 year old. -- Corvun 18:39, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
include the deletion of he derogatory strange, and the changeing of controversial to difficult, becasue there doesnt seem to be any edidance of a controversy, and since its npot all westernes who beleive tis a mental illness, insterion of SOME, and becasue its clear that most who think its a mental illness do not know enough about therianthropy to make a fair call, i interted the word Uninfomred. Gabrielsimon 02:05, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
comment above was deleted by Gabriel twice -- STOP DOING THAT -- you know you aren't allowed to erase other people's comments from article talk pages, and trying to rationalize that it was justified because I forgot to sign is ludicrous. DreamGuy 06:42, August 4, 2005 (UTC) - nmope, once, first comments ewere deleted becasue they were UNSIGNED. Gabrielsimon 06:44, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
uninformed might be a bit harsh, i admit, how would "usually underinformed" do instead? Gabrielsimon 06:30, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
yes, it is USUAL, and yes it is underinformed individuals liek yourself whpo dont get it, who insisit on reading half of things and lilly understanding les. go read more, then come back. besides, i wasnt asking you, i was asking bryan Gabrielsimon 06:44, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
because hesannoyingly tryingto get me blockedand banned, i no longer take anytthing he has to sat seriously, thoughj im perfectly willing to discuss thingsw ith you. Gabrielsimon 07:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Why precicely is this page protected? There is no clear reason for this in the talkpage: the only conclusion I can draw is that an editor was placing false protection tags. Is this not counterproductive in that case? Falcon 08:11, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
Gabrielsimon 08:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC) Dreamguy isat his oldtricksofmaking drasticchanges without asking anyone and then edit warring . Gabrielsimon 08:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Did anybody file the 3RR report on Gabrielsimon? He had like 5 reverts in 24 hours here... seems to me the proper action would have been to block Gabriel and leave the article, so the editors actually working to iprove it could do so. DreamGuy 08:26, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
what the hell are you tslkin about? Gabrielsimon 08:27, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
i kmnowthat rule, but, its usually thje SAME version thatgetsreverted that is the complanant andblokableversion() ivebeen dinged like ten times, i know)andas forthisarticle, there weresignificantdiferences. ( i alsohope significantenough) Gabrielsimon 08:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Basically, the subcultural phenomenon of therianthropy is a subset of Otherkinship. A Therianthrope belive s/he has is psychologically, emotionally, or spiritually more connected to non-human animals, such as wolves, dogs, kangaroos, crows, or potentially even non-avain dinosaurus, than with humans. An Otherkin has similar beliefs, but greatly expandedn. The Otherkin may feel s/he has the psychological, emotional, or spiritually of any number of "mundane" species or "arcane species'. Kitsunes, Faes, Elves, Dragons, Gryphons, Vampyres, Gnomes, whatever.
So while a therianthrope would be considered a form of Otherkin, an Otherkin about be just about anything -- not just a therianthropel -- Corvun 08:59, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
it canalso be sargued, specially by therians, thaa therians are based on natural animals, or tend to be, weathe extinct or not, and Otherkin are based on , by and large, more of the supernatural sort of creature. Gabrielsimon 09:01, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Raven and coyotee are two tohers alongthe lines you might be trying to speakof, andif that is the case then i understnad completely.
Gabrielsimon 09:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
no no, notthe eurpoean thoughts of Raven, the Haida Raven, the Trickster :) " raven who stole the moon" etc Gabrielsimon 09:45, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
I've protected this page because the reverting started up again between DreamGuy and Gabrielsimon, which has affected a number of pages recently. When other editors are ready to start editing it again, please leave a note on my talk page, or if I'm not around, go to WP:RFPP. I also see there's an allegation of a 3RR violation, so if anyone wants to write up the diffs for WP:AN/3RR, I'll take a look. Please include a link to the version reverted to, as well the diffs to the four reverts. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 09:14, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
i was trying to avoid anedit conclict wheni suggested protection. please dont blame me for the very sutbborn other user. Gabrielsimon 09:16, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Gabriel, you are being just as stubborn as DreamGuy here. Anyway, I'll be removing the protection when I get home tonight and can spend some time paying attention to the page; page protection is a very blunt instrument to use in cases like this, when there's a problem with two editors revert-warring the 3RR is a more suitable instrument to reduce disruption. Bryan 14:55, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
I have unprotected the page. I'm watching it closely now with the 3RR at the ready, and I plan to be liberal with its interpretation if this same argument starts right back up again; nobody think they can slip "complex" reverts past, if a particular bit of wording is flip-flopping back and forth I'll consider it a revert even if other stuff is going on at the same time. There's no hurry to "fix" this article either way, please take future disagreements straight here to talk. Bryan 23:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, so much for my project for the evening. Jayjg requested that I reprotect the page since I had made an edit to the article previously that was related to the argument. I'm putting an unprotect request on RfP instead. Bryan 00:27, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
"When people believe they change into an animal form (theriomorphosis), or possess supernatural non-human animal traits, the term clinical lycanthropy is often used. This classification is a form of mental illness, though many anthropologists would point out that the belief has extensive religious precedent in shamanic cultures."
I've removed the merge tag because from what I can see here, the explanation here is not limited to the Otherkin subculture. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:42, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
I do not beleive that THerianthropy has anything to do with clinical lycanthropy, simply becaasue Clinical Lycanthropy is a medical condition, andTherianthropy is more of a spiritual beleief, most of the time Gavin the Chosen 16:45, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
how is it not usefull to try to make improovements, even when others tend to disagree, largely becasue i rearly explain myself, because its not easy... Gavin the Chosen 17:09, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
I know you think you are being useful. I do not doubt your good faith. I also think that dissent is an important thing, especially to wikipedia. But it is not useful to make POV edits. Once multiple (yes, multiple) editors have told you that the change you want to make violates NPOV, you should start to examine what you are doing. Removing this link is not appropriate. If the article said "Therians are all clinical lycanthropes," you would certainly have a case. But it doesn't. It presents a logical and unbiased comparison of the topics. What you are trying to do is keep the reader from reading on into clinical lycanthropy. This is essentially censorship. Mistercow 17:20, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
As an Administrator, I am concerned about the unexplained deletion of an entire section of this article. I believe the customary practice is to copy the disputed text to the talk page - and then discuss it.
Also, let's all try to avoid personal remarks but confine our remarks to the article itself. I object to the tone of remarks like the following:
This article is about humans transforming into animals - in fiction, legend and (possibly) real life. Let's talk about that subject, and how Wikipedia can present knowledge about it to the world: accurately and without bias. Uncle Ed 17:24, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
Good point. I actually didn't mean for my tone to be attacking when I said "you should take your own advice". My intent was to point out that Gavin's statement was inappropriate, not to literally say he should stop editing. Alas, tone is a finicky thing when writing. My apologies. Mistercow 19:30, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Therians and Vampires.
I appreciate this article which seems to be, generally, accurate. There are a couple of areas that I differ somewhat.
I do not believe that the increased interaction of the Therian and Vampire communities has much to do with White Wolf. Most "graymuzzles" are neutral about Vampires and tend to be open to relationships with them. The younger Therians who begin with a belief that Therians and Vampires are "supposed to be" antagonistic quickly find in the forums that this antagonism doesn't necesarily exist. My own activities carried me onto the old Pathways to Darkness forum back in 2000 and I met a Vampire there with some interesting ideas about the Therian Community. I wanted to know more of his position so I and another Therian drove to Atlanta to meet with him. We developed a friendship which lead to me meeting other members of the Vampire community. It was a fairly natural process and did not involve roleplaying at all. That is the type of experience I've heard other Therians relate. Wolf VanZandt 11/21/05
Therians and Furries
Most of the established Therians that I know do not seem to think that the difference between Therians and Furries is a matter of degree. Briefly, the most commonly held belief that I've run into is that Furryism is a lifestyle and a Furry is a person that's chosen that lifestyle. Therians do not choose to be Therians. It's either a matter of birth or something that happens in early childhood development. Wolf VanZandt 11/21/05
Development of structure in the Therian community
Although it is true that the Therian community worldwide does not have a well defined hierarchy, there is nevertheless some structure - and it is developing over time. I can identify at least two social units developing - Howls would be the oldest and some are very cohesive. For instance the SEHowl has been running consistently for about 8 years and has a very stable core membership.
There also seems to be an ever increasing number of extended family units. Therians are tending more and more to migrate into these groups.
Regardless, there is certainly a shift from Internet interaction to real life interaction and the formation of more cohesive groups. There is also a stable folkways developing. Wolf VanZandt 11/21/05
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. |
This archive page covers approximately the dates between Aug 2, 2005, and Aug 25, 2005.
Is there a difference between the subculture aspect of therianthropy and Otherkin? Sounds to me like they should be merged. Friday 03:13, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
(I would like to revert the change from "someone...they" to "someone...he or she", does everyone agree? Evidence from Fowler's Modern English Usage, 2000 ed.:)
Vashti 09:22, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
id fix it myself, but i cant, ive already changed that page today, and im rying to be good with the whole 1rr thing, but i do agree with what youve written, Vashti. Gabrielsimon 09:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
I already fixed it as part of a series of fixes... of course Gabriel if you hadn;t just blindly reverted my changes it would have already been right, because I fixed to by going back to the way I had it. DreamGuy 09:41, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
blaming me for your mistakes is not a healthy way to be, it prom,otes delusion.
Gabrielsimon 09:42, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
your proof probly is enoug to allow you to make that change with enuogh evidance to back it up, i saw go for it. Gabrielsimon 09:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
you and i are two, to his one, that sounds like majority, plus you brought some lovly proof. Gabrielsimon 10:02, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
a group, being singular, is still also referred to as they. Gabrielsimon 10:12, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
nmemebers of a group are they, even if a group is an it, thus there is some leeway, now , if you cant see that, perhaps its time to go to sleep. Gabrielsimon 10:27, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
DreamGuy, the source I quoted is one of the authoritative references for English usage, with historical references. What's your source? Vashti 10:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
outdated, sorry. Gabrielsimon 10:39, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
And, heck, reading the section quoted above for contextt, it's clear that they consider he or she preferrable. DreamGuy 10:42, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
just give it a rest, child. Gabrielsimon 10:43, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
They, them, their, etc. are always plural, period. And to say hardly anyone notices them? Bull. Seeing such deplorable manglings of the English language is so jarring and jolting that I cringe every time I hear them, and seeing even one singular they in an article or book makes the rest of it seem as though it were written in crayon by a 4 year old. -- Corvun 18:39, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
include the deletion of he derogatory strange, and the changeing of controversial to difficult, becasue there doesnt seem to be any edidance of a controversy, and since its npot all westernes who beleive tis a mental illness, insterion of SOME, and becasue its clear that most who think its a mental illness do not know enough about therianthropy to make a fair call, i interted the word Uninfomred. Gabrielsimon 02:05, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
comment above was deleted by Gabriel twice -- STOP DOING THAT -- you know you aren't allowed to erase other people's comments from article talk pages, and trying to rationalize that it was justified because I forgot to sign is ludicrous. DreamGuy 06:42, August 4, 2005 (UTC) - nmope, once, first comments ewere deleted becasue they were UNSIGNED. Gabrielsimon 06:44, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
uninformed might be a bit harsh, i admit, how would "usually underinformed" do instead? Gabrielsimon 06:30, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
yes, it is USUAL, and yes it is underinformed individuals liek yourself whpo dont get it, who insisit on reading half of things and lilly understanding les. go read more, then come back. besides, i wasnt asking you, i was asking bryan Gabrielsimon 06:44, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
because hesannoyingly tryingto get me blockedand banned, i no longer take anytthing he has to sat seriously, thoughj im perfectly willing to discuss thingsw ith you. Gabrielsimon 07:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Why precicely is this page protected? There is no clear reason for this in the talkpage: the only conclusion I can draw is that an editor was placing false protection tags. Is this not counterproductive in that case? Falcon 08:11, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
Gabrielsimon 08:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC) Dreamguy isat his oldtricksofmaking drasticchanges without asking anyone and then edit warring . Gabrielsimon 08:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Did anybody file the 3RR report on Gabrielsimon? He had like 5 reverts in 24 hours here... seems to me the proper action would have been to block Gabriel and leave the article, so the editors actually working to iprove it could do so. DreamGuy 08:26, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
what the hell are you tslkin about? Gabrielsimon 08:27, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
i kmnowthat rule, but, its usually thje SAME version thatgetsreverted that is the complanant andblokableversion() ivebeen dinged like ten times, i know)andas forthisarticle, there weresignificantdiferences. ( i alsohope significantenough) Gabrielsimon 08:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Basically, the subcultural phenomenon of therianthropy is a subset of Otherkinship. A Therianthrope belive s/he has is psychologically, emotionally, or spiritually more connected to non-human animals, such as wolves, dogs, kangaroos, crows, or potentially even non-avain dinosaurus, than with humans. An Otherkin has similar beliefs, but greatly expandedn. The Otherkin may feel s/he has the psychological, emotional, or spiritually of any number of "mundane" species or "arcane species'. Kitsunes, Faes, Elves, Dragons, Gryphons, Vampyres, Gnomes, whatever.
So while a therianthrope would be considered a form of Otherkin, an Otherkin about be just about anything -- not just a therianthropel -- Corvun 08:59, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
it canalso be sargued, specially by therians, thaa therians are based on natural animals, or tend to be, weathe extinct or not, and Otherkin are based on , by and large, more of the supernatural sort of creature. Gabrielsimon 09:01, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Raven and coyotee are two tohers alongthe lines you might be trying to speakof, andif that is the case then i understnad completely.
Gabrielsimon 09:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
no no, notthe eurpoean thoughts of Raven, the Haida Raven, the Trickster :) " raven who stole the moon" etc Gabrielsimon 09:45, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
I've protected this page because the reverting started up again between DreamGuy and Gabrielsimon, which has affected a number of pages recently. When other editors are ready to start editing it again, please leave a note on my talk page, or if I'm not around, go to WP:RFPP. I also see there's an allegation of a 3RR violation, so if anyone wants to write up the diffs for WP:AN/3RR, I'll take a look. Please include a link to the version reverted to, as well the diffs to the four reverts. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 09:14, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
i was trying to avoid anedit conclict wheni suggested protection. please dont blame me for the very sutbborn other user. Gabrielsimon 09:16, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Gabriel, you are being just as stubborn as DreamGuy here. Anyway, I'll be removing the protection when I get home tonight and can spend some time paying attention to the page; page protection is a very blunt instrument to use in cases like this, when there's a problem with two editors revert-warring the 3RR is a more suitable instrument to reduce disruption. Bryan 14:55, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
I have unprotected the page. I'm watching it closely now with the 3RR at the ready, and I plan to be liberal with its interpretation if this same argument starts right back up again; nobody think they can slip "complex" reverts past, if a particular bit of wording is flip-flopping back and forth I'll consider it a revert even if other stuff is going on at the same time. There's no hurry to "fix" this article either way, please take future disagreements straight here to talk. Bryan 23:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, so much for my project for the evening. Jayjg requested that I reprotect the page since I had made an edit to the article previously that was related to the argument. I'm putting an unprotect request on RfP instead. Bryan 00:27, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
"When people believe they change into an animal form (theriomorphosis), or possess supernatural non-human animal traits, the term clinical lycanthropy is often used. This classification is a form of mental illness, though many anthropologists would point out that the belief has extensive religious precedent in shamanic cultures."
I've removed the merge tag because from what I can see here, the explanation here is not limited to the Otherkin subculture. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:42, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
I do not beleive that THerianthropy has anything to do with clinical lycanthropy, simply becaasue Clinical Lycanthropy is a medical condition, andTherianthropy is more of a spiritual beleief, most of the time Gavin the Chosen 16:45, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
how is it not usefull to try to make improovements, even when others tend to disagree, largely becasue i rearly explain myself, because its not easy... Gavin the Chosen 17:09, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
I know you think you are being useful. I do not doubt your good faith. I also think that dissent is an important thing, especially to wikipedia. But it is not useful to make POV edits. Once multiple (yes, multiple) editors have told you that the change you want to make violates NPOV, you should start to examine what you are doing. Removing this link is not appropriate. If the article said "Therians are all clinical lycanthropes," you would certainly have a case. But it doesn't. It presents a logical and unbiased comparison of the topics. What you are trying to do is keep the reader from reading on into clinical lycanthropy. This is essentially censorship. Mistercow 17:20, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
As an Administrator, I am concerned about the unexplained deletion of an entire section of this article. I believe the customary practice is to copy the disputed text to the talk page - and then discuss it.
Also, let's all try to avoid personal remarks but confine our remarks to the article itself. I object to the tone of remarks like the following:
This article is about humans transforming into animals - in fiction, legend and (possibly) real life. Let's talk about that subject, and how Wikipedia can present knowledge about it to the world: accurately and without bias. Uncle Ed 17:24, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
Good point. I actually didn't mean for my tone to be attacking when I said "you should take your own advice". My intent was to point out that Gavin's statement was inappropriate, not to literally say he should stop editing. Alas, tone is a finicky thing when writing. My apologies. Mistercow 19:30, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Therians and Vampires.
I appreciate this article which seems to be, generally, accurate. There are a couple of areas that I differ somewhat.
I do not believe that the increased interaction of the Therian and Vampire communities has much to do with White Wolf. Most "graymuzzles" are neutral about Vampires and tend to be open to relationships with them. The younger Therians who begin with a belief that Therians and Vampires are "supposed to be" antagonistic quickly find in the forums that this antagonism doesn't necesarily exist. My own activities carried me onto the old Pathways to Darkness forum back in 2000 and I met a Vampire there with some interesting ideas about the Therian Community. I wanted to know more of his position so I and another Therian drove to Atlanta to meet with him. We developed a friendship which lead to me meeting other members of the Vampire community. It was a fairly natural process and did not involve roleplaying at all. That is the type of experience I've heard other Therians relate. Wolf VanZandt 11/21/05
Therians and Furries
Most of the established Therians that I know do not seem to think that the difference between Therians and Furries is a matter of degree. Briefly, the most commonly held belief that I've run into is that Furryism is a lifestyle and a Furry is a person that's chosen that lifestyle. Therians do not choose to be Therians. It's either a matter of birth or something that happens in early childhood development. Wolf VanZandt 11/21/05
Development of structure in the Therian community
Although it is true that the Therian community worldwide does not have a well defined hierarchy, there is nevertheless some structure - and it is developing over time. I can identify at least two social units developing - Howls would be the oldest and some are very cohesive. For instance the SEHowl has been running consistently for about 8 years and has a very stable core membership.
There also seems to be an ever increasing number of extended family units. Therians are tending more and more to migrate into these groups.
Regardless, there is certainly a shift from Internet interaction to real life interaction and the formation of more cohesive groups. There is also a stable folkways developing. Wolf VanZandt 11/21/05