Talk:Otherkin/Archive 3

Self-delusion?

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)

Verifiability and sources

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)

I was assuming that once unverifiable things were removed, the articles in question would be smaller and thus make more sense together as one. Of course, this could prove not to be the case. I suppose the first thing is making sure it's verifiable. Does anyone have any reputable sources talking about otherkin? I googled and got lots of results, but the top results were kinds of sites already referenced here, plus the wikipedia page, and lots of forums for otherkin. I'm not sure where to find proper sources. Self-described otherkin talking about themselves on the net isn't a particularly good source.

I wasn't trying to make any weird factual claims about otherkin, so I'm not sure why you say I need to research it more. But, I'm willing to; why do you think I'm asking for sources? This article already says that vampire lifestylers a variety of otherkin, so I'm not sure why you're objecting there. Anyway, there's quite a lot of this stuff on the internet, I'm not trying to claim it doesn't exist or anything, I'm trying to find better sources. Friday 05:06, 25 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)

Friday, the impression I'm getting is that you want to remove most of the substance of the article, leaving only the few paragraphs that can be gleaned from the minimal independent sources that are out there? I'd be very sorry to see that happen to an article on what is certainly a notable subculture. I did find that the sources dealing with this topic were dubious, which is why the article (or at least, I hope, the parts I had a hand in) talks about the claims Otherkin make and the beliefs that they hold, and does not state any of these as fact. This is the recommended practice stated in the verifiability policy.

This article does suffer from a tendency for people to add in material that verges on being demonstrably untrue and/or sensationalistic, which is why I eventually gave up working on it. Vashti 09:38, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

By the way, what's your source for the Elenari being a group outside the mainstream otherkin community? ;) Vashti 09:46, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't want to jump into anything yet, I was trying to feel out the situation. However I'd like to see better verifiability. If the only sources we're going to find are web sites, maybe otherkin should be considered an "internet phenomenom"? If we can find no mention of it outside the net, I'd say by definition it's an internet phenomenom, and should probably be treated like other internet phenomena. I'm afraid that this article will function as an "original research magnet", which I don't like to see. I wasn't sure who you were asking about the source for Elenari being outside "mainstream otherkin" (is there such a thing?!?), but I have no source for that at all, and didn't mean to imply it. I only know what I read in Elenari. Another issue I noticed was that even the top couple otherkin website had very low traffic ratings according to Alexa. If this IS an internet phenomenom, it doesn't look very noteworthy. That's why I was hoping to find some discussion of this other than by the people IN the "movement". I should say again that I feel that "weird" things like this need BETTER verifiability than more mundane topics, as people will feel more naturally skeptical. I don't want to make Wikipedia look like like the otherkin sites I saw, as they looked very questionable and unencyclopedic to me. Friday 15:45, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I've done some work on synthesising a history of the early otherkin movement from existing sources at User:Vashti/Otherkin, which hopefully will serve to demonstrate that this isn't an entirely Internet-based phenomenon, and that it traces its roots to well before the popularisation of the Internet. While there is a large amount of information and contact made across the Internet, as we tend to be rather isolated (you can't just walk up to someone in the street and say "by the way, are you an elf/dragon/whatever?"), there are offline groups and even groups primarily based offline, not to mention the groups that have verifiable histories traceable back to the 70s and 80s. Vashti 17:36, 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)

I don't think you're following me here. I'm not saying it's entirely net based, I'm saying it's possible, because that's all I've been able to find on it. Please read WP:NOR and you will understand that even if I went out and interviewed every "Otherkin" in the world, my findings would not be appropriate for Wikipedia. That's called "original research" and there is a very good explanation of what it is and why it's not used on Wikipedia. Likewise with getting information from the otherkin sites, that's original research also. You really ought to read and understand WP:NOR. Friday 16:56, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

PS I added the original research tag in hopes of getting more people to notice and comment. Friday 16:58, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Are you saying that this article is not "based on information collected from primary and secondary sources"? In what way is it not? Vashti 17:41, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I don't have any knowledge of this subject so sorry if I'm behind. I was only basing my statements on my understanding of what's considered "original research". Anyway, I thought Otherkin started on the internet because this article says it came from the online "elf" communities.

I don't see that there any secondary sources in this article. I see primary ones, but they all look like dubious sources to me.

I looked thru your work at User:Vashti/Otherkin, and it has parts that look better to me than parts of this article, altho I'm not very qualified to judge it. At any rate, you appear at first glance to be taking a more scholarly approach than what's currently in this article, and I think that's great. I'm certainly willing to defer to your judgement on Otherkin; I just think it's important to observe WP:V and WP:NOR. I suspect this is an "obscure topic" as discussed in Wikipedia:Verifiability#Obscure topics. Thus it may prove difficult to find reputable sources. So, part of me wonders if this article can have much content at all while still conforming to guidelines. Friday 18:30, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

origional research tag removal

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)

Thanks for explaining. However from the discussion above it seems to me like there's no grounds for removing the tag. Also, in order to understand this issue it is absolutely vital to understand WP:V and WP:NOR. Your comments seem to me to strongly indicate that you do NOT understand these policies. It sounds like you're arguing that this article should not be required to meet the standards set for this encyclopedia, and I'm afraid that the policies (and, presumably, most editors) will not agree with you there. I see your latest edit summary but you must understand: This isn't about YOU, it's about the article. Friday 23:09, 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)

You very clearly do not understand what is meant by original research. As many many editors have asked you before, PLEASE follow the rules. See WP:NOR. "Original research" does NOT strictly mean research done by the editor who added it. I'm frankly astounded that you have not read the policy by now. Friday 23:23, 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)

Thanks for being clear that you think this article should be an exception to Wikipedia standards. I disagree, so please put back the tag you removed. Friday 23:35, 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)

RFC

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)

This article is no less subject to the requirements of no original research and verifiability than any other. If the references cited are the only sort of thing that's available, then this article should be deleted as being unverifiable. --Carnildo 23:48, 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)

An Outside Comment

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)

The phrase "spiritual movement" didn't appear in the article originally; instead the word "subculture" was used. Gabrielsimon changed it to "spiritual movement" some time back; since I was at the time trying to deal with a number of problematic changes that he was insisting on I let that one pass. Vashti 22:34, 28 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)

Perhaps you could point me to that discussion in the talk pages, then, as I seem to have missed it entirely. Vashti 22:42, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Another from RFC

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)

Perhaps someone could explain to me why it's original research to document the most common and easily verifiable claims that otherkin have made about themselves (I'm talking about verifying the fact that the claims have been made here, not the claims themselves), and why summarising the claims made on multiple websites is creating a primary source. I have still had no explanation made about why WP:V's suggestions regarding the use of dubious sources does not apply here. Vashti 22:29, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I'll try to explain. Well, actually, some of this belongs on the WP:NOR talk page. However.. We're supposed to be dealing in facts. If the only facts we can find come from dubious websites, how can we arrive at consensus about what's accurate? From the discussion above, it looks to me like even those in the Otherkin "movement" (for lack of a better word) don't agree on what it is. Is it a subculture, a spiritual movement, something else? I'd be tempted to call it an internet phenomenon, altho we have those who dispute that categorization as well. Which of the various subgroups fall under the "Otherkin" category? Which don't, and why not?

I think the discussion of dubious sources in WP:V very much applies here. I could create a website tomorrow that says I've analyzed Otherkin genes and found the cause of the condition. I could claim that Otherkin are the next step in human evolution, and they have powers that normal people do not. What's to stop someone from using my completely-made-up website as a source? This is why we deal with reputable sources. Hope this helps. Also in the Verifiability page is the bit on obscure topics, which I think describes this article very well. Friday 22:57, 28 July 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.

I'm looking more at the section dealing with what to do if the only sources for a claim are dubious - namely, if the claim cannot be removed altogether, attribute it, which is what has been done here. The policy seems more flexible than you give it credit for. And yes, you could certainly put up a website claiming whatever weird stuff you liked, but in the absence of some kind of refereed publication for your research claims I would have tried to edit it out of this article. Contrary to the opinions being thrown around here, I did expend some considerable effort trying to keep this article within policy.

Is it really the case, then, that until someone publishes an academic study of the otherkin subculture, there is no place for an article on it on Wikipedia? Vashti 23:27, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

You certainly have a point. The policy is flexible, we're not intended to be bound by immovable rules here. You found part of the policy page supporting you keeping the page as is. I've been focusing more on the parts that support removing the dubious sources even at the risk of losing most or all of the content. You probably tend to include; I probably tend to delete. This is why we're discussing it. This is why I listed this article on RFC.

As for your last question, I would say no. We don't need academic papers. Even a few articles in certain magazines would probably satisfy most editors, I'd guess. If someone DOES find an academic paper, that would certainly be good source, of course. My own opinion so far is this: People who consider themselves "Otherkin" certainly do exist. A quick google and a look at various websites and forums is enough to see that. However, there are all kinds of things you can find on the Net that aren't verifiable enough to warrant encyclopedia articles. It's possible that Otherkin is one of those things. We don't know yet. Friday 23:49, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

PS, in case this helps.. Putting original research in an article is a little bit like posting a recipe. It's not that it's bad or fake or anything. It's simply that an encyclopedia is not the place for it. Friday 01:46, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

In the interests of clarity, let me say that I think "found" is a bit misleading. I want to be clear that I didn't first look up WP:V when you pointed it out to us; I wrote most of the existing body of this article with it firmly in the front of my mind. I'm also not clear on why what I do when I write an article drawing on primary sources is original research, unlike what is done by most other editors. Point out to me the "original analytic, synthetic, interpretive or explanatory claims" Wikipedia talk:No original research#Bibliographies and ectographies and I'll remove or source them. Everything I've tried to do here is to create a broad, well supported article that offers only the facts that are widely agreed and and offers no "novel narrative or historical interpretation". This is why User:Vashti/Otherkin is still in my user area and did not make it as far as this article.

Referring to the "President Bush is gay" example from WP:NOR, that example states that while the dubious Socialist Worker press cannot be used to support the contention that Bush is gay, it can be used for information about the party itself. Well, that's just what we're doing here - providing information about otherkin and the beliefs they profess, based on their available comments. Vashti 07:22, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Published sources

Off the top of my head:

The Village Voice article:

• "Elven Like Me". Village Voice. 14 February 2001.

The self-published books of the Silver Elves:

• The Silver Elves (2001). The Book of Elven Runes. Silver Elves Publications. no ISBN.
• The Silver Elves (2001). The Magical Elven Love Letters, vol. 1. Silver Elves Publications. no ISBN.

Supporting the claims of the Silver Elves regarding their existence in the 80s is their mention in one of Laurie Cabot's books:

• Cabot, Laurie (1989). Power of the Witch. Delacorte Press. 0385297866.

With regard to the existence of the vampire subculture, Katherine Ramsland published a book on it in the 1990s:

• Ramsland, Katherine (1998). Piercing the Darkness: Undercover with Vampires in America Today. HarperCollins. 0061050628.

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:

• "The Elven Star". Circle News Network. Summer 1986.

Margot Adler's "Drawing Down the Moon" apparently had a reference to the Silver Elves as well:

• Adler, Margot (1979). Drawing Down The Moon: Druids, Goddess-worshippers and other pagans in America today. Viking Press. 0670283428.

One of Willow Polson's books has a chapter on otherkin:

• Polson, Willow (2003). The Veil's Edge: Exploring the Boundaries of Magic. Citadel Press. 0806523522.

Michelle Belanger writes books that are targetted primarily at the vampire subculture:

• Belanger, Michelle (2004). The Psychic Vampire Codex: a Manual of Magick and Energy Work. Weiser Books. 1578633214.

Thanks much. I think books and magazine articles count for much more than websites. Although, being self-published makes a book count for less, IMO. I'd personally love to see the website references mostly go away and be replaced by things like this. Friday 13:35, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, the problem is finding someone prepared to edit the article who has access to the books. Vashti 13:43, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

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)

Can I draw your attention to Wikipedia talk: No original research#Popular culture?? This discussion seems to raise a number of my concerns with the attitude being taken to this article, and appears to take an inclusionist stance.

I should probably also draw attention to Gabrielsimon's discussion of this at Wikipedia talk: No original research#Proposals for exceptions to the policy. Vashti 07:35, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

With regard to the subculture question, List of subcultures is informative. I'm looking particularly at the Furry fandom page. Vashti 08:02, 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)

Yes, but the standards the articles have been written to are similar. Vashti 08:15, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the links and discussion. I'm not trying to say there is one clear obvious answer here. If there was, we wouldn't be having this conversation. However.. the otherkin websites that I've found due to the links here look extremely questionable to me. Many people will consider them utterly ridiculous. I realize, we're not trying at all to say the claims are TRUE, that would be an obvious violation of NPOV. But I think most people outside the subculture will read the links and decide that otherkin are a group of people making crazy claims on the internet. At what point do groups of people making crazy claims on the the internet deserve an article about them? The internet is full of people making crazy claims, the vast majority of them do not have articles. Scientology is a great example; most people find it ridiculous, yet it very clearly deserves an article. Scientology is well known enough that it's verifiable without using dubious sources. How can we even categorize otherkin when different members of that community have very different ideas about what it is? We have to decide which individuals' words to believe and which to reject, and we have very little basis for such a decision.

As for the "original research", I'm still new here and it's entirely possible I've not been stating my case well. What I really mean is, this article's only verifiability so far comes from dubious sources. I consider collecting dubious sources and compiling them together to get facts to be "original research". If I personally interviewed otherkin and put their stories here, that's OR also, and it looks to me like reading their website instead of a personal interview is even less verifiable. At least with an interview you can ask questions. Sorry if I was unclear on that.

It seems to me like many editors are going to consider this a borderline case. We've got a couple so far saying keep the dubious sources, one who's ambivalent, and a couple who've said to remove the questionable sources even if this means losing a lot of content. Again, I'm not trying to say there's a definite right answer here. Personally, I doubt otherkin can (or even should) be removed altogether as an article, but I'd sure like to see the handful of otherkin articles condensed down as much as it neccessary to remove the dubious sources. If that means there ends up being one main article and a few redirects, I don't see a problem with that. As we've seen in Vampire lifestyle, these articles function as original research magnets, and it's very difficult to keep them up to encylopedic standards. Friday 13:56, 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)

Yes, and Scientology is verifiable. We have many articles on it. Please understand, I'm NOT saying it should go away just because I think it's silly. That's not how encyclopedias are. (To be clear, I'll disclose my personal POV here: Otherkin are silly, just like Scientologists. However this should not be relevant.) If we want to know how Scientologists define themselves, how they view the world, and what their beliefs and practices are, the Church of Scientology can tell us what we want to know. How will we answer such questions about Otherkin? If the word was used primarily by a single organization, we could ask that organization. But that's certainly not the case here. We can only go by what various otherkin themselves say, and there are many many variations on that. One otherkind site I found even claimed "witches" as a type of otherkin. In my experience with folks who call themselves witches, most would strongly reject such a classification. I'm not sure that various "Otherkin" groups and individuals are sufficiently alike in beliefs to HAVE a verifiable set of beliefs. Granted, classing it as a subculture rather than spiritual movement makes their beliefs less important, but so far we don't even have agreement on that. I'm simply not sure what we can say about Otherkin without taking a particular person's word for it. Hence, the inherent difficulty of this topic. Friday 14:36, 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)

On renaming the Awakening section

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)

Because it's an immediate and obvious question to ask - how does one become otherkin? The section goes on to tell you that otherkin call the process Awakening, and that they believe that being otherkin is something you're born with, but until you've read the section its title, and the index entry at the top of the page that goes with it, are both totally opaque and uninformative. Can you suggest an alternative, accessible heading for this section? Vashti 10:59, 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)

I'm afraid that's still meaningless gobbledegook. I really would like to put the title back to how it was originally. Remember we're writing for complete laypeople, not for a pagan website. Vashti 11:04, 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)

"Identifying as otherkin", perhaps. I'm not happy with this rush to use "self-identifying". "to identify as" is a common verb that *already implies* self-identifying. If we were saying "identified as", then we'd need to specify "self-identified as", as that implies that something external has identified you. But saying "x identifies as y" fairly specifically means "x identifies himself as" - "x identifies as gay", for instance. It seems to me that adding "self-identifying as" is POV. Vashti 11:54, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

NPOVness

Okay, I think I've adjusted it somewhat for NPOV. Anyone like to comment on my edits? DS 23:13, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Er, I'm sorry to say that I think you've introduced a fair amount of negative POV into the article. I don't like those quotes around vampire and therianthrope at all - the two subcultures are well-documented, and the article has established its context in the overview.

Also, who changed the mention of multiples to read "afflicted"? Going to remove that now. Vashti 11:47, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the quotes from the article now, and I've changed self-identified back to identified in the overview (but I've changed the wording of the article opening as that did look ambiguous to me). Vashti 21:46, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Self-identifying at least made the sense read more smoothly, identifying all by itself doesn't even look grammatically correct. And they were self-identifying, weren't they? There's nothing factually incorrect about that statement, is there? I'm not following the justification for that change.

User:DragonflySixtyseven's changes may have been a little rough in parts, but overall I think they more closely conformed to the NPOV policy that your version. I don't see at all how you can complain about the quotes... they are awkward and should be reworded, but the point is it was trying to step back from the claim that they really exist, which is how those lines read otherwise, and the reality of these conditions is extremely POV and not at all the mainstream belief. Otherkin as a movement exists, otherkin as actual beings absolutely has not been shown to be true. Evidence of the existence of one is not support for phrasing that implies that the existence of the other is real. DreamGuy 22:51, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

You seem to think that I'm trying to insert POV material saying that otherkin are really mythological elves, dragons and what all into the article; I am not, and that's not what I want for this article. I suspect you may be confusing me with someone else.

I get the point of the edits, but I don't agree that the existing material reads in the way you say, or that the quotes are neutral. I could see your point if the article had read "vampires and dragons do x", but since the phrase actually used is "vampire otherkin", "dragon otherkin" and so on, and since it's already been made very clear what otherkin are in the overview of the article, beating the reader over the head with extra quotes pointing out "by the way, they're wrong" seems unnecessary to me, and certainly edging into negative POV. If you like, I'll provide quotes from Katherine Ramsland's study of the vampire subculture; she doesn't feel it necessary to use quotes around "vampire" every time she uses it, and I don't believe it should be necessary for these articles either. So long as what is written is understandable, context should be everything.

I've discussed the problems with changing "identifying as" to "self-identifying as" in the section above. Vashti 23:30, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

No, I am not accusing you of tryig to claim that these mythological creatures really exist, I am saying that the wording you put in there implies that they do and that perhaps you are just not able to see that. You certainly cannot object to clarifying the situation so there is no possible confusion about what we are endorsing as factual...? As far as the self-identifying, you have a small point in one possible reading, but identifying also is used to identify other people and not oneself. Identifying on its own in the context of that sentence doesn't work. There needs to be a point of reflection in there somewhere to anchor it, either "self-" or "themselves" or "identify with"... just plain "identifying" doesn't cut it, IMNSHO. DreamGuy 00:13, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Accepted. However, I still think that the text is clear enough, and that the grammatical construction is common enough, that changing "<person> identifies as otherkin" to "<person> self-identifies as otherkin" makes the sentence clumsy, ungrammatical and POV. You'll note that I've changed the opening usage, which *was* ambiguous. Vashti 00:18, 1 August 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)

OriginalResearch tag: does it belong here?

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)

I don't believe there's any OR remaining in the article. The sources aren't what we could hope for, but that's different. Vashti 11:49, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Maybe OR isn't the right term, then. There's a lot of "Some otherkin claim X" in there, which can sometimes just be another way of saying "My personal belief about otherkin is X". Would a factual accuracy tag be more accurate? Friday 19:48, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Down to a certain point, there should be no "some otherkin claim"; all claims should have one or more links to someone making them. Trying to remove them was one of the things I worked on. I agree with you that they shouldn't be present. Vashti 19:55, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Great, I appreciate your work here. I'm still not sure linking to some otherkin posting on a forum to source the claims is any better, but I may be in the minority there. Also, maybe it's just me, and I don't mean to be a jerk, but even the non-forum sources here look blatantly ridiculous to me. Here's a bit from the Otherkin FAQ on kinhost, the very first source used:

Some people in the otherkin community believe that they inherited genes influenced by non-human genetic material. It occasionally manifests to a greater or lesser degree in some otherkin. Some Otherkin who appear to have genetic traits from non-human stock seem to have a natural magickal protection which is either an illusion or minor shapeshifting which is called a "Seeming" in the community. ie: they Seem human.

"It occasionally manifests to a greater or lesser degree in some otherkin"? What does this even mean?!? "..seem to have a natural magickal protection", seems to who? This is nearly useless, IMO. I could provide more examples but I don't want to seem like I'm just picking on the Otherkin. What I'm really picking on is the sources. I know, we're NOT saying that everything these sources claim is true. But, IMO nobody could take Wikipedia seriously if we even cite such ridiculous-looking sources as this. Friday 20:13, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's certainly not admissible as a source of fact, if we wanted to write an article claiming that seemings definitively exist, which we don't. What it is admissible as, IMO, is as support for the presence of belief. So if we were writing about the fact that some people believe in seemings and that they have one, the page would then be admissible, in combination with other sources, as evidence for that belief. (Having said that, I don't believe this article makes any mention of seemings).

I have severe disagreements with Gabrielsimon, but I have to agree with him on this one thing: we're writing about beliefs that people hold, not facts that can be proven or disproven. Vashti 20:49, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I think we need to take a cue from the Pseudocscience section of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. It states that completely bizare claims from nonreputable sources shouldn't be mentioned at all (NPOV does not mean giving equal time to every possible claim anyone makes... see the policy for more on this) and common claims that go against accepted knowledge need to be discussed within that framework. DreamGuy 21:15, July 30, 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)

Uh, no, I am saying the entire concept of Otherkin as a real (as compared to solely psychological/spiritual) experience is totally pseudoscientific, regardless of what kind of thing they think they turn into. In many cases it is directly the same as a psychological disorder. Any fringe beliefs must be framed in the context of what the majority of scholars think versus what these people claim, not what is really true. And don't remove the direct link that multiple personalities goes to, wikilinks aren't supposed to go to redirects but directly to the article in question, and that's what that goes to. DreamGuy 21:46, July 30, 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)

The idea that it's a personality disorder is one opinion, but it's an opinion that has just as much reason to be listed here as the opinion that it's not. In fact, moreso, as it's the more established scientific opinion. Removing it completely is highly biased... and, worse yet, the multiple personalities link ALREADY goes to a mental disorder page... making it do there directly instead of hitting the server for a redirect and getting there anyway can in no way, shape or form be considered "inserting my point of view". DreamGuy 22:02, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

I suspect that WP:NPOV#Religion is more applicable here than the Pseudoscience section. Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view#Cutting a good question from GabrielSimon to the talk page for discussion also has some relevant discussion. Vashti 21:52, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

after reading both sections, i tend to agree with vashti. Gabrielsimon 22:03, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

DreamGuy, can you produce any decent sources where people discuss psychology in relation to otherkin? I'd be interested to see them myself. We've been advised that, in the absence of good sources, it's unverified gossip to have the allegations of personality disorder on this page. Vashti 22:05, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

See, and here I don't know how you can make that argument. First up, most of my efforts in these related series of articles (Otherkin, Therianthropy, clinical lycanthropy, etc.) have not been trying to bring in the idea that they have a mental illness (which I think would be perfectly valid to do but that since these articles are largely put together by supporters of the concepts in question, unlikely to survive edit warring) but simply to remove highly POV additions which try to outright declare that these people are definitely not mentally ill, as that is completely and totally choosing a side and campaigning for it. Second, there are a fair number of authoritative sources on clinical lycanthropy, so how you can possibly complain that the notion is "unverified gossip" is just completely beyond me. The allegations of mental disorder are by far more verifiable with reputable sources than the claims of otherkin (and etc.) supporters that litter this and related articles. So you are not only arguing against a position more severe than the one I am actively trying for, but you have your concept of what qualifies as unverified gossip completely backwards. If the studies of clinical lycanthropy at all count as unverified gossip then the so-called sources being used to support of all these fringe groups are worse to an exceedingly large degree. DreamGuy 04:26, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Well, firstly, it isn't my argument; it's the unopposed argument of the admin who responded at Wikipedia talk:No original research#Proposals for exceptions to the policy. I would have been inclined to leave the section in place or rewrite it. Secondly, since *all* the material saying that otherkin are or are not mentally ill has now been removed from the article, is there any point to arguing about this? Vashti 09:24, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

First up, an "unopposed argument" of one admin is not policy... Admins do not have any more say in content of articles than anyone else, their duties here or for other purposes. Secondly, it appears that he was talking about something different than what was really going on, as your comment about "The situation we were faced with was that the original page had some heavily POV material stating that otherkin beliefs were a mental illness." is absolutely false as far as I can tell, as I have not seen any statement that fits that description on this page, although if someone else had something in like that I may have missed it. I think you are quite substantially misinterpreting the situation here for your own POV purposes. Secondly, not all of that particular claim has been removed from the article last I checked. DreamGuy 00:07, August 1, 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)

The reason I mention that it was unopposed was so that you could go there and argue with him. I don't know policy backwards, and presumably the people answering questions on policy talk pages have a good grasp of it. You are certainly entitled to think anything you like about my motives; it remains the case that you have no medical sources discussing otherkin. Someone on Portal of Evil going "otherkin are teh mad" is not a decent source for a psychological allegation. Discussions of religion and philosophy are one thing, but medical and scientific claims are exactly what the original research and pseudoscience rules were meant to net. Vashti 00:13, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

WThere are plenty of medical sources discussing otherkin, see clinical lyncanthropy. Now of course in individual cases a professional will have to certify someone to see if their symptoms are severe enough to be classified as having the full fledged disorder (just like the difference between someone being depressed and someone with Depression), but we've got medical sources up the ying yang. And I have no idea what you mean by Portal of Evil, as I was not referring to them at all. It seems to me that your interpretation of original research and pseudoscience are completely opposite of how the situation really is, as we have plenty of examples of lycanthropes being considered mentally ill (in general, depnding upon individual severity) and no professional sources stating that otherkin should somehow be considered exempt from the classification just because they sometimes pick species a little more far out or because they talk about it online. The only people I see claiming a difference between the disorder and otherkin are otherkin believers trying to justify themselves. DreamGuy 08:44, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that where you're 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)

Merging?

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)

Gabriel, give it a rest. You've already proven yourself to have no room to talk. Please let it go and try to work with other people. DreamGuy 04:49, July 31, 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)

Yeah, Otakukin would make a good merge and redirect. Shiri (race), assuming it's only Otherkin and not also something else, definitely needs to be deleted or merged and redirected as a substub with no hope (or justification) for expansion. Draconity and Elenari don't seem like they have enough to really justify having separate articles either (especially once some of the unsupported fluff gets taken out), but if they stay as main articles it's not a huge problem. Vampire lifestyle just recently had a merge from elsewhere so has a lot of info in it, and it is by far the most commonly known of these similar concepts, so I can't see merging that. DreamGuy 04:49, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and then there's the larger part of Therianthropy... probably wouldn't work as a merge, but when we are thinking overall strategy related to the topic we need to keep that one in mind. I've really, really tried to clean that one up, since I had to fight tooth and nail to even get the scholarly definition listed at all against hostile reactions from pro-Howl people, but it has some problems still too. DreamGuy 04:57, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Shiri (race) should certainly be a merge/redirect to Elenari. I'm not sure whether Elenari should be merged here or not. Vashti 09:32, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I was assuming that size was a good criterion for merging, and things that were sufficiently small would get merged into the main "Otherkin". But I'm certainly willing to consider whatever other factors are important too. Friday 17:20, 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)

Removing content?

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)

I was referring to the removal of info and citations for the websites which are I consider extremely poor sources. These are sources that are IMO a step or two past dubious. I pointed out my objections to the first one above. Do we need to go through them one by one, can we remove them all, or how do we decide which ones to remove? Friday 23:33, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Do you have any problems with the actual content of the article as it stands? I've gone through it and stripped out some of the more bizarre and unsupportable claims; it shouldn't be in too bad a state now. BTW, it sounds like you're saying that the presence of bad sources is worse than having no sources; is that correct?

The problem we are going to hit is that the website you named as a dubious source is one of the better-known informational websites for the vampire community, as far as I am aware. Vashti 23:43, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

As a purely pragmatic point, I'd rather have unsourced claims than sources that are (IMO) blatantly bad, simply because it looks better. I'm not trying to say that's official policy; it's just my opinion. The policies seem (to my reading) to say that unsourced material and poorly-sourced material should both be removed. Friday 00:02, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Shall I remove the citations, then, and leave a few links to major sites at the bottom? Is there a problem with the article text now? Vashti 00:05, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't personally object to it. But I'm somewhat ambivalent about it. And, I have to admit, with my understanding of the policies, I wouldn't be surprised if someone came along and removed unsourced material. Not sure what to say here. Sorry I'm not more help. Friday 00:24, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

It's not unsourced if it's in the sites listed as references, is it? Vashti 00:27, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Markup

DreamGuy, could you explain what you mean by "stop stripping out the plural forms like that", please. Vashti 00:01, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Scratch that; I see the problem. Okies. :) Vashti 00:03, 1 August 2005 (UTC)