Talk:Otherkin/Archive 6

Clinical lycanthropy redux

DreamGuy, I believe it's been firmly established that it is against consensus to have references to clinical lycanthropy on this page, as you have refused repeated requests to demonstrate the link to otherkin from the papers you've cited. I've removed it, again. Vashti 11:48, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Hello, it's already been explained thoroughly... the freaking article explains the link. It was bad enough that someone with a huge amount of bias removed the references from the article itself and justified it with a throughly screwed up twisting of what the No original research policy says, but it is beyond disgusting that even a See also link has been excised. And I think your "consensus" consists of you and the guy who has been blocked upteen million times for POV warring.

Considering that you never did come up with a real reason for its removal from the article, a see also link is absolutely positively necessary, unless you just want to give up any pretense of pretending to folow policy and just admit that you are removing information out of spite. DreamGuy 13:02, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

See also sections are for related topics. This article is about people thinking they are beasts and animals and stuff, that one is for people thinking they are animals... regardless of whether you think that this article itself should mention it, it clearly without a doubt fits see also criteria. It's not "original research" to list related topics. Any supposed consensus you tihnk you have for the article content has nothing to do with related topic links. DreamGuy 13:15, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

My consensus includes User:SlimVirgin and User:PWhittle, as well as myself and Gavin. The closest I could find for anyone supporting your point of view was User:Friday's suggestion that perhaps the literature on clinical lycanthropy might contain something relevant. However, you have repeatedly failed to provide that something relevant, or to document a link between clinical lycanthropy and anything like the modern otherkin subculture. In the absence of such a documented link, or even a documented suggestion of a link, there are no grounds for a See also which would imply the link without discussing it in the article body.

You have been asked several times to provide cites from literature that support your position, rather than using the Wikipedia page as a reference, and you have not done so, despite being told repeatedly that your personal opinion is original research and not an encyclopaedic source.

Plus, I think, given your expressed opinions on the subject, you should perhaps consider avoiding accusations of spite or bias on this topic. Vashti 14:57, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

How does one justify not linking or discussing in the article body a psychiatric syndrome that explains the behavior of a subset of people who describe themselves as "Otherkin?" Is this article designed only for Otherkin who do not suffer from a delusion? Hipocrite 16:48, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

The thing is that there is no research linking the phenomenon - by whatever name it goes - and any disorder, at least none that I have been shown. In the absence of some sort of encyclopaedic claim, Dreamguy's opinion that clinical lycanthropy applies is no more valid or applicable than my opinion that schizotypy is likely to apply, or Gavin's that no disorder applies. We can't just put our personal opinions in the article and say that it's encyclopaedic, because it's not. Vashti 01:08, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Hoqw do you jusify tyrying to claim that all otherkin suffer from some sort of delusion? thats highly POV.Gavin the Chosen 19:04, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I do not claim that all otherkin suffer from some sort of delusion, nor would I claim so in the article. Some are playing make-believe and what not. Some, however, are suffering from a psychiatric syndrom that manifests itself in delusions. Unless this page is only about non-delusional otherkin, I don't see how you can exclude this info. Do you deny that some of the people who believe they are Otherkin are actually suffering from this dellusion? Hipocrite 19:15, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

thats non notable, because EVERY subset of people, including normals has people suffering from delusionbs.Gavin the Chosen 19:23, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi. No. There's a specific condition that makes people believe they are Otherkin. It's a medical fact. How could you possibly not want this in the article? I think it should be in the body, don't you? Hipocrite 19:27, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Also, stop edit warring. 3rr is still a rule around here, and you're at it. Hipocrite 19:28, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Finally, stop using the word consensus, because it clearly dosen't exist here.Hipocrite 19:30, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

as i have told someone else, if you can find a source that prooves in some fashion that otherkin are CL, then by all means, until then, no. as for consensus, read above, and see that there IS a consensus, that onlny DreamGuy is ignoring.Gavin the Chosen 21:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Clinical Lycan

Let's try starting from zero. Deal with me, instead of someone who you clearly have a longstanding dispute with. Clearly, some psycologists attribute the belief of being "Otherkin" to a clinical condition. Step one is a discussion as to if this merits inclusion. I clearly believe that it does - much in the way that if we had an article about people hearing voices in their heads, we would mention that there were many explanations for this - voices actually speaking to people in their heads, them attributing their consience to a little voice in their head, their desire to hear voices making them believe voices are speaking to them, and a physical defect in their brain causing them to hear voices and so on and so forth. If we had people who heard voices because voices actually spoke in their heads, we wouldn't ignore the fact that SOME people hear voices because they have a physical brain disorder. Hipocrite 19:44, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

the percentage of people among otherkin who har voices and the like is non notable, because its the standard among all people; theres always some deluyded wierdos outr there, doenst mean you have to associate the entire subculture with deluded strangeness.Gavin the Chosen 19:47, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think people who believe they are Otherkin hear voices more often than anyone else in the population. They do, however, suffer from clinical lycanthropy at a much higher rate, given that all sufferers of clinical lycanthropy believe they are otherkin. The noteable point here is that there is an explanation for why some people are Otherkin believe they are such - a physical defect in their brain, as detailed in that article. This doen't mean that every otherkin has said defect. I'd ask that you take just a bit to think about how, if you believed what I believed, you would want to edit the article. In turn, I'll try to figure out if I believed what you believed, how I'd want to include this fact in the article. Are you interested in trying to figure out what the other one wants? I still can't understand why you don't want this information included, and I think that this might help me. I've put a section for this below.Hipocrite 19:58, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

no, not all sufferers of clinical lycznthropy identify themselves as otherkin. mecical studies have yet to have been done on these people in oreder to figure out just what makes them clinical lyncanthrops. I would be interested to see proof links as to the mnuch higher rate claim... as we said before, if you have medical proof, or " scholarly sources" or any source at all, flr that matter , that corrolates wiuth your claim, then by all means.Gavin the Chosen 20:01, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Now I'm confused - if you think you've transformed into an animal, aren't you Otherkin? Medical studies have been done on these people - see the CL page. Hipocrite 20:10, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

there is an iportant distinction. clinical lycanthropy is strictly a phsical transormation, in thier minds, right? Otherkin isnt about animals either, Otherkin is about supernaturals, Therianthropy is about animals, anbd psycical shifters arent nessessarily clinical lycanths... id say its complicated....Gavin the Chosen 20:12, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

If you are a CL, you believe you have or are transformed into an animal. I understand that this doesn't explain all otherkin. However, every CL is otherkin, because they believed they have transformed into an animal, correct? All CLs are Otherkin, all Otherkin are NOT CLs. Otherkin includes animals - according to the article: "The otherkin subculture is made up of people who describe themselves as non-human in some way." Hipocrite 20:15, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

clairification should be introduceds to make people notice that its usuallyh a supernatural non human. have you noticed, demons, dragons, and elves are listed...Gavin the Chosen 20:18, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

So are therianthropes. This section already explains that it applies to people who "believe they have transformed into an animal."Hipocrite 20:24, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

again, therians are very differnet from CL's. ... its harder to explain then i like.Gavin the Chosen 20:27, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. I'm a smart guy. Explain to me how werewolves are different than a subset of people who believe they have or are changed into wolves?

I'd like to point out that otherkin do not typically believe themselves to be physically the animal that they identify with. Those ones who make such claims are immediately excluded from the community - I speak as an insider and part of the administration of a forum devoted to otherkin spirituality. Clinical lycanthropes will have a hard sell to get otherkin to believe that they are themselves otherkin. Even though they may believe themselves to be such, since the rest of the subculture disagrees and their own numbers are nonsignificant, it would be strange to include them. Rakeela 17:32, August 23, 2005

Hipocrite, before phrases like "Clearly, some psycologists attribute the belief of being "Otherkin" to a clinical condition." are taken as given, I would like to see the medical literature making that claim. It has not yet materialised, despite requests in the past that it be provided so that we can write a section that passes NOR; perhaps you can provide it? Vashti 01:11, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Keck PE, Pope HG, Hudson JI, McElroy SL, Kulick AR. (1988) Lycanthropy: alive and well in the twentieth century. Psychological Medicine, 18(1), 113-20.

Garlipp P, Godecke-Koch T, Dietrich DE, Haltenhof H. (2004) Lycanthropy - psychopathological and psychodynamical aspects. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 109 (1), 19-22.

Dening TR, West A. (1989) Multiple serial lycanthropy. A case report. Psychopathology, 22 (6), 344-7.

Moselhy HF. (1999) Lycanthropy: new evidence of its origin. Psychopathology, 32 (4), 173-6.

I'm aware of these sources, and I'm sure they'd be very useful if I were questioning the existence of clinical lycanthropy, which has never been at issue. However, since it's the bearing of it on this topic that I have a problem with, I've no way to tell if these are relevant or not, as neither of you have yet provided any citations from them to back up your argument. Since you and DreamGuy will have read the papers, perhaps one of you could do this for me? It would certainly make it a lot easier to reach a decision on this. Vashti 08:34, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

I would be happy to include the material you want, if you can find a medical cite that discusses lycanthropy in relation to similar historical beliefs. I believe that totemistic and shamanic beliefs regarding animals are well documented; surely someone has done some research on this issue? Vashti 09:12, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

"Infnatesimal(sic)"

You haven't posted proof that "infnatesimal(sic)" is the percentage of otherkin that are due to CL. Take a look at what you changed, and decide the way you wrote it is better or worse than the way I wrote it, then come here, and justify. I won't make any changes to the article untill we talk that change over. I challenge you to do the same. Also, I run all of my non-talk changes through a spell checker. You should too. My spelling is only slightly better than yours, but no one knows it because I treat my changes to article pages like I was writing in the Encyclopedia Brittanica, except one with less errors. Infinitesimal Hipocrite 20:24, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Im not going to deny that some Otherkin are CL, i will , however, insist that this number is so small its nearly non notable. i say nearly becasue for the sake of oinclusionism, its being uncontested.Gavin the Chosen 20:27, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

WP:NOR. I think the best we can reach is that it's a percentage of the people who believe they have changed into animals. Hipocrite 20:32, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

by the same poicey, without something to proove that they are corrolated, then the entire passage about CL should be removed. why not leave it as a copmprimise?Gavin the Chosen 20:34, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I know I promised, but everyone who believed they have or are changed into an animal is otherkin, so there is clear one to many coorelation. Hipocrite 20:35, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Animal changeers are Therianthropes, superhnatural creature changers and other things, are otherkin. thats the difference.Gavin the Chosen 21:11, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

The word is extremely POV and unverifiable, it doesn't belong at all... And, Gabriel, you removed clinical lycanthropy from See also four times already... you've broken 3RR yet again. And you've been blocked for more hours in the last couple of weeks than you haven't been blocked because of your 3RR violations and personal attacks, so one would hope that you'd at least be trying to follow the rules now? But then, OK, having you blocked yet again is fine by me, as that's the only time we can make any headway on this article without you pushing your extremely biased and unscholarly nonsense into the article. DreamGuy 21:00, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

find sources for your views, or go away.Gavin the Chosen 21:08, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I already gave sources... the sources are in the clinical lycanthropy article... and it's ridiculous for you to say I should give sources for things I already have given when you are throwing in things (like this whole "infinitesmal" claim) that you have no sources for at all. DreamGuy 21:14, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

I'll give a source for the infinitesmal claim, from the view of someone in the subculture. I've hardly met any myself, and the only ones I have met have been outcasts. They are rare and not accepted at all. If they were not rare, then they would not be outcast - it's impossible for a community to maintain cohesion while excluding a significant number of people. Considering this exclusion, if they were significant, then either they would've created another sub-subculture of sorts for themselves (none exist to my knowledge), or they would be eventually accepted (they haven't been at all).Rakeela 17:47, August 23, 2005

also dreamGuy, the notion that you express that CL is everywhere and rampant within the othgerkin community is horribly POV and extraordinarily unverifiable. practise what you preach and FIND SOURCES or you will likly be ignored.Gavin the Chosen 21:11, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

See, and that's your major problem -- your bias is so extreme that you think even mentioning clinical lycanthropy is the same as saying "everywhere and rampant" -- I never said that, the aricle never said that, you have in your head all this stuff going on that doesn't exist in reality. I do not need sources to support something i am not arguing. DreamGuy 21:14, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

still waiting for those sources DreeamGuy, that say anything about the corolation of CL and Otherkin, which , last i looked, there arent any of, and if you arent arguing it, GO AWAY, because your swasting your time, editing without your own arguments .... pshaw....Gavin the Chosen 21:17, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Break

I think we've made substantial headway, and I hope I've been disguising it well, but while typing the 20:24, 19 August 2005 reply, my first draft violated WP:NPA, as did my point out of WP:NOR. As such, persuant to WP:COOL, I'm taking a 4 hour break from Wikipedia, at least, if not longer. Over my WP:COOL break, I'm hoping that Gavin will edit for the enemy, and play both his part in this dispute, and my part. I bet if you try hard enough to be me, you'll convince you that the CL section deserves its own subhead - it would take the bit about overabundance of MPDs (and I'm going to ask for proof of excessive MPDs in otherkin) and the bit about CL and combine them into one. Have a nice afternoon, drink a beer if yer legal or something. FRIDAY! Hipocrite 20:32, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

i still maintain that the presensce of mental dosorders is as small as any other community. which is why i added infantesemnal.Gavin the Chosen 20:37, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Please source that claim. Come to think of it, is there a source for the "clinical lycanthropy" claim at all? If not, it's OR and belongs only in see also. ~~ N (t/c) 22:00, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

We've been through this... The clinical lycanthropy article itself is a source for the claim. It's not so much that anyone who identifies as otherkin is has clinical lycanthropy, but that the beliefs they hold overlap the symptoms but type if not severity. The question of severity is what is needed for an individual diagnosis, but then the idea that we can't mention any possible connection without a confirmed diagnosis goes against the way the profession works... only individuals can be diagnosed, not whole groups. I don;t know if the shoplifting article here (assuming there is one, I haven't checked) mentions kleptomania, but would you argue taht kleptomania couldn't be mentioned becase it's allegedly "original research"? The symptoms overlap, the professionals mention the symptoms, they don't and can;t diagnose all shoplifters as kleptmomaniacs but mentioning that some could certainly fit because of the obvious and undeniable overlap in actions and symptoms is in now way biased or original research. DreamGuy

All right... it still smells like OR, but I think it can stay. It would be good (but not necessary) to find someone else saying this, though. BTW, I'm reporting Gavin for his fourth 3RR this week. ~~ N (t/c) 22:12, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I would be reluctant to see the clinical lycanthropy claim stand purely on the basis of the WP article, since it appears to me that there is a qualitative difference here. Vashti 01:18, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

To further elaborate on this, you asked whether Gavin would be against mentioning kleptomania in a page on shoplifting. Can I suggest that you do a PubMed search for "kleptomania shoplifting"? You'll see that there are many, many papers on this exact thing, including "Psychiatric aspects of shoplifting", "Causes of compulsive shoplifting" and "Shoplifting: is there a specific psychiatric syndrome?". The evidence for including such material would be overwhelming. There is no such overwhelming evidence in this case, just the same handful of papers cited again and again, but with no demonstration of how their contents apply to this particular case. If nobody had documented a link between kleptomania and shoplifting, I would indeed be against including it on Wikipedia. Vashti 09:00, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Like I said before, I'm a smart guy, help me out here. Those are four papers about why people who feel they have transformed feel that they have transformed. Before, you were asking for cites - now, apparently, you want me to tell you why those cites, about why some people who feel they have transformed into animals feel they have transformed into animals is relevent in an article about people who feel they have transformed into animals? Hipocrite 14:42, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

would you please stop being obnoxious and find a spource to back up your words?Gavin the Chosen 22:08, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Firstly, since I don't have access to the papers to read them, I have been asking (for over two months now, I believe) those of you who do have that access to provide me at least with the relevant quotes so that I can make an informed judgement. I don't believe that to be an entirely unreasonable request, and without reading the papers I can't make any determination as to whether the cites given have any relevance to this page. Without having read them, I can only give you my opinion.

Secondly, as I said before, there's a qualitative difference here. Firstly, this is not a page about people who believe they've transformed into animals. That's the therianthrope page. I believe it is the case that even within the therianthrope community, claims of what they call "p-shifting" are quite rare, and of great controversy within the community. I've only seen one person attempt to document such a change.

It's been my experience that the majority of people who describe themselves as otherkin consider it to be an internal, spiritual thing. Your description of otherkin as "people who feel that they transform into animals" is not a description that I feel anyone in the community would recognise. I've encountered a great many people who believe they have lived a past life as another species, a fair number of people who believe they host the souls of members of other species, a small few who believe that they are, today, a member of another, invariably humanoid species. I would feel reasonably safe in saying that most otherkin consider their "otherselves" to be of human levels of sentience, and not running around on four legs and eating out of bowls.

These are my personal observations, and I certainly don't expect them to have any bearing on the article. However, I do feel that you're working from several misconceptions about what otherkin actually believe. Vashti 17:52, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

The only thing I know about what otherkin believe is whats in the article. It reads as follows: "Some otherkin claim to feel wings, tails, and other organs from past incarnations that are not part of their human body." You can find those cites at your nearest reputable library, or you can accept the summary of them as presented on Wikipedia. Hipocrite 20:52, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

That sounds more like the symptoms of schizotypal personality disorder, to me. I take it that you haven't actually read the papers either? Vashti 21:54, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Phantom limb claims are indeed common in the otherkin community. I do not experience such myself and attribute them primarily to wishful thinking when I see them in others. If you think real hard, you can probably imagine all kinds of organs you don't physically have. These are people who think really hard about what they wish they were or once were, with unsurprising results. If it's a mental disorder causing it (possibly), then it's self-caused and mild enough that cases where it interferes with everyday life are generally insignificant and hardly noteworthy.Rakeela 18:00, August 23, 2005

Because my position was requested

I don't think clinical lycanthropy should be anywhere other than "see also", unless an actual scholarly source mentioning both it and otherkin can be found. But I'm not going to touch that part of the article at all without further discussion, because I'm unsure of consensus and don't want to fan the flames of edit-warring. Gavin, how is Hipocrite being rude to you?? ~~ N (t/c) 12:10, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I've only breifly looked at the history of this discussion, so please forgive me if my suggestion is seen as taking any viewpoint or is just plain wrong. I would include the following somewhere in the main article:

Unlike clinical lycanthropy, involving the delusional belief that a person has transformed into an animal, otherkin is not a psychiatric condition.

I'm not saying that it is the best option or that it meets everyones requirements and POVs - just thought I'd suggest it. Perhaps it could the basis of an acceptable version. violet/riga (t) 12:40, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Do you have a professional cite? Sounds like original research to me. (I would agree that it in and of itself is not a psychiatric condition, but that statement gives the idea that there is not significant overlap, which again is a POV and unverified at that.) DreamGuy 12:45, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Now that's a great idea! I agree that there might be a problem with saying it's not a psychiatric condition, so I would clarify the difference more, saying that otherkin generally do not believe they change into animals, do not have delusions, etc. etc. (If these things are true - I've barely read the article.) ~~ N (t/c) 12:47, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Uhhh... but they are highly delusional, IMNSHO. They think they aren't human, for crying out loud (at least the ones who are serious, many of them are just poseurs). That's not something backed up by anysort of real world evidence. They just don't admit that they are delusional. (And I'm speaking here from a POV side, not how something would be worded in an article.) And some of them do believe they change into animals... and.... geez. DreamGuy 12:59, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Whether they are delusional or not is not the issue, though. Otherkin is in itself not a psychiatric condition. Such people might have a psychiatric condition, but that is not the same thing. A psychiatrist would not describe someone as "suffering from otherkin" or anything like that. Otherwise we might argue that Christianity and all other religions should be so classified. violet/riga (t) 13:07, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I would be perfectly comfortable, regardless of the statement made by Nickptar being true, that the phrase: "Clinical lycanthropy is one psychiatric syndrome that may explain a percentage of the segment of otherkin who believe they have transformed into an animal," be included in the article. Hipocrite 12:54, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Without some kind of documented link where we can say "Person A has suggested a link between clinical lycanthropy and otherkin beliefs", or any sources indicating whether any otherkin believe that they have transformed into animals at all, let alone how prevalent their beliefs are, I would be against including any paragraph like this. Vashti 12:57, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I'll try it again - untill the wikipedia definition of otherkin is changed to exclude people who believe they have changed into animals, it currently reads "The otherkin subculture is made up of people who describe themselves as non-human in some way." There is a segment of the population, described by CL, who believe they are non-human in some way, specifically, they have or are changed into animals. This is a subset. Hipocrite 13:01, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I would say that the core definition of otherkin should be "those people who identify themselves as otherkin". This article isn't about clinical lycanthropes or any other group, it's about the collection of people who have identified themselves under the otherkin heading. This should be self-evident, especially if you read the entire opening section. Vashti 13:09, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, let's comare to another culture/type, and you can tell me what otherkin is. Homosexuals are people who are attracted to people of the same sex. Some homosexuals go to gay bars. Is the otherkin article about the gay bar scene (which includes only gay people), or is it about homosexuals?

If it is about the gay bar scene, are people-who-turn-into-things somehow prevented from going? If not, wouldn't you expect that some percentage of the segment of otherkin who believe they turn into animals have their condition explained by a psychiatric condition that entails someone believing they turn into animals? Hipocrite 13:18, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

This page should primarily cover the gay bar scene, as you put it. It should cover homosexuality as well, but what it should not cover is those aspects (like the questionable beliefs in physical shifting) that are more than adequately covered by pages on the other communities.

As regards the purported otherkin belief in physical shifting, I've done some research on this. There are ten hits on Google for "otherkin shifting". [1] The top one is my user page and the second one is this page. One is a Wikipedia mirror and two are from the Google directory. One discusses it entirely under the heading of therianthropy. As far as "otherkin believing (sic) they turn into animals" is concerned, the results are uniformly negative - and most of these pages are therian pages that mention otherkin only in passing:

"why haven't I heard of dragonkin shifting?"

"Physical shifting is often described as impossible. There is no documented proof of any were changing their physical form (besides hopping into a fursuit) and most first hand accounts are dismissed as fantasy fiction."

"There is no debate. Without the aid of reconstructive surgery, physical transformation is impossible.

People who believe they transform into animals wouldn't be otherkin, they're therians. That's over here. The communities are separate. They have their own sites. They have their own message groups. That's why this article says that, although "otherkin" is a term sometimes used as an umbrella for all the non-human identity communities, therians, dragons, vampires and so on may not consider themselves otherkin. That's toned down from "they may take offence at being called otherkin".

Based on all of this, I feel confident in stating "otherkin are not people who believe that they transform into animals". Vashti 13:59, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

A circular definition is not a workable definition, and again it's only your POV that the article isn't about clinical lycanthropes because you assume they have no overlap, which is unproven, unsupported, highly POV and I would go so far as to say highly illogical. DreamGuy 13:15, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

They may overlap, but to state they do without a source is original research. ~~ N (t/c) 13:44, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you do not need professional opinion to weigh in to determine that people who think they change into animals and otehr nonhuman forms and people who think they change into animals overlap. That's not original research in the slightest. DreamGuy 13:56, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

WP:NOR says original research includes introducing a theory. If this theory is not documented anywhere else, it has no place in the article. It can go in the "see also", or you can make a comparison in the main article, but you can't say "clinical lycanthropy may explain...". If it is documented, it does belong. That you think it's obvious is irrelevant. ~~ N (t/c) 14:55, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I will change that sentence now. Hipocrite 18:34, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Intro Rewrite

To be completly clear, according to Vashti, if one believes that they have shifted into an animal at some point, that would make one NOT otherkin, rather X. Given this, I have to insist that the intro be rewritten to reflect this. Hipocrite 18:34, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I think Vashti is wrong on that point... Some otherkin believe they have shifted into animal forms, others believe that they are part animal (also a symptom of clinical lycanthropy). Maybe you ought to slow down a bit on your changes here, they aren't making much sense for either side. You just labeled all therianthropes as clinical therianthropes, which is like saying anyone depressed has clinical depression, and then you said that no therianthropes qualify as otherkin, which many people disagree with. DreamGuy 19:07, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Can you produce some sources to back up what you're saying, please. Vashti 19:16, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

It's a good start. However, I don't believe that it belongs in the overview any more, as it's now a fringe topic. I've moved it down to the "Physiological beliefs" section and had a go at rewriting it for increased accuracy. I believe "almost universal disbelief" is an accurate summation of the research I did earlier on, and that this also demonstrated that p-shifting is a belief nonexistent in the otherkin community proper.

We're also faced with a problem I found when I first began working on the article, namely that there is a large chunk of material on therianthropes that is detail that should really be in Therianthropy, not Otherkin. A year ago there was a lot of material here that belonged more at Therianthropy, and I moved it. I am reluctant to see it creep back. Vashti 19:03, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately your rewrite assumes that clinical lycanthropy only covers physical changes, and the whole "yeah but those people who think they physically shift are nuts and a small minority"-esque statement is the same sort of original research POV statements you were accusing others of. DreamGuy 19:10, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to remove the entire paragraph as original research, if you want to. Vashti 19:16, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

So, what now, you write a highly POV and factually incorrect statement and try to use that as justification for removing all mention of clinical lycanthropy from the article, which you never wanted there in the first place? Cute, but that isn't going to fly. DreamGuy 22:42, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

I am getting a little tired of being accused of POV edits by someone who repeatedly demonstrates a prejudice on the subject matter of this article. Did an otherkin kick your dog when you were six or something? Vashti 08:56, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

The whole mention of clinical lycanthropy is original research which doesn't belong in this article. I see that when you insist on inserting original research into an article, it's something obvious which anyone should be able to figure out, but when I try to edit the original research you've insisted on to make it resemble fact, and point out that those facts belong in a different page, it's "a highly POV and factually incorrect statement"? I think you're blinded by your extreme POV and dislike of otherkin. By the way, I take it your refuting sources for the Google research I did are coming? That comment I left a few lines above seems to be another one that you've flatly ignored. Vashti 09:02, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the above statement. I've listed this on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection - it's about time we hash this out civilizedly on this talk page instead of warring on the article. ~~ N (t/c) 14:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Poll

This reverting with both sides claiming consensus is getting annoying. How about we do a poll to determine the real consensus? ~~ N (t/c) 14:22, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

How can we have a poll when we don;t even have the sides spelled out? How do you even know what "Dreamguy's form" is? And, frankly, the fact that two of you are voting for Vashti's side shows that you don;t understand at all what he's doing. It's the worst of all possible situations, because it gets the definition of clinical lycanthropy wrong and he uses it as a club against the kinds of otherkin he himself dislikes and nobody else. IT's both factually incorrect AND highly POV, and it looks to me that he may have pruposefully chosen to do that as a straw man argument to show people how bad his version is and hope to get it removed from the page completely, and the idea that people are voting for it is appalling.DreamGuy 15:29, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Are you rying to conceal a way to call other people brainless with the " straw man" thing? please note thatthis is EXACTLY the kind of behaviour that your on RFAr for.Gavin the Chosen 15:32, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

It's nothing to do with what I "dislike" (actually, my sister is a therian), and it says a lot for your misunderstanding of my position that you can claim that. "Otherkin" as an umbrella term (including the dragons, vampires and weres that *have their own articles already*), is pretty near meaningless. When I wrote the overview, I included it for completeness and that was all; it was never meant to take over the page, or justify including swathes of material on the communities that have their own articles already. What this article ought to discuss is the subset of the non-human identity community that identifies as sentient, usually mythological beings, and goes under the name of otherkin.

Needless to say, I flatly reject your mischaracterisation of my position, and continue to await your substantiation of your own claims. Vashti 15:48, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Dude, you aren;t even trying to make sense. You claimed and claimed that nay mention of clinical lycanthropy even in passing was POV and violated NOR and now you are claiming that the term applies only to a specific kind of otherkin? That's completely original research, and considering that you get the definition of clinical lycanthropy wrong it's completely incorrect original research. DreamGuy 19:21, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

It's called trying to compromise and reach consensus. Vashti 06:20, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

This is my third ask on this. If individuals who believe they have transformed into animals are not Otherkin, please correct the article to make this clear. You inserted a paragraph that made it very clear that people who think they turn into animals are a subset of Otherkin. Hipocrite 17:00, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Simply believing that you have transformed into an animal does not make you otherkin, no. Therianthropes (who may or may not believe it; my understanding is that the belief is honoured more in its absence than its presence, but I'm not a therian) come under the umbrella heading of otherkin, but that's not what this article is meant to be about - material dealing with therians should be at Therianthropy. I'll have a look to see if I can improve the article.

However, if you're talking about the clinical lycanthropy paragraph that I rewrote, you know that I don't believe that information has any place whatsoever in this article. However, since it is there, I believe that what *is* there should be accurate. If I can't keep people from inserting original research here, I can do my best to make sure that what is inserted is factual. Vashti 17:21, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Hm, the page is protected right now, so I can't do anything to it. Can you explain in what way the current overview is unclear? Links to old comments are fine. If I modify the overview to make it clear that we're talking about two different meanings of the term (one specific, one vague) will that be sufficient? Vashti 17:26, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

"The otherkin subculture is made up of people who describe themselves as non-human in some way..." Humans don't turn into other animals. That you don't want the link to CL in the article dosen't in any way change the fact that you wrote a paragraph that reads, in part "Some otherkin...believe that they can physically transform into animals." Is this not true? Hipocrite 17:31, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I wrote a response to this, but my edits seem to be going missing. :/ In short, it's true for the umbrella term, it's not true for the specific term, and most of that section should in my opinion be removed. Vashti 18:23, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

If this is the gay bar scene vs. gay people thing, you'll need to revise the article to reflect the bar scene, as requested. Hipocrite 18:25, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

As I've said a few times, in my opinion the whole article needs rewriting, but I haven't had time to look at it yet. Vashti 18:29, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

The comparison to clinical lycanthropy is incorrect. A sufferer of CL does not simply believe they have a connection to a particular animal, nor that they can transform to that animal, but instead believes that, physically, they truly are that animal, often to such an extent that they behave as the animal might. This belief cannot be contradicted by the wealth of evidence they are in fact physically human; it's considered possible they may even see the body of an animal in place of their own.

Otherkin, on the other hand, are quite aware they possess a human body. Their "other" connection is predominantly spiritual, not physical; although some may feel aware of phantom (non-human) anatomy, such as wings or tails, this is a quite different phenomenon from believing one has truly physical wings attached to one's back.

Finally, clinical lycanthropy is a mental illness, defined as an affliction that interferes significantly with the patient's life. Otherkin generally lead fairly normal lives and would likely object to being arbitrarily labeled as ill; as with the attitude of psychiatry toward homosexuality until recently, interest in connecting this lifestyle and set of beliefs to psychological disorders is misguided. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 19:45, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Looking at the CL article again, you could, very well, be right. Could you substantiate the statement you make about sufferers of CL beliving they have transformed perminently? I have crossquestioned this to the talk:CL page, in the hopes that a knowlegable psyctype can give me the heads up. Hipocrite 20:00, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Source note: http://www.primitivism.com/lycanthropy.htm - Counterindicative

As a note, It's incredibly difficult to get people to respond to inquisitive queries when they think someone else has answered. It's a shame Gavin torpedoed my attempt to get more info from professionals over at Talk:CL, though I remain hopefull that someone might be willing to either confirm or deny what he said. It's ESPECIALLY ironic that his answer was the one that would have kept CL in this article - I'm not going to take the low road and say that proves it should go in, however. I guess this will just have to remain unresolved till my papers come in. Hipocrite 21:20, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

For mention of clinical lycanthropy in article (This form or similar)[2] and in see-also

1. ~~ H Distant second choice. Distant. REALLY distant.Hipocrite 14:44, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, I have to call foul here, as this is not my version. This was my attempt to help Hipocrite's version along a little. I actually didn't like his version all that much but liked how at least it was going somewhere compared to Vashti's attempts to remove all mention of the word (including an attempt to put info about it so bad that even people who want it in there don;t want his version so he could offer removing it completely, which is clearly what he wanted in the first place). It's absolutely ridiculous that people are voting on what's labeled as my version when it's nto mine at all, and it's bizarre to me that Hipocrite is voting so strongly against it as it's mostly his edit. I must strongly recommend calling off this farce of a poll until there are real actual sides being discussed instead of misrepresentations of other people's positions. DreamGuy 19:29, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Concern addressed. Feel free to vote for Other and explain. Hipocrite 20:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

The concern is not addressed, especially because now one version is not what anyone suggested and another version is a version Vashti put out as a straw man argument for how he didn't want it and making it so bad nobody would vote for it, not even himself... odd then that you'd vote for that one anyway).

We need a poll with all the actual suggestions made in all seriousness and voted on correctly. DreamGuy 20:55, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

All right, if you want something other than what is suggested, write it and add it to the poll. Sorry about the misrepresentation. ~~ N (t/c) 21:09, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

If you were sorry about the misrepresentation you would take the time to get to the bottom of the real issues involved here instead of ignoring the problems and continuing on with a poll that was flawed from the beginning. DreamGuy 14:08, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

All right, if you want something other than what is suggested, write it and add it to the poll.Hipocrite 14:10, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

For mention of clinical lycanthropy in article (this form or similar) and in see-also

1. ~~ H Hipocrite 14:44, 22 August 2005 (UTC) - change words "classification of" to "syndrome" persuant to Nick, who appears to be always right.
2. Vashti 15:30, August 22, 2005 (UTC). Extremely distant third choice, as there is no supporting evidence for any link to clinical lycanthropy. Actually, I'm removing this vote pending a documented link between clinical lycanthropy and otherkin.

For mention of clinical lycanthropy only in see-also

1. Second choice. First choice. I actually think most of Vashti's paragraph should be there (if it is, in fact, correct), but the clinical-lycanthropy part of it is original research. ~~ N (t/c) 14:32, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
2. Vashti 15:27, August 22, 2005 (UTC). Second choice.
3. First choice, unless the CL supporters can show some proof it is OR, regardless of how much they think CL sounds like otherkin. If they are so sure they should write an academic, psychological paper and publish it somewhere. :) Kit 19:40:25, 2005-08-22 (UTC)
4. First choice. I agree with Nick - lose the last sentance of the Theranthrope bit from Vashti, leave link in See-Also. Hipocrite 21:00, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

For no mention of clinical lycanthropy

1. Gavin the Chosen 14:25, 22 August 2005 (UTC) theres no corrolation, so why have it? thats like saying that tigers have some place in the emporer penguins article.
2. Vashti 15:26, August 22, 2005 (UTC). First choice. I don't believe that any relationship has been demonstrated to the core subject of this article (the otherkin community, as opposed to the umbrella term which is mentioned in the overview).
3. Second choice. There ought to be some mention of other human-animal issues, but I don't feel this especially strongly. ~~ N (t/c) 18:54, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
4. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 20:23, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
5. Rushyo 00:39, 03 September 2005
6. Rakeela 18:28 August 24, 2005. First choice. I think the otherkin community in general would object to the mention being in place. It shouldn't be mentioned, as it seems likely to cause friction and further controversy. Controversy would be acceptable if it was a larger part of the subculture, but it's really not.

Well, as per my comments below to Gavin, there is some similarity. I'm inclined to give your opinion more weight, but would appreciate clarification. ~~ N (t/c) 22:51, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi Rakeela -- If you are voting not to list it because you are afraid of offending people because they don't want it there, that's a bias. This encyclopedia follows Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy. Your vote is worded so that it's clear that the only reason for your vote goes against the principles of this encyclopedia, so I'm afraid that's not a good justification. Also, I notice that your only edits are here... interesting that you showed up out of nowhere. How did you hear of this article and know to come here to talk about it? DreamGuy 22:56, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

I found this article through someone else telling me about it. As for what I said, I said there's no point in including things that are offensive and non-instructive. You can't keep from offending people, but if you include something that could be taken as directly insulting by a group of people, then you've violated neutrality in the other direction. As I said, it's perfectly acceptable if it is indeed a large portion of the subculture - I just don't believe it is. If you want me to change the basis of my vote, then simply prove it's common enough to merit bearing the reactions of those who would object.Rakeela 16:53 August 29, 2005

ADDED: To back up what I said about violating neutrality in the other direction, what I mean is, this violates the principle of not giving Undue Weight to minority views, to avoid distorting the presentation of the article. Rakeela 17:29 August 29, 2005

next thing you know hell try to tell Rakeela that shes one of my old sock puppet accounts. dude, tis painfully easy to look up pages on wikipedia. Also, Biased peope shoiuld not try to lecture others about bias.Gavin the Chosen 23:40, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

That's tu quoque, Gavin. DreamGuy is correct and is behaving pretty civilly, too. ~~ N (t/c) 01:46, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Clarification: I don't mean correct about sockpuppetry (there's little evidence for that), but correct on NPOV. ~~ N (t/c) 01:48, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

telling sopmeone that thier opinion is invalid is far from polite. questionig someones motives for editing talk pages is also far from polite.Gavin the Chosen 01:48, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

There's absolutely nothing wrong with explaining NPOV to a newbie. The sockpuppet accusation is premature (and probably a bad idea) but just might be valid. Please correctly indent your comments. ~~ N (t/c) 01:55, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

sorry about the formatting thing. as for why i "pounced " on this, its becasue i dont wnat him driving another user away from this page. hes done it before.Gavin the Chosen 02:12, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out that I, personally, see nothing wrong with the way DreamGuy handled that. He was polite about it. I thank you for your concern, Gavin, but I hardly need defended from a mannerly critique. Rakeela 16:52 August 29, 2005

poll results

looks like No mentipon Of Clinical Lycanthropy, with the most first choices, wins.Gavin the Chosen 18:34, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Uh, no. You can't count. Hipocrite 19:14, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I think we now have a consensus for "see also". I also think "Vashti's version" sans the last sentence should be there, and Hipocrite agrees; does anyone object to this? ~~ N (t/c) 14:47, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Just remembered Rakeela saying that physical change is a very, very rare claim. Therefore, I don't think any of "Vashti's paragraph" should be there. ~~ N (t/c) 17:29, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Or not, he seems to have signed on below. ~~ N (t/c) 22:49, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I do, on the grounds that Otherkin is not a medical cnndition , and Clinical lycanthropy is. as such., one has nothing to do with the other.Gavin the Chosen 15:33, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

You've said that now several times, but I don't think anyone is seeing your POV. They are clearly related; I don't think anyone but you is going to try to suggest that they're not. A subculture of people with broken arms, for example, is different than the medical condition of a broken arm. But the two are related by virtue of the actual broken arm being the common tie. Does that help? Friday (talk) 15:43, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Failed consensus revision:

Line 29: Some otherkin, usually in the therianthrope community, believe that they can physically transform into animals. Although many therians are interested in the possibility of "p-shifting" or physical shifting, those who believe that they have at some point physically transformed are met with almost universal disbelief.

Hipocrite 12:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Consent

1. Hipocrite 12:27, 23 August 2005 (UTC) Without reservation
2. Rakeela 18:34 August 23, 2005. I like this. It seems to describe the similarity, but more importantly, it includes a note about the general reaction of the subculture as a whole. It's an honest and decently non-controversial explanation. I'll note an accept, without reservation.

Do you have a citable source to back this up? I believe you, but it's nice to have one for WP. ~~ N (t/c) 22:50, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Rakeela 15:53, 29 August 2005 I'm part of the administration on a fairly large otherkin forum. I don't really have a citable source, unless you want me to cite policy off of said site - but that would be an extremely POV basis, and would be (IMO) even more suspect than my testimony alone. I am searching though, so I'll keep an eye out. Sorry for being insufficiently active - I've been busy lately.

Stand Aside

1. Vashti 12:40, August 23, 2005 (UTC). This is still material that should be at Therianthropy, and in fact has a large section there already, complete with discussion of clinical lycanthropy. I believe I've provided ample evidence that otherkin do not, as a rule, believe that they can or have physically shifted. [3] In my view, that makes this claim original research which needs sourcing - at a minimum - before it should be included here. I don't agree that random assertions of "otherkin believe X" should require me to prove the negative that otherkin do not believe X, whatever it is, but rather proof should be demanded to support the original claims. Having said this, if the consensus is to include this form of text, this would be acceptable to me as a compromise. I urge people, however, to look at the basis for making these claims in the first place, and the lack of support that has been provided for them to date. Vashti 12:40, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Given that you wrote "Having said this, if the consensus is to include this form of text, this would be acceptable to me as a compromise." I have moved you to Stand Aside. Hipocrite 12:53, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I've struck that line out, then, and moved myself back to Object - just because I have no intention of edit warring against consensus shouldn't change my firm objection to an abstention. Vashti 13:03, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Unless objectors are struck due to bad faith, this objection would prevent us from ever reaching consensus on this edit. Could you propose an alternative solution that you believe would be met with a majority of consensus, with a minimum of stand-asides, and Objects only from, say, one or two users, who will remain nameless, both of who I am willing to consider outside the group? Hipocrite 13:09, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

If the consensus is to include the text, I will change my vote to "Stand Aside" at that time. Will that be acceptable? Vashti 13:12, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

"Standing Aside," expresses your dislike for the solution, but your willingness to abide by it if it remains the sense of the community. Object prevents the solution from going forward, regardless of what everyone else believes. See Consensus decision-making. Object is a veto, Stand Aside is a "no" vote. If there are a substial number of stand-asides (I'd say any more than 10-20%), I will change my vote to Object. Hipocrite 13:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC) Proud Quaker School graduate)

Yegads. I don't have time to read through all of that now (have to leave for the vet in a couple of minutes), but based on your comment I will change my vote back to "Stand Aside" for now. Vashti 13:19, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Ok. Believe me, I now understand the strength of your objection, and would very much like to find a less objectionable version. Can you suggest a change that would make it better? Comment by Hipocrite 13:29, August 23, 2005

I think the text you've proposed is about as good as it's going to get - it is accurate, neutral and probably mostly non-controversial. I just feel that material about therians would be better placed in Therianthropy, and is not relevant to a discussion of otherkin (non-umbrella/gay-bar), hence my objection. Vashti 15:33, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

1. As per Vashti, needs sourcing. I do think if true it should be in this article, as it is about otherkin as well as therians. ~~ N (t/c) 21:58, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
2. Agree with User:Nickptar and Vashti. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 20:28, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Object

How is this even slightly a consensus version of anything? It doesn;t even try to discuss the points over which we had controversy earlier. Can people just stop making silly pollls for no reason and try to come up with a version that actually deals with the conflict area? DreamGuy 13:48, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

I am poised to disregard your objection, but I am willing to entertain it. Can you suggest a reasonable alternative? Hipocrite 13:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

You talk like you think you control this article. Disregard my objection if you want, that just means you have given up trying for consensus. You need to make an actual effort to open a discussion here, not just try to rush through whatever you think up suddenly. The whole pshift business makes no sense, as it's only for a small group of a subset and is entirely irrelevant to the whole clinical lycanthropy dispute, as belief in physically shifting is not the only symptom of it. The information on Therianthropy (assuming it hasn;t been deleted sometime in the last month during edit warring) already handles the whole topic of clinical lycanthropy better than this article as it is more a blanket similarity instead of only applied to certain people. It's important to note the overlap of symptoms, get the symptoms correct (i.e. not just the physical shifting) and note it here as a point of comparison but not to say that any individual otherkin would necessarily suffer it, as it has to be diagnosed individually based upon severity and how much t disrupts the person's life. DreamGuy 19:25, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

I am attempting to facilitate discussion. Disregarding the objection of someone who has no desire to join in any consensus is perfectly valid. Given the above partially constructive statement, I accept your objection. Can you propose an alternative edit that you believe will allow everyone involved in this community to either join in a consensus or stand aside? In the spirit of openess, what is your underlying goal in editing this article? Hipocrite 19:31, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

i still aintain that there should be no mention of clinical lycanthropy in the eintire article, because it has nothing to do with it, no matter how much DreamGuy wishes it did.Gavin the Chosen 18:31, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I apologize, but as the self-appointed facilitator, I am disregarding your objection. I do not feel that you intend to help us reach consensus. If you feel I am in error, you can demonstrate to other participants that you are acting in the interest of the community by presenting alternative edits that would allow you to stand aside or join in to a consensus. It has been demonstrated that a total exclusion of the subject without any changes to the article would not reach consensus. Hipocrite 19:19, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

sorry, but uinless you can convince me otherwise, you dont get to disregard my objectinons, becausethey ae based on simple facts, not on heavily biase, complaining thoughts, like someone eklse.Gavin the Chosen 19:55, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

1. I get to ignore your objections because I am the facilitator, and I get to decide what objections are ignorable and 2. I get to ignore your objections because you are not working to reach consensus with other editors. Propose an edit that people who have disagreed to will sign on to, and prove me wrong. Hipocrite 20:10, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

there is no such thing as a facillitotor wh is self appouinted. please stop the self indulgance. your by no means neutral enough.Gavin the Chosen 20:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

If the sense of the community is that I have failed at facilitating, I will happily step down in favor of Vashti or Nick. Hipocrite 20:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

then step aside immidatlyGavin the Chosen 20:31, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I have neither the desire or ability to be a facilitator, nor do I think I would be accepted as a neutral one. Gavin, you are not the community; please do not attempt to speak for all of us. People from outside edit wars like this who are willing to shove their hands into the rats' nest are rare, and I am happy for Hipocrite to continue his efforts. Vashti 20:40, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

thats the thing, hes not from outseide this conflict.Gavin the Chosen 20:46, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I think trying to find someone who is entirely outside the conflict but willing to involve themselves to this degree might prove difficult, is all I was trying to say. However, a quick look at Hipocrite's Talk: contributions shows no involvement here until August 7th when he commented at Non-Human Identity Subcultures, or whatever it was, and then nothing until he started posting here at the start of this recent burst of activity. What did I miss? Vashti 20:52, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

his actins onf clinical lycanthropy and Therianthropy, dictate an opinipon that is by no means neutral.Gavin the Chosen 21:01, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

There should be no reason that editors with different POVs can't all work together. I have a POV, you have a POV, all God's children have a POV. What matters is editing neutrally, and I think Hipocrite is doing that as well as anyone you're likely to find - well, possibly with the exception of some long-dead sister of blessed longsuffering. Vashti 21:10, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

I do not deny having an opinion - what person dosent't? I do, however, consider myself to be in the middle, and I'm certainly not inserting my opinion in my edits, at least in my personal opinion. I'd note that if Vashti hadn't moved herself to Stand Aside (and, if we hadn't gotten at least 6 people to sign onto consent), I never would have called my revision even approaching agreeable - unlike with you, if she wasn't going to stand aside, it wasn't going to happen - Vashti is a demonstration of what's right about Wikipedia's process - while her and I are in complete disagreement about the article, we can find edits that the other person thinks improves things - Vashti's edit which got me onboard the otherkin to See-Also section, for instance, was a demonstration that consensus gets results. Next thing I know, Vashti will have me convinced that I'm a werewolf!

I'm trying to be fair, Gavin, not neutral. My opinion counts too, and I'm not giving it up! I'm not going to torpedo something because I don't want it though - see me torpedoing the edit I liked becase DreamGuy seemed to be willing to come with us.

As long as I can keep everyone but you and Dream on the boat with me, that boat is going to float, and if that means that the consensus has to steamroll over objections from both sides, the steamroller is rolling. I want you to come with us - I want Dream to come with us. But you have to take the first step in his direction, and he needs to take the first step in yours. Like I said above - prove me wrong. Make me embarassed that I was going to leave you on the shore. Hell - I'll apologize in a split second. This process has failed - a reasonable objection was objected, and we'll need to go back to the drawing board. To do that, both you and DreamGuy need to tell us what you want.

As to my edit history on this issue, I have condensed my pre-this attempt at facilitation into a burst of diffs: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]. Might have missed some.

Gavin, this particular part is not about clinical lycanthropy at all. Hipocrite, I think you're acting a little proprietary with the ignoring of objections; just let the consensus decide as it will. In fact, I don't think a "facilitator" is necessary. ~~ N (t/c) 22:03, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Good luck to you all, then. Hipocrite 23:29, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Hey, you can stay around. I just mean there's no need to tell people their votes are invalid. ~~ N (t/c) 23:32, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

We will never reach consensus with him and me around. I'm leaving so you can try. Hipocrite 23:40, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

The link does stand out on its own with no tie into the article if the link is to be used their should be a section on clinical lycanthropy with it relating to otherkin. although this path would add a counter to the existence of otherkin and would have to be evened out by an article justifying otherkin beliefs.(unsigned)

well, i dont suppose you bothered reading the excessivly long discussion about that? seems to me that those such as vashti and myself are looking to have people find a source showing a link between clinical lycanthropy and otherkin. so far this hs not happened. putting that section in would be origional research without a source.Gavin the Chosen 05:15, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I heartily agree, there are no publically credible sources that there is a link so therefore, in the interests of neutrality, a Wikipedia article should not mention it. There's also the fact it's rather insulting. There are lots of studies that say Pagans are all heretics, should we also include a 'going to burn in hell' section on the Pagan article? Give me a break. Rushyo

Yes, as "Christian views on paganism" or the like. However, I agree that it's unsourced. ~~ N (t/c) 00:24, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Ah but by including it as 'going to burn in hell' it's passing it off as fact, much like having an unquestioned link in 'See Also' to clinical lycanthropy would be. That was my point. 'Christian views on paganism' would be something different. -Rushyo