Talk:Otherkin

Merge discussion

If we use this text, then the GFDL demands that authorship information be retained. Simplest way to do that IMO is to undelete the Draconity article to restore its history and redirect it wherever the material ends up. Bryan 07:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, this article doesn't go that hugely into scope. Why a specific kind of Otherkin? Why just dragons? If we add a lot of this information, cosmetically, won't it require we expand the article to also include the specific belief of every other subset of Otherkin? It's not just dragons. I vote for not including this information, chiefly. Much of it does not come from WP:RS anyway, and thus little can be salvaged and held useable. I believe it goes beyond the scope of the Otherkin article, and it will be a future headache to incorporate. I personally believe it merits maybe one sentence, if we can verify that Dragons ARE a subset of Otherkin, and thus have a cite for same. We could then add a Types of Otherkin section again, including types we can verify. BUT, am prepared to have my mind changed on this. In either case, I've deleted the "See Also" link to Draconity, a page that now redirects HERE. If said page ever exists again, we'll restore it. Raeft 16:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

A lot of the reasons for the article are historical. People believing themselves to be dragons tended to go online looking for people sharing that specific belief, the only other term that has a large popular awareness is 'lycanthropy', and that's quite obviously not the right term for believing that you're a winged lizard. 'Draconity' is a term that evolved from the online dragon community, while 'Otherkin' evolved elsewhere, and 'therianthropy' was applied by people with a classical education in these things. As we can see from the discussion threads, 'otherkin' is a hotly-contested term, often because those who choose to apply it to themselves have associated beliefs that disagree with those identifying themselves as 'therian'. I believe that the encyclopedic approach to the problem is to report as fairly and accurately as possible on the underlying phenomenon, and treat the community politics separately. NickArgall 02:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a social networking site, a publisher of original thought, a soapbox or an indiscriminate collection of information. Please see what Wikipedia is not. If you think there is some "historically significant" aspect to this then there are plenty of free webspace providers where you can host it for those tending to "go online looking for people sharing that specific belief". NeoFreak 12:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

In short, Wikipedia is determined to be just as limited as a paper encyclopedia, only free and easier to access. -- Toksyuryel ^{talk | contrib} avatar 17:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to assume that is an honest question and not a baiting one. Wikpedia strives to have all of the legitmacy and high standards of a paper encyclopeida with the benefits of using an open source, electronic medium of presentation and collaboration. NeoFreak 17:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It was not a question of any kind, meerly a statement of deduction based on observation. I am genuinely concerned for the future of Wikipedia, and currently I see it heading down a disasterously ruinous path, as do many others. -- Toksyuryel ^{talk | contrib} avatar 22:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs reliable sources. Are there reliable sources on this subject? Not really. Is it notable? Otherkin are -barely- notable. They've been noted in articles before, but mostly peripherally. So its kind of hard to build an article on the subject. Honestly, this is a problem with a lot of fringe subjects which are recent and largely confined to the internet. Draconicity is the same, really - it is a fringe group with little acceptance. Also, I'm pretty sure your avatar is a copyvio. >> Titanium Dragon 06:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand that but I don't agree with it, IMHO it's preventing Wikipedia from being the best it can be. I have nothing to say about the Draconity article that hasn't already been said, heads will be butted but not mine. My avatar is fair use. It is not used in any article and I do not claim to be the one who created it, and I gain nothing of monetary value from my use of it. -- Toksyuryel ^{talk | contrib} avatar 07:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

NeoFreak, Raeft asked a question in a discussion page about why there was a page specifically about Draconity. I answered that question. I believe that it was an appropriate discussion for us to have on a talk page. Your comments would have been appropriate if I had been talking about the history of the Draconity article in an article. I wasn't. NickArgall 03:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I was replying to your assertion that the individual Draconity article was justified because "People believing themselves to be dragons tended to go online looking for people sharing that specific belief, the only other term that has a large popular awareness is 'lycanthropy'". Did I misinterperet what you were saying? NeoFreak 05:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I do think that some mention needs to be given. The beliefs of these two groups differ greatly in my opinion, if there is interest, I can point sources. However, I will not make any changes myself as where I stand is clearly not NPOV. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.189.252.225 (talk) 06:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

Sources would be great, just please make sure that they are reliable sources or they can't be used. This means no "community sites", forums, message boards, personal websites or "research" done by anyone other than an accredited source, academic or jounalistic. NeoFreak 17:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

External Links redux

Are the current external links appropriate? Otherkin.net is not really that important; its a personal website. Same with many of the other external links. I don't think they're really appropriate. We decided they weren't reliable sources, so why are they even linked? The only one I could really see linking would be Baxil's FAQ, simply due to its linkings from so many otherkin sites, and even that's dubious. Titanium Dragon 10:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Why not try the House Kheperu otherkin articles? House Kheperu is technically a vampire house, but it does have good information on this broad subject. http://kheperu.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=index&catid=&topic=21&allstories=1 Asa Hearts 00:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Uh, no. The last thing I'm going to do in an effort to educate someone is send them to "House Kheperu" the emo-swag hangout for confused suburbanites that think they're vampires. The place is run by a woman named Bellanger that gatherd all the vampire mall folk-lore and bad pop culture references and then added in some pseudo-historical context and published a book. It's bad enough, that because it got published and people bought, it can be used as a "reference". We have more then enough external links already, as a matter of fact I think the section needs to be trimmed. NeoFreak 02:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand how you see the house as emo, but that is beside the point. Even if what you speculate is true, Belanger's site is still far better than most of the links in the section. The section does,indeed need to be trimmed, but it is sites like otherkin.net that need to go. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Asa Hearts (talk • contribs) 04:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

If Otherkin is classified as a subculture, why not include links to sites for those interested in the subculture? The best learning experience is from those who actually live their lives within the culture, not a bunch of pointless information derived from books who could or could not be credible. Just because it was published does not mean it is reliable information. That seems to be the main argument here. What is and what is not a valid source. What source is more valid than those who participate? You wouldn't ask a Buddhist to explain Christianity, so why ask psychologists to explain Otherkin? Clodaus 11:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Content Proposal - Can we work together?

Okay, I've been stopping in every once in a while for the past...I'd say around a year. It's been interesting seeing how it's evolved into nothing. It's been a constant war, and it's accomplished nothing thus far but a rather pathetic stub. Cute, but ineffective. How can we fix this?

The first question I want to ask everyone (that I'm sure will be argued) is how do you define accurate content? Content written by Otherkin themselves - deleted. Psychology content - deleted. Enthusiast content - deleted. From who do you want content? I understand you want referenced sources, but from whom? If we're able to come up with a list of valid citations, would content from Otherkin be acceptable?

My second argument, stemming from the first, is why do you so strongly refuse content from those who actually live their daily lives within this culture? Would it not make sense that they know the most about it? As a member of the otherkin community, I understand there will be opposing views. I expect that. It is because the Otherkin community is a massive hierarchy of races. Therefore I suggest that only the content general to all Otherkin be added, and the specifics left to other articles.

Psychology. Of course I have to bring this up. I have once above, but I want to sum everything up here. Let's take a look at the Christianity article. I am using this as a comparison because it is a belief system, and Otherkin can be considered one as well. Where is the input from psychologists? Umm...it's not there. Then why is it necessary to put it here? Wikipedia needs a consistent system. If they're going to add psychology content on one article relating to a belief system, they need to on all the articles. Am I wrong to state this? If you feel the need to enter the information, provide a small section, or a link for additional research for those interested. It is not needed here.

Another thing I've been wondering is this: what types of people have been editing this article? Well, by the looks of it, every opposing group possible. This isn't like a war article you can reach neutrality on. You need to have one side edit it, and that is it. I propose Otherkin. Let the culture itself inform the public what they believe, and what they stand for. You don't see Jesus telling people what Buddha stands for, do you? Outside groups should not inform the public on groups they do not belong to. This does not provide accurate information.

Clinical Lycanthropy; does that apply to Otherkin? I don't believe so. Most Otherkin believe that their consciousness/soul/whatever you wish to call it is Otherkin. They recognize that their physical body is human. Though some Otherkin may believe they can shapeshift, the majority I have spoken with do not. Many Otherkin believe that certain traits may manifest physically thought behavior, and some small physical effects, but that is as generally as far as it goes.

About the merge - I stated this above but I want to state it again. Theranthropy is included in Otherkin, but Otherkin is not theranthropy. Therans are a subgroup of this massive hierarchy. Not all Otherkin consider themselves to be some type of animal, I know I don't. Once again, here's a visual aid:

                        Otherkin
                      /     |    \
                    /       |      \
              Therans  Elementals  Angels
                /           |        \
             Wolves      Sylves     Seraphim 

So what is the goal of this article? This is something you guys really need to focus on. Is the goal to provide information on the culture? Is it to provide information on a mental disorder? Or is it a playground for arguments and tug-of-war?

I know I left a lot out I needed to say, but this is plenty to ponder. For those who read it all, thank you. Try to keep things organized in your responses - the goal of this is to be productive, not loose it with all the other content. Wikipedia is a fairly respected encyclopedia, so I would prefer that when people use it, they get accurate content. Otherkin has for so many years been misunderstood. I've been aiming to help define them and reduce the ridicule from outside communities. Wikipedia is just a small step in that direction, and I would like to see it work out.

Please take everything I have stated into consideration. I understand that many seek to disprove content rather then aid its development. I ask that you do not do so here. Who am I to propose all these changes? Well, no one. But I'm hoping it'll help. Someone's gotta do it.

Clodaus 05:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

You seem to understand some of what the policy is on information being included here. The problem seems to be that you don't know why that is and seek an exception to the rules for your "special area of interest". The answer to which is, of course, no. Please read up again on original research and the simple rule of attribution. NeoFreak 14:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually with another reading of your post it would seem you would also benefit from reading the policy on article ownership and wikipedia's rule on neutral point of view. The concept that christianity and "Otherkin" are equatable subjects when it comes to article writing is...unoriginally incorrect. That you think this article should only be written by Otherkin is not just shockingly naive but also insulting and indicative that you have no idea how wikipedia works. I've left some additional links on your talk page, please read them. NeoFreak 14:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It would seem that most of those links were addressed by my recognition that published sources need to be cited; however I will look into them in more detail. I do not intend on contributing any uncited information (I actually do not intent on contributing at all; my efforts would be fruitless). Also, I'm curious as to how this "belief" article is different than a Christian article, with the exception of, of course, the fact we have a fairly undeveloped stub with limited citations. If I understood this, perhaps then I will agree with you in saying my proposal that Otherkin develop article content is unmerited. I recognize that for Christianity, there are a great deal of published sources and historical documents that can support the religion no matter who writes the article. However with Otherkin, that is not the case. I suppose your argument will be, once again, original research. Okay, then how about everyone here works on coming up with a list of resources before content? I also noticed that one of the resources is an article written on a website. How is this exempt from Wikipedia's policy of Original Research? Clodaus 20:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

One of two things is happening here: Either you're not reading the links provided in which case I'd ask you again to please do. The only other possible explanation is you just don't get it, in which case I don't know what else to say to you. I'm not going to waste my time if you won't put forth the effort to understand the policies of wikipedia or lack the faculty to decipher them. NeoFreak 21:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I took the time to read of the majority of those links, and scan the rest. I do not have the time at the moment to read over every sentence, especially considering I am not contributing to the article itself. It may have answered my question about the reference, buy not the comparison. If you do not wish to answer it, fine, someone else can. However, I do not appreciate the insult or aggressive attitude (however slight) considering my continued polite conversation. But thank you for taking the time to provide me with such links. Clodaus 02:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Slow, purposeful elimination

Just out of curiosity. The article on wikipedia regarding otherkin (and other beliefs such as this) used to be fairly long and informitave, while giving all sides of the situation. Explaining what people believed and at the same time leaving the possibility open of a psychological condition (heck, the same thing could be said about any belief :) ). However, over time, articles have been merged repeatedly, until (using otherkin as a specific example) we are left with a single article. There used to be many different 'subtype' articles about otherkin (draconity is one that can be seen on this talk page), but repeatedly they have been deemed non-notable for their own article, and they should be included in the body of another article, so they are removed. Then, the article that they have been moved to is slowly picked apart for various reasons, not meeting guidlines to the perfect definition of how each person sees them, until all that's left is a 'stub', that doesn't mention the articles that were deleted to be incorperated in the first place. In all of the informations place is basically a dictionary definition, with no additional information because people cannot agree to disagree, and thus nothing can be posted because someone is always unhappy and so the guidelines of wikipedia are called in repeatedly so that the article is effectively put to a standstill.

It's not specifically this article that bothers me, it's a pattern i've seen going on as Wikipedia continues. It is an excellent source with great potential, but if this sort of nature gets the better of the community (as it seems to be) more and more will be deemed non-noteworthy of inclusion in this 'prestigious encyclopedia', and wikipedia will loose one of the things it is most noted for. The ability to quickly and easily find information that is not easy to find anywhere else. Specifically because it IS fringe. I was going to write a bit more, however, this will most likely be removed because someone will feel it's improperly places here..

This is not meant to be inflammatory, insulting, or anything else. I enjoy wikipedia, and have found many usefully things on it. This is a trend that bothers me, and that is the only reason I bring it up —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.189.252.225 (talk) 06:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

The reason is, quite simply put, that there is a dearth of reliable sources on the subject. Random person X is not an RS, and mention of otherkin is few and far between in any sort of reliable source. Indeed, few books have been written which even mention them. As such, it is quite difficult to keep an article like this with any real length, because quite simply put we don't have any sources to use for it. Numbers and the like are unknown. Titanium Dragon 15:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand.. I wasn't specifically speaking about this article in particular, though it is an example of what I meant. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.189.252.225 (talk) 01:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

It is rather cyclic, really. Generally what happens is a bunch of articles are made, then someone is like "These aren't notable" or "These aren't sourced" and starts a bunch of AFDs. The less notable articles are weeded out and deleted, while the more notable ones are kept. This particular article is, I feel, notable, but RSs on the subject seem to be almost nonexistant, so it is basically on the edge of existing. Someone needs to either find more RSs or add more information from the ones we have, and I have looked but been unable to find more RSs. And while yes, Wikipedia does contain a lot of random stuff, its important that it is notable enough to keep. Titanium Dragon 10:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Since the topic should be this article.. instead of discussing the broader issue, how about a suggestion about this article specifically. What about a personal Essay that is not necessarily NPOV hosted on wikimedia then? If the article itself (because of RSes) can't be much longer, why not at least provide an alternate source in that form.

WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not for that sort of thing; that's what personal websites are for. There are numerous free web servers out there if you want to do that; Wikipedia is for sourced, NPOV articles. Titanium Dragon 21:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I realize that, what my original idea was saying was the principle of not being a paper dictionary. I wasn't talking about posting it on wikipedia directly, I think you misunderstood me. Anyways, I may contribute to the community (and obviously, register :P) in the near future. I however would not work on this article, as I understand what you mean.

a thought

this article doenst deserve to die as a mere stub, so i went around and read the ENTIRE history of the article and salvaged what i could. feel free to do the sameKaraveks voice 04:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Recent Massive Edits By Karaveks voice

I'm sorry, it looks like a lot of work went into this, but looking over them, it almost entirely seems to cite what would, in any other context, be desced as 'fan sites', it ignores a number of consensus points that had been reached on the talk page, they removed a number of wiki-things, including the call for citation and the suggestion for the merge (which I am against, but I wouldn't have just deleted at this point; I have readded them). It also destroys the NPOV that both otherkin and other editors have tried to achieve on this page.

Frankly, it runs so roughly over everything all the other editors have been striving for, and there are so many issues with it, that I really think a complete reversion to before the edits were made needs to be done. -Thespian 08:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree.

To be clear:

Otherkin.net is not a RS. The following in our list of links are RSs:

• • Elven Like Me, from Village Voice
  • Most of the books, save the ones by the Silver Elves.
  • The pub med paper
  • The Wooster.edu link
  • The kuro5hin link.

That’s it.

Unfortunately, I have access to exactly 0 of these books, though I might be able to find them at a library. If anyone DOES have access to these books they might be able to reference a lot of this article, but unfortunately other than the Wooster.edu link we have virtually no RSs on the actual subject of otherkin in general, though we have some on the elven community. Aside from the online content, I have nothing in the way of RSs. And to be honest, I'm not even certain how good of sources most of those books are, though some seem to be published by reputable publishers, at least. Please read over the talk page. Otherkin.net simply isn't a RS, and all but a handful of the citations are from otherkin.net. Titanium Dragon 09:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

otherkin dot net is as closeto a c scholarly web site as anythinfg can be dfound onb this topic , in my opinion. , aside from that, its sorta s spirituality thing, so its hard to be encyclopedic in the first place. ive read the old talk pages, andi t seems that some of this was taken from otherkin boards, which , since its spirtuality based, seems a good a place as any to begin. ive run accropss some dragonkin sites that looked good enough, but our not gonna find anything from like yale on this. its not old enough.Karaveks voice 11:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

There are RSs on the subject, namely the aforementioned books and a few articles. Otherkin.net, conversely, is not a RS; its some random person's webpage. Saying "its the best we'll get" is unacceptable; if there are no reliable sources, then it shouldn't have an article at all. However, there ARE RSs, just not a huge number, and we need to use them. Using RSs is one of the most important principles of Wikipedia. Titanium Dragon 22:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

as i recall there were entries with massive citations, so why dont we, you and i, look for it in the history? ill try if you will.Karaveks voice 01:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

No, there weren't. Almost the whole article was sourced from otherkin.net, which was the reason almost the entire article got removed the first time and the article almost got deleted. If you look back through the talk archives, you'll see discussion on the subject and that was the problem. Titanium Dragon 02:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

i still dont see why optherkin dot net is a bad source... i mean ther artent any univeristy profesosrs talking about this ubject witout laughing,....Karaveks voice 02:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Otherkin.net is not a "bad" source. It simply does not meet Wikipedia's standards for reliability and therefor is not appropriate. However, I have noticed there is a new book on Otherkin out that would probably be worth reading to see if it could be cited to improve this article. Aine 04:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)