Talk:Otherkin/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Here's an idea

Why not make an article ABOUT books ABOUT otherkin. Just like there's an article about videogames about WWII. It doesn't endorse their viewpoint, it just mentions that they exist and summarizes what they claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.122.63.142 (talk) 17:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Considering that no other spiritual belief, however bizarre, is treated in a similar manner, singling out otherkin for such treatment would be POV, as it would carry the implication that their beliefs are so bizarre they simply cannot be discussed in a primary article and must only be discussed at a step removed from the subject. 76.111.93.56 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

With respect to the WP:RS issue:

It should be noted that WP:RSE includes the following instructions (bolded for emphasis):

"Articles related to popular culture and fiction must be backed up by reliable sources like all other articles. However, due to the subject matter, many may not be discussed in the same academic contexts as science, law, philosophy and so on; it is common that plot analysis and criticism, for instance, may only be found in what would otherwise be considered unreliable sources. Personal websites, wikis, and posts on bulletin boards, Usenet and blogs should still not be used as secondary sources. When a substantial body of material is available the best material available is acceptable, especially when comments on its reliability are included."

I believe otherkin and similar internet-based subcultures would justifiably fall under the heading of popular culture.

I believe this speaks directly to the use of A Field Guide to Otherkin by Lupa as a source, as well as other texts of a similar nature that have been mentioned like Not in Kansas Anymore by Christine Wicker, and even the more purely metaphysical text Psychic Self Defense by Dion Fortune which mentions nonhuman souls in human bodies in far less than flattering terms. 76.111.93.56 (talk) 19:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I hate to bring up the notability thing again, but are Otherkin even notable? The longer I look at it, the less convinced I am. If there is a complete dearth of real material on them, how notable they are is somewhat questionable. Anonymous became notable when it pulled 7000 people onto the streets, but it wasn't notable before then. Otherkin have never done anything which really resulted in them getting piles of articles, hence the incredibly short, stubbish article. I don't think including material from a lot of these sources is possible without giving them undue weight, which is a major issue which also cannot be ignored. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe the issue of the notability of otherkin was settled previously in the original AfD attempts, where it was decided to keep the article and that Otherkin were notable enough for an article. There is also far from a dearth of real material on the subject. Otherkin are mentioned in:

1. The Village Voice article "Elven Like Me"
2. Veil's Edge
3. Field Guide to Otherkin
4. Not In Kansas Anymore
5. Psychic Self Defense
6. Ascension Magick by Christopher Penczak
7. The Psychic Vampire Codex by Michelle Belanger
8. The Vampire Ritual Book by Michelle Belanger
9. Psychic Dreamwalking by Michelle Belanger
10. Real Energy by Phaedra and Isaac Bonewits
11. Handfasting & Wedding Rituals by Raven Kaldera and Tannin Schwartzstein
12. Cults and New Religious Movements by Lorne L. Dawson
13. Religion Online by Lorne L. Dawson and Douglas E. Cowan
14. The Harper-Collins fiction book Colors Insulting to Nature by Cintra Wilson
15. The BBC Radio Play Looking For Angels: Otherkin by Laura Wade
16. The open-access peer-reviewed online literary magazine "The Harrow
17. The College of Wooster course currently referenced in the article
18. An anthropology course at Hofstra University.
19. The re-enchantment of the West by Christopher Hugh Partridge

That's nineteen sources just with few quick searches using google. There is no dearth of source material here.

Considering that these are the best sources speaking on the subject of otherkin, how is using them giving them "undue weight"? Are you concerned that there is another viewpoint on the subject of otherkin which is not being adequately represented by these sources? Referring to them does not mean the article must endorse their position; but it cannot be denied that these are the best sources available on the subject. If you have sources representing an alternative viewpoint, what would those be? 76.111.93.56 (talk) 04:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

a flurry of soundbites, most of them mentions-in-passing, does not make for notability. I do not suggest deletion, but unless notability is established, this could become a section redirect to a list entry in list of subcultures or similar. I am sorry, but this "article" is pretty much a dictdef, plus a mention that "otherkin" evolved out of an "elven online community" (without explaining what that was) in the 1990s. This could become a larger article, including discussion of said "elven" community, Therianthropy (subculture) and similar things. The stub as it stands utterly fails to make clear why we even have it. dab (𒁳) 21:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

ok, I admit there is at least one dedicated monograph, the Field Guide to Otherkin (2007, ISBN 190571307X). Now that's at least something. "Megalithica Books" is Immanion Press, "an independent publishing company based in the heart of the UK. Specialising in Fantasy Fiction and Esoteric Non-Fiction." This may go to save the standalone article, but we should still envisage reasonable merge scenarios. dab (𒁳) 21:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Several of the texts represent more than soundbites. Elven Like Me in the Village Voice is an entire article on the subject. Otherkin are dealt with as full chapters in Veils Edge and Not in Kansas Anymore, in addition to Field Guide to Otherkin being entirely about Otherkin. Psychic Self Defense, while not using the term otherkin, deals with the concept of nonhuman spirits incarnating in human bodies at some length. The others deal more briefly with the term, but seem to think little elaboration is required, thus speaking to the concept approaching general knowledge in pagan circles. The fiction book, literary magazine, and BBC radio play are examples of the term penetrating into pop culture outside of the pagan community and into the mainstream. All of which speaks to the subject of notability. The current length of the article, and the lack of information contained within it, is largely the result of few non-print sources being accepted as reliable enough. Even otherkin websites which have a long history of existence, with multiple print sources specifically referring to them, such as otherkin.net and rialian.com have been deemed unreliable sources of information on what otherkin actually believe; despite the entire otherkin community being an internet subculture. Even the Otherkin FAQ, specifically prepared by the otherkin community as a guide to itself, has been deemed unreferenceable. Vashti maintains a copy of an older version of this article that she worked on heavily; almost all of the sources from it have been deemed unreliable in the past by certain editors who previously decided to police this article. The same editors, it should be noted, who repeatedly tried to link the beliefs of otherkin with clinical lycanthropy. I would suggest it would be appropriate to reevaluate some of those sources in conjunction with the print material on the subject, particularly given that WP:RSE paragraph quoted in my original comment. 76.111.93.56 (talk) 23:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, as to your previous merge suggestion, as I stated merging Otherkin into the Therianthropy article would be somewhat akin to merging an article on America into an article on New Jersey. Therianthropes represent one subcategory of the group referred to as otherkin, as do vampires, elves, dragons, etc. Therianthropy could conceivably be merged into the otherkin article, however there's a problem with that too... while there is a good bit of overlap between the communities, and while members of the otherkin community consider therians to be a subcategory of themselves, the online therian community exists as a largely autonomous entity, and those members who do not also consider themselves otherkin would protest being included under the term. (Ditto for the vampire subculture.) The best way to really handle the articles is with the understanding that the subcultures consider themselves seperate, much like one would not merge articles on neopagans into an article on Asatru. Actually that may be the best analogy... therian is to otherkin as asatru is to neopagan. While some asatru and all neopagans consider asatru to be neopagan, there are also asatru who wish to distance themselves from neopagans and use the term heathen for themselves. Similarly, while some therians and all otherkin consider therians to be otherkin, there are also therians who wish to distance themselves from otherkin, and they stand as a seperate community and subculture socially. 76.111.93.56 (talk) 00:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Updated

I've updated the article to refer to more sources and hopefully give a clearer idea of the notability of the subject in the article itself. Any comments/critiques/questions/concerns? Does this sufficiently address concerns that otherkin do not meet wikipedias notability requirements?

As a courtesy, I'd appreciate it if we could discuss the notability issue here further if it remains a concern before the notability tag is readded to the article, and attempt to build some consensus on exactly what would be necessary to establish notability if the present material is deemed insufficient by any editors. 76.111.93.56 (talk) 02:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, I'm not sure I did the references correctly... does anyone know the correct way to cite the same source multiple times in the article text, without it appearing multiple times in the references listing? I was a bit confused by that. 76.111.93.56 (talk) 02:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, figured out the references thing and fixed it. 76.21.142.168 (talk) 02:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

A minor correction on the "References in Popular Culture"--Otherkin were mentioned in Taylor Ellwood's "Inner Alchemy: Energy Work and the Magic of the Body", not "Multi-Media Magic". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.42.5.40 (talk) 05:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually they were mentioned in both. If you click the "Multi-Media Magic" link in the article it goes to Amazon.com's full-text preview of Multi-Media Magic, specifically to a search for the term otherkin within the book. The term otherkin appears twice on page 34 of Multi-Media Magic, once in the body of the text and once in a footnote. You are, however, correct that the references to them in Inner Alchemy were overlooked. Sorry about that, I should have known better since I ordered that book at the same time as I ordered my copy of Field Guide. Inner Alchemy will be added to the list right away. Thank you. Jarandhel (talk) 21:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph Rewrite

I think the opening paragraph needs to be re-written. It does not seem to hit NPOV, nor does the "While "Otherkin" are physically human, ethereal/astral/otherwise nonphysical bodies are a different story. The reason I say this is because Otherkins are in fact humans who inherit non-human souls." sound proper for an encyclopedia entry. KiTA (talk) 16:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, upon re-reading the article, I think the entire thing needs to be re-written. It almost looks like it was copied from an Otherkin website, and repeatedly mentions "this author" and "I", which is inappropriate. KiTA (talk) 16:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The article was changed by an IP account. Most of the added content was copy/paste garbage from personal websites. I've restored the version that meets all of wikipedia's policy requirements. NeoFreak (talk) 22:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the vandalism, NeoFreak. I haven't been checking this article much lately, I thought that people were finally satisfied with it and both sides were leaving it pretty much alone. Jarandhel (talk) 14:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Otherkin and Furry Lifestylers

Furry fandom#Furry lifestylers

I was wondering if anyone here could share any knowledge on the subject for improving either article. Current entry on the furry fandom article states that furry lifestylers and were/therian/otherkin share similar beliefs with them ("a person with an important emotional/spiritual connection with an animal or animals, real, fictional or symbolic", slightly WP:OR) - is this correct? Does it deserve any more mention? Any other details? --Draco 2k (talk) 11:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Otherkin is essentially a religious/spiritual belief. Some furry lifestylers, those who feel that they are spiritually an animal of a certain type or similar, are otherkin. Others are not, and have other New Age type beliefs in their relationship with an animal, or simply really, really like a certain type of animal. Fundamentally, there is some overlap between the otherkin and furry communities, but being one doesn't necessarily make you a member of the other group, though in my experience there are a lot of furry otherkin, and some of the more extreme furries are otherkin. Not all of them are, though. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm an example of this "extreme furry", and simply put there is a very large swath of all kinds of animals calling themselves furry ranging from humans to non-humans. From my experience, furry is mostly composed of humans now days, while were/therian/otherkin are more often composed of non-humans. Of course determining real percentages is pretty tough so I won't bother to even guess. I think the lifestyler term used to be used more for non-humans, but now I've seen it used now days more often than not to describe humans who "really" admire non-humans to the point where it effects their lives somehow. Pretty broad, I know, but all of it is, and it seems to become broader all the time. Swiftpaw (talk) 15:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

"Concepts" section.

The summary in particular is an embarassment, even just grammatically. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.31.220.49 (talk) 05:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Claim agaisnt physical transformation, There is no God

if it's common knowledge enough to not need to be cited, don't write it, the way it is written seems a bit offensive, "contrary to what they believe, there is no God", is there such a comment on the article about God? --TiagoTiago (talk) 20:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• Isn't that called "Wikipedia?" Besides, if there's no RS, it probably shouldn't even be in the article. Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

This article still is very short and poor

The symbol on it is pretty much just random, the article is incredibly short and has no hope at all of being expanded... is it time to nominate this for deletion again? Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I think one of the reasons it is poor and short is that for the most part the term "otherkin" is relatively new. Considering that and the general dismissal most people have of any new form of religion as a cult or sham, not many people have written works on it. On another note, I have seen works on this belief in other places on the net, but mostly it was the words of those in the belief. I would add their information to the article, but I am certain that it will be deleted since there is no book source for the information but just a link to it. In about 20 years or so, this religion might have enough information actually published to make a substantial article on Wikipedia. Until then it will always be small and poor due to the fact that sticklers for book sources proceed to disclaim, argue against, and generally do their best to tear down any online sources of those actually in the belief system. CelticsFinest (talk) 00:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

According to the article, the term "otherkin" is almost two decades old. Compare this to other fringe belief systems that have taken much less time to gain notoriety across the world. Seems to me that the reason that the otherkin community has not received more academic or media attention is that it's obvious to educated individuals that it's make-believe. Not even on the level that you might call other religions make-believe, really, because there are otherkin who purport to be descended from creatures that were made up by humans for entertainment purposes (hey seriously I was a Pokemon in my past life but I was half fox demon too; I like it because it's Japanese). I can post a manifesto to usenet about how my soul is a toaster oven and probably get a handful of weirdos to agree that theirs are too. If nobody cares, it's not because they're "sticklers for book sources", it's because they're not idiots. Hope this helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.8.235.113 (talk) 12:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

For like a year the article said one of the common kintypes as "boytaur". It made me laugh. Boytaur is just some porn photoshop thing and not a kintype so it was funny. I remember when the article used to be really long, sigh oh how the articles degrade over time. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 06:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Possible External Links

What would be the consensus on including an external link to The Otherkin Timeline and/or the Directory of Otherkin Writings and Other Works? Both projects are by the same author, and are extensively sourced. Either of them may help provide a broader perspective on the Otherkin community, and I believe it would fall under the third heading for sites that can normally be linked according to the WP:External Links policy:

"Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues,[2] amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons."

So, what do people think? Any objections/concerns? --Jarandhel (talk) 03:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I personally think the timeline would be fine. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 13:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Cool. :) Any thoughts on the Directory of Writings, or do you think including them both would be overkill or too biased towards one author? --Jarandhel (talk) 20:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

It's way too biased to be included here, plus neither the compiler nor the persons linked to are any kind of recognized authorities (outside of their own communities). We don't link to/advertise random people that may have something to say on the topic. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 05:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Considering they are both written by the same person, I'm not clear on how that would apply to one of them and not the other. --Jarandhel (talk) 07:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, we at least seem to agree on adding the Timeline as an external link, so I'll do that. --Jarandhel (talk) 08:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

"See also"

As shown by this, there has been some debate over what is or is not appropriate in this article's "See also" section. It has been asked that I revert a reversion I made, but before I do anything I'm interested in coming to some sort of consensus, with other editors as well. Any thoughts? Equivamp(talk) 19:50, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

It should stay, it's a connected concept. People might not even know they were actually looking for clinical lycanthropy when they were looking up otherkin. Jarandhel should realize that an encyclopedia article should be neutral and helpful (by suggesting alternatives) and not sacrifice helpfulness for the sake of painting a certain desired picture of otherkin. In any case, I don't really see what the problem is, it's not like CL is some sort of a horrible and offensive concept. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 07:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd have to agree. It's not as if we're making a psychological diagnosis; they're related concepts, and that's what a see-also section is about. Equivamp(talk) 13:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

In what respect are they "connected concepts"? How is it at all likely that someone looking up Otherkin is "actually looking" for clinical lycanthropy?

In fact, this link was added (after having not been part of the article since 2008) by Dream Guy who has previously made his stance on this subject quite well known: "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."

This is the reason he has pushed for its inclusion. Because he feels that otherkin suffer from clinical lycanthropy. He has said this again and again. "On the topic being discussed, normal otherkin beliefs do have features of clinical lycanthropy. The only separations between the two concepts is severity and that an individual diagnoses is necessary." "The only difference here is that otherkin have delusions of either being a wild animal or a mythical animal of some sort."

This is his stated position on why he is including it. That IS making a diagnosis. The entire reason for including it has been to suggest that Otherkin are suffering from a psychological disorder. That's why he readdded it after I removed a link to "Fantasy Prone Personality", another psychological disorder that people are trying to connect to otherkin without WP:RS.

Please, let's not play games and pretend that there is no agenda in including this see-also. Especially on an article that previously had a full section on clinical lycanthropy which was removed due to lack of reliable sources for any of it (the only sources cited were ones to definitions of CL, which did not mention otherkin in any respect.) Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#See_also_section is clearly not carte blanche to insert either POV or WP:SYN into an article. --Jarandhel (talk) 04:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, Equivamp, don't you have just a wee bit of a WP:COI given that you are one of the two co-caretakers for Encyclopedia Dramatica's "Furfaggotry Portal" which lists Otherkin.com as a Furry Community and describes it as "a forum where the most severely mentally ill basement-dwellers congregate to discuss the trials of being a mythical creature in a human body."? I'm afraid I can't link as the site is on Wikipedia's blacklist. --Jarandhel (talk) 04:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I've said it before and I'll said it again: The views portrayed on Encyclopedia Dramatica are those of the site alone, and do not reflect my own personal views. I do not think that Otherkin/Therians often suffer from CL. I'm a therian myself. (Interestingly enough, I don't think Clinical Lycanthropy is even mentioned on any Otherkin-related article.) In addition to any edits I've made to related articles on ED, I've made at least ttwice as many NPOV edits to related articles both here and on WikiFur. Equivamp^(talk) 13:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. Sorry, I just had to ask given that you are advocating adding a see also to a mental illness here, when a page that falls under your caretaking specifically refers to otherkin as "the most severely mentally ill basement-dwellers". You are correct that Clinical Lycanthropy itself is not specifically mentioned on any of the otherkin articles at ED. --Jarandhel (talk) 17:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#See_also_section: "Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. The links in the See Also section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, /--/ The links in the See Also section do not have to be directly related to the topic of the article, because one purpose of the See Also links is to enable readers to explore topics that are only peripherally relevant." — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 14:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

To let you both know, I have started a discussion of this issue on the Neutrality Noticeboard, per the advice of the admin Qwyrixan on my talk page. The Noticeboard discussion is here. --Jarandhel (talk) 06:18, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

It's a See also section - all related concepts should be there. Trying to have it removed seems to be done sole to promote a POV, in violation of WP"NPOV and WP:FRINGE rules. Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be advocacy pages for belief systems, they are supposed to cover notable topics from the accepted mainstream views. A tiny link to a related concept is completely inoffensive. Anyone who finds it so offensive that it should be censored doesn't get the concept of See also links or Wikipedia in general. If anything, this article needs a more mainstream view of Otherkin. Just because advocates of a belief system give it a brand new name and the mainstream sources don't typically refer to it by that name doesn't mean that what mainstream scholars have to say about people who think they aren't human should be censored here. This article badly needs more info on clinical lycanthropy in general. DreamGuy (talk) 18:00, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Is realted to the idea of a feeling of otherness, its as relevatn as furrydome and Were's. "Some claim to be able to shapeshift mentally or astrally", thats clinical Lyncathropy.Slatersteven (talk) 18:18, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Opinions of Outside Viewers & World's Most Bizarre Subculture

Regarding the section "Outside viewers may have varying opinions about people who identify as Otherkin, ranging from considering them animal-human relationship pioneers, to psychologically dysfunctional.[6]". That's not actually what the source says. It says "Whether people in any of these groups should be considered deeply mystical, fascinating thinkers, animal-human relationship pioneers, psychologically dysfunctional, or something else entirely, is up to the reader to decide." It makes no positive claims about what the reactions of outside groups have been.

Similarly, regarding "Otherkin have been called the world's most bizarre subculture", that's not what the source cited actually says. It says "By definition subcutures are different, but some are more different from others, sometimes bizarrely so. Below are eight of the world's most bizarre subcultures." It then goes on to list 8 sucultures. Otherkin is #1 on the list. Norwegian Death Metal is #2. Lolitas are #7. There is nothing in the text to indicate that these are listed in order from most bizarre to least bizarre. --Jarandhel (talk) 05:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

(1) I had to write it in some way without copypasting the exact sentence. If you can tweak the phrasing to what you think is more accurate, feel free to do so.

(2) Edited. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 12:25, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for editing the second one. I think that's more accurate now. As for the first, I'm not sure there's a way to simply tweak it to be more accurate. The source is literally saying that readers can take it any way they like, and suggests a range of possibilities. It says nothing about what other people actually believe about otherkin. I think you'd have to find a different source entirely, that actually reports outside perspectives on otherkin, if you want to include a statement along those lines. --Jarandhel (talk) 12:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

So you just want it completely removed? I'm sure you're personally very aware of what the general audience thinks of otherkin; if this article is going to be expanded then it'll definitely include a few critical words, you can't stop that from happening just because some people would be personally offended. People do consider otherkin psychologically dysfunctional, and that's just the polite way of putting it, and you and I both know that, and the author of the book referenced knows it too.

So his phrasing isn't clear enough and you object to that book being used as a reference for that statement, correct? — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 14:02, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I am very aware of what the general audience thinks of otherkin. I have no objection to criticism of otherkin, or descriptions of negative reactions towards otherkin, being included in the article for balance. I've added them myself in the past: diff though the reference was later edited and utimately removed: diff.

My concern is purely that this specific source does not say what you have cited it as saying. It does not report what anyone's views of otherkin are, it offers a few possible ways to view them and says it is up to the reader to decide which if any fit. That's not unclear phrasing, it's a categorically different type of statement. --Jarandhel (talk) 14:34, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Middle English

Regarding the section ""Otherkin" as an adjective was defined in Middle English Dictionary (1981) as "a different or an additional kind of, other kinds of".[13]" Is there any reason to think that Otherkin, as used in the context of this article and the modern subculture of that name, has any etymological association whatsoever with Otherkin as it was used in Middle English? --Jarandhel (talk) 06:25, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Is this really an issue? — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 12:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, yes, it is an issue. If the terms aren't actually related then the inclusion of that paragraph in the article is a complete non sequitur. And a misleading one, as it would lead readers to think that was the origin of the term, when it was in fact coined as "otherkind" on April 18, 1990 and subsequently shortened to otherkin. (Please see the Otherkin Timeline linked from the article for documentation of this.) --Jarandhel (talk) 12:36, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you suggest the bit should be edited or removed?

I think that it's relevant either way, whether the word was directly taken from the dictionary or not (I'm not saying that it was and I doubt that it was). For this particular statement, the Timeline document is not sufficiently reliable to authoritatively say that there's no connection at all and that the Middle English word shouldn't even be mentioned.

The article doesn't state a connection, just says that the word was a Middle English word, because it was, and it's very relevant given the original roots and inspiration of the subculture. We can clarify where the "actual" word came from, and I personally think the Timeline document is okay to use as a reference for that, but the part about the word existing earlier (and being documented in a dictionary that has its own Wikipedia article) should definitely stay. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 13:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it should be removed, personally. The article is about the otherkin subculture, not about every historic usage of the word otherkin. And I don't see what the roots (usenet and mailing lists) and "inspiration" (highly debatable) of the subculture have to do with obscure Middle English terms. Including it implies a connection between the Middle English word and the community that just isn't there. And frankly, establishing that there is any such connection would likely constitute original research. --Jarandhel (talk) 13:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually the article is simply about "otherkin", and the Middle English definition is similar to the modern definition — it's not a wholly different concept that should be disambiguated on a different page. By roots and inspiration I meant fantasy fiction and mythology and such things, very relevant to old English. Again, we can clearly state that there's no established connection, but the fact that word existed and what it's definition was is very mentionworthy. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 14:13, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

No, the article's title is simply "otherkin". That does not mean the article itself is simply about the word otherkin. Remember, WP:NOTDIC. Specifically, encyclopedia articles are about "a person, or a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc. that their title can denote. The article octopus is about the animal: its physiology, its use as food, its scientific classification, and so forth." whereas dictionary articles are about "the actual words or idioms in their title and all the things it can denote. The entry octopus is about the word "octopus": its part of speech, its pluralizations, its usage, its etymology, its translations into other languages, and so forth." --Jarandhel (talk) 14:39, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Top-Heavy

At this point, most of the article text appears in the lede. I think that makes it a little awkward to read, kind of top-heavy. Is there any way we could refactor it with a shorter lead and most of the rest as part of the main body of the article after the table of contents? I don't have specific proposals for such a refactoring at the moment or I'd do it myself, but it just looks wrong this way. --Jarandhel (talk) 12:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

It'd need just a bit more content to justify summarizing it for the lead and elaborating in the body of the article. Though when it's expanded it'd make sense to make a first section about the description or the nature of the whole concept, the next section about the history, and the one after that about criticism, with a subsection about internal conflicts (within otherkin and with other but similar subcultures – I'm fairly sure there actually exists published material to write this on, as I found earlier when searching). — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 13:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

“while otherkin identify as anything other than animals that have been proven to live on Earth”

Have dragons and fairy’s been proven to live on Earth? This needs rewording so as not to inply this is a fact, but only a claim.Slatersteven (talk) 18:40, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

What part of "anything other than" confuses you? Fairies and dragons and aliens haven't been proven to live on Earth, that's exactly the point. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 18:44, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, once removed from the rest of the sentence it reads slightly differently and it more clear. I read it as saying that unlike therians they believe they are real creatures. It’s a rather tortured sentence, why not just say "while otherkin identify as other mythical creatures"?Slatersteven (talk) 18:53, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Because aliens, toasters, and cartoon characters aren't mythical creatures. There's no other way to group these things than "everything else but real animals". — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 20:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

And toasters and cartoon characters are not animals. So the whole sentance at this time in nonsense, as such it should be removed untill better wording can be found. Perhaps "while otherkin identify as other non-existant creatures" (after all outside of SF toasters are not living creatures).Slatersteven (talk) 21:00, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

We don't remove sentences because one person with an evidently poor grasp of English thinks they should be phrased a little better. (And to say "other non-existent creatures" makes even less sense.) — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 21:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

OK how about "while otherkin identify as non-existent creatures" (after all the toaster must be a living creature of a kind to have a soul)? The source for this says “for Otherkin the tie is often to a mythical creature such as a dragon or a gryphon”, so in fact the sentence is synthesis, I will edit to make it match the source.Slatersteven (talk) 21:09, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Traits Section

I'm not entirely comfortable with the sentence: "Some otherkin (such as elves) claim they are allergic to Iron (and other examples of modern technology), whilst other Otherkin (such as dragons) claim that having no allergies is a sign of being an Otherkin."

It's the "such as elves" and "such as dragons" parts that bother me, specifically. That phrasing seems highly reflective of an otherkin POV (non-otherkin would not consider these individuals either elves or dragons), though I don't know of a better one that isn't far more cumbersome. I'm also mindful of the Paranormal RfA's finding that "Psychic" or "clairvoyant" and similar terms are cultural artifacts, not people or things which necessarily exist. A psychic may not have psychic abilities, nor does use of the term imply that such abilities exist. link It seems likely to me that similar reasoning would apply in this context, but that phrasing still bothers me. Perhaps because one is a mainstream cultural artifact and one is a cultural artifact of a much smaller group. --Jarandhel (talk) 15:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Replace with elfkin/elvenkin and dragonkin? — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 18:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Oooh, good call! --Jarandhel (talk) 02:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Recent publication

For those interested out there, it'd be worth looking into this article and adding information from it: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.1525/nr.2012.15.3.65?uid=3739392&uid=2&uid=3737720&uid=4&sid=21100703680671 The abstract is a poor description of the article; it's actually quite decent an exploration. Librarywild (talk) 08:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Bizarre subculture

The reference to 'one of the world's most bizarre subcultures' at the end of the article resolves to a marketing textbook with no page reference. Is this good enough? Should this be removed as unreferenced? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.107.109.145 (talk) 14:31, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

It's an opinion at the very least, and one that violates NPOV. Whether the source is valid or not, it shouldn't be there as is. --Tathar (talk) 21:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

It's in the Reaction section and phrased as "... has been called...", I believe that's neutral enough. The book was published by Taylor & Francis. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 21:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Skepticism?

"WikiProject Skepticism is a WikiProject dedicated to creating, improving, and monitoring articles which make claims related to science and philosophy." Does this article make such claims? I'm not so sure this article fits within the WikiProject it was recently added to. --Tathar (talk) 11:51, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I think that the article may have been mistakenly added to the WikiProject due to an editor's mistaken belief that the WikiProject covers all articles about topics that people may be skeptical about, rather than the stated purpose of the WikiProject. I'd like to hear back from Dimadick about his reason for making the edit. --Tathar (talk) 12:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I noticed their claims about health problems from coming in contact with iron. Dimadick (talk) 09:16, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

(Full disclosure: I identify as dragonkin. I do not make any relevant claims other than that I identify primarily as a dragon.) The article indicates that only some otherkin make that claim, and that there is disagreement whether such an allergy would have anything to do with an otherkin identity. Is that enough to place the entire group within the WikiProject? --Tathar (talk) 00:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

By comparison, most articles on the New Age movement have been specifically included, even though not all proponents make wild claims. As with all Wikiprojects, the purpose is "To improve and clean up those articles which need help.", not to write polemics against the subject matter.Dimadick (talk) 07:23, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. I was just concerned that the article's inclusion would result in those unfamiliar with the subject misunderstanding what claims are and aren't being made, and then editing the article based on their misconceptions and unintentionally reducing the article's overall quality. If that's not going to be an issue, then I'll take back my concerns about the article's inclusion. I still have concerns about the article's categorization in the WikiProject's list of topics however, since its current categorization requires the article to be about a subject that is religious in nature (nevermind the other issues with calling something a cult) and the article's subject simply isn't of a religious nature. At most, it is of a spiritual nature among those who identify as non-human on a spiritual level, but that basically amounts to "I have an X soul" or some similar identity claim. (Contrast this with the Kayan people (Burma) and the non-human ancestry claims that form the basis of their religion.) --Tathar (talk) 16:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, unsourced contributions and biased misconceptions would violate the NPOV policy and have to be removed anyway. As for the list of articles of this WikiProject, until a recent merger it focused on pseudoscience. The merger widened its scope to various typical subjects for skeptic publications, such as the paranormal and alternative medicine. Religious content is included but is not the sole focuse. Out of curiosity, has this subculture been influenced by traditional narratives of wolf-ancestors like Asena? Dimadick (talk) 07:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, such an influence is highly unlikely. Few, if any, otherkin make claims to non-human ancestry, and any such claims would be met with skepticism from within the community. Also, there's a strong sentiment across otherkin subcommunities that people should rely solely on their own observations and feelings to determine whether the otherkin label applies to them, and what species or form they best identify as. This advice is meant to discourage people from being overly deferential and letting others tell them what to identify as. Because of this, I would infer that the indoctrination involved in the Asena narratives would necessarily be rejected as a basis for self-identification as otherkin, but it does not exclude someone from claiming an otherkin identity either. Though, that doesn't mean that otherkin can't point to such mythologies as evidence that the pertinent question of an individual's species identity versus species membership is not a new question. --Tathar (talk) 17:19, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

As for the merger, I didn't know about that, since I'm only recently hearing about this project for the first time. Could you explain the entirety of the new scope? From first impressions, the name makes it sound that any topic with skeptics (rational or otherwise) would be included in the WikiProject, but from viewing the topics already included, that does not appear to be the intent of the project. (As an aside, would it be helpful if I broke down the core otherkin claim into its subclaims? Maybe that could help categorize it better.) --Tathar (talk) 17:19, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Request for deletion.

Page needs to redirect to one or more of these:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizotypal_personality_disorder http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borderline_personality_disorder http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychotic_disorders#Delusions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_thinking

People who believe they are elves are, pretty obviously, psychotic, whether or not they are otherwise more or less harmless or capable of holding down a day job. The content of their delusions is no more worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia than any other madman's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.61.164.169 (talk) 09:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The page has a fair number of sources, so it seems unlikely that an AFD would be successful. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:54, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Intro quote

The last line of the introduction has a quotation mark after it. Is it part of the same quote as the preceding sentence? If so, we should move the reference after the full quote. If not, then we need to source it. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:54, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

External links

Should we link to AnotherWiki.org in the external links section? I'm not so sure right now. Especially because it contains pages like this (detailed negative personal info about otherwise non-notable people, it's like linking to Encyclopedia Dramatica). — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 10:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

It is an important resource to the community, that contains various information about its history. The information contained in that particular article is for safety. Shiro Ulv (talk) 10:56, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

When you talk like this, you talk with an agenda instead of following Wikipedia's rules. This link doesn't meet stanard WP:EL rules. DreamGuy (talk) 20:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Timeline

I don't think we can add http://orion.kitsunet.net/time.pdf at this time if the malware thing isn't sorted out. (Don't go there if you don't have an anti-virus program.) — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 11:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

There is no malware on the site, as it is a PDF file. Overzealous anti-virus programs such as Avast! can false flag URLs and files, as is occurring here. A discussion to add this link has already occurred, with the general opinion being that it is relevant. Shiro Ulv (talk) 11:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Notability

Come on, get real. Notability to be mentioned has everything to do with Wikipedia. Not all sources are equal on all articles, and this is a bizarre argument. You might as well put that on ALL articles because you argue it has a supposedly reliable source and notability doesn't count. DreamGuy (talk) 20:41, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

@DreamGuy: I really don't understand what you're talking about. Wikipedia:Notability applies to article topics, not article content/specific sentences. I honestly can't figure out what your argument is for removing the mentions of fictional/cartoon characters. And what do you mean by "supposedly reliable"? How are those sources not reliable? — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 20:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

If you don't understand, you probably shouldn't be editing. WP:UNDUE is a good one if you need a summary page. This article is not for your POV or FRINGE views. Just because somebody somewhere says something you like doesn't mean it rules out majority opinion. This is not your personal soapbox. An opinion for cartoon characters does not overrule the notable statement by countless others.DreamGuy (talk) 01:24, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

@DreamGuy: What "notable statement"? You continue to mix up notability and undue weight, don't blame me for getting confused by what you're trying to do here. Maybe you're the one with the POV if you're offended by the fact that fictionkin are a subgroup of otherkin. That's not my problem. Reliable sources say that it is so it stays in the article. 'Undue weight' is not relevant, it's not like we've dedicated even one full paragraph to discussing fictionkin, maybe that would be undue. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 09:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Third opinion

Response to third opinion request:

I personally don't see a problem with JG's addition; the sources appear to be valid. And DreamGuy, you really should try to be more civil with your comments. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 00:45, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. And by the way, the article has been like that for a long time until just recently when the mentions of fistional identities were removed. I can't see a valid reason for their removal. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 11:09, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism December 2015

Someone redirected it to the Borderline Personality Disorder page. I reverted it.2605:A601:533:E901:59D2:2A8C:8828:17E7 (talk) 05:28, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

History and context

Doreen Virtue wrote about a similar phenomena, her idea was that people whose souls were from other dimensions are living on earth and she's been publishing books about it since the mid 90s, such as in the book "The Lightworkers Way". Also this link, but it's recent http://www.angeltherapy.com/blog/incarnated-angels-and-starpeople

I don't know how much this influenced Otherkin subculture but its a very similar concept — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.183.129.207 (talk) 17:22, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

We have an article about starseeds, we would need a reliable source to connect those two things, otherwise it's original research. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 17:58, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

NPOV Fringe

This article needs to be deleted according to NPOV Fringe as it stands as a skub that could lead people down the wrong pyschological path if followed. Wikipedia is an ever expanding encyclopedia that aids in the documentation of many things in the world, a little known internet subculture is not one of those things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.255.49.47 (talk) 06:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Tagbomb

Is there any point to the current tagbombing? I would propose we get rid of all the cleanup tags unless some reason to keep them is offered. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:54, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I have removed some of the tags, which are either overlapping or not applicable (anymore). Per WP:TAGBOMBING. There are some sources quoted which are not reliable, but other sources are reliable. Subject's notability can be established by searching on Google Scholar, and has also reached consensus twice in the above discussions. Anyone who added the notability tag, please warn him/her for disruptive editing. I do not have any knowledge on the subject, so i cannot determine whether there are any factual inaccuracies, or whether some opinions have been left out, but as a rule of thumb, any tag should be accompanied by an explanation per Wikipedia policy.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 08:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Xenogender

@Jeraphine Gryphon: JFYI, the association I see between otherkin and nonbinary gender is provided by the conceptual bridge of Xenogender and the fact that there is, indeed, a substantial overlap between otherkin (and therians) and people with unconventional gender identities (gender variance, transgender); however, I do understand that this connection is not blindingly obvious, and Xenogender is a very obscure concept that's, to my knowledge, even not well-known in the transgender community. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:57, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

All of nonbinary.org, including Xenogender, is now just a front for an ad site, http://www.freeresultsguide.com/. --Thnidu (talk) 19:40, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I know about the substantial overlap but that's only because I spend too much time on that blue hell site. Other than that the connection is not obvious, and I think we both know that it's damaging to make frivolous connections between otherkinnery and transgenderism, because that's what transphobes do, because both concepts are equally ridiculous to them. I think it's better to avoid this here. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 05:59, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

While I don't disagree with your conclusion, I don't think trying to cater to the hangups of transphobes is a good reason for anything, though. Wikipedia is about documenting stuff that exists out there and is written about by RS, not what bigots think is or isn't respectable (that's an allusion to "respectability politics" tactics).

Don't forget there are still loads of 'phobes out there who believe that people with non-mainstream gender and sexual identities and preferences, even "regular" gays and lesbians (maybe even asexuals? haha), are mentally ill, dangerous "perverts", full stop, and didn't exist in the "good old days", while "normal" cishet men are civilised and principally unable to do nasty things such as rape (hence the common refusal to believe concrete rape accusations while simultaneously believing that rape is commonplace, but it is always committed by the marginalised, dehumanised Other, the "Slavering Beast"), so there's no way to win this game.

The concept of "species dysphoria", which was consciously modelled after gender dysphoria, provides a link between Kin and transgenderism already. Personally, I find the experiences of Kin unfamiliar and therefore odd, myself, but there are lots of conditions out there that I'll always have trouble with empathising just because I don't have them; there's no good reason to reject what you have never experienced as impossible or ridiculous out of hand, and it is utterly narrow-minded to do so. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:14, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Mental Illness Attention Seekers.

Hello Everyone, It's F*king reality here.

I just wanted to say that this article is kind and it actually legitimizes "Otherkin" as if it's a real thing. There should be an emphasis in this article that "Otherkin" is no more real than imaginary friends. The idea that "OtherKin" is being treated with any legitimacy whatsoever just shows people care more about being politically correct rather than facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrSuperEditor123 (talk • contribs) 04:01, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

|}

Reaction

§ Reaction says

Outside viewers may have varying opinions about people who identify as otherkin, ranging from considering them animal-human relationship pioneers, to psychologically dysfunctional. Reactions often range from disbelief to aggressive antagonism, especially online.

Not all reactions are so polar. Some of us are interactionally agnostic, accepting a person's right to think of themself as otherkin, not disputing it with them. Whether we believe it ourselves, disbelieve it, or consider it possible (though perhaps unlikely), our reactions are civil and not challenging or argumentative. I have nothing to cite for this, nor do I intend to look for it, so I'm not putting it on the page. --Thnidu (talk) 19:49, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Then why are you putting it here? Lukacris (talk) 23:22, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Off-topic flamebait

can we please delete or redirect this article? I am just curious why this article exists in the first place. This isn't a normal trait, this is most certainly a mental disorder. Why hasn't it been deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.254.1.229 (talk) 04:48, 23 December 2015 (UTC) What's the actual reason you want this deleted? If you hate otherkin then go on and complain about it on your tumblr, Wikipedia isn't the place for editors with an agenda. If "this isn't a normal trait, this is most certainly a mental disorder" is your actual reason for deleting this article then I invite you to check out our articles in Category:Mental and behavioural disorders and Category:Abnormal psychology. This article exists because the topic is notable and the content is verifiable, that's all we require here. We don't censor topics based on personal biases. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 09:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC) WP:IDONTLIKEIT. clpo13(talk) 09:41, 23 December 2015 (UTC) I don't think the article should be deleted, but it should treat the topic as a symptom of mental illness. One problem with this may be that sufferers generally do not seek out the help they need (like Moregellons sufferers) and so there might not be much psychiatric literature about it. But that could be looked in to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.201.91 (talk • contribs) It should exist because the otherkin subculture exists and is well-documented, however unfortunate it may be. Lukacris (talk) 00:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC) Limbs Please Some otherkin (of various kin) report having phantom limbs, which I, as a wolfkin, have in fact experienced myself. May they get a mention, big or small? Here, I'll provide my own description of it: "Some otherkin of certain mammalian or reptilian species experience a Supernumerary phantom limb similar to their kintype's biological appearance. These have ranged from dragon wings and horns to ears and tails, latter being more common." How's that sound? I put a link in and everything too! I need some cocoa, not coffee. [Dragonia Lover] (talk) 19:22, 9 May 2018 (UTC) That could be included, but it would need a citation to a reliable source. We can't go by personal experience. That's original research. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC) Well... Despite the area of tumblr containing many resources, I don't think it would be wise to cite it. I'll try my best to use a reliable resource for citing. (This is the same user btw, I'm just not logged in on my iPad.) 65.175.240.110 (talk) 15:51, 10 May 2018 (UTC) found it! Hopefully this works, right? http://otherkin.wikia.com/wiki/Astral_Limbs I mean, sure, It's a wikia and the article itself is very short, but it is very well summed up and seems proper! What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.175.240.110 (talk) 16:01, 10 May 2018 (UTC) Open wikis are not reliable sources (even Wikipedia is not a reliable source); they can be edited by anyone who can say anything. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:05, 10 May 2018 (UTC) Well, I did find a reliable source...but it's on tumblr; and also written from an otherkin's POV. The only part that doesn't contain an otherkin's POV is the first paragraph, which contains a lot of info! Here's the link to the post, if you do need it. http://thetadelta.tumblr.com/post/103818059509/excuse-me-but-can-you-can-please-explain-astral — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragonia Lover (talk • contribs) 16:57, 11 May 2018 (UTC) Some random person writing a blog post is also not a reliable source. Please see WP:RS for more information. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:28, 11 May 2018 (UTC) Welp. That's the best resource I could find. Well, if you look all over the web, you'll be bound to find something citable. I can't do that as of now because of a tight schedule. If you can find something, use it. As for me, I gotta work on a draft "article" (something that isn't actually gonna be used on wikipedia but will be styled like one). Cya. I need some cocoa, not coffee. [Dragonia Lover] (talk) 18:39, 11 May 2018 (UTC) Template removal I've removed the multiple issues template from this article. The named issues may still exist, but as there has been no discussion in 18 months around what the perceived issues actually are, it's hard to judge the validity of the templates. I've no beef with the templates being reinstated - provided discussion takes place around what they say needs doing. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:04, 5 June 2018 (UTC) Genetics vs. ancestry. According to the lead, some believe that their identity is genetic, while others believe it derives from ancestry. Is there a difference?--Klausok (talk) 10:39, 16 July 2018 (UTC) The article suggests that there's a metaphysical element to the identity. This could be ancestral but not genetic - such as a spirit being transferred or associated with a family. That's my understanding of the text, anyway. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:44, 16 July 2018 (UTC) Why does everyone refuse to accept edits made in earnest? Both I and several of my friends from the otherkin community have tried in vain to update this article to better reflect our community. Our edits, despite being sourced, have usually been reversed within a few hours. In all honesty I believe our personal experience as being part of the community should be sufficient evidence that what we say is true, but I know that's not a good way to run a site like this. I do have to question, though, why citing the Otherkin Timeline and similar writings by the community itself is not good enough in the case of most edits, but citing a book on/by/for vampires (a book that is not a more reliable source, purely by virtue of it's authors, than the blog posts you seem to abhor) has stood uncontested, assumedly for years. The article, as it stands right now, is a gross misrepresentation of modern otherkin, and it's frequently brought up in community discussions that we should edit it to better reflect us. That, however, is almost impossible as most edits are immediately contested by people who don't know better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.49.45.203 (talk) 10:40, 8 September 2018 (UTC) I'm not sure which book you are referring to, but WP:OTHERSTUFF probably covers it. And lay off the personal attacks with statements such as "people who don't know better", or you'll never make ground here. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:23, 8 September 2018 (UTC) I don't know what the content dispute is about (I haven't really looked into it), but I can point out that this Wikipedia article isn't the place to correct misconceptions. It's a summary of what reliable sources have said about the topic. If you want to write about your own experiences, Wikia might be a better outlet. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:40, 9 September 2018 (UTC) As an otherkin who has never been "animalistic", I fail to see what you're trying to get at. Could this IP user explain this in more understandable English? I need some cocoa, not coffee. [Dragonia Lover] (talk) 17:37, 10 September 2018 (UTC) Suggested edit for someone who knows how. I don't. The opening section, cites Joseph P. Laycock, without saying who he is. I googled him, and he is an assistant professor of religious studies at Texas State University. The article should mention this fact. Here's his TSU website page: faculty.txstate.edu/profile/1922193 2604:6000:1411:6B9:AC01:FB39:EC5E:2FD4 (talk) 14:21, 8 June 2019 (UTC) ->><>< Just food for thought/ Open dialogues from Cross cultural competencies ><><< When you look at animism as a whole and in that, shamanic cultures and cross-cultural parallels with shifting, it would benefit this community greatly to learn and pay respects to that place of where it comes from, even if you picked up on it instinctively or subjectively without learning and it remains true to your actual feeling, sense of self and nature. You can come to your own conclusions, of course, about what works for you, but be mindful of the history and legacy of druidic societies and the balance and cultures that these come from. If you can learn to balance understanding of old and new with your sense of identity, you may find a lot of good in store for you with this as it goes. Also please leave actual animals alone. Specifically regarding anything with anthro/humanistic arcane. Animals and natural law presides over them, as many of you surely know. Harvest and replant and learn and love and grow. Stay fierce and wild and free and be good to yours. 24.218.230.57 (talk) 08:45, 29 October 2020 (UTC) The Mentions of Clinical Lycanthropy instead of a ‘related pages’ link to lycanthropy, there should be a section discussing how extreme,ly different clinical lycanthropy is from being otherkin. Us otherkin in the community find being compared to folks with clinical lycanthropy very offensive TheFaeKing (talk) 22:40, 1 March 2021 (UTC) If you have reliable sources to verify such information, by all means, do so. --Equivamp - talk 02:29, 3 March 2021 (UTC) "Kinnies" listed at Redirects for discussion A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Kinnies. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 31#Kinnies until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 16:25, 31 March 2021 (UTC) While I do agree that "otherkin" has become less popular a term nowadays, I believe "kinning" would be a more appropriate redirect as opposed to "kinnies" since this article is about the concept itself. Nekomancerjade (talk) 02:43, 14 May 2021 (UTC) Mythical Creatures? Is that necessarily the case? I thought some people identified as tigers and wolves, which are not mythical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:A901:C500:D1BC:340D:D38:F26A (talk) 18:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC) They sure aren't for cartoon characters. DreamGuy (talk) 01:24, 23 November 2015 (UTC) That was my understanding as well. This article would be well served to point out if Otherkin includes the hardcore furries who believe themselves to be part/fully non-human animals or if that is a distinct group. Wisnoskij (talk) 21:53, 18 February 2016 (UTC) People who identify (partly) with known, real-world animals (occasionally even plants or other forms of Earth life) are called "therians" and mentioned in therianthropy (as well as in this article). Otherkin don't identify (in part) with really existing animals (beings), although I think they describe their condition as "species dysphoria", too. A common term for both I've encountered is simply "Kin". --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:32, 28 May 2016 (UTC) therianthropy is sometimes considered a subset of otherkinity, and sometimes not, depending on who you ask JustAnotherUwU (talk) 13:57, 3 July 2021 (UTC) Fixing note on supernumerary phantom limbs I revised the article to add something more about the experience of supernumerary limbs in otherkin, and it was un-done with a note about not complying with Wikipedia's policy on medical sources, but the phrasing of the revision implies it's the wording of the content that's the problem and not the source itself. Can someone help me understand what part of the policy specifically it is in violation of and how I can fix it? I had also made an edit to correct the phrasing of a sentence and remove an arguably inappropriate link. The phrasing that only some otherkin make a "claim" to shapeshift, along with the link to the shapeshifting wikipage, miscommunicates the idea that this is an ability outside of the normal that only some otherkin claim to be able to perform. This is not accurate, when most otherkin experience some form of what they call shifting, which is better understood as a subjective experience than an objective claim of ability. My edit is definitely backed up by the Field Guide to Otherkin source, so I'm not sure why that was removed along with the sentence about phantom limbs? Mirrormorph (talk) 15:03, 7 July 2021 (UTC) No mention of animals at all I honestly don't really want to burn my hands on this article, in particular because I have not read any of the literature. However, I was under the impression that otherkin primarily refers to animals rather than fictional beings. Right now, the article says nothing about dogs, cats, etc, or even animals in general. The description section (the first section in the article) starts off with "otherkin largely identify as mythical creatures" and the rest of the article has a similar focus. This makes the later phrase "animal-human relationship pioneers" particularly confusing, as it is the first time "animal" is suggested in the article. ~Mable (chat) 12:32, 8 June 2016 (UTC) It's probably mostly because normal animals are covered by the term therianthropy. Foxkin and so on usually call themselves therian. So the wider term 'otherkin' is used for the everything else. Sources that generalize this topic use the term otherkin since it covers everything (including therians). This article might be a little disjointed but it's controversial so every statement needs to be sourced. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 14:49, 8 June 2016 (UTC) As a wiki, WikiFur is not a RS, of course, but I find their article on the topic quite informative and plausible sounding, and it also addresses the distinction between otherkin and therians here. So (as already basically stated in our article as well) otherkin (growing out of an elf-centred community) and therians are historically distinct communities, and while the general rule is that otherkin identify with beings that are not known to exist or have existed in physical reality but are products of the human imagination, while therian identify with real living beings (usually animals, though plant-kin are not entirely unheard of), exceptions seem to exist, where people who identify with real animals identify as otherkin and people who identify with, say, dragons, as therian. Therefore, using otherkin as an umbrella term is strictly speaking incorrect. In fact, there is no umbrella term (at least no widely accepted one); these are merely similar but unrelated subcultures in origin, though they have begun to associate or ally to some extent due to shared interests and concerns. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:31, 9 June 2016 (UTC) There's an uncomfortable category thing here. The term "Otherkin" first surfaced within the elves groups to expand the category beyond elves to include other mythic and yes, fictional types (elves and dragons, but also orcs, hobbits, etc.) Now it has come to mean any non-multiple, non-human identity which includes therians, fictionkin and starseeds (and to those against fictionkin, again please realize this was there from the earliest days with Tolkien elves, orcs and hobbits, in fact it was Tolkien who greatly (and unwittingly) influenced the hippie movement with the unauthorized paperback version of LOTR in 1964 because he was the first to re-introduce animistic concepts, to give the sense that every rock, tree and star was alive, this had not been seen in popular culture since pre-Christian times... Also, the Church of All Worlds, with their Green Egg magazine providing the first forum for elves' groups, was in fact founded upon the intersection between fiction and religion, based on a fictional religion described by Heinlein. Anyway, digressions aside, there has always been this uncomfortable distinction, some use "otherkin" to refer to all singular-identity nonhuman groups where others prefer the original definition restricted to the mythic type. There's less of the latter type these days so my own inclination would be to be inclusive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.216.158.9 (talk) 04:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC) This whole article is absolutely wrong about what Otherkins are. It's pathetic, embarrassing as hell. Being an Otherkin means the same as being a Therian, just that Otherkin are solely mythical non-real creatures. The description here is the one which describes the ones who stole the term "Otherkin" and who really think they are something else, ruining the Otherkins reputition. Someone should rather look it up on Wikifur because that's the actually correct one. StarSuicune (talk) 11:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC) About the furry fandom navbox I recently requested that the furry fandom navbox include this article and one other, both of which have substantial relationships to the Furry fandom article and furries in general. Since a lot of furries identify as their anthropomorphic animal forms (per the Gerbasi survey and article, Furries from A to Z) and are therefore similar to otherkin in the same way that therians are, the relationship between these groups is hard to dispute. However, I noticed that User:Jeraphine Gryphon removed the navbox template, claiming that otherkin had nothing to do with the navbox. I'd like to discuss the reversion, because I don't agree that reverting it was best for the article. --Tathar (talk) 21:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC) Sorry, my explanation went here: Talk:Species_dysphoria#Furry_fandom_navbox.3F. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 21:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC) Thanks for linking that. Perhaps the issue would be better resolved by addressing the other links instead? Even if otherkin and species dysphoria don't have a strong relationship to several of the links in the navbox, they're in a different section of the navbox anyway, they have a relationship to some other articles within that section despite its miscellaneous nature, they also have a relationship to a few other articles in the navbox, and they have a relationship to the article that the navbox is centrally focused on. Plus, there's the alternative of making the navbox collapsed by default. I remember from WP:NAVBOX that navbox links should be bidirectional; that is, if an article is linked to in a navbox, that article should also transclude the navbox. I'm going to go through WP:NAVBOX to see how well the navbox is following the guidelines though, since I can see other links in the navbox that are only tangentially related, such as Parahuman. --Tathar (talk) 22:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC) Also, it just occurred to me that there's no category linking this article to the Furry fandom article, and categories tend to have looser guidelines regarding article relationships. My only question is, should the otherkin category be added as a subcategory of the furry category, the other way around, or should they both be part of some other category? --Tathar (talk) 22:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC) I think that otherkin and furry are related, but I don't think one is a subset of the other. I think the two categories should be separate, but have a see also link to the other or a section explanation of their similarities and differences. -- Firnen0 (talk) 01:06, 20 April 2022 (UTC) NPOV There is significant room for improvement on neutrality of the article. The recent deletion petititon goes into... excessive detail, but worth skimming. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Otherkin_(2nd_nomination) 99.232.216.129 (talk) 20:20, 29 November 2016 (UTC) I skimmed through the excessively-lengthy proposal, as well as the proposer's subsequent excessively-lengthy ANI complaints against other editors to this article, and it was not worth the effort. I found it rather strange (liberally applying AGF here) that the proposal cited so much irrelevant policy (which sometimes directly refuted the complaints, no less) to justify its complaints, and for no clear reason (again, AGF) determined that the sole or best remedy would be to delete the article. If there are genuine defects in the article that properly-cited policies would uncover, I could not find them within the AfD proposal, and I believe that the AfD discussion's complaints against the article are entirely baseless with only a surface-level appearance of being based in policy. Rather than spending it on reading this AfD proposal which I believe correctly failed, time would be better served by paying attention to the article more directly. --Tathar (talk) 03:04, 25 April 2022 (UTC) Reaction Chapter Bias the phrase ‘and that they have taken fairy lore out of its social context’ in the chapter ‘Reactions’ seems blatently biased sgsinst faekin, especially considering a vast amount of faekin identity with traditional fae and not the modern interpretation. If people feel the urge to have it in, there should be a separate page discussing the different views on otherkinity as it relates to fae lore, with a non biased perspective — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFaeKing (talk • contribs) 22:35, 1 March 2021 (UTC) I took a look at that statement's source, which is dated to 2001. Although the cited source does make that claim, there's no indication that the author stands by that claim today. I also believe the statement itself isn't a notable reaction, and its age makes it too stale to reflect notable contemporary views. For that matter, we should take a look at the notability of any other reactions mentioned in the section, and evaluate whether each one's inclusion improves the article. If there is no specific reaction notable enough to include in the article, the entire section should be removed. Tathar (talk) 11:36, 4 September 2022 (UTC) Quick clarification that the actual policy I'm referring to is WP:DUE, not WP:N. Normally, a single author's viewpoint is too insignificant to include. Tathar (talk) 12:13, 4 September 2022 (UTC) Complete rewrite needed This article, as is, is a bit of a mess. There are far too many self-published and generally unreliable sources and it reads far more like something which I'd expect to find on some kind of Otherkin-specific wiki. I am not trying to ruin anyone's fun here and definitely believe this article has a place on Wikipedia, but this is not encyclopedic as is. I'd encourage those with a vested interest in the topic to help clean this up and grab some sources which meet Wikipedia's standards. I can't imagine at least half of the information in this article will stand once WP:VERIFY is met, but I also don't want to be too heavy handed on a topic I'm not as intimately familiar with. Warrenmck (talk) 18:03, 14 August 2023 (UTC) I've cleaned up a lot of the article to remove blogs and self-published sites. I've tried to leave in everything with credible references and clean up the language in a couple of places. I'm uncomfortable with "psychologically dysfunctional" being used but didn't really want to be responsible for the alternative, and I think the source to a pro-life network is terrible but it does make the claim the source says, so if anyone has a good source for that please check the better source needed tags I added. Warrenmck (talk) 18:54, 14 August 2023 (UTC) Umbrella I think this article should add all of the different alterhumans that exist under this category. It helps people looking for the different alterhumans find the ones their looking for, under the Otherkin umbrella. As I want to write a google slide about therians, and I mentioned Otherkin. But I can't find anything that helps me figure out the alterhumans under this umbrella. Someone who knows all of them, please edit this. ABookForToday (talk) 16:16, 7 November 2023 (UTC) On the face of it, this seems reasonable since alterhuman and alterhumans redirect to this article. However, this is not a dumping ground for stuff people made up one day that isn't covered by sources that are actually reliable and are actually independent of the subject. Wikipedia is not a subcultural slang database (for which see https://UrbanDictionary.com). I'm sure there's some Battlestar Galactica fan out there claming to "identify as" a Cylon, but that doesn't make it encyclopedic.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:32, 5 December 2023 (UTC) Vampires and LARP This article seems to ascribe the entire origins of this to an "elfkind" subculture, and is missing the fact that a vampire quasi-identity subculture active since the 1990s and started by Mind's Eye Theatre: The Masquerade, along with other LARP stuff which collectively also tended to overlap with various kink subcultures including furry, had an impact on this, and so has later cosplay subculture. I don't really care enough about the topic to do research on this, but someone who does, should. It's misleading to leave out the vampire and other LARP influence. Despite having already cited several sources that go into and even focus on the vamp connections, our article says nothing beyond "The therian and vampire subcultures are related to the otherkin community, and are considered part of it by most otherkin but are culturally and historically distinct movements of their own, despite some overlap in membership" (and much of that reads as original research along "my sub-subculture is magically different from yours so nyah-nyah-nyah" lines).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:43, 5 December 2023 (UTC) nominate for speedy deletion this article has been problematic for a long time, including several requests for rewrite that never get followed up on. most of the sources are extremely suspect (self-published, not peer-reviewed, slanted POV, original research, etc). most of the naysayers have always been identified as members of this fringe community. aside from this, there's a long history of very bad faith argumentation in this page, among other references to it, based on highly offensive comparison to oppressed groups. 2605:8D80:405:1989:42AA:52D1:2A32:7C3 (talk) 23:13, 9 January 2024 (UTC) Which criteria for speedy deletion does it fall under? EvergreenFir (talk) 23:30, 9 January 2024 (UTC) Would you care to elaborate on any of your claims made such as what sources you think are faulty or how it meets the criteria for speedy deletion? Since you know about speedy deletion, the fact articles have to be nominated for deletion, and the history of this page, I presume you have an account, so why don't you log in and nominate it yourself if you think it's so bad? Despite what some may think about this, it is a documented phenomenon with professional researchers looking into it. --StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 03:23, 12 January 2024 (UTC) I just came to the page to learn, and it seems fairly sensible to me. Oppose deletion. Fig (talk) 13:48, 26 February 2024 (UTC)