Talk:Therianthropy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Spirituality Portal
This article is supported by WikiProject Spirituality.

This project provides a central approach to spirituality-related subjects on Wikipedia.
Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on November 27, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:


Therianthropy as mentioned in the above article is a "Therianthropy as a subculture does not have any central dogma or tenets, nor any recognized authority", and yet here we are being bombarded with definitions that are uncited. Yes, I see the classical definition listed, but nowhere is anyone trying to show the reality of therianthropy -- and are quite frankly, mocking it.

The validity of portions of the third paragraph under 'Subculture social structure' is uncited, and frankly unfounded in the therian community. Therianthropy is in noway connected with the 'Bears', and is not wrought by video games (Please cite a scientific study, while I will agree it could be, I ask for your proof). There is no interconnection to anything referred to in this third paragraph, but possibly the "Werewolf: The Apocalypse" (remotely if that).

Terrorwolf 22:47, 26 November 2005 (UTC) TerrorWolf Pennsylvania State University

I will agree that I see no real connection between Therianthropy and role gaming except that some Therians might incidentally role game. Of all the Therians I know, only one might be described as a "Gamer" and the incidental gaming that the others have done does not seem to focus on Werewolves. Therians are just about the most "reality based" people I have ever run into.

As for Bears, I have noticed a lot of crossover between the Furry community and the Bear community but I don't know a single Therian associated in any way with the Bear community (which is rather strange since I do know several Gay Therians).

I don't see much connection between the Therian community and Otherkin except, perhaps the Draconics, and there does seem to be a subset of the Dragon community that seems to gravitate toward the Therian community.

Actually, though, Terrorwolf, it's going to be hard to produce much in the way of scholarly material related to therianthropy. The modern community didn't exist earlier than 1993 and Therians are a hardy bunch that simply hasn't presented much in the clinical arena and when they have, it has usually been for tangetial problems - not anything obviously related to Therianthropy.

There is weak research being carried on now but the methods available to individual Therians and other people currently interested have obvious shortcomings (small and nonrepresentative samples, etc.) and can only be used as pilot research. Nothing has had the time to appear in peer reviewed literature. Wolf VanZandt 11/28/05.


Contents

[edit] Examples

Should the page contain examples? I am thinking about for instance this tiger guy that has got fangs operated onto him. I think he's quite famous. 惑乱 分からん 21:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Therion

Doesn't "therion" more accurately mean "beast" than "wild animal"? --Arny 03:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

  • You are correct especially in the sense that therion θηριον is used in koine Greek of the Bible.Sochwa 23:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Otherkin

Can someone please, please, explain to me what the difference is between (spiritual) therianthropy and otherkin. I'm so confused. :-( 86.142.179.66 21:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The difference is that therians (in terms of therianthropy) believe they are an animal. Otherkin do not necessarily believe that at all: otherkin may be dragons, or elves, whereas therians might be wolves and falcons. Falcon 02:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Heh, you have reason to be confused. Generally, Otherkin relate to mythological beings; Therians relate to animals that do exit or have existed. The main observable difference is that Otherkin usually claim to be Otherkin whereas many Therians refuse the appelation. Nevertheless, various Ortherkin are more likely to socialize than Therians with Otherkin. In other words, the Otherkin community and the Therian community tend to be distinctly separated.

It's interesting that you have four "Therianthropy vs." sections in the article, yet you don't actually cover the confusing one. 86.136.82.105 23:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that it should be merged with the article on therianthropy because otherkin refers to somebody who besides maybe feeling they are an animal soul, it also includes someone who has an affinity to a soul that is neither human or animal such as elf, or angel. Hello! --Lighthead 23:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

In contrast to Lighthead's opinion, I do bleive that the two should be merged. However, due to distinct differences between the two subjects it would be wise to add Otherkin in the format of Lycanthropy. (i.e. another bullet in the Examples section)Terane 18:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I (who consider myself to be otherkin) am of the opinion that the article on otherkin should not be merged with therianthropy, not least because therianthropy does not only refer to those people who feel they are an animal soul - but also those people in myths who can turn into animals. Furthermore, if anything (not that I advocate this - I maintain the articles should be separet) I would say that therianthropy should be subsumed into otherkin, as Otherkin as I understanding it (the having of a non-human (albeity usually applied to mythical) soul) is a wider ranging predicate than therianthrope. - 1:37, 4 March 2007 (GMT)

I agree that Otherkin and Therians are distinct. Put into simple terms (useful only as a discussion point, not as a definition, Otherkin have (or claim) a connection to some mystical or otherworldly heritage, such as fey (fairy), angelic, or similar non-human non-terrestrial origins. Therians, in contrast, claim or have a connection to non-human but terrestrial creatures, namely animals of various types. Yes, there are parallels. Just as baseball and golf are similar in that they both involve hitting a ball with a stick. But their differences far outweigh the similarities. For this reason, the two articles should be kept separate, even if one does reference the other for comparison and contrast [Coragryph: 9 June 2007]

[edit] semi-protected

I've protected this article from editing by nameless IP's and new users. Over the last couple of days it's been targeted by one or more persons editing from various related IPs. FreplySpang (talk) 15:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Are you guys mostly therians or what?

Seriously, why do you all check this article so much? I know that the werelist site has a section on wikipedia.

Yeah, this will probably get reverted, but I'm just interested. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.204.67 (talk • contribs)

Several people keep this article on their Watchlist because it's a bit of a magnet for inappropriate additions. FreplySpang (talk) 17:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Mostly, if you edit an article, it remains on your watch-list. It could be for a minor grammatical error, a wikilink addition, or a deletion of badly worded text, but by default it will be watched in future, on the basis editors who showed an interest may well continue to have an interest. Thats why. FT2 (Talk) 18:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] In popular culture

Why are you removing this? The idea that therianthropy and its derivatives in various forms exist in popular culture should be noted. It is most certainly NOT "totally worthless fictioncruft" or some such. --Jesse Mulkey 17:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Since it appears that DreamGuy doesn't want a popular culture reference section, I have created a new page based on his advice here: Therianthropy in popular culture. --Jesse Mulkey 21:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Woops...

Sorry about that, Dreamguy. I didn't realize I hadn't read to the last version before trying to revert the vandalism Curps had missed. I must have been too pissed off by TFV to wait. Image:Tycon.jpgCoyoty 20:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation

I'm seeing quite a lot of tension in this talk page between two viewpoints - the therian viewpoint and the mythology viewpoint. Except that they aren't really two viewpoints so much as they are two subjects. I thought. Time for disambiguation? I checked out other subcultures and their related mythologies. The vampire subculture and the vampire folklore page are two separate articles. The otherkin subculture is a separate article from the articles on the folklore of creatures such as elves, dragons and so on. The furry subculture is a separate article from the many types of funny animal, mythical and fictional, that inspire the furry subculture. For that matter, the biker subculture is a different article than motorcycles themselves. Nothing else has subculture material and other material mashed together into one article. But then I look at the therianthropy article and see why. It has very little other than the subculture material. There's not enough mythology to make more than a stub if it were split off. So I decided to be bold and do an expansion that would then justify the disambiguation that's aching to happen. The new therianthropy mythology article can be seen at Therianthropy (mythology), the new subculture article is at Therianthropy (subculture) (the original contents of the Therianthropy article were divided between those two as I thought they should go, feel free to reshuffle, I did not delete anyone's stuff, it is all in there somewhere) and the Therianthropy in popular culture article has been renamed Therianthropy (fiction) in preparation for what I am now doing, creating a Therianthropy disambiguation page. If for some reason I was way too bold in doing the disambiguation and I offended everyone, please don't just revert, since a lot of added material is in the new articles, including citations that had been missing before.Blue *Milk Mathematician 23:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

And User talk:Curps apparently auto-reverted it in less than a minute. I hope that was a program keyed simply to revert anything major, and not just someone who did not even look at my stuff for one minute, who reversed two days of painstaking, highly cited article writing that took me about 20 hours, and I DID NOT DELETE ANYTHING THAT WAS ALREADY THERE, only added material and disambiguated.Blue Milk Mathematician 00:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Me likey. EDIT: I would say go for it, since nobody else has noticed you. Go for it, and don't worry about being bold. I certainly think your move is an improvement. 86.143.156.110 18:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, i would strongly oppose any attempt to disambiguate here in the way mentioned above, as it's completely pointless and unencyclopedic. Being able to ramble on incoherently is not a rationale for such a change. DreamGuy 19:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Blue Millky guy, you should be aware that the risk in being bold is that you will be overruled and that your work will be reverted. That's the problem when you do things without discussing them first. We can see from my response and the edit history here that your actions are opposed by the regular editors here, especially as the way you did it violated a number of policies, so I have redirected all the ridiculous fork files you created to this article, as it should be. If in fact there were new things added to those separate articles, instead of whining about it, move them here to the real article and see if they pass muster with the rest of the editors, or at least take the time to try to explain what you are doing. So, yeah, being bold is fine, but when what you do is undone by other people, you have no right to complain and try to act like people were unfairly screwing up your work. DreamGuy 19:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Okay, Putting Mythology in the Main Article Then

I will follow your advice and put all my work on therianthropy in mythology back into the main article to see how it is received by the group. However, I wanted to refute your accusations:

  • 1) I wasn't trying to be sneaky, and I did take the time to explain what I was doing, that is why I posted about this issue on the therianthropy talk page, plus the talk page of nearly every individual who had edited "Therianthropy" within the last two months, plus the talk pages of the disambiguation pages I'd created (or edited, in the case of Therianthropy (fiction)).
  • 2) I wasn't complaining. I was under the impression that my work was being auto-reverted, since the individual who reverted it (Curps) did so in less than one minute (showing that my work hadn't even been read through) and because Curps's page said that Curps was on vacation. Therefore, I was trying to initiate discussion to understand the situation and see what others felt.
  • 3) I was under the impression that my work was liked, because I only got positive or neutral feedback on it for quite some time, until DreamGuy replied on this talk page. Therefore, I thought it was either an auto-reversion or people who had gotten so used to vandals that their trigger fingers were itchy for the "revert" button and they mistook me for a vandal. This impression was strenghthened by the fact that, even though this article was edited VERY regularly, nobody had anything to say about my work on the talk page here except for one user who liked it, until DreamGuy posted above.
  • 4) The way I did it did not violate a number of policies, not even the WP:FORK as I understand it. I explained everything I did as I did it, and I gave my reasons why, in considerable detail (what DreamGuy called "ramble on incoherently" above, apparently he wants to reprimand me for not explaining myself while simultaneously reprimanding me for explaining myself too much). The disambiguation page was created, as I said, as a placeholder and possibly permanent page showing the individual disambiguation links, and so that there wouldn't be anything that appeared sneaky in my going around making links to point at my newly created page on mythology (that is, I wouldn't appear to be trying to re-route links without doing the neccessary disambiguation). I was not trying to spawn useless mirror pages, I simply followed the instructions on the disambiguation instruction page. It wasn't my fault that the original page got reverted, thus creating redundancy.

I'm going to have to agree with Dreamguy. I didn't see any concensus before the changes were made, and wasn't sure if I had missed something. The method and style of the changes did disturb me, but I didn't have the opportunity or desire to take care of it at the time, and decided it was someone else's problem. (Sorry, DG.) I'm watching too many topics already and this wasn't a priority. I didn't respond to you or complain because I didn't feel like it, and it didn't mean I approved of your changes. The subject doesn't need so many different articles. Image:Tycon.jpgCoyoty 19:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you were too busy to disapprove on a talk page. I really would have stopped what I was doing if I had any idea that it wasn't reverted by accident. I was hoping that I'd receive guidance and opinions, good or bad, which is why I put notes like this one that I put on your talk page, but when I got ignored, I assumed "none of these people care enough to oppose me" instead of "they all oppose me, but don't care enough to mention it". I'm not really about whining about getting my stuff reverted. I was only whining about being insulted so badly and accused of rule-breaking when I'd acted in good faith. Blue Milk Mathematician 23:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moved

My mythology additions were removed from therianthropy because they supposedly belong in lycanthropy, according to DreamGuy. I guess therianthropy is being shaped as an article that is entirely resistant to mythology about therianthropy, so I moved my therianthropy mythology section there. All of my sources are cited. I'm writing about this here because I don't want to be accused of being "sneaky" again. Yes, I'm totally honest about what I'm doing.Blue Milk Mathematician 01:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citations?

Currently, therianthropy breaks Wikipedia rules about no original research and verifiability and using websites as reliable sources. Therianthropy resists all mythology-based material, so it is almost entirely about a subculture with statements supported by websites. The only reference material cited is an 1886 work and a 1933 work, which could not apply to a subculture that started in the 1990s.

Published sources that could be used for citations do exist, three books:

  • Cohen, D. (1996) Werewolves. New York: Penguin. ISBN 0525652078
  • Greene, R. (2000) The Magic of Shapeshifting. York Beach, ME: Weiser. ISBN 1578631718
  • Steiger, B. (1999) The Werewolf Book: The Encyclopedia of Shape-Shifting Beings. Farmington Hills, MI: Visible Ink. ISBN 1578590787

I had added in parenthetical citations using the MLA style manual to the subcultural portions of the therianthropy article, but they got reverted in all the confusion I inadvertently caused. If anyone wants to, they can add in my old citations that got reverted. Otherwise, I'll probably manually add the citations back in myself after a week or so, if nobody objects. This means you need to actually disagree with me on a talk page this time, instead of hoping I'm telepathic and will pick up your silent disapproval and then getting pissed afterwards. Blue Milk Mathematician 23:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Done

Okay, I've added this stuff back in now. I might add a bit more later on, I think I lost the file of some of the material I was meaning to add. Blue Milk Mathematician 19:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External Links?

Each time anyone adds external links of any sort, the whole section gets deleted, often because of nearby vandalism. However, considering how extremely Internet-based the subculture is, some sort of external links section seems almost required. Three or four good links would do it, we don't need a gigantic list. Here are my suggestions, roughly in order of quality:

I'm totally open to other suggestions, I think we should have something! Suggest all the external links you want, vote thumbs up or down on any that stand out, and then in a couple of weeks, let's actually add the 3 or 4 best ones (unless we get lots of "no external links at all" votes). Blue Milk Mathematician 14:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Eh, seems all right so far, but I'm still leery. Therianthropy sites -- being about a topic that is necessarily subjective -- are hard to judge on quality. And there are a lot, and most people are interested in promoting their pages, so it may be difficult to stop the links list from getting huge. I don't think discussion pages like the first link are really encyclopedic, either, but I'll wait before/if consensus is reached on that issue to remove it.
Sorry for adding my opinion late, though, looks like you've already decided to put one in by now. Switchercat 21:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Going in

OK, looks like nobody objects, so I'm putting them in now. If the entire links section gets deleted again I'm going to just put it back in unless someone gives a reason this time. Blue Milk Mathematician 03:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

They've been taken out again. I've restored the two that seemed best to me. Bryan Derksen 02:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Should we note Therianism?

A few beleive we should since this is a redirect from Therianism. Otherwise, what's the point of redirecting it, if it's not mentioned here. Suttle contrasts between the two, but they still are relivant majorly to some. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mix Bouda-Lycaon (talk • contribs)

I have never heard "therianism" used as a term with a different meaning from "therianthropy," and even if I had, I'm not sure the distinction made is common enough to be notable. Could you cite examples? Also, sign your posts, eh? Switchercat talkcont 22:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I mean, I know it's another term for therianthropy, but the two words don't seem to express different concepts. Best just stick in a word about how "therianism" is an alternate terms, if its neglect bothers you. Switchercat talkcont 23:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oct 12 Cleanup

I cleaned up and NPOV'd a bunch of this article. Right now it's pretty bad, by the way. I guess I'll read up a bit more on the subject and try to help out. Voretus the Benevolent 16:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD?

My first thought on coming across this page was to AfD it. The article is a neologism covered by 90% original research, has very few and poorly cited reliable sources, and very clearly owns it very existence to a POV causing it to fail wikpedia's policy of neutrality without even having to really get into the body of the article (which also fails POV). I would contest most of the basic assumptions the article puts forth by an obviosly biased source. Even the title is POV; Therianthrophy is made up word. It was created by an internet community to help give their group a more "scientific", "official" or "legit" sounding label. Otherkin, lycnathrope, were-(what ever creature), shapeshifter and the such was just getting them laughed at. The section on "Scholarly use of the term" can only be there to try and help justify or help legitimize the "modern usage" section. Why? Because as I've already said Therianthrophy is largely a made up word and has zero "scholarly" use at all. This artilce is a joke.

Still, some people have obviolsy put alot of work into this article and the presentation and formating of the article are actually pretty darn good. The tone of the article reads like an essay but it also strives to try and be scientific and neautral with results that are hit and miss. There is obvious a suprisingly large, even disporportional, number of editors on wikipedia that deal in some way shape or form the entire Otherkin, were, "Therian", New Age, neopaganism, etc realm and I find it hard to believe that some higher standard hasn't been adopted here. The title of this article needs to be scrapped but, in light of the amount of work that has gone into this article, does the possiblity exist that some other eidtors would be interested in a merge/redirect of qulaity and sourcable info to Shapeshifting or lycanthropy or some other more appropriate article? NeoFreak 07:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Don't remove it entirely

I actually created a Wikipedia account just to make this post. A friend of mine recently mentioned the word therianthropy. I was curious about it so I looked it up in Wikipedia and this was the page I found. If this page hadn't existed, I would have possibly had to hunt around for ages to find a credible source regarding what the term actually meant. Pedantry aside, this seems like a reasonable page to me, but I'm just a layman who isn't obsessed with updating or commenting on Wikipedia pages. Keenman76 16:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)Keenman76

There are alot of things that are useful or of interest to some people that don't qualify for an article in wikipedia. In my opinion this is one of them. Still, if this article has created interest in wikipedia and added another member to the community than it has done some good :) I'll leave you some links on your talk page to help you get started in wikpedia should you choose to stick around. Thanks for your input, make sure you add your thoughts to the article's deletion page as it will do the most there. As a side note you might want to check out the wikifur. NeoFreak 16:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not a neologism, established phenomenon

As I noted in my comments against the proposal to delete this page, a quick search of google books shows the word 'therianthropy' used (for the same meaning as used in this article) in 1915. The word has been used more significantly in the last 10 years, but some of my research hints that it may have been in use (in criminal trials) as early as 1570.

The lack of citations in this article is definitely a problem, and it does need to be cleaned up and turned into something more encyclopedic. However, it's a spiritual phenomenon that has been documented by rigorous researchers as existing in stone age tribes. NickArgall 02:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

As I've also said, since the word is a Greek conjunction you can no doubt find it in use somewhere. Still, it is neither an accepted or widespread academic term nor is it used in Reliable Sources in the manner that it is portrayed in the article. The article uses it to describe a demographic of New Age adherants to a particular belief system. Neologism. NeoFreak 02:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to merge from Otherkin

All the sources of a rigorous standard about Otherkin are in the context of 'belief in being an animal', ie, therianthropy. Otherkin belief can (and should, IMO) be regarded as a variation on therianthropic belief and be treated in 1 or 2 paragraphs in this article, as opposed to a separate article. NickArgall 02:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The reason Otherkin has a seperate article is because it is in common use in that subculture; however, I agree with the merge on the basis of the Otherkin article/subculture/religion not being notable enough at the moment to merit its own article. Titanium Dragon 03:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd say they should be merged into a single page. As I understand, therianthropy is with animals that exist and Otherkin is for animals that don't really exist, so they are quite similar besides that. --CF90 22:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Not really; otherkin is used as a pretty broad term. It encompasses therianthropes, mythics, elves, and vampires, among other odd things. Titanium Dragon 03:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
TD, it looks like you have a more nuanced understanding of 'Otherkin vs Therian' than myself or CF90, can I suggest you do the first run of the merge text? My understanding is the essentially the same as CF90. NickArgall 05:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I think that sounds very resonable. NeoFreak 02:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

'Therianthropy' has a mere 36,000 hits on Google (25,000 for 'therianthropy without otherkin' in advanced search), Otherkin (which includes the therian subculture) has 209,000 (goes down to 202,000 without therianthropy). If anything, the merge should go the other way, as 'otherkin' is obviously the dominant term that people will be looking for. Otherkin have been getting mentioned as such on television and in print media, both in fiction like cop shows and in serious non-fiction articles. It is the dominant term, and therianthropy is not.Thespian 00:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Except that this is no longer an article that says much about the subculture, instead it is mostly a mythology article, so in its current state it would suffer greatly from a merge to otherkin. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 02:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
However, the current note at the top of the Otherkin is regarding a proposal to merge that article into therianthropy. I was thus addressing that, which would be completely inappropriate. Frankly, I think this is a stub, with very little real information, and selective bits pulled to support its existance, by self defined 'therianthropes'. It's not NPOV if it's being wholly edited and defended by therianthropes themselves. Thespian 06:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I would not like to see the merge. Otherkin is an distinguishing term from Therianthrope, and it could be argued that Therians are a sub-division of Otherkin, just as it might be argued that Otherkin are a sub-division of Therianthropes. I suggest that the Otherkin stub remain as it is.

[edit] Split to Therianthropy and Therianthropy (subculture)

  • Support: I support the split as they are too dissimilar to lump together in one article. Also suggest renaming Therianthropy (mythology) to simply Therianthropy as that is the more generic usage. --Justanother 19:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree, as discussed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Therianthropy. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 20:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Also, I think that a prod should probably be put on Therianthropy (disambiguation) if the split goes through. Does this seem like a good idea to others?Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 20:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Otherkin do not necessarily believe they are animals - the great majority of otherkin I've come across have a dominant humanoid form, not animal. Therefore the merge makes no sense. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Clodaus (talk • contribs) 09:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC).
Without looking again, I got the clear impression from the Otherkin article that they feel that they ARE animals that have a human form in this incarnation. OK, I lied, I am looking again. I just looked again at both and now I am kinda confused as both terms seek to be so broad that they end up meaning the same thing. I see that therian feel that they have an animal aspect, i.e that their spirit is part animal and that they switch to that "nature"? While otherkin have the same idea but lean toward mythical creatures? In that case I would strongly support merge from otherkin as a subset or variation on the theme of therianthropy. And this goes way beyond totemism. --Justanother 16:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
The topic is very confusing, which means that we have to be careful that the confusion doesn't taint the actual article and lead to a confusing article. My impression is that the original "Otherkin" were mostly people who thought of themselves as elves, who were gradually joined by people who thought of themselves as dragons and other mythical-creature minorities. However, therians seem to have had a separate (and earlier?) origin as an offshoot of the furry subculture and therians focus on "shifting" instead of reincarnation as their main belief. At some point, the definition of "Otherkin" was expanded to include the psychic vampire subculture as well, which certainly pre-dates the original definition of Otherkin. Which begs the question, is the current definition of "Otherkin" pointlessly large? And should subcultures that developed separately (therians and the psychic vampire subculture) be included under the label? These are hard questions, but they need to be adequately answered before we can do much towards building non-confusing articles. Unfortunately, most of the print sources seem confused themselves, which might mean that these articles are doomed to be either small or confusing until better sources gradually come into print. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 17:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, having some experience in an analogous area and at the risk of sounding trite, I think that articles should be written so as to make them more understandable and that aim generally requires that the editors contributing understand the subject material from a sympathetic viewpoint (putting themselves in the hooves of believers, so to speak). You seem to have that sort of understanding so I support your efforts, if you care to, in fixing the articles to make them specific to the usage they cover and not overly general or confusing. I have found that that can often be done using only the refs already present but just presenting the topic in an understandable manner while removing flagrant POV. --Justanother 17:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


I don't want to sound harsh or dismissive but I think we should first fix the article as it is. Once we figure out what and how many diffrent articles and subgroups we can get reliable sources for then we can talk more realistically about splits. NeoFreak 01:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It's nice to have an opportunity to agree with NeoFreak here - let's focus on putting together good-quality content and defer judgement on splits and whatnot until we've got a collection of content that can be sorted through. My suspicion is that we'll have a lot of difficulty finding secondary sources on the contemporary subcultures, but I'll be very pleased if I'm wrong. NickArgall 05:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
There is a LOT of information in "The Magic of Shapeshifting" by Rosalyn Greene (already listed in references) on the subculture. However, that book treats "therianthropy subculture" as a minority usage, only using that term a couple of times, and instead uses "shifter subculture" most of the time. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 16:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
If it remains one article, it certainly needs to be organized so that the academic/mythology material and the subcultural material are more clearly separate. Otherwise, we keep having problems where it looks like the academic citations are supporting the subcultural stuff, which simply is misleading. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 19:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't think either problem is going to be a concern. I have some likely sources for the subcultural material incoming (as available) on interlibrary loan, and proper use of inline citations should avoid any misconstruction of what references what. On a related note, I've heard some mention of possible use of the term pre-1900 in conjunction with claims of lycanthropy and some 1920s uses in psychology that were off-handedly mentioned as "dubious". Anyone able to scare up concrete examples of either of those? Serpent's Choice 07:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I seem to be the 'historical use defender' guy, I'll make some enquiries at the library later this week. NickArgall 00:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Therian people?

Shouldn't there be some listings about known people who actually claim to be Therian, such as groups or organizations, clubs, Therian philosopheers, writers, etc... something?

There was, but most of it was edited out (see earlier versions of the page) mainly because of lack of citations. Also see the split template and Therianthropy (subculture). Also, please sign your posts in the future. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 22:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Keep them seperate!

Otherkin and therianthropy, despite their similarities, are considered different by the groups themselves. Both are very subjective belief systems, which is why it can be difficult to provide citations, especially for otherkin, which is a more recent split off.

Otherkin is a highly controversial variation that's often rejected, even by the more open groups, such as wiccan. As an otherkin myself, I'm potently aware of such criticisms, despite having no "official" source to cite it from. Therianthropy is a much more accepted variation, as it pertains only to Earth creatures, and has roots in a considerable number of different metaphysical and religious points. If memory serves, hinduism is a faith in which animal reincarnation is accepted. In such, therianthropes are a bit more accepted.

Considering otherkin tends to involve more difficult to believe ideas, it's more commonly rejected, even by the more tolerant circles. So, though otherkin are (usually) more tolerant and open minded, accepting others of a larger variety of groups (so long as they, in turn, are accepted, of course), otherkin are generally considered a distinct group, being only universally accepted by other otherkin.

In such, despite the similarities between the two, they really should be seperate articles. I've noticed the otherkin article changing size and shape a great many times thus far, but hopefully, it will settle into a solid explaination of otherkin. It's the view of the outsider, who's not actually involved in the spiritual subtleties, that suggests merging the two points. Yes, from a distant view, they seem barely distinguishable, but once you're in it, you realize the difference. However, there should be links from one to the other, as point of comparison.

RubyCona 15:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC) RubyCona, Dragon Otherkin RubyCona 15:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Otherkin and therianthropy are variations on the same concept. While there are diffrences between the two both communities largely overlap and there is not enough sourcable information to really warrant two full and distinct articles. Also, in the future please do not put in any information to either article that cannot be backed with reliable sources or use the "minor edit" function unless the edit is a small grammer, link, format or typo fix.NeoFreak 15:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
There is also a concern with the mythological/folkloric/anthropology aspects of therianthropy. If Otherkin and Therianthropy do get merged, it would be pointless to include any of these other parts of Therianthropy in the Otherkin article, since the ONLY points of similarity are the subcultures. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 22:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC response

I see no evidence that therianthropy is the usual term for this phenomenon, either in folklore or elsewhere. I think the article intends to say that those who consider themselves shape-shifters self-identify as such. It is asserted that they actualy believe this, but I do not see how this could be proven.

The key reason to separate the folklore elements is that they are verifiable and notable by the ordinary standards, and the the presentation of this material should not be distorted by the discussion of the present-day self-identifiers. There is an immense amount of such folklore material, and it would make a good article, and I do suggest having it separate. What the correct name should be is unclear, but I doubt it should be therianthropy; one advantage of not using that name would be avoiding the negative connotations of unverifiable cult associations. I think those who want to keep the parts together are at least partially motivated by a fear of deletion of a separate article on the cult aspect for lack of verification. To someone from outside altogether, this is a good reason to separate the articles, so as not to delete the verifiable parts.

If here are two groups of self-identifiers with different concepts using different names, it would be in accord with WP practice to give them separate articles, as is done for religions and cults of all sorts, assuming they can prove a group identity. DGG 00:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this is exactly what I've been thinking. Regardless of when the term might have been coined, it is not commonly used outside of the culture of therianthropes. A quick search of Google books for 'therianthropy' shows it being used in a pile of fiction and gaming books, a couple new age texts about armchair primitivism, and two scholarly books (one from 1915, one from 2003). That's not by any means a complete study, but I bet it maps out. The current self-identifying therians don't want to be mistaken for otherkin because, well, a lot of people think that otherkin are nuts. But to be honest, if someone says to me, "My soul is actually that of a panther," I'm going to think the same (therians never seem to realize that their soul is that of a boll weevil). People who come from cultures with a long tradition of soul and spirit animals, such as the Japanese, Chinese and some of the Native American tribes, do not use this term; it's a western term, created whole cloth to describe something they didn't quite understand, and then adopted by a usenet group. It's not the term for the spiritual practice, and the article as it stands should be merged into otherkin.Thespian 18:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Nonsense. The term IS used by academics in folklore/mythology/etc. studies, and it's very nonencyclopedic for us to ignore how academics and experts use the term versus what a bunch of fringe culture Internet people use it for. Just because some bizarre thing is talked about on the net more than the professional version doesn't make it more correct, more important, and so forth. That logic would turn Wikipedia into not an encyclopedia but just a fanlisting for Internet jargon and nonsense. To the contrary, this being an encyclopedia it should focus more on the academic meanings and provide genuine information on topics other than what some loners who think up some way to make themselves sound cool decide to label themselves. Therianthropy as a popular culture phenomena barely rates any mention at all in this encyclopedia, but if it is going to be mentioned, we're damn sure going to mention the accurate term and the academic information also. To do so otherwise is a blatant abuse of WP:NPOV policy. DreamGuy 02:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
And I should further note that "The current self-identifying therians don't want to be mistaken for otherkin because, well, a lot of people think that otherkin are nuts." is laughable, because they are the same thing. We can;t go around changing encyclopedia articles to protect the sensibilities of people who want to create artificial distinctions between themselves and other people for purely POV-pushing reasons. DreamGuy 02:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Therian Temple?

Attention The URL discussed below will attempt to put a trojan (virus) on your computer. Fair warning. NeoFreak 13:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Ick! All the more reason to delete it then. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 14:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
VIRUS ACCUSATION NOT TRUE-POTENIALLY LIBEL —~~tolerant

See this edit comparison. Can we safely delete this? As far as I know, the Therian Temple is widely regarded as a hoax website created merely to promote an overly expensive self-published book, and has no standing at all in the therianthrope/otherkin subculture. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 19:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

-"As far as you know"* should not be the limitations of Wikipedia. "Church of Satan" Satanism is widely regarded by "Devil Worshippers" as a "hoax" because they do not recognize existence of a literal anthropomorphic "Satan" deity, yet it IS an existing school of thought. It is questionable how you choose to define "standing" in the 'community'? Is wikidpedia only an informational resource on what is "liked" now? Your personal opinion should not affect the content of an informational resource such as Wikipedia. ~twoCents

First, note that the unsigned statement above (see this history comparison and this one too) was added by the same ISP that added the link to begin with, so it is not a neutral view. I was hoping to attract some neutral observers to agree or disagree with my assessment. Secondly, the ISP above is arguing somewhat the reverse of the ordinary rules. If in doubt about an external link that seems of little relevance, especially if it seems like an advertisement, the default is to remove the external link. In other words, the editor that added the material is being asked to provide reasons that satisfy the guidlines of WP:EL, especially external link advertisement guidlines. Advertising and hoaxes, both of which the site seems like it might be, are not taken lightly in Wikipedia, and using a self-published work as a source is generally frowned on because a self-published source will rarely meet the requirements of WP:N. Unless the editor can provide some policy-based reasons for keeping the added material and external link, it will probably get deleted soon. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 05:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The article creator had two days to argue for keeping the material according to policy, and has not come up with anything. I saw another editor had deleted the link, so I went ahead and deleted the rest of the material (since its claim to validity rests mainly on a self-published book, it probably could never have satisfied WP:V anyway). Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 19:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

---Weren't almost ALL religious texts originally self-published?~hm?

Yes, but the verbal concept of a "therian temple" provokes in me all manner of wrath and outrage. Why? Because this is hardly a cult, and I for my part (and those who would agree with me, naturally) don't feel that anyone can claim to be a particular overriding authority on the topic. I would be rather loathe to believe the words of the author of a book that claims to be such a compendium, let alone one promoted by spamming Wikipedia and advertised on a website containing malicious code. Falcon 07:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
What malicious code??, can you show or prove this accusation in ANY way?~~tolerant

[edit] Paragraph 4

I have added the 4th paragraph (as of the posting of this message) because I think that an article which deals with therianthropy and which people are talking about splitting into (subculture) and (mythology) really should make at least some mention of what the subculture is presently, in addition to making some cursory mention of what it is other than people who believe they are part animal, which could be taken in quite a few different ways. I really would that it not be removed without at least some discussion, naturally; I'm certain that some external references could be dredged back up from the carnage embodied in the previous versions. Falcon 06:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you want to dredge those sources up that is fine but until then this article has more than enough unsourced material without having more added. I've reverted it back to the previous version. NeoFreak 07:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
The article has less unsourced material than the majority of articles in Wikipedia! Why is this one being held to a higher standard than any other? Falcon 07:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Because of the subject material and the penchant on this page for extensive original research such as the material you just put in. Most articles that are devoted to New Age-ish groups and subcultures esp ones based on the internet and not firmly grounded in reality have a tendency to attract bogus material. Bottom line is this is a controversial subject and so anything that goes in here needs to be sourced with reliable sources. If it is not sourced I'm going to remove it without a second thought and will continue to do so. NeoFreak 07:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I would be considerably more wont to call such a thing common knowledge, rather than original research. I would rebut your position because there are very few published works on this kind of thing, and yet they still verily exist by virtue even of the number of individual and separate people unanimously committing certain data to this very article. I would far rather that the removal of bogus material be left to those who actually find it to be bogus, rather than having each sentence without a footnote removed. Why? I'm going to write an essay to this effect. Falcon 07:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
A lack of reliable sources is also an indicator of a lack of notability and is the definition of a lack of verifiability. I'm happy that this conversation is sparking a want to right an essay. I'm really not going to argue this with you because I don't have too. If you want to add sometihng, source it or don't bother. NeoFreak 08:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not trying to start an argument so much as a discussion over what ought to be done with this article. Honestly, I really think there's no need for every sentence on this page to generate a new footnote with a new reference; it is that kind of overzealous squabbling that prevents anything productive from being accomplished here, in addition to driving off perfectly well-meaning (albeit less stubborn) contributors. Further, the whole thing depends very heavily on what exactly it is that constitutes a reliable source. I hold that it changes situationally. While the word of many independent persons might mean nothing in the context of science, it means a great deal in the context of philosophy, or that of a statement that a group of people say something. I'm sorry you don't seem to want to discuss it, though. Wikipedia is run by discussion. Falcon 08:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you need to reread the policy and guidline sections. Your basic assumptions such as reliable sources "changing situationally" tells me that you are not familiar with them. NeoFreak 08:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the policies ought to be changed to better reflect reality, then. Falcon 05:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
And you get to define what reality is? Go read our policies and follow them. If you don't like them, make yor own encyclopedia. DreamGuy 02:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Therianthropy (mythology)

That's really all that needs to be done. Just please point out that this article is about the mythology of therianthropy and not the subculture. I'm not even saying a subculture article has to be created. But people going on wikipedia to try learn about therianthropy as the subculture may see this and get very confused. Also the links should be made both to categories of the mythology and of the subculture. Because right now there are several links to much less harsh articles on therianthropy, but the stuff in the article seems like it could basically discredit anything that those positive articles say. If somebody goes in to look at those links after wikipedia's already told them it's a clinical disorder then it just seems like the ranting of the insane, or at least mildly disturbed. The article's received a ridiculous amount of editing for trying to make it NPOV, but now there's a fairly obvious POV that therians are either liars, or semi-crazy people. And since after 3 days nobody responded to this, I made a change myself I simply made it perfectly clear that the section about psychiatric therianthropy is an entirely different thing from the therianthropy of the subculture. Hopefully that'll at least get somebody's attention so the matter can be discussed.Anon 16:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, it got my attention, in that I reverted your obvious POV-pushing edits. It's not for you, an anonymous person out in cyberspace somewhere, to ty to claim that people who think they turn into animals are not nuts. You would need a verifiable and reliable source from a professional saying that. We also are not saying they ARE nuts. The information is just presented in an encyclopedic way. Worrying what subculture thinks or wants or so forth isn't encyclopedic. See especially the undue weight section of the NPOV policy. DreamGuy 02:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd Edition Monsterous Manual called therianthropes as such; it may have been responsible for its popularization among those who called themselves such. Titanium Dragon 15:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Hm, I honestly don't mind that it was deleted. It's not like I put a ton of work into it. I'm just saying that the article should point out that it's about mythology and not the subculture. People that think they turn into animals are indeed crazy, but therians in the subculture do not believe they turn into animals. And in that case I was only making sure to point that out. Also if the article is going to be about psychiatric disorders and mythology then the links should go to those categories. All the links currently go to sites about the subculture when the article has nothing to do with it. And I just made another small edit, because that seems to be the only way to get in a conversation with the people "managing" this article. I was wondering though, how exactly does that book phrase it?. Anon 20:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External links removal restored

DreamGuy's deletion of the entire external links section was just reverted (see this edit). I had stopped trying to revert this article because of DreamGuy's continued attempts to argue me down by sheer force on places such as Werewolf fiction, but now that there's another supportive editor, I plan to support the existence of an external links section on this article. Now there are two editors here who think that an external links section is needed, and that DreamGuy's wholesale deletion is not according to policy. I'm just making this note here to keep track of the situation and allow others to comment if they have opinions too. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 18:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh look, Mermaid's following me around again to make harassing edits on yet more pages. Don't mind him, he's just a chronic wikistalker.
Fact of the matter is that wiki projects are EXPLICITLY mentioned as NOT meeting WP:EL rules, so that one absolutely cannot be listed here.
And the spammy, linkfarming, self-promotional, nonencyclopedic, fanwank, just some kid's blog crap links you try to shove onto all sorts of articles also fail policy. You seem to have been on a crusade to oppose anyone actually following WP:EL guidelines after some sites you tried to spam got deleted by a strong consensus of editors on Talk:Dragon and elsewhere, and you've been going around undoing my edits on tons of other pages since then. Your kind of petty harassment simply will not work. DreamGuy 19:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me, but I also restored some of those links and I am not any sort of "stalker". I happen to think you're simply wrong on this matter, and your hyperbole is not helping the matter any. You're taking an overly dogmatic view of Wikipedia:External links. Firstly, it's just a guideline, not an absolute line-in-the-sand policy. Secondly, what it says is that "Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors" are normally to be avoided. "Normally" means there can be exceptions, and in the case of WikiFur I think it satisfies the description of having "substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors." Finally, the fact that you call it a "competing" wiki and consider that a bad thing suggests a misunderstanding of Wikipedia's mission. We're not competing with anyone. Bryan Derksen 01:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Agree; the use of the word 'competing' threw up a huge red flag for me, and concerns me more than the link to WikiFur is (WikiFur, is one of the top 5 wikis on Wikia for actual content pages). WP:EL is a guideline, not a hard and fast Law. From my edits people can see that I'm generally first in line on replacing fanwank with actual citage, and I am in agreement that the WIkiFur should stay. Also DreamGuy: I found your language in your comment to be aggressive and a failure to assume Good Intent, and feel you should be aware that your tone will not help the argument. The argument is over content on this page, Therianthropy, and I do not accept the argument that 'you were wrong before!' as a guarantee that the links are incorrect *here*. --Thespian 06:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with DreamGuy 100% that the external links section needs to be clear, concise, encyclopedic and accurate. It is very often a mess in articles such as Therianthropy, Otherkin, Dragon, and were articles. By linking to another site the editors of wikipedia are basically endorsing it and saying that its information is good. I think, though, that WikiFur is a fair and rather expansive site for this article and quite a few other articles to link to. As a matter of fact I think alot of material here (wikipedia in general) could very well do to be Transwikied to WikiFur and more links to the site added; the information can be good but it is often lacking in the sourcing that wikipedia requires. Amateur "community" blogs/homepages and other such sites should be removed with prejudice but I believe WikiFur should stand. Also, don't read too much into the uasge of the word "competing" as that was the language used in the guidline or at least it was in the past. NeoFreak 16:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I checked the current version, the version from 6 months ago, and the version from a year ago and the only use of the word "competing" is in an unrelated context regarding links to commercial products being vandalized by competitors. Bryan Derksen 16:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
What, do you want to fight about it? I remember it being in there but maybe I'm wrong. Is this something that needs further exploration or can we get back to discussing the external links for the article? NeoFreak 18:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
No, I just figured it was worth checking what the "letter of the law" said since it's what was being cited by DreamGuy as a basis for his actions. Bryan Derksen 22:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello, WP:EL is EXTREMELY clear on this point. "Links to be avoided" has "Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors." Wikifur DOES NOT count as as substantial history of stability and substantial number of editors. Furthermore, the number one thing listed there under to be avoided links is "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article." which certainly applies in this case as well. Anyone claiming "uh. but that page is ust a guideline" misses that MOST things on Wikipedia are "just" guidelines, like evolution is "just" a theory. There's no good reason to link to some minor wiki project, as it wholly fails reliability under other tests. Anyone here wants to disagree, go get the necessary consensus to change [[WP:EL]. Until that gets changed, Wikipedia has established a wide consensus that such links are wholly inappopriate, so it simply cannot be here. DreamGuy 03:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Oy. First you need to deal with the fact that there's a reasonable consensus right here that you're misreading the existing guideline, that WikiFur does indeed meet the criteria listed, and that "just a guideline" actually does put a meaningful limitation on the strictness with which WP:EL applies in any event. You are not the sole arbiter of what goes into this article, you can't just declare your POV the "winner." Do we need to take this through dispute resolution or something? Bryan Derksen 04:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
The Wikifur link plainly violates WP:EL and has no value in any case, so I've removed it again. 2005 02:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation Cabal

I have posted this as a request to The Mediation Cabal, before this heats up into a full edit war instead of just a pesky case of revertitis on both sides. My request can be read here. --Thespian 04:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It's a pesky little thing to be fighting over, unfortunately. Bryan Derksen 04:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
It is, and I do think its taking up too much time, and we're at an impasse, so since I think everyone involved *is* acting in good faith, I think this just needs someone else to help out. --Thespian 05:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello, all. I am willing to mediate this case, if all parties accept me as a mediator. I have never edited this page (or any Fur related pages, for that matter) and I have no bias towards either side of the dispute. Secondly, would anybody prefer the mediation case page other than the talk page for the mediation? Sean William @ 23:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Never mind, then. Instead of the case being "closed", it was added back to the list of cases needing mediators. Sean William @ 23:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems the case has since been "closed" again. So, where does that leave us? The dispute's still the same and DreamGuy has never been the sort to back down or compromise from what I've seen in the past. Bryan Derksen 02:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Please note, it was closed by DreamGuy, not by a mediator, who also made the Administrative notes stating that the problem was with WP:EL, so it 'wasn't valid'. In point, my problem has been with DreamGuy's declaratives, and all he did here was prove that he cannot in fact maintain a NPOV on this page because he is far too attached to his own interpretation of WP:EL, to an ownership level when it comes to not allowing those links on this page. Since he won't talk with anyone, and makes changelog comments like 'this is not to be discussed', we can at this point safely say he's been asked, and he refuses to speak with others on this subject, and take it to admin if his abusive, confrontational and own-y behaviour continues. He may even be right, I know that I can't assess it right now; I believe it belongs, as many others do. However, the mediation request was actually an attempt to get him to stop telling us all to back off when *he* wants things his way. --Thespian 06:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
I've left a note about alternate solutions on the mediation page. There is no reason to "go to an admin" like you're reporting a crime or something. This is just a content dispute, an argument over the inclusion of material and that material's applicability to a policy or guideline, it happens all the time and there are a ton of different things you can do to resolve them without getting all worked up and offended or smashing the panic button. If the other avenues of resolution turn out with the same consensus as here then you won't have a problem. If it doesn't then it would seem that the consensus to add WikiFur doesn't exist. Regardless an outside opinion is needed before anything else is done. May I suggest WP:3O or WP:RfC? NeoFreak 14:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Please note, I went for WP:MEDCAB instead of WP:3O, which are basically the same types of external things, and you saw his reaction. DreamGuy doesn't think mediation is needed, because DreamGuy knows he is correct. He's not going to accept an outside opinion because he's already decided that mediation doesn't work on Wikipedia, and has said so. He's already said that WP:RfC won't work because this isn't up for discussion; 6 editors here telling him that he's making a mistake (4 that I don't know the politics of, 2 who I know are distinctly non-furry/therian/otherkin types) doesn't matter to him either. This isn't the only case of him removing 'competing' wikis from Wikipedia without regard for their content, simply by virtue of them being Wikis; there are posts about this on his talk page. At this point, the only reason it isn't an edit war is because the other editors have backed off while trying to find a solution, knowing that DreamGuy isn't going to stop imposing his interpretation on WP:EL on this page. At that point, since this is a repeating pattern that's only not WP:3RR because everyone else is behaving, I do believe it becomes adminable. --Thespian 18:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Much as I hate to suggest it over something so seemingly trivial but perhaps arbitration is the solution. DreamGuy has shown this sort of editing pattern for as long as I've known of him and while usually he's good about distinguishing between actually problematic material and non-problematic material his take-no-prisoners fighting style can cause a lot of problems when he's wrong. And there isn't really much that an admin can do in a case like this without some sort of official sanction. Some of the discussion above suggests that DreamGuy is involved in some other similar disputes right now, is this true? I've only been watching this particular page. Bryan Derksen 20:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
WP:RFC would be a better step, instead of going to arbitration. Each side can say what they want to say, and the community will listen to both. Sean William @ 20:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
I'd be fine with that too, I just worry that it would seem like a "piling-on" that would make DreamGuy even angrier. But I'm not experienced with the various dispute resolution options or with the larger scope of this situation so I'll follow others' leads here. Bryan Derksen 20:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Boy, you people don't get how things work here. Mediation is not proper for these kind of disputes, not because "I think I am right" but because mediator is just one person who cannot overrule policy. WP:3O was never an option because there were more than two editors involved. And calling for arbitration? Absolutely ridiculous. You claim I don't know what I am talking about the policies here and then demonstrate you aren't familiar with the policies or guidelines for anything you are talking about here. You guys dispute what WP:EL says, the correct route is to get people from that page to come here and take a look at it, not to flail around making moves that aren't following procedure and then get pissed off when I don't agree to them.

It's true that I end up frequently getting in disputes, but that happens when people not following policy insist on ignoring it and not looking into the proper way to do things. Not to mention I also have some wikistalkers following me around trying to cause grief (like Mermaid of the baltic sea above) because they are still upset about conflicts they lost on other pages. But I also have a great track record for being the side that ends up prevailing in the end, because I know the policies, participate in the talk pages for them, and follow them. The conflict on this page is an absolute no brainer, based upon what WP:EL says and other similar disputes that have been handled recently on this topic. DreamGuy 00:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Mermaid of the Baltic Sea hasn't posted on this talk page since the 13th. Please stop blaming "stalkers" for this disagreement, many of the editors here are not involved with your other disputes. And I have no hesitation in saying that you're usually on the right side of things, I've already said so at several points over the past few days, it's just that in this particular situation I think you've got your interpretation of the external links guideline flat-out wrong. Not that the guideline is wrong, note, but that your understanding of it is wrong. It's not something we can really agree to disagree on, unfortunately. Bryan Derksen 00:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
DreamGuy, I'm curious: In your opinion, what would you do to try to resolve this dispute? Sean William @ 00:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiFur link and WP:EL

I have restored the furry.wikia.com link in the External links section after substantial perusal of WP:EL and current practice on the project in general. Hopefully, this explanation will satisfy the concerned parties.

Our guideline on external links does caution against "Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors." Obviously, some links to other wikis, especially those at Wikia, are tolerated. In fact, there are over 8000 links to *.wikia.com currently in the English Wikipedia. Many are from Talk or User pages to be sure, but a substantial number are included as external links from articles. WikiFur is among those wikis linked, with over 100 such links, several of which have long acceptance at established articles. In fact, WikiFur has an entry in the interwiki map, to which no objections have been raised. There is even an attribution template to be used for GFDL-compliant material with origins at WikiFur (in use for at least one article). It is correct to say that WikiFur is not a reliable source for references (by definition, as it is a wiki) but WP:EL also says links may be considered to "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." It is a specialized sister project, not a competitor, and not one that is prohibited by either the letter or spirit of existing policy and practice. Serpent's Choice 21:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Other pages with incorrect links do not justify linking to a site that fails WP:EL. This is the most ridiculous argument in the world, as there are also plenty of links out there to tons of pure spam sites, and even people who sneak templates in to them to try to confuse people. WP:EL prevails over all that nonsense. Talk page discussion on WP:EL has made it extremely clear that my interpretation of the wiki link ban is also what it supported by a strong consensus of editors there. If you disagree with it, go try to get it changed there. In the meantime, thanks for letting me know about all of these improper links, I may go through and clear them all out, with the help of other people on WP:EL as well. DreamGuy 00:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
DreamGuy, the state of other pages doesn't enter into it. We believe you're simply incorrect to read EL has having an absolute "ban" on external links to wikis, and that in fact the criteria of EL allow for this, so there's no need to change anything on EL to include this link. I think you should hold off on starting some sort of crusade on the matter until this disupte is settled. Bryan Derksen 00:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, the state of other pages was what "Serpent's Choice" was trying to claim as his rationale for putting the link back, and if you admit he's wrong, then there goes his reasoning for put the link there. Again, as already explained, there is not an absolute ban on wikis, as long as there is a valid encyclopedic reason to do so. There isn't in this case, and this wiki falls very clearly on the low, low, low end of any wiki that could ever be linked to. It's an open and shut case. I think you people should hold back on your crusade to ignore WP:EL until you can get WP:EL changed to reflect your views, and since that will never happen the link cannot be there in the meantime. DreamGuy 00:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I can't "admit" anything on Serpent's Choice's behalf. And it's not an open-and-shut case by the mere fact that so many editors are in disagrement over it, if it were truly open and shut we wouldn't be still arguing. Bryan Derksen 00:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
The editors who have participated in discussions about WP:EL in the past all call it open and shut, while the people who haven't don't. It's kind of like saying that it's still unknown whether the world is a sphere or not because some FlatEarthers insist that it isn't. DreamGuy 06:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
The editors who participated in discussions about EL in the past do not get some sort of special authority to define the guideline or its application in the future. If that were the case then wouldn't the new contributors you're dismissing in this case wind up with the same special authority in future disputes due to their participation now? I somehow suspect you wouldn't want that. Bryan Derksen 14:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

And here we go. [1], [2], [3], [4] - it's ongoing as I write this. DreamGuy, please, you're only going to spread flames everywhere. Bryan Derksen 00:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I've requested intervention over at WP:AN/I#Rapid-fire external link removal by DreamGuy. Bryan Derksen 00:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I've responded there. I take no position on the question, but disruptive editing is not the way to request observance of policy in disputed situations. User has been warned, if it continues after warning, he will be blocked. I'm watching. DGG 00:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm keeping notes on which articles were affected so there shouldn't be a need to immediately revert all the removals that were already done, we can get back to them once this is sorted out or on an as-needed basis. Bryan Derksen 01:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Now that the debate of WikiFur and this article directly has been resolved (for the short term) I would suggest carrying any further discussion of the application of WP:EL to WikiFur over to that discussion page, Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Wikifur. This way it can be resolved in a centralized and finale manner. NeoFreak 01:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Probably for the best, yes. It was always a larger-scale issue than just this one article, this is just where I happened to notice it and get involved. Bryan Derksen 01:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I am now at a loss; even if the link is not appropriate here, I looked at the mass edits DreamGuy was making, and the WikiFur link would be *perfectly* acceptable on FurryMUCK. All this does is prove to me that he's playing by rules not content, not value to Wikipedia, nothing. Half of me wants to bow out of this not because I believe he's right, but simply because no one will ever convince him that he might be wrong. DreamGuy's bunkered down in his trenches and no one is ever going to convince him that he's wrong in his interpretation of WP:EL; no matter who it comes down from, he's going to insist they're wrong. One doesn't *enforce* guidelines. His log comments constantly state the equivalent of 'AND I'M RIGHT SO DON'T ARGUE'. I don't want to deal with this anymore. I hope he doesn't consider that a victory. All his attitude can do is drive editors who don't agree with him off of pages that he's taken an interest in, and that is a terrible thing for Wikipedia. --Thespian 07:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, if the people disagreeing with me are doing so because they are disagreeing with Wikipedia policies -- which is the case here and elsewhere -- then driving those editors off until they are willing to follow policy is a good thing. So far everyone who has followed discussions on the talk page of the External links page has agreed with me, and the most vocal people disagreeing are a chronic spammer, a known wikistalker, and some miscellaneous people who seem to be acting more out of hurt feelings than a desire to follow clear guidelines. That should tell you all you need to know about whose side is right. DreamGuy 06:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Please assume good faith. I'm disagreeing with you and I don't see how you get the notion that I'm doing it out of "hurt feelings". Isn't it possible that I simply consider you to be incorrect? Bryan Derksen 14:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Relax. Take a deep breath. Join the discussion at the guideline's talk page. I'm sure DreamGuy will do the same once he logs back on. After we establish a consensus there we can make the appropriate changes to the appropriate pages. Ok? NeoFreak 08:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Consensus has already been established on this topic by many diligent editors discussing the issue and former rules for what to do in these situations. It's called Wikipedia:External links. Many of the people here should go read it sometime, it's quite enlightening and would clear up any controversy right away with no room for any dispute at all. But some people unfortunately are deadset on ignoring it, or taking sections out of it completely out of context and trying to twist them to mean the exact opposite of what they say... some of them are clearly doing it out of longstanding malice and deception (like Mermaid of the Baltic Sea), while others appear to just be trying to rationalize away their own mistakes. DreamGuy 06:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Consensus has not been achieved, however, on whether your particular interpretation of EL is correct in this case. Please stop denying that there's even a conflict going on here, considering how much verbiage has been spent on it in the past few days it really is getting into flat-Earther territory to do so. Bryan Derksen 14:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

For the moment, my reply is in this diff but I hope to add more soon. Please be patient and thank you. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 16:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The WikiFur link from this page plainly violated WP:EL and was frankly embarrassing. The guideline is clear that such links should never be used not just because the blatant conflict of interest, not just because the Wiki in question does not meet the Wiki criteria of WP:EL but because the link was totally lame, without any semblance of being a reliable source that added value over and above this article. 2005 03:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The debate is ongoing so one can't really call the violation "plain". Please don't fan the flames by edit-warring while the larger-scale discussion over DreamGuy's interpretation is still up in the air, I'd rather not have to keep track of yet more articles to review once this is all over. Bryan Derksen 05:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
It's not my interpretation, it's the extremely clear rules WP:EL gives us against spam and poor sites, just as User:2005 notes. And there is no edit warring here except when some person breaking rules goes and puts the spam back with absolutely no justification whatsoever. DreamGuy 06:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I did not "edit war" anything. Your statement that I did is a deliberate falsehood. You may like to engage in such childishness, but behave yourself. 2005 06:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Edit warring is the repeated reversion back and forth between two revisions of an article, or part of an article. In this case that's the addition and removal of the WikiFur link. Bryan Derksen 14:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I made one edit on one page. Name-calling that "edit warring" is childish, and just dumb. Please refrain from any such comments in the future. 2005 20:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
It was the sixth time it was removed overall. I put it back two of the previous times myself, so I'm not perfectly clean either, but ever since this escalated into a major conflict rather than just a dispute over one silly little external link I've been advising everyone to back off completely and just discuss the matter first. There isn't a deadline to make the article perfect. Bryan Derksen 23:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
There is no time limit, but the default should be to remove all instances of clear spam when they appear until such time as 1) the are OK'd overall by WP:EL policy as being something that can be linked to at all, and 2) that if they are OK'd as acceptable anywhere, they are approved by a clear consensus on each and every article that someone thinks it should be added to. Once we have a clear case of rampant linkfarming by someone involved with the site (as admitted by the person responsible), especially to a site that's a Google advertising delivery device, per WP:COI criteria it has to be removed. DreamGuy 17:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nineteenth century uses of therianthropic

It may be of interest to mention uses earlier than the 1901 therianthropy ref cited. The historian and philosopher of religion Cornelis Petrus Tiele of Leiden is credited (here in 1895) with having dubbed certain religions therianthropic, so I looked it up and found it in 1892 here and in 1897 here with etymology. Based on how he used it apparently without definition in 1892, it must have been known at the time. In 1899 here he defines it, so maybe it wasn't as known as he had hoped. Perhaps the mention of religious historian Mircea Eliade should be supplemented with Tiele. Dicklyon 06:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What does Cohen say?

Who has the Cohen Werewolves book? What does it actually say? I have a hard time believing it talks about usenet, so at least part of that paragraph likely needs to be cleaned up. Dicklyon 06:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't have it right with me, but it's at the local library, and I can get it and confirm this. It definitely mentions Usenet. A footnote in The Magic of Shapeshifting writes: "Daniel Cohen has also spoken of the [therianthropy] movement and its traces on the Internet ... See Werewolves ... pp. 101-107." Switchercat talkcont 00:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Horus

What on earth is the picture of Horus doing on this page? Egyptian gods have no place here -- the Egyptians didn't actually /believe/ their gods had animal heads, they were only portrayed that way to assist the illiterate in differentiating between them (the gods). Archtemplar 23:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Egyptian gods had Theriomorphic forms. Woland37 16:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Archtemplar, do you have an actual source from an expert who claims that? It would seem to go against what is actually written in some of the ancient religious texts of the Egyptians. -- DreamGuy (talk) 19:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)