Talk:Otherkin/Archive 5

ok, so we all know tha someones whining about people being POV, but isnt claiming they ARENT real a POV in itself? articles on religion dont say " o and by the wy, these freaks are nuts" but a single other editor keeps trying to make this and other articles say exactly that bout the articles subjects. why cant we say that THEY do trace it, weather its sceintificlaly verificable or not shouldnt matter, because this article has nothing to do with science.Gavin the Chosen 12:52, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, but it can't say the beliefs are true either. By the way, you're on the edge of violating 3RR. ~~ N (t/c) 12:56, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

i wont actually do so. i honestly thoght that narrow mindedness had no place in an encycplopediaa, and stating that its what they beleive in the most friebd;ly way possible seems the way to go. if you look at Draginfly's explaination, it seem reasonable.Gavin the Chosen 12:59, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I have to disagree with Dragonfly on this. "by tracing their ancestry to..." is not neutral phrasing, although the "they claim" version is also not as NPOV as it could be and has a sceptical tone. Vashti 13:23, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

can you figre a better way to say it then the way it vcurrently is? anything i would try would be instantly reverted without being read by DreamGuy.Gavin the Chosen 13:26, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

You can have prannic energy in the article if you go ahead and make a page about it. I doubt such a thing exists, but if it does, it should have a wikipedia entry. Go to it! Hipocrite 19:27, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

well there is an article about it. PranaGavin the Chosen 19:30, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Don't you think it would be more productive for you to have done the redirect page I just made, or added a pipe in the link, as opposed to edit warring with me? Hipocrite 19:32, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Dont you thinik i was going to, once i had finished looking? it took me a while. and during that time i wanted to make sure the mention was already there.Gavin the Chosen 19:37, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

This goes to the very end of the article:

Some psychologists believe that the entirety of the otherkin subculture can be explained by clinical lycanthropy. This is not correct. While there are a small few members of the subculture that suffer from this condition, the vast majority of the otherkin subculture does not. Hipocrite 19:58, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

that could workGavin the Chosen 20:02, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

See, I knew I could do it. Now it's your turn:

I be;eive that if we were to place a disclaimer, on the articles beginning, we could speak of the beliefs as fats without people becoming cross about that. seem reasonable?Gavin the Chosen 20:09, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

No. WP:NPOV. Beliefs must be attributed to believers, then they are facts. Hipocrite 20:11, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

and why shouldnt we be free to discuss the vliefs withthe claim qualifier? a disclamer at the top would sufficeGavin the Chosen 20:18, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is a policy of this encyclopedia. If you want to talk about what someone believes, you attribute it to them. Hipocrite 20:24, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

thats what the proposed disclaimer is forGavin the Chosen 20:35, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Unless you can source "infinitesimal," it's out. I am not your vicious nemisis, and you're going to have to work with me to compromise, not insist that I do what you want. This is not about you vs. me. This is about getting things right. My broader edit, by definition, is right. Your narrow edit may very well be wrong.Hipocrite 03:31, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

If you can source something that prooves its NOT infantesemal, as in EXACTLY like every other group of people, then its out, otherwise, you have no call to proove its not true.Gavin the Chosen 03:37, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

You do not understand WP:NOR. Please read it, come back here, and tell me if it is required that I prove you are wrong, or that you prove you are right. You also owe me an apology on my talk page, which I expect before I will continue speaking with you. Hipocrite 03:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

you act rude, i call you rude, no apologies nessessary fore that, becaseu its fact. please go away, calm down, and come back, all clear headed and rational. thanksGavin the Chosen 03:48, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I take it, then, that you do not wish to read WP:NOR, or did it take you less than two minutes? Hipocrite 03:52, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

if all your going to do is be someone elses sock puppet, then youd best go away.Gavin the Chosen 03:55, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

WP:AGF applies in this case. Please read it as well. These are policies and guidelines of this project. I follow them. You will also. Hipocrite 03:56, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

your not impressing anyone with your mastery of quoting policeies. see, until yopu start showing something called good faith, which you quoted, ill show you none, becasue otherwise your just wasting my time, and patience, and im through being a doormat. now either stop[ being rude, and begin to be calm and REASONABLE, or go away and come back when you can do such.by the way, you follwo no guideline, and even that comment is rude. quit it.Gavin the Chosen 03:59, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I am showing you a great deal of good faith. I haven't written you off yet. Have you read the policies? We can discuss them after you verify that you have. Hipocrite 04:08, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

you are not showing any faith at all, foing and presenting attempted, but paltry, and childish, "evidance" at my RFAr, and telling people that you think my having one such for Dreamguy is bad faith, do you think i wouldnt see? do youthink iwouldnt see these in chronological order? how very rude of you. your showing no good faith at all. yes i have read the polioceies, and this makes me damned sure that your not shjowing any good faith at all. now pleae, take the cfolliwing advise without getting angry. Go away for a while, calm down, if youre not calm, and come back with a more polite attitude, please.Gavin the Chosen 04:14, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. WP:NOR reads in part "A Wikipedia entry (including any part of an article) counts as original research if it proposes ideas, that is: it introduces a theory or method of solution"

Here's how you justify the inclusion of the phrase infintesimal - "there is a very small number, very very small, of delusional people in any group of peoole, thus, the number odf delusional people is in cat infantesmal."

It appears to me that you have determined the number of people suffering from Clinical lycanthropy (the belief that one has, or is transformed into an animal) in the Otherkin population is "very small." I believe this may be origional research. Can you cite it outside of your strongly held belief?? Hipocrite 04:21, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

clearly you havnt read enoug on this subject, of lycanthropy, cliniocal or otherwise, or on Otherkin, or on Therantrhropy to understand this subject. come back when you hacve done some more reading., for now, your sticking to points that have already been discussed heavily and solved.Gavin the Chosen 04:23, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

As an editor of this encyclopedia, I've done the requisite research on the science - the field that I am qualified to discuss. I did not see any literature that evidenced that the size of the CL population inside of the Otherkin population is "very small." Can you cite your source, please? Alleging that I don't know what I'm talking about isn't proving it. Hipocrite 04:26, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

as i have told and convined others beforwe, this has very little to do with sceince, nor would you be able to claimthat islamic faith has anything todow ith sceicne. i dont see your point. and your making it clearer and clearer that you have no clue what your talking about. go read, calm down, and then maybe we can have whats called an informed discusssion.Gavin the Chosen 04:28, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Please point me to a Reputable Source that you would have me read. I have ready access to a major library. Please be certain that your source can verify the CL population inside the otherkin population is "very small." Hipocrite 04:30, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

please proove w that you know what your talking about. oh, right you don. please stop being annoying. your constant unwarrented reversion of my very good, very well explained edit on Theriantropy is aggfravating, you dont even expain it. thats whats called BAD FAITH. ytou no longer deserve my time or patience. good by.Gavin the Chosen 04:32, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

It is not my obligation to prove that I am smart, it's your obligation to help me educate myself. I'm looking for this source to read (I've read everything in the article, and have requested the psyc papers on CL - about 1 week) which will ifnorm me about the size of CL inside otherkin. Please point me at this source so I can find it. I'm happy to help here, but apparently I don't know something that is in a Reputable Source, and I'd like to know it. Hipocrite 04:34, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

there are no such papers. if there were, youd havet hem at the ready, and so would i. stop bluffing.Gavin the Chosen 04:39, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

As such, then, wouldn't you agree that the only way to determine that only a "very small" number of otherkin suffer from CL is to do research on it? Hipocrite 04:40, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

socialoigical statistics state that among groups of people, the average rate of "deluded " people is extraorinatily small. POEPLE is all encompassing, any group whatsoever, aside from, of course the group of deluded indicviduals itself. dont beleive me? top bad. try the lastest sociualogiy textbook. ( the one i read last year) sorry, but i cant remember the name of the book.Gavin the Chosen 04:43, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I believe the question is not about a generalized population, but about a specific population. The contention in question is, given that every CL believes they are otherkin (specifically, they believe they have transformed or are transformed into animals), can one be certain that only a very small number of otherkin are, in fact, CLs? This would not hold true for, say, Detriot, which is what your sociology textbook refers to. The sociological concept is Self-selection.Hipocrite 04:47, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

the basis for your theory is erronious, not every Clinical Lycanthropy suffer are otherkin, they ust think they are ether wolves or werwwolves, on average, theres only a very small number who would call themselves otherkin.Gavin the Chosen 04:52, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I use the definition of otherkin as found in the article: "The otherkin subculture is made up of people who describe themselves as non-human in some way." Would not a werewolf consider themself non-human in some way? I also reccomend you reread the CL article - it does not apply to wolves only. Hipocrite 04:56, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

the differences are in the uances of how they are not human, werewolves and therians beleive they aren natural animals, though not human, Otherkin bleieve they qre supernatural creatues, or supernatural speakingg races, examples are dragons, demons, elves, and many others. therein lies the diefference and why there are separate articles. each kind of different requires a differnt context. this is whny one ca not easily draw a parrellell between lycanthropes and Otherkin and Therianthropes. ( im doing my best to explain, please tell me if i am making sense)Gavin the Chosen 05:03, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

This distinction isn't in the article, and it's not at all clear from your above paragraph. In fact, the next time you think you need to put the phrase "tell me if I am making sense" in a paragraph, assume you are not. Take the rest of the night, while I sleep, to figure out how to correct the definition of Otherkin to exclude people who believe they have changed or are changed into animals. Or, just get rid of the infinitesimal. Hipocrite 05:08, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Gavin, you removal of the trans comment was right and propper. I support it completly, untill such a drawer of parallels is found in a Reputable Source. Hipocrite 04:49, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

thanks! :-) i am trying to do things properly.Gavin the Chosen 04:52, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Do not consider my praise as an endorsement of your behavior. Your removal required that I fix the sentance, and it still appears to me, as someone who could care less about this entire subculture, that you are POV crusading here. Hipocrite 04:57, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

i am trying to do what is needed, i care about everything i touch, but it is not my point of view im trying to get put forth, if you see what i mean.Gavin the Chosen 05:03, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

If you really cared about the changes you made, you'd look at them five times before you hit submit. If it's not your POV you are pushing, in the interest of openess, why is it so important to you that the word infinitesimal remain in the article? Do you think it's more encyclopedic that way? Hipocrite 05:10, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

i think it prevents people from labelling the entire group as nutballs. no one deserves that.Gavin the Chosen 05:12, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Looking carefully at WP:NOT, do you see anything that applies? It is not your goal to prevent people from labeling the group as nutballs. Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine, in either direction. It is our goal to encyclopediacelly describe what we can. Please edit with this in mind. I hope that you will revert your "infinitesimal" change and prove my assumptions about you from earlier this evening wrong. Hipocrite 05:17, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Would it be acceptable to everyone if, rather than being under "See also", this page and Therianthropy had a link to it under a "Compare" heading? So it would be like this:

===Compare===

Clinical lycanthropy

===See also===

other links here

Or would that be POV? Vashti 09:19, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Honestly, I think Compare would be more of a problem than See also for the pro-Otherkin crowd, wouldn;t it? Seee also includes the concepts of compare, subsets, realted topics, so I don;t get why your solution would be any better. DreamGuy 11:11, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

"Compare" seems to communicate more that these are similar but distinct concepts, to me. Vashti 11:17, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Ah, but "distinct concepts" is a POV conclusion others disagree with and therefore not allowed, if that was your intent. DreamGuy 12:09, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Your conclusion that clinical lycanthropy and otherkin are the same thing continues to be original research. If having the link is POV, and not having the link is POV, then we are, to use the vernacular, royally screwed. There is no way between, which is why I've proposed this as a possible way to satisfy both sides of the argument. Vashti 12:26, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

But it doesn't have to be proven to be a see also. It's similar, which is what see alsos are for. Including it there is not saying that they are the same, so your argument doesn't work. Censoring it would be not being in the middle at all, it'd be a complete POV victory for your unproven belief. DreamGuy 12:50, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

I've protected the page as per User:Nickptar's request (and User:Vashti's request of a few days ago). FreplySpang (talk) 15:05, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

... and I have now tagged it as such. Sorry for the oversight. FreplySpang (talk) 19:54, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

should be removed, along with the sentance after it, becasue it doesnt show anything about who said irt, i mean, where does this p;ossibly fictuiobnal parellell come from?Gavin the Chosen 15:08, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[1]. Keep up with talk. Hipocrite 15:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)