Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:08, 19 August 2005

Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3. Archive 4

pov or not pov, but pov nontheless

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)

Clinical lycanthropy redux

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prannic Energy

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)

Clinical Lycan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hipocrite edits for Gavin

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:

Gavin edits for Hipocrite

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)

"Infnatesimal(sic)"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Break

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

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