Talk:Therian

The following paragraph was removed from the main article, under the reason of being "very bias[sic]":
 * In many ways, therians could be called were-lifestylers, except most therians are aggressivly against the idea of conciously assuming animal traits, a trait they feel is a hallmark of wannabes and lifestylers. Instead, they prefer to believe that the therian state is something people cannot assume.

Instead of keeping the entire pragraph out, could someone rewrite it, if possible, to just be a lot less biased and then reinsert it? Thanks, --Dmuth 19:21, 2 Nov 2005 (UTC)


 * That's not, in any way, an accurate representation of therians. It -should- be removed outright. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.162.235.5 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

TherianTemple.com
Therian Temple lewks like a dead obvious CULT to me. Cults are a SERIOUS problem in the Were-World, ESPECIALLY to young, developing therians. This one, just from the front page is DEFINATELY a Cult, notice: I do not say "coven", I say CULT. Please DO NOT replace this link. thank you to the anon who was removing it and EarthFurst who brought it to my attention. Also: for Future reference: CAREFULL WHAT YOU LINK AS A THERIAN RESOURCE!!! If it dosn't look like Werelist or something, ask some therian knowledgable people to check for you. I can't stress enough how important this is, ESPECIALLY since WikiFur was what showed mee Therian in the first place.

regards: - cchristian talk  03:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

- The Therian Temple is not a cult. Cults recruit, Cults force members to do things, cults have an idolized Leader...they dont do any of that. Its very close minded to try and write off something new right away just because its not just like what you believe in. The T.T. has members in 4 countries including members of the US Armed Forces. None of them have ever done anythign illegal-you would have seen it on the news: "Werewolf cult kills babies" or something-but you didnt-because its justa group of people who study magic and read books-quit being so mean. ~tolerant one —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.149.55.134 (talk • contribs) 11:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * oh really? and you are?
 * Pah! whatever.  We can't put it up there anyway, it's considered a scam by every therian I know (I doubt you are one, but I won't go there).  Even still, I KNOW what cults do to us, so I want to keep this stuff off of wikifur, especially for what I said before.  if you REALLY want to try for this, wait a week or two, the Therian Wiki is currently waiting for Wikia staff to make it, we can discuss this there.  - cchristian talk  01:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I actually agree with tolerant one on this one...it is not a cult. But it is a scam, and something to be avoided.- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xainy (talk • contribs) 02:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC).


 * I will state here what I said in another talk page:

Due to possible conflict of interest, I will not personally edit this article, however: If there is reliable information needed about the Therian Temple, please go straight to the source and email me: ordovirbestia@theriantemple.com

For the record: One thing can be certain: no TT member has ever committed a crime. If any member was ever to do so, they would have their membership immediately revoked (we don't even allow illegal drug use). Stating in an online resource that we are involved in ANY criminal activity is in fact a legal issue of libel / slander (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slander_and_libel) and legal action WILL be taken against any people making such false claims.

Peace to you all. Magus Fenrir Therion, Therian Temple MagusFenrir(talk) 12:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Regardless of how the KoolAid actually tastes, I'm going to leave links to the Temple off this article, as well as Therianthropy. The links that continue to stay are both informative resources that tell me more about therians and therianthropy. I would also advise that Therian Temple gets a heavy overhaul so you're not selling the site or shilling your product on the wiki. Also, please do not come in here touting the law stick. All of you behave, please. You too, cchristian. --Kendricks Redtail 17:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you can overhaul that article. As I stated, I will not be editing Therian related articles due to POV / Conflict of interest issues.

The "Law stick", as you call it, was necessary at the time, due to someone writing in that "cults like Therian Temple kill people", which is an obviously libelous claim, which can easily be proven false by simply doing even minor research.

We do not recruit new members or "sell" anything. Obviously, as a new group, we are not as big and rich as the Christian church that we can give out printed Bibles for free like the Gideons, and the only cost in the TT is the price of the hardcover book, which cost money to print and ship.There is no advertising anywhere for the TT, in print OR online, due to the fact that we wish for only genuinely interested people who have come across it on their own to get involved.

We keep to ourselves generally. Frankly, I think other TT members would agree that we would have preferred to keep somewhat private, but with all these cruel lies being put on highly trafficked sites, I'm sure you can see why some amount of self-defense was needed.

I am a very friendly and reasonable person, and I can't see why people don't just contact the TT when they have these types of serious questions / accusations about us and our activities. Our email is right on the site, and anyone is welcome to ask questions. I mean, seriously, if you actually thought a group was participating in killing or anything close to that, wouldn't you investigate it, or at least contact the authorities to see if any "werewolf murders" had ever occurred? To just say it in a wiki page is clearly just an attempt to make a minority group of adherents look bad publicly for whatever reasons / agendas.

I do respect and Thank you, Kendricks, for keeping an objective "wiki" type of perspective on this issue, when so many others have been editing in their own personal views into related articles. MagusFenrir(talk) 15:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Although you can threaten with legal threats, we would ask that you do not for these reasons. As for your print issues, if this is a religious group, you can ask for tithing or simply ask for donations. Forcing someone to buy their way into your religion sits wrong on MANY people, including me. Thank you for understanding the need for an NPOV, however the same standards are expected of you and your roommate as well. Making thinly veiled jabs and attacks on other sites do not lend well to your claims of good faith. Quite simply to quote religiously, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and "turn the other cheek."--Kendricks Redtail 02:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Sir,(Madame?) I believe you are very confused, or being fed misinformation somehow.

No one is "forced" to buy or do anything. Also, we are not a Christian group, and do not and will never ask for tithing (10% of people's yearly income, as asked by "tithing" churches is a LOT more than the cost of one copy of a hardcover book). No one can "buy their way into" any religion, either they believe in it and follow it or the don't. Obviously, though, you would want people to know what you are talking about when referring to the book. Christian churches don't require new member to buy their book because ther bible is Readily available anywhere, due to hundreds of YEARS of mass distribution What "jabs" are you talking about? Defending the group of which I am a member by saying that we do not allow illegal activity is an attack on someone? Who? How? Also, we are not a Christian group, and thus, are not bound by the Christian "golden rule", and personally, I see it more fit to "do unto others as THEY HAVE DONE TO YOU". If someone insults me with false accusations, and is somehow insulted by the fact that their accusations have been publicly proven false, this is only fair game. I don't see it as an attack to protect myself and my group from slanderous lies being spread about us. This is beginning to seem like a gang-up tactic on here, with a bunch people forcing me having to explain things that are already clearly stated on the TT site. I hope you do plan to make this site and its information remain objective and not let people's personal views blur the line between some people's fantasy and reality.MagusFenrir(talk) 19:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not ganging up on anyone or anything. I'm staying neutral. That should have been honest when I suspended Christian for attacking you. When I said "buying" one's way into a religion, I was referring to the fact that to join your religion, you have to give someone $30 bucks. Otherwise you can't get in. It's like any other one of those television evangelists who will share the secrets of God with you for 5 easy payments. The jabs I referred to is your edits to Werelist. The edits have been cleaned up there. As for the Golden Rule, it doesn't necessarily have to be Christian. It's just morally good sense. Retaliation like you seem to support is the reason that this conflict will likely continue on. Break the cycle, dude. Otherwise, it will be assumed that any edits you make on this wiki will be in bad faith and will be automatically reverted.--Kendricks Redtail 01:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe you overlooked a main point:

"Obviously, you would want people to know what you are talking about when referring to the book." --Meaning-it would be unfair & deceitful to allow people to participate in a "religion" if some of them did not have the book and some did. Requiring that people read the book first helps make sure that everyone involved knows what they are getting into / supporting. That should be easy to understand. Again: Christian churches don't require new members to buy their book because their bible is Readily available anywhere, due to hundreds of YEARS of mass distribution, and MOST people have already read or at least have a copy of the Holy Bible. Also, most christian groups pursue a tax-exempt status, and therefore many materials are subsidized. We, however, do not pursue a tax-exempt status, thus we pay full cost for our materials, and pay taxes on them. I don't see how anyone could consider that to be anything like television evangelists who are using a widely available text (the Holy Bible) and who do not pay taxes. MagusFenrir(talk) 18:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You know it's not just Christianity that does this, you know. :-) Most religions fall under that tax-exemption. You should investigate it yourself. And I don't think you pay attention to TV evangelists who hawk wares like their own personal books or my personal favorite was the prayer hankie. The point I was making earlier is that churchs, synagogues and mosques tend to operate due to DONATIONS by the members, not by paying dues or by paying an entrance fee. You claim to have this mass flock in 4 countries. It should be no trouble at all ask for donations because really what are your expenses? You can get your book tossed off a vanity press or if you really want to be new age, have it available on the good ol Internet. Beyond, there's website upkeep and...? Anything beyond that and you MIGHT be setting your sights too high too soon. :) My other point is your line about the people reading the book first before they know what they're getting into. However they've already paid their $30 and a little voice tells me that you probably don't offer refunds. Just like the TV evangelists. Stupid prayer hankie. --Kendricks Redtail 18:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Why do people keep acting like $30 is a lot of money? What are you people homeless or something? I spend $30 on lunch. Analogy: If I wanted to check out a musician's latest CD, I would only be given minor samples of what it contained (radio songs,myspace page, music video etc.), and would have to buy the CD to hear the rest of it. Should I get a refund if I end up only liking one song on the CD? NO, because it cost money to make the CD, and I agreed to take the risk that I may or may not like the whole CD. You are being ridiculous, and you sound like a communist...-MagusFenrir(talk) 12:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually $30 may be a bit overspending on your lunch. I think I pay 5 bucks at my local hot dog stand. :-) And for many furries, otherkin and therian, $30 bucks can be a frivolous expenditure. And, btw, noting your analogy, you don't offer clips and snippets. Maybe that'd be an idea?--Kendricks Redtail 22:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If one views "Temple Mission" on our site there are very basic excerpts from the Therian Bible there, for which we have chosen the more "stern" elements to filter out anyone potentially not prepared to deal with our form of Practices, thus those who buy the book already expect order and rules, and no one has ever asked for a "refund".

And, personally, I do not eat "hot dogs", or any other animals, and would never risk my own health on a meal costing merely $5. Nor would I waste my time on a book that needs to be given out for free, as if the group is desperate for members. Books also can constitute mind food... If You are what you eat, and you eat cheap garbage...well, then....

-MagusFenrir(talk) 21:59 and 22:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry to inturrupt, but don't you claim to be a were-WOLF??? How could you stand to "not eat any animals"?  I mean, some of us even drool over ROAD KILL sometimes.  I've broken the rule somewhere in the Torah saying "though shalt not drink blood" a few times, simply because I can't resist the urges.  You come along and say that you are a Wolf therian, yet you insult the consumption of meat as if it disgusts you in some way.  I'm sorry, but I don't believe you are being entirely truthful here...  - cchristian talk  04:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed one could consider it suspicious, but I do know many predatory therians that do not consume meat. One can contol one's instincts in an effort to control the animal within. As a wolf therian, I refuse to eat most meat, as most meat around here is factory farmed and disgusting. I eat only meat that I myself kill, and so I recieve it roughly once a week. I'm simply saying, even a carnivorous therianthrope can refrain from eating meat if they so wish it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.177.56.8 (talk • contribs) 23:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Therians don't bring their animal into their daily lives? Dowhaa?
"Therians differ from the Furry lifestyle in that they do not try to mimic or bring their animal into their daily lives. Therians understand their nature as being -human- and -animal- and as thus feel no need to pretend or 'play the role' of the animal, save in some circumstances."

While this is certainly typical of a fair number of therians, I personally know several that do not fall into this generalization. While they do indeed understand their nature of being both human and animal, by no means does this mean that their phenotype does not make itself apparent in everyday life. Now, I don't mean to say they howl at the moon or things like that, but their animal does tend to make itself visible in their mannerisms and habits. This should be reworded to reflect this diversity or removed entirely. Baral&#39;heia Stormdancer 07:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I do agree with this. Stating that all therians behave in such a manner simply is not true. I in no way hide the wolf within me, and as such it tends to show, especially in my personality and the habits I form. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.177.56.8 (talk • contribs) 23:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Two things I feel necessary to bring up.
I'd like to point out that it is a bit strange to try to put a Physical shift into this. The Physical shift that is spoken of more tied to Lycanthropy which is the past has been tied to Ergot(a fungus), Rabies in humans, and or a fear of people who appeared overly hairy, or seemed overtly bestial. It is stated in the article the aggressive stance towards so called P shifting therefore it makes better sense to not have the entire thing there at all.

Also this article needs to not have otherkin inflections in it. This article is about Therians therefore things related to Otherkin need to not be here. Now maybe some people who identify as Therian think that being Therian is about having a soul other than human, but I know more than a few long standing Therians who feel quite the opposite. They do not make the claim to having souls other than human. Perhaps it is better that the idea of "Animal soul other than human" is kept out of the article altogether. --Trpdwarf 18:18, 18:22 and 18:35, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

EDIT: Also this

"A distinction between mythical therians and otherkin can be found however, as many otherkin seem to believe they have a 'past life' or an 'alternate existence/persona' which makes up their otherkin nature. Therians do not see their animalistic nature as being separate from themselves and as thus many of these types of mythicals have joined therian community."

I want to know where this is coming from? I have removed it and put it here. Who ever put it there, I'd like an explainion of it. A distinction between "Mythical Therians?". That means what? Therians usually associate with animals that are real. AkA, they have the totem of the crow, the wolf, the coyote, ect. Also a thorough explanation of the rest is wanted as well. Again, the article is about Therians, and Therian does not equal Otherkin. --Trpdwarf 18:30, 18:35 and 18:39, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Time for a few actual rennovations
I added a few things, changed a few things, and removed a few things. Therianthropy does not (for example), have anything at all to do with animal totems, or invoking animal spirits--and it never has. As otherkin are people who feel they are other than human, therians most certainly are a type of otherkin. A lot of the best were sites on the web have fallen into disrepair, been lost, or come under new management in recent years. We've come a long way since the days of AHWW, but we're at a bit of a low point right now, community wise. I see a lot of misconceptions and misinformation floating around.

I'm not sure where the idea came from that otherkin are some sort of completely seperate phenomenon, but apart from therians having known animals as their other side, and otherkin having mythical/fantastical creatures as their other side, there is little difference. The two communities did 'evolve' seperately, but there has been a lot of overlap over the years, and I challenge anyone to come up with a point of significant difference between the two. Some otherkin 'shift' just as therians do, and some therians do not shift (contherianthropy). There is no clearcut line.

The entire lot of descriptions of shifting were wrong, so I have corrected them. Therians do not need to use drugs or meditation to shift. I'm sure there are a few out there who do, but they do not need to, and I see no point in mentioning what is not a common practice. Shifting is generally easy for therians, if we are in the right setting. A person who has to take drugs to do it is either not therian, or has serious psychological problems.

--the surly old greymuzzle,

--WingedWolfPsion 19:51, 12 March 2009 (CST)

This thread is about Therians. This thread is not about Otherkin. Therefore Otherkin beliefs should not show up here but rather in the Otherkin wiki.

As for the person going on about "Therians are not about animal totems" blah-blah-blah...as long as I have known about Therians, it has been nothing but about, totem animals, or animal spirit guides. W —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trpdwarf (talk • contribs) 03:56 and 04:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC).

There is a huge difference between Otherkin and therians. Therianthropy has a history that goes all the way back to the Greeks, and further. The Greeks only coined the term.It would make sense the only reason they came up with the term is due to being exposed to perhaps African culture, and Pagan cultures during trade relations. What they came across were people who has shamanistic, or druidistic in form, hence the translation "Beast human" or "Beast people". That's the history of the word, but good luck finding a source that was not edited by Otherkin.

The basic generalization we can make is that it was to describe people who thought they can either turn into an animal, or people who believed that other people could, or people who believed they descended from animals turned human. If you are going to turn around and say "You are a therian" today you cannot exactly say you transform into something physically. That's crazy. Agree or disagree? If you want to claim Therian by soul, it would make sense you would also have to claim that you are an animal that physically turned into an human and thus have a animal soul. There is nothing in the associated history from what I can see that leads to "You are born with different soul". That's really an otherkin thing. Now that is what otherkin claim, that Therian is about "having a animal soul" but I look at history and possible origins of words and I cannot agree. At the least there should be a distinction between the original modern therian sect, and the neo sect that has started from Otherkin. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trpdwarf (talk • contribs) 04:01 and 04:05 and 04:08, 13 March 2009 (edit) (undo) (UTC).

-- I'm sorry, but you're wrong. Therianthropy IN THIS CONTEXT has a history that goes all the way back to AHWW Usenet newsgroup, and that's as far as it goes. It surely existed before then, but there was no community. Historical interpretations of the term have nothing to do with modern 'spiritual therianthropy' or the therian community. Therians are considered to be a type of otherkin by most. The only difference is what I have said--the type of creature one's inner self is. Nothing else. If you believe there is another difference, please share that difference with us. "There is a huge difference" and citing a lot of things about the Greeks (you actually said nothing specific at all) doesn't cut it. Tell us exactly what you believe the difference is. Keeping mind that therianthropy is a modern phenomenon with an extensive modern community.

Your interpretation of the word therianthropy has no historical basis. The word is merely used to describe any sort of animal people or shapeshifters. Anubis is a therianthrope. The modern therian community is much more specifically about those who feel they are an animal within. There IS no other modern therian community. You seem to be referring to some community or sect that does not exist.

If you think that therianthropy is related to having an animal totem or spirit guide, you know nothing about therianthropy. Sorry. It's just not true, and never has been. Therians may frequently be involved in pagan or shamanic traditions, but this is something they are led to by their therianthropy, not the other way around. And as I said, a therian's totem is not necessarily the same animal as their theriotype--they are NOT the same thing, and no knowledgeable therian will ever agree that they are the same thing.

I have been part of the therian community since the 90s, as I said, and I've been a participant on the Werelist (when it was run by Coyote Osborne), werenet, and other therian sites. I have a therian site as well, which has been up for many years, though it needs updating. I am also a therian, which, more than anything else, gives me some authority to speak on the matter. :P

What does that mean? I means I feel that I am a wolf. I have past-life memories of being a wolf, but I am not sure that is the reason, by itself, that I am therian. I don't pretend to know exactly what makes a person therian, but I know how I feel, and what traits I share with other therians. If you're going to write an article on what therianthropy is, you need to ask us, not make a lot of assumptions. This article was a mess. I cleaned it up, and corrected the misinformation. Don't argue those points with me, you aren't going to find elder members of the therian community who will agree with you. Maybe some misguided youngsters, but no one who's been around for a while.

I'm not saying anything controversial here, this is all WELL known stuff.

--the surly old greymuzzle,

--WingedWolfPsion 21:42, 14 March 2009 (CST)

Most people used to believe that the earth was flat and that you could fall of the "Edge of the earth" if you sailed too far out to sea. What most people believe is irrelevant because time and time again majority does not make something right or true. A great many people can be deluded. If many people consider Therianthropy part of Otherkin it could be because many people remain willfully ignorant as to it's history, or simply don't care about it, or just never got exposed to anything to suggest anything otherwise.

Citing yourself to being since the 90's puts you in the time-line of when Otherkin first popped up. To tell me or anyone else that the history of the word and the history of the spirituality is irrelevant to modern times is ignorant and wrong. Of course if your first experience with the entire thing started at a time when people began to organize and took a name while ignorant to it's meaning, of course you are going to think the way you do.

Prior to the last 20 years Therianthropy dealt with a history that goes far back in human existence, and Otherkin have no business, pardon my bluntness, trying to make that irrelevant and telling people that it's past, and those who follow it (as some people many times will state in various forums) are wrong.

I'm telling it like it is. Therianthropy has an actual history that goes to the deep past, where as Otherkin only just popped up about 20 years ago. If you are going to go and talk about the neo stuff you need to acknowledge it's original history, otherwise you have no business talking about it, and it should not even be a wiki article. Besides, this is not some extinct spirituality some of you are...abusing for your own means. You act like the history, and what it pertains to is extinct. It's not. The very practices that led to the terming of the name still happen in different parts of the world.

The correct way to write this article is to acknowledge it's origins, and then explain that a internet group popped up and adopted it, and it's interpretation of the whole thing. That then sets the reader up to understand that while therian is used to describe some otherkin, Therian does not equal otherkin. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trpdwarf (talk • contribs) 04:17 and 04:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC).

--- If you want to add all of that stuff on the origin of the term therianthropy, and OTHER ways the word has been used historically, then add it to the THERIANTHROPY article. THIS article is about THERIANS. The shortening of the term therianthrope ONLY applies to those who are part of the MODERN THERIAN COMMUNITY. The one that originated with AHWW back in the 90s. It does NOT refer to any sort of historical therianthropic groups or therianthropic deities, or any of that. It is a MODERN term.

I challenge you to produce a useage of the term "therian" older than 20 years. Be sure not to bother using the taxonomic interpretation of it as that is clearly irrelevent.

I also challenge you to produce some scrap of evidence of a therianthrope community existing prior to AHWW. If you cannot do it, then sit down and quit complaining. Your arguments are frankly ridiculous and have no basis in the real world. You seem to believe there were groups of shamans running around calling themselves therianthropes back in the middle ages. That's ridiculous.

Of COURSE the term 'therianthrope' already existed when AHWW came into being. The term was CHOSEN to describe real weres as "Spiritual therianthropes". It was SHORTENED to 'therianthropes', and then finally to 'therians'. This article is not about http://www.answers.com/topic/theria

It is about real weres. :P Prior to AHWW, there were people out there who might have been described by some as therianthropes. But AHWW was the first time people came together to describe THEMSELVES that way. If you believe otherwise, produce the references to prove it!

Spiritual Therianthropes = Therianthropes = Therians. That's the way it was, and that's the way it is. There ARE no other therian communities. Therian is NOT an accepted shorthand term for therianthrope in the folklore community. It belongs ONLY to the modern spiritual therianthrope community.

--the surly old greymuzzle,

--WingedWolfPsion 00:00, 17 March 2009 (CST)

... Don't bother playing the source game. You cannot even bring up sources that are not heavily moderated and written to be Bias towards the 20 year old Otherkin group, so don't bother asking me to bring up "Source older than 20 years old".

You do not see the relevance of the history of Therianthropy to the modern variant because the only thing you have been exposed to is the Neo Version for which the history is irrelevant. I have been exposed to the other varient in which the history is relevant. Now I could sit here and bat and forth all day that two variations exist and there not only one modern version but there are better things to do.

I'll come back later when I have the time and add in a section to this, dealing with the other variant. It is more productive that bickering here with you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trpdwarf (talk • contribs) 16:00 and 17:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC).

---

I can provide the only sources that actually exist--such as the AHWW FAQ, which is probably the oldest. You cannot provide sources older than this because they do not exist. Your biases are very clear in your writing, but your support for them is nonexistent. I can support what I'm saying. Regardless of your opinion of my sources, at least they are there.

I don't think your additions should stand if you can't provide any sources for them.

--the surly old greymuzzle,

WingedWolfPsion 17:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge
Definitely seems should be merged with Therianthropy, although I'm not sure which would be better as the article title. -- Sine 14:54, 6 June 2011 (EDT)


 * I've merged (most of) this article into Therianthropy, which I'm sure has left some redundancies in that article. -- Sine 17:45, 27 July 2011 (EDT)