Talk:Shadow people

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Paranormal Portal This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptozoology, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on cryptozoology and cryptids on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-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.)

	This article is being improved by WikiProject Rational Skepticism. Wikiproject Rational Skepticism seeks to improve the quality of articles dealing with science, pseudosciences, pseudohistory and skepticism. Please feel free to help us improve this page. See Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
B	This article has been rated as B-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.)

Archives: Archive, all prior to April 20 2007

Contents 1 Images 1.1 Third opinion 1.2 Fourth opinion ;-) 1.3 SCARY SHADOW PEOPLE 1.4 Shameless self-promotion in the guise of "contributions" 2 ...could be the methamphetamine... 3 How to tell Shadow People from non Shadow People 4 Vandalism 4.1 Work on a revision 5 'Types' Section 5.1 Rationale for Removal 6 Edit Request 7 Necessary Changes 7.1 To the IP only editor 8 Deja Vu 9 Hat Guy... 10 Fixed some POV problems 11 More care needed 12 The science sections 13 Removal of referenced material 14 Are shadow people sexually active? 15 Weasel Word? 16 I'm curious, anyone here actually seen one? 17 In The mysterious benedict society and the perilous journey?

[edit] Images

And I quote.....

Original images

"Pictures have enjoyed a broad exception from this policy, in that Wikipedia editors are encouraged to take photographs or draw pictures or diagrams and upload them, releasing them under the GFDL or another free license, to illustrate articles. This is welcomed because images generally do not propose unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy. Also, because of copyright law in a number of countries and its relationship to the work of building a free encyclopedia, there are relatively few publicly available images we can take and use. Wikipedia editors' pictures fill a needed role."

The images included on this page do not represent anything new or unpublished. They are merely a representation of a previously described phenomena and so are fully permissible under WP:OR.

perfectblue 18:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Selective quoting, you left out (and I quote):

"A disadvantage of allowing original photographs to be uploaded is the possibility of editors using photo manipulation to distort the facts or position being illustrated by the photo. Manipulated images should be prominently noted as such. If they are noted as manipulated, they should be posted to Wikipedia:Images for deletion if the manipulation materially affects the encyclopedic value of the image. Images that constitute original research in any other way are not allowed, such as a diagram of a hydrogen atom showing extra particles in the nucleus as theorized by the uploader."

The images on this page are, as described, illustrations of the personal experience of the creators, making them OR. Images generally don't propose unpublished ideas. But since these are based on the claimed personal experience of the artists, these do. --Minderbinder 18:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Only one image was from somebody who claims to have witnessed a shadow person, and I don't care about that one. You're also implying that there is something real to witness. Are you saying that shadow people are real because I'd have to ask you for peer-reviewed evidence that they are.

It's irrelevant anyway as shadow people have been described and drawn prior to this. No drawing that matches the description can be original or unpublished because it's based on an established design.

perfectblue 18:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

We need at least an attribution of that description. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Third opinion

WP:OR#Original images clearly indicates that images constituting OR are permissible when the images illustrate a published idea or phenomenon. I don't see the problem. The paragraph about manipulated images seems irrelevant in this context. These images are original works that illustrate the concepts presented in the article. As such, they are fine. -Amatulic 16:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fourth opinion ;-)

I have experienced this phenomenon while utilizing tryptamines, and I will note that the "artist's rendition" here is not at all representative of what I saw. I have no doubt that the experience differs from person to person, but if the artist read the article or other writings, and tried to draw from that understanding, it is unlikely that this will result in a drawing that anyone would "recognize". I would recommend removing this image as it is simply not accurate (in my experience). Unfortunately my drawing skills are shit so I can't provide a substitute. But to some extent, any image will be misleading, since this phenomenon is experienced in the peripheral vision, and you can't look direcly at it like you can with an image file. Until we have 3D-pedia, it won't be possible to display accurately.
A final complaint: the image is silly. Like sleep paralysis, the actual experience of shadow people is extremely unsettling; the article uses the term "dread" and I think that approaches it well. To be honest I think the most accurate version of this article will have no image, and leave readers to use their imagination. ··coelacan 07:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Some people see them directly in front of them. When i first saw them it was only during sleep paralysis, or in my peripheral vision - But now me, my girlfriend and even my cat see them all the time. I'm actually starting to get used to the phenomenon... Almost.

On DMT, I saw Reptilian humanoids - That was unsettling. KWaal 00:46, 02 December 2007 (UTC)

The problems you describe can be resolved simply by saying in the caption that the picture is an artist's rendition. The picture is still useful as an illustration, in my opinion. I won't revert you, however. -Amatulic 17:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't know if that helps. I guess for me the important question is "did the artist actually see something like this?" If so, well, fine. Brains are different, so hallucinations are different, even common ones. If that image actually attempts to illustrate what one person experienced, then it could be marginally useful as one exhibit from the human brain. Image:Shadowppl.png, the image I removed, doesn't make it clear whether this is a recreation from reading, or from experience. Image:Shadowpeople.png explicitly says it's from "generally available descriptions" and it is wildly inaccurate, much worse than Image:Shadowppl.png. They don't have clean smooth lines, nor even minimal detail like this. A variation of Image:Shadowppl.png without any of the gray or red details would be preferable to either, although I really must stress that it is still very misleading. I feel like we're looking at artists' renditions of rainbows from people who have never seen the sun, or the proverbial blind men and the elephant. ··coelacan 22:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

What was wrong with Image:Shadpeeps2.jpg, anyway? I think it illustrates the phenomena as described in the article nicely, and it looks much more professional than Image:Shadowppl.png, in my opinion. I'm not saying this article absolutely needs an image, but there are better options than the ones that have been in the article most recently. -- Vary | Talk 23:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SCARY SHADOW PEOPLE

The image for this article basically sums up shadow people and the type of people that believe in them 70.116.143.208 05:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shameless self-promotion in the guise of "contributions"

I hardly think garbage like Keith Parker's Shadow People and The Evading can be called part of popular culture, which is defined by wikipedia as "widespread cultural elements in any given society".

Popular culture, as in the opposite to science. EG, fiction and urban myth.

---

ADDITIONAL NOTE BY ROGER: This article is a joke. For example, 'Habitat: bedrooms'?? Is this an article on a phenomena that some peple experience or is it purely based on urban myth? Come on, you can put this sort of information down, it is not credible. Even as a believer of some paranormal phenomena, I think that this article is the product of a bunch of lunatics and needs to take a far more objective perspective.

In relation to the above, sign Please. - perfectblue 15:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Shadow people clearly exist in popular belief and urban myth, whether they are real or not is beside the point. - perfectblue 12:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

For the record, that this is a phenomenon doesn't automatically make it paranormal. I have seen this upon waking at an odd hour of night. Most likely it is a hallucination due to sleep problems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.151.80.148 (talk) 20:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, shadow people clearly exist as a phenomona, regardless of whether they are "real" paranormal entities or the result of scientifically explainable physiological phenomona such as chemical imbalances that cause people to see things that aren't really there. People are clearly experiencing something, wherether they are experiencing it in their own heads isn't really important. - perfectblue (talk) 12:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ...could be the methamphetamine...

I never heard ANYONE talk about "Shadow People..." Anyone except people who use a lot of meth, that is.

They tend to stop talking about and seeing shadow people when they stop using meth, too... I think there MAY be a correlation here.

(from a recovering addict with a different kind of spirit today) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.255.161.30 (talk) 03:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Shadow people existed in popular culture before crystal meth became prevalent. While people who use CM might experience the same symptoms, I don't believe that there is any evidence to show that meth use is the primary cause of shadow people sightings. I believe that they mostly occur in otherwise clean living people with superstitious backgrounds or upbringings. - perfectblue (talk) 16:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, this entire article really needs re-written and includes much error. It begins by saying, "Reports of shadow people are similar to ghost sightings, but differ in that shadow people are not reported as having human features, wearing modern/period clothing, or attempting to communicate." There are definitely reports of shadow people looking human in form, and reacting with people. One fantastic account of this can be found at: http://www.angelsghosts.com/moundsville_penitentiary_shadow_man_ghost_picture.html In Polly Gear's account, she describes the interaction with the shadow ghost and how it reacted to her. The photograph she took shows definite human form. This very picture has been disputed in error, but I personally met with Polly, interviewed her and examined the location and photograph. We ran experiments to try and reproduce the shadow ghost to no avail. This photograph, in my opinion, proves the error in the opening paragraph.

Secondly, regarding types, the error continues, as there is no evidence given to delineate shadow people into these types given, nor is there any proof given stated that they cannot be one and the same - ghosts. Ghosts have been known to cause some of the physical and emotional traumas (e.g. "The Unquiet Dead," by Dr. Edith Fiore). Also, how can one create a third category of shadow ghost, by only referencing a difference in height, etc? People and animals, too, vary in size, shape, appearance, mentality, etc. To state that any of these types are somehow different from human or animal attributes seems to be making a giant leap via superstition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghostsspirits (talk • contribs) 17:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

"Ghosts have been known to cause some of the physical and emotional traumas": Yes, this is just a form of psychological shock. It can be caused by anything from witnessing a violent act being committed against another person on TV to surviving a traumatic incident yourself. A person's mind can't cope and so goes slightly loopy. Think PTSD. It can be caused by the shock of seeing a ghost regardless of whether said ghost was some form of spook or spirit or if it it was just some shadows and a lot of imagination. - perfectblue (talk) 15:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How to tell Shadow People from non Shadow People

Most of the accounts of Shadow people come from people who have never used drugs in their life or had any mental problems, so this talk about drugs should be left out. The description of shadow people from people who claim they saw them during drug use will always describe the shadow people completly different than all the accounts that do match, the accounts that describe the same things exactly the same is coming from non drug users. And no it does not have anything to do with sleep either as a large ammount of people who have seen them was not in any dream state. I think some people is confusing something they see when they are high with the shadow people, you can tell the difference in the description. Shadow people have a very distinct description unlike the drug induced description some people decribe and are trying to call shadow people. Have 20 people from the drug induced crowd describe the shadow people and you will get 20 different descriptions, but put 20 people from the non drug induced crowd and you will get 20 of the same answer. This is how you tell the shadow people from something that is not shadow people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.30.38.213 (talk) 17:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

People here seem afraid that because they're often seen on drugs, it somehow makes them less 'real'.... Perhaps the attaining of different states of consciousness (particularly the use of hallucinogens or paradigm shifts) allows us to perceive what we normally can not? I, for one, believe this to be the case. Altered states of consciousness produce different mind frequencies - If you go by the theory that these entities are of a different dimension - and that different dimensions are vibration-based - then this could make some amount of sense (to a stoned hippie like me, at least) KWaal 05:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

WHAT???????? "Have 20 people from the drug induced crowd describe the shadow people and you will get 20 different descriptions, but put 20 people from the non drug induced crowd and you will get 20 of the same answer." First of all, that’s a plainly biased, unsupported claim. “(to a stoned hippie like me, at least)”… Both your claims are ridiculous and gratuitous, and do not warrant any consideration whatsoever. Despite that, I couldn’t help but express just how groundless your statements were... they were that bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.38.30 (talk) 16:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

There appears to be constant vandalism from biased people trying to attack documented statements from people who have seen shadow people, these blantant attacks are from people who are trying to pass off their theory of drugs and physical issues as being the cause of "all" shadow people. This type of vandalism should not be allowed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.7.1 (talk) 23:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no. Anonymous editors continually re-insert a section that isn't neutrally written (it's written like an editorial opinion), and cites sources that cannot be verified to support the inserted text. This text continues to be reverted because it violates Wikipedia's offical neutral point of view policy, as well as violates the verifiability policy and reliable sources guidelines. As such, this section constitutes vandalism.

If these anonymous editors care to include this text written in a neutral tone, and cite specific sources for each claim (not just a general web site "and several other places"), then the text can be included. Unfortunately, these editor appear more interested in edit-warring than actually making improvements to the article. -Amatulić (talk) 19:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

So what is this now Scientists taking over the Shadow people's page?!? I saw your profile Amatulic and it says your a scientist, someone needs to report this Amatulic guy for real. I myself have double checked the references used in the "note" section and it all checked out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.7.2 (talk) 21:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Then please provide verifiable and reliable references. You claim to have checked them out; where are those claims supported? Point it out, quote it. I don't see it.

Referencing a general web page and "other places" doesn't meet the verifiability and reliability criteria, sorry. If you want to make a claim in this article, provide a specific reference that supports it. The pages referenced make no claim about 90% statistics or drug use. Maybe some sub-pages do. If so, then cite them, but be sure the references qualify as reliable and verifiable. -Amatulić (talk) 22:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Work on a revision

I have requested page protection. This article is now protected from further editing until this issue is resolved (note that the material under contention exists in the protected version). I suggest we go through the note line by line and figure out an acceptable way to keep it in the article, if it's important:

• "As of yet none of the above has been able to explain..." - this is original research policy violation. Who claims this? It is not the job of Wikipedia to draw conclusions for a reader. Just present facts, not unsupported assertions.
  • This is exactly what it says.....all of the above stated it was because of drugs and phsycoligical reasons, which does NOT explaine why people see them without taking drugs or having any phsycoloigcal issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.30.38.213 (talk • contribs) 2008-02-09
    • Again, the original research objection has not been addressed. -Amatulić (talk) 19:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• "...the reason why people all over the world..." - "all over" is a violation of the weasel words guidelines, as well as more original research; the cited sources don't appear to say this. If they do, point out where. The sources do point this out, People from all parts of the world have their stories listed in them 3 sources.
• "...describe the shadow people nearly exactly the same every time." - more weasel words ("nearly exactly" is an oxymoron, and "every time" implies "without exception" which is unsupported by references; if you disagree, point out the references). Just look at the photos thats used in this article....the shadow people are being described exactly the same, and all 3 of the sources I listed agree to this.
• "90 percent of the sightings are coming from people who claim no drug use and are free of psycological problems." - this is a specific claim, and needs a specific citation. No citation is provided supporting this claim. Provide a link to a specific article, or a page number from a book.
• "Referenced at www.shadowpeople.org www.coasttocoastam.com..." - nonspecific home pages of two web sites? Come on! Again, read WP:V and WP:RS. Then provide a specific article making the claims. The reference must be reliable too, not some blog or discussion forum.
• "...Heidi Hollis' book "the secret war"..." - what page? This is a nonspecific reference, not verifiable as given.
  • It's thru the entire book and thru the entire web pages....all three of them sources have well over 1500 accounts of people seeing shadow people....I would say them 3 sources are very good sources since it is people that are seeing the shdaow people's actual stories. The secret war book is the FIRST book wrote about the shadow people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.30.38.213 (talk • contribs) 2008-02-09
    • Again, no specific source has been provided. If it's "thru the entire book" then an example citation could be given. -Amatulić (talk) 19:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You could end this whole sorry argument right now by simpy telling use the EXACT PAGE NUMBER where she outlines these three categories. It's that simple. - perfectblue (talk) 10:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• "...and many many other places." - "Many many", eh? Oh, how convincing. More weasel words. As a reference, this violates WP:V in that it's completely unverifiable, and also violates WP:RS in that it doesn't specify any reliable source.

Fix those issues and I have no problem including revised text. Now it's your turn to propose a revision. -Amatulić (talk) 23:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

look your just a scientist that is trying to insult all these people that are seeing shadow people. Your a scientist and all the Vandalism edits you keep doing proves your biased edits. Anything that goes toward science explainations you want to keep in the article, but anything that does not show this you want to delete. Nothing I have added violates anything in wikipedia. You asked me to add references and I did and as soon as I did you blocked me for some 3rr rule when all I did was add references. Adding references does NOT count for blocking someone especially after you said to add references. Now references have been added you want to still vandalising this article.

The statement "your just a scientist" indicates a strong bias against science. A truly open mind takes account of all possibilities until firm evidence emerges to prefer one or another. Still, whether or not a statement goes to support a paranormal or a mundane explanation, there is only one criteria to determine whether it should be included: can it be referenced? If it can, then include it with cites. If it cannot, then do not include it. - Shrivenzale (talk) 16:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to counter the accusation that "science is taking over this page" I'd like to add that I've spent my fair share of time looking at shadow people material and I'm well known for arguing for the inclusion of material regarding paranormal beliefs (Just check out my arbcom contributions to confirm this), but even I can't support the inclusion of these claims. Not even on pop-culture grounds.

At the very most you could claim that believers in shadow people "say" that 90% happen in mentally stable drug free people, but since there is no evidence that anybody even checked for drugs in people's systems you can't go much further than that. Also, 50% of the scientific arguments aren't related to drugs or mental illness. for example, 1,000 of perfectly sane healthy people experience Paredolia every day. It's not a medical condition, it's just a trick of the light on the imagination.

Also, I take great exception to the fact that somebody actually deleted my request for citation on the Types section. This is unacceptable behavior on a talk page. - perfectblue (talk) 17:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Because no meaningful rebuttal has been presented to the bullet points above (other than to engage in personal attacks), I have assumed that non-response equals concurrence, the objections are no longer in dispute, so I have deleted the section yet again. The section should not be added back without further discussion of the problems I identified. -Amatulić (talk) 19:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 'Types' Section

The 'Types' section, listing category 1, 2 and 3 'shadow people' needs to be removed. It has no cites and smacks of original research (or, more likely, invention). Obviously while the page is protected I cannot remove it, but suggest that doing so would serve to increase the credibility of the article. - Shrivenzale (talk) 16:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I actually raised this issue about a week ago but my comments here were DELETED by an IP only user who keeps inserting unsourced material into the text. Below is my original comment with the original date listed. perfectblue (talk) 17:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

As per WP:V extraordinary claims require clear and distinct citations from an appropriate source. In this instance no source was stated. It is irrelevant if the source is used somewhere else on the page, unless it is is visibly linked to the statement it does not cont as being in support of the statement.

Would the IP only user who keeps adding in the type please SOURCE their statements. Without sources this violates WP:V, WP:OR and WP:RS and thus cannot be included. It should be noted that the existing sources do not support these classes and they do not appear to originate from any notable parapsychologist, paranormal writer, or even from a notable crackpot. Without sources they cannot be included as they imply that there is formal categorization system, which there is not.

perfectblue (talk) 13:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It looks as though somebody doesn't like the removal of the entirely uncited 'Types' section and has undone its removal from an anonymous IP. Since it still lacks cites I have undone the undo and removed it again. No doubt we'll run into three reverts before long, at which point I suppose some other solution will have to be sought. - Shrivenzale (talk) 11:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

'Types' section removed once again. I will continue to do so until someone ponies up some citations to show it's anything more than made-up nonsense (sorry, I mean 'original research').

Have also removed the 'Notes' section for similar reasons: it's uncited, and it's badly spelt and badly punctuated. If it had any support it'd be worth tidying up. - Shrivenzale (talk) 10:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rationale for Removal

Just to be very clear that this isn't some crusade anti-paranormal editors I (a long time Paranormal inclusionist) think that it's time that a full rationale was provided for the removal of the types and notes sections.

The Types section implies that a formalized categorization system exists by which Shadow People sightings can be ranked/rated. It also implies that expert scrutiny has been made, and that formal standards exist, by which a true (paranormal), for want of a better word, sighting may be judged against a false (drug induced, etc) sighting.

This is simply not the case. No such system exists and no such standards exists. Scientists do not split them up this way, believers do not split them up this way, and no set of standards exist either by which to different types of sightings may be judged or rated. At best this section is a composite of various beliefs by paranormal enthusiasts that boils down to personal opinions rather than standards or documented methods of investigation, and at worst it is complete and utter WP:OR based on a the views and opinions of the poster based on a composite of the various material on Shadow People that they have read.

They types section violated WP:OR, WP:V and WP:RS, and unless a reliable author or such as Jerome Clark, or a notable popular culture source such as Coast to Coast, can be found which "directly and consistently breaks Shadow People down into these three very specific groups" then the section has no place in Wikipedia.

The notes section not only violates WP:V and WP:RS due to the fact that no reliable and verifiable sources can be found that are able to provide either quantitative or qualitative evidence from an educated perspective, but it is also used misleading language. It states that "90 percent of the sightings are coming from people who claim no drug use and are free of psychological problems", however it does not allow for the fact that the most common scientific explanations (Pareidolia and Hypnogogia), the ones that scientists see as the two most likely causes of Shadow People sightings, have absolutely nothing to do with drugs or psychological problems. One is something that all humans can be effected by regardless of their mental/physical conditions, and the other is a sleep disorder. As it stood, the notes section implied that science believed that people who reported Shadow People were either crazy or high, and that this could be disproved, thus that science was wrong. Which an unsupportable position.

Throughout my reading on this subject I've found that it's been comparatively rare for actual scientists to blame drugs and lunacy for Shadow People sightings, if anything it's the unscientific elements who argue that drug abuse and lunacy are behind these sightings because they don't understand the science of the issue.

- perfectblue (talk) 13:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

VERY WEAK ARTICLE

Much of this article should not have been posted. These unprofessional and bias articles are definitely hindering Wikipedia’s credibility.

“Witnesses also do not report the same feelings of being in the presence of something that 'was once human'.”

–This statement can’t be attribute to a peer reviewed article. How can one “feel” if something was “once human”? Very weak.

1.“…people typically describe them as being black humanoid silhouettes with no discernible mouths, noses, or facial expressions…” 2.“…As of yet none of the above has been able to explain the reason why people all over the world describe the shadow people nearly exactly the same every time.”

–The first statement (which is assumed to be the way “people all over the world describe the shadow people” as mentioned in the second statement) describes a regular shadow, without any features. It looks like a shadow, mystery solved. The second statement is not needed as it’s a flimsy statement that seems to reflect the writer’s personal bias.

“Types”

-This entire section is not supported. A specific reference, preferably the name and title of the researcher who identified these “types”, is needed in order for the reader to decide whether or not the research is qualified.

“Scientific”

–This section is actually quite adequate, if not a little too concise. The only problem is the section following it (“Notes”) which seems to serve as a discredit for the entire scientific section.

“As of yet none of the above has been able to explain the reason why people all over the world describe the shadow people nearly exactly the same every time.”

–No adequate resource can be accredited with this statement as it’s completely ambiguous in nature. For such a statement to be validated, one would need to include a very precise description of the appearance of shadow people, including minor details (which according to an earlier statement, are non-existent), and then provide concrete eye-witness accounts of individuals with no prior bias or knowledge of the apparent phenomenon, that match “exactly” the other accounts. This is impossible as without clear details, everyone describes plain shadows. The same description anyone would vaguely dictate were they asked to describe what they think a “shadow person” would look like. Basically if 10 000 people said they saw a “shadow person with a mole on its lip, blue eyes, red hair and an Elvis Tattoo”, then the statement is credible. As of now, its not.

“90 percent of the sightings are coming from people who claim no drug use and are free of psycological problems.”

–Firstly, they misspelled “psychological”, clear evidence of a weak and poorly reviewed article. Secondly, again, I need more than a source for this fact, I need precise information on who conducted this survey (a notable University? Or a whacked out sci-fi writer?) and what measures were taken to assure it’s authenticity (Drug test? Medical examinations?). This, as of now, is a complete fabrication that has been passed on from paranormal enthusiast to paranormal enthusiast without any questioning.

“references” –I don’t know what kind of references are demanded by wikipedia but these are atrocious. If a reference wouldn't be acceptable for a University report, should not be acceptable for ANY encyclopedia unless its for pop culture purposes. Period.

“www.shadowpeople.org, Heidi Hollis, Jim (?), “Time Radio Horror”(?), www.tornspacefilms.com(?)...”

–Is this really all wikipedia requires for this article to be published? That’s scary. Some other references were actually peer reviewed, but dealt with the “phenomenon” from a scientific point of view, which leads me to believe that most of this article was based on the junk mentioned above, given its “paranormal” emphasis. The references mentioned above are inadmissible as they are completely bias without any strong evidence to support their claims. Shadowpeople.org is obviously created by believers or supporters of the myth and doesn’t offer any undeniable evidence. Heidi Hollis is a firm believer and perpetuator of “paranormal” happenings, and has no qualifications to be regarded as a credible researcher on the matter. The rest of the sources are plainly irrelevant. All that tripe should be in the “pop culture” section, not the main body.

To salvage this article, someone must first and foremost block whoever’s been writing it thus far, and eliminate all the inconsistencies and bias opinions. This article shouldn’t be a proponent for, or against the subject matter. It must only clearly indicate what “shadow people” are perceived to be in today’s culture, then give scientific reasoning for it, followed by a brief description about how the “phenomenon” is perceived by paranormal enthusiasts. David Icke and his tripe should be removed from any mention in any encyclopedia in the world, except for under “scam-artists”.

Science may not be as “sexy” as paranormal tales, but is the only, undeniable truth. For the proponent of paranormal activity, if you really want to prove your beliefs rather than perpetuate ghost stories, research your subject concretely according to scientific guidelines and prove us wrong. You’ll go a long way further in developing society than David Icke and Heidi Hollis… —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.38.30 (talk • contribs) 2008-02-10

(beofre we get started, I'm in favor of deleting the type and note sections as per WP:V, WPOR and WP:RS)

I'm afraid that you seem to have fallen into a common trap of misconception, this isn't a scientific entry so science only actually need be included where scientific claims are made either for or against Shadow people. The cold facts of the matter are that Shadow People are not a part of science and so science is a nice thing to have if it exists (Put simply, you don't need peer review science ot talk about something that goes bump in the night), but mostly what is needed is content describing the urban myth/pop culture legend of Shadow People because they are 99% myth/legend. This has been fought out a couple of times and was finally settled in a mammoth 3 month Arbcom which concluded in July last year, and which this article was in compliance with before the "types" and "notes" sections were added.

they misspelled “psychological”, clear evidence of a weak and poorly reviewed article."

I think that one was a typo.

"a whacked out sci-fi writer?"

If you're looking at a belief centered phenomona such as this, notability/notoriaty can actually be more important than scinetific reliability. If 10 people believe a scientist and 100 people believe a crackpot,the crackpot is more importannt to popular culture, even if they are a crackpot.

"If a reference that would not be acceptable for a University report, should not be acceptable for ANY encyclopedia unless its for pop culture purposes."

Actually, you're 100% right here. Since this entry is 90% popular culture (everything except the science section), most of the sources are good. This page is verifying what people believe about Shadow People, not that said beliefs are sound.

"must only clearly indicate what “shadow people” are perceived to be in today’s culture, then give scientific reasoning for it"

I was with you right up until the last comma. As I said earlier, science is 1% of Shadow People. The scientific opinions on Shadow People it's barely even notable in either scientific or paranormal circles.

"followed by a brief description about how the “phenomenon” is perceived by paranormal enthusiasts. "

As per WP:Weight, paranormal believers are the majority in this case. The whole phenomona is only notable because of them so they need to be first and foremost (without them there is no actual subject to address). Putting them last would be like having an entry on the Nazi and leaving Hitler to the last paragraph on the grounds that he was an extremist.

"doesn’t offer any undeniable evidence"

Doesn't have to if it is being cited as WP:V for a belief. As per the paranormal arbcom belief can exist without reference to science, and can be included in Wikipedia based on notability and on verifiability that it exists.

"All that tripe should be in the “pop culture” section, not the main body."

The main body is the pop culture section. Shadow People are an urban myth that spreads through pop culture channels such as websites, message boards and self published paranormal books.

"David Icke and his tripe should be removed from any mention in any encyclopedia in the world, except for under “scam-artists”."

David Icke's antics are notable and verifiable, he's a source of belief and a well known figure in paranormal circles. Put simply, love him or loathe him you know about him, which means that he and his opinions can be included in Wikipedia.

"if you really want to prove your beliefs rather than perpetuate ghost stories, research your subject concretely according to scientific guidelines and prove us wrong."

This was the trap that I spoke of earlier. Wikipedia entires on the Paranormal don't exist to demonstrate that the paranormal is real, they exist to demonstrate what people who believe in the paranormal actually believe. In fact it was once specifically ruled that the use of paranormal terms to describe something doesn't mean that said something actually exists, or that the paranormal exists, or that the paranormal is anything other than a belief held by some people. All that is implied by referencing of a paranormal term is that 1) The term exists 2) This is what it means and 3) This is how it is applied.

"You’ll go a long way further in developing society than David Icke"

Just ot be clear, according to Wiki-regs and arbitrations anything that David Icke says can be included on Wikipedia as evidence of what David Icke believes, regardless of whether relates to to the real world, just so long as it is made clear that it was David Icke who said it. The framing that makes all of the difference. In this case it was made clear that Shadow people are an urban myth associated with the paranormal, therefore it was made clear that science has little to do with this subject.

perfectblue (talk) 19:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Under that pretext it is agreed that the article is supposed to deal with a myth, however more emphasis is needed on delivering it as myth, rather than attempts to rationalise it as fact using bogus statistics, so called “reports” of eyewitness accounts, and scientific categories such as “types”. In any event, it’s very poorly constructed and should be completely revamped to either be written under a scientific format (the norm for encyclopaedias), or as a documentation of folklore like articles on whimsical creatures. It is not presented in a purely mythical context merely because its “status” is “modern myth”. In fact, the word myth is not used anywhere else in the article.

“1) The term exists 2) This is what it means and 3) This is how it is applied.”

Above, you describe a dictionary. An encyclopaedia must go further in its analysis. Its articles’ basis should be concrete, credible research.

If you are to make the argument that the article’s context is purely mythical, the idea that it’s a real phenomenon happening to people around the world shouldn’t be a focal point or even a dominant theme in the article, as it presently is. The “real phenomenon” theme should in itself be described in a separate paragraph, while the rest of the article should speak of the beings in folklore and pop culture. If the “real phenomenon” theme is too important to only occupy a tiny portion of the full article, the entire subject must be treated under scientific guidelines mentioned in the article above. Or, two articles could even be granted if both aspects are worth developing . Nonetheless, the mythical article would need to be explained in a mythical context and the ongoing phenomenon aspect would need to be scrutinized scientifically. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.38.30 (talk) 20:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that you are again misunderstanding what is happening here. Firstly, please leave the types section out of this. I dispute it utterly and have personally deleted it at least twice. I'm in no way arguing for it to be here (I also deleted the statistic too), but somebody brought it back. We are in full agreeance that it has no place here. Secondly, in this context it's not an actual myth, but an urban myth. Put simply its a story and the way to deal with an urban myth is to explain the contents in context. Thirdly, please stop trying to bring science into this. Apart from the one section that it actually labeled science science has no place here. This phenomona exists in popular culture, not in science, there is no scientific evidence whatsoever that Shadow People exist as anything other than a mind trick.

"the idea that it’s a real phenomenon happening to people around the world shouldn’t be a focal point or even a dominant theme in the article"

It's a pop-culture phenomona. People are having real experiences, that's undeniable and is recognized by science. The only thing that is at issue is whether the phenomona by its nature a case of people seeing something or of people thinking that they saw something. The feelings, beliefs and emotions are all real.

Additionally, Shadow People are primarily notable because of the belief that they are paranormal. Therefore this should be the primary focus of the entry.

"the mythical article would need to be explained in a mythical context and the ongoing phenomenon aspect would need to be scrutinized scientifically."

The introduction clearly describes them as being supernatural, a modern myth, and akin to ghosts. You may to have seen it but there was an arbcom on this last years and it was decided 8-0 that including any description of this nature in the introduction was sufficient both to tell the reader everything that they need to know about the entry and how they should receive claims made in it. This was an official and formal judgment, as far as I'm concerned that makes it Wikipedia policy.

Please please stop trying to bring science into this, this isn't a scientific topic. People believe that they have seen spooks, thats science straight out of the window, this is a belief based modern myth, an urban legend, it exists independently of scientific reasoning. It would exist even if there was no scientific reasoning, and it has already been ruled (9-0) that this kind of thing is OK so long as it is made clear what you are dealing with. - perfectblue (talk) 21:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit Request

tl|editprotected

As an editor whom has been had significant involvement in this page prior to the current disagreement, I request that I be allowed to edit it or that a series of edits be carried out on my behalf. Specifically, that a WP:OR tags be added to the notes and types section, and that a fact tag be added to the notes section.

perfectblue (talk) 19:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Simply tell me exactly where to place the tags, and I (or another administrator who sees it first) will carry out that change. :) Nihiltres^{t.l} 19:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

er, could an OR-Section tag be placed at the very beginning of the "Types" and the "Notes" sections, and a general purpose Fact tag be placed at the end of each paragraph in both of those sections (plus the sub sections). These sections are not supported by sources. There is no actual categorization system for shadow people. - perfectblue (talk) 21:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please keep the scientists from removing sections??? It's pure vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.16.203 (talk) 18:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

No, actually, your persistence in adding back unsourced content and original research in violation of Wikipedia's established policies is vandalism. And your personal attacks are also inappropriate. -Amatulić (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

As stated above, this is not a matter of science - it's a matter of the integrity of Wikipedia, and editors' adherence to its principles. It is not vandalism to act in accordance with those principles, and that would describe the removal of uncited and unsupported claims. As for 'scientists', well, though I'm fascinated by science I also believe I've had experiences that would make most scientists write me off as a loony - and which certainly put Shadow People in, well, in the shade. But I can't and won't add my experiences to Wikipedia articles, no matter how interesting I believe they might be, since I cannot give verifiable sources for them. That's all there is to it. - Shrivenzale (talk) 01:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

No actually that was that person's first time editing....which does not count for persisence. And nothing that was removed is "Original research" as you call it....which does in fact like the other person stated is vandalism on your part. Your editing out anything that does not fit into the science explaination which should not be allowed. This is not even a science topic, it's a topic on "Shadow people". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.30.38.213 (talk) 00:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no dispute here. The 'Types' section was removed because it is uncited. Wikipedia requires that all assertions made - even concerning subjects that can be classified as 'paranormal' or 'urban myth' - to be supported with cites. The belief, no matter how sincere, of one or even a number of Wikipedia editors is insufficient to qualify a claim or assertion for inclusion. Only if there is independent verification of the claim should it be added. When those who wish to see the 'Types' section included can provide cites to support it then it will be left in place. It really is as simple as that. - Shrivenzale (talk) 01:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

N Edit declined. There are no "Types" and "Notes" sections. Sandstein (talk) 23:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

It was there when the request was made but nobody deleted the request tag when the page was edited. - perfectblue (talk) 09:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Necessary Changes

in final response to Perfectblue97

First of all, who voted all these rulings? I'm not familiar with Wikipedia procedures. Secondly, this entire article does not revolve around you, meaning the absurdity of the "type section" could be further criticized by anyone (and everyone hopefully) as long as it was still present in the article. As of right now, its no longer there so I won’t have to criticize it any longer, but don’t tell me what I can and cannot remark in regards to any article I read. Thirdly, you keep insisting that science has nothing to do with it, I understand that, I really do. What you don’t understand is that the article isn’t adequately portraying Shadow People as a phenomenon, but rather as a studied, documented occurrence, as it uses way too many “witnesses” and factual comments. If it’s mythical theme was the base for the entire article, (and regardless of its “ruling”, a mere mention of it being a myth in the introduction doesn’t support an entire article of basely claims and ridiculous content), no scientific ideas would be necessary at all. Here’s MY PROOF of this;

The article, as well as yourself, has compared shadow people to ghosts, lets read and compare it with the wikipedia ghost article (which, being that its in the same boat as shadow people, should have a similarly formatted articles, right?). The ghost articles is MUCH better as it treats the subject matter as unproven throughout the article, please note the following comparison; the ghost article does the following;

- Uses more accurate terms ( “Ghosts are a controversial anomalous phenomenon.”) - Adds statistics with actual polls (poll conducted in 2005 by the Gallup Organization,) - Has a “Historical Background” section. “HISTORICAL” as in based in reality which is scientifically acceptable, and includes notable and documented ANTHROPOLOGY (another scientifically acceptable domain). - Mentions James Frazer, a noted anthropologist rather than David Icke, who’s opinion can be noted but being that he has no qualifications for anything really, shouldn’t be used to support anything in an encyclopaedia, regardless of what you “ruled” to be admissible - Uses terms that emphasize it’s unproven nature such as “Another widespread belief is…” and “…evidence for ghosts is largely anecdotal”… rather than “Witnesses say…” - When arguing for or against ghosts, ACTUAL SOURCES are used and properly cited. Ex: (The Chinese philosopher, Mo Tzu (470-391 BC), is quoted as having said:), (Pliny the Younger (c. (50 AD) described it in a letter to Licinius Sura: Athenodoros Cananites (c. 74 BC – 7 AD)). (the First Book of Samuel (I Samuel 28:7-19 KJV), in which…) - It has well developed “Skeptical analysis” and “Pop culture” sections, rather than an “appearance” and finally removed “Type” section - The writing quality and writing is much more precise and adequate for an encyclopedic article. - Sources, again the biggest difference is that the shadow people article doesn’t have a single respectable source to support any of the article other than the science part. The ghost section is very, very well documented.

The ghost article doesn’t need scientific scrutiny because its very well written as an unproven phenomenon and supported by verifiable and LEGITIMATE sources that are academically acceptable. Please read a book, a real book. A peer reviewed book and then come and tell me what is and what isn’t acceptable for a supposed acceptable encyclopedic article.

Most of the shadow people article is based on “witnesses” supported by horrible sources. Actual quotes from actual documented and reliable witnesses are acceptable, but none of this is given in this article. Besides, if this is a myth as you say, myths cannot be scientifically scrutinized as they are phenomenon and aren’t meant to be perceived as fact. Therefore, they’re completely hypothetical and only claims can be made rather than actual accounts as they can’t be supported

I know you’ll say that the sources are acceptable under wikipedia regulations, and that the article is completely permissible under wikipedia regulations, but that doesn’t change the fact that your article is horrible. I mean ridiculously stupid to the point that leads me to believe that you, and anyone else that can’t see just how bad it is shouldn’t (and wouldn’t in the real world) have anything to do with any encyclopedia ever. This article is good if a 1st grader wrote it without his parents’ help.

End of story, change the article, keep it, it doesn't matter because its so bad I don't think anyone with even a little bit of reasoning will take anything written about it seriously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.38.30 (talk) 21:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, here's may answer, and I apologies for using bullets but since you cover so many areas it's the speediest way of doing things.

"First of all, who voted all these rulings?"

An arbitration committee made up of Wikipedia admins voted on them. They are binding decisions made by the closest thing that Wikipedia has to a government.

"don’t tell me what I can and cannot remark in regards to any article I read."

I'm not, I'm telling you that you don't need to remark on it in your response to me, I AGREE WITH YOU. end of story.

"If it’s mythical theme was the base for the entire article ...no scientific ideas would be necessary at all"

That's not quite true. Where science exists it is a requirement that it be included under WP:NPOV (all substantive arguments to be included). The main argument here is that this is a paranormal topic with some science, not a scientific topic about which some paranormal beliefs exist. There is a simple measure. If you take the paranormal out it fails notability, but if you take the science out it passes notability.

"Ghosts......"

This topic is much smaller, therefore there is less material available. It is also further away from the mainstream so the quality of material is poorer.

"Most of the shadow people article is based on “witnesses” supported by horrible sources"

These stories are the core of the myth. Leaving them out violates WP:NPOV and could lead to a WP:Notability violation.

"if this is a myth as you say, myths cannot be scientifically scrutinized as they are phenomenon and aren’t meant to be perceived as fact. Therefore, they’re completely hypothetical and only claims can be made rather than actual accounts as they can’t be supported"

Actually, no. As per the arbcom, because shadow people are a part of popular culture it goes without saying that they are not a real creature and having accounts of them in no way implies that they are real. Simply calling them ghosts and supernatural tell the reader this. All that this page does is to detail beliefs about a paranormal creature and to verify that these beliefs exist. Nowhere does it claim that they are a real creature.

"I mean ridiculously stupid to the point that leads me to believe that you, and anyone else that can’t see just how bad it is shouldn’t (and wouldn’t in the real world) have anything to do with any encyclopedia ever. This article is good if a 1st grader wrote it without his parents’ help."

If I were you, I'd stop right there. You could be cited for incivility and have restrictions placed on you by the admin if you keep this up. Wikipedia policy prohibits the use of insults or belittling remarks.

perfectblue (talk) 09:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Someone needs to add the notes and Types section back. They are things which I have read on all the reference and external links provided in this article, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.7.130 (talk) 01:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

All the references and external links? Odd there should be so much contention, if that's the case. Could you highlight one or two sources that give a scientific or otherwise verifiable basis for the 'Types' described? - Shrivenzale (talk) 02:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

1. The Notes section has many issues with it, none of which have been satisfactorily addressed or rebutted; see #Work on a revision above.

2. If you find verifiable, reliable sources for the types section, please post them here. Without them, this section is merely unsourced original research.

Until the problems are addressed adequately by the proponents who want those sections, they shouldn't be restored. Provide specific references, not blanket ones. -Amatulić (talk) 22:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

"Could you highlight one or two sources that give a scientific or otherwise verifiable basis for the 'Types' described?"::

Scientific basis???? This is not a science page, it's a page for "Shadow people" which is Paranormal. The first documented case of Shadow people was recorded by the Native American tribes of North America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.30.38.213 (talk) 08:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I fully expected that someone would jump on my use of the word 'scientific' there - which of course is why I also said "or otherwise verifiable basis". That gives the "it's just a myth" crowd an out. Consider, though, that attempting to categorise and sub-categorise any phenomenon is an intrinsically scientific process. Those who want the article kept science-free should consider that before attempting to replace the Types section. But that aside, claims - scientific or not - have to be cited, or they will be removed. In this case, we need something to suggest that these supposed 'Types' haven't simply been Made Up One Day. Provide that, and they'll be included. The fact that this argument continues, and that those supporting the Types section can do little but complain about "this is not a science page" is, for the moment, evidence enough that the Types section does not belong in this article, mythology or not. Wikipedia is not intended to host speculation, no matter how cool somone might think it sounds. - Shrivenzale (talk) 10:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You're both wrong. While Shadow People are a myth, and while science only really needs to be included for NPOV purposes (the myth will exist without science, but not the other way round), the fact of the matter is that these categories should not be included because they are NOT PART OF THE MYTH. It's as simple as that. This system isn't used by believers or skeptics. - perfectblue (talk) 14:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I missed this comment earlier. And at risk of seeming petty, I'm not sure how that makes me wrong. I said, "claims - scientific or not - have to be cited, or they will be removed. In this case, we need something to suggest that these supposed 'Types' haven't simply been Made Up One Day". I stand by that. Nothing I've said so far was intended to indicate that I'm looking for scientific evidence for something that's fundamentally unscientific - just cites and references to verify that the claims being made (that Shadow People can be divided into three distinct types) are an established part of the myth/phenomenon. As I hope I made clear elsewhere, I have an established belief in a lot of things that the science-minded would reject out of hand. - Shrivenzale (talk) 23:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I was specifically referring to "Those who want the article kept science-free should consider that before attempting to replace the Types section". You can only keep something out/include it if it is in line with policy or if there is sufficient weight in a guideline. No other reasons will suffice here I'm afraid. If you want to put science in or if somebody else wants to keep it out they must use Wikipedia's regs. - perfectblue (talk) 18:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is over 100 different people's accounts of shadow people. http://www.shadowpeople.org/

Here is the interview with Author Heidi Hollis the lady that wrote the FIRST book on shadow people, this includes people calling in during the interview to give their own stories as well. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNSCob-_i3E It's on youtube under "shadow beings".

Another person's account. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlaypVzXsAQ&feature=related

The promo for the book "the non: the story of the shadow people" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reHVma-F70U&feature=related

Another person's experience. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIDIrYWE7IA

Then on the 4/12/2001 art bell show, Native American "Thunder Strikes" of the twisted hairs tribe went into full detail of the 3 types of shadow people there is. He also spoke of the ORIGINAL sightings which have been going on in America long before any Europeans was here, If you search good enough you will find this interview online. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.30.38.213 (talk) 10:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

If you contact Art bell he will give you a copy of the "Thunder strikes" interview. Thunder Strikes has been studying the shadow people longer than any of these other researchers. You may contact any of the Native American medicine men and they too will give you the 3 types of shadow people. Here is the Deer tribe website. http://www.dtmms.org/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.30.38.213 (talk) 11:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the nature of what's going on here. I'm not asking you to convince me that this phenomenon occurs. I'm not even asking you to convince me that bizarre things happen. That's definitely owls to Athens, or coals to Newcastle, whichever you prefer. The dispute here is based on how well the 'Types' section is cited. Information added to Wikipedia must be properly cited to verifiable, authoritative references. Now personally, I'm dubious as to whether YouTube videos can be so classified - but that might well be down to my personal bias against YouTube (because it's becoming so common for people in debates and discussions to just throw in YouTube links rather than bother to make their own argument about something). Maybe other Wikipedians will be more objective on that.

The point is, if you believe these references are sufficient, then edit the article, or put in an edit request, and add the sections you want to see, properly cited (it'd also do wonders for your credibility - at least in my eyes - if you'd do so from behind a user name rather than an IP address). But I'm not doing the work for you. Don't sit here on the Talk page telling me that if I "search good enough" I'll find something, or that if I contact such-and-such I'll be convinced. That's not the point here at all. If it's important for you that the section be included, then you search, and you add the references. That's what I've been asking for, and that's what I'm still asking for. I'm asking you to comply with the standards for information added to Wikipedia. The moment you do that, this dispute will go away. - Shrivenzale (talk) 11:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

On the subject of Youtube, it's shouldn't be about whether or not the video is on Youtube, but rather about where the video originally came from. This particular video is a recording from a radio talk show. The question should be whether you consider said talk show to be a good enough source. Personally, I consider shows like Coast to Coast to be a perfectly acceptable source for beliefs and myths as they cover popular culture. Though I wouldn't use one as an example of scientific facts. perfectblue (talk) 14:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[Above comments restored after deletion by 24.30.38.213]

Now come on, Anonymous. Don't let's be dishonest here. If you disagree with what I've put on the Talk page, then have the bottle to front up and say why. Don't just delete it and try to pretend I never said it. That's cowardly. - Shrivenzale (talk) 13:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It's like I already said, The references has already been added in the reference section. The coast to coast for one example is already on the references. So it Heidi hollis and so is mary's reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.30.38.213 (talk) 14:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

No, a reference is in the reference section. Nowhere does it say what that reference refers to. For all we know it could refer to the color of a shadow person in the introduction. Please specify the EXACT page where the author defines these three categories. - perfectblue (talk) 15:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh and thanks for trying to have me blocked for putting in the references which you asked me to do. And no nothing was deleted by me, you deleted the references I added, I simply added them back (you did a undo option). Restoring and deleting is two different things. But it is nice knowing that me adding references will cause people to try and get me blocked. One message I got was violation of a 3rr rule (when it was only 1 revert)....then another said edit waring on shadow people page please take it to the shadow people discussion page, ummmm the shadow people page is protected from editing, and this is the discussion page lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.30.38.213 (talk) 14:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Anytime. And by the way, the article got protected from editing because I requested it. The purpose of that was to force the dispute to the discussion page. The page will get protected again if edit warring resumes. You didn't cite the claims you made, you just added general links "and many other places". Provide specific links that confirm your claims (not general web sites), or exact page numbers from documents or books. If you can accurately cite the claims you want to add, I have no problems adding them to the article. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The most recent addition of the 'Types' section (by another anonymous IP) stated that the matter had been 'cleared up' on the Talk page. As far as I'm aware, nothing about this Talk page is very clear, but I'm pretty sure that the dispute over the (apparently) made-up 'Types' section has yet to be resolved. The editor concerned this time did provide a number of links to pages, which I presume were intended to be cites - however the purpose of proper references is to direct the reader to the source of the supporting information, not to require them to trawl through pages of websites of dubious reliability (one of them claims to have contributions from the person who originally coined the phrase 'Shadow People': is this a reliable reference to a notable source, then, or is it a vested interest? With the editor choosing to remain anonymous, the latter remains a possibility). In light of this my view is that the 'Types' section still lacks anything more than the continuing insistence of this anonymous editor that it be added, and therefore I have removed it again. - Shrivenzale (talk) 01:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I've had a scan through the sources provided and none of them demonstrates that there is a system for grading Shadow people. I can't find references to there being a system in skeptical, in believer media, or anywhere that counts. Unless the IP only user can provide DIRECT EVIDENCE that a three level system exists, for example a book by a notable believer or a reliable skeptic where it lists the three levels, I have no choice but to conclude that this scale is a WP:OR violation thought up either by the IP only editor or some other unpublished source with which they are affiliated with.

perfectblue (talk) 17:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] To the IP only editor

In order to comply with Wikipedia policies WP:OR, WP:V you must provide direct evidence that a three level system exists for rating/classifying Shadow people using one or more pre-published source that can pass WP:RS.

This may be a book written by a reliable skeptic such as Jerome Clark, an well known investigator such as Harry Price, or even a controversial figure such as David Icke or Robert Carroll whom have notability through notoriety.

Either way, the source must be published and must demonstrate that the three level system actually exists. I'd also probably better tell you that under Wikipedia regulations you can't compile multiple sources together as evidence of a three level system. This means that you can't have one source showing a two level system, and another source showing a different two level system, then put them together to make a three level system from the first level of one and the two levels of the other, or vice-versa. The source must show all three levels together in order to be used here.

Sorry, but that's just the way that things are. - perfectblue (talk) 17:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deja Vu

No, not a possible explanation for the Shadow People; just what I'm experiencing from watching this page. It's quite obvious by now, surely, that the anonymous user has a serious bee in his/her bonnet about the 'Types' section. It's also obvious that this user intends to continue restoring this entirely unsupported and evidently made-up (until proper cites show otherwise) material into this article. Since even his/her own linked websites - which, as far as I can tell do not satisfy the standard as suitable citations anyway - fail to clearly describe the three supposed 'types', I can't see any merit in this information being included. There seem to be few if any other edits and improvements being made to this article - its recent history contains nothing as far as I can see but the repeated removal and restoration of this section.

On no better authority than a desire to see the article remain consistent with the aims of Wikipedia I would therefore like to request that this article be re-protected, on a more long-term basis, without the Types section, since this material demonstrably fails to meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria and - Assume Good Faith notwithstanding - I suspect the user continues to hide behind an anonymous IP precisely because s/he is aware that s/he otherwise has no case to put forward for its inclusion. - Shrivenzale (talk) 11:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Types section added once again by anonymous editor; still absent any cites or any attempt to provide verifiable source for the material. Material therefore once again removed, as I remain of the belief that it has been made up, quite possibly by the anonymous editor. At this stage I consider that it would have been far easier for the anonymous editor to simply provide a cite rather than continuing to attempt to force the inclusion of material that has no apparent merit.

I reiterate my request for the page to be re-protected. - Shrivenzale (talk) 00:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I have requested protection. If the anonymous editor can't supply valid sources or explanations for the edits, then there is no reason to allow those edits to appear. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected, please. I still want to be able to edit this page if something new, interesting, and verifiable comes along. - perfectblue (talk) 10:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection should be sufficient in this case given this particular user's unwillingness to commit to an identity. That said, as I mentioned above there don't seem to have been many other edits made for quite a while other than the tit-for-tat over the 'Types' section - suggesting that the article isn't otherwise subject to regular improvements and additions. With that in mind I don't think that even full protection would be likely to be a serious hindrance: we can still request changes if something significant comes along. - Shrivenzale (talk) 12:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Protecting doesn't sit right with me, I'm afraid. It feels wrong, kind of like we're censoring Wikipedia by closing it off just because we disagree with somebody else's idea. I know that this particular user has violated policy by ignoring WP:V, WP:RS and WP:OR, but by at the end of the day would we be this keen to protect the entry if they were saying something that we agreed with? - perfectblue (talk) 15:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

"...but by at the end of the day would we be this keen to protect the entry if they were saying something that we agreed with?"

Speaking personally, yes - absolutely I would. If the statements being added were consistently uncited, if they were in violation of these policies, and particularly (a personal bias, perhaps) if they were being added by someone unwilling to stand by an identity. Nevertheless, if you equate protection with censorship and prefer that this not be done, then we will simply continue the revert war until the anonymous user complies with said policies or simply gets bored. - Shrivenzale (talk) 19:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

On further reflection, I have to say that I do not accept the association of article protection with censorship, and I have two reasons for this. Firstly, the purpose of Wikipedia is to provide accurate verifiable information. Its rules, policies and guidelines exist to serve that purpose. Secondly, 'censorship' is a term very often used critically without due consideration of the context. The context in this case is a publicly-edited but not publicly-owned encyclopaedic resource that is intended to operate in accordance within certain boundaries, and is expected to strive for certain standards. Removing material that does not conform to the expected standards is not censorship here, because Wikipedia is not a public platform for free speech, and is not designed to be such. It is not a matter of removing information we do not agree with: in this case at least, it is a matter of removing information that an anonymous editor is persistently and determinedly adding without any regard for the expected standards of Wikipedia content. If such information is allowed to remain even without references, then the credibility and reliability of the encyclopaedia are damaged, and the ultimate goal of the project is not served. Removing or preventing such damaging edits does not represent 'censorship', then, but simply a means of defending the integrity of the resource.

(For the record, I did briefly try simply inserting {{Fact}} tags against every uncited statement but the section quickly became virtually unreadable and it seemed better to remove it entirely once again.) - Shrivenzale (talk) 08:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of protection is to prevent disruptive behavior, and force the disruptive editor into dialogue to resolve the dispute. That happened, more or less, last time this page was protected. The anonymous editor simply resumes edit warrning when the protection period expires. I have requested protection yet again. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The article is now semi-protected so that only established users may edit it. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hat Guy...

Being very similar in appearance to the Hat Man/Shadow Man described have made appearances in other media:

• Dark City
• The original Opportunities video by The Pet Shop Boys
• Darkman
• The general appearance of many golden age comic book characters such as the Sandman
• Some dude who didn't leave footprints in the snow outside my ex-girlfriend's window in Lafayette, Indiana

The eyes have been more shown as reflective than glowing, even when an obvious light source to reflect was not present. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.87.20.98 (talk) 00:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

"Being very similar in appearance to the Hat Man/Shadow Man described have made appearances in other media:"

But is there any reason to suppose that these characters were influenced by the supposed phenomenon of Shadow People; or is it more likely that the perception of the claimed hat-wearing Shadow Person is more influenced by these characters? Or is there any reason to assume any such link at all?

"Some dude who didn't leave footprints in the snow outside my ex-girlfriend's window in Lafayette, Indiana"

Don't be ridiculous. Surely this article has been maltreated enough? (Gah... Assume Good Faith... Assume Good Faith...) - Shrivenzale (talk) 09:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, many of those are likely inspired by entierly different source. For example the image of a mysterious man in a long coat wearing a hat and lurking in the shadows is a staple of US popular fiction. You see it everywhere from Humphrey Bogart as a private-eye in a dirty alleyway to movies about Al Capone, the G-Men and prohibition. That image is burned deep into the US imagination. - perfectblue (talk) 10:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fixed some POV problems

Part of the article had POV problems that I fixed:

1. Images in this article are artistic impressions. This MUST be made clear.
2. The scientific explanations and the paranormal beliefs should not be lumped together. One is based on data and observations of material reality. The other is based on true belief.
3. The pseudoscientific references to "other dimensions", etc. means that the paranormal belief is directly about material reality. Since this claim is not backed up by science, we have to be clear about that.

ScienceApologist (talk) 14:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you browsing using a PDA or a MAC? Your writing may suggest that you aren't able to see all of the contents of the page. Remember last year when you kept moving that template to the bottom of the page because your browser was not correctly displaying it and you thought that it was full width? Are you able to access a PC with a current version of IE or Firefox. These days there are plenty in public libraries or your school may let you use them during recess.

1. The image is a pencil sketch, not a photoshopped image. This is clear if you view it on a bigger screen. Though I have no objection to calling it an artists impression just so long as it is made clear that it is an artists impression based on an existing description.
2. They weren't there were headings in between them.
3. I'm not exactly certain what you mean in your last point, but I assure you that this isn't pseudoscience, it is pure modern myth. I understand that you like to look for a rational explanation, and that it laudable in its place, but please do not try to inflate Shadow People to the level of a pseudoscience. What we have here is a phenomona by which people get spooked by something seen out of the corner of their eye and then build mythos around it in order to give it greater meaning. There is no evidence at all to suggest that there is anything more to this than paranormal beliefs. Unless you can find evidence of pseudoscience at work here inflating Shadow People to that level would be a violation of WP:V and WP:OR.

Let's keep this about the myth, OK.

perfectblue (talk) 09:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

1. Based on an existing description is original research and is now excised.
2. The headings between them are not enough. The paranormal beliefs are based on idiosyncratic thoughts of amateurs. Scientific explanations are based on reality. They are different enough to warrant separate sections.
3. Any time the "modern myth" spills over into discussions of material reality, science takes precedent.

No more use of "hypotheses" which is a loaded term for anything "paranormal". No more lumping science with paranormal fantasies. Enough.

ScienceApologist (talk) 15:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

1) Actually, it was fully sourced. Until you removed it it was attached to a citation by somebody who had collected and analyzed stories about Shadow People. 2) They already had separate sections. Please adjust your web browser to allow for web fonts and formatting. If you turn your font size up it may help, else try browsing on a PC with IE 7/Firefox 2. Both browsers are capable of displaying the markup languages used here. 3) Moving the extra dimensional hypothesis into the science section would be deeply troubling, you would need to find a source that passes both WP:V and WP:RS for there being scientific merit to this hypothesis else you would be violating WP:OR. As much as you like to think of science as being king, there is absolutely NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that Shadow People are extra dimensional beings. None whatsoever. The extra dimensional hypothesis rightfully belongs on the mythos section of the page, it might refer to "material reality" but it is NOT a belief based on science, it is just another part of the modern myth. It's a myth that refers to "material reality", there's no actual scientific research behind it.

If you think that "material reality" is a suitable dividing line, then I suggest that you go to project rational skeptic and try explaining this to them. I'm afraid that they won't treat you kindly. The idea that Shadow People are extra dimensional creatures has about as much scientific merit as the idea that the Bermuda Triangle and Stone Henge are dimensional nexus. You might believe that this is science, but taking a couple of science terms at it doesn't make it anything other than a myth with a couple of fancy words in it.

perfectblue (talk) 18:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to make you aware, maybe 50% of the scientific content is actually in danger of being deleted under WP:OR regs on the grounds that the sources do not actually link the science to Shadow People sightings. Unless you can find more substantial sources demonstrating that these explanations have been put forward in relation to Shadow People they may have to be deleted.

As per WP:OR and WP:V the source must relate to the content. For example, and speaking hypothetically, you can't use a source stating that alien abductions are likely cause by people taking crystal meths to explain Shadow People sightings unless said source actually references Shadow People as well. - perfectblue (talk) 18:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The stuff you removed was indeed quite dubious. Who added it in the first place? ScienceApologist (talk) 18:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

PerfectBlue also removed the section on hypnogogia, which I have just restored. That's a perfectly valid scientific explanation for the phenomenon, and it was adequately sourced. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

True... I missed that one. The infrasound explanation, though, was pretty much hooey. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More care needed

Could users please be more careful with their reverts and only revert the specific sections that they have an issue with. Non-contentious material such as grammar and Wikiformatting is being caught up in it.

perfectblue (talk) 11:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The science sections

Since I have not cared for mesing with anyone elses sections....I guess I should touch on this since the "Scientists" continue to attack the Paranormal sections. Alot of the Science references do not talk about shadow people at all, so they do not belong in the Shadow people page at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.30.38.213 (talk) 00:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I know, but there are some users who get upset if you remove them and I don't feel like getting into that argument this minute. - perfectblue (talk) 13:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous appear to be correct, the explanations appear to be WP:SYNTH. I'll leave them there for now and check to see if there are appropriate cites within the week. Jefffire (talk) 13:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of referenced material

I believe the wikipedia staff should be contacted and informed of the people that continue to remove "Sourced" material that is directly related to the shadow people. This is in fact a paranormal page how ever it seems some people have came to think this is a science page and anything that does not relate to science they think has to be removed even if it is clearly sourced. The adding of Native American's sightings of Shadow people also continues to be removed when the shadow people knowledge has been passed down from generation to generation long before the 1700's in native american tribes all over the Americas. The continued removal of the native american's sightings is actually starting to touch on the racism subject which is highly against the Wiki terms. The types is also traditional Native American teachings of the shadow people yet it continues to get removed. So I hate to say it but it really is starting to look like some racism going on here....so maybe it is about time I inform my tribal elders and the elders of our cousin tribes and see what they think and if they think the same thing then maybe it's time some letters start getting sent to the wiki president and have him become aware of what appears to be a possible racist attack on my people and their beliefs and teachings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.30.38.213 (talk • contribs) 00:38 2008-03-25

Hello, anonymous user. We welcome your sourced contributions to Wikipedia. If you have sources that discuss "shadow people" in relation to Native American religions, we might be able to create a page where this sourced material can be discussed. This particular page is focused on the lunacy that is believed by UFO-conspiricists and paranormal investigators. In the interests of keeping the cultural interests separate from the loony-bin, we could create for you a new page such as Shadow people (Native American religion). ScienceApologist (talk) 00:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

While you might want to elevate Shadow People to scientifically explainable phenomona the blanket truth is that this is anything but. The closest that Shadow people get to science is social science and psychology. People get spooked and they develop myths legends and folklore to try and rationalize it according to their cultural back ground, just as they have done for centuries. When you take away the "lunacy" you're left with Pareidolia and Hypnogogia, which already have their own pages.

- perfectblue (talk) 13:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll make some points here as well.

• There is no racism here, only adherance to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, specifically Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability. The text that has been deleted didn't meet those guidelines for sourcing. Adequately sourced material relating to shadow people has not been removed. Poorly sourced material has been removed.
• Personally I would love to see this article expanded to verifiable observations made in other cultures including Native Americans. I disagree with ScienceApologist that this article's content should be restricted to looney-bin treatment, and that we should have another article for cultural treatment. In my mind, that constitutes a POV fork in violation of the WP:NPOV policy. An article on Shadow People should be encyclopedic, not restricted in scope. A separate section on observations or traditions in other cultures would be great.
• The best way to get consensus for an addition to this article is propose it on this talk page. Why not start a new section here, to present your text and references? That way we can all see what you want to add, and offer suggestions on how to improve it, without edit-warring in the article.
• Threats won't get you anywhere. Try it and see.

Anonymous editor, to keep track of who's writing what, please remember to sign your comments. Just stick four tildes (~~~~) on the end of your comments. Thanks. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous said:

"So I hate to say it but it really is starting to look like some racism going on here....so maybe it is about time I inform my tribal elders and the elders of our cousin tribes and see what they think and if they think the same thing then maybe it's time some letters start getting sent to the wiki president and have him become aware of what appears to be a possible racist attack on my people and their beliefs and teachings."

Everyone else has been so polite, too - they're clearly better people than I am. Personally, I don't think you "hate to say it" at all. In fact I think you're saying it because you think that the mere suggestion of an accusation of racism will make the rest of us back down and allow you free rein to do with this article as you please. Frankly, I think it's a cheap shot. And since I might as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb, I'd say that your attempt to exploit your cultural background to get your own way here raises questions about how much respect you can possibly have for it yourself, if you'd so cheerfully trivialise it.

I acknowledge that my comments here represent a breach of at least 'Assume Good Faith' and 'Be Courteous', if not more. But I'm afraid I just can't sit here and watch such a transparent attempt at manipulation without challenging it. Right - I'll get my coat. I trust other editors with steadier tempers than mine will keep working to protect the standard of content on this article. - Shrivenzale (talk) 22:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I've been pretty even tempered myself in spite of the personal attacks from this editor ([1][2][3][4]) as well as the empty threats to escalate complaints to the "owner" or "president" of Wikipedia ([5][6][7]). Some of my earlier comments on this talk page do suggest I lost patience now and then. If he would focus on proposing text, on this talk page, with good sources in accordance with Wikipedia's established standards, then nobody would have a problem with his edits. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous, feel free to create a Native American page. it's a good idea to keep the two myths apart as the Native American beliefs are distinct enough to pass notability on their own merits. - perfectblue (talk) 13:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Are shadow people sexually active?

Like, let's say that my friend was approached by one with an erection... is he in any danger of actually being penetrated? Or is he just scared for no reason? Thanks for any answers. I want him to be re-assured. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.163.49.32 (talk) 21:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

SA, I'll leave it to you to deal with this one. - perfectblue (talk) 14:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

If you have some reliable sources for the sexual activity of shadow people, I'd love to see it included in the article. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Claims of supernatural rape do exist, and by the balance of probability some will exist in relation to Shadow people, but I for one am sufficiently troubled by their wider nature not to add them in myself. I feel this way on the grounds that their inclusion would represent too much of a fringe viewpoint to be viable (Rape, or even consent based sex, by Shadow People does not form part of the core of the myth), and on the ground that they would be in danger of forking this entry over to the POV that Shadow People stories have credibility. This is without the potential WP:V and WP:RS issues.

While you may believe that Shadow People represent a scientifically quantifiable phenomona, the evidence so far presented lends itself only to the conclusion that Shadow People are a product of the human mind that has found its way into popular culture.

I do not feel that Shadow People and sex is a productive direction in which to expand this entry.

- perfectblue (talk) 21:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

See Popobawa and other versions around the world (ie. common) of sex-related versions of the "Old Hag Syndrome", or sleep paralysis. The victims, at the onset of sleep or under similiar circumstances, find themselves unable to move and are "attacked" by a demon or shadowy figure that in many cases either rapes or sodomizes them. In the case of the Popobawa, it was typically men who reported being raped at night by a creature with batlike wings and a huge penis. Though the story has its cultural differences, "sex-attacks" related to hypnogogia are common cross-culturally. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Hm. OK, thanks to everyone who responded. So what should my friend do to protect his self? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.163.48.255 (talk) 18:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Hypnogogia is a waking dream. It seems real but it ain't. In any case, Wikipedia isn't a discussion forum, talk pages for for discussing article improvements. Jefffire (talk) 18:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but what's your point about hypnogogia. This entire page is about something that seems real but isn't, and hypnogogia has been put forward as a/the cause so technically it's a valid suggestion that the exist cases where hypnogogia have reported being raped by Shadow People. With this said, I've already said my piece on what I think about adding supernatural rape by Shadow People to this, and that is that the subject isn't covered well enough in either the paranormal or the scientific press to be of note. I'd also be troubled by the idea of adding content regarding hypnogogia and supernatural rape that doesn't "specifically" mention Shadow People. Which cuts out about 99% of sources on the topic.

If you can find some good solid sources then I will work with you to include them, but I don't think that very productive direction to take the entry. - perfectblue (talk) 17:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you've misinterprated. My point is that this isn't a discussion about the article so it should come to an end. Jefffire (talk) 18:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so maybe I was hasty in clearing off simply because of one - ahem - 'editor' who got me riled. but I've got to say, people (SA, perfectblue, Nealparr), your patience and tolerance amaze me. So many people, myself included, in any other forum, would have told this troll exactly where to go. Yet you actually take his attempt at disruption and give it reasoned attention to see if anything constructive can be made of it. Incredible, and admirable. I see I still have a lot to learn; if that was ever in doubt. - Shrivenzale (talk) 00:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

We are not talking about troll rape, we are talking about the Shadow People article and some handy, practical information that's missing from it. I agree with Blue that it's hard to find citable sources, but making the article more useful is what we are talking about. I am sorry if my friend's situation is distasteful. —99.163.and the rest (talk) 06:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Your trolling is distasteful - but I guess it takes all sorts. I've fed you enough. - Shrivenzale (talk) 08:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Weasel Word?

The last few edits have concerned a 'weasel word' at the beginning of the article: in one version, the Shadow People are 'purported to be'; in another they are 'said to be'; and in the latest version they are 'reported to be'. However, these are all weasel words in the sense that they all mean much the same thing and have the same effect in context. The only way to avoid weasel words in this instance is to identify who has made the assertion. - Shrivenzale (talk) 10:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Such things are always tricky to word neutrally. Usually something like "stated by x to be y (reference z)" comes out in the end, but it always looks inelegant. By all means take a crack at it though. Jefffire (talk) 11:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I took a crack at it. I also added a bit about Native Americans due to previous talk page comments, but that bit cries out for a citation. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Purported is too loaded a word to use, and said is a little difficult, too. However, since we are clearly attributing then to native American myths and modern folklore, we don't really need either. You won't find a Native American elder sitting round the campfire saying "Shadow People are purported to look like Shadows", so neither should we. We must attribute and quantify. Within Native American beliefs and modern folklore shadow people ARE....

Myths and legend should be dealt with in the same way as popular fiction. Attribute, assign and state. The Star trek page doesn't say "The Enterprise is purported to be a space ship", does it?

As for the Native American myth, yes it could do with some citations. My area of reading mostly concentrates on the modern iteration of the myth amongst primarily suburban white Americans so I can't vouch for WP:RS on the topic, could somebody else get the ball rolling? I only know of one notable Indian source and I don't consider him to be up to measure for the only citation about Native Americans. I still feel that the two topics should be separated out as the modern myth isn't based on the Native American legend. They have occasionally been merged at points, but they modern myth is more closely related to traditions of ghosts and spirits that modern Americans brought with them from Europe. - perfectblue (talk) 17:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I'm curious, anyone here actually seen one?

I'm skeptical myself, but I "saw" one in my hallway about six months ago - it was 2am and I was watching Star Trek when one walked down my hallway past my tv an through a wall. I was fully awake at the time (the only thing I was high on was Mountain Dew) - strange thing was that I wasn't scared but more curious and excited when I saw it. I admit it could have been my mind making me see things but it was still pretty crazy. So has anyone else here seen one? Starzaz (talk) 03:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of this talk page is to discuss improvements to the article; this isn't a general discussion board about personal experiences, sorry. Nothing personal, I've made the same mistake myself. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

gotcha :) Starzaz (talk) 23:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] In The mysterious benedict society and the perilous journey?

In the mysterious benedict society and the perilous journey on page 39, mr. benedict mentions that he often has a recurring nightmare of something that could be a shadow person. is this worth noting? Maiq the liar (talk) 21:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)