Talk:Shadow person/Archive 1

Limited Spectrum
I saw these things a lot as a kid - cloudy yet distinct figures that are visible when your night-vision kicks in - but vision becomes worse with age and we tend to see less of the spectrum than kids do. The cornea becomes clouded and the lens warps with time - you'd notice the difference if you looked through the eyes you had 10 years ago. I've had two major eye surgeries - one on each eye - and I saw fewer of these shadow things as my vision deteriorated. If the shadow things could be passed off as a visual error, I'd see them all over the place right now.

But that's circumstantial. The fact is: We don't see much of the light around us - - there are surfaces that reflect/absorb little or none of the photons in our spectrum, meaning we see directly through things. Opacity varies according to your visible spectrum. For example, if our eyes could only see the ultraviolet spectrum, glass would be opaque and we'd see forms of gas in the air that were invisible before. If we only saw the infrared spectrum, more objects would look transparent, because the further down the spectrum you go, the more transparent things get, and vice-versa. So, we know there are things we can barely see, and it's possible that some of these things are organisms.

Then there's the retina perceiving the light. The center of our eyesight mostly uses cone cells, which perceive colors, while the perimeter of our eyesight has more rod cells, which perceive black, white and motion - it's better at catching certain subtleties and seeing things you have trouble spotting up-front. Retinas also change from person to person - some see more, some see less, and some just see different areas of the spectrum. Some people have mutations or alterations that drastically change what they see. My left eye, for example, had the lens removed in an operation, and now it can view the lower ultraviolet spectrum uninhibited. Other people who eat more greens can see more of the IR spectrum, and many animals have the tapetum lucidum along their retinas, giving a great boost in IR sensitivity.

So, depending age, condition and genetics, a person can spot certain objects and creatures better than others will, and different areas of the eye will also make a difference. These things make sense when you look for the facts instead of calling every strange phenomenon a paranormal hallucination hoax and whatnot. I can't say what these things are made of that gives them these intriguing properties but I can touch on why they're hard to see. --Zareste 03:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)(edited)


 * Okay, saying that someone is a nihilist and has marred an article can kind of be taken as a personal attack. Let's not be doing that. I would like to see specifically (in context) what changes were made and why you judge them to be innapropriate. ScifiterX 02:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * And you have this headed under theory, but I don't see a clear hypothesis stated. It seems like your idea is that many children may have ability to see into the portion of the spectrum of light that is not visible to adults, as the eyes of adults have degraded. And I'm assuming that you are suggesting that if this phenomena is more visible (or only visible) in the infra-red or ultra-violet portion of the spectrum, it could explain why most people don't see the phenomena or why the apearance of the phenomena is typically so fleeting. ScifiterX 03:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The theory was badly written the first time - I didn't revise it for comprehensibility. It's fixed now and should make more sense.--Zareste 03:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It is interesting.ScifiterX 03:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Kids have more imagination than adults, and are more likely to twist a half seen image into something tangible, whereas us boring adults are more likely to shrug off a half seen image as a trick of the light.

perfectblue 15:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Crystal Meth Connection?
Crystal meth users often talk about seeing shadow people after multi-day binges, so I think that sleep deprivation should be listed under "non-paranormal explanations". 24.19.19.215 
 * Not to bash your theory or anything, but wouldn't people have to be sleep-deprived to get sleep-deprivation hallucinations? That can explain maybe 20% of the sightings but leaves the rest to interpretation. 24.8.155.203 21:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Please sign your posts. And to answer your question: No, a person on narcotics does not have to be sleep deprived to hallucinate. Many narcotics cause hallucinations without sleep deprivation. ScifiterX 02:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That's neat but now the person has to be on drugs to suit your ideas. That explains another 5%. 24.8.155.203 20:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Please note that 24.8.155.203 first appeared on this site on the 8th or February 2006 and has contributed to Wikipedia in no place other than this discussion page as of the time of this post. This person does not sign his posts and is not logged in when he is making his comments. ScifiterX 03:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

This page is not about drug induced hallucinations. However, a brief and carefully worded addition was made noting your suggetion. ScifiterX 19:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Misc
I've been debating whether or not to add the multiple forms and their extended descriptions on this page as it is lacking. I noticed the page explains stages one and three of the shadows, but not two or the final stage. In any case, I am amazed that I am not insane seeing as how others have seen them.

Some one tried to ruin the article, I removed the mocking commantary they placed within the article. DaBiggman 21:35, 14 January 2006

He was referring to a sentence added that was vandalism. Jack-ass was a correct usage. 69.21.182.41 02:08, 2 February 2006
 * Regardless, of the vandalism it is not a good idea to stoop to name calling. Your object is to get people on your side, not the vandal's. When you swear at the individual you are in disagreement with, it makes it appear to people that you are the one causing the problem. ScifiterX 06:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

All though I can certainly appreciate your enthusiasm for this site and your apparent disapproval of vandalism, such language is not appropriate and can be construed as a personal attack. I am sure that is an impression you don't want to make. ScifiterX 18:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Fixed it, there. Vandals in the future will not be treated with kid gloves. If someone wants to ruin the article by adding mocking commentary, I do not see why I would want them on my side. If they do not wish to help the article but instead wish to destroy it, they should not be catered too.--DaBiggman 10:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

References?!
This article still needs specific references, rather than simply a list of related links. Seems like all the information in the article exists elsewhere, so why not reference it? Russell 00:49, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Historical references?
Where are references to these objects having been observed for centuries? That was promised at the start of the article but there are no details further down.

Dabiggman seems to indicate that some documents in the Vatican reference a similar phenomena but as yet he has not provided any details. Perhaps he will get around to it the next few weeks and well will have some reference to historical documenation at that point.ScifiterX 19:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure if I will be able to send you a copy, ha. However, there is a book at the Vatican Secret Archives that does detail what they call "Shadows" very explicitly. A relative of mine is Roman Catholic and translated a single chapter of the "Book of Shadows" for me. I believe the book is currently held in the public section of the library, but you must be a catholic in order to obtain the writings and I am not a catholics. http://www.vatican.va/phome_en.htm That is the link, not sure if you can actually access the texts though. Dabiggman

Actually, since you are the person who suggested it as a source, you are the person we would expect to find the source. If it cannot be accessed it is irrelevant unfortunately. ScifiterX 03:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Concern over references for non-paranormal explanation section
I removed the following from the article:


 * Scientists have proven that under the right conditions erratic electromagnetic field behavior can interfere with the electrical impulses or firing synapses of the human mind, thus influencing people subjected to such environments over time to believe that they are hearing or seeing ghosts, aliens, or perhaps shadow people. Such environments include old buildings with substandard wiring, power plants, and areas with naturally occurring strong magnetic fields.

This seems a lot like crank science to me... Can anyone produce a reference for this? Thanks, Andrew Morritt 02:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * "Some of the recent research suggests that EM behavioral effects include changes in perception (visual and auditory), circadian rhythms and other biological 'clocks', reaction time and reflexes, and orientation/navigation ability in animals. Some report feelings of disorientation, nerve paralysis (note carefully... this occurs in conjunction with UFO reports), and discomfort"--Dr. Steve Mizrachs ScifiterX 19:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

'''It doesn't appear that you took the time to look for substantiation, and yet you had the time to delete the material. Just google "electromagnetic impulses cause hallucinations" and you will get a many hits. See below for my results.'''

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=electromagnetic+fields+cause+hallucinations&btnG=Google+Search http://www.fiu.edu/~mizrachs/superspectrum.html http://www.fiu.edu/~mizrachs/

'"Some of the recent research suggests that EM behavioral effects include changes in perception (visual and auditory), circadian rhythms and other biological 'clocks', reaction time and reflexes, and orientation/navigation ability in animals. Some report feelings of disorientation, nerve paralysis (note carefully... this occurs in conjunction with UFO reports), and discomfort"''--Dr. Steve Mizrachs'''

This is not crank science. The basis is fairly obviously not based on fantasy. The human mind is essentially an organic computer with dendrites and other neural structures acting as circuits, which can be disrupted just as any other circuits can, under the right circumstances. Are you questioning that the brain has electrical impulses? Why would you think that the study of prolonged exposure to electromagnetic impulses on the brain would be crank science? That doesn't make any sense.

I saw a program on the discovery channel that used science to explain psuedo-paranormal phenomena and a scientist did prove under controlled laboratory conditions that electromagnetic pulses can cause people to hallucinate. Actual test were conducted proving this. ScifiterX 20:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds like one of those tests where the researchers had the conclusion long before the study. The type you already have to believe in to consider it valid. 24.8.155.203 21:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Whoever you are, please sign your posts. The studies I spoke of followed standard scientific method which focuses on testing a hypothesis, not substatiating an absolute as you suggest. Limit your speculation to what you can prove and try not to stoop to blatant antagonism. When you behave that way (in addition to your constant posting without signing your posts) it takes much of your credibility away in the eyes of other contributers. ScifiterX 03:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Please note that 24.8.155.203 first appeared on this site on the 8th or February 2006 and has contributed to Wikipedia in no place other than this discussion page as of the time of this post. This person does not sign his posts and is not logged in when he is making his comments. ScifiterX 03:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

References to substantiate section in question
- This is unnaceptable of Wikipedia standards. If you have proof, show it, otherwise your addition will be deleted just as you have been mass deleting other additions made by just as legitimit sources such as your own.DaBiggman (69.21.182.41) 04:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

http://www.fiu.edu/~mizrachs/superspectrum.html http://www.fiu.edu/~mizrachs/

'"Some of the recent research suggests that EM behavioral effects include changes in perception (visual and auditory), circadian rhythms and other biological 'clocks', reaction time and reflexes, and orientation/navigation ability in animals. Some report feelings of disorientation, nerve paralysis (note carefully... this occurs in conjunction with UFO reports), and discomfort"''--Dr. Steve Mizrachs'''

'''First, I just provided a link to material substantiating the material in question. Second, I have not been mass deleting additions. I have been complying with Wikipedia guidelines and removing material that is POV. If you have a problem feel free to talk to me on my user talk page. I have no fued with you and am only acting in the best interest of the article.''' ScifiterX 10:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Look, the two of you need to just come to some form of agreement. From the looks of it, ScifiterX you should be sticking to your comic books and not ruio a good article as this. DaBiggman, you should find sources for your additions. Although I know what I have seen and heard from different sources, none of what I know has ever been documented, just like thousands of others. Seriously, you are ruining a great article because one of you cannot stand the thought that these creatures havent been fully documented(DUH!) and the other one cannot stand the thought of someone asking for references...although there arn't any because they are FREAKING SUPERNATURAL! 69.95.53.28 (Unverified IP Address 11:39, 30 January 2006

Please note that the above comment was left by a user who has no other involvement with or contributions to Wikipedia other than that statement. A compromise was reached days ago. You have no authority to dictate what articles Wikipedians can and cannot contribute to. Until you have an actual user name and a static IP address, you aren't going to be taken very seriously on here and your motives will be held in suspicion. It would also be best if you signed your posts instead of leaving them anonymous. Also the reason that certain additons were removed had nothing to do with references, it had to do with the information not being related to the section (perceived religious significance does not belong in eye witness reports), some of the statments were redundant, and some of the statments were POV. ScifiterX 04:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

POV vs NPOV
No agreement was ever reached if you read my talk page. After reading yours, it appears you had numerous occasions of taking articles you don't think are "correct" and making them yours and if people want to go back, you report them for vandalism. Seriously, leave this article alone. It was fine for a month until you came and started mass deletions. Yes, I do have trouble finding sources for my information because it is a supernatural occurance and it is somewhat hard to find exact terms and pictures for every little thing a Shadow does.--DaBiggman 10:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

This accusation (that I have been making mass deletions and falsely reporting other users) is entirely false and borders on slander. I attempted to make a compromise with you. The additions you made were clearly against wikipedia regulations as they were POV. I commended you on your writing and encouraged it. However, you must remain within wikipedia guidelines or the material you add will be deleted, if not by me than by others. Incidentally, if you break a rule (deliberately or not) and add material that is POV and another user or users removes it for that reason, whether you are in agreement with said Wikipedian(s) or not is immaterial. ScifiterX 16:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

REMOVAL OF REDUNDANT AND POV TEXT

 * I removed the following from the article (paranormal explanations):

'''A third theory exists however, that shadow people can succumb to a third form. This form, offen seen with red eyes, also bears three claws instead of hands. There have been numerous reports of attacks from these such forms, often times with victims left with three clawlike marks that have been burned into the flesh. This is often referred to as being called "The Mark of the Shadow." This has also been highly speculated as having deep religious impact.'''

Most of the material more appropriately belongs in the first paragraph. As such the paragraph was removed and the NPOV details were worked into the first paragraph of the para-normal explanation section where they where more fitting and concise. Other details which were POV were removed. The wording concerning religious impact is not objectively phrased, but was reworked into a new paragraph focusing on demonic manifestation.

If someone saw a bigfoot that breathed fire and added in the bigfoot article that bigfoot was known to breathe fire, it would be removed because it isn't substantiated by the vast majority of eye-witness accounts. I removed certain comments from this section for that reason.

The majority of the literature about this phenomena (websites and a few books) simply does not substantiate:


 * 1) "Mark of the Shadow People" Just because someone reading the article calls it that, doesn't mean that its a reknown term associated with the phenomena. In fact, I googled "Mark of the Shadow" and this article was all that came up for the term. I've read several books and websites about shadow people and "the Mark of the Shadow People" and "claws" are never mentioned and need to be left out. Its enough to say that attacks have been reported.


 * 2) Highly speculated to have deep religious impact? Yes, some people think these things are demons and that is described under paranormal explanations. It doesn't belong in eye witness accounts as a basis for credibility. Eye witnees accounts refers to the eye witness reports, not the religious impact of said reports after the fact.

Additions based on personal conjecture damage the credibility of the article. It has already been deleted from Wikipedia once and I would rather it didnt' get deleted again but if people keep adding such spurious conjectures, guess what will happen? ScifiterX 19:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

That was not a threat on my part to delete the article, it was was an attempt to persuade people from turning the article into something that will make it a target for deletion. It (or a very similar article) actually was deleted a few years ago. This is actually something I am trying to protect the article from. ScifiterX 10:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DaBiggman

REMOVAL OF POV MATERIAL AS PER WIKIPEDIA REGULATION

 * Or how about the simple fact that this entire article has zero credibility due to the simple fact that their is no recorded evidence. Deleting articles that people add based on their own experiances shows such foolish ignorance and it will not be tolerated. DaBiggman 04:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) You are wrong, the article has credibility on the grounds that it is a phenomena, much the same as UFO's and Bigfoot. The scientific credibility on a stricly natural/physical basis is not a factor. The sociological and psychological significance of it, even as just a set of hoaxes, gives it credibility as an actual phenomena that can be described.


 * 2) Actually what you are describing (adding your personal experiences to encylopedia articles) is against wikipedia regulations. Articles are written based on Non Point of View standards. What you are describing is your own personal opinion completely unsubstantiated from any other source of literature or statistic data. Your additions do not fit with what is included in the description of this phenomena. Please look into Wikipedia guidelines before changing the article again. ScifiterX 10:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

EYE-WITNESS ACCOUNTS / OBSERVATIONS
All of your personal personal experiences are fascinating and you should find an outlet for describing them to others, but that outlet is not necessarily on encyclopedia entries. For the time being, feel free to add your eye witness accounts here. Perhaps, some of the users should take up creative writing and publish a novel about the phenomena. ScifiterX 11:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I have seen Shadow people all my life and before I was born
When I was about to be born, my mother had a feeling that i was going to be in danger, when I was finaly born, that day and after she saw shadow poeple or felt shadow poeple in my room.( she never told me this until recently). As I grew up about the age of 6-7 i remember seeing a shadow man dressed like a monk holding a book open and reading it, I would alwasy see him in my doorway every night some times just the profile of the man and the other times he was at the foot of my bed looking at me with red eyes. As i grew older I simply acepted this and experienced a wide range of paranormal activity, now that I am fully grown is still feel it, and see it, but we have grown together so I have no fear of it.

Its odd but It has never hurt me, on the contrary it has kept me from geting killed several times in accidents. 66.171.207.40 22:28, 15 January 2006

Eyewitness
I've saw one particular Shadow Person a number of times. It was following me. Right before I would engage in a conversation with a person, I'd see a shadow person thing walk very quickly out of the corner of my eye and then right into the person I was about to talk to. I got the impression I was speaking to the shadow person that went into that person and not the person him/herself. This only happened for a few days back in 2000. It was pretty creepy. Friendlyliz 03:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Eyewitness notes multiple forms
I've been debating whether or not to add the multiple forms and their extended descriptions on this page as it is lacking. I noticed the page explains stages one and three of the shadows, but not two or the final stage. In any case, I am amazed that I am not insane seeing as how others have seen them. DaBiggman 21:35, 14 January 2006 (this was copied from his post earlier and added to this section as it seems to suggest that he himself is an eye-witness. If he feels this has been miscontrued he can delete it.)

Minor Edit
I removed the Necronomicon link. First of all, I wouldn’t classify a fictional book as being a phenomenon. Secondly, the link is dead, being that the article falls under Necronomicon not the Necronomicon. This whole article needs a good revision. --TheReverendDoom 20:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Observation
Is it just me, or are the "non-paranormal explanations" all implying that the phenomenon could not be anything else than a product of the viewer's imagination? Seems rather POV-oriented to me. Some more research on the matter might provide some interesting information. Dali 05:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, that pretty much sums it up. However, I have heard some physicist friends of mine going on about M Theory (membrane theory) and how perhaps overlapping universes (membranes) might explain the phenomenon.  If I can find any serious sources on this, I'll put them here and maybe we can fit them into the article.Lisapollison 18:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Please excuse me for saying this, but aren't creatures from another dimension distinctly 'paranormal' in nature?

perfectblue 12:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * True, but it is a non-spiritual paranormal explanation. :) ---J.S (t|c) 16:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually no, they wouldn't be from another dimension but from another Universe, according to advanced theoretical membrane theory. They also might not have to be creatures - could be other people.  Think of our universe as a sheet of bubble wrap and their universe as another sheet of bubble wrap superimposed upon ours (I swear I didn't make this up, it's the analogy some physicist dude used on the Discovery Science Channel on a show about parallel universes).  What if the bubbles bump into eachother and temporarily overlap, occupying the same time-space? Technically they wouldn't be from another dimension - just another universe. I agree that it's wacky but it's an idea being batted around. That fellow also suggested this is how the Big Bang happened - bubble wrap smashing into other sheets of bubble wrap. I'll try and get some actual references on this.  It's an extreme application of String theory.  If M theory and string theory make your brain hurt, you're not alone. ;-)  it's perhaps the only non-paranormal explanation I've heard that doesn't involve time travel.  of course, it's just as far out as time travel, no? I promise to search and see if I can find a good cite in plain english that goes into this in a way that is applicable to the topic.  Wish me luck! Lisapollison 05:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The principle that I heard says that you would need around 11 dimensions in order to rationalize the current understanding of higher physics. Now, I took pure science to a moderate level and am a grad in one of its branches, but I swear that physists are attempting to rationalize their own inability to understand the universe mathemetically by comming up with things such as this.

I'm afraid that I am universal bubble wrap in the draw with my John Keal books and that new age pyramid which was supposed to stop my fruit from going moldy.

perfectblue 07:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Useful?
http://www.visionaryliving.com/articles/shadownoitce.html

This lady apparently does investigations into hunting's and is collecting info on shadow people. She was interviewed on coast-to-coast June 13th, 2006. Her website doesnt seem to have any useful info on it, but perhaps we should check back latter? ---J.S (t|c) 16:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Generally, it's best to avoid sources like this. Usually what they say has already been said by people who are more notable and better qualified, in which case its best to quote form those people as they lend more credibility to the entry.


 * Still, if she's researching the issue she might come up with the names of a few acedemics or books that could prove to be usefull. Generally, first hand experiences from witnesses aren't considered good enough under WP:RS (which can be a real pain sometimes), they need an expert to look at them first and come to a conclusion or extrapolate some statistics which can then be put in an article.


 * perfectblue 17:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Opps, just went to her home page, it looks like she has been busy in other areas, she might prove usefull in the future.

perfectblue 17:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I seen one
It was a early morning i was waking up.in the dream i caught some spherical being which was human in the dream and it jumped out of my bed into the ceiling(not up but to direction of the door).I was quite frightened to move.looked like 20cm diameter octopus like being.

Scientific/Religious Unified Possiblities
My idea of this phenomona, which some call "spiritual", is that "demons" may be the culprits. The only way this can work is if we apply a bit of Supersting Theory. The part of String Theory that I am using is the idea that there are mutiple dimensions (dimensions of space). If it is true, and if the idea that God created everything, then it is quite possible that Angels and Demons/Fallen Angels were created in a different (spacial) dimension. That would explain some of the "supernatural" phenomona caused by these beings. The other idea is that these beings may be made of (or interchange between) Dark Matter/Energy and or some Neutrino based property (not quite sure how Neutrinos could compose them). The reason for the possiblity of Neutrinos was that Neutrinos (or Neutrino based particles) could "phase" through several trillion miles of led without it's velocity decreasing. If they are made of different substances or subdimensions, then that could explain how these "shadow" beings or Demons could do some of the "impossible" things they seem to be able to do. The only way they could interact wityh matter is if they had some sort of mass, or have the ability to interchange between matter and energy, or they could be able to manipulate zero-point energy fields, or something of the sort.

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)


 * I have looked at the photo from the penitentiary. I have a little experience at this and it is my opinion that the photo is of a real human being. It is possible that it is doctored to make the person look more shadowy, but I don't think it was. The lighting conditions are less than ideal. 72.204.20.116 (talk) 12:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion
WP:OR 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)

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. ··coe l acan 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. ··coe l acan 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)

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)

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". -Unsigned
 * Popular culture, as in the opposite to science. EG, fiction and urban myth. -Unsigned


 * 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. -Roger
 * 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)

then what´s alll the junk in the article? why don´t you put that up in the front? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.206.21.146 (talk) 06:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

I think shadow people are BS, I mean they seem to recently come from pop culture and I don't know of any other culture or folklore that acknowledges them as such. and don´t say they are ghosts, cause then they will be ghosts, not shadow people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.206.21.146 (talk) 05:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)


 * I'm very interested in this article and hope to aid in its expansion as I feel this to be a legitimate and understudied phenomena. Accordingly, I have scoured numerous sites devoted to the topic hoping to find some level of credible research to contribute.  Unfortunately, the vast majority of these boil down to eyewitness accounts, often dubious, and certainly impossible to verify.  The cache 22 I'm getting at, which I feel is somewhat at the heart of the contention surrounding the article, is that the phenomena as described by witnesses seems elusive to the sort of grounded research required for verification on this site.  That said, I would be very interested if the person or persons behind the sourced references still appearing at the beginning of the page would elaborate in-article what was discussed so as to expand the page beyond a relative stub.

- User:Louis the Rogue (talk) 10:56, 28 February 2010 (PST)

'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)

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


 * (before 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 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)
 * 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)

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 : 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)

If there is some addition to this idea or if I have made a contradiction within myself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Issac Kliner (talk • contribs) 17:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

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)