Talk:Shadow person/Archive 2

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Deja vu

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

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

Types section added once again by anonymous editor; still absent any cites or any attempt to provide verifiable source for the material. Material therefore once again removed, as I remain of the belief that it has been made up, quite possibly by the anonymous editor. At this stage I consider that it would have been far easier for the anonymous editor to simply provide a cite rather than continuing to attempt to force the inclusion of material that has no apparent merit.
I reiterate my request for the page to be re-protected. - Shrivenzale (talk) 00:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I have requested protection. If the anonymous editor can't supply valid sources or explanations for the edits, then there is no reason to allow those edits to appear. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Semi-protected, please. I still want to be able to edit this page if something new, interesting, and verifiable comes along. - perfectblue (talk) 10:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Semi-protection should be sufficient in this case given this particular user's unwillingness to commit to an identity. That said, as I mentioned above there don't seem to have been many other edits made for quite a while other than the tit-for-tat over the 'Types' section - suggesting that the article isn't otherwise subject to regular improvements and additions. With that in mind I don't think that even full protection would be likely to be a serious hindrance: we can still request changes if something significant comes along. - Shrivenzale (talk) 12:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Protecting doesn't sit right with me, I'm afraid. It feels wrong, kind of like we're censoring Wikipedia by closing it off just because we disagree with somebody else's idea. I know that this particular user has violated policy by ignoring WP:V, WP:RS and WP:OR, but by at the end of the day would we be this keen to protect the entry if they were saying something that we agreed with? - perfectblue (talk) 15:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
"...but by at the end of the day would we be this keen to protect the entry if they were saying something that we agreed with?"
Speaking personally, yes - absolutely I would. If the statements being added were consistently uncited, if they were in violation of these policies, and particularly (a personal bias, perhaps) if they were being added by someone unwilling to stand by an identity. Nevertheless, if you equate protection with censorship and prefer that this not be done, then we will simply continue the revert war until the anonymous user complies with said policies or simply gets bored. - Shrivenzale (talk) 19:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The purpose of protection is to prevent disruptive behavior, and force the disruptive editor into dialogue to resolve the dispute. That happened, more or less, last time this page was protected. The anonymous editor simply resumes edit warrning when the protection period expires. I have requested protection yet again. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
The article is now semi-protected so that only established users may edit it. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
A realistic compromise to the idea of a "types" section may be to give referenced examples of instances regarding reported sightings as including descriptions or possibly examples of notable or repeated corroborating reports. A "types" section would not fulfill this per se. This phenomenon in any case is popular with so-called "fringe studies" circles and there are many accounts of personal experiences available to reference.09:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackdog1986 (talk • contribs)

Hat guy

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

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

"Being very similar in appearance to the Hat Man/Shadow Man described have made appearances in other media:"
But is there any reason to suppose that these characters were influenced by the supposed phenomenon of Shadow People; or is it more likely that the perception of the claimed hat-wearing Shadow Person is more influenced by these characters? Or is there any reason to assume any such link at all?
"Some dude who didn't leave footprints in the snow outside my ex-girlfriend's window in Lafayette, Indiana"
Don't be ridiculous. Surely this article has been maltreated enough? (Gah... Assume Good Faith... Assume Good Faith...) - Shrivenzale (talk) 09:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, many of those are likely inspired by entierly different source. For example the image of a mysterious man in a long coat wearing a hat and lurking in the shadows is a staple of US popular fiction. You see it everywhere from Humphrey Bogart as a private-eye in a dirty alleyway to movies about Al Capone, the G-Men and prohibition. That image is burned deep into the US imagination. -
perfectblue (talk) 10:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
If that's the cause, then how come that I'm from South America and I saw the hat man? I also was a kid when I saw it, and back then I didn't watch movies, nor read books or comic books either. There's no way I had been "inspired" by US fiction to see what I saw. So what's your explanation for me seeing the hat man?

Fixed some POV problems

Part of the article had POV problems that I fixed:

  1. Images in this article are artistic impressions. This MUST be made clear.
  2. The scientific explanations and the paranormal beliefs should not be lumped together. One is based on data and observations of material reality. The other is based on true belief.
  3. The pseudoscientific references to "other dimensions", etc. means that the paranormal belief is directly about material reality. Since this claim is not backed up by science, we have to be clear about that. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Let's keep this about the myth, OK. perfectblue (talk) 09:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

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

No more use of "hypotheses" which is a loaded term for anything "paranormal". No more lumping science with paranormal fantasies. Enough. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

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

If you think that "material reality" is a suitable dividing line, then I suggest that you go to project rational skeptic and try explaining this to them. I'm afraid that they won't treat you kindly. The idea that Shadow People are extra dimensional creatures has about as much scientific merit as the idea that the Bermuda Triangle and Stone Henge are dimensional nexus. You might believe that this is science, but taking a couple of science terms at it doesn't make it anything other than a myth with a couple of fancy words in it. perfectblue (talk) 18:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to make you aware, maybe 50% of the scientific content is actually in danger of being deleted under WP:OR regs on the grounds that the sources do not actually link the science to Shadow People sightings. Unless you can find more substantial sources demonstrating that these explanations have been put forward in relation to Shadow People they may have to be deleted.
As per WP:OR and WP:V the source must relate to the content. For example, and speaking hypothetically, you can't use a source stating that alien abductions are likely cause by people taking crystal meths to explain Shadow People sightings unless said source actually references Shadow People as well. - perfectblue (talk) 18:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
The stuff you removed was indeed quite dubious. Who added it in the first place? ScienceApologist (talk) 18:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
PerfectBlue also removed the section on hypnogogia, which I have just restored. That's a perfectly valid scientific explanation for the phenomenon, and it was adequately sourced. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
True... I missed that one. The infrasound explanation, though, was pretty much hooey. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

More care needed

Could users please be more careful with their reverts and only revert the specific sections that they have an issue with. Non-contentious material such as grammar and Wikiformatting is being caught up in it. perfectblue (talk) 11:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The science sections

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

I know, but there are some users who get upset if you remove them and I don't feel like getting into that argument this minute. - perfectblue (talk) 13:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Anonymous appears to be correct, the explanations appear to be WP:SYNTH. I'll leave them there for now and check to see if there are appropriate cites within the week. Jefffire (talk) 13:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Removal of referenced material

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

Hello, anonymous user. We welcome your sourced contributions to Wikipedia. If you have sources that discuss "shadow people" in relation to Native American religions, we might be able to create a page where this sourced material can be discussed. This particular page is focused on the lunacy that is believed by UFO-conspiricists and paranormal investigators. In the interests of keeping the cultural interests separate from the loony-bin, we could create for you a new page such as Shadow people (Native American religion). ScienceApologist (talk) 00:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
While you might want to elevate Shadow People to scientifically explainable phenomona the blanket truth is that this is anything but. The closest that Shadow people get to science is social science and psychology. People get spooked and they develop myths legends and folklore to try and rationalize it according to their cultural back ground, just as they have done for centuries. When you take away the "lunacy" you're left with Pareidolia and Hypnogogia, which already have their own pages. - perfectblue (talk) 13:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll make some points here as well.

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

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

Anonymous said:
"So I hate to say it but it really is starting to look like some racism going on here....so maybe it is about time I inform my tribal elders and the elders of our cousin tribes and see what they think and if they think the same thing then maybe it's time some letters start getting sent to the wiki president and have him become aware of what appears to be a possible racist attack on my people and their beliefs and teachings."
Everyone else has been so polite, too - they're clearly better people than I am. Personally, I don't think you "hate to say it" at all. In fact I think you're saying it because you think that the mere suggestion of an accusation of racism will make the rest of us back down and allow you free rein to do with this article as you please. Frankly, I think it's a cheap shot. And since I might as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb, I'd say that your attempt to exploit your cultural background to get your own way here raises questions about how much respect you can possibly have for it yourself, if you'd so cheerfully trivialise it.
I acknowledge that my comments here represent a breach of at least 'Assume Good Faith' and 'Be Courteous', if not more. But I'm afraid I just can't sit here and watch such a transparent attempt at manipulation without challenging it. Right - I'll get my coat. I trust other editors with steadier tempers than mine will keep working to protect the standard of content on this article. - Shrivenzale (talk) 22:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I think I've been pretty even tempered myself in spite of the personal attacks from this editor ([1][2][3][4]) as well as the empty threats to escalate complaints to the "owner" or "president" of Wikipedia ([5][6][7]). Some of my earlier comments on this talk page do suggest I lost patience now and then. If he would focus on proposing text, on this talk page, with good sources in accordance with Wikipedia's established standards, then nobody would have a problem with his edits. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Anonymous, feel free to create a Native American page. it's a good idea to keep the two myths apart as the Native American beliefs are distinct enough to pass notability on their own merits. - perfectblue (talk) 13:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Are shadow people sexually active?

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

SA, I'll leave it to you to deal with this one. - perfectblue (talk) 14:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
If you have some reliable sources for the sexual activity of shadow people, I'd love to see it included in the article. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Claims of supernatural rape do exist, and by the balance of probability some will exist in relation to Shadow people, but I for one am sufficiently troubled by their wider nature not to add them in myself. I feel this way on the grounds that their inclusion would represent too much of a fringe viewpoint to be viable (Rape, or even consent based sex, by Shadow People does not form part of the core of the myth), and on the ground that they would be in danger of forking this entry over to the POV that Shadow People stories have credibility. This is without the potential WP:V and WP:RS issues.
While you may believe that Shadow People represent a scientifically quantifiable phenomona, the evidence so far presented lends itself only to the conclusion that Shadow People are a product of the human mind that has found its way into popular culture.
I do not feel that Shadow People and sex is a productive direction in which to expand this entry.
- perfectblue (talk) 21:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
See Popobawa and other versions around the world (ie. common) of sex-related versions of the "Old Hag Syndrome", or sleep paralysis. The victims, at the onset of sleep or under similiar circumstances, find themselves unable to move and are "attacked" by a demon or shadowy figure that in many cases either rapes or sodomizes them. In the case of the Popobawa, it was typically men who reported being raped at night by a creature with batlike wings and a huge penis. Though the story has its cultural differences, "sex-attacks" related to hypnogogia are common cross-culturally. --Nealparr (talk to me) 21:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

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

Hypnogogia is a waking dream. It seems real but it ain't. In any case, Wikipedia isn't a discussion forum, talk pages for for discussing article improvements. Jefffire (talk) 18:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but what's your point about hypnogogia. This entire page is about something that seems real but isn't, and hypnogogia has been put forward as a/the cause so technically it's a valid suggestion that the exist cases where hypnogogia have reported being raped by Shadow People. With this said, I've already said my piece on what I think about adding supernatural rape by Shadow People to this, and that is that the subject isn't covered well enough in either the paranormal or the scientific press to be of note. I'd also be troubled by the idea of adding content regarding hypnogogia and supernatural rape that doesn't "specifically" mention Shadow People. Which cuts out about 99% of sources on the topic.
If you can find some good solid sources then I will work with you to include them, but I don't think that very productive direction to take the entry. - perfectblue (talk) 17:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I think you've misinterprated. My point is that this isn't a discussion about the article so it should come to an end. Jefffire (talk) 18:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

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

We are not talking about troll rape, we are talking about the Shadow People article and some handy, practical information that's missing from it. I agree with Blue that it's hard to find citable sources, but making the article more useful is what we are talking about. I am sorry if my friend's situation is distasteful. —99.163.and the rest (talk) 06:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Your trolling is distasteful - but I guess it takes all sorts. I've fed you enough. - Shrivenzale (talk) 08:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
All kidding aside, this guy has a valid concern. the thing may be a demon such as as succubus which attacks males while a incubus attacks females. Get some Holy water and use it to create a perimeter to keep these things out - IF they're demons.65.173.105.27 (talk) 00:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Just tell your priest /preacher that you have been targeted by what could be demonic forces when you get the holy water. If he ridicules you, write to the Vatican.65.173.105.27 (talk) 00:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Weasel word?

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

Such things are always tricky to word neutrally. Usually something like "stated by x to be y (reference z)" comes out in the end, but it always looks inelegant. By all means take a crack at it though. Jefffire (talk) 11:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I took a crack at it. I also added a bit about Native Americans due to previous talk page comments, but that bit cries out for a citation. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Purported is too loaded a word to use, and said is a little difficult, too. However, since we are clearly attributing then to native American myths and modern folklore, we don't really need either. You won't find a Native American elder sitting round the campfire saying "Shadow People are purported to look like Shadows", so neither should we. We must attribute and quantify. Within Native American beliefs and modern folklore shadow people ARE....
Myths and legend should be dealt with in the same way as popular fiction. Attribute, assign and state. The Star trek page doesn't say "The Enterprise is purported to be a space ship", does it?
As for the Native American myth, yes it could do with some citations. My area of reading mostly concentrates on the modern iteration of the myth amongst primarily suburban white Americans so I can't vouch for WP:RS on the topic, could somebody else get the ball rolling? I only know of one notable Indian source and I don't consider him to be up to measure for the only citation about Native Americans. I still feel that the two topics should be separated out as the modern myth isn't based on the Native American legend. They have occasionally been merged at points, but they modern myth is more closely related to traditions of ghosts and spirits that modern Americans brought with them from Europe. - perfectblue (talk) 17:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious, anyone here actually seen one?

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

The purpose of this talk page is to discuss improvements to the article; this isn't a general discussion board about personal experiences, sorry. Nothing personal, I've made the same mistake myself. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Gotcha :) Starzaz (talk) 23:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Humor aside, people has seen these things, and have reported them on Coast To Coast AM and on Jeff Rense's radio show, related shows. As for the "status", these things are not mythological at all. Someone should straighten out this unintentional (?) oversight.65.173.105.131 (talk) 19:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

years ago at my last job at a refinery on the central coast of California, a lot of us talked about "seeing" these shadow things late at night on the graveyard shift, up on the top head deck. we mostly dismissed it as steam that quickly disapated before we could fully turn to see it, but I remember it freaking most of us out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.25.108.3 (talk) 06:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

In The mysterious benedict society and the perilous journey?

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

Demon classifaction

The part where it states some religions believe that shadow people are demons is completely unsourced, and I have yet to find any citations from religious scholars on the topic. I'm removing that part.Groupsisxty (talk) 16:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, certain branches of Evangelical Christianity believe a lot of things are demons. Anything from the gods of other religions to fairies.24.11.21.161 (talk) 07:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Demon Classification

ANY Christian Scholar will be happy to identify them as demons if consulted.Take your pick. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.62.23.202 (talk) 14:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Native American legend

Hi, just found the page, having done a Google search after reading some creapypasta. OK, so the basic premise is a shadow shape, in the periphery of vision, somewhat less threatening than a ghost or other apparition. Think I've heard of the Native American legend, as a "hide behind", a shadow being that always hid behind something when you fixed you gaze on it. At any rate, all I have is heresay, and if the shadow beings are REAL mythology, and not just a recent internet meme, maybe someone can flesh out the Native American myth with some sources and citations.64.252.141.2 (talk) 01:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I am not even sure that the "Native American" reference is even applicable to this article, at least not in the manner that it is portrayed in the opening paragraph. The current wording seems to imply (at least to the lay reader) that these things are a significant or wide-spread art of Native American spiritual beliefs and/or mytholgy. However, the closest thing that I can find connecting Shadow People to the Native Americans is the Cherokee belief in "Raven Mockers" who are effectively a kind of witch that steals the souls of the sick and dying.
Although I have come across some internet site which give the Raven Mocker as being similar to Shadow Beings, the Wikipedia entry on Raven Mokers doesn't support the connection and when examining outside sources, such as sacredtext.com it is clear to see that the connection between Raven Mokers and Shadow People is unfounded and essentially an addition that has been unduly added onto the Shadow People mythos. Sacredtext.com says of the Raven Mokers:
"They are of either sex and there is no sure way to know one, though they usually look withered and old, because they have added so many lives to their own.
At night, when some one is sick or dying in the settlement, the Raven Mocker goes to the place to take the life. He flies through the air in fiery shape, with arms outstretched like wings, and sparks trailing behind, and a rushing sound like the noise of a strong wind. Every little while as he flies he makes a cry like the cry of a raven when it "dives" in the air--not like the common raven cry--and those hear are afraid, because they know that some man's life will soon go out. When the Raven Mocker comes to the house he finds others of his kind waiting there, and unless there is a doctor on guard who knows bow to drive them away they go inside, all invisible, and frighten and torment the sick man until they kill him. Sometimes to do this they even lift him from the bed and throw him on the floor, but his friends who are with him think he is only struggling for breath."
I can see no significant connection between this myth and the Shadow People. So I would suggest that unless some form of citation can be given to the Native American reference in this article, it should be removed. Luthaneal (talk) 17:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

definition of Shadow people vs shadowy figures

I do worry in this article a little in distinguishing shadow people per se, from any shadowy figures - so be careful in the pop culture section folks :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Primary sources

This article relies far to heavily on primary sources, particularly Coast to Coast AM. It needs substantive coverage in reliable secondary (especially academic anthropological) sources in order to survive. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


Does this merit a Wikipedia page?!

Really folks. Does this topic of "Shadow People" merit a page/article. Is it not the case that this meme was created by the known CIA/NSA disinfo merchant Brad Steiger in the late 1990's. The concept of shadow people didnt exist until he wrote about it. The page just seems to be an advert for conspiracy sites and books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.233.243 (talk) 11:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I've never heard of the author you mentioned, and I would have to say that shadow people as a phenomenon have existed for centuries, known in different cultures by different names.--Metalhead94 (talk) 07:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
The phenomena has been around for quite some time. Much before the 90's. If they are paranormal or not, meh. Who knows. But, yes, and if you feel different, feel free to PROD the article. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 12:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Correction: The phenomenon of ghosts being sighted as moving shadows has been reported for a very long time. The reported phenomenon of "shadow men", as being a distinct category unto itself is sort of a hoax. Let me explain. I am in the process of writing a piece exposing the shadow man phenomenon for what it is, modern folklore. It's beginning can be traced back to a work of fiction, complete with the name shadow man, the image of an all-darkened, shadowy being, and even includes the related "hat man". Basically, the evolution of the shadow man began when someone began to tell people who were unfamiliar with this source that the shadow man was a real supernatural being, rather than a work of fiction. I would suggest this article be scrapped completely or be merged with ghosts. Otherwise we are going to have so many pages dedicated to "chain rattlers", "whisps of smoke", and "sorrorful moans" as being supposedly seperate entities distinct from the ghost label.BoyintheMachine (talk) 06:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Have to disagree. Ghosts and types of ghosts are characterized by "haunting" of various locations and objects, whereas shadow figures have been reported in different locations at different times as well as out in the open. I have to be honest; I have actually seen one of these, and my particular experience was not a fleeting visual phenomenon and the entity/object actually approached the window of the door outside the house I was in. I had never heard of these things before and when I read reports later on I was shocked at the similarity to my experience. The idea that it is a meme can't work in my case as I was entirely unaware of such. The feeling that these are "ghosts" or spirits of some kind is not immediately attached to these experiences by all who report them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by David80 (talk • contribs) 01:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

No offense, but I don't care if you claim you saw one. They are hoaxes. The phenomenon of 'shadowmen' date back only to the 1990s. The origin of the shadowman comes from a specific work of fiction that aired in the late 1980s. It was titled 'Shadowman'. It featured a living shadow, complete with a wide-brimmed hat. It hurt children. Do the math. If you want to claim you have seen a ghost, then you may have room to stand on since ghosts have been reported since the dawn of human history. If you want to claim that it's a 'shadowman' then you are unfortunatle in error.BoyintheMachine (talk) 07:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

No offense, but I don't care if you claim they are hoaxes. That guy saw one. The phenomenom of "shadowmen" date back far beyond the 1990s. The origin of the shadowman is unknown, as it is very old. if you want to claim you know the difference between ghosts and shadow people, when millions of people know about them and hundreds and thousands report them, then you're a dolt. Stop trying to censor us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.135.161.229 (talk) 05:24, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I saw the "hat man" about 15 years before I heard about shadow people on Art Bell. I wrote it off as a hallucination or dream, but it's very strange that so many other people would describe the same entity down to the hat (or horns?). So yes, "shadow people" by that name are a modern myth, but the underlying phenomenon is older, and it apparently has some basis that leads to a similar experience among different people. It's unfortunate that there is so little information about the subject beyond anecdotes and conjecture, but what little there is deserves a Wikipedia page. Maghnus (talk) 11:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Mention of deliriants

I have recently inserted information about how the use of Deliriant drugs often cause dark, shadow-like hallucinations. I noticed it was mentioned before but was deleted. I believe it should be left in because of all the drugs mentioned, deliriants are by far the most likely to cause such hallucinations, references for this shouldn't be hard to find. Also, I accidently hit the enter button w/o leaving an edit summary, but I think can explain things here better anyway.--Metalhead94 (talk) 06:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:RS linking this drug to the phenomenon of "shadow people", not just to "shadow-like hallucinations"? Otherwise this is simply WP:Synthesis. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't say that. While it may not be the most "qualified" source on the matter, there are reports on Erowid that directly link "shadow people" to diphenhydramine expieriences.--Metalhead94 T C 10:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Randomer here - Slash wrote in his book that he saw little shadow people literally dancing on him whilst he was doing coke and heroin at the same time intravenously, slightly different to what's described in the article, but I will definitely testify that in my experiences with speedballing I saw shadowy creatures from time to time. Freebase had a similar effect on me. That's partly why I stopped, but yeah, it is definitely something you can link to drug usage. Four tildes. 86.183.203.117 (talk) 14:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

deliriants give all kinds of hallucinations. horror nightmarelike daylight hallucinations, usually with amnesia afterwards - like a delirium. focussing specificly on them doesnt make sense at all. for example, its much more likely to experience moving things outside of your vision while insomniated. since stimulants tend to prevent people from sleeping and sometimes intense visual effects, thats would fit much better. insomnia is a big factor in seeing "moving shadows" and "shadow people". starts to gets intense after the second or third day. --78.50.194.110 (talk) 08:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
'Slash's book' would be considered a WP:PRIMARY source (and reliable only for his personal experiences). We would need a WP:SECONDARY source, from a reliable (medical or similar) expert, linking this phenomenon to this set of drugs. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Expanding hypnagagia section

Perhaps mentioning a distinction between it and Sleep Paralysis, the vast majority of whose sufferers I've interviewed have seen shadow people (aware this information itself is original research). --NEMT (talk) 23:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

cryptids

Is it possible that they are cryptids?--SaturnElite (talk) 02:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The article cannot speculate, only report only what reliable sources say. The article already describes possible causes of the phenomenon. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Unreliable sources

I would point out that sources like Coast to Coast AM, The Examiner, About.com and some ghost-hunting website are not particularly reliable sources -- and should not be used as sources for a Wikipedia article, per WP:RS (and probably WP:FRINGE). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Counterpoints to proposed Scientific Explanations

The explanations set forth in this article and others attempting to offer a credible scientific rationale to the phenomenon are currently conjecture at best. The amount of credible data is not sufficient enough to constitute a valid statistical sample or to draw any definitive conclusions. There are a lack of specific studies and experiments done expressly for the purpose of investigating shadow people. The explanations offered are perceptions by the researchers whom have endeavored to research other human conditions, but not shadow people. The scientific method requires that a conclusion can only be draw when experiments are able to be duplicated repeatedly, and independently using identical parameters and controls by others. Unfortunately, there has not been enough interest in the subject to have these explanations properly vetted by this process.

The stimulation of a certain region of the brain reported by Swiss researcher Olaf Blanke indicated the feeling of a presence. The subject in Blanke's experiment did see a shadow figure, and described the figure in the shape of a person. These two characteristics are of course the same as those seeing shadow figures outside the laboratory setting. However, many people describe shadow people to have other shapes not necessarily human. These nonhuman shapes have been reported concurrently and independently of a human shaped shadow person experiences. Blanke's experiment does nothing to address other nonhuman shaped shadow figures. Furthermore, the perception of a presence is not unique to shadow people but is common to many experiences and by many people whom have never seen a shadow person or figure.

The biggest difference mentioned by Blanke's subject and those reporting seeing a shadow person was the imitative or mimicking behavior exhibited by the figure in Blanke's experiment. Universally, this is not a trait or behavior witnessed by people seeing a shadow person. The true shadow person does not mimic the behavior of the observer. The shadow person may react to someone's movement or may not and moves independently of the observer or just vanishes through solid objects or into thin air.

Those who report seeing a shadow figure in the dark or low light, also mention an absence of any physical objects that could cast such a shadow. The shadow figures often appears away from walls or surfaces that actual shadows are cast upon. In addition, the quality of the shadow figure is usually much darker than any other surrounding shadows and opaque. The proponents of visual distortion or the alteration of visual perception theory do not offer explanations to address these characteristics.

Often the observers of shadow people are from individuals completely awake and not otherwise pharmacologically influenced. The dread feeling is usually experienced prior to the sighting of the shadow figure or before the figure enters a person's field of vision. Hypnagogia, cannot be construed to address these aspects of the phenomenon. A high number of accounts by those seeing shadow people, experience the feeling of dread and hopelessness. Those experiencing hypnagogia may be without any negative feelings or a much smaller degree of anxiety. but not hopelessness or necessarily dread. Many experiencing hypnagogia see faces, people seeing a shadow person may sometimes perceive eyes but do not see faces. The figures may or may not have limbs, but are devoid of specific facial features in the preponderance of accounts.

Proponents of the psychological rationale state the shadow images are some how dredged up from the unconscious (or subconscious). There are normally thousands of images perceived by person daily, that make their way into the unconscious mind. Virtually, no one reports seeing "door" people or floating TV screens, yet these are examples of objects perceived daily with great frequency. Advocates of a psychological etiology to the shadow person phenomenon never seem to raise the question "why shadows and not something else?". This would of course undermine their postulations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.203.192 (talk) 08:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Popular Culture

I'd like to propose a section on Shadow people in popular culture. I can think of many examples (The Shadow sticking out in my mind as the most obvious). Does anyone else agree? Gregorius the Brown (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC).

I would have concerns about such a section -- they tend to become WP:INDISCRIMINATE dumping grounds for random, often not-particularly-notable, appearances. See {{popular culture}} which suggests "remov[ing] trivial references" and "reorganiz[ing] this content to explain the subject's impact on popular culture rather than simply listing appearances". I would therefore suggest that, unless third party sources can be found that discuss this "impact", that such a section should not be created. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
This article once had a section on popular culture. See this version for example. It was removed due to the problems Hrafn alluded to. It seemed like everybody who had a favorite comic book, non-notable novel, TV show, video game, or whatever wanted to add trivial cruft to that section. Thankfully it's gone. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

http://shadowpeople.org/ is a dead link

Fishgoat (talk) 14:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Nope. Seems to be working. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

My shadow people link

Hey Hrafn (talk) I thought the link I added was relevant to shadow people, what makes it any different to the (external) links that were above/below it? I'm not trying to be funny, I was simply trying to make some minor contributions before trying to tackle a page of my own. Neither am I affiliated in any way to the website I linked to, it seemed relevant as it was a ghost hunting blog that had info on shadow people, exactly like one of the links below it. Thanks anyway Reganpip :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reganpip (talk • contribs) 11:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Reganpip: please read the appropriate guideline, WP:ELNO which forbids external links to "Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority."
Yes that's fair enough, but who is a recognized authority on such subjects as this? I see there is a link to about.coms paranormal page (great site), what makes that page anymore authoritative then any other? I could understand if the subject at hand was something that had been scientifically explained but such topics as 'shadow people', what makes one persons ideas any different to anyone elses? after all until an explanation is found their are only theories right?

Reganpip (talk —Preceding undated comment added 16:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC).

AfD or Merge

The latest changes [8] are typical; this article continues to be nothing but a magnet for unreferenced opinions and trivia. I think it should be taken to AfD. It may have some traction among ghost enthusiasts, conspiracy blogs, Art Bell fans, etc. but serious and independent sources meeting WP:RS that cover the concept in any significant way are few to none. As far as I can see, there's not even an academic that mentions it in passing as folklore. It may deserve 3 lines in a parent article such as ghost but not its own article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the proposition that this topic is notable has been largely synonymous with the proposition that late night talk radio is a reliable source. If the latter is rejected (as policy would seem to indicate it should be) then most of the content on this topic evaporates, and we're left with little more than the 'Scientific explanations' section (which I don't think would find an easy merge target). I think that the reason it isn't mentioned by any academic is that it's an eclectic topic that doesn't fit into any recognised myth system or similar. I don't even think we've got enough information on the topic to equate it to ghost (Bogeyman might be a better, more explicitly "amorphous", topic). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shadow people - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The AfD has completed its run and it was decided that the article would be kept. This article is sorely lacking in its ability to relate "what it is" properly, though there are many sources out there that could be used to build that information into it. Hopefully it can be agreed upon as to what those sources can be, since there has been a lot of disagreement about that before.

Here is the very skin and bones as I understand it: Within the Sleep Paralysis article is a folklore section, and the cultural descriptions from around the world seem to have the particular phenomena in common of visitations or hallucinations. Only recently has the term "shadow people" been applied toward these figures or "sensed presences" and the term seems to have become embraced by many considered to be authorities on the subject. So this is a hurdle here because older articles which describe these figures do not specifically refer to them as shadow people, so one of the article's first jobs will be to tie these things together. Once that is accomplished then the older folklore can be referenced.

Sleep paralysis and shadow people are not necessarily hand-in-hand although often they are. Sleep paralysis itself is not paranormal or even necessarily something which would always give rise to these visitations/hallucinations. Likewise shadow people are not only observed by people experiencing sleep paralysis. So this is a distinct type of thing, similar to out-of-body experiences or people who "see the light" accompanying near-death experiences, it is something which those who do not believe in anything paranormal would consider to be a mental creation. The fascinating element between these three things (OOBs, NDEs and shadow people) is how consistent so many of the experiences are. So then is it a product of the imagination or is it something "real"? Hopefully the article can describe the phenomena neutrally so as not to offend any reader who believes one way or the other. Once that is accomplished, then it can describe the details of these types of experiences.

On the topic of shadow people there are several people who could reasonably be regarded as experts, which I detailed in my AfD contribution. And if sleep paralysis is considered part of the story, there are also experts on that subject as well. There are professors from universities (Harvard, Waterloo, perhaps others) who speak on the subject. It shouldn't be difficult to "vet" a professor, but the experts who speak to the paranormal aspect may be more difficult to find acceptance as WP sources. Since WP:IRS states that someone who is regarded as an authority on a subject can be sourced, it will just be a matter of establishing that their credentials will find acceptance here. In the AfD I suggest Heidi Hollis as one such person and list many of her credentials there, and she is called upon by radio, TV, magazines, expos, etc. for her expertise in paranormal matters, often with relation to this particular subject (and it seems she may be the one who originated the actual term "shadow people" in her book about the phenomenon a few years ago). I also suggested a few other such people who could likewise be considered experts as book authors, speakers, etc. and I list some seven different books about this subject as well.

Plus there are two feature films in development about this subject, one being produced by Infinity Media which was behind the Best Picture Oscar nominee "Capote" as well as other popular films. And the About.com article has been mentioned a number of times and questioned as to its proper use as a source. About.com is run by the New York Times Company, so it seems it should be an acceptable journalistic source.

Since that article is mainly an interview with one of the authors who discuss this as a paranormal phenomeneon, this may be partly where there is doubt. Some don't like the "fringe" element to all of this. If you Google "shadow people" you will find endless references to it but it may be difficult to find acceptance of many of these as sources if someone doesn't like the "paranormal" aspect as an encyclopedic subject. That is why I suggest establishing who is a proper expert. Once that is done, wherever they speak of this subject, be it in their own book, a magazine article, a Coast-to-Coast AM radio show, a Tonight Show interview or even their own website, then unless there is reasonable cause to dispute that it is their words, it should be acceptable. I say this because Coast-to-Coast, even though it's a popular, national radio talk show, is considered a questionable source. Common sense should dictate that with broadcast media, any show is not necessarily a source, but the person talking could certainly be. If the president went on that show and spoke about something, that would be an example. The source is sometimes the person no matter where they are heard.

The article needs to reflect what its topic is. Right now it does not. There are people who are considered authorities on this subject and what they have to say must be a part of this article's sources. If national TV shows, radio shows, publications, speaking venues etc. have sought someone out to speak as an expert -- they are an authority, no matter how much someone would like to regard them as "fringe." May we then please decide who of these people are acceptable sources and allow this article to be properly built? LaLaFoote (talk) 07:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:Identifying reliable sources & WP:FRINGE. Your suggestions are not in accordance with Wikipedia policy. "The article needs to reflect" published reliable sources -- not self-appointed fringe 'experts'. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

"Artists impression" fails WP:V

Unfortunately the image "Shadowman-3.jpg" appears to be original research on the part of an anonymous Wikipedia editor. Originating from no reliable source and based on nothing but the artists fanciful imagination - it's not verifiably an accurate "impression" of anything. - LuckyLouie (talk) 11:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I would have to agree. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Origin

I'm pretty certain the term 'shadow people' originated on the Art Bell show in the late 90s. My only source for this is, of course, early episodes of the show itself, but it was a gradual thing that evolved over the course of many shows after Art Bell popularized it. -- Ϫ 02:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Research and Ideas

I have found it most difficult to even attempt research on this subject when there aren't truly any reliable resources. The scientific evidence I think is useful in explaining away why people may or may not see these beings called shadow people but even then it is slightly difficult to provide evidence for things like this when most scientific evidence has already been explained away for the page. All I’m saying is that this topic is very difficult to add to and I read in the earlier comments that the idea of a popular culture section was already done and then taken down. Would it really be that insensible to not have one? There are things all over the media about the ideas of shadow people and perhaps as a suggestion, if there was such a section concerning shadow people in pop culture, the research could be more about the trends or fascination that the culture has with this phenomena instead of just imploring certain comics or movies based on these beings. It seems that the idea of shadow people has grown in interest over the years, at least in the media, and perhaps the proposal of a ‘pop culture’ section doesn’t seem so bad.

But if this doesn’t happen, perhaps there is more to the psychology of how these shadow people are ‘seen’ or perceived to be seen by the human mind. I noticed that there are in fact multiple suggestions in the scientific evidence part to explain away the existence of shadow people but could a prognosis concerning actual mental disorders fit in here as well? I noticed schizophrenia wasn’t mentioned until recently because that disorder seems to be fit in describing the potential of why some people may witness these shadows. Naturally the majority of people are not afflicted by this but perhaps it should still be mentioned in the page because it does provide some reasons that seem fit when concerning delusions and hallucinations of things that are purported to be there.

Maybe even to add to the beginning of the article, one could find some resources and cite what these creature/beings/shadows look like and that are consistent throughout varying cases. I’ve read numerous reports of what a shadow person is to look like but because of this I can see why it would be difficult to add any physical descriptions defining what a shadow person appears to come across as but even just generalizing a physical appearance in an un-biased way could be done. This is a suggestion that might provide what a curious person is looking for on this page, a simple description of their purported looks by believers.

I’m just trying to throw some ideas out there because this page does need some work but in a practical sense, there just aren’t many resources to cite to the phenomena of shadow people. I hope any of my propositions and ideas helped. Free Bird 515 (talk) 00:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)Free Bird 515

It really is a problem article, as you may have gathered from the AfD discussion [9]. As far as I know, the subject was originally popularized by Art Bell/George Noory on Coast to Coast AM and a couple of his guests who apparently wrote books promoting the idea. But other than trivial mentions of the phrase, this subject has simply not been given the required degree of in-depth attention by multiple reliable sources, e.g. mainstream press, academics, scientists, folklorists, sociologists, etc. Not even the entertainment press has seen fit to comment on Coast to Coast's treatment of it. This leaves us with a bunch of kooky primary sources that don't pass WP:RS, and no secondary coverage of what they say that we can use to build an article from. A number of well-meaning editors have added the "scientific explanation" material, but it is generally seen as WP:OR since it's a synthesis of general material that doesn't specifically reference "shadow people". Since equally non-notable multiple interpretations of the term exist, one approach might be a disambiguation-style article, something like:
Shadow people may refer to:
  • Supernatural shadow-like humanoid figures that, according to believers, are seen mostly in peripheral vision, sometimes known in modern folklore and paranormal popular culture as dark entities with malevolent intentions. [10][11]
  • The destitute and homeless of South Africa [12].
  • Mythical beings of Nez Perce folklore [13] and Eskimo legend [14]
  • The illusory sensation of another person behind you. [15]
  • A type of hallucination reported by seizure patients [16]
I might add that the ScienceNow "feeling of someone behind you" and Sciencedirect "seizure patients" use of the term have nothing to do with the "Coast To Coast" use of the term, although it's understandable that editors have conflated them. Given the sources, it may be possible to develop at least a paragraph or two on each for such a 'disambig' style article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Out of that list, I'd probably drop the reference to the South African homeless - if that was covered it would be through a hatnote to something like Homelessness in South Africa. The others relate to a continuum, albeit a somewhat varied one. None of those could stand as an article on there own, except perhaps the folklore. but maybe could be grouped together. - Bilby (talk) 15:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

More Ideas

I have been struggling with this article too. I feel that there are things to contribute but the sources are very unreliable. But I was thinking that maybe it would be possible to talk about how to cure someone who sees shadow people due to a disorder. For instance, talk about someone who has schizophrenia and sees shadow people, the cure would be to give this person medication to stop seeing the hallucinations. But I am not sure if this would help or be of any use in the "shadow people" article.

Like I said, this article could use work, but I am struggling with what to add that would be reliable and help others understand what a shadow person is. I feel like the page covers most of what people actually know about what a shadow person is, and that if there was really any other important info then it would have already been covered on the page.

So, I was wondering what other things one could add to the page? The article already has definitions and explanations as to why people see shadow people. If the article already has all that, what could someone contribute that would help and be valid information? I think others above have good points like the origin and how people can see it in pop culture, but how would one find reliable sources for these topics? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AshleyMoe (talk • contribs) 15:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, "shadow people" is an ambiguous term with multiple applications. It's a mistake to try to attach totally unrelated clinical discussions by physicians and psychologists with the Coast To Coast supernatural/ghost/belief. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Regarding what I wrote above, I should add that sources should be clearly unambiguous and should not require any guessing or interpretation by an editor as to what they refer to. And if the subject of the article is to be the "Coast to Coast shadow people" that are claimed to wear hats, be malevolent, and be seen by ordinary people - then physicians writing about schizophrenic or mentally disordered people cannot not be grafted onto that concept. One possible solution: it's a stretch, but WP:PARITY might possibly apply here. Here's a decent overview by Peter Rogerson, originally posted on the Magonia Review of Books blog, July 2009 [17]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Types section gone!!!

Thank God! I made a complaint about that section a couple of years ago and got rebuffed by perfectblue... we got in this whole scientific debate which is no longer posted on this page, but finally the article is no longer filled with made up junk!!! My faith in Wikipedia has been restored! Now please, don't let articles like these get corrupted by fanatics anymore. They completely destroy this site's integrity.

Reference to Hypnogogic Hallucinations

I wasn't quite sure where or how to put this in the article, but I really think there should be a reference to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypnagogia (which in turn links here).

Seeing "shadow people" is fairly common during hypnogogic and hypnopompic hallucinations, especially for individuals with narcolepsy. If someone sees a "shadow person" and comes to this page it would be very beneficial to learn about the hypnogogic state.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.31.103.30 (talk) 07:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Paranormal - More like Hallucinations...

Does this really count as paranormal? To me it seems as though the article is mainly referring to hallucinations (due to the Point Of View seeming more like a psychologist's than a anthropological or a mythos point of view) not really the "paranormal" or "mythological" background. Perhaps the "paranormal" category should be removed.

Just my thoughts... --Treknerd (talk) 00:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Please STOP perpetutating this "schizophrenia" BS

schizophrenia is one OPINION and it is very often, a wrong one. the stigma and brainwash of the masses of believing more in mental illness and not at all in genuine paranormal, supernatural reality has got to stop.

nobody likes to feel terror or horror, but that's LIFE. it isn't a mental illness, it isn't a mental disorder, it isn't a mental disease. we live in a VERY certain "uncertain" world. there ARE beings which ARE physical and ARE non-human. STOP perpetuating BS lies, like "schizophrenia". believing in "schizophrenia" cannot and will not ever cover up the truth and the truth is that human is NOT the only form of beings! scary ... as that is, DEAL WITH IT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.3.77.47 (talk) 05:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Schizophrenia is explicitly discussed in connection to seeing shadow people in the cited, reliable, source. Given the paucity of reliably-sourced material on this topic, it is difficult to justify removal of what little we have. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Is this article still here??? Schizophrenia might be one reason why we "Keep" an article for which there's a total absence of independent reliably sourced material. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
The cited, reliable source is talking about "the eerie feeling that someone's following you" and "a motionless and speechless shadow that imitated [a patient's] body posture and actions" - it uses the term "shadow person" to describe the out-of-body "shadowing" sensation, and does not refer to the "supernatural shadow-like humanoid figures [with] malevolent intentions" that are the subject of this article.
The only paranormal phenomenon mentioned in the article is alien abduction, whose proponents it describes as having "illusions of being followed, or controlled by a stranger". --McGeddon (talk) 19:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Synthesis

I've just cut the in-depth scientific analysis as being WP:SYNTHESIS - so far as I could see, none of the sources directly referred to the Shadow People phenomenon - the Science magazine article uses the term "shadow person", but this is just a coincidence, and the term is used to describe the sensation of a body double, rather than a malevolent monster. These are just interesting articles which discuss various forms of hallucination and misperceived presence, and it's synthesis to go on to say "so these probably explain this particular cryptid".

Really all we can need to say here is that shadow people may just be a form of apparitional experience (which is what all of these sources are really talking about), although we would ideally have a source for drawing that connection. Given that we only seem to have a single source that names the apparitions as a type of cryptid at all, though, maybe there isn't really that much to say here. --McGeddon (talk) 19:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

A stand alone article needs more than one source. MERGE to apparitional experience? Or perhaps ethereal being is a better Merge target, since it presently serves as a bucket for all manner of supposed 'illusory beings'. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I just dropped with my parachute here, but anyway, here is my logic: I am not against this article, in fact it should be to exist because it is a popular theme and therefore really notable. However, someone needs first write the article with real sources. If this is not gonna happen, well then good bye Mr. Stub. It is time to go away. Currently I can’t see enough material here to any kind of merge with any article at all. We have only one tiny paragraph with one dubious reference and other with nothing at all. Therefore I think this stub should be redirected and not merged (ever). Now if unluckily merged, "Apparitional experience", seems to me more pertinent because "shadow people" is a particular case of apparitional experiences. Otherwise, if redirected it, better if to an article more generic. Yet, if someone really wants to write this article, then please, please do it, but do it reasonable (at your home) and once done redirects the name back again toward it. Urbanarcher (talk) 01:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
I've found a 2010 text that also mentions them in some detail, and have worked this into the article, although it seems that a lot of this is just coming from a single "paranormal expert" who's cropped up on Art Bell's show a few times. --McGeddon (talk) 11:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Expand it, this is possible?

Finally that box of extreme bad taste that tagged the article was removed - Wikipedia couldn’t be more unobtrusive and elegant about issues? As a reader I don`t see any benefit coming from things like that. That is a Wikipedia’s internal problem to its editors fix it- Anyway, moving on I am glad to see someone, like the editor McGeddon, who is constructively working in the article and not only criticizing (as most here, including myself). I admit nevertheless that efforts were made here, but I hate to say that in these last contributions lack the reference`s “numbers of pages”, and they look like very superficial. By now still seems to me more appropriate a redirection once this article it is stalling since 2006. I think that readers like me myself would like to read something substantial. Urbanarcher (talk) 14:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I support the expansion of the article using reliable sources, but I don't think The Weiser Field Guide to Cryptozoology meets our standards for WP:RS as an independent source. It's altogether credulous, full of personal opinions, and not objective by any means. For example, the author's chapter on Rod (optics) pushes the POV that these things are cryptids, mysterious paranormal creatures, etc. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
I was just taking it as a published source that had quoted Hollis (rather than quoting her Art Bell appearances directly), and was deliberately avoiding its sappy additions to the lore (that you should burn sage to dispel fear), but fair enough.
Looking back through previous versions of the article, it used to mention a few ghost-hunter type documentaries that had covered the "shadow person" phenomenon, although it's not clear whether these are all referring to the same phenomenon, or just latching onto "shadow person" as a spooky way to describe an apparent ghost image that's black instead of white. --McGeddon (talk) 16:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment on comments: "the author’s chapter on Rod pushes his POV…" About that, every person owns his pov, this doesn’t disqualify an author but it surely unbalances an article. An article ideally shouldn’t be based on one source only, it should be pondered over all-inclusive outlooks. However I suppose that usually this equilibrium is achieved as time comes along while various editors add different sources. Yet, I remember all that by now we have a 6 years sketch, which by the way is not about formal science, so none should expect that, though in time to come can well bring a section on that. Fine, sticking with this digression: any article has room for edits by both believers and skeptics. What it is unacceptable it is the censure of one or another. Something here remotely useful to you pro guys? As I said I am just a skydiver, and leaving. Urbanarcher (talk) 19:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Since the existence of shadow beings, ghosts, spectres, etc. is purely a fringe view not supported by academia, the article can't treat their existence factually based on the opinions of those who believe in them. However we do want to accurately report what proponents of the view that shadow people exist say about the subject, e.g. "According to author Jason Ofutt, shadow people are often fleeting figures seen in peripheral vision..." etc. That's why we require an objective independent 3rd party source such as an academic folklorist, sociologist, or newspaper that is one step removed from the belief. Also published reports in reliable sources help validate that the concept has received some attention from the mainstream and is notable enough for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Along those lines, something like this might fill the bill. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Honey I am part of the Academia, and not only this, I am a physicist. I have appreciated your researched link (good job) and agree with almost everything you above said, but if you can accept an advice from me, don’t address on behalf of the Academia and don’t say ever you don’t believe that because an elite also doesn’t. This it is something awful to say because this kind of assertion does not represent any evidence, this actually discloses certain fearfulness. For gaining respect, we always must in any point respect the contrary opinions of others (hard task, I know), no impose pov, and be open. I tell you that scientifically I don’t believe in ghosts. However I can’t say that I have proofs that unorthodox stuffs don’t exist either. Some from the Academia certainly will say that absence of proofs it is a proof, while others don’t. We are here to learn, that is all. Urbanarcher (talk) 16:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Any relation to...?

Anyone bothering to correlate and cross-reference across cultures? Such as: Ancient Greek "Daimon", ancient Roman "Daemon" (Classical Mythology), or "Genius" (Mythology), Norse "svartálfar/Black Elf", ancient Greek "Muses", Japanese "Kami", or Hesiod's inspiration to write "Works and Days"? Or are you just honoring your ancestors and flinging bovine effuvium at each other out of sheer boredom at target smaller then you (see: "repression", and "antagonism")? public access computer, 5C's, Claremont, CA, USA 134.173.129.128 (talk) 07:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

This is just an article about a ghost someone talked about on a radio show, it's not up to Wikipedia to draw fresh parallels to Greek and Norse myths. We've attempted to find whether a published researcher has correlated or cross-referenced anything, without much success, but we shouldn't step in with our own theories and observations if they haven't. --McGeddon (talk) 18:43, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
I read on a japanese site about hauntings that seeing shadows indicates the boundaries between the living and the dead are way too thin or shattered already. Also, if you see those shadows, you must be very careful: it can be a nice entity, of course... But it can be an evil one, trying to possess someone or play tricks. --Anonymous 0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.126.142.189 (talk) 05:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

If Shadow People are just hallucinations or optical illusions...

Then how come that so many people saw the Hat Man? It seems weird to me that the hallucinations of so many different and unrelated people would take the same specific form. - 190.138.7.134 (talk) 02:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Man in the Moon - LuckyLouie (talk) 11:17, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
What does that have to do with anything? - 190.225.45.230 (talk) 14:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Our brains are all built similarly, and one part of that includes pattern recognition. A species that has more false-positives (and thanks to that paranoia, more true-positives) in their pattern recognition is more likely to eat and less likely to be eaten than by a species that has fewer positive results (true or false), so humanity's pattern recognition is unnecessarily good. Everyone has seen someone wear a hat at some point in their lives, so for someone to decide that they saw a man in a hat when they hallucinate really means nothing. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
The point is that so many people saw a similar figure, that of one resembling a man wearing a hat. It seems too much of a coincidence to me. If they were just optical illusions or hallucinations, you would expect them to be more diverse rather than having similar shapes. - 200.117.22.23 (talk) 13:54, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
And psychology, neuroscience, and Occam's razor would say that that's assuming too many invented elements. Multiple people picking out the same false-positive pattern really only means that they have similarly built brains, and also that they might have read about the hatman shadow person myth before or that they come from a culture that tends to put a hat on anyone they want to be mysterious (which would be at least any culture with a TV). See Jungian archetypes and Cognitive science of religion for information on how the same principles are applied to religion. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Optical illusions

The optical illusions reference does not explicitly state that the shadow people claim/phenomenon has been shown to be an optical illusion. The reference does define illusions as part of signs and symptoms in psychiatric assessments, however, the only mention of a shadow is an example of someone in a heightened emotion state walking alone in a dark night and mistaking a shadow for an attacker. Therefore, this reference does not support the statement that shadow people can be explained as an optical illusion. --Ljfeliu (talk) 20:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Are you seriously contesting that there are adequate references to support the idea that seeing "shadow" people/figures can be explained as the result of an optical illusion? - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes. What is wrong with that? First of all, if it's in a Wikipedia article, it needs to be referenced, one of the pillars, as I'm sure you are well aware of. Second, I am honestly interested in seeing any studies that may show or conclude that "shadow people" can be explained away as an optical illusion. The statement was there before I arrived at the article. It needs a reference. Your reference does not support the statement but instead qualifies as synthesis. May I also remind you that no one owns any Wikipedia article. I do appreciate the time you've taken to reference some of the statements in the article. However, if the source does not support the statement being made, it will be challenged.--Ljfeliu (talk) 23:47, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
So although the source discusses pareidolia, illusion, etc. using the example of seeing a shadow as an attacker, you contend that because it does not explicitly use the phrase "shadow people" it does not apply? I'm not sure I understand your personal definition of what you feel a "shadow person" is and isn't. Are you saying because these "shadow people" are somehow "supernatural" that they cannot be common illusions such as the cited psychiatric text refers to? - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I've changed 'optical illusions' to 'illusions', I think that may help you. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
It's definitely a leap of synthesis to talk about "reports of apparitional experiences such as shadow people" if we don't actually have a single source that describes them as being "apparations". If every crackpot source says in a deadpan voice that they're definitely real, physical beings, and no reliable source has ever bothered to write about them seriously to say otherwise, it's not up to Wikipedia to step in and explain that they're really just "apparitions" (rather than hoaxes or false memories or whatever). --McGeddon (talk) 14:05, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, if "no reliable source has ever bothered to write about them seriously" and we only have "crackpot" sources - then we should not have a separate article here, just a paragraph at Art Bell or something. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm ok with the change to illusions, thanks. Ljfeliu (talk) 02:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Same as sleep paralysis hallucinations?

These shadowy apparitions sound a lot like the "figure in the room" that some who get sleep paralysis see - a shadowy, menacing figure in the room. Are these two "phenomena" considered connected or even the same? Should it be mentioned?69.152.253.203 (talk) 03:58, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

No. I saw one of these. It was about 3:00 in the afternoon. I was wide awake. It wasn't on a wall and it wasn't in my peripheral vision either. It was positioned directly in front of me and in the center of the room. I stopped, stood in the doorway, frozen and perplexed for an instant, then the dogs went nuts, started growling and I spun on my heels, went out the front door and made my good-byes. I've never been back. I really don't know what it was, only that I know I saw something dark and humanoid. It had mass, yet not solid. It didn't appear to be an indoor cloud or a vapor/steam puff. It looked tangible, yet somewhat translucent and grainy. A dark shadow person complete with head and extremities. I'm a pretty logical person, not given to superstition and I'd never even heard of these before, only discovered I wasn't alone in thinking I'd seen one afterward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.51.122.68 (talk) 08:50, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Some people like to classify shadow people as psychological due to the fact that many see them during sleep paralysis. While I have certainly had my share of sleep paralysis and seen these shadow beings practically suck "my soul" as I felt like I was imploding, I believe this was just part of my dream that had not ended as many of these cases are. I've moved many times since that happened frequently 15 years ago and the sleep paralysis seemed to have stopped. I'd like to say that I had those because I was very stressed at the time, however these shadow people that show up during sleep paralysis look very different than the ones that lurk in the forest. I have yet to confirm that they are related but many people claim that they are. It seems that most cases on Coast-to-Coast AM seem to involve sleep paralysis but I think those events are mostly psychological and less metaphysical. That's only my opinion though.

Weiser Field Guide to Cryptozoology

The Weiser Field Guide to Cryptozoology Werewolves, Dragons, Skyfish, Lizard Men, and Other Fascinating Creatures isn't a reliable source of fact, and in any case shouldn't be used without in text attribution. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Shadow_person/Archive_2"