Talk:Shadow person

Commendable article

The usual 'everything is a fake/hoax/hallucination because I can't explain it' junk is at a minimum here. Very nice. Zareste 11:48, 27 December 2005

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Drug induced hallucinations

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 [1] [2]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Historical references?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)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

EYE-WITNESS ACCOUNTS OF SHADOW PEOPLE PHENOMENA

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.)