Talk:Shadow person/Archive 1

message: ===Limited Spectrum===
I saw these things a lot as a kid - cloudy yet distinct figures that are visible when your night-vision kicks in - but vision becomes worse with age and we tend to see less of the spectrum than kids do.  The cornea becomes clouded and the lens warps with time - you'd notice the difference if you looked through the eyes you had 10 years ago.  I've had two major eye surgeries - one on each eye - and I saw fewer of these shadow things as my vision deteriorated.  If the shadow things could be passed off as a visual error, I'd see them all over the place right now.
But that's circumstantial.  The fact is: We don't see much of the light around us -  - there are surfaces that reflect/absorb little or none of the photons in our spectrum, meaning we see directly through things.  Opacity varies according to your visible spectrum.  For example, if our eyes could only see the ultraviolet spectrum, glass would be opaque and we'd see forms of gas in the air that were invisible before.  If we only saw the infrared spectrum, more objects would look transparent, because the further down the spectrum you go, the more transparent things get, and vice-versa.  So, we know there are things we can barely see, and it's possible that some of these things are organisms.
Then there's the retina perceiving the light.  The center of our eyesight mostly uses cone cells, which perceive colors, while the perimeter of our eyesight has more rod cells, which perceive black, white and motion - it's better at catching certain subtleties and seeing things you have trouble spotting up-front.  Retinas also change from person to person - some see more, some see less, and some just see different areas of the spectrum.  Some people have mutations or alterations that drastically change what they see.  My left eye, for example, had the lens removed in an operation, and now it can view the lower ultraviolet spectrum uninhibited.  Other people who eat more greens can see more of the IR spectrum, and many animals have the tapetum lucidum along their retinas, giving a great boost in IR sensitivity.
So, depending age, condition and genetics, a person can spot certain objects and creatures better than others will, and different areas of the eye will also make a difference. These things make sense when you look for the facts instead of calling every strange phenomenon a paranormal hallucination hoax and whatnot.  I can't say what these things are made of that gives them these intriguing properties but I can touch on why they're hard to see. --Zareste 03:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, saying that someone is a nihilist and has marred an article can kind of be taken as a personal attack. Let's not be doing that. I would like to see specifically (in context) what changes were made and why you judge them to be innapropriate. ScifiterX 02:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And you have this headed under theory, but I don't see a clear hypothesis stated. It seems like your idea is that many children may have ability to see into the portion of the spectrum of light that is not visible to adults, as the eyes of adults have degraded. And I'm assuming that you are suggesting that if this phenomena is more visible (or only visible) in the infra-red or ultra-violet portion of the spectrum, it could explain why most people don't see the phenomena or why the apearance of the phenomena is typically so fleeting. ScifiterX 03:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The theory was badly written the first time - I didn't revise it for comprehensibility.  It's fixed now and should make more sense.--Zareste 03:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

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

text: Not to bash your theory or anything, but wouldn't people have to be sleep-deprived to get sleep-deprivation hallucinations?  That can explain maybe 20% of the sightings but leaves the rest to interpretation. 24.8.155.203 21:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please sign your posts. And to answer your question: No, a person on narcotics does not have to be sleep deprived to hallucinate. Many narcotics cause hallucinations without sleep deprivation. ScifiterX 02:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's neat but now the person has to be on drugs to suit your ideas.  That explains another 5%. 24.8.155.203 20:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

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

message: I saw these things a lot as a kid - cloudy yet distinct figures that are visible when your night-vision kicks in - but vision becomes worse with age and we tend to see less of the spectrum than kids do.  The cornea becomes clouded and the lens warps with time - you'd notice the difference if you looked through the eyes you had 10 years ago.  I've had two major eye surgeries - one on each eye - and I saw fewer of these shadow things as my vision deteriorated.  If the shadow things could be passed off as a visual error, I'd see them all over the place right now.
But that's circumstantial.  The fact is: We don't see much of the light around us -  - there are surfaces that reflect/absorb little or none of the photons in our spectrum, meaning we see directly through things.  Opacity varies according to your visible spectrum.  For example, if our eyes could only see the ultraviolet spectrum, glass would be opaque and we'd see forms of gas in the air that were invisible before.  If we only saw the infrared spectrum, more objects would look transparent, because the further down the spectrum you go, the more transparent things get, and vice-versa.  So, we know there are things we can barely see, and it's possible that some of these things are organisms.
Then there's the retina perceiving the light.  The center of our eyesight mostly uses cone cells, which perceive colors, while the perimeter of our eyesight has more rod cells, which perceive black, white and motion - it's better at catching certain subtleties and seeing things you have trouble spotting up-front.  Retinas also change from person to person - some see more, some see less, and some just see different areas of the spectrum.  Some people have mutations or alterations that drastically change what they see.  My left eye, for example, had the lens removed in an operation, and now it can view the lower ultraviolet spectrum uninhibited.  Other people who eat more greens can see more of the IR spectrum, and many animals have the tapetum lucidum along their retinas, giving a great boost in IR sensitivity.
So, depending age, condition and genetics, a person can spot certain objects and creatures better than others will, and different areas of the eye will also make a difference. These things make sense when you look for the facts instead of calling every strange phenomenon a paranormal hallucination hoax and whatnot.  I can't say what these things are made of that gives them these intriguing properties but I can touch on why they're hard to see. --Zareste 03:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, saying that someone is a nihilist and has marred an article can kind of be taken as a personal attack. Let's not be doing that. I would like to see specifically (in context) what changes were made and why you judge them to be innapropriate. ScifiterX 02:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And you have this headed under theory, but I don't see a clear hypothesis stated. It seems like your idea is that many children may have ability to see into the portion of the spectrum of light that is not visible to adults, as the eyes of adults have degraded. And I'm assuming that you are suggesting that if this phenomena is more visible (or only visible) in the infra-red or ultra-violet portion of the spectrum, it could explain why most people don't see the phenomena or why the apearance of the phenomena is typically so fleeting. ScifiterX 03:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The theory was badly written the first time - I didn't revise it for comprehensibility.  It's fixed now and should make more sense.--Zareste 03:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: It is interesting.ScifiterX 03:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Limited Spectrum

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Misc 

message: 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)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: *"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)

text: Sounds like one of those tests where the researchers had the conclusion long before the study.  The type you already have to believe in to consider it valid. 24.8.155.203 21:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoever you are, please sign your posts. The studies I spoke of followed standard scientific method which focuses on testing a hypothesis, not  substatiating an absolute as you suggest. Limit your speculation to what you can prove and try not to stoop to blatant antagonism. When you behave that way (in addition to your constant posting without signing your posts) it takes much of your credibility away in the eyes of other contributers. ScifiterX 03:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that 24.8.155.203 first appeared on this site on the 8th or February 2006 and has contributed to Wikipedia in no place other than this discussion page as of the time of this post. This person does not sign his posts and is not logged in when he is making his comments. ScifiterX 03:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References?! 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Historical references? 

message: 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)
replies: text: *"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)

text: Sounds like one of those tests where the researchers had the conclusion long before the study.  The type you already have to believe in to consider it valid. 24.8.155.203 21:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoever you are, please sign your posts. The studies I spoke of followed standard scientific method which focuses on testing a hypothesis, not  substatiating an absolute as you suggest. Limit your speculation to what you can prove and try not to stoop to blatant antagonism. When you behave that way (in addition to your constant posting without signing your posts) it takes much of your credibility away in the eyes of other contributers. ScifiterX 03:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that 24.8.155.203 first appeared on this site on the 8th or February 2006 and has contributed to Wikipedia in no place other than this discussion page as of the time of this post. This person does not sign his posts and is not logged in when he is making his comments. ScifiterX 03:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concern over references for non-paranormal explanation section 

message: - 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)
thread_title: References to substantiate section in question

message: 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)
thread_title: POV vs NPOV

message: :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)
thread_title:  REMOVAL OF REDUNDANT AND POV TEXT 

message: *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)
thread_title: REMOVAL OF POV MATERIAL AS PER WIKIPEDIA REGULATION

message: 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)
thread_title:  EYE-WITNESS ACCOUNTS / OBSERVATIONS 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Eyewitness 

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

message: Is it just me, or are the "non-paranormal explanations" all implying that the phenomenon could not be anything else than a product of the viewer's imagination? Seems rather POV-oriented to me. Some more research on the matter might provide some interesting information.
Dali 05:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that pretty much sums it up.  However, I have heard some physicist friends of mine going on about M Theory (membrane theory) and how perhaps overlapping universes (membranes) might explain the phenomenon.  If I can find any serious sources on this, I'll put them here and maybe we can fit them into the article.Lisapollison 18:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please excuse me for saying this, but aren't creatures from another dimension distinctly 'paranormal' in nature?
perfectblue 12:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but it is a non-spiritual paranormal explanation. :) ---J.S (t|c) 16:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually no, they wouldn't be from another dimension but from another Universe, according to advanced theoretical membrane theory. They also might not have to be creatures - could be other people.   Think of our universe as a sheet of bubble wrap and their universe as another sheet of bubble wrap superimposed upon ours (I swear I didn't make this up, it's the analogy some physicist dude used on the Discovery Science Channel on a show about parallel universes).  What if the bubbles bump into eachother and temporarily overlap, occupying the same time-space? Technically they wouldn't be from another dimension - just another universe. I agree that it's wacky but it's an idea being batted around. That fellow also suggested this is how the Big Bang happened - bubble wrap smashing into other sheets of bubble wrap. I'll try and get some actual references on this.  It's an extreme application of String theory.  If M theory and string theory make your brain hurt, you're not alone. ;-)  it's perhaps the only non-paranormal explanation I've heard that doesn't involve time travel.  of course, it's just as far out as time travel, no? I promise to search and see if I can find a good cite in plain english that goes into this in a way that is applicable to the topic.  Wish me luck! Lisapollison 05:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Observation 

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

message: I have experienced this phenomenon while utilizing tryptamines, and I will note that the "artist's rendition" here is not at all representative of what I saw. I have no doubt that the experience differs from person to person, but if the artist read the article or other writings, and tried to draw from that understanding, it is unlikely that this will result in a drawing that anyone would "recognize". I would recommend removing this image as it is simply not accurate (in my experience). Unfortunately my drawing skills are shit so I can't provide a substitute. But to some extent, any image will be misleading, since this phenomenon is experienced in the peripheral vision, and you can't look direcly at it like you can with an image file. Until we have 3D-pedia, it won't be possible to display accurately. A final complaint: the image is silly. Like sleep paralysis, the actual experience of shadow people is extremely unsettling; the article uses the term "dread" and I think that approaches it well. To be honest I think the most accurate version of this article will have no image, and leave readers to use their imagination. ··coelacan 07:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some people see them directly in front of them. When i first saw them it was only during sleep paralysis, or in my peripheral vision - But now me, my girlfriend and even my cat see them all the time. I'm actually starting to get used to the phenomenon... Almost.
On DMT, I saw Reptilian humanoids - That was unsettling.
KWaal 00:46, 02 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The problems you describe can be resolved simply by saying in the caption that the picture is an artist's rendition. The picture is still useful as an illustration, in my opinion. I won't revert you, however. -Amatulic 17:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I don't know if that helps. I guess for me the important question is "did the artist actually see something like this?" If so, well, fine. Brains are different, so hallucinations are different, even common ones. If that image actually attempts to illustrate what one person experienced, then it could be marginally useful as one exhibit from the human brain. :Image:Shadowppl.png, the image I removed, doesn't make it clear whether this is a recreation from reading, or from experience. :Image:Shadowpeople.png explicitly says it's from "generally available descriptions" and it is wildly inaccurate, much worse than :Image:Shadowppl.png. They don't have clean smooth lines, nor even minimal detail like this. A variation of :Image:Shadowppl.png without any of the gray or red details would be preferable to either, although I really must stress that it is still very misleading. I feel like we're looking at artists' renditions of rainbows from people who have never seen the sun, or the proverbial blind men and the elephant. ··coelacan 22:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What was wrong with :Image:Shadpeeps2.jpg, anyway?  I think it illustrates the phenomena as described in the article nicely, and it looks much more professional than :Image:Shadowppl.png,  in my opinion.  I'm not saying this article absolutely needs an image, but there are better options than the ones that have been in the article most recently. -- Vary | Talk 23:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fourth opinion ;-)

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

message: I hardly think garbage like Keith Parker's Shadow People and The Evading can be called part of popular culture, which is defined by wikipedia as "widespread cultural elements in any given society". -Unsigned
:Popular culture, as in the opposite to science. EG, fiction and urban myth. -Unsigned
:This article is a joke. For example, 'Habitat: bedrooms'?? Is this an article on a phenomena that some peple experience or is it purely based on urban myth? Come on, you can put this sort of information down, it is not credible. Even as a believer of some paranormal phenomena, I think that this article is the product of a bunch of lunatics and needs to take a far more objective perspective. -Roger
::In relation to the above, sign Please. - perfectblue 15:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shadow people clearly exist in popular belief and urban myth, whether they are real or not is beside the point. - perfectblue 12:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, that this is a phenomenon doesn't automatically make it paranormal.  I have seen this upon waking at an odd hour of night.  Most likely it is a hallucination due to sleep problems.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.151.80.148 (talk) 20:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

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

message: I never heard ANYONE talk about "Shadow People..." Anyone except people who use a lot of meth, that is. They tend to stop talking about and seeing shadow people when they stop using meth, too... I think there MAY be a correlation here.
(from a recovering addict with a different kind of spirit today)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.255.161.30 (talk) 03:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Ghosts have been known to cause some of the physical and emotional traumas": Yes, this is just a form of psychological shock. It can be caused by anything from witnessing a violent act being committed against another person on TV to surviving a traumatic incident yourself. A person's mind can't cope and so goes slightly loopy. Think PTSD. It can be caused by the shock of seeing a ghost regardless of whether said ghost was some form of spook or spirit or if it it was just some shadows and a lot of imagination. - perfectblue (talk) 15:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could be the methamphetamine 

message: Most of the accounts of Shadow people come from people who have never used drugs in their life or had any mental problems, so this talk about drugs should be left out. The description of shadow people from people who claim they saw them during drug use will always describe the shadow people completly different than all the accounts that do match, the accounts that describe the same things exactly the same is coming from non drug users.  And no it does not have anything to do with sleep either as a large ammount of people who have seen them was not in any dream state. I think some people is confusing something they see when they are high with the shadow people, you can tell the difference in the description. Shadow people have a very distinct description unlike the drug induced description some people decribe and are trying to call shadow people. Have 20 people from the drug induced crowd describe the shadow people and you will get 20 different descriptions, but put 20 people from the non drug induced crowd and you will get 20 of the same answer. This is how you tell the shadow people from something that is not shadow people.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.30.38.213 (talk) 17:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: People here seem afraid that because they're often seen on drugs, it somehow makes them less 'real'.... Perhaps the attaining of different states of consciousness (particularly the use of hallucinogens or paradigm shifts) allows us to perceive what we normally can not? I, for one, believe this to be the case. Altered states of consciousness produce different mind frequencies - If you go by the theory that these entities are of a different dimension - and that different dimensions are vibration-based - then this could make some amount of sense (to a stoned hippie like me, at least) KWaal 05:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to tell Shadow People from non Shadow People 

message: tl|editprotected: As an editor whom has been had significant involvement in this page prior to the current disagreement, I request that I be allowed to edit it or that a series of edits be carried out on my behalf. Specifically, that a WP:OR tags be added to the notes and types section, and that a fact tag be added to the notes section. perfectblue (talk) 19:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Simply tell me exactly where to place the tags, and I (or another administrator who sees it first) will carry out that change. :) Nihiltres{t.l} 19:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, could an OR-Section tag be placed at the very beginning of the "Types" and the "Notes" sections, and a general purpose Fact tag be placed at the end of each paragraph in both of those sections (plus the sub sections). These sections are not supported by sources. There is no actual categorization system for shadow people. - perfectblue (talk) 21:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

text: There is no dispute here.  The 'Types' section was removed because it is uncited.  Wikipedia requires that all assertions made - even concerning subjects that can be classified as 'paranormal' or 'urban myth' - to be supported with cites.  The belief, no matter how sincere, of one or even a number of Wikipedia editors is insufficient to qualify a claim or assertion for inclusion.  Only if there is independent verification of the claim should it be added.  When those who wish to see the 'Types' section included can provide cites to support it then it will be left in place.  It really is as simple as that.  - Shrivenzale (talk) 01:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Edit declined. There are no "Types" and "Notes" sections. Sandstein (talk) 23:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It was there when the request was made but nobody deleted the request tag when the page was edited. - perfectblue (talk) 09:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request 

message: In order to comply with Wikipedia policies WP:OR, WP:V you must provide direct evidence that a three level system exists for rating/classifying Shadow people using one or more pre-published source that can pass WP:RS.
This may be a book written by a reliable skeptic such as Jerome Clark, an well known investigator such as Harry Price, or even a controversial figure such as David Icke or Robert Carroll whom have notability through notoriety.
Either way, the source must be published and must demonstrate that the three level system actually exists. I'd also probably better tell you that under Wikipedia regulations you can't compile multiple sources together as evidence of a three level system. This means that you can't have one source showing a two level system, and another source showing a different two level system, then put them together to make a three level system from the first level of one and the two levels of the other, or vice-versa. The source must show all three levels together in order to be used here. 
Sorry, but that's just the way that things are. - perfectblue (talk) 17:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  To the IP only editor