Talk:Human guise

The human suit article

• This is clearly not the same article as the human suit article. Verbal objected to this content being included in that article and to that article being expanded to coverthe broader subject matter addressed here. This article was created in good faith. It is well sourced and being expanded. I don't see any problem here except the ongoing disruption by Verbal and Simon232. I hope a block won't be necessary to stop their abusive behavior. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you kidding? It's copy and pasted from your version of human suit. The version which I reverted, asking you to seek consensus before restoring. The version you then entirely failed to discuss on talk. This article was only created to circumvent a currently discussed AfD and I have trouble assuming good faith. Simonm223 (talk) 20:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm most definitely not kidding. The sources and subject matter covered in this article were deleted by you and Verbal from a broadened and renamed human suit article. So I created a new article in good faith to cover this broader subject matter. It's clearly disruptive that you're now also objecting to a separate article dealing with subject matter you said shouldn't be included in that article. Make up your mind! If you want to take this to AfD have at it. It's clearly notable. And as soon as your disruptions and attacks on my efforts to improve the encyclopedia cease, we can all return to improving the encyclopedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I have no clue why you have been trying to make this into a personal conflict so much. Nobody is attacking you. What is being attacked is your method ie: creating a mirror instead of discussing your proposed changes on the appropriate talk page. That isn't the way Wikipedia works. Simonm223 (talk) 20:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

There's no mirror. If you want me to take out the content I merged from human suit I will do so. No problem. Is there a reason you don't think that subject matter can be discussed in this article? ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

rewrite required

Removed text

A Slitheen character in Doctor Who replaces the prime minister.

he may well do, but so what?   pablo_hablo. 21:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

You could say that abot this whole pointless article - made especially pointless as Human suit still also exists.

notability

Please provide some RS that establish notability either here or at the AfD, for discussion. Verbal chat 22:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

As a broad theme in literature, film, and television, I'd think it's clearly notable. Gods, angels, demons, monsters, aliens, and robots (Disneyland animatronics), and even other human beings (e.g. Hannibal Lecter in Silence of the Lambs, or the Mission Impossible crew) have worn human disguises. It's an unsettling topic that asks uncomfortable questions about how we know whether someone's really a human being, even what it means to be a human being. Whether the article's going to be done well or not is a separate matter, but surely it should exist. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 02:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Then you can surely provide a decent RS discussing this trope? Verbal chat 22:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Additional sources

There are several sources here [1]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• There's some discussion of Satan's use of diguise I'm coming across in the Old Testament [2], New Testament [3] appearing as an Old Man, and in art works such as Pietro Perugino's fresco "Christ between the Baptist and the Satan Disguised as an Old Man" [4]. Does anyone have a good source for a discussion of this religious theme? ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Other notable examples

They Live should be included if it hasn't already been. There are also a lot of robot disguised as human movies and shows, such as the recent Battle Star Galactica show on the Sci-Fi channel. This article by Gary Westfahl discusses the sci-fi writing process in relation to aliens often being no more than humans in disguise [5] and notes Stanislaw Lem's critiques along those lines. This link lists some other movies that use the plot device [6]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

You forgot The Terminator, where it is used by robots.--kelapstick (talk) 17:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The stories may be notable, but in what way is the human disguise notable? Verbal chat 21:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Its a key feature in those notable series. Obviously, that has encyclopedic value. Dream Focus 05:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Please provide RS for that assertion. Verbal chat 09:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Please use Common Sense and think for yourself, instead of letting someone else do it for you. The guidelines for determining notability are just suggestions, to help you make decisions in some cases, not absolute law. Dream Focus 11:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Please use Common Sense and act for yourself instead of continually stating that accepted practices, policies and guidelines do not apply. Sourcing of claims saves everyone time which would otherwise be spent arguing.   pablo_hablo. 11:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Accepted by who? For most of Wikipedia's existence these practices were not used at all. There was never a general vote, so how can they be accepted? Dream Focus 11:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

"For most of Wikipedia's existence these practices were not used at all"
There was never a 'general vote' on "No personal attacks" either, perhaps it would therefore be okay to directly insult other editors instead of criticising their edits.   pablo_hablo. 16:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Rescue tag

Please justify here - this article was recently deleted even after attention, and I see no justification for retagging. Verbal chat 21:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, whoever tagged it does, and its their right to do so. Those who worked on the previous article, may wish to work on this one, since they are similar but certainly not the same. Dream Focus 05:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Why the attempt at mass deletion of article?

• Does anyone sincerely doubt the information listed?
• Could you not just click on the blue link to that article's page, to instantly confirm the information presented there?
• Do we really need to copy a review over from every single other article, to this one, filling it up with pointless references? Dream Focus 11:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Please give third party RS that significantly discuss the topic directly. One deletion is not "mass". The abusive gaming to recreate this article should probably be discussed centrally. PS: Wikipedia is not an RS. Verbal chat 11:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

So basically you see you edits as countering "gaming" of the AfD process by improving the article? I would suggets that when you are so strongly pusing a "delete" position that getting involved with content issues is a poor idea, as it could easily look like you are trying to "game" the article the other way. Also, if there are clear policy reasons why the article should not exist then why mess about with the minuatae of content? Artw (talk) 16:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Please do not restore unsourced content that has been challenged without discussion and without providing WP:RS. Content rules should not be put aside just because the article is up for deletion. If good, solid RS are added I will change my opinion on this article. These edits are not improving the article. Verbal chat 17:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• Two editors have now stated they want the information, and have reverted you. Follow consensus, and stop deleting a large chunk of valid information. Those who want the entire article deleted at AFD, shouldn't be hacking away content which would cause others to be more likely to want to keep it. And honestly now, you do NOT need a reference for every single sentence ever written. You can click on the blue links to confirm that yes, there are aliens/robots/whatever that look like humans in that series. Dream Focus 18:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I am not asking for every sentence, but whole sections and paragraphs are unsourced. This is not acceptable per policy. See WP:BRD, and I ask Artw or DF to show some modicum of good faith by self-reverting to the sourced version of the article. Verbal chat 18:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Artw has just accused me, incorrectly, of vandalism for removing unsourced and poor content from this page. He has not justified or discussed this content, or added sources. Unless RS are added this material will be removed again. Further gross personal attacks, such as accusations of vandalism and canvassing, will be reported to administrators. Please desist the attacks, and instead engage on trying to improve the article. In an unsourced state, full of trivia, it is more likely to be deleted. Verbal chat 18:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • • I have added sources. Which you have deleted. Twice now. Please explain exactly how this is not a bad edit and why, if not a mistake, it shouldn't be considered vandalism? If it is a mistake then I appologise, but you need to be less hot headed, despite whatever vendetta it is you appear to be pursuing against this article. If it was not a mistake, then yes, you are a vandal. Artw (talk) 18:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
      • You have not added sources for all the sections you have restored, and neither have you discussed those edits on the talk page as required by WP:BRD. Please remove all the unsourced material you have restored. Verbal chat 18:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Verbal, you believe it needs sources for that, while two other editors do not. Hopefully more people will chime in their opinions as well. The sources are found by clicking the blue links, you able to read about that on the proper page. Dream Focus 18:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• I click on the vampire link and search for the word human. I find a part where it says they can exist in a human form, with a reference to "Vampires of the Slavs," p. 23. If you think it needs references, you can find them, but I honestly see no point in that, unless the information is honestly in doubt by someone. Dream Focus 18:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Human form is not human disguise, and wikipedia is not an RS - that is well established. Two editors is not a consensus, and you can't override policy. Verbal chat 18:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
    • They aren't human beings. In many stories they don't even look human at all. It takes effort to appear to be a human being, normally different people. The policy is to form consensus. Those who added the information in believe it should be there, so its more than two editors. Dream Focus 18:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
      • You've come back with WP:OR. Try again. Verbal chat 18:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
        • I've come back with information from the vampire article, and the side articles for different types of vampires. The reference section is too long already, we don't need it to grow larger than the article itself, simply because you believe every single statement should have a reference copied over from the main article. Dream Focus 18:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
          • RS please. Otherwise this is just your opinion, and your opinion doesn't cut it - that's not how wikipedia works. Verbal chat 18:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
            • The other articles have RS for their stuff. Why don't you go and tag anything you believe needs a citation, and disguise it. So far, no one else agrees with you that its needed. Dream Focus 18:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
              • Policy agrees, therefore the wikipedia community, and a lot of editors at the AfD agree, and so do several editors below. I am not asking for ever sentence to be sourced - there are whole paragraphs in rows that are unsourced, most of the content of whole sections. You cannot claim consensus to override wikipedia policies and guidelines - although you did nicely game DrV with CoM. Others have also agreed with me below and at the AfD. And at the last AfD. And on the previous article talk page which wasn't merged. And the fact those policies and guidelines have consensus. You need to provide RS that this is a notable topic, and third party RS for all the claims made in the article. That is how wikipedia works. Verbal chat 18:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Without comment on the inclusion of this material more generally, why are vampires and werewolves in a section titled "Religion and Mythology"? Folklore would be much more appropriate.PelleSmith (talk) 18:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

What is up with this [7]? The Hebrew Bible is a primary source, and the use of it here is a clear example of violating WP:NOR. Not to mention what version?PelleSmith (talk) 18:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The Bible clearly states God sent two angels disguised as humans, to test the people of that city. There is nothing wrong with citing the primary source here. Dream Focus 19:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Using a primary source in this vein is clearly original research, then again so is most of the rest of the entry. However, I can't find the reference to human disguise in the version I just consulted (KJV). What verse are you referring to? As far as I can tell angels showed up and people assumed they were men. How do we know that angels didn't look like men in the first place? This is why we rely on secondary and tertiary sources to interpret primary sources.PelleSmith (talk) 20:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Good point. [8] Instead of quoting Jesus about it, and I should look for a published source, and link to it. Was thinking of what I learned in Bible school about Lot and his angel guest, the actual Bible not saying word for word what they taught us. [9] is a good Bible search. I read Genesis 19 there, the Angels right there at the start of the story, but it not saying there they didn't look like attractive male humans before arrival. Dream Focus 01:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion

I want to preface this by saying that I voted delete in both AfDs and I haven't changed my mind. However, from a quick look at google scholar there appears to be a consistent use of the term "human disguise" in scholarship on Euripides (The Bacchae specifically) and Homer. The fact that the term is used by different scholars within the same area of scholarship is promising, but the idea that the wide variety of "human disguises" being discussed on this page relate to that concept is not clear at all. I should also note that I did not find anyone discussing this concept as a motif or theme, but simply using the term descriptively. My suggestion is that someone actually go back to square one and look into building an entry about a concept that is notable and verifiable and that does not rely on editorial synthesis. This current entry, like the last one is a hindrance to creating something that is actually encyclopedic, which may indeed be possible if someone is willing to do the necessary work first, and not just string along a bunch of similar stuff based on "common sense" -- see WP:SYNTH. This current entry is useless.PelleSmith (talk) 18:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Cutting back the article a substantial amount would probbaly be the best outcome of any cleanup effort, as it is somewhat messy and over-reliant on specific examples at the moment. I would suggets that deleting the article or pursuing vendettas related to previous articles does not help that effort. Artw (talk) 18:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Would it not be better to add something on Euripides to the Disguise page? Itsmejudith (talk) 18:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

If Artw supports cutting back on article content, could he please remove the large amounts of unsourced text he recently restored. Verbal chat 18:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec) It would be better for people to do some real research first so that this spectacle doesn't have to occur again. I'm not sure where a final resting place would be, or if any such place is appropriate on Wikipedia. There is no indication that the term is being used in anyway more meaningful than pure description and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I think google scholar shows some promising hints but someone is going to have to do some real work here instead of just trying to argue their way out of a pretty deep hole against policy/guideline regarding WP:NOR and WP:V.PelleSmith (talk) 18:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how the exclusion of notable examples would improve the article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

So you think we should put information about piracy in an entry about ions then since piracy is itself notable? Please don't play games. If you don't have any sourcing claiming that these notable works of fiction, myths, etc. are examples of the use of a "human disguise" including them is clearly a violation of WP:NOR.PelleSmith (talk) 21:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you'll find lots of examples of piracy in the article on piracy. In fact there is an entire section on Piracy#Famous historical pirates/privateers. There is also an entire section on piracy#Recent incidents So clearly, as your example demonstrates, including notable examples in an encyclopedic article is entirely appropriate. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not so much that we should exclude notable examples so much as we refocus the article on general themes rather than specifics, and find sources that support the common nature of those themes, it's going to be a better article. Also if we can provide sources backing up why something is a notable example rather than simple confrimation of existance. With reaerch we can find all these things, and, if we reall ywant the article to be kept, we should do so. Artw (talk) 22:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

An article on festivals doesn't require sources discussing similarities and relations between individual festivals. I find these objections to be trumped up. Certainly additional sources discussing the plot device, themes and significance of human disguises would be great and they should be added as they're found. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really objecting, and certainly not in favour of deletion or cutting material without giving it due consideration, so much as saying theres a nugget of truth in what PelleSmith is saying which we should take into consideration when explanding the article. Artw (talk) 22:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. It would be helpful to find more and better sources discussing the trope more broadly. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Any sources establishing the tripe more broadly would be "helpful". Your refusal to remove unsourced material that has been directly challenged and edit war to keep it in is not going to help. What you should be doing is bringing it here for discussion, the abusive creation/recreation of this article notwithstanding. Verbal chat 22:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

By all means create a section so we can discuss content that you don't think belongs or that needs better sourcing. Some of your edits and attempts to circumvent process have caused unnecessary tension, but if you're willing to engage in a cooperative process I'm confident we can work through any differences we have. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

All the unsourced content which I removed but which was editwarred back in without discussion or sources, against WP:BRD, needs to be discussed and sourced. Verbal chat 22:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Good lord, are you still beating that drum? Verbal may have counter reverted when some of his deletions of material were undone[10], but at the same time he also reverted this edit[11], which is exactly the kind of thing he says the article needs. When I redtored that portion[12] he then did it again[13]. He then went on the mischaracterise that edit and my objections to it all over the place(including another somewhat WP:CANVASy appeal at WP:FTN.It was a bad edit, you got called on it, you've already reverted it yourself[14], give it up man. Artw (talk) 22:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The bad edit was entirely yours, Artw. Stop your disruptive unfounded attacks that have nothing to do with this article but everything to do with you holding a grudge about your interpretation of canvassing not being accepted at ANI. Verbal chat 09:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

You might be thinking of this:....Anthropomorphism

just a thought....... Leaky Caldron 19:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

There's also some overlap with anthropotheism. But humans ascribing human features and personalities to deities or animals doesn't seem to me to be quite the same thing as a theme and plot device in stories where those beings actually taking on human appearance or disguise. But it's definitely related and seems like it would be a good see also at the very least. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

All of this material, if better sourced, would fit better into articles we already have. This is just petty wikilawyering by ARS members who have found a new way to get around AfD. Verbal chat 22:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Assume good faith. Honestly now. We exist to save articles. Dream Focus 01:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Against policy and against the good of the project? Why are you ignoring policy? Verbal chat 09:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Aliens in science fiction

Isn't this just going to end up as a prose version of this? List of extraterrestrials in fiction by type#Humanoid extraterrestrials?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Leaky caldron (talk • contribs)

An interesting find. I considered adding a

See also: List of extraterrestrials in fiction by type § Humanoid extraterrestrials

to that section of this article, but those aren't all aliens in disguise. Many of them are just humanoid types, so I'm not sure it would be correct to point to it. What do others think? ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I;m not in favour of abandoningthe article just yet, but if we were to discuss merging Alien Invasion#Alien Infiltration might be a better merge target, though it may actually expand to the point where we'd be talking off a new seperate Alien Infiltration article. Artw (talk) 23:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I've attempted to group the examples by date and theme so that it becomes more of an examination of the role of aliens in disguise in SF over the 50s and then the 80s, covering how it was a frequent cold war motif. Hopefully this makes it seem a little less of a laundry list, though the last few paragraphs are pretty much a random grabbag. Artw (talk) 00:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

...it occurs to me that we could probably cover some of the 90s conspiracy theory based alien infiltration stuff, with it's nods to Roswell and hints of collusion with the goverment. There's certainly pleanty of human imitation in there, though the greys etc... pretty much hogged the limelight. Possibly that wuld be straying to far into the territory of making it a general artical about alien infiltration. Artw (talk) 01:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Use of phrase

A wikipedia search shows there are lots of articles that use this terminology [15], for whatever that's worth. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Were all werewolves and vampires originally human?

Vampires and werewolves often have a human form, an animal form, and sometimes a cross between the two. Do they disguise themselves as other humans though? I thought some vampire myths had things impersonating humans, but that is more of demonic possession. Can anyone think of any examples where a nonhuman creature became a human? Dream Focus 02:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, the idea of the stranger being the vampire or werewolf in disguise is old horror-myth, and went along with hanging garlic up in the entryways. The stories differ, whether it's a monster disguised as a human being (but who was never human, whose entire race was never human), or a human being who becomes a monster, or a former human being who returns from the dead as a monster that occasionally looks human. All three versions recur in mythology, in novels, in movies. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 02:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

In mythology? You mean mean folklore.PelleSmith (talk) 04:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Far enough back that the two blend. For instance, the "aerial daemons" exemplified by Asmodeus were one (never human) stem of the vampire legends, which is why Stephen King's "Jerusalem's Lot" shows the Book of Tobit as efficacious against vampires. On the other hand, Adam's first wife Lilith was said to be the mother of myriads of demons, so they'd be half-human by ancestry. See Werewolf#Classical literature for other old stories, some about tribes of werewolves (e.g. the Neuri), others about men who became werewolves for their sins or by will. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 06:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Far enough back they both blend? That's your opinion, and not based on any scholarly classification. What you initially described above were folk traditions associated with folklore. What you now point to is a blend of folklore (e.g. Lilith being Adam's wife and not just a non-human being) and myths which aren't really about werewolves and/or vampires, beings which which are really stuff of folklore and legend. It is not helpful to play fast and lose with these labels.PelleSmith (talk) 12:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they blended together in many stories. One bites you, and you turn into one of them, you thirst for human blood, you are in league with the devil, you can change into one or more animal form, both vulnerable to silver and garlic, etc. etc. Sometimes you have vampires that can turn into bats, wolves, and a variety of other creatures. There are plenty of books out there noting this. Different stories from different cultures and time periods, have a rather large number of things which people try to combine into just one group. Dream Focus 14:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Dead thing or spirit in disguise as live human would seem to be in the spirit of the article. Not too sure about werewolves. Artw (talk) 02:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Depends on whether the werewolf started out as human or is originally a non-human creature that only passes for human. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 06:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

List of creatures that pretend to be human

I found the article List of creatures that pretend to be human while looking for the common Japanese myth about raccoons and foxes that can impersonate humans. Dream Focus 02:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to correct a common misconception: a tanuki is a raccoon dog, not a raccoon; different animal. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 22:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Human suit

This was removed from the article, but seems worth including to me: Director Albert Kodagolian produced a short film called Human Suit, to help promote the Sci Fi Channel. ref Albert Kodagolian's spot Human Suit for Sci-Fi - {{citation}}: line feed character in |title= at position 50 (help) /ref ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

It;s noit entirely clear from the link - what is it's significance? Artw (talk) 05:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The article is no longer human suit but human disguise. You can still see the dog's head, so he isn't really in disguise. Dream Focus 14:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Tag citation needed, don't just wipe out

If information is not presented properly, then tag and discuss it. Don't just erase it. I have restored the deletion in the robot section, and added a reference to the Battlestar Galactica bit, as well as a citation needed tag to another sentence that does appear to be original research, but could just as easily be a quote from the DVD packaging, the website, or a review somewhere. By tagging, instead of just deleting, I give the contributor time to verify. Dream Focus 14:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Robots

The robots section suffers from a similar laundry list problem that (hopefully) we've begun to tackle in the alien section. It would be good if we could start grouping it better to reinforce the various themes that robot imposters bring up. My thoughts are that we could cover robots as threatening imposters, Data like robots just trying to be human, and those inbetween (replicants, cylons) . A further seperation cvould be made between biological and non biological. As with Aliens sources that cover particular themes or trends would be prefered to sources that simply cover a single example. Artw (talk) 15:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Good secondary sources for the Human disguise in myth and the supernatural

• Human Animals: Werewolves & Other Transformations by Frank Hamel
• The Magic of Shapeshifting by Rosalyn Greene
• Shifting Shape, Shaping Text: Philosophy and Folklore in the Fox Koan by Steven Heine , publised by University of Hawaii Press, 1999

These might be good sources for anyone who wants to take this article to GA or featured article status. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Templates

I've culled the templates at the top of the page to important just ones that need to be further addressed. TBH I think we are doing pretty well on those too, but doubts are still being expressed at AfD. The main thing we can do to remove those the need for those templates is of course to add more sources covering the general sweep of human disguise from mythology through to science fiction and the rest. The various examples and even individual sections are pretty well served now, but we need to tie it all together. That would address both the notability and the synth concerns. Artw (talk) 19:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

This is just a list

This article makes no attempt to present any "analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative" (see WP:SECONDARY) material about the topic. It is simply a 'List of examples of human disguises in religion and literature'. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Excellent spotting, Hrafn! Do you have something in mind for us then? Good man! — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 14:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Either (i) rename it to 'List of…' or (ii) find some "analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative" material. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't look like just a list to me, but I'm all in favor of more chewy good stuff — and since you seem to have a clear idea of what's needed, I'm asking for your help. You know how to Google for such material, right? Would you be so kind as to pitch in and help build this article, please? We'd love your company! Thanks muchly! — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 15:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, as you don't like my first suggestion, and as have no personal knowledge of sources for the second, my 'building' it would appear to be simply adding to the 'example farm'. I think there's been quite enough Googling for any bare mentions of the phrase 'human disguise' as it is -- with the result that the material has almost nothing linking it together. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

First we gather bricks and then we mix the mortar. This is right. Otherwise the mortar would set solid while we gathered bricks. Hrafn, surely you can also Google for the sort of material you're looking for. You know what you want to see here! — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 20:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Hrafn, this is just a collection of trivia, we need reliable secondary sources. Sources that talk about human disguises as tropes in fiction or as literary themes would be ideal. A collection of examples, as this article seems to be, just doesn't cut it. I have looked for, but not found, any sources that meet this criteria. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 20:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with Hrafn and VoR. Take this back to your userspace, work on it for a month, then see if you have something worth keeping. I've taken it back to AfD. No doubt if it comes through as delete again it will be ignored again. Verbal chat 20:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion: think "genre", not "medium"

At the moment, there exists a section "In literature", into which are lumped a mention of the gods from the Iliad and a vampire novel. I intend to move these elsewhere. Otherwise, all the aliens and robots novels could be in the literature section; and all the aliens and robots movies could be in a "movies" section; and all the aliens and robots TV shows could be in a "television" section; which seems needless duplication. Let's divide by genre or theme, acknowledging that the same story may be told orally, on paper, on stage, on a movie screen, on television, on holovid, telepathically across the stars, or whatever — but we're not categorizing stories by media here, all right? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 14:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. What themes would you suggest? ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

How about the following?

• In religion and mythology
• In Fantasy & Science Fiction
  • Aliens
  • Robots
  • Supernatural beings
• In Comedey
• Outside fiction

The animated material should tuck in pretty snuggly into "In comedey", and a unified science fiction section would allow us to have an intro addressing the theme across Sci-Fi before getting more specific in sub-sections. Artw (talk) 18:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Something along those lines, only... "supernatural beings" (like godlings, demons, and monsters) seem to have survived transitions from "religion and mythology" to "fantasy" (and "folklore", and role-playing-games like D&D)... so maybe they should be wedged up there after "religion and mythology", before the more modern "aliens" and "robots" ? As for "comedy" (only one "e")... there have been "comic" elements in Japanese folklore, the tengu and tanuki are sometimes funny, like imps and sprites in Western tales, including drawings and cartoons; and the ability to use human facial expressions allows caricature, satire, lampooning, for instance of human vices like drunkenness. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 18:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, here's my tinkering, let's see how it works as we go along:

Contents

   1 In religion, mythology, and folklore
   2 In fantasy, science fiction, and comedy
        2.1 Supernatural creatures
        2.2 Aliens
        2.3 Robots
        2.4 Cartoons

   3 Outside fiction

— Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 19:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd have to quesdtion both the copy and the examples given in the Supernatural creatures section. Leading questions pretty much have no place in Wikipedia, and the examples are either presented without reasoning or with reasoning that is not backed by a cite. Artw (talk) 01:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The main thing I wanted to accomplish with that modern novel was get it out of the religion & mythology section; I cheerfully surrender it to you, Artw, or to anyone else who can do something better with it, as I'd never heard of it before. It wouldn't have been my choice, what with so many more vivid and well-known examples to draw from. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 06:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

"failed verification" failed

I've removed the "failed verification" tags that User:Scjessey applied to the two Greenwood cites. Apparently he did some kind of string search and did not find the term "Human Disguise", which is irrelevant since they clearly discuss the concept. If anyone objects to this pleasse give your reasoning here. Artw (talk) 17:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I object. My contention is that this entire article is based on synthesis. Although the concept exists, the term itself is not at all notable. I can find thousands of references for "tall tree", for example, but that isn't notable either. The quantity of individual examples of human disguises does not have a direct bearing on the notability of the concept or phrase. These two key references in question are used to provide citations for "human disguise", but do not do so. They describe the concept, but not the actual term that is the subject of this article. As such, they do not pass the standard for verification. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• It is our policy that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. We are here to cover a topic, not a particular form of words. The English language provides many synonyms and other ways of describing a concept such as our topic. The Greenwood sources are excellent ones for this topic - I found them independently when browsing sources myself. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

"Disguises also aid in crossing racial barriers, often represented in science fiction through the use of aliens in space or robots. Sometimes humans attempt to pass as the other: a red-dyed John carter impersonates a martian in Edgar Rice Burroughs ... more often, aliens and robots attempt to appear human. In Ray Bradbury's The Martian Cronicles, Martians employ psychic powers to masquerade as Americans, while The Man Who Fell to Earth uses contact lenses and a mask. The ability of The Thing (1982) to appear human leads to paranoia, which is also behind the testing of robots if The Terminator and the androids in Blade Runner. Fears about being unable to identify the Other are gender-inflected in Stanislaw Lem's "The Mask" (1977)" - That would certainly seem to cover the concept of human disguise.

The second greenwood reference is harder to pull a direct quote from, but starts with gods in disguise and then encompases other examples of things-not-human passing as human, which would be the concept we are describing, yes? I am not seeing a WP:V problem here. Again, you seem to be having a WP:NEO conversation when we are not discussing a particular term. Artw (talk) 18:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

«but not the actual term that is the subject of this article» — This is your fundamental misunderstanding, Scjessey. The subject of this article is not "the actual term" "human disguise", but the concept so denoted. As long as you're only looking for and at "the actual term", you're looking for and at the wrong thing. That's not what we've been discussing here, not at all. We could have used terms like "man-like masquerades", "human guises", "counterfeit humanity", "shapeshifts into human semblance", "taking human form", "taking human shape", and meant the same thing by them. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 18:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

It fails in either regard. The concept, while it exists, is not notable. In this article, an attempt has been made to establish notability by piling a huge stack of individual, distinct-from-one-another examples with associated references. That's synthesis. Whatever term you use, the concept is still not notable. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• No, it is not synthesis because these examples are not being combined in an improper way to "advance a position" or arrive at a novel conclusion. The article is just demonstrating the variety of ways in which the topic is expressed. This style is fine as demonstrated by the Greenwood encyclopedia which has a similar style. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• It is synthesis, in that sources have been used to "imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". Certainly it is original research. Nobody has been able to point out to me why "human disguise" is notable. They have only been able to point to notable examples. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Please indicate the specific conclusion to which you object so that we may cite it or amend it. We require specific, actionable details not vague assertions. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Certainly. The specific detail I object to is the existence of the article, due to it being original research. The suggested amendment would be to delete it. Again. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• The entire article is too large to be considered a specific detail. We require concrete examples of supposed original thought as I and other editors fail to see any. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd point out to whether or not those two links would on their own satisfy WP:N is completely irrelevant to any WP:V issues, which is what we are discussing here. Artw (talk) 18:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Vampires and werewolves

Does it seem odd to anyone else that vampires and werewolves are being given as examples of non-human beings taking human disguises. In the folk traditions they are from isn't it usually the other way around entirely?PelleSmith (talk) 19:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe there is an ongoing discussion above. Artw (talk) 19:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

It didn't go anywhere. In rereading the entry I happened upon this again and it seems inherently problematic.PelleSmith (talk) 19:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Red Riding Hood's Wolf disguises himself as her grandmother. He's a wolf, not a human being, but he can put on a human disguise. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 19:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

My gut feeling on this would be that the inhuman disguised as human would count, so vampires are in. Traditional werewolves are probably out. However there are so many variants on human/animal transformation in folklore and now in literature that I wouldn't be suprised to see someone digging up examples of where they do count. Also I'd say that we need to refactor a lot of that stuff so that it's based more on discussions of the themes and less on examples - those are definately areas of the article that are messy that way (though my focus has been elsewhere, maybe some of the cotes do this now?). Artw (talk) 19:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Why do i get the impression you are just time-wasting now? [16] Artw (talk) 21:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Of all the comments that have been generated surrounding this dispute you pick on that as time wasting? I'm not sure that your comment about it is appropriate for this talk page though, in all seriousness. Cheers.PelleSmith (talk) 21:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey, if you want to bring up issues surrounding the article and resolve them in a constructive and useful way then that's great. If, however, you want to raise sarcastic pseudo-objections to the article in order to mock it then that is not okay in the slightest - and I would ask you to stop immediately.

But if you want to know in seriousness: No, zombies as typically depicted are a shambling mockery of human life, and therefore do not make the inclusion criteria. Pod people, on the other hand, are well in. Artw (talk) 21:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, here's the other thing: zombies as typically depicted are dead human bodies, not disguised as anything else. Pod people, on the other hand, are aliens, replacing individual human beings — certainly a disguise. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 22:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Swamp thing is probably out as well, I'm afraid, since it's not like he's going to fool anybody. Artw (talk) 22:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Come now, you must admit he would fit right in at the ivy-covered walls of academe! — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 23:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

TBH I'm leaning towards werewolf being a bad fit - two possible forms, sure, but the human one is the primary one and neither is a disguise. Unless we have a well cited example of the human form being a disguise? The red riding hood example probably needs to move out of that para as well - not usre where it should go. There's a lot of animals dressing up to assume human form in nursery tales, we should probably check for general discussion of that we can cite. Artw (talk) 00:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, renditions differ. A number of creatures are only wearing human skin, and in the movie Van Helsing, the human forms of werewolves are among them — we see these transform by tearing off their human skin to show the fur beneath. (I suppose this explains that odd old test for detecting a werewolf.) — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 05:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merge

Thanks to Dream Focus higher up this page, I discovered the article List of creatures that pretend to be human. I think that article could easily be merged into this one, as it's pretty short and covers essentially the same topic. What does everyone else think? Robofish (talk) 00:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Is there anything on that page not already on this page? Artw (talk) 00:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

At the moment: Doppelgänger; Ghoul; Noppera-bō. I must say, there's an advantage to the table format, even with (or because of) its brevity. People just wanting to look up a critter or its own article can do so without having to plow through all the other text. It might actually be worthwhile populating the table from this article, and letting it stand independent, for that reason. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 02:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• I think keeping them separate is best. The List can have dozens of things added to it, easy to find something there, brief description. Then if they want more information about the concept they can come here. List of folklore creatures disguised as humans, fictional(never been proven so all are fictional) aliens disguised as humans, list for the religions and mythology(note: mythology is a religion that is no longer practiced, despite being one of the most popular around for a thousand years), etc. We could have separate list articles, or I believe it'd all fit in one large list in a proper table format. Dream Focus 03:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
• I also think the two articles seem complimentary and should be kept separate. One is more of a list article. But a merge certainly isn't out of the question if the chart could be maintained. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• I see no reason they couldn't be merged but either they need to be merged or Human disguise should go lighter on the examples(focusing on the concept) and link to the list. Otherwise we risk repeating a lot of material. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 14:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Human disguise in computer science? What?

"A human disguise (also human guise and sometimes human form)[1] is a concept in computer science, fantasy, folklore, mythology, religion, literary tradition, iconography and science fiction whereby non-human beings such as aliens, angels, demons, gods, monsters, robots, Satan or shapeshifters are disguised to seem human."

Where in computer science do you find that? Sure, the machines will one day grow smart enough to impersonate humans, and take over our planet, but that's currently seen as science fiction, not computer science. Or does computer science refer to programs that impersonate humans? Clever Artificial Intelligence software perhaps? That wouldn't count as science fiction, since its science fact, they already existing. Also real robots are produced to mimic human appearance, facial expressions and all. I guess their programming counts as computer science. Dream Focus 03:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a reference to the Turing Test. It's pretty much the only non-visual disguise mentioned here - personally I think it's still a good fit. Artw (talk) 03:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

And programs like ELIZA. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 03:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Very interesting. Thanks for including information on that subject. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

This is rather ridiculous and a clear instance of WP:SYN. In the Turing test, no machine is disguising as a human. It's the human who is possibly on the other side that has to be hidden, so that the interrogator cannot tell whether from the physical appearance whether they're dealing with a human or a machine. I've removed all reference to the Turing test from the article. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:01, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 25 May 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Human guise. No such user (talk) 08:56, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

---

Human disguise → Human form (mythology and fiction) – See Google Ngram data here. "Human form" is much more common. The current article title can be confused with a human wearing a disguise (as another human) when it's really about monsters or gods changing form to look like humans for the most part. The reason it's not at the base name is because I made it a disambiguation page, since it has 2 potential meanings. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:37, 25 May 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. -- Dane ^talk 01:33, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support. On first look--I did expect the article to be about humans wearing a disguise. Human Form (mythology and fiction) makes more sense as a term describing this as a type of literature. --Jaldous1 (talk) 15:56, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support weakly; consider alternatives. The current name clearly fails WP:RECOGNIZABLE, in being confusingly ambiguous. However, the proposed name has a rather lengthy disambiguation. Would like to see some alternative ideas. Maybe even Human guise would work. No one uses "guise" to mean "wearing a disguise", and "disguise" is rarely used to mean anything other than "wearing a disguise", except in metaphoric terms that aren't really applicable here ("The marketing materials' bombastic wording disguised the limitations of the product.") 23:53, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • The problem with "guise" is that it's a subset of "human form". Werewolves, for example, are certainly not in a "guise" when they are human; just not having transformed._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:28, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
• Tentative oppose Human form has many connotations (art/sculpture) and is likely tainting the Ngram results. Would need to see some more concrete evidence because the proposed title is quite un-WP:CONCISE and un-WP:NATURAL. My personal thought is that Human guise is a far better option, comparing the two it beats out human disguise. -- Netoholic @ 05:37, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

• Move to human guise - post-relisting vote change. Per Google Ngram, human guise beats out human disguise. Concise, WP:NATURALDISAMBIG, and likely common name for this concept. -- Netoholic @ 07:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support better title In ictu oculi (talk) 07:31, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per Netoholic. "Human form" seems to normally refer to aesthetic aspects of the appearance of actual humans. Dekimasuよ! 05:46, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• Human guise would be all right, still oppose how "human form" calls to mind something like Vitruvian Man. Dekimasuよ! 23:57, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support human guise.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:35, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.