Talk:Shadow person

message: Hi,
I will briefly discuss the lack of depth in the article that is very much a global phenomenon. some suggested the deletion of this article with a rather immature argument, I believe this is an important article and it should be augmented with information from a global perspective. currently it this article makes you feel that shadow people happened in 2003 through a show and interactive media. 
it is a fact that stories and folklore of such shadow people have been available through centuries and across the world and these are not part of the western world alone.
I have seen National geographic and discovery TV programs on such topics. so i think much research is needed to be dug up and included to do justice to the subject. 39.48.123.13 (talk) 07:11, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs more information from global perspective 

message: Please help - I'm trying to add (merge) the following article into the Shadow Person page. However, some of the images don't display the captions underneath the image, but instead display the image titles. Can anyone help me merge this article into the page with the correct captions? Annerpino (talk) 16:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I quickly looked over the relevant sources (by the way, you can't cite contributions to one Wikipedia article by using another Wikipedia article) and none of them mention the topic of shadow persons or make an explicit connection between shadow people and the pineal gland. So I'm afraid your proposed text is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, which is prohibited by WP editorial policies. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:57, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, I was going to say the same thing.  It's interesting content, but I'm not sure we can fit it into this article without some work. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:59, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  And since I see that a new article draft reviewer advised you to add the content to this existing article, I will mention that Wikipedia works on WP:CONSENSUS which places editorial decision-making with any number of editors who may express legitimate concerns about the suitability of material. Long story short, even though one editor said it was OK, your contribution is still subject to review by other editors. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:24, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

text: It's precisely the "analytical synthesis of conditions already broadly accepted and understood" that is the problem. WP:SYNTHESIS specifically prohibits Fact A (sourced) + Fact B (sourced) + Fact C (sourced) = Novel conclusion D (unsourced). As a helpful caption at WP:OR puts it: "Outside of Wikipedia, original research is a key part of scholarly work. However, Wikipedia editors must not base their contributions on their own original research. Wikipedia editors must base their contributions on reliable, published sources". Many newcomers at Wikipedia make this mistake and become discouraged when they see their analysis is disallowed. I hope you won't. Best regards. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:33, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  To have your efforts included, you'd need to find a published source that meets WP:RS policy that specifically states the theory/proposition/conclusion that pineal photoreceptors retain the image of the pineal gland’s point of view which is a unique form created from light and dark light patches, as well as retaining an image formed by the human supraorbital ridge, which morphs into a shadowy bust to create a shadow person hallucination. The basic premise of the encyclopedia (I'm simplifying it greatly) is that editors take information on a topic from high quality reliable published sources and create article content using that same information and write it in their own words to avoid copyright issues and plagiarism. Can you understand how this is different from your original insights based on your own analysis of published sources? - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:34, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

text:  The material is a WP:COPYVIO from holographicspacetime.com. Please see the encyclopedia's copyright policies. If you own the copyright, please see WP:DCP and especially Donating copyrighted material. LuckyLouie (talk) 14:08, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shadow Person Sighting Physiological Explanation 

message: I understand about druggies thinking they see stuff moving and them being paranoid etc. and why I never paid any mind to this stuff. However, there's now video of normal people (non druggies, you know? Professionals, homeowners, cops, nurses, security guards etc. ) having captured these things on camera. It regularly makes the Travel Channel TV shows. So how do you explain these? They certainly don't look like video manipulations, particularly when they're CCTV. All these respectable professionals could be drunk up the whazoo, how do you explain that we can all see it on the video, then? It's not that there's way too many reports all over the world for it to be faked, it's that there's too many videos by now that have been authenticated as not tampered with. So nothing on wiki addressing this? Check out Paranormal Caught on Camera. It's on 3 times per week, on repeat, binge watch, "top 100" and telethons. You're likely to catch 3 of these videos at least if you watch even 1 day.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.178.137.210 (talk) 00:18, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: A program that panders to paranormal true believers is unlikely to be a reliable source. If you disagree, take it to WP:RSN and get a consensus there. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:05, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video of Shadow People