Jump to content

Talk:Indigo children/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

An attempt to garner some sources

In this chapter I'll endeavor to garner some sources on the subject and its periphery which are not directly stemming from the New Age or Indigo related/engaged authors. I encourage the skeptics and critics of the subjects (which seem to have numerous representation on this page) to comment on the eventual flaws and shortcomings of these sources.

  • Creating an Inclusive School. by Richard A. Villa. ISBN 978-1416600497. -- references Carroll's 1999 Indigo publication.
Worthless - cites Carroll on two pages [1], [2], neither one of which actually mentions or discusses the concept of indigo children. So no. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 00:11, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Hmmm. It actually says that the practices recommended by Carroll and Tober in their Indigo books (Carroll & Tober, 1999) are "beginning to gain attention in our schools". "Recognizing and capitalizing on the beauty and power of all diversity can be nurtured in our schools. Treating everyone with dignity and respect, valuing cooperation, and promoting mutual support and responsibility toward our fellow community members are just a few of the practices for promoting unity that have been proposed (by Carroll & Taber, 1999) and are beginning to gain attention in our schools."
Yes, and note the complete lack of the word "indigo" in that sentence. Too vague, nothing specific, unusable. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
"practices for promoting unity that have been proposed (by Carroll & Taber, 1999)" are the practices proposed for treating indigos. See reference list of this book, where "Carroll & Taber, 1999" is "The Indigo Children: The New Kids Have Arrived" -- Nazar (talk) 17:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Indigo children: gestalt therapeutic guidelines for parents and caretakers; A Christian Perspective. Grobler, Hermanus Bosman. University of South Africa. June 2003
Doubtful, the author has no other publications, no citations, and the topic is not improved by adding another layer of invalid, anti-scholarly religious posturing. Plus, it's not a book, it's a Master's thesis. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 00:11, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, it's an independent publication, and a master's thesis is obviously a work of academic standards, verified and reviewed. It gives a valuable perspective on the subject. Its characteristic as "another layer of invalid, anti-scholarly religious posturing" is ungrounded. -- Nazar (talk) 09:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Has it appeared in a peer-reviewed journal? I see no reason to give this any weight. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
How many other refs in that article (including skeptic ones) appeared in peer-reviewed scientific journals? I see no reason to give more weight to speculations of journalists and skeptics than to an academic work reviewed according to the requirements of master's thesis. -- Nazar (talk) 17:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • From Changelings to Crystal Children: An Examination of ‘New Age’ Ideas About Autism. Mitzi Waltz. Journal of Religion, Disability & Health. Volume 13, Issue 2, 2009 -- could we link this to the other material about crystals and autism we've got at hand from pro-indigo authors and produce a section on it?
The abstract doesn't mention indigo children, making it worthless unless there is an explicit link. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 00:11, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Indigos and Crystals are overlapping terms and have been linked by many authors on the topic. I've inserted references to Tappe on that subject into the article, there are also similar statements by Carroll and other authors. The autism connection is also obvious. -- Nazar (talk) 08:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

-- Nazar (talk) 17:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Here's one more:

  • Art and Mental Disturbance. Elliot Benjamin. Journal of Humanistic Psychology January 1, 2011

-- Nazar (talk) 17:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

This has a bare five mentions of the word and represents the author's non-notable theorizing about the phenomenon within his personal theory of art.
Five mentions is a lot. I doubt all skeptic refs have more than that. Why should it be less notable than skeptic refs? Also, it's not the number of occurrences of word "indigo" which establishes the notability of a reference. -- Nazar (talk) 17:11, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

And one more yet:

  • Integral Psychology And An Artistic View Of Mental Disturbance. Elliot Benjamin.
This is a random webpage, failing WP:RS. It appears to be self-published. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 00:11, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
The page you referenced is just a full text provided by the author for convenience. The material itself is referenced in Journal of Humanistic Psychology (as well as the above article), which, I think, is not self-published. -- Nazar (talk) 09:07, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

-- Nazar (talk) 17:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I've searched the JHP for the article and couldn't find it. Benjamin seems to reference it in another article in 2008, citing 2006, but a review of all 2006 articles didn't turn up this title. Before this can be discussed, a full set of citation information would be required. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • “There Are Many Flavors of the Truth.” Opposing and Embracing Science in a New Age Worldview. by Feline Perrenet. Faculty of Social Sciences and the Erasmus School of History, Culture and Communication. Erasmus University Rotterdam. Supervisor: dr. Stef Aupers. Second reader: prof. dr. Dick Houtman.
    "In the American literature on Indigo Children, Crystal Children, Star Children, etc., there is not one overarching term present to refer to all these types of children, although sometimes they are called ‘The Children of Now’ (e.g. Blackburn Losey 2006). In the Netherlands, however, the Dutch term ‘Nieuwetijdskinderen’ is commonly employed to refer to Indigo Children, Crystal Children and Star Children alike. Therefore, in this study an English translation of this Dutch term is employed to refer to the phenomenon of these children: ‘The Children of the New Age.’" -- hope this citation explains the linkage clearly enough :) -- Nazar (talk) 09:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
  • "Autism and the Edges of the Known World: Sensitivities, Language, and Constructed Reality" by Olga Bogdashina. -- there's a direct linkage between autism, indigo and crystals. See page 173. -- Nazar (talk) 10:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
A single mention on one page that points out New Age ideas are full of speculation and lack skepticism. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
And that single mention connects in a perfect way the terms indigos, crystals and autism. -- Nazar (talk) 17:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
From a publisher of New Age claptrap with no scholarly merit. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
From a notable author of over a dozen of books, researcher, holder of titles and awards (see related Wiki page). Clearly not one of authors who originally introduced the term indigo. A worthwhile perspective. -- Nazar (talk)
The personal feelings of a non-notable individual with Aspergers published by a non-scholarly publishing house. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
A notable author on the subject of autism. Clearly not originally involved into indigo subject as well. Authored over a dozen of books. "His books have been featured on "The Glenn Beck Show" and the NBC-TV hit "Parenthood." To date, his books have been translated in three languages." -- Nazar (talk) 17:27, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

-- Nazar (talk) 10:46, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Overall these sources indicate, still, that the indigo concept is not scholarly, speculative, and not developed in a meaningful way. I've requested a reprint of the Waltz article, as a scholarly text it's the best source listed for any expansions ot the page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
"indigo concept is not scholarly, speculative, and not developed in a meaningful way" -- the concept is a New Age one. Therefore, it can not be scholarly in a traditional way (neither by its origin, nor by its applications and associated theory and terminology). But it's developed broadly enough and has sufficient notability and implications for publications of scientific standards to attempt assessing it, in spite of its relative historical freshness and young age. The connection to the topics of autism and Asperger's is obvious. The broad use of correlated terms, like crystal children, star children, New Age children, has been shown and confirmed. -- Nazar (talk) 17:35, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Yep, it is a New Age concept, which means we apply WP:FRINGE and don't pretend it's something real. The scholarly studies, of which there appear to be few, don't take it seriously. In fact, they are mostly absent - the majority of publications are books from shoddy publishing houses. The balance of text should be given to skeptical summaries. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:55, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
  • "Exasperating or Exceptional? Parents' Interpretations of Their Child's ADHD Behavior" Heather C. Lench, Linda J. Levine, and Carol K. Whalen. Journal of Attention Disorders, first published on December 12, 2011 -- Nazar (talk) 19:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • "Raising a child with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: a parents' perspective" by Cosser, Catherine Phyllis. University of South Africa. June 2005. -- Nazar (talk) 19:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Cosser simply summarizes Caroll and Tober, and mentions that one parent she studied identifies her child with ADHD as being an Indigo instead. 'Linda believes she has proof of Ruth being an Indigo child because a photo taken of Ruth's aura clearly shows it to be "blue and violet."' The paper, following mainstream science, does not affirm the existence of Indigo children but does affirm the existence of ADHD.
Lench, et al. also affirms the existence of ADHD and only studies some parents who believe their children are Indigo Children (but does not affirm those parents' beliefs). Ian.thomson (talk) 20:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm not trying to offer scholarly references which affirm the existence of indigo children as a scientifically designated category. It's a New Age meme. I'm giving references to scholarly sources which discuss the meme, its usage and popular interpretations by those who use it. -- Nazar (talk) 20:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • PARENTAL EXPLANATORY MODELS OF CHILDREN’S ATTENTION DEFICIT HYPERACTIVITY DISORDER. A dissertation presented to the Faculty of Saybrook Graduate School and Research Center by Carolyn Williams Orlando. San Francisco, California. December 2007 -- Nazar (talk) 20:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Freeman, Joan (2007) "Book Review: The Indigo Children: The New Kids Have Arrived, edited by Lee Carroll and Jan Tober," Gifted Children: Vol. 2: Iss. 1, Article 7. -- Nazar (talk) 21:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  • А.Г. Кузнецова. Indigo Phenomenon. Федеральное агентство по образованию. Государственное образовательное учреждение высшего профессионального образования «Рязанский государственный университет имени С.А. Есенина». АКТУАЛЬНЫЕ ВОПРОСЫ ГУМАНИТАРНЫХ НАУК ГЛАЗАМИ СТУДЕНТОВ. Материалы 3-й Международной научной конференции студентов и молодых ученых, 23—24 апреля 2008 года. Рязань 2008. ISBN 978-5-88006-552-3 -- Nazar (talk) 21:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Beyond the Medicalisation of "Challenging Behaviour"; or Protecting our children from "Pervasive Labelling Disorder"’ by Richard House (Ph.D., an NHS counsellor, a Steiner Waldorf early years teacher and an academic writer/editor). Published in The Mother magazine, issues 4-6, 2002-3 -- Nazar (talk) 22:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Indigos in Hawai’i: A Phenomenological Study of the Experience of Growing Up with Spiritual Intelligence. Lulu Bagnol: Doctor of Health Sciences doctorate; Jeff Alexander, Associate Professor, Doctor of Health Sciences Program; Helen Ewing, Director and Assistant Professor, Doctor of Health Sciences Program; Department of Interdisciplinary Health Sciences, Arizona School of Health Sciences, A.T. Still University -- Nazar (talk) 22:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
This last reference is a doctorate student's paper, I'm not seeing any peer review there and the acknowledgement at the end seems to suggest that it isn't exactly a neutral publication. - SudoGhost 23:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Published in PACIFIC HEALTH DIALOG MARCH 2011, VOL. 17, NO. 1. ( http://www.pacifichealthdialog.org.fj/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=90&Itemid=64 ) The acknowledgement expresses thanks to Dr. Helen Ewing, Dr. Jeff Alexander, and Doris Chu, as well as additional thanks to Nancy Ann Tappe for spiritual guidance, to Dr. Kathleen Mathieson, OWC staff, etc. The usual traditional acknowledgement and thanks to those who inspired the author.
The publication is obviously peer-reviewed according to all academic standards. "PHD, the premier journal for Pacific health, is marketed to major health professional groups and those with an interest in Pacific health and welfare. It contains peer reviewed original papers, case reports, communications, viewpoints and opinions, reviews, and news from Pacific health institutions contributed by local and international health professionals" http://www.pacifichealthdialog.org.fj/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=74&Itemid=57
The SJR for that journal is (drum roll please) 0.03 - or to put it another way, between 2004 and 2011, papers in this journal were only cited in papers published in other journals a total of 9 times! That is spectacularly bad. The "R" in WP:RS stands for "Reliable" - and a journal that's been in business for 7 years and in all that time gets only nine cites in other journals is not by any measure "reliable" - this is a junk reference. SteveBaker (talk) 14:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
"SJR for that journal is (drum roll please) 0.03" -- which puts it at well above 12000th position among nearly 19000 other journals in that rating. Is there any Wiki-policy which requires SJR to be above certain threshold for peer-reviewed publications?
And, btw, I just checked that SJR index for "Nova Religio" and "Journal of Religion, Disability & Health", which both are used for skeptic info on the subject, and their SJR is (drum roll please ;) ) 0.026, which puts them well below 16000th position in that glorious rating :) -- Nazar (talk) 15:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
As WP:SCHOLARSHIP puts it: "One can confirm that discussion of the source has entered mainstream academic discourse by checking the scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes. A corollary is that journals not included in a citation index, especially in fields well covered by such indexes, should be used with caution, though whether it is appropriate to use will depend on the context.". So here we have an article with zero cites in a journal that's managed just nine cites in seven years(!!!) - and according to WP:SCHOLARSHIP that clearly can't count as mainstream - which is what WP:FRINGE requires of us. SteveBaker (talk) 19:18, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
The above is a very tendentious reading of the policy.
  • Firstly, the reference IS included into the discussed index and has a higher index than all other references used in the article so far.
  • Secondly, if you want to compare the reference to publications in other fields, which have much higher index, then such a comparison is not adequate for the subject in question. A high citation index is a result of a publication being "popular" or "highly significant" for scientific community in general (all fields' inclusive). The highest index is received by publications which are either groundbreaking, contain information on the studies which are the "milestones" in the development of science, or are very actively researched and cross-referenced by multiple independent participants, or are published by the "key people" or "key research teams", or just get better attention and financing, etc... There are also other factors, both objective and subjective. Low "scientific popularity" is not necessarily an indication of low quality of publication. In fact, there's a vast majority of peer-reviewed professional journals which have a comparable range of citation index, and a vast majority of scientific publications which are not cited elsewhere at all. This is usually the case for most mid- or low-importance publications.
  • Thirdly, the claims made and discussed are not WP:FRINGE. There's no scientific assertion that indigos do have telepathic powers, are coming from the stars with a special mission, or whatever other extraordinary ideas. It's an overview of life approach related to certain belief systems and its social, developmental, attitude building, cultural and other implications. If you don't like the term "indigo" being used in a positive way and treated as a part of a positive emotional identity in that publication, that is not reason enough for discarding this publication or giving it less weight than other peer-reviewed publications.
  • And, lastly, the reference is just as good for establishing a mainstream view on the subject as other peer-reviewed references, and probably much better than press refs. We do not have any significantly stronger or higher rated/cited scientific references for this subject at the moment. Your eventual personal dislike of the authors' spiritual views, their positive use of "indigo" label, or the angle at which the phenomenon is presented in the publication, is not relevant for Wikipedia. It's obviously a publication which has been throughly vetted according to scientific scrutiny.
-- Nazar (talk) 07:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Actually, the main reason to ignore the article is it is a primary source (from the abstract, "This phenomenological study explored the lived experiences of 10 adult Indigos (≥ 18+ years old) on the island of Oahu, Hawai`i (7 females, 3 males; mean age = 52.4 ± SD).") The fact that it's built on phenomenological principles (i.e. "how people feel about stuff") and attempts to take pictures of people's auras (which don't exist) is yet more reason to ignore it.
As for the statement "Thirdly, the claims made and discussed are not WP:FRINGE. There's no scientific assertion that indigos do have telepathic powers, are coming from the stars with a special mission, or whatever other extraordinary ideas", may I present you the following excerpts from the paper?
  • there is an extraordinary group of children who have high intelligence and intuition, healing abilities, and a strong spiritual connection with God. Some researchers claim these unique children are a whole new human evolution
  • During the 1970’s tens of thousands of these children were found in China. These highly intelligent and clairvoyant children were gathered, institutionalized, and trained for military intelligence by the government
  • Indigo children display a range of behavior associated with their special abilities
So again, the reference shouldn't be used and again the concept is not scientific. Nazar, I don't know if you think you are indigo or you think your kid is indigo or what, but please just let it go. We're not here to promote pseudoscience. Start a blog or something. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I seem to get more critical response here than I'd expect from a blog. This is also a relatively neutral platform (that's at least what it was supposedly designed and intended to be), where the validity of information can be tested and versatile views co-exist. Besides, my contributions seem really needed by certain Wikipedia sectors. So, I really do not see who are you to tell me I should leave? Or do you think Wikipedia is your private blog? It's my project just as much as it is yours. -- Nazar (talk) 16:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
As to what I think, please rest assured it's not what you think :) I'll give you a little hint, however: if this project was dominated by pro-indigo contributors, blinded by their beliefs and refusing to see the obvious flaws of their concept, I'd likely be on the other side of the argument ;) -- Nazar (talk) 16:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
If it were a blog I'd be free to point out this is patent nonsense based on long chains of speculation with no relation to physics, chemistry or reality, telepathy doesn't exist and these children just sound like mouthy brats whose parents taught them to be narcissistic. "Neutral" means "according to the attention given by mainstream experts". Who don't even think this is crap, because it's so non-noteworthy it only appears in flaky new age press or extremely low-tier journals with no real secondary attention. We don't need to treat this as if it were real; we shouldn't pretend it's credible. We don't need to include sources that treat it as credible, because it's not. The page should give a very basic overview of claims, then move on to criticisms. We shouldn't be writing it from the perspective of Tappe and her ilk. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
May all your dreams come true! Stay with us! :) Congrats on 4 mil articles, btw :) -- Nazar (talk) 18:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Coming back to that last source, yes, its expressive style is indeed a bit messy and not neutral enough for a strict academic publication. I wonder how it actually got through the Doctor's thesis scrutiny and even became published in a peer reviewed medical journal. I'd say it's still a better source for a summarizing review of some pro-indigo claims than many primary indigo books and interviews by pro-indigo authors. It might be used in certain contexts as a counterweight to the critical publications and as an information source for better overview of how the ideas are perceived. But we may leave it for the meanwhile, if its claims sound too much out of the mainstream for the concerned skeptics here. We've still got many other interesting sources to discuss and eventually use in the article. -- Nazar (talk) 14:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

  • "Нікітчина Світлана. ОБДАРОВАНІ ДІТИ ІНДИГО – НАША РЕАЛЬНІСТЬ ЧИ АМЕРИКАНСЬКІ ДОМИСЛИ?" Гуманітарний вісник ДВНЗ «Переяслав-Хмельницький державний педагогічний університет імені Григорія Сковороди»: Збірник наукових праць. – Переяслав-Хмельницький, 2009. –Вип. 18. – 388 с. -- Nazar (talk) 15:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
    This one is written by a doctor of education, professor of the chair of education management and an academician, she's also head of chair of pre-school education in the State Pedagogical University. The publication basically reiterates the ideas of Carroll, Tober, Tappe and a few others and states some of them are noteworthy and should be seriously considered in education, especially in education of gifted children. Could probably be used as a secondary source for some Indigo classification, as well as for the approaches suggested for Indigo treatment. -- Nazar (talk) 19:56, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Проходова Н. А.. Дети Индиго. Рекомендательный список литературы. Федеральное агентство по образованию. ГОУ ВПО «Новосибирский государственный педагогический университет». Новосибирск 2008. Lots of academic standard Indigo refs here. A list approved by Novosibirsk State Pedagogical University. -- Nazar (talk) 15:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Methodological Issues in Exploring the Ideas of Children with Autism Concerning Self and Spirituality. by Ann Lewis. Journal of Religion, Disability & Health. Volume 13, Issue 1, 2009. -- Nazar (talk) 13:56, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
That last one seems wholly irrelevant, I couldn't find any mention of indigo, star or crystal children in the version I found online. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. It's somehow connected with the Waltz article and Google scholar lists it as a related source, but it's not very useful in our case, indeed. -- Nazar (talk) 19:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I've also checked the Кондаков И. М. Психология. Иллюстрированный словарь, Прайм-Еврознак, С.-Петербург, 2003. ref, used by А.Г. Кузнецова. in Indigo Phenomenon., and it doesn't match the citation in her article. There's an article about Indigo there, but it's about a totally different concept. -- Nazar (talk) 19:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Quote from Waltz

  • "I've requested a reprint of the Waltz article, as a scholarly text it's the best source listed" that's what one of our most knowledgeable and active contributors (WLU) wrote about that 0.026 publication. But, by the by, could we request WLU to upload that reprint to some document shared viewing service (like scribd) so we can all examine that valuable material? -- Nazar (talk) 15:46, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
No. In my requests for reprints from authors I always indicate I will not share the publication and I adhere to that promise. I'm not engaging in copyright violation for a nonsense article like this one. As a fringe topic, the standard for extreme claims is always higher than the claims for the mainstream. If people want to claim that indigo children are psychic or have triple helix DNA or whatever nonsense they spout, that's fine. But wikipedia is not a soapbox for nonsense like this and we should report the mainstream position that the indigo child concept is little more than a face-saving rebranding for credulous parents easily separated from their money. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I just wasn't able to find the quotation you used in the article through search. Could you possibly provide somewhat broader context quotations? A few paragraphs at least? -- Nazar (talk) 16:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
You mean the Waltz paper I added here? Section is on pages 124-5, full quote is:
That's the only discussion of indigo children in the article, though there are minor and irrelevant mentions of crystal children elsewhere. It's a pretty good mainstream statement of the dangers of these concepts. Krider looks quite credulous but could be used to cite some basic facts - a reasonable source for star children as a synonym actually. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

crystal children aka star seed

Before I make any changes, I've heard New Agers allude to cyrstal children as distinct from indigo as having Autism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.94.2.90 (talk) 03:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

New messages go at the bottom. Make sure you have reliable sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
With vague concepts like this, the best way of dealing with issues like these is probably simply to include these alternative names in the lead section and leave it at that. I don't see this as a particularly controversial point, but I also don't think it's worth trying to figure out the difference between the imaginary types. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
The trouble is that once you start to throw around medical diagnosis (words like "Autism") - you are now making claims of a medical nature. That raises the bar for sources on Wikipedia from plain old WP:FRINGE/WP:RS standards to WP:MEDRS. WP:MEDRS says: "...biomedical information in articles [must] be based on reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge." - which will certainly result in us having to toss out all of the pro-Indigo references and speak only from the mainstream medical science view. IMHO, the claim that autism is involved is not backed by reliable mainstream medical science - so we simply can't say this in the first place.
Basically, we can't put this ridiculous claim into the article without some mainstream medical journal saying that it's true.
SteveBaker (talk) 16:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

rainbow children star seed etc

the new age literature also aludes to star children star seed rainbow children etc. — 70.94.2.90 (talk) 21:43, 29 June 2012 (UTC)Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.94.2.90 (talk) 23:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Great, get a reliable source and we can gather all the names for this branch of pseudoscience and throw it in the infobox. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

when i google crystal and indigo, virtually every new age site also lists rainbow children and star children or star seed. doreen virtue site

http://www.angeltherapy.com/article1.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.94.2.90 (talk) 02:23, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Not quite sure if that really qualifies as a reliable source in this case. It is reliable for saying that Doreen Virtue discusses the concept, but it does not demonstrate that other people are concerned with the concept. It is WP:FRINGE material, which does make me inclined to lean towards the latter for purposes of inclusion. Anyone can publish a book with their views on Indigo-/Crystal-/Star- children, but it kinda takes outside sources (those unaffiliated with the New Age community) to note whether or not the New Age community beyond Virtue accepts these ideas. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:37, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
If the material is copyright, we should just delete it. It's irrelevant anyway, random webpages aren't reliable sources. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

if you google rainbow children, you get webpages like this --

INDIGO-CRYSTAL-RAINBOW CHILDREN http://web.me.com/j9991/Indigo-Crystal-Rainbow-Children/Welcome.html

"The Rainbow children are the newest children to arrive and again they have incarnated at this time to become the way showers into 5th dimensional consciousness. In this new world..... "

www.childrenlights.com/Articles/the_children.htm

www.starchildren.info/rainbow.html The rainbow children are the third generation of special children that have come to help humanity evolve. Different from the Indigo and Crystal children, Rainbow ...

and there are dozens of new age sites that mention it.

I think it is worth mentioning rainbow children and star children/star seed as synonyms since it is a new age concept that is amply documented in their websites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.94.2.90 (talk) 16:23, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

No, random web pages are not adequate. If no newspapers, independent books, scholarly publications or other reliable sources have documented these ideas, that strongly suggests they lack notability and we shouldn't talk about them here. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
over at amazon.com these BOOKS are published
Indigo, Crystal, & Rainbow Children by Doreen Virtue (Apr 15, 2005)-Abridged
The Children of Now: Crystalline Children, Indigo Children, Star Kids, Angels on Earth, and the Phenomenon of Transitional Children by Meg Blackburn Losey (Dec 1, 2006)
Indigo, Crystal & Rainbow Children - Who are we and Why are we here? (The Honest-to-God Series) by Aingeal Rose and AHONU (Apr 12, 2012)
Psychic Children: Revealing the Intuitive Gifts and Hidden Abilites of Boys and Girls by Sylvia Browne and Lindsay Harrison (Jul 1, 2008)
Page 15: ... our birthright. Indigo, Crystal, and Rainbow Children I can't even
Intuitive Child: A Guide to Understanding and Parenting Unusually Sensitive and Empathic Children by Catherine Crawford (Jan 1, 2009)
Conversations with the Children of Now: Crystal, Indigo, and Star Kids Speak About the World, Life, and the Coming 2012 Shift by Meg Blackburn Losey (Feb 1, 2008)
Excerpt - Page 5: "... Whether or not you believe in indigo or crystal children ...
Indigo, Crystal & Rainbow Children - Who are we and Why are we here? (The Honest-to-God Series) by Aingeal Rose and AHONU (Apr 12, 2012)
It's a term in wide use by new age and their books on amazon shows this.
I propose listing it as synonyms and similar terms in use by new age. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.94.2.90 (talk) 18:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
If all we did was list the synonyms, perhaps. We should not discuss any details regarding any of these synonyms unless there is an independent reliable source.
This discussion is of an incredibly unimportant fringe of a fringe idea, where basically anyone can say anything and there's no way to prove or disprove it. As wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, the further we get from the one notable concept, indigo children, the more tenuous things are and the less text and effort we should spend on it. The publishers of the books are of less and less reliability and I have very little inclination to trust any of them. I would much, much prefer leaving out these nonsense synonyms unless there is an independent, reliable source. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:47, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

ok how about list it under synonyms§

Based on what reliable sources? We are not supposed to list every neologism that someone has created. If no independent sources exist discussing a concept, we shouldn't be listing it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 00:19, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

what would be an independent source that satisfy you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.94.2.90 (talk) 00:35, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

That question is answered comprehensively in our WP:RS ("reliable sources") and WP:V ("verification") guideline documents. Those two are very key guidelines for all wikipedia editors - and ESPECIALLY for controversial and/or fringe topics like this one. So I strongly recommend that you read those guidelines very carefully. SteveBaker (talk) 02:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


so how come the newest edition now has star seed crystaline children etc. as synonyms, when I added it it was deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.81.130.65 (talk) 16:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Did you use reliable sources (as detailed here, including publications like scientific journals) for each synonym? Did the addition explain what the terms meant or how they were related to the concept of Indigo children? Ian.thomson (talk) 17:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Your additions were just and appropriate. They might have lacked a bit of Wiki-style. In some other context I'd expect someone experienced in Wiki-editing to keep them maybe with a bit of restyling. I'd say the reason they were removed in this particular artilce is that there's not enough respect and concern about cooperation from the side of Indigo-skeptics here. They usually try to bend the rules so as to block any new additions from people whom they perceive as "opponents" to their own views about Indigos. Here's a good example quote from a guy who just replied you, so you can understand his standpoint better: "we are sick and tired of delusional bullshit being pushed on children, and we will not let you do it here". It's a tough editing environment. And a good place to hone your argumentation skills :) -- Nazar (talk) 18:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Bend the rules? Please point to one example of that. We're just trying to keep this article on the side of science, as the rest of this site is. It isn't even an issue of being an "Indigo-skeptic," but not being duped by shysters making completely fantastic claims with no basis in mutually observable reality. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Primary source

I just removed the following source as a primary source.

  • Lench, H. C.; Levine, L. J.; Whalen, C. K. (2011). "Exasperating or Exceptional? Parents' Interpretations of Their Child's ADHD Behavior". Journal of Attention Disorders. 17 (2): 141–51. doi:10.1177/1087054711427401. PMID 22166469.

However, it is a peer reviewed citation in a pubmed-indexed journal. Though I object to the quantity and detail of text the section was given, do other editors think there is value in including a shorter summary? I'm thinking something like "...though parents who view their children as indigo may experience less distress at ADHD behaviours." As a single, primary small-n study with dubious parameters it's not worth a lot of text but it might be worth that mention. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:51, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Can you please substantiate your claim that the mentioned study is a primary source? I generally find this removal just a continuation of the above-discussed severe bias of skeptically minded editors, who just don't like any positive information about the subject being included into the article. It's likely the most reliable medical peer-reviewed source ever used in that article. Why should it have less weight than speculations of skeptics, based on nothing but personal opinions? -- Nazar (talk) 13:37, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:MEDRS#Definitions - "A primary source in medicine is one in which the authors directly participated in the research or documented their personal experiences. They examined the patients, injected the rats, filled the test tubes, or at least supervised those who did...A secondary source in medicine summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources, usually to provide an overview of the current understanding of a medical topic, to make recommendations, or to combine the results of several studies."
WP:PSTS - "Primary sources are very close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. An account of a traffic accident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the accident; similarly, a scientific paper documenting a new experiment is a primary source on the outcome of that experiment...Secondary sources are second-hand accounts, generally at least one step removed from an event. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them. For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research."
WP:USEPRIMARY#Uses_in_fields_other_than_history - "In science, data is primary, and the first publication of any idea or experimental result is always a primary source. Narrative reviews, systematic reviews and meta-analyses are considered secondary sources, because they are based on and analyze or interpret (rather than merely citing) these original experimental reports."
Original research and experiments are primary sources. This is uncontroversial on wikipedia. As a fringe topic, indigo children get an inherently different handling from say vitamin C, Barack Obama or other topics that are of mainstream interest. This maintains wikipedia's quality and prevents it from being a soapbox for nonscientific speculation, pseudoscience and nonsense. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I see your point. I'd still say this source is stronger than many other used in the article, and should be given appropriate attention. -- Nazar (talk) 16:54, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
WP:USEPRIMARY is a subtle, nuanced guideline - there are times when a primary source is the best possible WP:RS for a statement (eg to back up a direct quotation or to demonstrate that some specific author does indeed hold some particular viewpoint) - but they can also be terrible sources (eg in a fringe article, it's all too easy to use primary sources to make unwarranted claims that some highly non-mainstream theory is "true" - and that would be "A Very Bad Thing"). So, here, in Indigo children (a fringe topic, for sure) - we really mustn't use primary sources to back up fringe claims because they can simply be the random opinions of any whack-job out there. Even if the source is a journal publication, if the theory it suggests is far from the mainstream, we need to have secondary sources to verify that this is indeed the mainstream view.
Another way to look at it is that when we say "Such-and-such is a fact" - and we provide WP:RS proof that someone claims it's a fact (in the form of a primary source) - then in a fringe topic where we're required to present the mainstream view as "fact", if there is any controversy about whether that primary source is mainstream or not then we're also going to need a reference to show that the primary source is indeed the mainstream view...and for that, we need a secondary source. It's like we're providing a secondary source that demonstrates that the primary source is indeed mainstream - if that is in any way controversial.
This is really only a problem in fringe topics where the literature abounds with marginal views that are far from the mainstream. In non-fringe topics, we don't really have that problem and primary sources are more useful (although secondary sources are greatly preferred). That goes double for medical topics (which this one is)...so for articles like this that are both fringe and medical - expect editors to demand iron-clad, gold-plated, diamond-encrusted second-source references for anything that's even fractionally controversial. SteveBaker (talk) 17:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Overall the study is a reasonable conclusion in line with the mainstream position and this page anyway - parents are happier lying to themselves about their children's diagnosis with a nonscientific cover story that reframes their behaviours as positive than they are facing the fact that their kid has, according to society and medicine, "something wrong with them". It certainly doesn't prove that indigo children exist, only that it's a convenient fiction and form of emotion-focussed coping.
I've requested a reprint from the authors, I'll see what it says. Their discussion may make the very point I do above, which is a reasonable inclusion. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

I tried to find the exact citation about Indigo Children being a pseudo-scientific term, supposedly located in this ref: Stenger, Victor J. (1998-06). "Reality Check: the energy fields of life". Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. I don't seem to be able to find it. Can anyone provide that citation? Because that ref is being persistently used by Indigo-skeptics here to push the "pseudoscience" definition above all other. And that seems a bit WP:UNDUE, as the term is mostly used in New Age context, as well as spirituality and alternative life-style related areas, it stems primarily from these areas as well. I do not argue, there is some pseudoscience about it as well, and it should be mentioned in the article; the pseudo-scientific weight seems over-emphasized here, though... -- Nazar (talk) 14:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

It is not WP:UNDUE to follow WP:FRINGE. The term is presented as a scientific one. Can you show any reliable sources that show that it adheres to a valid scientific method, has supporting evidence, or is in some other supports this scientific presentation? If not, it's pseudoscience by definition. - SudoGhost 14:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
"it's pseudoscience by definition" -- by who's definition? Your own? Or your skeptic friends here? This seems like an WP:OR. But, I stated above, I don't argue, there is some pseudoscience about it. Just provide that citation I asked about and you're good to go. I'm sure you can easily find another citation, if that one was a fail ref. Please follow the rules.
But that's not an issue, as I don't really mind "pseudo-science" being used and described as one of the attributes of Indigo children. The issue is that this is not the only attribute and not the only context in which this term is being used. And dictionary definitions point to it being a New Age concept as well as general descriptive attribute and meme used in some areas, which have really mostly nothing to do with either science or pseudo-science. If someone is called a hippy, an emo or something similar we don't call it pseudo-science, do we?
"The term is presented as a scientific one" -- is it? All over this article I don't seem to find a slightest shadow of this term being presented as a scientific. -- Nazar (talk) 14:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it is presented as a scientific one and we've discussed this before on this talk page. This website, the one you describe as "the official website", describes it as "...the result of scientific observations". If that can't be backed up by scientific evidence, then guess what? That's pseudoscience, and not by "my definition", but per WP:FRINGE. "Dictionary definitions point to be being a New Age concept"? That's great! However, since when were they mutually exclusive terms? Moreover, why does the lede need to say nearly the same thing twice in a row? - SudoGhost 15:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Haha. So now you say Carroll is the official Indigo children source? That's BS. The concept is very wide and used by hundreds of different authors, in many different contexts. Some of them are very fringe indeed. Some are pseudo-scientific indeed. Some speak about paranormal auras indeed. And some other say yet other stuff. Obviously there's a lot of "science based" claims in Carroll's works and some scientific wording is used. But his works are spiritual writing first of all, and no one's gonna take them as serious scientific sources. If you want to describe all that in Wikipedia, I personally don't mind, you can put it all into expanded sections of that article. But that's not the core essence of the concept and not something for the lede. Much of it will also be your personal speculation, which does not belong into Wikipedia. -- Nazar (talk) 15:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Then Wikipedia isn't an encyclopedia either. Some of the content is encyclopedic, but there's also a lot of talk pages and help pages, so you can't call that an encyclopedia either. This article is a pseudoscientific subject, you can't use "But it's New Age" to remove what you don't like from the article. Oh, and "Haha"? Not that I don't enjoy being laughed at or anything, but if you're not here to discuss something civilly, there's no point in trying to discuss anything with you. The fact that you describe yourself as a "Pro-indigo contributor" kind of highlights why you're not exactly neutral on this subject, and why you've tried time and time again to remove pseudoscientific from the article. Maybe you can just wait until neutral editors simply die away. - SudoGhost 15:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not pro-indigo. I'm a spiritual skeptic, if you like, and I personally sift away much of rosy Indigo ideas. But the core concept is spiritually robust in my opinion, and has a great future. It's just a situational role taken to correct the obvious problem with neutrality of this article. And, rest assured, as long as your rendering of the subject is not faithful, it will die away sooner or later (just as all the fluffy pro-indigo stuff will). It's only a matter of time (and we've got a lot of time :) ). So, while I heartily invite you for a personal talk on my page, I'd suggest you stop doing it here and get to the point. Where is that citation I asked about? Or have you smuggled that ref into the article without having any proper citation just to express your personal viewpoint? If that is so, then it must be removed. I stated above, I'm quite sure you can find another skeptic ref to support your viewpoint, as there are plenty of them. The WP:Burden is on you. BTW, please note, I'm personally not in a habit of removing someone's work done with good intentions, even if it's somewhat not in accordance with the strictest Wiki-requirements. And I never tried to remove "pseudo-science" from that article. Please prove me wrong on that and I'll retract my edits. I'll always give you maximum freedom to express your skeptic views here. But, in the same time, I always insisted that "pseudo-science" is not the only context of the subject discussed, and the article should reflect this properly. So, let's fix it :) -- Nazar (talk) 16:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The term "pseudoscience" is a relatively common English word - it may be found with near-identical definitions in any dictionary. It means something like "a field that makes pronouncements on scientific matters without following the scientific method". It is truly self-evident that this is the case for the indigo children claims. They state things that should be easily testable - yet which the proponents have not tested using the scientific method. If you are claiming that the proponents of this theory are NOT making scientifically testable claims, then you're easily dismissed because there are many, many books by those proponents in which they make those claims. If you are claiming that these people do indeed to proper scientific testing of their claims then please, please do bring forth evidence of those experiments. If you cannot demonstrate either that they don't make scientific claims or that they do employ scientific testing - then the only common English word to describe this field is "pseudoscience". We really don't need references in order to appropriately employ common english words like this. SteveBaker (talk) 20:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Thought I'd contribute my two cents. I don't believe in "Indigo Children" and always thought it was a rather silly concept, as I am a very strong advocate of science and don't believe in the supernatural. However, after hearing a song by Puscifer called "Indigo Children," I decided to come here for information so I could get a better feel for the mood that the band was trying to convey. I was a bit upset when I came here because the article clearly violates WP:NPOV in that it is very much biased in favor of "skeptics." I feel like I don't get any perspective on what people who believe in this concept actually believe, but rather a straw man view of what the "skeptics" say they believe. After having read the discussion above, I feel that while the "skeptical" editors are very well-versed in Wikipedia rules, it almost seems that they are gaming said rules to put their POV out there, rather than keeping the article neutral so that it is of the best possible benefit to all involved. It's a shame that both sides can't work together to come up with an article that shows both viewpoints in an accurate, unbiased manner. - Nanamin (talk) 19:23, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:FRINGE, we are supposed to give the skeptics' view more prominence, and per WP:GEVAL, we do not have to give the pseudoscientific view anywhere near equal prominence. This is not gaming the system, this is how things work in fringe topics. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:37, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
"I don't get any perspective on what people who believe in this concept actually believe, but rather a straw man view of what the "skeptics" say they believe" and "they (skeptics) are gaming the rules to put their POV out there" -- strong +1. I, however, believe that this is a typical situation for this kind of an article in Wikipedia. It's an expression of Wikipedia's currently prevailing systemic bias towards rational scientific thinking. "Gaming of the rules" is likely done with best intentions for the quality of article content (from the POV of skeptic majority), but it also frequently looks like certain editors actually enjoy the feeling of self-assertion and supremacy of their favorite mode of reasoning it gives them. There's also an another extreme of this situation, where low quality, misleading, and often made up material is used to fill the forums and web-sites related to the topic. Wikipedia by its design would ideally be the place where the opposing views would balance in a comprehensive, lucid exposure of the subject, but at this point this obviously doesn't work very well. We've got just another extreme (the skeptic one) here. I think 'tis also related to the balancing of right/left hemispheres of the brain. Not enough balance is found in majority, so the mainstream approach reflects this. And Wikipedia is a mainstream project. I'm really curious how will this develop in the coming decades... -- Nazar (talk) 19:38, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

21st century lexicon

So, what is your problem with this source? It's the strongest independent dictionary definition of the Indigo Children concept we've had so far. It belongs into the lede above all other tentative refs. -- Nazar (talk) 15:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

You're not using it just as a ref, you're essentially repeating the lede sentence all over again, that's the difference. Can it be a ref? Absolutely. Do you need to insert the entirety of the reference's text into the lede of the article, right after the lede, which says almost the same exact thing? Absolutely not. - SudoGhost 15:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Can you please quote that sentence, which "says almost the same exact thing"? Because I can't seem to find it there. Neither did I seem to notice any attempts on your side to save the ref for the article during your disruptive removals. -- Nazar (talk) 15:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
"Disruptive"? "Haha"? "That's BS"? If this is your idea of civil, I don't want any part of it. You're trying to copy the entirety of a reference into the article. Not only is that not looked well upon, but it's trying to in essence create two lede sentences. That's not beneficial to the article, if you want to do that, then get a consensus for the lede wording, but don't try to create two lede sentences to avoid doing that. - SudoGhost 15:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, that's your party's idea of being civil, I'm just returning the favor, only a small fraction of it, in fact. I noticed BS is a common "scientific abbreviation" for skeptics expressing their viewpoints here, so let's take it as "learned from true masters" :) And, let me repeat myself, where is that sentence, which "says almost the same exact thing"??? After you give that sentence, I'll go from that point on. -- Nazar (talk) 16:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
"Returning the favor"? I've never laughed at an editor nor did I call your edits disruptive. As for "your party", I'm not aware of being part of any "party"; I am an editor, my disagreeing with you does not place me in some group, nor does it warrant disrespectful comments due to what some third person has said. You need to drop this WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and until you do that I'm not interested in this "us v. them" push. Civility goes a long ways; "returning the favor" does not. See my previous comment, it is still my position on this. - SudoGhost 16:48, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, I'm not in a hurry. And you have nothing to answer on point, as usually. I really wish wicked removers were banned from this project permanently. We'd have a better Wikipedia. Till then, I'm removing that false ref. -- Nazar (talk) 17:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
"I really wish wicked removers were banned"..."I'm removing that false ref". It's only "wicked" if you don't agree with it? You've removed a reference that you haven't read, in order to replace it with a {{citation needed}} tag. There are appropriate tags for that situation, but removing sources like that isn't appropriate. Since you apparently missed it ("nothing to answer on point"), I'll say it again: Not only can you not copy an entire reference like that, but you're trying to in essence create two lede sentences. That's not beneficial to the article. If you want to do that, then get a consensus for the lede wording, but don't try to create two lede sentences to avoid doing that. Now you can blissfully ignore that if you'd like, but that's not going to somehow cause your preferred content to magically appear in the article. - SudoGhost 18:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
This is a muddy situation.
  • Firstly: the dictionary definition is at best a tertiary source - it would be a pretty poor choice for referencing such a statement in the lede. However, the way it's being used here is as a way to back up the fact that the dictionary really did say that - which makes it a fully acceptable source for a completely unacceptable statment (and, arguably, an egregious copyvio). If we were to remove the mention that this is the definition in that dictionary (as we must) - and using as a reference becomes incorrect.
  • Secondly: this is quite possibly the only mainstream dictionary to define the term. If I go to Dictionary.com and search for (let's say) "elephant" - I get definitions from six different dictionaries. The fact that only ONE of the many dictionaries that dictionary.com searches had a definition suggest that we're giving undue weight to the fact that there even is a dictionary definition. Rather, our experience here on this article's talk page is that multiple references show that there truly isn't a single definition that even a fraction of the Indigo children promoters would agree with. Using a single dictionary in this way is a rather serious bias.
  • Thirdly: the lede is supposed to summarize the remainder of the article. Since there is no discussion of the 21st Century lexicon's definition anywhere in the article, this sentence is not allowed in the lede because it's not summarizing anything.
  • Fourthly: the main article has an entire section explaining the claimed characteristics of indigo's - much of it backed up by primary and secondary sources. The dictionary definition: "a term used for a powerful, intelligent, independent child who is believed to have an important spiritual impact" doesn't entirely jibe with our better-referenced claims - "an important spiritual impact" is hardly a valid summary of our findings from primary and secondary sources: "exhibit a strong innate sub-conscious spirituality from early childhood (which, however, does not necessarily imply a direct interest in spiritual or religious areas)"...so again, this dictionary definition isn't a summary of what is stated in the main article. The dictionary also states the these children really are "powerful, intelligent, independent" - which is a claim that's not backed up by WP:RS.
  • So if this information from the dictionary is at all relevant to the article, then it should be in the body of the article - not the lede...and IMHO, the tertiary nature of the source makes it pretty useless for that also.
At any rate, since both sides have reached their WP:3RR limits and the debate is ongoing, I've reverted back to the way the article was before this started so that we can have time to consider what (if anything) should be done about this. IMHO, it's a bad addition to the lede...and would be at best a marginal addition to the body of the article. SteveBaker (talk) 20:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Dictionaries are adequate for definitions of well-understood and undisputed terms, indigo children is not such a term and is a poor choice to give a dictionary the definitive definition. In addition, sources need not be readily accessible to be used, they must be reliable. The CSI is an excellent parity source for a fringe topic like this. Nazar, if you want the source to be removed, you must demonstrate it is inaccurately summarized. The source was added by SteveBaker in November, 2010, as an editor in good standing you are basically accusing him of fabricating the citation. He went to the trouble of finding the citation, do him the same courtesy before removing it using a weak excuse. It very much looks like the source and text is being removed was because of a dislike for the information it verifies, not because it is genuinely believed the source doesn't provide adequate verification. There is considerable and obvious consensus against your actions, so please adjust them accordingly. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Anyone else starting to wonder when time for an RFC/U might be? Between the copyvio, the removal of a good source, and praising this POV-pushing edit warrior, we're getting a lot of evidence, and we all know there's more in the past. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:18, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
This might be a good reading related to above proposal. It's not really the first time certain people here suggest their opponents to drop the discussion, move to a private blog, or abandon any attempts to change what is written in the article here. I believe this is counter-productive to development of the content of any article in a dynamic environment (and especially an article like IC, which covers a very recent phenomenon, the notion and its area of use still being actively molded), as well as discouraging for users who are made feel like outsiders, whose attempts of positive input are disdained. -- Nazar (talk) 19:42, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
You might want to read the top of the page you linked, which says that it's humor, not even an essay, guideline, or policy. I'm serious. You've been engaging in all kinds of tendentious editing, and multiple users here are tired of your bullshit. If you could actually bring up something from WP:Wikilawyering in response, but seeing how it took you months to come up with that, it's pretty clear you couldn't. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:54, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I'm not really trying to sue you or someone else with some policy or guideline here. I was hesitating whether to reply your above suggestion, as it's not addressed directly to me (though it does relate to my actions). And it does not really sound friendly towards me. I find your general behavior and the wording you tend to use a bit offensive (e.g. "multiple users here are tired of your bullshit"). It also feels like you're trying to subtly intimidate and push out from the editing process an editor who does not share your point of view (just my personal feeling, not implying this is in fact your permanent and primary attitude). I wish to see Wikipedia as a positive project, which is open to people of good will regardless of their beliefs and standpoints. All my edits to this article have been directed at its constructive improvement. Moreover, I respectfully acknowledged the opinion of majority whenever it was against my edits. Therefore, I'm expressing the above concern. In this case it's not really much related to article content. It is my sincere wish we all could contribute to an atmosphere of mutual support, respect, learning and equality here. I'll be happy if you could adjust your position to better achieve it. Thank you again. -- Nazar (talk) 20:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

This project is open to all editors regardless of their beliefs and standpoints, but there are social contracts agreed upon to prevent ideological wars and to ensure that the truth is not hidden by bias, and these social contracts include WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, and WP:RS, which you have time and again been trying to subvert. Civil POV pushing is still POV pushing and therefore unacceptable. Trying to give equal validity to WP:FRINGE material goes against WP:NPOV in both letter and spirit. If you acknowledge that the majority (it's not the opinion of the majority, they're simply sticking to this site's social contracts and to the sources) are against you, then you are spitting in the face of concensus, which is tendentious. No matter how much you sugar coat your bullshit, it's still bullshit. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:27, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I've expressed my concerns above (and they are about attitude). As to your arguments against my edits in this article, I've been doing my best to find sources to satisfy the "social contracts" currently in force in this project. Please check http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Indigo_children/Archive_3 (An attempt to garner some sources), as well as many other contributions made by me. Many of the sources I suggested are not WP:FRINGE at all, and do provide much better, broader exposure of the subject and its connotations. But, well, since the community here was not willing to accept these additions, I respected this decision in each individual case. Within a longer period of time I proposed many various sources, on various aspects of the article subject. The sources were notable press, primary and secondary publications, as well as academic sources. Your accusations about my edits not respecting the contracts here are poorly grounded and fail to recognize an editor's positive attempt to build a better article. On the side note, I find the way pro-indigo newbies are being treated here very harsh and unfriendly. I feel sorry for Wikipedia giving them a welcome like that. It's not really hard to see they mostly come with open heart and best wishes to build a better article (whatever that means for them). -- Nazar (talk) 20:52, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Also, your wording does not feel WP:Civil to me (in particular, I don't feel your repeated use of "bullshit" is the right way to go, and in my cultural environment it's not considered a part of polite discussion to say someone is "spitting in someone's face"). Let me repeat, I greatly respect the community here and never intended to spit at any of its members. For the sake of social contracts we try to respect, I suggest you adjust your expressive style. This is a mild request and I'm not going to sue you for not complying. My best regards and thanks (and I had no plans for any new edits to the article at this moment, so maybe we could just take a break here). -- Nazar (talk) 21:19, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm sticking by what I said. You've gone against WP:NPOV repeatedly, other editors have asked you to stop, you acknowledge the existence of the consensus but you still think you can get away with trying to subvert it with artificial sweetness. There is no other way to describe your interaction with consensus except that you've been spitting in the face of it, while hiding behind a saccharin smile. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:41, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
If you feel so dead sure about it, I encourage you to collect all the required evidence and submit a formal request for the system to take action against me (blocking, or whatever). Please be advised, however, that, IMHO, your position is distinctly offensive, non-constructive and not in accordance with WP:Civil and WP:AGF. Good luck. -- Nazar (talk) 16:11, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Except for this recent argument by you, you thankfully haven't been active since I brought up the idea of an RFCU. WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL don't forbid criticizing unacceptable actions by other users. I've commented on your actions, not you. I've not slammed your beliefs, but your behavior. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:18, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
And I greatly appreciate your criticism and comments :) They've helped me become more skillful in many ways. My humble advice to you, however, is to find an opportunity to improve your civility, ability to positively evaluate others' actions and see the project's development in broader perspective. Always your friend, -- Nazar (talk) 14:00, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear, since I noticed the dispute after my edit, I'm just trying to remove the redundant "term used to describe" from the lede, since the article is about the concept, not the term. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 15:14, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

RS/N

If anyone is interested to express their opinions, please check this RS/N discussion. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 08:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Sad Passing of Nancy Anne Tappe

Nancy Tappe sadly passed away on September 3 in Carlsbad, California. I think there should be some mention of this. I received an email today to tell me.Veryscarymary (talk) 18:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

New stuff goes at the bottom of the page. Emails do not the reliable source guidelines, and this page is specifically not about Tappe. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for letting us know. May her path be filled with the light. There's a mention about her passing on her official web-site -- http://nancyanntappe.com/ . I neither strongly insist nor mind the inclusion of this info into the article, but personally I'd say such an inclusion would be a sign of respect towards the departed person, who played an important, notable role in the introduction of article subject to the world, and the fact is of certain relevance to the topic. If others disagree, please feel free to edit accordingly. -- Nazar (talk) 14:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
She is known for the introduction of this topic into the memesphere; but as others have noted, this article is not about her, but about the concept for which she is either to blame or to be credited for, depending on your level of skepticism and knowledge of science. Her death is not relevant to the article in any way. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Synonyms for "Pseudoscience"

Is the term, palabra in Spanish, "pseudoscience" a synonym for "transcendental?" For "spiritual?" I think it is wrong that this article makes a value judgment in its first five words, rather than exploring dispassionately, the phenomenon. I was informed of this term by a senstivie spirit in Chicago, and already I am, for the rare instance, more confused for consulting Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tracymacl (talk • contribs) 02:33, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

"Pseudo-" means "false," so "pseudoscience" is "false science." The claims about Indigo children are readily scientifically testable and come up disproven or false every time. It is no more a value judgement than saying belief in a flat earth is pseudoscience. In fact, because we have peer-reviewed academic sources describing the concept of Indigo children as pseudoscience, we're obligated to do so. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Specifically, there is a long history of futile and in some cases embarassing attempts to claim some kind of scientific basis for the concept. That is what distinguishes actual pseudoscience from a purely religious or "spiritual" belief: the pretence that there is some kind of science behind the claims. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The neutral rendering would be something like "considered pseudo-scientific by skeptics", or "used pseudo-scientifically by some authors", because the term has a variety of uses, and its core notion is a spiritual one (which, btw, is very poorly exposed in the article). It's obvious that for many visitors here the current wording feels very biased (therefore, they bring the issue up time and again). And the way this article is, it is strongly biased towards scientific skepticism, indeed. It does not matter how much the skeptics here would argue that pseudo-science is logically the term which correctly reflects the subject's area of application. The rendering is not NPOV in absolute values. That is the systemic bias (which in certain cases bends close towards fanaticism) that Wikipedia suffers from as a project. I'd personally say I was maybe too optimistic when I tried to amend this state of affairs. Because it's a situational expression of the prevailing views of the community, who are most active in the project. And that prevailing community here is strongly prone towards scientific skepticism. So, this is simple -- the article looks the way they like to think, and nothing more can be expected from it in terms of neutrality or completeness of exposure of the subject, as long as that balance of community beliefs here stays the way it is. Trying to change it and appealing to NPOV and dispassionate exposure ideals is like demanding democratic values to be respected in North Korea. It won't work until the old system of thinking dies away.

As a curiosity, being born in Soviet Union, this strongly reminds me how encyclopedias and other approved reference sources were used in Soviet times. Everyone knew they were strongly biased towards the communist propaganda, but, if one was smart enough, one could take out of them what was useful and sift away the propaganda stuff. -- Nazar (talk) 09:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

"Considered pseudo-scientific by skeptics" woud be the neutral way to phrase it -- if there were any mainstream scientists who gave the idea any credence. And for the millionth time, claims about auras, telepathy, increased intelligence or empathy, etc, etc, are scientifically testable and come up negative. There are simpler existing explanations (such as autism and ADHD) that Occam's razor could only go with.
NPOV does go with absolutes: see our articles on Evolution (stated as fact) and Young earth creationism (pointed out as pseudoscience). For the millionth time, NPOV does not mean giving all views equal validity, especially WP:FRINGE views.
And it's nice you're finally admitting that you don't accept consensus because it doesn't go your way. Your variation on the Reductio ad Hitlerum fallacy (Reductio ad Sovietum, as it were) is offensive, though. NPOV is a social contract that all Wikipedians (directly or indirectly) agree to if they wish to continue editing. Just because it does not match up with your beliefs does not mean that it isn't neutral. You're no more Truth incarnate than anyone else here, and more people, based on the work of very reasonable and educated people, do not see any reason to give the same amount of credibility to for-profit ideas by insane and less-educated authors.
You're plenty welcome to go write a blog elsewhere. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Oh, please. "Don't put words into my mouth", as you like to say. Soviet system was a great system, in many ways. It declared many freedoms and beautiful ideals (just like Wikipedia does). And many of them were in fact more or less functional. It had also achieved many great things. But it collapsed after 70 years, because it had some fallacies. I'm very hopeful and positive Wikipedia's community will be able to fix its fallacies without collapsing :)
But, coming back to the point, I'm really just addressing an issue which has been raised here (not by me) for the n-th time. So, maybe there's still something not very correctly rendered in that article, that people keep bringing this up. I'm not even trying to edit the article anymore (because I respect the current consensus of active editors) :) I hope commenting on the issues does not go against any contracts here? -- Nazar (talk) 15:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
If a million vandals push for something against NPOV, that does not change NPOV. Even though half of the US identify as YEC, YEC is (correctly) labelled pseudoscience. Back to the thread's topic, can you demonstrate that the scientific testable claims are accepted by any mainstream scientists? If not, there's no other way to describe this concept except as pseudoscience. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
I'd point out that the argumentation style you tend to use is a bit heavy and on the verge of being uncivil. People trying to edit here are not vandals predominantly. You also did not say that, but your wording indirectly suggests that. I also greatly appreciate your suggestion to write a blog, but this, again, feels a bit like you're showing me the door and kicking me out of Wikipedia (which you're really not entitled to do in any way).
As to the article content, I'd like to remind you that Wikipedia is written by people and for people. Its policies are tools to achieve better results for general good. They are currently pretty balanced and fulfill their role in most cases. But, with the time, they will change too. Because it's science for the people, and not people for the science. And people's minds do change. Quicker than you may expect or want.
I'm not really much interested in either deeply exploring or debunking the "pseudo-science" part of the IC phenomenon. Use of scientific language to persuade less-educated followers is pretty common for such topics, and is often abused by authors (frequently with best intentions, though). For many, however, the concept resounds with deep spiritual meaning. This is what is important about it. This is what characterizes the idea. And the exposure of this spiritual significance will be good and healing for the article, whether it will actually happen in 10 or 50 years from now. I think after a few decades this will be what IC will be remembered for, and not the pseudo-science rubbish.
The emphasis and style of article could also be changed now, based on sources we've got. And the main thing which prevents it is the belief system of editors currently active here. When this system (or editors) change, article will be different, even based on the very same rules and policies (which, in turn, will change too, both in their letter and way of application, as the community gradually changes). It's that simple. -- Nazar (talk) 16:26, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Indigo children is not science. There is a citation for it being pseudoscience. The purpose of wikipedia is not to promote pseudoscience with no grounding in empirical evidence. We're pretty much done here. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Indigo children speaks only of one perspective

Although the subject of indigo children does speak of the subjects discussed in many areas, Many subjects and angles were missed. For example, indigo children were described to have magical powers. However, many people do not believe this to be true. They just think differently according to them.

I would strongly suggest considering this subject as incomplete. It's not incorrect. There needs to be more angles so it will be less biased. The subject in itself is somewhat edgy because the facts are not exact (outside of Wikipedia). To get a thorough answer, therefore, we need more points of views since the facts are various depending on the source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.76.187.23 (talk) 00:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Sources would be needed to add any material to the article. Judging from what's already in the article, all evidence of children described as Indigos thinking differently matches up with diagnoses for already known conditions, so there's no need to reinvent the wheel. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Science speaks only of one perspective on this topic: that it's pseudo-science, with no actual basis in reality. That's what Wikipedia reflects. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The wikipedia article reflects a group of people actively making certain that the only information that gets in the article is their specific point of view. People have tried to edit it numerous times to make it less biased, but it's always changed back, regardless of how well the sources are cited. There are many forms of pseudo-sciences out there, but no one so obsessively makes sure the creationism page is this actively biased. It has nothing to do with presenting facts; it's an excuse for hipsters to spread their opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.32.23 (talk) 20:52, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

"Hipsters"? Trivialist (talk) 12:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
People who are hip to scientific knowledge, as opposed to mumbo-jumbo cloaked in a thin veil of pseudo-scientific bafflegab? --Orange Mike | Talk 18:23, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Alright, let's just ignore the unCIVIL IP instead of feeding it. -- Fyrael (talk) 19:03, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Saded by what I thought was a reliable source

After reading the Indigo Children I was insulted....

First of all to me the whole context was in a negative view, when did Wikipedia allow a denouncement of any definition....

Second I looked up Indigo first and funny enough you had at the bottom of your page....

Spiritualism

Note: The tone of indigo used in the spiritualist applications is electric indigo because the colour is represented as being the colour of the spectrum between blue and violet.[35]

The colour electric indigo is used to symbolically represent the sixth chakra (called Ajna), which is said to include the third eye. This chakra is believed to be related to intuition and gnosis (spiritual knowledge).[36]

In New Age philosophy, indigo is regarded as representing intuition.[37]

The "New Age Prophetess", Alice A. Bailey, in her system called the Seven Rays which classifies humans into seven different metaphysical psychological types, the "second ray" of "Love-Wisdom" is represented by the colour indigo. People who have this metaphysical psychological type are said to be "on the Indigo Ray".[38]

Psychics who claim the ability to observe the aura with their third eye generally associate indigo, in auras, with an interest in religion or with intense spirituality and intuition. Indigo children are said to have predominately indigo auras. People with indigo auras are said to be in occupations such as computer analyst, animal caretaker, and counselor.[39]

So stop me if I'm wrong in thinking that these references could have easily been added to Indigo Children in which they have a relation too.

As well as Other possible to name a few:

  • Astral body
  • Astral plane
  • Aura (symptom)
  • Chakra
  • Clairvoyance
  • Classical element
  • Energy (spirituality)
  • Etheric Body

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.156.81 (talk • contribs)


I'm pretty confused about what you're suggesting be added to the article. -- Fyrael (talk) 05:37, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Theory v. claim

The first line in the article:

Indigo children, according to a pseudoscientific New Age theory, are children who are believed to possess special, unusual and sometimes supernatural traits or abilities. (Emphasis mine)

Theory, IMO, implies a scientific basis. I propose changing theory to claim. Jim1138 (talk) 02:15, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

It was originally pitched as scientific in some way; so I think we can allow the word "theory" to remain as an artifact of that origin. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:32, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Changed to concept. Certainly not a scientific theory however it may have been promoted or hyped. At best it seems it would have been a failed hypothesis, had it even been considered scientific. Vsmith (talk) 13:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment on Home Schooling

The article states "Many labeled as indigo children are or have been home schooled." The reference is to an article published by the NYT. In that article it only states "Like many other indigos Jasmine is home-schooled" and is stated without a source by the original author of the NYT piece. Unless someone can point to a better reference for the statement regarding indigos and home schooling, I suggest it be removed. Ssp2979 (talk) 15:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

According to our criteria, the NYT is a WP:Reliable source - we don't need our sources to be sourced, and I see we have an article on the reporter as well - John Leland (journalist). If we went down this road we would have to remove many of our sources from many articles. Dougweller (talk) 17:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Removing Bias

When reading this article, I noticed it shows extreme bias on the part of the author. Knowing that Wikipedia is known for relying on the public to share and edit information, I tried to correct these errors, myself, but I was unable to. I believe encyclopedias should be reliable sources of non-biased information. If this is true of Wikipedia, how may I correct this issue and remove the most visible examples of bias in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.114.207.128 (talk) 07:36, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

We are under no obligation to pretend that claims like this have any basis in reality: see WP:FRINGE for a fuller explanation. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:29, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia documents what Reliable Sources have to say on the issue. If you have a reference from Science, Nature, Scientific American, NY Times, Wall Street Journal Science sections, please share it here so that any editor can confirm it. ---Javaweb (talk) 01:17, 4 September 2013 (UTC)Javaweb
The root cause of your concerns is that you had some opinion on this subject, you came here to read our article about it and found, to your horror that it strongly disagrees with your beliefs. What you should be saying is "Wow! I was completely wrong about that - and this fine encyclopedia article says so." and not "This article doesn't say what I believe - so it must be biassed." It seems bad to you because you have a strong belief about this. If you thought that Mount Everest was ten thousand feet tall - then went to Mount Everest and found that it's really 29,000 feet tall - you wouldn't be decrying that article - you'd fix your mental image of the mountain and be pleased to have learned something. Well, that's what you should take away from this article - "Wow! I thought this indigo stuff was true - but I guess it's not." - it's not "bias", it's "reporting the truth in an encyclopedic manner" - and that's our job here.
Now, I'm quite sure you're not going to like what I just said - in which case, you have an remedy. Provide proof - to the standards that Wikipedia demands (scientific studies published in respectable peer-reviewed journals, books that summarize the known body of scientific evidence, that kind of thing) - and we can rewrite the article to fit "the truth" as defined by the Wikipedia rules on fringe theories. So far, we have no evidence of an acceptable quality to verify that this idea of Indigo Children is true - and that lack means that we are required to say that it's not true.
The problem is that we are specifically disallowed from saying that stuff like this (things that people just believe without evidence) is "true". The specific rule is WP:NOR "No Original Research" - meaning that just because you think your child is special and fits all the descriptions in the numerous books by unqualified people on the subject - we can't use that as evidence of truth. That's not the way that any reputable encyclopedia works.
SteveBaker (talk) 15:20, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence. The whole bit about "peer reviewed journals" is a crock, as that whole industry is a closed door to anyone with any ideas contrary to the "accepted" ideas and therefore doesn't even get consideration for publication, it's a rigged game and you know it. Whitelight1 (talk) 01:30, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree with you - but that doesn't matter. Wikipedia's rules are indeed that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. If you have no solid references for something - then it can't be written about. In a debate about "A" versus "B", if there are reliable sources that say "A" and you can find none that say "B" then WP:UNDUE says that we talk exclusively about "A". Your direction appears to demonstrate a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. We're here to collect evidence from reliable sources and to summarize that information into an article.
"Balance" doesn't mean "balance between what some people here think and what other people here think" - it means "balance between the information that we can find in reliable sources". Reliable sources (in this context) excludes the vast number of books written about Indigo Children by people with zero formal qualifications in child development - and it includes whatever science is available on the subject and what qualified child development experts have to say. The ideal result (for Wikipedia) is an article that says what mainstream science knows about Indigo Children (which is that they don't exist) and provides only passing references to the topic as a deeply flawed belief put about by people who are prepared to write any old crap that pops into their heads and to suck money from the pockets of desperate and gullible parents with difficult children. A reputable encyclopedia requires a higher standard of evidence...and absence of that evidence is evidence that that there is no solid scientific basis for what's claimed - so we're not going to write about it.
The bottom line here is that you can rant and complain until you're blue in the face (or even indigo!) - but unless/until Wikipedia's core principles about writing article based on mainstream thought and backed by reliable sources are changed, there is no chance in hell of this article saying what you want it to say. That simply cannot happen because this community is built on a bedrock of those kinds of principles.
If you insist on continuing to push your POV, then you're going to have to get the Wikipedia core principles on balance and verifiability changed. Sadly, the question has already gone to Wikipedia's "ArbCom" group two or three times and been completely decided in favor of the present rules. ArbCom is Wikipedia's "Supreme Court" - there is no higher authority to appeal to. Changing the various ArbCom rulings on Fringe/PseudoScience articles such as this one would be an enormous level of difficulty. Sadly though, that's all that's left for you.
Them's the rules.
Is it a "rigged game"? Well, yes. It's rigged to produce an encyclopedia of mainstream knowledge, built on scholarship and science. That's what Wikipedia is. If you want an encyclopedia that's based on fringe theories and the random ideas of the contributors then you need to go to one of Wikipedia's rivals who allow (or even encourage) those kinds of thing. Sadly, you'll note that their readership is typically a microscopic fraction of Wikipedia because people come to an encyclopedia for scholarship and science - not random writings of unqualified people. However, you might find Everything2, Conservapedia, H2G2 more open to hosting an article that's more friendly to your views.
SteveBaker (talk) 14:49, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't agree that "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" is the policy. The policy is closer to "WP content is only about things for which there is evidence", where "evidence" means whatever reliable sources say (not evidence of the facts in our opinion, but evidence of others making published claims regardless). So we can't say the Indigo-children phenomenon is real or valid unless there is evidence. But if there is evidence (remember, that only means reliable-sources, not whether we accept their methodology or conclusions) that it's not real, we can say that (and as SteveBaker notes, it would not be acceptable to omit that just because we don't think the studies are good enough or that the article doesn't have enough content on opposite views. DMacks (talk) 17:19, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Extremely biased article

I am appalled by the blatant bias expressed in this article, it seeks to express primarily the view that indigo children is a bunch of nonsense. Come on Wikipedia, this is not your usual style. Many people have expressed the same opinion as mine, yet the has been no effort to listen. Very sad indeed Whitelight1 (talk) 02:21, 1 November 2013 (UTC)whitelighte1

I'm sorry that you're so shocked and appalled - but you really shouldn't be. You should be better informed on the subject after reading our article. The idea of Indigo children is complete bullshit...and now you've read our fair and unbiassed article, you should be able to see why that is.
Wikipedia says that it's a bunch of nonsense because that is what reliable source material on the subject says. Not only is this "usual style" for Wikipedia, we actually have a stack of rules that require we treat subjects like this in the way we do. You're not going to believe me - but this is actually the unbiassed view. There has never been a single scientific test of "indigo-ness" that showed anything unique or special going on here. To say that there is something magical going on here without a scrap of actual evidence would be bias of the worst kind.
You say that this isn't our "usual style" - but I suggest you read what we have to say about other nonsense topics:
  • On Homeopathy we say "The scientific community regards homeopathy as nonsense, quackery or a sham, and homeopathic practice has been criticized as unethical".
  • On Astrology we say "Astrology has been rejected by the scientific community as having no validity or explanatory power for describing the universe (see pseudoscience). Scientific testing of astrology found no evidence to support any of the premises or purported effects outlined in astrological traditions. Where astrology has made falsifiable predictions, it has been proven wrong.".
  • On Biorhythms we say "Most scientists believe that the idea has no more predictive power than raw chance, and consider the concept an example of pseudoscience."
  • On Crystal healing we say "There is no peer reviewed scientific evidence that crystal healing has any effect. It has been called a pseudoscience. Pleasant feelings or seeming successes of crystal healing can be attributed to the placebo effect, or the believers wanting it to be true and seeing only things that back that up; cognitive bias."
What we say on this subject is entirely consistent with the encyclopedia's general stance of fringe theories and pseudoscience. Please read WP:FRINGE and WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE. Wikipedia's definition of "unbiassed" is the avoidance of WP:UNDUE "undue weight". We give weight to the mainstream view and merely mention the non-mainstream interpretation. It follows that the majority of "weight" in this article is to say "The Indigo Children hypothesis is complete and utter bullshit". There has even been several Wikipedia arbitration committee decisions to back up this stance.
So, I'm sorry if you happen to be a believer in all of this nonsense - but please don't expect a serious encyclopedia to give credence to these wild and crazy claims without a single shred of scientific evidence for them.
SteveBaker (talk) 04:13, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I feel sorry for you. I send you Love & Light in hopes that you wake up to a larger reality than "science".Whitelight1 (talk) 01:22, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

This isn't about me - it's about Wikipedia. My opinions on what should and should not be in the article, what is bias and what is not, are not the issue here. Wikipedia policy on the reporting of fringe theories and pseudoscience are the guiding principle here. SteveBaker (talk) 14:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Although, there are articles on mainstream religions (Christianity, Mormonism, etc) that present an unscientific, non peer-reviewed viewpoint as though it were a reasonable premise. Is that a matter of critical mass (Catholic jokes.) -- if enough people believe it, then we treat it as credible or plausible, but if it is "fringe" then all the rigor of science applies? I would argue that the mainstream religion articles should contain an equal amount of skepticism and derision as this one does. If you want church, go to church (or your meeting in the woods or whatever it is that you people do). If you want facts, look in the encyclopedia. Why in the world is it so important to mix your beliefs into every facet of society? At any rate, John is correct, and you can keep your light; I've got one. 216.234.120.70 (talk) 04:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
There is a difference between making a claim that is untestable or outside the realm of science and making quantitatively testable but false claims about children. There really is no possible experiment for "God exists," "God has appeared as an Avatar or Incarnation", or even "the Platonic Ideal reality of bread and wine can change to that of flesh and blood even if all physical and chemical appearances remain the same." There are experiments for ESP, enhanced intelligence, and enhanced empathy; and to date, no properly conducted experiments have provided evidence for ESP, and none show Indigo children to be any smarter or more empathetic than any other spoiled first world brat raised by superstitious hippies. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
The individual who raised the issue is right. This article IS biased and it doesn't read like a typical, well-done wikipedia article. There is just too much coverage of the criticism. After reading this article, I knew more about the criticisms of indigo children than I knew about the concept itself. The claim that the phenomenon appeals to "parents seeking to believe that their children are special" is simply an attack on people's motives and adds no value to the article, unless you have an agenda against 'indigo children'. The next sentence is pretty crappy too. It's just using the word 'consider' as filler: re-read it without that word to see the naked bias. Also, this is NOT an appropriate use of the term pseudoscience. Science does not have a monopoly on knowledge and just because something is not scientific doesn't make it pseudoscience unless the idea is promoted as science. Even the internal logic of the article is flawed. How can 'indigo children' be pseudoscientific if the concept of indigo children is considered to be so vague that it is an example of the Forer effect? How could you disprove it if you can't even define the population under consideration? I'm no advocate here, but this article is obviously biased and reflects poorly on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.11.52.17 (talk) 11:31, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
There is not even a remote consensus of what an "Indigo Child" is. This combined with the a total lack of credible scientific studies and the claimant's confusion with other well defined symptoms leads many to the conclusion that the Indigo Child claim is total bunk. If you can find peer reviewed research in credible scientific journals into "Indigo Children" that supports this, then please, by all means, add it to the article or post it here and I will add it to the article. Wikipedia requires that content be reliably sourced (RS) from third party sources. As there is little, if any, in this area, it would seem that there is nothing to add. If you can perform reliable, repeatable experiments clearly supporting Indigo Children, I suspect a Nobel Prize awaits you. I would strongly suggest looking at the "Indigo Child" claim with skepticism. Jim1138 (talk) 19:01, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
OK, this article has 6 sentences telling me what Indigo children are and most of the rest of the article is devoted to criticism. I had to consult other sources to even get an idea of why some people would see it as an alternative to the ADHD diagnosis. There is much that can be added in way of content. But this article can be instantly improved by the removal of the pseudoscience tag. I've found no evidence that the concept of indigo children has been presented as science. And there is nothing about the concept that makes it inherently pseudoscientific. It's possible to devise psychological scales purporting to measure indigo traits. It is possible to have a person claiming to see indigo auras pick out children and then have them take the 'indigo test'. I doubt that any 'indigo' test would reveal a stable trait, significant intersection with ADHD diagnoses, or match up well with an aura-seer's selections. In short, I think it's probably bullshit. I sense the people who wrote this article thought it was bullshit, too. But that doesn't mean you get to use pseudoscience as a weasel word to covertly express that view. Indeed, my current intention is to remove all claims of pseudoscience from the article unless someone can cite a notable source presenting it as science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.11.52.17 (talk) 12:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Published journal article specifically highlighting the phenomenon of "indigo children" as an example meeting one of the criteria of "pseudoscience": Lilienfeld, Scott O.; Ammirati, Rachel; David, Michal (2012). "Distinguishing science from pseudoscience in school psychology: Science and scientific thinking as safeguards against human error". Journal of School Psychology. 50 (1): 7–36. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2011.09.006. DMacks (talk) 15:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Tagbombing: Not

Dear user:Dr.K. Tagbombing is "the unjustified addition of numerous tags to pages or unjustified addition of one tag to multiple pages." Every single instance where I added a citation required tag was a justified request for citations. I find it ironic in the extreme that you noted my removal of the single word 'pseudoscientific', while the bulk of my edit was to add tags where evidence was required. This kind of non presumption of good itent is one of the reasons I hardly edit any more...

The problem with using 'pseudoscientific' here is that to do so is to judge a religious thing with a scientific measure. This is not possible. Science does not accept the existence of the things being described that are associated with the category of Indigo Children, and thus we see here an attempt to insult the category itself by calling it pseudoscientific. This is rather like insulting a dog by calling it a dog. Religious phenomena are not scientific, so labelling them pseudoscientific is tautological, at best. If we are to subscribe to the outhodoxy of The One True Scientific Way how are we to describe those things which fall outside the domain of science? Or do you deny such things exist? Morgan Leigh | Talk 08:26, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

You did tag items that were already referenced. Specifically ones in this section Indigo children#Relation to autism. Wikipedia information should be verifiable and based on reliable sources. I don't see how indigo children is of a religious nature. It seems that most of the claims are of a real-world nature. The scientific method is a robust, proven method of inquiry that can allow investigation of phenomena while avoiding numerous errors from human bias and mistakes. It does have limitations but should be quite reliable in studying indigo children claims. There is no "One True Scientific Way". Science is a toolbox. Mistakes can be made using the wrong tool or using methods erroneously. I would strongly recommend that you study the scientific method as it can work quite well and has an established history of success. If one uses an ineffectual tool or method, shouldn't the results be questioned? Jim1138 (talk) 09:19, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
You added seventeen tags to the article which basically destroyed its credibility and defaced it. To make matters worse, many of these tags were for facts which were already supported, as Jim already noted. Other tags were simply gratuitous such as the one you placed after the name of Sarah W. Whedon, although the passage is cited to a reference by Wedon as shown here:

Sarah W. Whedon{{citation required|date=April 2014}} suggests in a 2009 article in ''[[Nova Religio]]'' that the social construction of indigo children is a response to an "apparent crisis of American childhood" in the form of increased youth violence and diagnoses of [[attention deficit disorder]] and [[attention deficit hyperactivity disorder]]. Whedon believes parents label their children as "indigo" to provide an alternative explanation for their children's improper behavior stemming from ADD and ADHD.<ref name=Whedon2009/>

Or the tag you placed after "others" even though "others" was defined in the attached reference:

Others{{who|date=April 2014}} have stated that many of the traits of indigo children could be more prosaically interpreted as simple [[unruliness]] and alertness.<ref name=jayson>{{cite news | url = http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2005-05-31-indigo-kids_x.htm | title = Indigo kids: Does the science fly? | first = S | last = Jayson | publisher = [[USA Today]] | date = 2005-05-31 | accessdate = 2007-10-23}}</ref>

Here is another example of a [who?] tag in a section which is referenced by two citations:

Many critics{{who|date=April 2014}} see the concept of indigo children as made up of extremely general traits, a sham diagnosis that is an alternative to a medical diagnosis, with a complete lack of [[science]] or studies to support it.<ref name = Leland2006/><ref name = jayson/>

The lead was heavily tagged with tags appearing multiple times within a single sentence, even though the lead is supposed to summarise the contents and citations are not required for the lead. Some of the tagged facts on the lead were also well-known, such as the facts about Jan Tober and Lee Carroll. Here is an example:

...and further developed by Jan Tober and [[Lee Carroll]]{{citation required|date=April 2014}}. The concept of indigo children gained popular interest with the publication of a series of books{{citation required|date=April 2014}} in the late 1990s and the release of several films in the following decade{{citation required|date=April 2014}}. A variety of books, conferences and related materials have been created surrounding belief in the idea of indigo children and their nature and abilities{{citation required|date=April 2014}}. The interpretations of these beliefs range from their being the next stage in human evolution, in some cases possessing [[paranormal]] abilities such as [[telepathy]], to the belief that they are more [[empathy|empathetic]] and creative than their peers{{citation required|date=April 2014}}.

That was a case of WP:TAGBOMBING if I ever saw one. In future it would be much more constructive if you could please use the talkpage of the article so that editors familiar with the subject can help you with your concerns instead of defacing the article in such a heavy-handed way. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 22:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Not a source of information

I come to Wikipedia for information, to find out what something is. I do not come to Wikipedia to hear the value judgments of editors. The first line of this article states that Indigo Children are endowed with special powers according to a pseudoscientific theory. I am disappointed that the judgment of "pseudoscience" is placed within the first line: this has the danger of removing any alternative judgment from the reader.

All this debate on the talk page about whether or not the theory of Indigo Children is bunk or not is immaterial. I'm not any more sympathetic to the idea than the authors of the article, but I'm disappointed that yet again this article expresses a particular worldview. I expected to come here and read about what people mean when they say Indigo Children. Instead I found what some other people think about those people who say "Indigo Children." The same thing happened to articles on accupuncture and eye-movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR). I agree that Wikipedia should not misrepresent certain ideas as scientific, but it's up to editors to figure out how not to do that while still presenting information.

Simply saying "Oh, by the way, this is a bunch of crap" is not skilled editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.2.67.61 (talk) 15:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

The article does not represent the "value judgements" of editors. It is a summary of what reliable sources (such as psychologists, medical doctors, and so on) say about the subject.
Indigo child advocates make scientifically testable claims. Those claims have been tested and found to be false. Ergo, they are scientifically disproven claims.
Indigo child advocates continue to push the idea with scientifically disproven claims. They are, by definition, pushing pseudoscience.
To give equal validity to the indigo child advocates would be giving their value judgements the same authority as empirical science, which Wikipedia will not do. I'm sorry you believe in absolute bunkum, but that's how Wikipedia works. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:31, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't see the problem. You say you want to read "about what people mean when they say Indigo Children", and that's exactly what the article says. The lead sentence you quoted defines what the term is and that it's definitely not a mainstream concept. We'd be doing a disservice if we hid the fact that most mainstream scientists reject this idea. And this actually helps those who actually believe in it, as they learn they would have to look elsewhere (not wikipedia, or at least not mainstream scientific sources, but rather their own echo-chamber of advocates and similar arenas) if they wish to reinforce their beliefs. DMacks (talk) 16:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
It's odd that you come here for information - you read what we write, and you're saying it's wrong. That strongly suggests that you didn't come here for information - you already had a firm idea of what you wanted to find and were disappointed not to find it. The fact (as Wikipedia defines fact) is that the theory of Indigo children is pseudoscience. So that's what we say here. Wikipedia requires that we present the mainstream scientific point of view (which is most certainly that this idea is bullshit) - and that we back it up with "reliable sources" - which we've done. Wikipedia also has rules about not giving undue weight to particular viewpoints - you're probably thinking that's the problem here - that we don't give enough space to the pro-Indigo viewpoint...but in matters of science, our rules mandate that we give more weight to the reliably-sourced mainstream.
So this article is fully appropriate for Wikipedia - and in order for it to change in significant ways, one of two things has to happen:
  1. Wikipedia's fundamental guiding principles have to change...OR...
  2. Some astounding mainstream scientific breakthrough has to reverse the mainstream view of child development...AND that revelation has to be published in mainstream scientific journals and subsequently backed up by others who can repeat those results.
I honestly don't see how either of those things are going to happen. So, the article is correctly formulated and it ain't gonna change in the way you hope it will because to do so would put it in clear violation of any number of Wikipedia rules.
Now you're probably going to complain about Wikipedia's guidelines being awful...and you might be right - but we're about the fifth most popular website in the entire world...so I guess that most people don't agree with you. Our insistence on truth and honesty in the face of purveyors of nonsense is a large part of that success. If you don't like Wikipedia's rules, there are plenty of other online encyclopedias with different rules. SteveBaker (talk) 05:48, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Nominal discussion

Anyone support the continued removal of sourced information and addition of unsourced and overly credulous claims by User:Mike_maroon? Thought not. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and we have an edit warring report. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Then for sake of having a discussion, I don't support the idea of removing sourced content without explanation or discussion, or the introduction of unsourced text with blatant spelling mistakes (psychich) and formatting issues. Maybe there is a valid reason to remove the content, but without any explanation or stopping to explain, we have no way of knowing if that's the case. - Aoidh (talk) 03:10, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
And Now we've got a sockpuppet. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:12, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
And a sockpuppet investigation. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:17, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, Indigo children. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laodah (talk • contribs) 06:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

One of the notices here meant to dissuade POV-pushers has been nominated for deletion.

See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Indigo children/For Indigos. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

"Claimed characteristics"

This heading does not meet WP:NPOV in that it is not a neutral presentation and uses a word to avoid, "claim". The place where the reality or lack thereof should be discussed is in the text, with citations, not telegraphed by the headings. There is no reason not to use a neutral heading except an agenda to help "save" people from what certain editors consider pseudoscience, but that sort of advocacy doesn't have any more place in Wikipedia than does advocacy for the beliefs in question. Skyerise (talk) 15:39, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Please see the previous consensus on this issue at Talk:Indigo children/Archive 1#POV in first sentence, then seek a new consensus here instead of edit warring. Sundayclose (talk) 15:49, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
That's what I'm doing. Let's keep the article NPOV. Skyerise (talk) 16:00, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
No, you reverted -- TWICE -- against consensus. There is no consensus of one editor. Sundayclose (talk) 16:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Consensus can change. This one is stale. Skyerise (talk) 16:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
There is no such thing as a "stale consensus". You're creating your own policies. Consensus is not changed by one editor. Sundayclose (talk) 16:08, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I think "claimed" is entirely appropriate for an article about children alleged to have paranormal powers, per WP:FRINGE guidelines regarding pseudoscience. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
The guideline you point to does not say anything about the use of POV headings. It refers to writing the text content of the article. I really don't think it trumps WP:NPOV. The heading reeks of "attitude" about the subject, and I don't think that's what Wikipedia is about, enabling certain cliques of editors to enshrine their disdain for certain topics. Skyerise (talk) 16:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
The MOS page you cite does not utterly forbid the use of the word claim, it merely says not to use it to downgrade a statement of fact. It is entirely appropriate to refer to something that has no evidence (if you wish to disprove that, cite just one legitimate peer-reviewed scientific study) as a claim. NPOV does not give equal validity between WP:Lunatic charlatans (i.e. the folks selling the Indigo identity) and legitimate science. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)"Consensus can change" does not mean that consensus must or will change. There's consensus enough that the article Sky should say that the sky is blue, and it's safe to assume that consensus will not change until the apocalypse.
WP:CLAIM is not a universal policy saying we cannot use the word "claim," but rather, points out that we must not use the term to degrade professional assessments by trusted authorities. In this case, that would be scientists and psychologists, not self-help authors. For WP:FRINGE topics, scientifically-testable claims that lack evidence are to be presented as such. Creation science, Parapsychology, Water memory, Holocaust denial, and Moon landing conspiracy theories all use the term "claim" dozens of times each.
For the claimed attributes to be more that claimed, there needs to be good evidence, and none has been provided. Do you have any peer-reviewed scientific studies showing otherwise? Ian.thomson (talk) 16:20, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Let me point out again, I'm not objecting to the use of the word in the article text. Only in the heading. Like categories, headings cannot contain citations. Like categories, they should not be making any apparent claims. Such material belongs in the article body, where it can be thoroughly supported, and not implied in the headings, where it cannot. Skyerise (talk) 16:23, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
There is no policy-based reason not to use it in the heading. The headings should be based on article content, and the article content thoroughly explains that the claims are nothing more than claims (if that). Some of the examples I cited use the word "claim" in their headings as well. If we're going to be this nitpicky, WP:CLAIM does not mention headers at all. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I thought there was nothing wrong with the "Descriptions" heading because it accurately summarizes the content ("Descriptions of indigo children include..." -- different descriptions, as "described" by some people), and it sounds more natural than "claimed characteristics". If the heading was simply "Characteristics", then I'd have a problem with it. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 17:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "Claim" seems entirely appropriate to me. WP:NPOV requires that we avoid giving WP:UNDUE weight to WP:FRINGE theories. WP:CLAIM accurately says that using words like these can imply that something is not credible; however, when there is a universal consensus among reliable sources that a topic is not credible, our article (including its section headers) has to reflect that. The header cannot be worded in a way that remotely implies that this is anything but a fringe claim. Note that WP:CLAIM simply says to use those terms with care, not to never use them at all. --Aquillion (talk) 08:15, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Claim is there for a reason: so that we are not mis-perceived as depicting these claims as something taken seriously by any part of the scientific community or society in general, per WP:FRINGE. "NPOV" is not an intellectual suicide pact requiring us to show credence to flat-earthers and breathairians. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Claim is appropriate here. There is no scientific evidence to support it otherwise. "Descriptions" to me implies something factual which it is not. Ping me with {{u|Jim1138}} and sign "~~~~" or message me on my talk page. 03:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Reversion of invisible housekeeping mark-up

My insertion of invisible Wikipedia housekeeping mark-up in this entry's code has been reverted (see History). "Sic" mark-up is invisible to users and does not change the quoted text; it is inserted precisely to prevent bots and Wikipedia copy editors (also called wikignomes) from inadvertently correcting the error it contains. Reverting housekeeping mark-up, which is invisible to users and makes no change to the contents of the entry in which it is installed, is contrary to the spirit and policy of Wikipedia. Please refer to https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Stuart_C._Lord . Laodah 04:00, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

See also section

I don't see the relevance of fringe science, shouldn't we remove it? The whole indigo thing is more of a spiritual belief than an attempt at a scientific explanation. (Right?) — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 17:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

It makes scientifically testable claims that do not bear evidence, and attempts to divert scientific explanations about ADHD and autism with non-scientific claims. It is not fringe science, it is pseudoscience. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:49, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
So you agree that the fringe science link is not relevant? — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 18:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, otherwise I would have reverted the removal of the link. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:37, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
It's not fringe science because it's not science at all. The correct term is pseudoscience. SteveBaker (talk) 02:39, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Mandatory edit war discussion

The information that 174.124.182.172 has been censoring is reliably sourced, scientific, and neutral. It's not science's fault that Indigo parents are so gullible and can't produce any evidence. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

We need to find sources that back up the statement ..."appeals to some parents whose children have been diagnosed with learning disabilities and to parents seeking to believe that their children are special". Who are these parents? Where can we find them quoting such? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.15.61.3 (talk • contribs) 23:38, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

You're quoting from the lead of the article. The information is discussed and sourced later in the article and thus does not require sourcing in the lead. Please read the entire article. Sundayclose (talk) 23:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

ADHD / ADD

There is a huge amount of dangerous information about alleged relations between so-called Indigo Children and serious diseases like ADHD/ADD or autism (ASD).
If we only take a look at: "Crystal children, a concept related to indigo children, has been linked by autism researcher Mitzi Waltz to the autistic spectrum. Proponents recategorize autistic symptoms as telepathic powers, and attempt to '[reconceptualize] the autistic traits associated with them as part of a positive identity'."
It is evident that ADHD/ADD and autism intersect regarding their predominant charateristic of general/systemic hyperstimulation or lower filtered/ unfiltered perception (owing to sensory overload) which is associated with creativity or "savantism", however, there are the many cases of mentally handicapped persons in the autistic spectrum (ASD) and other psychiatric effects on people concerned in both ADHD/ADD and ASD.
Thus, it is inherently difficult to differentiate the processes in the body as well as the abilities. More questions arise, such as: It is due to comorbidity? Could it be presymptomatically (concerning the body/psyche/mind/mental state)?
In my assessment, paranormal events are existence, nevertheless, there is the physical aspect, the human body, on which we should primarily focus - particularly, if serious diseases are diagnosed by medical practitioners. The spiritual/paranormal life, on the other hand, can be cultivated still then, as a hobby or as a means of work.
Kind regards. --InterrogativeMind (talk) 12:17, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

@InterrogativeMind: Thanks for your comments. Are you suggesting additions or changes to the article? If so, we need reliable sources to support the changes, and we need more specific ideas about what you would like changed. If your comments are simply to discuss Indigo children, ADHD, etc. without reference to the article, article talk pages should only be used to discuss improvements to the article, not as a forum or chat room for general discussion. Sundayclose (talk) 16:22, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
My pleasure. I would like to suggest someone who is experienced in writing Wikipedia articles to maybe include some information about Neuroscience / the Anatomy and Physiology of the Brain and EEG results (for instance, EEG biofeedback), about the cerebral hemisphere or brain parts which are associated with charateristics of so-called Indigo Children, as it would be "more" scientifically (and interesting), if wished. Currently, I am not able to access scientific databases for checking relevant articles myself, unfortunately. Kind regards. --InterrogativeMind (talk) 18:00, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
@InterrogativeMind: This is only my take on what you suggest, so of course we should wait for others to weigh in. Since the idea of "indigo children" is pseudoscientific, I don't think discussion of neuroscience behind claimed characteristics of indigos is within the scope of the article. If i understand you correctly, you are asking for a discussion of some of the neurological aspects of ADHD, autistic, or other disorders that are the legitimate diagnoses of children that non-professionals have identified as indigos. That information likely is discussed in the articles for those disorders (or could be more appropriately added to them), and those articles are linked in the indigo article. My interpretation of the scope of the indigo article is to identify the legitimate disorders that are confused with indigos, but not to explain the science underlying those disorders. Readers interested in those details can click the links to those articles. Feel free to correct me if I have misunderstood your suggestion, and in any event we should wait to see what others have to say. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 19:42, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
@Sundayclose:Thank you for your reply. It is certainly more advantageous to leave it in the category of pseudoscience, and to provide these mentioned links for interested parties (like me). You interpreted my intention correctly. It probably would exceed the level of expectations or would go beyond the scope of this article (respectively, articles in general).
Kind regards --InterrogativeMind (talk) 00:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Improving neutrality

The article seems short on material related to the new religious movement (spiritual community) aspects associated with this belief. The section related to this needs expansion. Skyerise (talk) 17:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

  • "The New Kids" by Daniel Kline, in Contemporary Esotericism (edited by Egil Asprem and Kennet Granholm, Routledge, 2014) - Discusses how the religious concept was brought up as a rejection of mainstream science, how it's rooted in pretty old and common occultist paradigms, and how the Indigo identity is sold to parents as a means to reimagine their children's diagnoses as something magical.
  • "Seeing the Indigo Children" by Benjamin Witts, in the Skeptical Inquirer (Volume 33.4, July / August 2009) - mentions in passing in one line that Tappe claims one type of Indigo Child is expected to lead new religious movements (in addition to being a bully).
Other than that, I'm not really finding any WP:RSs on the NRM aspect of it. I will look into adding these shortly, but how do you propose we expand the article? If sources do not exist for a topic, it is rather unreasonable to expect it to be expanded.
Ian.thomson (talk) 17:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
All suggested sources are now cited. Is there any basis for the NPOV tag now? Ian.thomson (talk) 18:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I am appalled at the second paragraph of this article, which is nowhere near neutral but instead flecked with impatience, disgust, annoyance, and superiority. The second sentence of the second paragraph reads as a criticism by Wikipedia, rather than the report/summary of existing criticism. I also don't feel like I have any idea what an Indigo child actually is from this article. Goddesseverywhere (talk) 02:47, 30 May 2016 (UTC)goddesseverywhere

It would be non-neutral to lie and say there's anything more than an absence of scientific evidence. Granted, we could probably better reflect what it means to be an Indigo child, like this interview with an Indigo child does. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:15, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

In order to improve neutrality, I am attempting to add more sources of spiritual references if Indigo children, not associated with a religion or modern medicine, but in the same way that Nancy Ann Tapp saw them. She was a gifted person and her work can only be replicated by people with the gift of clairvoyance or through fringe technology like AuraStar200. I am trying to add credible support to the problems associated with diagnosing Indigo Children without the gift and using standard medical methods. I have chosen to cite the published works of two foremost experts in the field of reincarnation. 1) Dr. Ian Stevenson devoted his life to the study of children's past lives. He has studied thousands of children with knowledge of their previous life and documented how difficult it was for the parents to accept a child with knowledge and wisdom beyond their years. 2) Beatrice Brunner is the most prolific modern spiritual medium who channeled 2400 lectures over 35 years and specifically taught about the various levels that children enter an earthy incarnation. I attempted to add the following section to this article for these purposes and would like third party support to Nancy Ann Tapp's original view of indigo children. Shawn Murphy (talk) 07:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

"clairvoyance or ... fringe technology" are not simply spiritual claims, they are scientific claims and science has found no support for such claims. Calling a documented scientific mistake spirituality doesn't shield the claim, it only makes spirituality look bad. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:50, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Relation to spirituality (Proposed new subsection)

Indigo is associated with a level of non-material spiritual development pursued by various cultures, notably the Tibetan Buddhism pursuit of the Rainbow body. Indigo is the color of the sixth chakra, Ajna in the Hindu tradition, which is associated with clairvoyance.[1] In most eastern spiritual cultures, indigo is associated with one of the highest achievable level of spiritual development. So from this protective, to be born an indigo child is to be born with the characteristics described by within these cultures, which are often foreign concepts to westerners.

  • Virtuous - modest, loving, caring, generous, selfless, just
  • Offended by lack of virtue - misuse of power, injustice, conflict, etc.
  • Clairvoyance - knowledge and wisdom beyond their years

From the work of Ian Stevenson on Children's Past Lives we see that children raised in an unsupportive environment lose this innate gift through self protection.[2] They hide their abilities when they find that they are not understood by parents and peers. Indigo children raised in a supportive and understanding environment grow to be amazing people, but their innate virtue means they are not widely recognized in society.[3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bermuda shawn (talk • contribs) 07:49, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Your sources are unacceptable. WP:FRINGE and WP:REDFLAG apply here in WP:SPADEs. Dr. K. 07:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
As I've just noted above, claims about clairvoyance fall under Parapsychology, which is rejected by science as not only unsupported but disproven. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:50, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Butler, W. E. How to Read the Aura and Practice Psychometry, Telepathy, & Clairvoyance. Rochester, VT: Destiny, 1998. Print.
  2. ^ Stevenson, Ian. Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation. Charlottesville: U of Virginia, 1980. Print.
  3. ^ Brunner, Beatrice. "Od – the Spiritual Life Force in the Levels of Ascent." The Spiritual World 2016.4 (2016): 3-19. Print.

Dallas Observer

I have replaced the Dallas Observer/Dusk/Avatar passage. This is exactly what I want to read in the article, but in the intervening six years the section "criticism" has been replaced with "commercialization". The only reason the then-editor gave for removing it was that the child's age (given as "eight") was not given. And they've been indefinitely banned since then. MartinSFSA (talk) 13:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

An isolated incident of one child is not notable. There could be dozens (or hundreds) or such incidents. Please get consensus here before you restore it. Sundayclose (talk) 14:54, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
It's a media organisation with a claimed circulation of 43,810. You're not a sock puppet, are you? MartinSFSA (talk)
Let me suggest that you read WP:AGF and stop jumping to a conclusion about sockpuppetry simply because someone disagrees with you. Do you think throwing out wild, baseless accusations does anything for your credibility here? As for the article, my point is irrelevant to the "media circulation". Using a single case out of many cases of claimed indigo is a huge violation of WP:WEIGHT. If other people come up with media reports of 10 or 15 more children who claim to be indigos (and I'm sure they're out there), do we include all of them? What makes this particular case more notable than any other except the fact that you like it? In any event, you need more support here before restoring the item. Sundayclose (talk) 02:51, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Information or editorial?

This page, as it currently exists, is less a source of information than it is an editorial of the validity of the subject. The various opinions of the scientific community do belong in it, as a reference. But the biased language of the author(s) comes through with every line. An encyclopedia doesn't judge its subject. This page doesn't meet the requirements of the purpose of Wikipedia. Information. Facts. Truth. The truth is, there are many strong opinions about the validity of this subject. That belongs in its own section, titled as such, with properly cited sources. MandieJ1975 (talk) 20:29, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Pease see WP:TRUTH. Dr. K. 21:45, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, Mandie. There are no reliable sources that validate any whit of this theory in any way, and we are under no obligation to pretend otherwise. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:08, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

IP 2409:4064:317:3106:F469:22E0:CF0F:454C

Can you explain what it is that you are repeatedly trying to add to the page? It doesn't mean anything in English; if it's the name of a person, why are you adding it to the list of claimed characteristics? You are well past WP:3RR now, you need to stop and explain. GirthSummit (blether) 15:25, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indigo_children/Archive_3&oldid=1136817408"