Talk:Indigo children/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Crystal children

You guys, I want t read about Crystal children, DNA changes between these children and others, percentage of the population (Insert non-formatted text here30% has a new gene?). The readers want to have some real data. Most of this article is hatfull and spamish. 2 lines of information and 3 lines of "criticism". this is not helpful. I love critical thinking, but one first state what he is refuting..

Maybe I'll take the wiki vision and try to add some myself stuff after some research..:) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diza (talk • contribs)

There is no actual information to support any of these wacky claims that circulate under the radar of science. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying that there are, nor am I taking sides. Yet an article about Indigo children should have content about.. Indigo children! Crystal children and their belief system. Having an article that is more than 30% criticism is not just very unenlightened but defeats the point of the wikipedia as a whole. Not everything needs to be "scientific", it needs thought to be relevant. for example an article on gene-therapy (science dogma) should not focus on why they are bad for me, it should focus on what the hell is it...:) In this regard this article fails. Needs more data and less "why are they all wrong" type of narrative. --Procrastinating@^talk2me 17:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

When you get this far into the wilderlands of New Age thought, it becomes increasingly difficult to find reliable sources for even the fact that some of these claims are being made. Do you have some? --Orange Mike | Talk 17:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Echoing Orangemike - "pro" claims need reliable sources to support them, criticisms by mainstream scientists and researchers are supported. This is a fringe claim with no research on it. NPOV does not mean we ignore criticisms or give the theory a free pass - this has no mainstream support or research. If there are sources indicating their is support for the concept beyond the alt-med and New Age circuit, then feel free to add them. For that matter, DNA is readily measurable and change (point mutations? recombinations? triple-helixes?) should be easy enough to demonstrate. So if anyone is going to claim DNA changes, they need to get a source. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

This page seems very biased. If there is a "Criticism" section in the article all the criticism should be moved to that section instead of being laced throughout the article. The vast majority of the statements in this article dispute the existence of indigo's and malign parents as deluded. While I am sure most children are falsely claimed to be "indigo", such blanket statements are contrary to true scientific inquirey. The fact that some kid fooled a local newspaper in "Texas" with a movie quote is not relevant in any way, shape or form. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.35.222.106 (talk) 16:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

You are correct -- you cannot get three sentences in without a value-judgment being thrown at you, commanding you how to think and perceive the information being fed. This sense of totalitarian thinking is not science at all. Provide the DESCRIPTIVE information for skeptics or people interested in learning about the content and then leave it to THEM to judge whether its' true or not. Leave the politics and sensationalism out of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.105.184.93 (talk) 11:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Note also that gene duplication isn't actually rare. It wouldn't surprise me if 30% of the general population has an extra copy of at least one gene. So even if this claimed were sourced it would need to be approached very carefully. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

You know, if there is actually a study of gene duplication that mentions indigo children, I'm pretty sure I'd be willing to let it go up on the page. I'm even more sure that such a study has never occurred. Anything that isn't explicit on an indigo-duplication link certainly isn't appropriate. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Take a closer look; the suggested claim isn't that a gene is duplicated, but that there is a new gene that they share. In other words, they're muties! (Of course, if that is true, then Cerebro should be able to detect them, right?) --Orange Mike | Talk 15:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Stop mocking the indigos, or they might kill us with their strange powers, inexplicable through science. Didn't you read the part about how if they go wrong, they become murderers? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I was under the impression that Indigo Children and Crystal Children were 2 different forms of Teh Crazy. I was surprised when crystal redirected here. I don't know enough about it to write another page, but perhaps it should be split.Jlygrnmigt (talk) 14:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

A quick Google search suggests otherwise; all the top links directly link the two concepts; the Crystal Children are supposed to be even-more evolved versions of the Indigo Children. "Star children" or "star people" did at least start out as a separate concept, though. Maybe you were thinking of them? And of course all of these are entirely separate from the Starchild. Ben Standeven (talk) 01:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I am an indigo myself and its not just stupid pseudoscience so its irritating when u doubt things that are beyond your understanding just because you can't find any good science. This article is ridiculous and far too critical of it. And actually indigos and crystals are related, different but related and they are two different forms of star children thank you very much. Sure some of the characteristics may not be very clear but believe someone who knows more than they care to know about the world it is very real. Though I can't tell you if why some say we're really here is true or not because i'm only an indigo not a crystal. and all our "strange powers" are are cartain psychic abilities that are even in psychology books so shove it. And we're not mutants jerks.Kitten3 (talk) 10:32, 9 May 2011 Kitten3 (talk) 10:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

This article represents the scientific view of indigo children, see WP:CITE, WP:Reliable sources, and WP:Neutral Point of View. No experiments have been found to show any difference between indigo children and spoiled kids with ADHD and superstitious parents. If all those scientists can be wrong, then a single person with a neurological disorder can be wrong too. Guess what: the concept of "indigo children" was developed by someone with a neurological disorder and no scientific training or education. If you really have psychic powers, then consistantly demonstrate them in front of a scientist. Head over to your local university's psychology department, say "hey, I'd like to demonstrate my psychic powers! This is what they are, can you devise an experiment to demonstrate that I do have these?" Seriously, put up evidence or quit deluding yourself. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I strongly agree. If you believe you have these powers then demonstrate them in a scientifically controlled experiment. Better still, go to James Randi and he'll pay you a million dollars for successfully demonstrating your talent. Either that, or you are one of the sad people who's parents were desperate to find something special in their child and latched onto whatever new-age bullshit they could find to explain what they so desperately wanted to see. If someone tells you often enough that you are special - then eventually you may come to believe it - that doesn't make it true.

It's not that some children aren't "special". I have Asperger's syndrome - which definitely make me "special" (although not always in a good way!) - but this is a scientifically measured, solidly verified fact of nature - there is an observable difference in the behavior of mirror neurons in Aspergers' patients that accounts for their special ability to focus on detail and their failure to detect emotion in others. This is a measurable thing - it's described in the very best scientific literature - and our article about it explains that.

In contrast, no proof whatever has ever been shown of unusual abilities in so-called "Indigo children".

So, I recommend you put up or shut up. But, true or false, reality or delusion - until you or someone does that experiment, and writes it up in properly acceptable (under Wikipedia guidelines) peer-reviewed scientific journal so that references can be found, we are quite literally not allowed to write this article in the way you'd like to see it written. Please don't waste your time here - it will only frustrate you and annoy us. We are required to follow the guidelines of this web site in writing this article - and that's exactly what we're going to do. If you truly believe your abilities to be real - then just go prove it, if you really have these powers then it would be the simplest thing in the world for you to do. SteveBaker (talk) 14:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree this article seems very negative. There's no proof of God either but the wikipedia entry doesn't talk about psuedoscience and generaly wackiness (Clf99 (talk) 20:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC))

As I explained below, there is a 'bright line' distinction here. I don't believe in god or gods - but I will grant that the existence of one or more gods cannot be disproved because the way this entity is described precludes any possibility of a "disproof". It is an "unfalsifiable hypothesis". Hence, it is at least acceptable to say that this idea of a god must be taken on faith alone.

However, in the case of Crystal/Indigo children, the hypothesis is trivially easy to test - the simplest of controlled scientific experiments can either prove or disprove these claims conclusively. That being the case, nobody has to take this on blind faith - and anyone who does so, isn't thinking clearly. Making claims of "factual" statements that are easily verifiable in this manner without actually going to the very small amount of trouble it needs to actually verify them is "pseudoscience"...and Wikipedia's policy is to label such things as they are. Such science as has been invested in this has shown absolutely zero proof of "indigoness", and unless/until someone does some experiments that prove otherwise, Wikipedia can take the high ground and say "This is a load of nonsense - and here are the references to prove it". SteveBaker (talk) 20:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Revert

I have reverted the changes by IndigoAdult (talk · contribs). The edits removed a series of sourced criticisms, deleted information from the info box without reason, added unsourced information and an inappropriate further reading section in the lead, placed undue weight on the original authors without acknowledging new sources, and made wildly unsupported claims that gave the impression that there's actually merit to this nonsense. Inappropriate, this is a pseudoscientific fringe topic that does not get treated as a serious topic. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou WLU I see the error of my ways and actually prefer a few of your changes, so thankyou, Ive just fixed your errors however... p.s. fear not Im not one of those Indigo murders you mention above, lol. In life you should try to be a little more open minded, you might actually learn something this time around...

On a final note you may do well to remember that often it takes science sometime to catch up with ideas that they could not previously prove and these are put in the " airy fairy " or superstitious basket. Things such as meridians, the Chinese spoke of them over 3000 years ago, documented them, and used them in a practice known today as acupuncture. Science went looking for these meridians (or path ways of energy throughout the body) for over seventy years before finding them, now they appear in modern medical text books as they have been found as previously described. Who knows, in a few thousand years maybe you would have had enough time to evolve yourself and learn to think for your self as oppose to regurgitating someone else s knowledge and taken it as gospel.

Regards, IndigoAdult.

It would help if there were any "science" attempted on the subject, since it is mostly a profit-making machine via popular conferences and a collection of unsubstantiated impressions. I have reverted your changes again - your edits to the lead removed criticisms that are a significant part of the body and should definitely remain. Since this is not a scientific concept, I would prefer to keep the "origins" section at the start; placing the "characteristics" section first gives the impression there is merit to the claims and that it describes something real. My "changes" were a revert to a previous version, I made no alterations to that text.

Please note that wikipedia is an encyclopedia dedicated to portraying information on a topic proportionate to the opinion in the scholarly majority. That means criticism, doubt, and emphasis on the skepticism found in child psychologists should be a substantial part of the page. This is a fringe theory that has no scientific credibility, and should not be portrayed as a real phenomenon. Wikipedia is also not a soapbox or place for advocacy about a topic. All information should be sourced and should not contain any original research. You should not be arguing for the reality of indigo children, you should be finding reliable sources that discuss the theory and integrating them with the page with due weight to the scholarly majority.

Meridians are seen as nonsense by doctors and scientists investigating acupuncture, part of a historical system based on the 7 rivers in China. Science hasn't found them yet, and they're probably nonsense. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the origins of the concept first. IndigoAdult also needs to understand that we expect editors to assume good faith and not stoop to personal insults. I wish new editors would read the links we usually provide for them on their talk pages. Dougweller (talk) 13:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Despite these objections, the edits have continued (and the infobox removed). Please stop, there is no policy or guideline-based reason for any of the changes and they are therefore inappropriate. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

(Off topic) Hah, actually meridians are still not accepted as a scientifically valid idea at all. If they're in textbooks, it's only because of the popularity of "alternative medicine".... — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK), 01:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

• • • • As a person with very severe ADHD combined type I have to try very hard to put my, often passionately held, view across without stamping all over other people. Well ADHD is my reason for being intolerant and poor impulse control can lead to me shooting my mouth off before applying some kind of thought processing but seems that doesnt apply here. Why dont you all go and find a wall and see who can pee the highest? (bet that gets edited out and mores the pity because you should see yourselves).

Right, down to business. IMO the article on Wiki regarding indigo children is a clear case of Wiki breaking its own rules. They ask for encyclopaedic information that can be verified by external sources and then ask that we maintain a neutral point of view. The indigo children article can be politely described as heavily biased against the concept and often dips into patronism and then just smacks of outright bigotry and ignorance. The justification is that wiki stands on the side of scientific proof. That is a powerful ally to hide behind and the less informed will find it hard to challenge the intelligent elite with confidence and that suits closed minded bullies who themselves lack not just the intelligence but the open mind to have an exchange of ideas. Shame on you for hiding behind the power of the top 2% of society and using their work as your mantle and swords. Lets look first at what makes science a science. Roughly speaking for something to be a scientific fact then it has to be proven by repeatedly performing the same experiment that results in the same predictable outcome. Social science is a misnomer when you apply the true definition of the word science and your own site more or less says as much. So, seeing as the edges between ADHD and indigo children are well and truly blurred then the authors argument that ADHD is a diagnosed psychiatric condition cannot be called scientific proof because as yet a test does not exist to scientifically PROVE it. Its still in the research stages and if most of these indigo children have ADHD then when they do roll out routine brain scans then they will show up as different from all the normies so either way its a non starter and you need to find a different way to educate people to your point of view. Now you all might be thinking I am pro indigo children as a concept but you would be wrong. I came here to LEARN and wherever I look on the net I can only find extremists on both sides and thats disappointing for me academically. What I dont see represented here are the vulnerable children caught in the middle of a rabid medical professional pushing methylphenidate forward as some sort of panacea while hes foaming at the mouth after dipping in the meds cabinet himself or some bonkers parent brainwashing her child into thinking its purple and will crap crystals before taking over the world. That last paragraph was deliberately provocative because the article does imply that Ritalin fixes people like me when it clearly doesnt and the crapping crystal bit was added to illustrate how ignorant I still am because your site has not explained the belief system related to the subject but has instead chosen to have a nasty dig with no meat on the bones of their own argument. I have loads more to say because Wiki and the info about ADHD is dreadful but my brain cant keep thinking about this just now.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ribbonsrabbit (talk • contribs)

Addressing your various points (which makes me think you don't quite understand what a thesis statement is):

-The "ADHD makes me intolerant" bit is a complete load of rubbish and makes me think you know nothing about the condition.

-Wiki and Wikipedia are two different things, Wiki is a software, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that uses Wiki software.

-Wikipedia does ask for encyclopedic information. Encyclopedic information about psychology would come from psychologists, such info about neurology would come from neurologists, and such info about cars would come from manufacturers and mechanics; none of this info would come from a brain damaged monkey banging his head on a keyboard. This is why many of the pro-indigo-children sources are rejected. Who would you take medical advice from about a skin condition? A dermatologist or a high-school dropout who believes he received the same skin condition from being abducted by aliens?

-You're confusing neutral with equal weight, which are not the same thing. Neutrality would mean summarizing reliable sources accurately. Equal weight means treating ignorant and uneducated delusions sold by charlatins and snake-oil salesmen as equal to repeatedly tested data examined by people who have spent years studying how to understand that data.

-Shame on us? Shame on us for siding with people who know what they're talking about? Shame on you for asking is to ignore progress and go back to superstition by treating the concept of Indigo children equally. The idea of Indigo Children includes a lot of claims that are testable outside of social sciences, and all of those tests show that "Indigo Children" are no different than other children, they just have more gullible parents.

-Social science is not a misnomer, because people's can be observed and documented, and it has become far more empirical in the past century. Please visit your local college and audit some intro psychology and sociology courses some time. Even better, ask your nearest university if they will be conducting any experiments (they're fun, only take an hour, and you might make a few bucks for your time).

-What is your source for the statement "the edges between ADHD and indigo children are well and truly blurred"? They're not: no evidence for the existence of indigo children can be found, but those who are called indigo children often have ADHD. Not the same thing as them being blurred.

-Your rant about pill-pushing doctors is irrelevant and off topic. One doesn't have to be on their side to see that the whole indigo children mess is (scientifically) a total lie, and simply acknowledging the existence or even possibility of ADHD does not force one to accept that there aren't misdiagnoses created by different cultural problems.

Finally, talk pages are for article improvement, not general discussion. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:46, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Sir, if you knew anything about ADHD then you would realise we only read the small print or instructions when all else fails so please forgive me for seeing the word discussion and interpreting it as discussion and not article improvement. Perhaps you didnt see where I suggested an outline of what indigo children are. I think that would pass as a suggestion for improving the article? To actually describe it? I said my ADHD makes me intolerant and you said that was complete rubbish and it made you think I knew nothing about the condition. Next you will be dragging cripples out of wheelchairs and telling them to walk. You favour verifiable information. Please scroll down to number 23 and you will find the aspect of ADHD you describe as complete rubbish. http://www.addresources.org/?q=checklist

I dont need to justify myself to you academically but your page on The Total Communication Approach could be improved by someone with specialists professional knowledge. Ribbonsrabbit (talk) 01:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, intolerance is not a recognized symptom of ADHD - but it is one of the symptoms of a couple of the comorbid disorders that are commonly associated with ADHD. So FWIW, both User:Ribbonsrabbit and User:Ian.thomson are correct. It is indeed unfortunate that you have this condition, and you have my sympathies (I have Asperger syndrome - so we are but one short step apart). But - this does not exempt you from Wikipedias' rules of conduct any more than having a broken leg entitles you to ride a motorbike in the Tour de France. So you might as well stop harping on about it. You are required to exhibit tolerance of other editors - and if you can't do that, because of ADHD or for whatever other reason, you should refrain from posting here.

You call the editors here "closed minded bullies" and you openly insulted our intelligence. I should point out that this is a form of personal attack on the fine and dedicated editors who work on this article - and that is quite enough to get you banned from Wikipedia - ADHD or no ADHD. Please read WP:NPA before doing that kind of thing again.

Under these circumstances, I recommend writing your post offline - waiting an hour - then coming back and re-reading what you wrote before you post it online. That kind of 'second chance' makes it possible for you to self-moderate your immediate impulses.

Secondly, as to the actual question here:

• Wikipedia really does require controversial statements to be backed by reliable sources - a term with heavy implications for articles about 'fringe' topics such as Indigo Children. WP:FRINGE lays this out most clearly and is vital reading for any editor of this article.

• The requirement for a neutral point of view most emphatically does NOT mean that we have to accept every topic such as this at face value. To quote the very first line of WP:NPOV (my emphasis):

"Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources."

Notice that we are not required to represent views that are NOT published by reliable sources. Since almost none of the pro-Indigo viewpoints are published in sources that are considered reliable in the context of fringe theories - we are entirely justified in giving those views short shrift...because we must represent those views proportionately - in proportion to the number of reliable sources that maintain those views. When you understand the full implications of WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE, you'll understand that we are entirely justified in writing an entire article that basically says "The Indigo Children hypothesis is false" and excluding all unpublished or unreliably sourced claims on the subject. We are required to be neutral only as regards the reliably sourced information.

• You say that: "Roughly speaking for something to be a scientific fact then it has to be proven by repeatedly performing the same experiment that results in the same predictable outcome." - that's not quite true - but it'll do for now. The Indigo children hypothesis has not be proven repeatedly - not even once as a properly organized experiment. The existence of auras (indigo or otherwise) has indeed been tested several times by the James Randi crew - and it has failed each time. Certainly we are well-justified in saying that there is no scientific evidence for the Indigo hypothesis.

• You also say: "seeing as the edges between ADHD and indigo children are well and truly blurred then the authors argument that ADHD is a diagnosed psychiatric condition cannot be called scientific proof because as yet a test does not exist to scientifically PROVE it." - there is no blurred line here. The question is whether there exist children who have an indigo-colored aura. No such aura has ever been demonstrated and there are no claims of auras for ADHD sufferers either. We are not debating whether there are children who may or may not have some of the characteristics claimed for indigo children - the issue is whether this may be attributed to the hokey new-age spiritualism and 'aura' pseudo-science - or whether these children do indeed suffer (or benefit) from one or more perfectly normal, rational conditions (such as Aspergers and ADHD). We have perfectly good articles about most of these symptoms and conditions - they are well researched and grounded on solid science. It is the whole indigo aura thing that this article (mostly) debunks.

• You say: "I have loads more to say because Wiki and the info about ADHD is dreadful...". Fair enough - but:
  1. If you have problems with the ADHD article, then you should discuss it there - not here.
  2. This article is not about ADHD - it's about the claim that some children have some kind of invisible purple glow that only some people can see - and that this correlates with all sorts of mental capabilities in those children.
  3. If you have problems with the policies of Wikipedia (not "Wiki" - that's a piece of software), then you should go to the talk pages where those policies are discussed: WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV, etc. However, you should be aware that those have been discussed to death over the last 5 or 6 years - and the probability that you have some new and damning evidence of inappropriateness of these guidelines is, frankly, zero. (Also, those pages are teeming with admins - for chrissakes don't start calling them names or denigrating their intelligence - you won't get away with just a mild admonition if your break WP:NPA on such high-profile pages!)

SteveBaker (talk) 14:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I concur fully with most of what you have said. I will take on board both your criticism and generous advice. I must also compliment you on how eloquently you construct your points and that the way you deliver them is utterly devoid of any abrasive triggers. I did not intend on contributing again to this entire site but you have changed my mind and that suits my obsessive streak. To clarify or maybe better explain my hurried statement about the edges between indigo children and ADHD being blurred stems from the frequent association of my legitimate medical condition to the concept of indigo children. In Wikis article (yes, I DO know the difference but I am abr) ADHD is mentioned as being synonymous with indigos, as is the case everywhere else. It even has its own heading as well as being smattered throughout the article. I would like to see some sort of representation from ADHDers that states that the majority of us totally reject the concept and insanity of indigos. They have hijacked my condition and are causing damage to every single one of us in a plethora of ways and I want to hear the voice of a large group of people who are directly affected by a minority of obscene people. That would improve the article. Ribbonsrabbit (talk) 22:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

OK - so the section in this article that links ADHD and the Indigo hypothesis is backed by several reliable sources. It doesn't say that ADHD sufferers are Indigo children (with auras and all that malarky). It says that many of the children who are labelled "Indigo" by their parents are in fact ADHD sufferers. This is a true statement. It's rather sad that parents of kids who have this condition are so desperate to find something positive to say about their kids that they can be taken in by the proponents of nonsense such as auras and all of that new-age spiritualism. This is all rather unfortunate - but it happens to be true, and we have sources to back that up. Since it's a notable fact (and goes some way to explain why parents get pulled into the whole "indigo" bullshit), it is worthy of mention in this article.

Your reading of that paragraph: "ADHD is mentioned as being synonymous with indigos" is a misreading of what we've written. It is clear that ADHD is a very real condition - and possessing a purple glow is not - so they certainly aren't synonymous. However, the reverse may not be the case: It is very possible that every case of a parent labelling their child as "indigo" is a parent of an ADHD child. Perhaps that section could clarified this point somewhat - but what it says is true, relevant, notable and verifiable - so we're bound to write something about it rather than sweep it under the carpet.

You say that "They have hijacked my condition and are causing damage to every single one of us" (presumably by labelling ADHD sufferers as 'Indigo') - and I have to agree with you. 100%. They absolutely have hijacked your condition and certainly are damaging their kids in the process. I suspect that some parents of Asperger kids do the exact same thing. However, it is a true statement - ADHD kids are sometimes labelled as 'Indigo'. Wikipedia can't suppress the truth just because some section of society doesn't like it.

SteveBaker (talk) 14:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

A way of thinking

Within the last few minutes I've been looking at other articles on indigo's on the internet. I'm generally annoyed with everything I've found. I never really thought personality tests were any good until I read "What color is your aura." Although I don't think everything in it is correct I do think that she pins down some key belief systems, interactions different types of people have with the world, and ways people think. I identified most with indigo and decided to find out more about it. Everything I've found since then is junk. I am perfectly fine with the school system, a little ADD but no one would be able to tell. I mostly think that "Indigo" refers to the way I interact with the world.

So I have decided to start with Wikipedia. Most people in my generation use this to reference what they write anyway. I would like to somehow change other people's perspectives of Indigo's so that it isn't a pseudoscience for misbehaving children but instead a way some people think. I believe this would also help the general population understand different points of view better.

Excessive ADD and misbehaving isn't caused by a personality type. It's the environment and the parents. Perhaps before this Indigo's were only noticed by people were studying these two phenomenons but I don't believe this is typical for an Indigo. Anyway, there is a lot of nonsense and I can see how the original article became critical of the stuff that was out there. But this is the first place that needs to change if there is going to be a new perspective on the term "Indigo Children." A little more truth can create a lot more understanding around the subject. Swiftstar1142 (talk) 18:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Swiftstar1142 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but Wikipedia is not to be used for any sort of advocacy, and we're not a scientific journal so we don't advance new ideas. Do you have any articles from scientific, psychological, or medical journals concerning any empirical evidence about Indigo children? That's what tends to determine what is or is not scientific. Proper, scientific, personality assessments (such as the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator) are not meant to say that a person was born a certain way or anything, nor to force them in a particular role, but to classify what their environment and parents have done to them. Can you quote anything wrong with this article, and bring in a scientific source that shows that the quoted part of the article is wrong? If not, you may need to consider that it's not the article that's wrong. You may want to also consider that if most of the info you're finding about Indigo children is "a lot of the psychic" junk, you may not be properly interpreting the sources that do advocate the idea. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

groan* any actual research about "Indigo Children" would fit under Pseudoscience. It's difficult to measure idea's and how people think about the world. I don't really feel like deciding my major is Physiology and spend years researching this to try to prove my point. I'll go search on Google scholar to see if I can find anything. Swiftstar1142 (talk) 19:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry again, but your speculations are not the way it's done on Wikipedia, and there's no reason to start making exceptions with this article. It has already been pointed out to you in considerable detail why your non-scientific or unsourced ideas do not belong in an encyclopedia. I'm sure there are blogs out there that will welcome your comments, but they have no place in this or any other reputable encyclopedia. Let me also recommend that you read the archives for this talk page. There have been numerous attempts to place personal opinions with no scientific basis in the article; often the editor trying to do this claims that his/her ideas are backed up by scholarly publications, but when asked to provide the evidence it never manages to show up. I think you're probably going down a very futile path. Cresix (talk) 19:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, physiology is not psychology, studying physiology wouldn't do anything. Physiology covers stuff like how mitochondria process chemical energy for the cells, or how the liver cleanses toxins out of the body, not how the mind works (except possible notes on how certain conditions may affect thinking, like how starvation can affect concentration). Ian.thomson (talk) 19:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not interested in blogs. Either everyone will agree with me (which is pointless). Or they will be so set in their opinion they won't be willing to see another perspective (even worse). So far the only "properly scientific" articles I was able to find are as negative as the current definition. So I suppose I'll ignore the problem for now and if I think about it in a few years I'll see if anything new has cropped up. See ya! Swiftstar1142 (talk) 19:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

If the only scientific articles regarding indigo children are negative, and the only sources that are positive are pseudoscience or new-age psychic stuff, that may be an indication you need to reevaluate your understanding of the idea of indigo children. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

That just means that the worlds current understanding of it is negative. Truth can be proved by science but generally exists separate from it. Even the parts of the articles I read were very opinionated. Therefore they all contain the person's opinion and not the truth of the matter. That makes my own version also an opinion. But I feel like I have a bit more truth on it that others from firsthand experience. So I wanted to share it on Wikipedia to help parents that may have indigo children. The whole matter is as fuzzy as an argument between string theory and dark matter. Everyone is interpreting information different ways. Swiftstar1142 (talk) 20:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

So what you hold to is "true," but what multiple people have been able to empirically observe, record, and study is just "their interpretation?" I do agree that the ultimate truths in life are subjective, but that doesn't change the fact that if the scientific community is capable of interpreting scientific facts wrong, you (a single person) are too, and if countless people trained to record and interpret data are interpreting observable phenomena one way and you are only going the other way off of a whim, who does it appear more reasonable to side with? Ian.thomson (talk) 20:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Swiftstar, firsthand experience is definitely off limits on Wikipedia, not just for fringe theories but for any article. Read WP:NOR. As for what is "opinionated", scientific opinions, properly sourced with unbiased research, are perfectly acceptable. That's not the same as "opionionated". This article has a long history of people trying to add information with absolutely no scientific evidence, then complaining about the evidence that is in the article as opinionated. Look, you are perfectly entitled to your opinions, and even entitled to express those at the appropriate venue. But once again, an encyclopedia is not the place for what you wish to add. I really suggest that you either go post on blogs, create your own website, or drop the whole issue. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 20:48, 30 July 2010

The first two paragraphs of the article "Indigo Children" are very biased. I'm requesting that the strong negative opinion be taken so that the term indigo children can be fairly represented. (discussed with someone else and she suggested I just say what I was frustrated about instead of beating around the bush) I was a little offended when the first thing I read was it was a pseudoscience designed by money grubbers to trick parents into thinking their children were special. Swiftstar1142 (talk) 20:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Your only choice here is to provide reliably sourced scientific evidence (if a journal article, peer reviewed; if a book, based on peer-reviewed journals) that refutes the parts that you consider "very biased". Otherwise it's simply your opinion (and for about the fourth time) completely unacceptable here. I'm sorry you're offended, but that's the bottom line, regardless of what your friend suggested. Cresix (talk) 20:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

We actually have one Peer-reviewed article as a source on here i added some weeks ago. Its worth checking out if you are interested in improving the article. It treats it as a more a new age Religion phenomenon and the beliefs that revolve around the children than whether they are scientifically accurate in their beliefs. I find the subject annoying due personal reasons. Weaponbb7 (talk) 21:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The term "pseudo-science" is not a "strong negative opinion" - it is a statement of cold fact and a term that is well defined in the mainstream literature. Any field of study that makes scientific claims (eg "some children have an invisible indigo aura and that makes them more creative than other kids") and yet which does not follow the scientific method (falsifiable hypothesis, experiment, controlled/double-blind studies, peer-reviewed articles in mainstream journals, independent examination of data and recreation of experiments by third parties, etc) is "a pseudo-science". That doesn't necessarily make it bad or evil or wrong - it's not even a negative term. Economists are pseudo-scientists, so are most psychoanalysts - that doesn't mean that they aren't "right" or that they aren't doing a good job - it just means that they don't/can't/won't follow "the scientific method". An economist might well say "Reducing the tax burden will encourage job growth" - but (s)he cannot point to a controlled experiment to back up that claim. That doesn't mean that economists are bad people - or that what they say isn't true.

Those who make claims about the nature of "indigo children" and their nature and development are making statements of a scientific nature - that some cause results in some effect and that some phenomena exists in the real world. Yet they aren't doing scientific testing to back up those claims - so this is most certainly a pseudo-science. WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE makes it clear that we can - and should - state this where reliable sources exist...which they clearly do in this case.

Removing this clearly defined term from the lead and replacing it with "New Age" - which is a vague, ill-defined, wishy-washy catch-all term is a transparent attempt to sweep under the carpet the cold, hard fact that NOBODY has ever shown the existence of an aura (much less an indigo one) in any scientifically run test. Supressing that fact is a non-neutral point of view and it hides an important truth that our readers need to know about. It is vitally important that the lead paragraph doesn't give the false impression that people who claim to have detected these auras are doing so under scientifically controlled conditions - hence we need to use a carefully chosen term like "pseudo-scientific" in order to avoid saying "evil, lying, cheating charlatans"...which might easily be construed as POV and a "strongly negative opinion"! :-) SteveBaker (talk) 14:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy does not require that we treat unscientific ideas as scientific just because some people mistakenly think it's science (see here for the guideline saying so, and here for the NPOV FAQ entry). Ian.thomson (talk) 21:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The concept of indigo children is pseudoscience, this is verifiable, there is no actual research on this. We're done. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Pseudo-Science

Unless you can provide a reliable source from the scientific community saying that it is an unquestionable FACT that this is a pseudo-science, the usage of said term makes this page biased. Just because you do not believe that this is real does not mean that that view is objective enough to warrant continued reversion to that word choice.

I assume any unsourced edits regarding this word usage are vandalism. Remember, Wikipedia is not a sounding board for your personal opinions. If you wish to express skepticism of this subject, feel free to sign up for an appropriate message board or make a Youtube video. I will probably join you. However, this is not the appropriate place. 198.151.200.253 (talk) 14:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

User provided a source. Thank you for responding so quickly. 198.151.200.253 (talk) 14:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

New stuff goes at the bottom of the page, which is probably why noone responded on this page. Also, that there are no actually scientific sources promoting Indigo Children does mean that it's pseudoscience, and that it's not biased to say that. It is "obvious pseudoscience", not an "Alternative theoretical formulation" or even "Questionable science." It is also not restricted to New-Age circles, so calling it "New-Age" isn't accurate either. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree with Ian.thomson. It's such a waste of time to have to re-argue this point every three or four weeks when a new POV-pushing Indigo crusader decides to impose his interpretation of "Indigo" or "science" or "pseudoscience" into this article. I don't mean to sound paranoid, but I am seriously starting to wonder if there is some sort of organized effort behind this article being a frequent target of such activity. It happened on articles related to Scientology. I know that the technology exists to investigate the IPs behind such activity, but I don't have the technical sophistication to proceed with it. If anyone has any thoughts about this I personally would appreciate knowing more about it. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 17:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I dunno that it's Scientology level, or that it needs to be. The sort of folks that are likely to believe in Indigo children would include "my child is special" types that don't like it when anyone points out that, no, their kid is a kid, not a vehicle for their crushed yuppie dreams. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

No, not WP:ARBSCI level, drive by editors who try and "fix" the inaccuracies, you would be truly shocked how many popular this concept is around the special education circles and I seem to remember reading about a school in Arizona specializing in indigo children. Like our new age this movement has thousands of adherents in the western world, with the exception of a few authors who write the big books on it there is no centralized authority to manage a campaign. At most we might have online webforum but that seem dubious possibility as well since it usually just one hit and maybe 3RR block so No campaign by edit warriors here. Put Pentecostal and New Age on your watch list and you'll realize this is a rather normal occurrence to have drive by POV edits to correct inaccuracies. None seem to stick around so neither are they full time edit warriors like we had under WP:ARBSCI. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 17:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I wrote that attempting to make a Wikipedia page a more accurate source of information. The conspiracy theory that I am part of some sort of organized effort to control the information on this page is not only paranoid, but it's completely irrelevant. The ad hominem accusation that I am a "new POV-pushing Indigo Crusader" is also irrelevant, not to mention a sign that you didn't actually read my post. To call something a pseudo-science is a bold enough statement as to require a reliable source. Someone provided one. The issue is settled. We move on Stillravenmad (talk) 04:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

If you hang around here long enough, you will see enough POV-pushers that you'd understand why the possibility was brought up. Also, calling something pseudo-science generally works if it claims to be scientific, but no authentic scholarly sources can be found showing it to be scientific. WP:COMMON. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I can understand Stillravenmad's taking offense, and I apologize if it appeared to focus only on him/her. I intended (very clumsily) to make a more general statement about the article. That being said, Ian.thomson is right. This article is a POV-pushing magnet. Cresix (talk) 16:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

So where is the citation for someone claiming it's science, and has been studied using the Scientific Method? I hunted for it, didn't find one. That's the citation you need, not just a scientist calling it pseudo-scientific. Please see the article on pseudoscience, specifically, the "identifying pseudoscience" section. Using that word in this article, and especially at the very top as a defining characteristic of the subject, is an error, until such a citation is presented. 24.10.133.100 (talk) 07:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The Indigo Children salesmen making claims that can be tested would be the ones calling it science, even if they don't use that word. They don't have to test the exact claim if it's based on other pseudoscience (auras, in this case). A scientist saying that it's pseudoscience is enough, we don't need a source showing it to be science first. A lot of pseudoscience doesn't get to be science first, most of it these days just goes straight to bullshit. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The term "pseudoscience" means, roughly: "something that acts like it's a science but doesn't follow scientific methods". We have a reliable source saying that it's a pseudoscience and we have found no reliable sources showing scientific evidence for auras and all of that nonsense. So the evidence we have is uncontradicted and may therefore be presented unequivocally. What that source is telling us is that the indigo-children proponents are indeed acting as if this were a scientific matter - and also not backing up those claims with solid evidence. The source says all of that long sentence in one simple word - but that's all that's needed here. The indigo-child proponents are both making scientific claims and failing to act scientifically - and we have a solid, wikipedia-acceptable, source for that. Game-over. We don't need anything more. Wikipedia is pretty hard-nosed about not promoting these kinds of fringe theories by giving them credence. We are an encyclopedia. We write the truth - as reported by reliable sources. We don't go around sugar-coating the news that some piece of bullshit new-age nonsense is a complete pile of BS; we present the prevailing scientific view - with references to back that up. That's how Wikipedia works. If you don't like that, argue about it at WP:FRINGE or wherever - not here. Given that we have reliable sources that use the word "pseudoscience" and clearly state that the existence of "indigo children" is an unproven claim, promoted by people who do so without scientific evidence of any kind - we need to be very up-front with our readership, telling them in no uncertain terms that there is no evidence that this theory is "real". That kind of statement needs to be in the lead paragraph because our readers need to know the nature of what they are about to read - and for that reason, this has to be amongst the first things that the article says, not buried deep where few will read it. SteveBaker (talk) 14:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Just because someone, who claims to be a scientist, didn't find aura - it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. It means that this scientist needs to grow up. Study of aura is encompassing HUNDREDS of books, just do the search. People who study and have DIRECT EXPERIENCE - all witness it. Steelmate (talk) 22:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Until it shows up in a scholarly journals more often than the "it doesn't exist" claims, it is not scientifically demonstrated as far as the encyclopedia is concerned. Lots of books are written about lots of stuff that doesn't exist. If the scientists, who are trained to find out this sort of stuff, are likely to make mistakes, how much more likely are the people that are NOT trained? Ian.thomson (talk) 22:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Majority of classical scientistists know nothing about non material world. BUT NASA RECENTLY DISCOVERED THAT 90% OF THIS UNIVERSE CONSISTS OF DEEP MATTER, WHICH IS NON PHYSICAL. So? Where does the science stands now? It is perplexed and confused. Speed of light exceeded 30 times maximum 'allowed' by Einstein's theory - so what is scientific then ha? I propose to write that this matter is not studied by traditional science and exclude pseudosciedntific - as pseudoscientific means they studied and PROVED wrong. Which is NOT the case. Steelmate (talk) 22:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is reliable source by the Russian Academician - Nicolai Levashov : http://www.levashov.info/English/index-eng.html . Here are his credentials : http://www.levashov.info/English/about-eng.html Steelmate (talk) 22:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

That is very far from being a "reliable source" - please read the Wikipedia definition at WP:RS! In the context of scientific claims, we require publication in a well-established, peer-reviewed journal...and preferably, multiple citations of that publication in other articles. SteveBaker (talk) 14:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The claim 'it doesn't exist' means they couldn't find it - it is their fault. Nicolai Levashov claimes 'he found it'. So you can include it now - he is an academician - a true scientist. Steelmate (talk) 22:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

But he's not been published in a well-established peer reviewed journal - and that is Wikipedia's gold standard. If there are such publications of Levashov's work - then we can report them in the article here - if not, then we can't. That's established Wikipedia policy - and there is zero point in debating it's validity here. SteveBaker (talk) 14:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Matter is by definition physical, and you're not providing any citation. Also, it's dark matter (my retired clerk mother knows that). These two HUGE mistakes, combined with your confidence, make me seriously doubt you know much about science. The idea of Indigo children is based on auras, which have not been scientifically demonstrated.

The source you provide is NOT reliable, it is a self-published source. Levashov is NOT credible, his work is not peer reviewed. If everyone else is likely to be mistaken, so is Levashov.

If Levashov was a scientist, he would be published in peer reviewed journals, and wouldn't have to prostitute himself on his personal website. Just because he says he found it does not mean anything. People do make mistakes, and do suffer from mental disorders that make them see things. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

• Some information on so-called "academician" Nicolai Levashov. 173.75.149.107 (talk) 06:07, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

As always, outrageous claims, no peer-reviewed evidence, and self-published sources. Steelmate, like dozens of Indigo champions before you, you're wasting your time (and ours) here on a serious encyclopedia. You're far better off to move on to a blog. Cresix (talk) 23:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Steelmate has his own take on science. His edits at Albert Einstein and on the talk page there are interesting. Dougweller (talk) 08:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The important take-home point here is that Wikipedia requires that all facts that are likely to be considered debatable (which certainly includes every word said in this entire article) must be backed up by reliable sources.

That phrase: "reliable source" has a very specific meaning in Wikipedia and we have some exceedingly well-established policies about when a reliable source is required - and what constitutes a reliable source to back up various specific kinds of statement. In the case of "fringe theories" (which is undoubtedly what Indigo children and Aura's are), the standard for reliable sources is that of scientific acceptance. That's a tough standard to meet - which is unfortunate if you're one of the people who believe in this stuff. However, it most certainly is the Wikipedia standard - and you aren't going to change that here on this talk page.

Worse still - we can't allow "proof by lack of evidence". Wikipedia cannot say that aura's exist just because there is no scientific proof that they don't. The default position is to doubt everything that's debatable. Sure, we don't need peer reviewed science to say that Zebras live in Africa - that's not debatable. But we do need peer reviewed science to say that Einsteins' theory of relativity is true - because that's still quite controversial amongst some people. For other matters such as string theory, (which is not proven, and highly controversial), we have to present a neutral stance because there are reliable sources on both sides of the debate. But here on indigo children, it's a no-brainer. While this is a controversial matter (and hence requiring reliable sources) - there are impeccable reliable sources that say that it's pseudoscience - and not one single "reliable source" (of the kind that Wikipedia's rules will allow us to accept) to say that it's not.

So right now, you have to accept that you aren't going to get what you want in this article. If you believe in this theory - you're going to become exceedingly upset about what gets written here. But we aren't doing it maliciously or capriciously - we're following the rules that Wikipedia lays down for editors.

Until such time as someone publishes a paper in a journal like "Nature" or "Scientific American" that says that experiments have been done to demonstrate the validity of this theory - Wikipedia is going to continue to say, unequivocally, that the theory isn't true. That's not a consequence of our beliefs or non-beliefs here at this talk page. It's a consequence of the policies under which this encyclopedia is governed...and it would take a lot more than discussion here to change that.

We can, however, report on matters surrounding this topic (if we couldn't, it would be a very short article that would say nothing more than: "Indigo children is a pseudoscientific theory"). We can, for example, say that certain notable people have said certain notable things about this topic (presuming we can find reliable sources that show that they said them). The standards for reliable evidence that someone said something are much lower than standards for statements of a scientific nature. All we need to show is a news report or a book or even a website.

That means that we can't say "such-and-such is true" without peer-reviewed scientific evidence. But we can often say "so-and-so claims that such-and-such is true". However, even then, we are required by the guidelines to exercise extreme caution. We are required to avoid giving "undue weight" to those kinds of statements when they run contrary to mainstream science. So it is important to limit the number of statements about things people have said in favor of this theory so as not to overwhelm the number of contrary statements from people who do not believe it. This requirement to avoid "undue weight" is especially important in articles about fringe theories.

But, again - this is not just something we came up with here on this discussion page. It it the policy of the entire Wikipedia. If you don't like those policies - well, you're kinda screwed. You can go to the talk page of the policy document itself and try to get it changed - but the rules on reliable sources, fringe theories and undue weight are deeply entrenched and I think you'd be wasting your breath.

Bottom line: These are the rules - and if you don't like them...bad luck - you can always go off and write your own encyclopedia. SteveBaker (talk) 14:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I think pseudo-science is a misnomer for the concept of Indigo children. We don't call the concept of the trinity in Christianity "pseudo-science" either. The concept of Indigo children has got nothing to do with science, not even pseudo-science. It's in the realm of spiritual convictions, and the subject of Indigo children should be treated as such, in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nilsz2501 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I beg to differ. There is a massive difference.

• Belief in god(s) is an unfalsifiable hypothesis. Because of the way the concept is framed, there is no conceivable way to either prove or disprove the existence of god(s). Hence, it is a (somewhat) reasonable matter of "faith" (although, most rational people should apply Occams' Razor and conclude that this is a spectacularly unlikely thing to be true).

• On the other hand, the hypothesis of Indigo Children, on the other hand is very easy indeed to prove or disprove using the simplest of scientific tests. Reliance on "faith" for such a simple matter is untenable. The claim that certain children have an "aura" that some people can "detect" - and which conveys certain measurable abilities or traits on those children is a ridiculously easy thing to test. Then we'd know for sure whether the hypothesis were true or false.

The fact that none of the proponents of this hypothesis will consent to do such tests - or will believe the results of the tests that have been done - means that this is not a matter of "faith" at all - it's a matter of bone-headed stupidity. If such tests were done and were to confirm the hypothesis, then scientists would be flocking in great numbers to study and understand it. Absent those very simple experimental measurements, this is a classic, text-book example of a pseudoscience. Assertion of a scientifically testable fact without performing those tests.

SteveBaker (talk) 21:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you simplify the concept of Indigo Children here. According to the theory, Indigo Children are very old souls incarnating 'en masse' in this particular timeframe, to bring about spiritual change in this world. How do you test that assertion? You simply can't. The concept of Indigo Children is just one aspect of the wider philosophy of the "New Thought" movement (which is a spiritual movement). As such, Indigo Children can't be understood apart from this wider philosophy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nilsz2501 (talk • contribs) 08:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

If that were all that were being claimed - something completely unfalsifiable - then perhaps you'd be right - but it's most certainly not all that's claimed. From our lede: "Indigo children...are claimed to possess special, unusual and/or supernatural traits or abilities."..."...next stage in human evolution or possessing paranormal abilities such as telepathy to the belief that they are simply more empathic and creative than their peers."...we have strong references to show that this is indeed the claim made by almost all proponents of this ridiculous theory.

It is trivial to test telepathy, empathy and creativity and to do DNA studies to inspect their genome for signs of "evolution". This would allow people to see if kids labelled as "indigo" by the "experts" are in any way different from the general population. Furthermore, Nancy Ann Tappe and others claim to be able to perceive a literal indigo-colored "aura" around these children - so another very simple scientific test would be to take a collection of children - half identified as "indigo" and the other half not - and have two or more of these 'sensitive' people in turn (and without colluding) check out the aura of each child in turn and tell the researchers which are which. If the experts agree to a degree significantly better than pure blind luck - then there is something "real" going on here...if they fail to do so then their charlatanism is revealed clearly and unambiguously.

Such testing is easily done - places such as the Randi institute will not only perform the tests for free - they'll even give you a million dollars if it turns out to be true. There are no reasonable grounds for not doing that if you are honest about really wanting to know.

In fact, many such tests on aura-sensing have been done - and in NO CASE has the person who claims to be able to do this been able to perform better than chance.

So - this is a trivially testable hypothesis. Any of the so-called experts could stand up and participate in the testing. If they are right, they not only have nothing to lose - but they could gain a million dollars. So why isn't it being tested? That's very simple: The people who are perpetrating this hoax are making a packet from book sales, speaking tours, etc. It is not in their interests to see their evil exposed to the light of day - and they know they can't win the million dollars.

You don't have to take their word "on faith" - you can actually test it. That makes this a pseudo-science, pure and simple. There really isn't any debate here: If you make a scientifically testable claim ("I can see a purple aura around this child and not around that one - and the first is telepathic") and you don't actually test it (double-blind test of aura sensing, dig out the circle/square/triangle/wave cards for the kid) - then you ARE a pseudo-scientist - that's what the word means. The claim that such-and-such child has this or that magical power is very testable and so it the claim that this or that person can sense colored auras. Ergo, you make those claims, you don't test them, you are a pseudo-scientist BY DEFINITION.

So, no - we aren't removing that word from the article because we have ample evidence backed by reliable sources that (a) these claims are made (b) these claims are scientifically testable and (c) proponents of the hypothesis have no reliable source to show that such tests have been successfully performed.

SteveBaker (talk) 13:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Not About Auras

I must point out that mentioning auras is a common mis-conception. It's about 'life colour' as in 'life purpose'. Nancy never mentioned auras so please delete, or I'll delete it myself later... here's the link: http://www.nancyanntappe.com/what_on_earth_are_life_colors ..best wishes Veryscarymary (talk) 15:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

No, don't delete it because it's properly sourced with a reliable source (New York Times). You can expand the information a bit if properly sourced. But keep it balanced (i.e., don't write lots more information). Cresix (talk) 16:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The link you provided says: "Life colors are one of the by-products of Nancy's synesthesia. The colors she sees around a person or living object are constantly moving and changing except for one color which is consistent from the cradle to the grave: the life color. That layer in the personality aura determines the individual's focus for his whole life, his "college major" so to speak."

But, if you want her words, her original book says Tappe's book says: “The life color is the single color of the aura that remains constant in most people from the cradle to the grave.” It's beyond splitting hairs to say that Tappe's interpretation of her synesthesia and the new-agers' concept of aura are any different. Apparently, the idea that it doesn't have anything to do with auras started with some buddies of her's, Lee Carroll and Jan Tober, who wrote a book denouncing (among other ideas originally in Tappe's book) the idea of a purple aura because they weren't making enough money off of her neurological disorder and were being rejected by anyone with a basic knowledge of science. Ian.thomson ([[User

Learning Disabilities

I think the reference to learning disabilities must be re thought out. No where in any Indigo literature is anyone suggesting that Indigo's have a learning disability. Would the person who wrote that please explain why they wrote it, and made it refer to the learning disability page? It's one thing not understanding the whole Indigo concept, it's another suggesting that people working in the Indigo field find the Indigo concept appealing because of learning disability. You are treading on unsafe ground by including this sentence and I suggest a revisal of it: "the phenomenon appeals to some parents whose children have been diagnosed with learning disabilities and parents seeking to believe that their children are special." In what way can you re-write it to not use the word learning disabled? In the UK it's not a word we use lightly, is it in the US? In peace Veryscarymary (talk) 19:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Nobody is taking the term lightly; but the wording is neutral, without asserting that the children in question do in fact have those disabilities. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Indigo literature (see WP:FRINGE) may not suggest that, but mainstream and scientific literature (see WP:RS) does (and that's who we're siding with). "Learning disability" in US parlance refers to things like Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, not to mental retardation or something like that.

It's one thing to not understand how science sees the Indigo concept, but it's another to suggest that we're making light of learning disabilities being ignored in favor of something for which there is no scientific evidence. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I repeat, learning disability is not a word that is associated with Indigos, if you go here, http://www.learningdisabilities.org.uk/ you will see what in the UK we mean when we use the word learning disabled. Indigo is a 'spiritual' concept, it's nothing to do with 'ability' of any kind....it also is nothing to do with 'science'...it's a 'spiritual belief'. I would disagree with the term 'learning disability' used. Wikipedia is an international site, not just US, please accept why I am concerned about this point, I think the sentence could do with revision. in peace Veryscarymary (talk) 20:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Repeat it all you wish, but as Ian.thomson stated, this article conforms to mainstream and scientific literature. The article does not suggest any sort of negative connotation of the term "learning disability", only that a few parents who do not want to accept the fact that their child has a learning disability may be drawn to bizarre explanations that are offered by Indigo proponents. Cresix (talk) 20:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Right, exactly. This is not a place for personal opinions. It there are reliable sources saying this - then it's not unreasonable to write about it. This is an encyclopedia, we can't shy away from uncomfortable truths. If you have reliable sources showing that our first sources are incorrect - then I'm sure we can come up with some WP:NPOV words that would explain two opposing views - but in the absence of that, we have to go with what we've got. SteveBaker (talk) 22:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Here is a medical doctor who 'in his opinion' doesn't think that Indigo Children are 'learning disabled'. You asked for references, this is a published article: http://drlwilson.com/Articles/Indigo%20Children.htm best wishes Veryscarymary (talk) 14:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:RS. Some random website, written by some guy who may or may not be what he claims is most emphatically NOT an acceptable reference under Wikipedia rules. We require a peer-reviewed scientific article in a mainstream journal. SteveBaker (talk) 04:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Can this notion be both "New Age" and "Pseudoscientific"?

The article seems, in one important respect, to contradict itself. If, as the article suggests, the idea of "indigo children" is closely associated with New Age spirituality, then isn't it, by definition, something quite different from "pseudo-science"? By definition, pseudo-science claims to be scientific. There may be instances of self-published research promoting the "Indigo" idea, purporting to be scientific. If so, then THAT would certainly be pseudo-scientific.

But surely most of the material cited in the article -- e.g., works by Lee Carrol (author of books with titles like "Partnering with God" and "Parables of Kryon") and Nancy Ann Tappe (who admittedly does use the phrase "science of color," albeit in a quite explicitly spiritualist way) -- is basically explicitly religious writing. That is even more so in the case of "Indigo" promoters like Wayne and Ellen Dosick, authors of "Empowering your Indigo Child: A Handbook for Parents of Children of Spirit," who run the "Soul Center for Spiritual Healing."

So, although I don't know enough about the "Indigo" ideology to work on editing the article, it does seem to me that the article in its current form is seriously misleading, because it confuses pseudo-science (which claims to be something other than New Age spirituality) and more-or-less openly NON-scientific spiritualist writing (which claims to be about "spiritual healing" and "partnering with God," etc.).

To put the point more concisely: Does anyone think that the main contributors to the "Indigo" movement are attempting to represent themselves as scientific researchers? Or is it, on the contrary, basically made clear that they are claiming to have some kind of spiritual/religious insight? I think it is the latter. So, if one wants to disparage that, it would be best to avoid using the term "pseudo-science," since that's something else altogether. 209.239.9.243 (talk) 05:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Steve.

The claims made are of a scientific nature - yet do not employ the scientific method to arrive at them - hence, pseudoscience. Our New age article says directly (and with references) that new age beliefs are pseudoscientific - it's right there in the lede. New Agers appeal to quantum mechanics for chrissakes! Far from being contradictory - these terms follow one from another. We have excellent references for both terms. We're on 100% solid ground here. So, sorry - you don't get to wave away "pseudoscience". SteveBaker (talk) 11:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

In what sense are the claims made about "indigo" children "of a scientific nature"? They purport to state facts. But when someone says, "God created the world in 7 days," she purports to state fact, but surely this claim is not "of a scientific nature," nor (more importantly in this context) does it present itself as being "of a scientific nature." For instance, it doesn't imply that there is empirical evidence for the claim, but rather hints (by its allusion to a biblical creation story) that the basis for the claim is divine revelation, not science. My sense is that indigo authors present their claims as being largely based on supposed spiritual wisdom and 'intuitive' insight of some kind, not empirical research. They may try to throw in some empirical research now and then, as a rhetorical device, but the overwhelming impression I get is that this is much closer to explicitly religious/spiritualist (hence non-pseudoscientific) discourse than it is to supposedly scientific (hence potentially pseudoscientific) research.

Finally, I have to point out that the only claim about pseudoscience in the New Age Wikipedia article is a claim that New Age "embraces forms of science and pseudoscience." This claim is not itself clear, and contrary to your statement, there are no references to back up the claim. On the contrary, the only reference related to this seems to say the opposite, suggesting that New Age is "a worldview that includes both science and spirituality" (no mention of pseudoscience in the quotation). That is followed up (as of this writing, anyway) with a claim that it "therefore embraces a number of forms of science and pseudoscience," but this further claim is unsourced. Moreover, it is questionable on its face to present as uncontroversial the claim that New Age "embraces a number of forms of science." 66.203.175.48 (talk) 16:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)Steve

Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with "facts" or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for. In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence (of which there is none for indigo children being anything but regular children with gullible parents). In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Unfortunately, an advocate for this hypothesis will only regard an article that speaks glowingly of such theory as "neutral". So we have to follow the Wikipedia guidelines closely. Like it or not, Indigo children and "auras" in general are fringe science - and WP:FRINGE clearly applies here. That fact has been well-established here - and we have ample references to back that up. The neutral position here is to explain this odd belief, and to point people to where it came from - but not to flinch from telling the complete lack of scientific evidence and to firmly label it "pseudoscience". That's what Wikipedia does - and that's what we're going to do here. SteveBaker (talk) 22:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Look, obviously this discussion is going nowhere. In my opinion, the reason for this is that you're unwilling to admit what I've demonstrated: that the Indigo claims are not (as you say) "fringe science," but rather fringe spiritualism. The Wikipedia article on "Pseudoscience" quite correctly states that a discourse can only be pseudoscientific if it (a) presents or represents itself as scientific, yet (b) falls short of actually being science. We can all agree that indigo discourse falls short of being science. But I think it is clear that, like people who claim that the bible is literally true or that they have heard the voice of God, indigo authors are not purporting to present their claims as the findings of scientific research, or as hypotheses that are available for empirical testing. Instead, they set up organizations like the "Soul Center for Spiritual Healing" and represent themselves as having spiritual wisdom or intuitive insight about this or that. No lab coats, "Institutes" or "Journals." Just people talking about "Spirit" and "Partnering with God." I sense that you dislike the indigo stuff. I'm just indifferent to it. But facts are facts, and you should admit them: these people are explicitly non-scientific New Age spiritualists, with a basically religious agenda, and present themselves accordingly. And it is simply false to imagine that such an enterprise is pseudoscientific, just because it is indeed fringe. Your Emphatic Theory of Truth, according to which you are JUST PLAIN RIGHT about all this because you just ARE right, and there's nothing more to say about it, doesn't particularly impress me. And while I'm willing to let you have your way, I'd appreciate it if you didn't try to pretend that you have refuted my arguments, which you have instead persisted in ignoring.66.203.175.48 (talk) 05:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)Steve D

Claims about the observable material world are scientific in nature. Indigo children are supposed to have special auras (auras are consideres pseudoscience), many of them are claimed to have special powers like telepathy (a claim that can be demonstrated or falsified in scientific experiments but have not), or having certain psychological traits (guess what? Psychology is a science and has experiments too!). There are also claims of having higher IQ scores (guess what, there's scientific explanations for that which the Indigo children idea ignores!). The Indigo children idea makes claims that can be falsified in experiments, and in many cases tries to pass itself off as scientific. Just because you have found a few that try to pass it off as purely religious claims does not get rid of its origins in pseudoscience, nor does it get rid of how most of the claims are pseudoscientific.

The idea that all "claims about the observable world are scientific in nature" is not at all plausible. Here's a claim about the observable world: "Human beings couldn't have evolved from other species, because the Bible says otherwise." This is evidently partly false claim about the observable world, but it isn't scientific OR pseudo-scientific. It is an appeal to divine revelation, which precludes the possibility of it being either scientific or pseudo-scientific. Here's another non-scientific claim about the observable world: "Charlie Sheen sometimes acts as though he is using drugs." That may be true or it may be false, but it is clearly about the observable world, while just as clearly it is neither scientific nor pseudoscientific. Really, we should try to remember that the term "pseudoscience" has an actual meaning, and we can't just call all false claims about the world "pseudoscientific," just to express our disapproval. (By the way, expressions of disapproval are neither scientific nor pseudoscientific, either. And claims that a certain claim is or isn't scientific or pseudoscientific are also neither scientific nor pseudoscientific. The vast, overwhelming majority of things that people say are neither scientific nor pseudoscientific. Most people hardly ever utter a word of scientific or pseudoscientific discourse.) - Steve. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.100.98.246 (talk) 18:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

You're using a not-so-clever debating technique: Mix two different arguments; then reject one because the other isn't true. The evidence that humans did evolve from other species is scientific in nature; the claims about what the Bible says are not scientific. You are mixing two separate lines of thought and trying to reach a conclusion about both. That is quite a logical fallacy. As for Charlie Sheen, it is a scientifically based statement to say "Charlie Sheen has exhibited some behaviors that are seen in people who use certain drugs". Once again, you're mixing lines of thought (how do drug users behave; and can anyone who doesn't know Charlie Sheen conclude that he uses drug?) in an attempt to discredit the scientific nature of one of those lines of thought. Some of the claims about indigos are testable scientifically. Others are not. Those facts do not negate the accuracy of describing the concept of indigos as both pseudoscientific and New Age. Cresix (talk) 18:54, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

It is downright blind to say that claims of telepathy and/or high IQs, or attempting to find workarounds for descriptions for spoiled kids and/or kids with ADHD (not the same) using pseudoscientific claims (auras) are NOT pseudoscientific claims. A few people dropping the pseudoscience and making it into purely religious claims does not change that. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

There is a bright line here.

In my opinion (for whatever that counts) claims that are of an unfalsifiable nature ("There is a god", "I have a soul", "There is a teapot in orbit around Mars") are perhaps excused the "pseudoscience" tag because their claims cannot easily be disproved by science. They are a matter of faith and belief and can only be partially dismissed using scientifically dubious tools such as Occam's razor. These things could be labelled "religious". However, auras and indigo children and telepathy and everything that goes with it is easily tested using scientific techniques. The fact that proponents of this theory fail to undertake those kinds of simple experiments makes this a pseudoscience. You don't need "faith" to believe in this hypothesis - you can just test it, experimentally.

It would be a simple matter to take a collection of children - some assigned as "Indigo" by their parents, others not - and have a collection of 'sensitive' people evaluate their aura color under controlled double-blind conditions and compare the results to the childrens' IQ scores. If the sensitives do significantly better than chance - then we must consider the possibility that everything we know about science is wrong because the presence of auras of any kind would indicate a serious failure of our theories of biology, physics and chemistry. If they fail to do significantly better than chance - then this hypothesis is disproved and sane, rational people should drop it and seek other explanations for the behavior of their children.

Similar experiments to test telepathy and other such notions are well established (Remember those decks of cards with circle, triangle, square and wave?) - these too could easily be checked. When people ignore such simple means to test their hypothesis, they are (perhaps unknowingly) practicing pseudoscience. They are asserting testable statements about the nature of the universe - without testing them and ignoring the results found by people who have tested them. They are also denying the evidence of science - which is the single thing in the entire history of mankind that has enhanced our understanding of the universe rather than degrading it.

This isn't religion - this is pseudoscience. Idiocy driven by scammers who just want to sell another book contract. Worse still - this B.S is inflicted on children - and that's something I can't forgive. It's flat out evil.

SteveBaker (talk) 19:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

This notion lost all credibility for me when I read on the author's website how she considers the characters from Friends, as well as Prince William and Prince Harry, to be Indigo people Totorotroll (talk) 10:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

What is science?

I find the subject of indigo children interesting in the sense that I believe that it is a reaction to the the fact that psychology is based on observation rather than fact. Science is factually based, but psychology, being a psuedo-science, is based not on fact but believed observation. Yet it is held up to be as scientifically verifiable as if there was an object that you could dissect on the table. Given it's status what do you expect people to do but to resort to religion when fact becomes fiction. The problem with children is that they will select the course of least resistance. If you tell a child that they are troublesome for whatever reason they will use that label to gain their own way. Tell a child that they cannot look anybody in the eyes from the time that they are a toddler and the child will quickly learn that if they fail to look anybody in the eyes they will not be ignored, but will get the attention of experts.

Imagine the frustration of the parents when they see their child behaving so badly, exactly the way they are suppose to behave according to the label that they have attracted, and yet knowing that there is something inherently wrong with this. They can't fight the experts. These people are right by popular belief, just as locking women up for having hysterics is right, and drilling holes in the top of peoples heads to let the demons out used to be right in the early stages of psychology. If you can't fight the experts with facts you will fight them with fiction.

What remains is that children will respond to the way that you treat them. If you treat them like they have a problem is it possible for them not to have a problem? No it is not. If you tell a child and give attention to a child for being stupid will they be stupid? The labelling of children at the age when they are toddlers is not about preventing problems it is about reinforcing problems. Once you are labelled there is no escape. An adult with a label for a child no longer sees the individual, they see only the problem and how grand they are in improving it. Any normal behaviour is attributed to their excellent ability to improve upon the label or the normal behaviour is dismissed as an aberration to the label.

When science fails to be based on fact then it is entirely justifiable for anybody to fight back with fiction. Fight fiction with fiction I say. Where is the absolute factual evidence for either point of view. The indigo child participants can point to nothing, but then again the psychologists can only point to the agreement of other like minded souls in their tradition. Where is the difference? Where are the physical facts when you are talking about personality traits? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.39.42.251 (talk) 12:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

QUIT SPAMMING. Please take an intro psych course, your knowledge of psychology (especially developmental psychology) is horribly outdated. Your accusations about psychology being a pseudo-science were accurate over a century ago, but they've long since taken up empirical experiments, especially after John B. Watson got involved. That we're not locking up women for hysterics or drilling holes in heads shows that quite well. Head over to your local university and ask if their psych department does any experiments which the public can participate in. Even if you were right (which you're not), your statement "fight fiction with fiction" is just a way of saying "fight lies with lies," which is damned ridiculous.

Finally, Wikipedia operates by neutrally summarizing reliable sources, not the personal opinions of people who post on the talk page. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Request from Dezire321

The following was posted in the Village Pump in a section dealing with possible new templates for citations "Citation needed", yes but .... It seems far more relevant here so I am transferring it.

I havn't used wikipedia often, when I have I am generally happy with the results. But today I was reading on the topic of "indigo children" because I was told by a friend that my 8 month old may be one. I never heard the term before, all I know is that my child is developing faster than every other child I know. She is standing on her own, says mama, dada, dog, baba and a few others, she gets very upset when she's told no, she never stops exploring, and more. Let me add that I am a fairly conservative person and don't consider myself "new age" or "alternative". I just wanted to do some reasearch on the subject so I looked it up here.

I agree with alot of the criticisms from mainstream science, and agree with some of the ideas of indigo children supporters. What concerned me with this article is that over half of the material was dedicated to criticism. The criticism should be reserved for the section labelled "criticism". Give us more information about indigo children ideas and claims and let us make our own decision. I would have done this myself but I have little knowledge about indigo children and I am not a scientist. Perhapse a person who is non-biased and more knowledgable could make the correction. I will do more research and if I become more confident in my knowledge I'll make the change myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dezire321 (talk • contribs) 18:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I have left a link in the original section--Jpacobb (talk) 21:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Dezire321, we have no obligation to reproduce wild unscientific and unbacked claims supported only by the "OMG Your Kid Might Be An Indigo; Take Our Seminar And Buy All Our Books, Tapes and Tchotchkes!" industry and those who accept their claims. See WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. If there were any evidence to back these claims, it would be in the article already. Sounds like what you've got is a smart kid, that's all; welcome to the maddening joy of parenting. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:22, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, WP:NOTPROMO for the tchotchkes. We're here to let people make informed decisions, but that does not mean giving every viewpoint equal weight, it actually means excluding certain viewpoints if they are misinformative. The people who developed the concept of indigo children are not educated in any sciences and actually reject many concepts that science is based on. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah - when you come to an encyclopedia, you shouldn't be looking for things to back up your preconceptions. The article is 'more than half criticism' because there ain't no such thing as indigo children - and the encyclopedia needs to say that. SteveBaker (talk) 05:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a believer in the Indigo Children concept at all, but like "Dezire321" I was somewhat disappointed at the lack of information here. As an active member of several autistic communities, I come across quite a few people claiming to be "Indigo", but I only have the vaguest idea what they mean by that - and without the information being available from an unbiased source like wikipedia, I'm forced to look through pro-Indigo sites & forums to find the information.

The article is clearly stated as pseudo-science, so readers will be aware that there is no basis to the claims. Given that, where's the harm in allowing the indigo supporters to add basic information about their specific beliefs and culture? It can even be re-emphasised that the claims aren't scientifically valid, if necessary... 122.111.162.233 (talk) 20:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC) talk:Ian.thomson|talk]]) 16:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Biased and completely unfounded article

Reading this Wikipedia entry, I'm sort of baffled why this even exists, let alone how poorly and biased it is written. The second paragraph of the article doesn't seem to make any attempt to hide the fact that the writer(s) see this article as vague, psuedo-science stuff. The first paragraph makes somewhat founded claims by having actual sources and facts. The second paragraph is devoted solely to listing the biased and unfounded criticisms this subject has (possibly) gotten.

This really is something that should be considered for deletion, and I will attempt to mark it as such if this article doesn't undergo mayor changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.176.87.203 (talk) 23:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of the editors' personal views, we're not disguising the fact that the scientific community sees the concept of Indigo children as pseudo-science. How about bringing in articles from real, peer-reviewed, scientific journals that view Indigo Children positively? Hm? Can't find any? Gee, wonder why...

Read our neutral POV guidelines and our sourcing guidelines, and understand why I will treat any attempts to delete or censor this article as vandalism. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Anything that is critical of something that you firmly believe in is easy to perceive as biassed. However, we are required to treat fringe theories and pseudoscience such as this with extreme care. We report what the science says in ways that the encyclopedia's guidelines say that we must. Since the science is utterly unequivocal about the "Indigo Children" theory being baseless nonsense, that's what we report. As Ian says - if you have reports that this theory is true or has value that are acceptable under Wikipedia guidelines then we're anxious to include them. What we report here is a completely balanced view of what mainstream science has to say about this. We can't write an article extolling the virtues of this theory because to do so would violate WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE - and without decent quality references to back it up, WP:RS. I'm quite amenable to any effort to state more 'pro-Indigo' views in the article - but we're not going to violate any Wikipedia guidelines in order to do that. So come up with some quality material - and we'll use it. Come up with a bunch of blogs and junk reporting and we won't...we can't...we're not allowed to.

As for removing the article completely, firstly, that has already been attempted (see the banner at the top of this page) and it failed. We've also passed a peer review. So on what grounds could you possibly get it deleted?

Here are the options (quoted directly from WP:AfD):

• Copyright violations and other material violating Wikipedia's non-free content criteria -- Nothing like that here.
• Vandalism, including inflammatory redirects, pages that exist only to disparage their subject, patent nonsense, or gibberish -- Certainly not.
• Advertising or other spam without relevant content (but not an article about an advertising-related subject) -- Not at all.
• Content forks (unless a merger or redirect is appropriate) -- No.
• Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes) -- We have reliable sources, although none of them support the theory.
• Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed -- No.
• Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth) -- Perhaps...but there has been a lot written on the subject and I don't think this would work.
• Articles that breach Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons -- No.
• Redundant or otherwise useless templates -- No.
• Categories representing overcategorization -- No
• Files that are unused, obsolete, or violate the Non-free policy -- No.
• Any other use of the article, template, project, or user namespace that is contrary to the established separate policy for that namespace. -- No.
• Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia -- No

I don't see any grounds for removal here - registering an AfD request is just a waste of everyone's time. SteveBaker (talk) 15:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

True it is pseudo-science but that doesn't change what Wikipedia is about. Wikipedia is not the media. Let me say that again. Wikipedia is not the media. Wikipedia does not spin stories in favor of one side of the argument or the other. Articles are supposed to give objective unbiased information. What's true changes from era to era. You nor me nor the rules can decide what is true. That is up to the individual. Wikipedia's job is to present as much relevant and factual information on a topic as possible so that the reader can make up their own mind on what is true or not. The scientific community says it's BS so that can go in the article. However saying that it's ok for the article to favor one side more than the other is wrong. True the article represents an unbiased view among mainstream scientists. But if the article was completely about them then it wouldn't be pseudo-science. Using that argument to claim the article is unbiased is illogical. The dispute on this subject is Fringe science vs. Mainstream science, not Mainstream science vs. Mainstream science. I hope you understand what I'm saying in this regard. It's idiotic to assume that the debate is between mainstream scientists. I could understand what you're saying if the subject in question was, let's say, Dark Matter. However it's not and as such does not fall under the category of 'Mainstream vs. Mainstream' Therefore only representing mainstream sciences view in the article is indeed biased. It's true that there isn't much material on this subject aside from what is already in the article. However that does not change the nature of it. The bashing should be moved to the Criticism section. Most of it is actually redundant and should be removed. I understand That pseudo-science is touchy. However if Wikipedia was somehow around when the world was flat that could be a problem (I doubt this subject would ever be proven right. Not by virtue of the subject itself but rather because of the supporters. However the example illustrates the point.) Speaking of NPOV, this article isn't it. The information provided is factual however the article is biased. Just do something about it instead of pretending like it isn't, jeez. 75.161.104.80 (talk) 05:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

request for less tigers

What has science got to do with Indigos? It's a belief system not science!..and would the person who added the silly "If you or someone you know is an Indigo Child" link at the top of the page, please remove it....before I do. It's got nothing to do with the article or how to improve it. If you're not happy that people like to talk about, or want to improve this article, then go to another page. For more than 6 years I've been keeping an eye on this page, and it astounds me how violent and unreasonable 'people' can be about a simple belief system. Wikipedia is not some scientific journal. It's an encyclopaedia and therefore needs to give people information. You all know full-well that this page comes up when people search on google for information about Indigos and in the last 6 years this article has hardly made any strides in being sensibly edited. People that have tried to add information, have had their edits violently removed and I use the word violently because that's what's happens. A while ago a request was made by Wikipedia for women to edit pages...with the way things carry on here, I can understand why so few want to. It's like walking into a wild tigers cage. You get eaten alive. Veryscarymary (talk) 22:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

This objection has been raised repeatedly over the past few years, and it has been wrong every time. Quit repeating old, worn out, inaccurate, and useless claims, and quit wasting everyone's time.

The writings about Indigo Children make scientifically testable claims, and all of those claims turn out false, no matter how much people believe. It is NOT just a belief system. Wikipedia is not a scientific journal, but it considers scientific sources to be more reliable sources than for-profit books advancing verifiably false claims as belief systems. We give the information we're supposed to: we explain what the concept is, and then we explain the scientific community's assessment of that information. That is all we have to give, per WP:GEVAL, and that is all the sources (as decided by WP:RS) say on the subject.

Wow, you think that women are just going to automatically side with you and support turning the article into a fantasy piece? That's pretty sexist to think that all women are inherently delusional.

And don't you dare remove the "for indigos" link. Try and provide any reasonable counters to any of the points there. Again, would you take a broken computer to an IT person (who is trained to handle that sort of thing), or an Amish person (who rejects the very thing you are trying to use)? Mainstream science sticks with what everyone can observe and verify (btw, in case you didn't know WP:VERIFY is a cornerstone of this site).

Present ANY scientific sources that demonstrate any evidence for Indigo Children being a real phenomenon, or else you need to just leave this article and its talk page alone. Each generation of kids doesn't have to be some new-age messiah to be special, but each individual has their own human reasons to be special if people bothered to care about them as human beings instead of comic book style mutants. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:56, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

To reply directly, point by point:

1. What has science got to do with Indigos? It's a belief system not science! - There are very specific claims made about Indigo children - and these are easily subject to scientific scrutiny. If you happen to believe in God - then that's not a testable scientific matter - it's just faith - and science can neither prove nor disprove your belief...that's a "belief system". But a claim that (for example) a child is telepathic most certainly is easily testable...yet no such carefully orchestrated test has ever produced a positive result...not once...ever. There are claims for the existence of "auras" - yet auras have been conclusively disproven over and over again. This isn't a matter of "faith" or "belief" in some unfalsifiable claim in the way that a religion is - it's a matter of cold, hard, easily testable claims of a purely factual nature.
2. ..and would the person who added the silly "If you or someone you know is an Indigo Child" link at the top of the page, please remove it....before I do. It's got nothing to do with the article or how to improve it. - We need that link because before we had it, we were regularly inundated with people coming here who claimed to be Indigo - or to have children who are Indigo. Each time, we'd have to go through the same set of explanations and protracted debates. Now we summarize that at the top of the talk page so to inform people who come here expecting to use their own experiences as some kind of evidence that will cause a total revision to the article. That said, the linked page is a little brash and contentious and could perhaps be dialed back a little - and I'd be happy to discuss how to do that. But the bottom line is that these interventions are not allowed on Wikipedia - the talk page isn't here for personal anecdotes and original research. We need reliable sources in order to put it anything into the article. We don't want to have to restate that every time someone new comes here...hence we need a FAQ.
3. If you're not happy that people like to talk about, or want to improve this article, then go to another page. - nobody here said that. We said that you have to have reliable sources in order to add new facts here. There is little point in discussing things that don't come with those sources because we're not allowed to add them into the article...that's a Wikipedia-wide rule...period. Hence we do tend to get a bit curt with people who just want to write passionately about how their little darling Johnny is so empathic for a two year old. There is no point in coming here and telling us that you or your kid is an Indigo and that you're telepathic and empathic and can walk on water (or whatever it is this week)...even if you are all of those things, it doesn't matter a damn unless there are WP:RS (those pesky reliable sources) to prove it. But yes, we continue to debate the content of the article - there have been over 600 comments made about the article on this talk page alone - and I'm sure there will be *many* more, which is definitely a good thing.
4. For more than 6 years I've been keeping an eye on this page, and it astounds me how violent and unreasonable 'people' can be about a simple belief system. Wikipedia is not some scientific journal. It's an encyclopaedia and therefore needs to give people information. - Yes. It's an encyclopedia. But it has stringent standards for what we report here - and the standards for "fringe theories" (WP:FRINGE) are quite strict - in fact they require that Wikipedia refer only to facts that can be verified in scientific journals and similarly reputable places. So while you're right, Wikipedia isn't a scientific journal - you have to understand that when we're writing about this kind of topic, all of our facts have to come from such sources. No original research, reliable sources, no undue weight - them's the rules. When there are reliable sources that say that this is all true - then we can report it as being true. But since *ABSOLUTELY ALL* of the reliable sources say that the Indigo Children thing is a steaming pile of bull-crap - that's kinda how the article is going to read. It's inevitable. It follows from what Wikipedia is. There are other online encyclopedias with much lower (or at least different) standards - and you can go write for them if you prefer a more relaxed approach to the attribution of fact to sources.
5. You all know full-well that this page comes up when people search on google for information about Indigos... - Yes we do. And the reason we come up first is because Wikipedia's rules have resulted in this encyclopedia becoming by far the most respected source of hard information in the entire world. Respecting and defending our rules for things like WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE is the entire reason we come up first in those search results. It's no small matter to become one of the top five most visited sites on the Internet - and it is a tribute to the standards laid out by our founders that we are so well respected. No surprise than that people like me wish to defend those standards and protect our hard-won legacy.
6. ...and in the last 6 years this article has hardly made any strides in being sensibly edited. People that have tried to add information, have had their edits violently removed and I use the word violently because that's what's happens. - We've had close to 2,500 edits to this article since March 2002. Ten years! But let's look at the article from Feb 18th 2006 - six years ago exactly - it's here. It had zero reliable sources backing up what it said - now we have ten. Now look at todays' article. Every single fact that we state in the body of the article (not the lede - which is just a summary) is tagged with a little blue number that links to the source from which that statement is derived - and every one of those sources meets Wikipedia's criteria for THE TRUTH. You can check that every single thing we say has been carefully researched and attested to by sources that Wikipedia considers reliable. It's a vast improvement. Edits that have been removed (I don't know how you remove something "violently"...but whatever) have largely been of the unsupported kind. Things that people can't just go and check up on by getting a book out of their local library or seeking further information online. Other changes that were removed were debated at length here - consensus is the way that Wikipedia moves forward...another of our "rules".
7. A while ago a request was made by Wikipedia for women to edit pages...with the way things carry on here, I can understand why so few want to. It's like walking into a wild tigers cage. You get eaten alive. - We certainly do want more female editors (actually, more editors of any kind would be nice) 87% of us are men. But carrying two X chromosomes does not absolve anyone from following our editing guidelines - and just because you're female doesn't give you license to put unsubstantiated statements into our articles. Things do sometimes get a bit heated around here - and having more women editing here might well help that (there is actual research that shows this calming effect). But I'm fairly sure you wouldn't want us to make special exceptions to the rules for women editors...we should all be held to the same high standards that got Wikipedia where it is today.

Overall - I don't think that we've produced a bad article here. I agree though that the process of doing it could be improved. But the way Wikipedia demands we write ain't gonna change - which means that there is no chance on god's green earth that this will turn into an article telling people all about the wonders of Indigo children - until/unless some scientific evidence is reported in mainstream journals saying that it's true.

If you dislike these rules - then this is not the place to debate them - go to the talk pages where those rules are laid out and complain there (although, I have to be honest and tell you that you have almost no chance of getting them overturned).

SteveBaker (talk) 18:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

welcome

Hello Ian, nice to meet you. My objection to the link at the top of the page is that it has nothing to do with the article, it's just one person's (yours) extreme, violent, OTT attitude to the content of this article. Who exactly are you to mis-direct people to your views? I don't see anything similar anywhere else on wikipedia. What gives you the right to put it there? Does it add to the article content? No! It's insulting, rude and driven by some weirdness ...or fear.... not sure which. Over the years you've bullied, argued and fought your way round any 'discussion' people have brought to this article, and do you know what's the weirdest thing? You don't even like the subject you've take upon yourself to 'edit'. Remember, you've not editing it, you're Cyber-bullying FACT The Indigo Children was a book by Jan Tobler and Lee Caroll http://www.indigochild.com/ and published by a respected publisher http://www.hayhouse.com/ that specialises in spiritual books. There is NO mention in the book about auras. Not one word. Not even a hint. ...(you obviously haven't read the book)
In the book Lee and Jan quote Nancy's ideas and thoughts about her personal experience from her Synesthesia....as she 'sees' people's Life Purpose as a colour and wrote a book called 'Understanding Your Life Thru Color' (original title)..which I believe was self-published and was already out of print when Lee and Jan's book was published. You obviously don't understand the publishing world. NO ONE knows how a book will sell when it's first published but for some reason The Indigo Children sold very well. Why do you suppose that was? Do you think all those people who bought and read it are uneducated, daft, illogical and deluded?...because that's what you continually suggest with your violent replies and comments. I am not here to get into a battle. I am asking YOU to remove the link, otherwise I will take this matter further to ensure you DO remove it.
One further comment, you also don't read, or digest any of the comments people have made over the years and are far too quick to bop them all on the head with your anger....I suggest a good anger management course would do you the world of good:) Anger_management Veryscarymary (talk) 17:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Violent? I'm not trying to removing the humanity from children by making them out to be comic book mutants or new-age messiahs, instead of dealing with their naturally occuring individual personality traits. Please get a dictionary and look up the word "violent," or read the article on violence. I'm not trying to bring any harm to anyone. Perhaps you're projecting your own desires?

Misdirection? Hardly, I'm simply calling for the article to stick to what this site defines as reliable sources.

Cyber-bullying? I'm not following you on other sites, or even on other pages, nor have I made any personal comments about you, nor am I trying to harm you or others. I'm simply defending this article from your attempt to distort it. You're belittling real victims of cyber-bullying, you are violating WP:AGF and WP:NPA by calling me a cyber-bully for supporting WP:RS and WP:NPOV, and you are detracting from any point you could try to make.

You've just proven that Tobler and Caroll did discuss auras, with that whole "Life Purpose as a colour" deal. When it came to light that Tappe had a neurological disorder, Tobler and Caroll backed out on the aura stuff and started pretending they were selling spiritual works rather than pseudoscience.

The fact remains, other scientifically testable claims about intelligence and personality that simply are not supported by scientific tests.

Another fact also remains that the personality traits Indigo Children are supposed to have (empathy, curiosity, independence) are explained by those kids coming from cultures which value empathy, curiosity, and independence. If those kids were raised to not care about others, not be curious, and to be dominated (say, in a place like North Korea), then it would be unusual for them to be empathetic, curious, and independent, but they're not.

Regarding the link again, no I'm not removing it, and I will treat any removal of it as talk page vandalism.

Final ultimatum: present any sources meeting WP:RS and WP:NPOV supporting the existence of Indigo Children, or I will react to future remarks under WP:DFTT, on the grounds of WP:IDHT. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

@Veryscarymary - your attacks on Ian fall well into the realms of personal attacks and do no exhibit the required degree of assumption of good faith. His defending of article content and talk page banners is not cyberbullying - it is simply how editors on Wikipedia deal with controversy - using debate. I have some small sympathy for your views on the link at the top of this page - but you make it very hard for anyone to rush to your support. You need to tone down your rhetoric or the wrath of admins will doubtless befall you as it has many before you.

Many Wikipedia talk pages (especially those like this one with a long and contentious history) add a FAQ document to cover the most commonly expressed issues and to direct people to how they have previously been resolved. See (for example) the FAQ at the top of Talk:Sega Genesis. We desperately need such a document...but this one could use a little rework. We really need to decide which FAQ's need to be answered in order to minimize continual repetition of the same discussion points every time a new Indigo-believer comes here to complain.

Please, please know this: Indigo Children is a topic that falls well within the auspices of WP:FRINGE and all manner of special guidelines apply here because Wikipedia has to maintain a strong stance against many kinds of wild crazies out there (check out Time Cube for a good example of that!). You're clearly not a "wild crazy" - but the rules surrounding fringe articles are important and most certainly DO apply here. The books you mention do not meet the standards to be acceptable as reliable sources for the truth or otherwise of Indigo Children. We may refer to them only when we say things like "Proponents claim that..." - and use these works to show that proponents do indeed claim that. This article is never going to say that the idea of there being Indigo Children is "true" - we're going to state, quite clearly, strongly and with solid backup from reliable, mainstream science - that the idea that there are these kinds of special children is FALSE. The only way you could possibly change that situation is:

1. To find acceptable scientific studies in peer-reviewed mainstream journals that say that this phenomenon is true...OR...
2. To change Wikipedia's core policies on WP:RS, WP:MEDRS, WP:FRINGE, etc.

Neither of those things seem remotely likely to me - but you're most welcome to try.

I know you're frustrated about that - proponents of every fringe theory on the planet feel the exact same way about how they are treated by Wikipedia - but you have to be realistic. We say that perpetual motion is impossible, that the Apollo moon landings were not faked, that Autism is not caused by vaccinations and that you can't get free energy by burning Oxyhydrogen or by using the Casimir effect or Newman's energy machine or...any of a dozen other crazy ideas. We say that the Time Cube is meaningless babble and that Astrology, Dowsing, Psychic surgery and Homeopathy don't work and that there is no face on Mars. The earth isn't flat and crop circles aren't caused by aliens and there is no such thing as Indigo Children. All of those positions that Wikipedia takes are strongly supported by validated mainstream science - and Wikipedia is going to say that, loud and clear.

That is how this encyclopedia works - we have rules about reliable sources and fringe theories and not giving undue weight to marginal views...and this article follows those rules to the letter. People like Ian and I spend a lot of time on talk pages for all manner of fringe theories. We do that because we wish to defend the rules that Wikipedians have set in place for how these topics are reported and to prevent this valuable human resource from degenerating into a bunch of uncritical pages about every crazy whack-job theory that pops into people's heads. If this article were only edited by Indigo-believers, it would soon degenerate into an article full of rosy claims with zero support in mainstream science. Sorry that you don't like that...but that's the kind of encyclopedia this is, so basically you're out of luck.

@Ian: I would cautiously agree that the link at the top of this talk page is a bit over-the-top. We should tone it down a little - and reformulate it as a FAQ. This kind of argumentative stance with threats of removal and counter-threats that removal would be vandalism don't help the task of improving things.

IMHO, we should put away the rhetoric and try to figure out how to put together a simple document that explains why the article is the way it is - and why it's pointless to come here and tell us that either you or your kid is "indigo" and extoll the virtues thereby derived...because we need WP:RS. It should also clearly point out that despite all of the books and web pages about Indigo's - mainstream science says that this is all hogwash.

SteveBaker (talk) 16:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I repeat, the link at the top of the page is unnecessary and in actual fact, removes any sympathy anyone may have about the editing of this article. @Ian doesn't 'own' this article, so what makes him think he can stamp his authority on it? Did you know that various people have been in contact with me and have confessed they wouldn't even attempt to help with this article because of the stance...the-we-are-right-you-are-all-wrong stance. The -science-is-the-only-way stance. The -unless-it's-been-written-about-in-some-on-line-medical-journal it doesn't exist stance... If you want this article to portray the issue surrounding Indigo Children or even the concept of Indigos, than I suggest it would be far nicer to have a less grumpy stance. YOU may not believe in Indigos...but there are plenty of people that do. They make YouTube videos about it, discuss it on forums...write books about it...And why do you think that is? Because it resonates with something they believe in...and beliefs are different for different people. Indigo is a belief system...NOT a medical system...way way back a young man wrote this article, and put his picture on it....and fought for months to keep it there...but he got bullied off. AND it IS bullying. Why should Ian have the last say in this article? I thought this article and the talk page was for contributors, nor detractors. To my mind it doesn't NOT make sense to edit an article if you have no interest at all with the subject. That's like eating broccoli because you hate it???How mad is that? ...and if, which I think is more the case....editors think they're going to 'save' people from becoming influenced by dangerous 'ideas' then who are they? Lord High Judge and All?? Why don't you want people to edit the article who know about it? why? ...what are you saving 'us' from???? Veryscarymary (talk) 16:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

At what point have I claimed to own the article? I do have a right to keep my comments provided there are no personal attacks (check), they aren't copyright violations (check), and they are concerned with article improvement (check). The link is simply to a pre-written response to constant issues that were raised constantly before I put the link up.

Wikipedia does not care about what people believe, only with summarizing reliable sources. Reliable sources side with science on the matter. If it doesn't appear in a scientific source, it is not verifiable. If its appearence in scientific sources is demonstrating that the scientifically testable claims came up false, we're going to mention it. I do the same thing to fellow members of my own belief system, because this site operates on verifiability, not subjective and unverifiable "truths". I'm not dismissing the concept of personal truths, I'm just repeating this site's policies which say those do not belong here. It is not my view, and if you bothered to read the policies that have been linked repeatedly for you and others, you'd know that.

Faith-based claims about observable events or qualities (like increased IQ or psychic powers) can still be scientifically tested. The effects of being a supposed Indigo Child have been tested for, and the effects do not appear to exist. Faith-based claims are only untestable if they avoid making testable claims. "Somewhere, beings who know how to avoid all empirical detection exist" is an untestable claim. "My child has is smarter/more empathetic than average" is perfectly testable.

The earliest version of the article found here does not match your description of the earliest article in the slightest.

The talk page is for people who wish to contribute within the guidelines, such as WP:RS and WP:NPOV. They are not for people who wish to reshape articles to support their personal beliefs.

If you simply cannot accept WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, etc, this is not a site you should be on. It has nothing to do with me, quit making it about me, quit pretending I said things I did not to make me the bad guy, because that is dishonest and bullying.

I have an interest in making sure that this site uses reliable sources neutrally, and that it is not twisted to support any belief system, advertising scheme, or anything but free and neutral distribution of verifiable knowledge. If you are here for other reasons, you probably should not be here.

Ian.thomson (talk) 17:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The photo that I think Veryscareymary is referring to is a classic case in point. Someone uploads a picture of themself with an indigo "aura" and labels it "An indigo adult"...what does this prove? Nothing! I can take a picture and use Photoshop to throw a blurry blue halo around it. Actually, the pixels making up the "aura" in that photo are colored in 0% red, 0% green, 100% blue - which is a color that is impossible to obtain in any real photographic process - so we can be almost 100% sure it's a fake. Should Wikipedia be promoting this as evidence for this extremely unlikely phenomenon (one which a good proportion of Indigo supporters deny)? No. Because any idiot could make a fake picture like that and post it here. What we need is something that meets Wikipedia's standards for authenticity...which means it has to be published in a reputable, peer-reviewed journal or something. This encyclopedia is editable by absolutely anyone - which means that absolutely anyone can (in principle) put any untrue pile of crap into it at any time...and they do that...all the time. So when one person says "this is true - so I'm putting it into the article" and some other person says "this isn't true - I'm removing it" - then how do we decide which of them is correct? The answer is that Wikipedia has guidelines for what is considered "true" - and that is based around verifiability in reliable sources. So, yes Veryscarymary - we absolutely do rely on scientific sources and treat those as "true" because those are Wikipedia's standards for "truth". SteveBaker (talk) 19:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Not to mention, he never discussed the photo in any appropriate talk pages until after was given a temporary block for edit warring and until then only made threats and personal attacks (rather than discuss things). At no point did anyone harass him, only request on his talk page that he provide rationales for his photo, not make threats or personal attacks, and not edit war, before giving him a 24 hour block for edit warring under different sockpuppets (which results in blocks regardless of content). Examining the article history from around September 2006 (which is where the majority of his activity lies), he kept reinserting an unsourced photo under his account an an IP address. The edit summaries of other users either explained the reason for removal (such as "remv controversial pic w/ no authenticity except the author references"), while the others were mostly "Reverted edits by MyCat (talk) to last version by (another user)."

At no point did MyCats attempt any discussion until he was blocked. The few attempts at discussion before then include a legal threat (which, per WP:LEGAL, he should have been completely blocked for), asking not just one but and but two users to explain why the photo was removed after various editors had explained why (by the way, ignoring quite commonly stated reasons is often considered a sign of a tendentious editor).

His attempts to discuss things (after having to be blocked to get him to say anything other than threats and attacks) include calling other editors ignorant, failing to pay any attention to our reliable sourcing guidelines, and failing to get that we do not accept original research. I suppose he could claim that he wasn't aware, though the information was presented to him four days before he started edit warring.

Reviewing the history of the event, the fellow who tried to put a photo of himself on the site (who, again, did not write the article) was not a victim of bullying but of his own egomania.

Ian.thomson (talk) 23:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I removed the link at the top because I believe that there is no need to link to a page supporting opinions, and that goes both ways (BTW, I did not click on the link). The only links that should be present are the ones re-directing to sources, and on this page, those should be Wikipedia Policy sources. Any sourcing on the article subject matter should be within the article itself. Lorilei Mackenzie (talk) 03:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I retract my earlier comment. Having actually looked at the link, I see why it's there. It does serve a good purpose. My edit was attempted in good faith. My apologies. Lorilei Mackenzie (talk) 03:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Cracked mentions Indigo children in an article on bad parenting

Can we please incorporate this article somehow? Please? I'll be your best friend. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

A section on Indigo Children in the Popular Media? that's how other pages do it. BTW I did come here because of the Cracked article. Web Warlock (talk) 15:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Sad to say, but Cracked is definitely not a reliable source. It is a humor website. Silverseren^C 19:31, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

That article is awesome. I ROFL'd. I'd actually welcome a bit of Indigo Child humor into all that deadly seriousness we've got in our acticle. It'd be good for everyone, I guess... Human divinity expresses itself through humor, Kryon says ;) -- Nazar (talk) 13:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Warning

Is the section on the Wikipedia Warning needed? It does have a source, and anyone going to website can read it, but is it needed here? To me it reads like "yes, but please ignore the content of this article since the main authors deny it all." Seems counter productive to actually having the article. I have no plan to remove it, but I did want to mention it here. Web Warlock (talk) 01:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I do think that if it remains in the article, it would require third-party sources making note of this, to establish weight. A Wikipedia article should ideally be WP:NPOV, and on a subject with any degree of controversy, this will likely entail having things in the article that people involved with the subject matter won't agree with. Therefore it is no surprise, and frankly not notable, that people involved in the subject matter would have some objection to the article not being a reflection of their POV. If it was notable each time someone didn't like the way a Wikipedia article was written, I think almost every Wikipedia article would have a similar section. If reliable, third-party sources that are independent of the article's subject do not think it notable enough to make any mention of this, then it is WP:UNDUE to assume otherwise. - SudoGhost 02:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I see your reasoning, and it makes sense to some degree. I originally thought about including this section as a curiosity (since it's still not such a common practice when authors on a subject publicly declare an opinion about how the subject is mis-rendered in Wikipedia). It also is related to the March 2009 version of the article, and, therefore, does not necessarily represent the current state of events. I think it provides a good insight into the history of how the subject was treated and perceived by various groups (in particular, the group of Wiki-editors, in this case). A similar section is included into the German wiki article on Lee Carroll (see de:Lee_Carroll), and I see that it was introduced by an experienced editor who is clearly not a proponent of the subject. It found no objections there (and, in case you don't know, German wiki is notorious for its skeptic majority and strict mainstream scientific approach, much more so than the English one). I'd personally find this section useful here, as one representing important publicly announced opinions of involved authors. But for the time of this discussion here I'll remove the section from the article, in order to isolate this issue and reach improved clearness. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 06:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

So a third party source mentioning this should also be found then. Given that I think Nazar added this section in good faith, I would like it if time was given to find a third party source. Options are- 1. leave the section as is, but after X amount of time and no sources remove it. 2. remove it now, but copy it to a user space where it can be worked on as needed with no time limit. I have no dog in this race, I am happy either way. Web Warlock (talk) 11:25, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

ah. I see it was already altered. No worries then. Web Warlock (talk) 11:27, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I warned Nazar about NPOV edits; he/she asked for an explanation here

Specifically, Nazar inserted into the article a link to a site where people who keep selling this concept whine that Wikipedia's article on the topic is insufficiently credulous. Nazar continues to attach undue importance to Lee Carroll and his Kryon stuff, and ignore the way the rest of the world treats these claims. Nazar keeps trying to de-emphasize the fact that this concept has been presented as some kind of pseudo-scientific fact instead of an unsubstantiated New Age meme. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I see your points. Thank you for sharing them. In my opinion, to retain the NPOV of the article, it is important to accurately render the concept as presented by its original authors. Then, the criticism may follow. If the original concept is not adequately presented, the article's neutrality and comprehensiveness suffers, and the bias towards the negative and baseless criticism is obvious to ensue. I find your accusations of disruptive editing (made on my talk page prior to any discussion here) to be unsubstantiated, offensive, and constituting a form of a personal attack. Please kindly refrain from such practice in future. Also, please take such issues to the article talk page in first place (and not to my own talk page). Your private opinion is not necessarily the only one possible, and other editors may have a word to say. Thank you. -- Nazar (talk) 14:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The original author of the idea was Tappe, a self-described parapsychologist; thus it falls under pseudo-science in its origins. I myself do not feel that pointing out your longstanding pattern of NPOV-violating edits constitutes a personal attack; rather, I feel that it is a dispassionate assessment of your role in this article. I will leave it to other editors to comment as they see fit. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:57, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Please note, I've not removed the "pseudo-science" related statements, neither the related refs. Just updated the material with the related information as presented by the original authors on the subject. As to the NPOV, in my opinion, this article has a strong bias towards skeptic, as well as unfaithful and distorted rendering of the subject. I'm just filling in the blanks and empty spaces here. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 16:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

NPOV means "representing the the expert consensus". Experts in this case are psychologists and child development. This is a fringe theory with no mainstream credibility and we are not a soapbox to promote fringe concepts. If the article is critical rather than credulous, that is perfectly in keeping with NPOV for such an extreme claim. There are no experts in 'indigo children' since it's an obvious pseudoscientific concept. There are no high-quality, reliable sources supporting the idea - just self-published books, books from New Age publishers, websites and related links. That a specific editor does not personally like this and does not agree with this is a problem of the individual editor, not the site as a whole. If this is disagreed with, then the greater community's opinion should be sought. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:28, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The original NPOV concerns by Carroll and Tober were that certain wiki editors keep trying to push into the article an idea of Indigo children being linked with paranormal indigo auras. This is not supported by the original authors on the subject (neither Carroll and Tober, nor Tappe), and had been addressed on their official web-sites, to avoid misunderstandings. As Tappe officially announced, Indigo children "were originally seen and identified by Nancy Ann Tappe as a part of the color system which evolved from her synesthetic perceptions". Please read the synesthesia article, to understand better what this means and avoid further misconceptions. Carroll and Tober had officially declared that "just in case you heard otherwise..., the designated word "Indigo" has nothing to do with the color of an aura". So, please tell me, can you provide any reliable references to some mainstream experts, psychologists etc., who substantiate the claim that Indigo children have paranormal indigo auras? If not, then please stop pushing this information into the article. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 18:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

It looks like the original source of the colour was synesthesia; if a reliable source can be found that links indigo children to paranormal auras the information can go back in - but right now it does appear to be unsourced. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Auras

I'm concerned about this removal. It seems to me that the removed info is important in the light of the statements made by the creators of the concept with regard to auras and their connection (or rather disconnectedness) with the term itself. The article without these statements does not provide sufficient information about the intended meaning and origin of the term/concept, as well as falsely interprets it. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 14:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm assuming you're referring specifically to the "Carroll and Tober confirmed the "Indigo" auras being solely..." wording. If there is a reliable source for that, I have no objection to that content, it was the other changes I had objections to, especially the use of this content and url as a reference after there was a discussion above about the content. If this information is correct, then there is surely much better references than that link. It gave the appearance to me that you were attempting to insert that link/content anywhere you could; since it was contested in the article itself, you then using it as a reference was seen as an attempt to insert it by any means possible. I'm not accusing you of doing such, but that's how I saw it, and why I reverted it. - SudoGhost 15:06, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you saw it wrong. lol. See the timeline of my edits. First I added the "Carroll and Tober confirmed the "Indigo" auras being solely...", then I actually noticed the Wikipedia warning on the same page, and added the section. As I said above, I disagree with your interpretation of the significance of "Wikipedia warning" section, and I believe that it should be present in the article for the reasons I described above. The linked page is an official statement by the creators of the concept intended at clarifying and correcting the mis-rendered points about the concept. Is is vital and important for the NPOV and integrity of the article. But I'm not trying to push it into the article immediately, without taking into consideration the arguments and concerns or other parties to the discussion. Therefore, I removed the section for the meanwhile. Now, if you think that statement is not good enough as a reference for auras, then please substantiate your point. The auras misunderstanding is also discussed in published books by Lee Carroll, but I don't have the refs on my fingertips at the moment. May look for them later. Thank you so far. - Nazar (talk) 15:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I think someone complaining about a Wikipedia article not reflecting their POV makes for a horrible reference for a Wikipedia article, especially when keeping WP:SOURCES and WP:Independent sources in mind. If the information is that critical to the article's subject, then there will be a more appropriate reference to use. - SudoGhost 15:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, I disagree. It's not about complaining about "not reflecting someone's POV". It's about pointing to obvious failure of certain version of wiki-article to keep faithfully to the source material (also when criticizing it). Keeping NPOV of the wiki-article does not equal to keeping all the original material away from it. -- Nazar (talk) 16:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

There is a serious problem when Wikipedia's reporting on the issue results in the issue changing. In this case, that the literature on the subject is specifically written to make the Wikipedia article turn out the way they want. It is for this specific reason that we require information to come from reliable and independent third party sources. When the proponents of the Indigo Children concept are making money from their involvement - and their economic bottom-line is impacted by Wikipedia's reporting - then how can we possibly trust anything they say in an effort to modify our article to make their ideas seem more mainstream and add to their bottom-line? SteveBaker (talk) 01:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

As wiki-editors, we should be concerned about faithfully rendering the subject, which includes faithfully rendering the position of original authors. Whether what they say is true or not (traditionally scientific or not) is another issue. The discussed statement on the official Indigo Children web-site is dated March 2009, and all the main Indigo children books are written between 1999-2005. The wiki article failed to render the core concepts presented in these books in a faithful way, thus misleading the article readers. For that reason the statement had been made in March 2009. And such a statement is important for the article. -- Nazar (talk) 08:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

These books would not be independent though, meaning that other literature on the subject would be deemed more reliable, even if such scientific literature is "negative" about the subject. Silverseren^C 08:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't mind including information from 'other literature', even if it's "negative about the subject". But the original author's logic and statements must be included as well, because otherwise the picture is not comprehensive. Also, if we exclude all the original info, then how can we judge what is actually being criticized in those skeptic sources? -- Nazar (talk) 09:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Such a statement is not important for the article. "Someone involved with the article's subject doesn't think it's accurate" isn't exactly news on most articles that have any degree of controversy, and such a declaration isn't a reliable source under any circumstances. As I said above, find a reliable source that can support this information, but don't paint your edit as simply "faithfully rendering the subject". Changing "is pseudoscientific" to "criticized as pseudoscientific by its skeptics" has nothing to do with "faithfully rendering the subject" of what the author said, it's a change to the wording that attempts to dismiss pseudoscientific as only being used by a minority of "skeptics" of the truth, as opposed to what it actually is: a scientific rejection of the article's subject. This isn't the first time you've made this edit, and it has been reverted before, so I'm not sure why you weren't expecting that edit to be contested. - SudoGhost 09:02, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest to isolate the lead para wording into a different issue, as here I'm referring to the subject of auras misunderstanding. My edits to lead para were aimed at showing the actual area of use of the term and its origin, which is New Age. As I stated in my edit summary here, this term was never intended to be presented as "traditionally scientific" by its original authors. It is the question of the correct attribution and placement. But I absolutely don't mind to mention the skeptics' position as well, which was, in my opinion, faithfully rendered. - Nazar (talk) 10:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

"Original authors" are not Carroll and Tober

User:Nazar persists in referring to Carroll and Tober as the "original authors" of this concept; linking to sites maintained by them as "official" websites of the Indigo Children; etc. It should be noted that Carroll and Tober did not originate this concept, Tappe did. They have no "official" or authoritative position in saying what's real or authentic or accurate regarding this concept; and their complaints about how we cover their industry are irrelevant to the task of building as strong and clear an article as possible. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I see your point. It's true that the term was coined by Tappe. But Carroll and Tober were the ones who developed it and introduced it to the world in its current form. I'm not saying their coverage of the topic is exclusive, but it seems to be the most notable one among those who originally developed and presented the concept. -- Nazar (talk) 15:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

If it's notable, then there should be no problem finding reliable sources for that clarification. If reliable sources cannot be found, then it isn't that notable. - SudoGhost 15:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not our job here to distinguish between the claims for priority between the Judean People's Front, the People's Front of Judea, the Judean Popular Peoples Front, and the Popular Front of Judea. Tappe clearly originated the concept; and it is false to facts to describe other people as "original authors". --Orange Mike | Talk 15:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Most press refs are to Carroll and Tober, though. So, I don't think their role should be neglected. My usage of "original authors" should be construed as the ones who introduced original (authored/created by themselves), notable and widely-published ideas on the subject. -- Nazar (talk) 16:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

If most press refs credit C&T as the original authors, they're wrong. The term Indigo children, as you admit, was coined by Tappe, which makes her the first (i.e. original) person to write about it (i.e. author). The most we can credit C&T with is further development and advertising. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:18, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Revert

Without third-party sources, this carries no weight. If there are third-party sources, by all means provide them. If there aren't any, then that's a good indication of how relevant it is to the article. - SudoGhost 12:29, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm concerned that we currently have a confusing and unfaithful rendering of original characteristics, which is a result of synthesis and original research made by WLU, probably in his good faith attempt to make the rendering more compact. Not every statement in the article requires a third party source. Original characteristics of an idea presented by its author are an indispensable part of holistic rendering. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 12:37, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Please also consider that a summary of the important theses put forward by an author is encouraged in the Wiki-articles. -- Nazar (talk) 12:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any synthesis, and if there your edit would not have addressed it. Yes, not every statement in the article requires a third-party source, but the article should be largely based on third-party sources. I'll say again, if this content is so indispensable, then third-party sources will reflect this importance. If they don't, then its supposed indispensability is superceded by a lack of weight on the information. In fact, that entire paragraph about Carroll's views needs some sort of third-party source showing that his views are relevant, otherwise it runs afoul of WP:FRINGE's Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles. - SudoGhost 12:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you remove that whole chapter then? And, well, if Carroll says that Kryon says that indigos may develop an altered biology after 2012, only some of them though, and out of that idea WLU makes a statement that indigos "possess altered biology in the form of modified organs", and after that you totally remove any mention of Kryon (to whom Carroll attributes all the information), then I call this a synthesis and original research. -- Nazar (talk) 13:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

We should be clear about what needs referencing and why. If we say "Carroll said this." then Carroll's own, published writings are a 100% gold reliable source for that statement. HOWEVER, if instead we say "This is true" (or "This is true because Carroll said so") then in the context of a fringe theory, we need peer reviewed science in a reliable journal to back that up...which we're obviously not going to get! So reporting what it says in Carroll's writing is just fine from a reliable sources perspective so long as we make it clear that this is Carroll's view - and not "truth" or even what other Indigo children believers would say is true. Given that, the remaining question that needs to be answered is whether the indisputable/referenced fact that Carroll said this is notable enough to warrant being placed into this article - given WP:UNDUE, etc. This statement of Carroll's is strongly indicative that this whole Indigo phenomenon is a pile of crap...so I could understand why more mainstream Indigo believers might seek to claim it's WP:UNDUE. SteveBaker (talk) 14:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Ya. I concur with the above position as presented by SteveBaker.

1. "reporting what it says in Carroll's writing is just fine from a reliable sources perspective so long as we make it clear that this is Carroll's view" -- I raise my both hands for that.
2. "This statement of Carroll's is strongly indicative that this whole Indigo phenomenon is a pile of crap...so I could understand why more mainstream Indigo believers might seek to claim it's WP:UNDUE" -- and for that too. I've actually read a number of books by Carroll, as his philosophy related to channelings and Kryon's messages is really insightful in some of its spiritual concepts (which I'm generally interested in), but I've noticed that (and I've been noticing that from his very early works) starting from the point where he ventures away from more abstract philosophy into various applied theories, many of his statements are actually quite weird, and require either a very philosophical and metaphorical understanding, or need to be discarded based on plain obvious logic. At best I'd say these are his so called "imperfect renderings" of multi-dimensional channelled information, which just can not be adequately expressed in terms of ordinary reality and spoken/written language (which he discusses in his Kryon's books), and at worst I'd say he's just trying to cater to the expectations of the more gullible New Age readers, who want something real to put their hands on right now, which I'd say is his serious fault as a spiritual author, which needs to be filtered. Therefore, I really don't understand why make some of his more weird ideas even more weird by adding straightforward WP:OR to them (not to mention that this is against Wiki-policies)... If you want a proof that Carroll's philosophy is weird from today's scientific point of view, then just give more referenced citations to his Kryon channelings. I can tell ya, it's weird enough to be as far from contemporary science as reincarnation, karma spiritual powers etc. can only be. So, my best guess would be it should be viewed as a New Age spiritual concept, and, if considered to relate to science in any way at all, then only as something criticized as not corresponding to actual empirical readings of scientists who currently deal with children's development. -- Nazar (talk) 15:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The Dispute Tag

Well, the article doesn't seem to have any serious POV issues that I can see, but if Nazar's edits are accurate, the Claims section needs a rewrite. We've got to present Carroll's claims accurately; so for example, instead of "Carroll claims that Indigo children have anatomical differences" it should say "Carroll claims[?ed?] that Indigo children will evolve anatomical differences in 2012." Ben Standeven (talk) 20:02, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Carroll is usually rather cautious when making such specific claims. So, it's important to be accurate and not make too much of a circus out of it. Nazar (talk) 20:17, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The article placed far, far, far too much emphasis on a fringe theory with no mainstream support. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This is not the page to list every single trait someone thinks is associated with a non-phenomenon. It's not the fact that we don't have a source sufficiently reliable to document someone thought it - it's that the idea itself does not deserve a lengthy treatment. The crazier the idea, the further from scientific fact, the more the idea is sourced from someone channeling and completely ignored by everyone else - the less detail needs to be here. It's sufficient to note that the IC phenomenon has been linked to unscientific, paranormal ideas - we don't need to list every single one of them. We are not here to promote indigo children, and listing every single bit of minutea a prime pusher came up with is unduly promoting - particularly when there are no independent sources that either corroborate or (more importantly) refute them. The page should summarize the idea with relative weight and prominence related to their overall acceptance - that's just about zero, so we shouldn't be giving much detail at all. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I see your logic. Well, it can be justified to some extent, but I think you've gone too far removing half of the article. Also, there's lots of critical and skeptic info about the subject already present in the article. Some info has to be included about what is actually being criticized and what the original ideas were. Also, some of changes you made present the original ideas inaccurately, which is WP:OR at best, and willful distortion and disruption of rendered info at worst. I'd suggest a step by step process. Please also consider, that your wholesale removal encompassed lots of independently sourced info from the interview. -- Nazar (talk) 20:32, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I reverted this because I agree with it being reverted in the first place. First of all, there is a difference between something being pseudoscientific, and something being used pseudoscientificly, which imples there are uses of the term that aren't pseudoscience. "Suggested education approaches" sounds too how-to. - SudoGhost 20:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with such wholesale removals. Why don't you address specific issues you talk about, but instead wholesale remove material from dozens of edits? Why did you remove the Filmography chapter? Why did you remove all the Gazeta.ua sourced info? Why did you restore the unfaithfully rendered information, which does not correspond to the sources? -- Nazar (talk) 20:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The filmography was supported by primary sources; this does not give weight to a section being listed there. The gazeta article is an opinion piece, and the information it supported was written in a way that suggested that these were statements of fact. - SudoGhost 21:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't find your arguments convincing. Neither are they true. Filmography included refs to non-primary sources as well. All the claims made based on Gazeta were provided as an opinion, which was clearly indicated in the article. -- Nazar (talk) 21:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

You also removed the dispute tag prior the dispute being resolved. -- Nazar (talk) 21:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I read the content; the content based on the gazeta article were not provided "as an opinion". One sure way to determine if something is false is for someone to claim that it's "clearly" there. It also doesn't matter how you "find" my arguments, as you've neither answered or addressed a single reason to remove or keep the content. Ask "why not" and you'll get an answer, not liking the answer or thinking it's not "convincing" means nothing. - SudoGhost 21:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

haha. Well, anyone can see this argument is rather baseless, as you're not addressing the facts I've pointed to above. I'm not currently in the mood to continue this, neither do I find the information in question really worth it. If this removal makes you so happy, you can have it this way for the meanwhile, though I do not find it correct. Maybe another time. :) -- Nazar (talk) 21:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

What "facts" are you referring to? I have addressed quite a few things; you have addressed nothing, merely asked questions which were addressed. If you have a valid reason to contest the edit, then state it. "you're not addressing the facts" is a rather erroneous view of everything I've said thus far; it seems "I don't like it" has turned into "I'm not listening". - SudoGhost 22:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I went through every diff, I didn't see anything worth keeping beyond the removal of a circular link. Most of it was based on WP:IINFO, including the excessive detail regarding reincarnation, the suggested classification and educational treatments (including the list of people one proponent thinks are indigos - with no proof beyond their opinion), crystal children (even less notable than indigo children and again based on a proponent pulling the idea out of nowhere and a reference to karma - another new age concept stolen from Hinduism), the plug for Waldorf schools and inappropriate care instructions for this fringe and unsubstantiated concept, Kyron's speculations about autism (which is a biological disorder, not a new evolution of humanity), and the list of movies. Plus, there was inappropriate removal of criticisms. So no, the removals were quite and not haphazard. Merely because info can be included doesn't mean it should be included. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I see WLU has removed the POV tag. In this connection I'd like to point to several unsolved issues still remaining in this article:

1. The issue of accuracy of rendering for some of Carroll's statements about indigos. I've mentioned this above, with no reaction so far. These either have to be removed completely or restored to an accurate rendering of the original.
2. Several of the films from the filmography seem notable enough and covered in secondary sources, like
   1. Indigo (2003),
   2. Indigo (2008) — a movie directed by Roman Prygunov. Production budget ~$2.500.000. Box office: $4.675.000. Movie received 2 awards at 2009 MTV-Russia Awards: Best Villain (played by Artem Tkachenko) and Most Spectacular Scene.
3. The material from Gazeta interview. Sudo's remarks were that "the content were not provided "as an opinion"". I'm sorry I don't quite understand what does that mean in our case. The Gazeta material was introduced with the words "According to the interview by Nancy Ann Tappe...", which points to the material being Tappe's own opinion. If anything else is missing, I encourage Sudo to edit that statement so as to clearly indicate that it is someone's opinion, or whatever it is supposed to look like to satisfy the points he's implying.
4. If the education approaches discussed by Carroll and Tober were rendered in WP:NOT#HOWTO way (as was seen by WLU), I'd suggest changing the rendering to address this, instead of completely removing any recap of the author's ideas. Please also note that the article does include "proper treatment" suggestions from the skeptics' perspective.
5. Regarding the WP:IINFO concerns, please also note that an article should be "discussing the significance of works in addition to a plot summary" for fiction works (because some indigo material is distributed as fiction) and a "recap or summary of the works' contents" for non-fiction.

That would be all for the time being. And I kindly request to improve at least some of the above prior to removal of the tags. Thank you. -- Nazar (talk) 18:55, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I've tagged some of the more obvious WP:OR introduced by WLU. It also comes to my mind that the notion of crystal children was also discussed by skeptics (like Robert Todd Carroll and others), which shows it's significant enough, at least in the framework of indigo children topic exposure, so why remove it completely from the article? I'd say it does fit into the contents. -- Nazar (talk) 19:09, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

This problem seems to be becoming more and more common in fringe articles. Because the thing that is claimed by the fringe theorists is essentially 100% false, and these people are pseudoscientists who don't test their claims rigorously - there is absolutely no limitation on people writing any old junk - whether it's in line with the majority version of the fringe theory or not. If I write "Indigo children are able to befriend unicorns" - who is to say that I'm wrong? What gives me any more or less say in the matter of what is "Indigo-ness" than Carroll or any of the others? Nobody has tested any of these claims...and nobody "owns" the concept. So we end up with people like Carroll claiming to be Indigo believers - yet saying things that many (most?) others do not agree with. In such situations, we have a fringe-within-a-fringe. I believe that the notability has fallen to a level where we should simply ignore the writings of a single individual unless multiple other sources from within the cult are reporting the same kinds of thing.

Homeopathy has been particularly vulnerable to this - but I see it writ large in many other fringe articles. The problem is that when you try to boil down (for the sake of the article) what is generally believed by the adherents - you find that there is so much difference between followers of the theory that there is hardly one single fact you can state about their beliefs that is held by the majority of them. This makes writing an article like this one exceedingly difficult. We can't say what Indigo-ness is because there is such a crazy spread of random opinions spread amongst the adherents. Just about all we can really say that all of these people believe is that Indigo children are somehow special.

SteveBaker (talk) 19:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I agree with SteveBaker. Therefore, I stated earlier that indigo children is not really a strictly defined 'theory'. It's a very broad concept, which is treated and understood in different ways by different groups. And the word indigos has such a wide spectrum of usage and connotations, that it's more appropriate to call it a New Age meme with some specific traits attributed to it, than some specific theory at all. But, if we are to stick to the influential New Age authors on the topic, then we have to give their rendering and ideas accurately at least, because these are the sources we have at hand. And it's also not very nice if later these authors can rightfully claim on their web-site and in published works, that Wikipedia's biased editors had distorted their original idea, which is exactly what is happening now, and what has been the case for the last few years here. -- Nazar (talk) 20:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

So you're suggesting that we substantially rewrite things such that the lede says only that there are a buch of New Age memes surrounding this basic idea - then perhaps write sections about the more specific views of the leading proponents of the idea? Hmmm - I suppose that could work. Let's discuss it further. SteveBaker (talk) 14:43, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Ya. That sounds like a nice approach. What the current article state depicts is basically a continued confrontation between those representing mainstream scientific views and some supposed "indigo theory", where the "indigo theory" is being vigorously debunked based on available scientific evidence or opinions of skeptics. I don't think this is the best possible approach, though I'd also say the skeptics' opinions are an indispensable part for such an article. There's always lots of scenarios where the popular topic of this kind is being more or less misused by various "opportunity seekers", who try and make a buck out of it. This has to be represented in the article, as this is a real part of the phenomenon. But, at the same time, the article should give proper overview of the evolved meme, the spectrum of its usage, and also give readers clear idea of how abstract and variable the whole original concept is. As you rightfully mentioned above, with a bit of imagination one could claim almost any crazy stuff and attribute it to the indigos. Not only it being a very broad and flexible spiritual subject, relying mostly on premises of faith and certain conceptual beliefs, but also its interpretations being still wider, sometimes even contradictory within their own range in terms of conventional logic...

So much for the philosophy. As to practical rewriting of the article, I think it won't be that easy, given the current ruleset of Wikipedia's policies and established practices. Lack of reliable sources in their current definition would probably be the first formal hurdle to overcome. But, let's set a course. With the time, step by step, we can improve things :) -- Nazar (talk) 16:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I've removed all citations to books "written" by Kryon, so far from a reliable source it's unbelievable. The Gazeta source is in Russian, which doesn't automatically make it unreliable, but it does make it hard to verify. Further, these concepts (crystal and rainbow children) are themselves merely reinventions of indigo children and are of even less notability, and in my mind not worth including even if we can find a source to describe them. The ideas of Tappe, Kryon and the like are simply fringe ideas with no relation to reality. We are not obligated to reproduce, document or include such obvious nonsense when there is no real indication of any mainstream attention beyond what brief debunking exists to date. The majority of the weight should be given to skeptics since the topic has no actual credibility. In my mind the best way to deal with this is a minimal description of the ideas, few to no details, and a summary of the skeptical response. Whenever possible, we should work with secondary sources independent of the Kryon and related imaginary authors. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

For the Russian language sources, WP:V (specifically: WP:NOENG) now pretty much requires that a translation be included as a footnote to the reference - so we're well-justified in removing things that don't have either English language references or solid translations included into our article. SteveBaker (talk) 20:24, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

It's Ukrainian, not Russian. There's no prohibition against non-English sources in Wikipedia. "it is not always necessary to provide a translation" when using a non-English source for information. But, if that is important for you, I can easily translate a few paragraphs from it, which, I believe, would satisfy all the requirements. -- Nazar (talk) 21:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

"minimal description of the ideas, few to no details, and a summary of the skeptical response" makes the article very POV and practically useless for any references about the original concept. Whether this is a viable solution for Wikipedia, depends basically on the threshold Wiki-community would set for information to be worthwhile or not worthwhile being included. From a strictly scientific point of view all of the indigo concept is likely below that threshold. But, as was discussed above, Indigo children is not a scientific concept, neither was it ever claimed to be that. So, the question is, how should we view it? As a New Age spiritual concept? Or, as a fictional concept used in some works? Or, as a New Age meme? Or, as a concept used by some in a pseudo-scientific way? All of these are much closer to reality than labeling it nothing else but "fringe science". But labeling it exclusively "fringe science" and ignoring all the other aspects of it makes it very comfortable for skeptics to make a totally POV-based article with few to no information about the original concept. I personally find such an approach not correct. -- Nazar (talk) 22:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

How do we view it? WP:FRINGE addresses this: ...for writers and editors of Wikipedia articles to write about controversial ideas in a neutral manner, it is of vital importance that they simply restate what is said by independent secondary sources of reasonable reliability and quality. We view it as independent secondary sources describe it. Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. As for the Ukrainian source, there are translators available who can provide a translation of the text in question, if needed. - SudoGhost 22:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

...and for something that "never claimed to be a scientific concept", perhaps you missed it being prominently described as the result of scientific observations. - SudoGhost 22:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes. You can always ask an independent translator, if you doubt my neutrality here. As to the above statement, in my view, the philosophical and spiritual ideas of indigos are not much controversial and fit very smoothly into general New Age concepts. The practical application of these ideas may be controversial for some, still, not all of it is totally fringe. And, well, if Tappe sees blue color around some children as a result of her synesthesia, then it's a "scientific observation", as opposed to the idea of paranormal auras, which was being pushed into the article here for the last several years... -- Nazar (talk) 09:03, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Simply claiming not to be "of a scientific nature" doesn't get a belief system off the hook. If their claims are of a scientifically testable nature - and the proponents neither test them, nor accept testing that's done on their behalf - then it's a pseudoscience. For example: Belief in the existence of God is not a pseudoscience - it's unfalsifiable, we can neither prove nor disprove the claim - so it's 100% a matter of individual faith and we don't treat religions under WP:FRINGE. On the other hand, belief that the earth is flat most certainly is a pseudoscience (and WP:FRINGE) because that's a claim that's easily testable, and the proponents have failed to perform the simplest tests to confirm it - and reject out of hand the available scientific evidence. Claiming that you're taking flat-earth theory "on faith" is crazy. The vast majority, if not all, claims for Indigo-ness are really easy to test...Indigo's are claimed to be telepathic...so why have none of the adherents broken out the circle/square/triangle/wave cards and done a proper statistical study? Adherents of the belief do not attempt those tests - and they reject out of hand the science that has been done to disprove those claims. This is pseudo-science writ large. Trying to diffuse that undoubted fact by claiming to be a religion or some similar thing is bogus. You don't have to take indigo-ness on faith. You can do experiments. It's not a matter of faith. SteveBaker (talk) 02:54, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to ask you guys, have actually any of you read at least some of Kryon's books and the references to indigos there? Because I have read a few of them, and it's just that what is written there is so abstract, broad and purely conceptual, as well as denying traditional scientific verification, that I find the controversy here not well substantiated. If you read the whole background philosophy, Kryon's concepts about the Veil, the duality, incarnation, why and how it occurs and what is the purpose of it, and what can and can not be "scientifically tested" at certain points, then it all makes perfect sense as a wholesome idea (whether fictional or spiritual or philosophical is up to the reader to decide). And my concern here is that all that concept is actually hardly even present in an article we've got about that subject. Your above argument about telepathy: read Kryon's explanation of how telepathy works and what results can be obtained with it, as well as what level of accuracy can be expected from specific tests. What you're trying to do is judge a philosophy of its own in terms of a different philosophy, which is not compatible with it. It's like trying to describe a 3D space with 1D linear coordinates. -- Nazar (talk) 09:03, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The beauty of science is that it doesn't have to answer the "Why?" question (although it's nice when it occasionally can). In this case, we're not interested in why these children are claimed to have these special abilities. We're only interested in measuring whether the final, observable claims are true or false.

If Kryon (or anyone else) makes any claim whatever about the observable nature of Indigo children that makes them noticeably different from regular children - then that claim may be tested using simple scientific observation. If it's observable then we can measure it. If there are restrictions on the accuracy of these telepathic abilities, then we can still use statistical approaches to find the underlying trend.

For sure, Kryon could make claims of a non-observable nature (like maybe "God loves Indigo children more" or "Indigo's have a deep connection via multidimensional etheric conduits") that we couldn't test and would therefore have to be taken on faith. But that's not the case. There are plenty of testable things here.

That's inevitable - there is no way for these authors to dodge that bullet. It's inherent in the idea of Indigo-ness that parents are able to look at their little darlings and say "Oh! Yes! He does that! He must be Indigo! Hooray!"...and then they buy more books, spend money on special diets and all that crap which earns money for the people who promote this ridiculous idea. The bottom line is that this means that they must make predictions of an observable nature in order to sustain their business model...and as soon as they do that, they must either test those observations (or at the very least accept the results of those who have tested them) or be labelled a pseudo-science.

In fact, because they have this business model, they have carefully stated those 'observable claims' in such a manner that any parent who wears rose-tinted glasses in matters of their kids (as we all - myself included - do) will assume that their child has them - and confirmation bias will do the rest. Absolutely every parent who believe in this junk concludes that their child is Indigo. I guarantee that there is not one single believer out there who has looked carefully at their kid and decided that (s)he is NOT Indigo. It's marketting 101. If you write "Specially formulated for sensitive skin" on your bar of soap, then more women will buy it because who wouldn't believe that their skin is "sensitive"? However, if you do a scientific test of skin sensitivity - what would you find?

QED. SteveBaker (talk) 13:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not reading Kryon Carroll or Tober's books because I don't care what they have to say. We shouldn't be including minutea of a fringe theory or making it into a single walled-garden article. We should be covering the concept of indigo children as it is addressed in secondary sources. Those sources are pretty much all critical - since the whole concept is nonsense. There is no real controversy here - a couple authors are attempting to sell books about a concept that credulous parents are willing to buy into. Independent sources are pretty much uniformly critical. Nazer wants to use the article to promote the concept and include a detailed discussion of a made-up fantasy. I think this is a bad idea, I think the current page is adequate per WP:FRINGE, WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:NOT, and I think the {{POV}} tag should be removed. Who agrees? Who doesnt and why? What needs to be added or removed? Those are our key questions. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Of course you're right - but we can't just write an article that says "Indigo children is debunked, it's not true, forget it" without first defining what this term actually means - and that's what gets us into trouble because it means different things to different authors - and different things to the same author in different books! Pinning down a coherent description of the thing that's being debunked isn't so simple. SteveBaker (talk) 19:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I often find that secondary sources will do this for us - give a coherent definition (then procede to point out how dumb it is). Sticking to secondary, independent sources rather than trying to herd cats from the primary books (with attendant OR issues) would seem the best way to go. If we don't describe every single nuance and wrinkle of Kryon Carroll, Tober and/or Tappe's thinking, I don't think we've lost much. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:09, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

And if we do that then the believers in this BS (who, as you'll note are all over this talk page) will produce references out the wazoo from other pro-Indigo authors that show that a portion of the Indigo community do indeed believe this and that and things that are different from what your secondary sources tell you - and the article will be a continual battleground...which brings us squarely back to the topic of this thread. I wonder if it would be better to simply allow the pro-Indigo community here to come up with a properly referenced one paragraph definition of what an "Indigo child" is that they can all agree on that we can stick into the article. This doesn't prevent us from adding material from 3rd party sources and science-based articles to refute whether such things are true - but at least we'd have a solid definition that won't get disputed to hell. SteveBaker (talk) 13:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

That's why I'm saying we draw from independent secondary sources - authors who do not exist and publish solely to promote the indigo concepts. This prevents the page from becoming a mouthpiece for believers. We should match claims with counter-claims; if a claim is made by an indigo promoter but not matched by a counter-claim from a skeptical source, we don't include it due to a lack of independent, secondary coverage.

Also, you'll never get a one paragraph definition of an indigo child, any more than you could get agreement on the number of angels who could dance on the head of a pin. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Notability

If the primary sources are non-notable "junk" and the "secondary, independent sources" barely provide coverage of the subject, is the subject of this article really notable? Why not merge to the parent New Age article? Giving it a short, referenced paragraph and avoiding detailed coverage of a non-notable idea. Dimadick (talk) 09:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

It is not credible; but it is notable, in that there has been substantive coverage of the indigo children myth all over the press. My day job is childcare-related; and believe me, the concept is out there. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah - I don't think notability is an issue here. You can't WP:AfD this problem away. SteveBaker (talk) 13:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Tag restated

Blunt question - who here thinks the tag should remain? I do not. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Delete tag - "dispute" does not exist. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - looks like a misunderstanding of NPOV. Dougweller (talk) 14:51, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - these tags are supposed to be brief in duration - this one has been there since User:Nazar put it there on April 5th. We've discussed Nazars' issues multiple times since then and it's pretty clear that Nazar doesn't understand Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines. It's time to remove it - although we will (of course) engage in appropriate discussion of NPOV issues here on the talk page. SteveBaker (talk) 16:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Removed. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Status quo

All issues resolved.

"it's pretty clear that Nazar doesn't understand Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines" -- I don't think that is the case. The article is obviously POV in its current form. But, well, it also seems to represent the POV of the majority of the active and experienced Wiki-editors involved into its writing. It's a community bias, which is typical for that kind of articles on Wikipedia. But, since Wikipedia is a community driven project, we have to respect this state of affairs as long as it lasts... The questions to ask are:

• should all of the Indigo children subject be treated exclusively as a fringe science?
• Should we consider including a better overview of the original ideas, myths, memes, their interpretations and applications in various interested groups?
• Should we include better overview of the fictional material associated with the subject and used in movies and published works?
• How much coverage in secondary sources is really necessary for each paragraph and each single piece of information included into the article?

And the answers to these questions are subjective and depend on the views of the editors.

Personally for me, there's very little useful information in the article in its current state. The views and arguments of the skeptics and the debunkers are generic for such subjects and present very little insight into the topic: not testified scientifically, means of making money from credulous believers... The usual stuff...

What any Indigo interested reader would expect from such an article are some summaries of what the actual idea is, which concepts are associated with it, how it developed over time, what are the differences in views of its various followers, etc.

But it seems the editors who play the major role in structuring the article here don't even bother to read and explore any of the above stuff. They "know it all in advance"... Isn't it what is called "prejudice"? There's a good classic Soviet joke about this kind of attitude: "Чукча не читатель..." Now, the simple solution applied by these guys here is that any such info gets censored and removed from the article here each time an attempt is made to insert it into the context...

Here are a few characteristic quotations from those "defenders of the traditional science":

• "...The stupid raises it's ugly head once again..." -- this was actually about a tag being added to the article by me…
• "...how dumb it is..." -- that referred to the original ideas of indigo authors…
• "...the believers in this BS (who, as you'll note are all over this talk page) will produce references out the wazoo from other pro-Indigo authors..." -- what should the BS mean here, who'll guess? Is this the traditional "scientifically abbreviated" reference to the indigo idea? And “the wazoo” was actually not a part of my English vocabulary till I was kindly initiated into its “scientific” usage by SteveBaker here. Had to look it up in the dictionary…

Now, to summarize, I'd say that the problem with this article is currently the problem with the community of its active editors and their personal bias. Once this changes, the subject can easily be described adequately, based on both the primary and the secondary sources (which provide equally valuable insight into the topic).

For this, I'd expect the pro-indigo editors, who occasionally write a few words here, to become more coherent and gain better representation in Wiki-community. That will automatically shift the topic into the area where it will not be treated exclusively as WP:Fringe, and will open the gates for its full and adequate description.

I encourage those interested to sign below.

Thanks for your attention ;) lol -- Nazar (talk) 18:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Let's take a shot at answering your questions in a non-subjective manner. I'll mention none of my personal feelings on this matter - and quote only from the standard Wikipedia guideline documents:

• should all of the Indigo children subject be treated exclusively as a fringe science? - Yes, because WP:FRINGE says: "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field." I doubt that even the most ardent pro-Indigo advocate would seriously be willing to claim that their views are the "prevailing or mainstream view". If you do indeed maintain that the prevailing view is that Indigoness is "true" then let me quote further from WP:FRINGE: "Scholarly opinion is generally the most authoritative for identifying the mainstream view..." - so are there large numbers of scholarly child development or developmental biologists who subscribe to this view? (No, there are not!) So, yes - without doubt - this is a fringe theory. That is not a POV matter - it's a matter of Wikipedia policy.\

• Should we consider including a better overview of the original ideas, myths, memes, their interpretations and applications in various interested groups? - We need to describe the central tenets of Indigo-theory here - but (as we've discussed, above) most of the works written on the topic of Indigoness are fringe-within-a-fringe opinions that fail WP:NOTE and WP:V because they are first-person writings that are not considered WP:RS. Hence, this too is a matter of Wikipedia policy and cannot be labelled "POV".

• Should we include better overview of the fictional material associated with the subject and used in movies and published works? - No! In fact, we should cut it back to the bare minimum! WP:POPCULTURE is quite clear on this. It directs us as follows: "When trying to decide if a pop culture reference is appropriate to an article, ask yourself the following:
  1. Has the subject acknowledged the existence of the reference?
  2. Have reliable sources that don't generally cover the subject pointed out the reference?
  3. Did any real-world event occur because of the reference?

If you can't answer "yes" to at least one of these, you're just adding trivia. Get all three and you're possibly adding valuable content." - So do we have reliable sources to show that at least one (preferably two) of these things are true for all of our existing WP:POPCULTURE references? No! I don't think we have. That's solid grounds for removing all of the existing references - and we're certainly not going to be spooning on more of them without them meeting this guideline. Again, this is common Wikipedia practice - there are no WP:POV issues here.

• How much coverage in secondary sources is really necessary for each paragraph and each single piece of information included into the article? - This is well covered in WP:V, WP:RS and WP:FRINGE - and the answer is simple: Per WP:V "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation. " and per WP:FRINGE: "Efforts of fringe-theory inventors to shill on behalf of their theories, such as the offering of self-published material as references, are unacceptable" - so you do need references for every single statement that's in any way controversial - no exceptions whatever - and you need at least secondary sources...preferably tertiary. Excluding primary source material from a fringe article is certainly not POV...doubly so if notability is in question as it so often is here.

You finish up this section of your post by stating: "And the answers to these questions are subjective and depend on the views of the editors." - well, no, they aren't subjective and they aren't dependent on the views of the editors - they are clearly outlined in the various Wikipedia common practices, guidelines and policies that govern how articles are written on this site. They are there for you to read - and for all of us to obey. The community of editors (like myself) who regularly patrol fringe articles are not going to let you slip anything even slightly dubious past those established barriers - but we do actively welcome new information that meets those guidelines.

In summary: The very first sentence of WP:NPOV says: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.". I've highlighted the key words for you. "Proportionately" explains why I invoke WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT, "Significant" is why WP:NOTE is important, "Published by reliable sources" is why WP:V and WP:RS are important. You don't get to claim a POV violation unless your point of view fits into that framework of practices, guidelines and policies.

It's clear that we're not infringing WP:NPOV - at least not within the bounds of the accusations that you level against us. SteveBaker (talk) 19:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If you can back up your edits with independent reliable sources then it doesn't matter what anyone thinks. The authors you cite claim that this topic is "the result of scientific observations", and since this is not broadly supported by scholarship in the scientific community, it is a fringe topic, asking editors to "write a few words" will not "shift the topic" out of WP:FRINGE, only independent reliable sources can do that. Independent reliable sources speak magnitudes more loudly than any editor would. - SudoGhost 19:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you guys for the explanation, but what you say is basically repeating what you've said before, maybe with a bit more of detail. I don't blame you for removing the POV tag and I acknowledge that this removal is mostly in accordance with the current Wiki-guidelines. Maybe with some minor controversies (which I'll point to below), but generally, yes, you were indeed authorized to most of your recent edits by the policies in force. I'd personally apply these policies a bit softer and in a more relaxed way, but it's your privilege to apply them as you consider right. :) I don't expect any significant revolutionary change to occur here anytime soon, just setting a course and expressing my concerns.

In your WP:Fringe explanation, you seem to have missed the "in its particular field" part. Well, in the field of New Age based concepts and ideas about children indigos are very prominent and not WP:Fringe at all. I'd suggest you look at this topic in historical perspective in about 50-100 years. I'm quite sure it'll be not less prominent than the major topics of this kind from the beginning of XX-th century being discussed now.

Did any real-world event occur because of the reference? -- yes, plenty of them. Movies and documentaries were being produced. Conferences were held. TV Shows were hosted, etc.

But, as I said above, don't worry too much about this. I'm not planning a revolution in the nearest time. haha. -- Nazar (talk) 20:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

And, what also comes to my mind, in view of the specific position regarding application of Wiki-policies by some editors here, you might want to take a look at the article about one of Carroll's close co-workers -- Geoffrey Hoppe. Does it actually fit into those golden guidelines? Let's make it clear once and for all! :) -- Nazar (talk) 20:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry - but this is disingenuous at best. You write a page-long tirade and wind it up with a rallying cry to fellow Indigo-believers to come here and flood our site with their views (which most certainly are POV!) - and then you have the nerve to say that you didn't mean it? Pah!

Your claim that the "in it's particular field" clause makes a difference is invalid. You can't just wiggle out of this rule by claiming to be a part of some other fringe idea. This idea covers how children behave and develop. Like it or not, that's a part of child development, or developmental biology or child behavioral studies...and the academics in those fields dismiss this theory very clearly indeed (and we have references to show that).

Please explore the "flat earth" analogy here: Are we to say that belief in the claim that the earth is flat is NOT a "fringe theory"? By your reasoning, if the proponents simply claim that flat-earthism is a division of biblical research then this is not a fringe theory?!? (eg because Revelation 7:1 says "I saw four angels standing on four corners of the earth") NO!!! - Flat earthism is quite definitely a fringe theory because it's a division of geography and planetary science - and the academics in those areas of study are unanimous in dismissing flat earthism. It doesn't matter a damn what the flat-earthists claim.

So you can't go around claiming that Indigoism is a division of some New Age religion and thereby wiggle out of the fact that no serious child development experts, developmental biologists or anyone like that is giving this theory the slightest credibility. So - it's undoubtedly a fringe theory and we're going to treat it as such. Period.

As for the Pop culture stuff. The fact that movies and documentaries are produced doesn't qualify them for the pop culture section. In order to mention a movie (for example) here, then (per WP:POPCULTURE) you have to show that:

• 1. the subject has acknowledged the existence of the reference - ie practitioners in the field of Indigo-belief have widely acknowledged the existence of the movie.
  2. reliable sources that don't generally cover the subject have pointed out the reference - ie some number of non-pro-Indigo sources have mentioned that the movie is about Indigoness.
  3. some real-world event occured because of the reference - ie something in the real world happened in a way that matters to the field of Indigo-belief because the movie talked about Indigo-ness.

Ideally, we need all three things.

Look - it's reasonable for you to claim that Wikipedia's rules are slanted against giving Indigo-believers a way to write about what they believe in these pages for all to see. Heck, you're probably right - they are slanted that way. However, that's not a problem with this article. You can't change what we do here because we're following the rules as carefully as we can. Either give it up and go find some kind of new-age encyclopedia to write about this in - or discuss your views in places like WP:FRINGE's talk page where you might (very unlikely) manage to pursuade everyone to change the rules.

Like it or not, Wikipedia is heavily grounded in science and takes the mainstream view in all matters with boring, mundane rules for what can be written within it. It's perfectly possible that this isn't the kind of encyclopedia you want - but at this point, with close to 4 million English language articles written against those rules - you're not ever going to change them by enough to get what you want.

SteveBaker (talk) 20:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you make it all too complicated. Look at the Flat Earth -- isn't it beautiful? And what a nice article! :) I'm not an indigo believer, btw, and I think I said earlier that Indigo children is one of Carroll's more doubtful ventures. It shouldn't be taken too seriously as a defined concept. But, it has influenced and changed millions, it is a sign of this generation and a word you can't erase from the dictionary of XXI-st century. Then, if a XXI-st century encyclopaedia can't adequately illustrate such a word, then it's a total failure... -- Nazar (talk) 21:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

If it has "influenced and changed millions", then independent reliable sources will be able to reflect this. We define things, especially WP:FRINGE topics, by using what third-party reliable sources say about the subject. Seems very simple to me. - SudoGhost 21:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know why you think we're going to "erase" it. If that were a good idea then most of the editors here would be clamoring for a WP:AfD debate - and we're not. We all recognize that (for better or worse) a lot of people have been taken in by this scam. But this is an encyclopedia - and it is our responsibility to tell people the truth. The problem is that "truth" can be a slippery concept. It's not determined by a vote - so it doesn't matter a damn if 1%, 51% or 99% of people in the world believe something - if it's not "true" then as editors, we have to suck it up and tell all of those people that they are wrong. Take the case of global warming (for example). More than half of people in the English-speaking world don't believe that it's true - yet our article checks scientific sources and finds that more than 98% of climate scientists say that it is true - and that's what our article says. There are sections about the controversy, sure - but the article as a whole says that global warming is "truth".

In the specific case of Wikipedia, this idea of "truth" is defined by policies like WP:FRINGE and WP:RS, WP:V, WP:WEIGHT, WP:POPCULTURE and so on. That is our standard for truth - and we have to stick by it no matter what. So we don't care what "millions" of people believe - that's relevant only to prove that this subject is "notable" (which it undoubtedly is - which is why it's not going to be "erased"). What matters for the content of this article is what scholarly child development experts and developmental biologists have to say about it - in print, where we can verify that they really do say that. When we look at what they say, it is unanimously that this is all complete and utter nonsense - and that's what our article has to say...clearly, unequivocably. Having said that, we do have to define what is meant by this term "Indigo children" - and that is a problem for us. We have to find that core set of beliefs that most (if not all) believers in this idea would sign on to - and perhaps list notable variations on that core belief. But we do that not to suggest that it might maybe be true - but to be clear about what falsehood all of these people are claiming to believe. At no point will this article say that this idea is anything but complete nonsense - because that is "the truth" as defined by Wikipedia policies.

SteveBaker (talk) 12:22, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

"Thank you guys for the explanation, but what you say is basically repeating what you've said before, maybe with a bit more of detail." Because apparently you didn't hear it the first time.

Indigo children have had nowhere near the scientific, public, social and historical scrutiny and discussion of the Flat Earth.

You can't compare articles to each other - the Hoppe article could require a stubstantial gutting or even deletion - anyone can edit and thus anyone can add drek to any article. That's why we use policies and guidelines as our common standard.

Wikipedia is indeed slanted against certain ideas. In fact, we have WP:FRINGE so people can't use wikipedia as a soapbox for lunatic, nutter (often profitable) ideas. Quite deliberate, it prevents us from turning into a mouthpiece for the crazy, greedy, and/or trolling.

Nazar, you may not like the current version of the article, but it's pretty clear there is a consensus against your ideas. You can accept that consensus, or you can start POV-pushing. Please accept the consensus. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

"you didn't hear it the first time. You can accept that consensus, or you can start POV-pushing" -- I've stated above that since Wikipedia is a community driven project, the consensus of majority of involved editors has to be respected as long as it lasts. So, I don't quite see what are you referring to here. I acknowledge your right to edits you've made, including your mass removals of sourced information from the article. Your argumentation was that that the idea is WP:FRINGE and does not require neither deserve coverage based on primary and affiliated sources, as well as that some ideas covered based on independent press publications do not have enough weight... That argumentation is doubtful for me personally for various reasons, and also in view of my inclusionist philosophy, but I fully acknowledge the privilege of the currently existing majority here to remove content invoking related policies. I'd also say some of the comments made by the opposing party here were not very WP:Civil, but I think mentioning that should be enough for involved editors to reconsider their style of discussion.

That being said, I find it pitiful that a situation like that has emerged about this article. For example, I'm reading Carroll's publications now, and there he writes, e.g., that Kryon's message is that, inter alia:

• "Pure-bred Indigo children are born without karma"
• "Indigos are here for a purpose - collectively, and they know what it is. It is to begin to create the New Jerusalem..."

So, as per my evaluation, these are perfect quotations to illustrate some of important tenets of Indigo philosophy (not present in any form in the current article). And that's how I see the purpose of a free encyclopaedia, which anyone can edit. I read some useful stuff -- I try to add it so that it may be used by others who search for summarized information about the subject in question... Why not just add a few more core ideas? Like:

• they are peacemakers
• they may develop certain organs better (in particular the thymus) in certain cases
• they may develop improved "Third Language" skills
• they are "old souls"

These are the tenets, and this is the truth of what the indigo concept was intended to be, as per publications available.

But, well, as I could guess from the expressed moods of other active editors here, they'll likely oppose such an inclusion... They'll say: "There are no secondary sources for this" and "This is fringe" and "this is lunatic and nutty" and the similar stuff... hmm... What can I say here... Pitiful it is indeed... And, I hope this is going to change some day, maybe in more distant future though... -- Nazar (talk) 14:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Indigos aren't peacemakers, don't develop certain organs better, don't have improved third language skills and aren't old souls because there is no proof that indigo children exist, that their organs are any different from anyone else's, that they have improved language or there is such thing as the soul. At best we could put these things in as "Kryon says..." but I've yet to see a source that specifically refutes these claims thus it would be undue weight on a fringe of a fringe idea. What you see as "pitiful", I see as an attempt to build a serious, free reference work that doesn't let people promote ideas that are quite obviously nonsense. Policies and guidelines like FRINGE and NPOV make it pretty clear that the community at large probably supports my version of wikipedia. We get it - you think indigo children are real and special. Without getting into a debate over this, I will just point out that there are absolutely no suitable sources to support these points as anything but unprove claims - and we are not a place to document or promote unprove claims. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:37, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

You don't need to refute every claim an author makes, especially if it's said to come from Kryon (who is a fictional entity in scientific terms). It's clear enough that it's not scientifically validated. You can't also scientifically refute claims that someone is believed to have no karma or to be a peacemaker by nature, because these are abstract claims, which carry mostly philosophical value. You can't also refute it scientifically is someone claims that certain people may develop modified organs (because they may also not develop them), especially if that someone likes to speak about "inter-dimensional development", which is per definition not verifiable by scientific means. Thus, there is no question here about scientific validity or refutation of these claims. It's a question of whether these originally fictional and/or philosophical claims are an important part of the phenomenon, which characterize it conceptually. I believe they are. And I take it for granted that you disagree with me. So, since there are a few more guys to support your side in this argument and create a majority for the decision, that's about it... Thank you. :) -- Nazar (talk) 15:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The difficulty with these specific claims is that not all books about Indigo children (and good-grief there are enough of them - Amazon.com lists over 700 books on the subject) say these things. We, as neutral parties, can't pick and choose from those primary sources and say which is "true" and which is not. That's because neither Carroll nor Mikhayhu nor Sennov or any of the other hundred or so authors is "authoritative" in their statement of what an Indigo child is or is not. You keep talking about Carroll - but why her and not Tappe or of the other authors? Who is the arbiter of what is "Indigo" and what isn't? Wikipedia can't (and won't) take on that role - we have to rely on outside sources to tell us that. What would normally resolve this in most mainstream fields would be secondary and tertiary sources - where other authors summarize the findings in the field and check what tests have been done to verify or refute those primary source claims. But we have no such thing here - we have 700 primary sources and not a single usable secondary or tertiary source! Every author just piles on more crazy claims with zero evidence - and in stark contradiction to each other in many cases.

This is easy to do since there is really no such thing as Indigo children and I can just sit down and write any old crap about them and pile up the cash from book sales - and who is to say that I'm wrong. If I write "You can tell whether you have an Indigo child because they all like ice cream and hate broccoli and all Indigo children have a purple dancing hippo on the planet Zog who exert a calming influence over them in times of trouble."...and suppose I get that published in a book (which truly isn't difficult if the drek that makes up the other 700 books is anything to go by)...then does that make my ravings become an encyclopedic fact that must be added to this article?

Wikipedia responds by saying "Primary sources are not Reliable sources" - so all of those authors writings (including mine) are utterly useless in helping us come to an encyclopedic definition of what is claimed to constitute an Indigo child. Keep that in mind! We aren't interested in a laundry list of features that a bunch of random authors wrote in their bullshit books - that doesn't make for an encyclopedia entry.

Then we're back to the "Oh - this is more like a religion than a science because you can't test it" thing. Well, that's clearly nonsense. Just about every book on the subject starts off with a section on how to identify whether your child is indigo or not (They like icecream and not broccoli!) - and they are all written such as to produce a powerful Forer effect - and thereby convince every gullible frustrated parent that their little darling is Indigo and that explains away all of the horrible things that their kids inflict upon them. If authors are able to write that - to claim to be able to spell out a set of testable characteristics which Indigo children tend to have and regular children mostly don't - then science can do the exact same set of tests, crunch some statistics and see if it comes out to be true. It's not a religious matter - it's not about "faith", it's about science - and that makes it WP:FRINGE and pseudoscience. That puts it firmly into the realms of academic child development specialists who pretty much universally state that it's bullshit - and that's really the the end of it as far as Wikipedia guidelines fall. Truly, it's not even worth debating. This is without question an absolute classic when it comes to fringy topics.

SteveBaker (talk) 16:42, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Since Nazar has conceded that there's no chance this is going to go anywhere and consensus is clearly against including these points, there's no reason to keep discussing. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:20, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Archiving

Manual archiving is a pain in the ass, so I've set up Miszabot. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Criticism

After looking this page over I discovered a large amount of what at least appears to be criticism outside of the criticism section. Keeping a non-biased profile, I copied and pasted them into the criticism section. If someone thinks otherwise, feel free to change it back and debate it here, but remember that Wikipedia is not a soapbox (I.E: If they were returned to their original sections, don't move them back into the criticism section until the debate closes). Once the debate ends notably, changes- or lack thereof- should be made. If the discussion is reopened, however, the changes should remain where they were until it comes, once again, to a close- or afterwards, depending on the outcome. P.S: Please remember to keep a cool head. P.P.S: if it helps, remember that the page is labeled a pseudoscience at the top. Thus, I think that should be good enough for both sides: it is neither considered proven nor disproven, nor is it considered able to be proven or disproven. TielKiri (talk) 05:33, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I think what is considered criticism should be outside the criticism section; an article should be an organically flowing, logical sequence of statements that present the article's subject as a reflection of reliable sources, and as such the article should use this content as appropriate within the section it concerns; content should not be sandboxed into its own section simply because it presents an opinion of the subject that doesn't hold the subject in a favorable light. An article should ideally not even contain a criticism section, so moving things into such a section would be taking a step backwards, I think. - SudoGhost 06:13, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah - I agree. SteveBaker (talk) 15:54, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I find this edit well justified though. Why was it removed? -- Nazar (talk) 17:21, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Because the source cited specifically says parents. - SudoGhost 22:52, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I see. After seeing a criticism section I assumed it was common and I did not check to make sure. I agree with SudoGhost in that the section should be removed, then, and that the information be restored to its previous place. TielKiri (talk) 03:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:STRUCTURE, criticisms are ideally interstitched throughout the article rather than being ghettoized to a criticisms section. Please read WP:NPOV to understand what "neutral" means - it doesn't mean "lacking in criticism". WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:30, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I recanted already. But I wasn't against the criticism, I was against it being outside of its section. On the contrary, when there is both a section for criticism and criticism outside of the section, then it is easily perceived as rage edits. Moving them into the section or removing the section is being neutral. TielKiri (talk) 05:02, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Some specific Indigo characteristics

It was interesting for me to recently find something specific enough in Kryon's messages about indigos. Something actually easily refutable based on scientific observation:

"What causes the twists within the twists in 4D DNA?" ... -- There are four elements, all of which are interdimensional, which twist DNA. DNA's relational twisting is from the interdimensional pull upon it. Time, gravity, magnetics, and one other, which you've called The Cosmic Lattice. ... When you start looking at the twisting, you're going to see some correlations... some things you didn't expect. Count the twists in the Indigos... Are there basic core biological differences? Yes."

It's from the Kryon's Book X. Chapter 8. I wonder if there's any refutation of this from the skeptic side. Shouldn't be too difficult with today's scientific knowledge about DNA. Like, are the DNA twisting patterns random, or are they similar for all humans based on current observation history? Or are they changing based on some factors? Is the above quotation an obvious statement of a lay-person with no idea of how things work in DNA? Or is it more complex than that? Are there any sources on that?

And, yes, that actually is a very specific claim which does not seem to be faith-based at all. If there are skeptic sources on that (or whatever is needed to comply with the Wiki-policies), I think it should be included into the article.

-- Nazar (talk) 21:18, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

But this assertion is gibberish: DNA is not "twisted" like a protein structure, but is a regular helix. There is no intelligible assertion to test or refute. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm not very well versed in this area, but helix is obviously "twisted". The word helix comes from the Greek word ἕλιξ, "twisted, curved" -- Nazar (talk) 21:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm reading "twisted" as implying irregularity and asymnetry, as found in the typical folding structure of complex protein structures. The helices of DNA are smooth and regular structures, and thus by my reading of the word "twisted" don't qualify, although the helical structure is in a very narrow sense a "twist". --Orange Mike | Talk 15:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm really not much of an expert in DNA, but although being geometrically regular in structure, the DNA helices do seem to vary in their spacial distribution of the coils, don't they? Or is that distribution 100% identical for every tested DNA? -- Nazar (talk) 17:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Well per WP:FRINGE, such claims must be based upon independent reliable sources. Are there any independent reliable sources that could be used to give weight to this? - SudoGhost 21:49, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Would that be a reliable source? -- Nazar (talk) 22:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

It looks like it falls under WP:SELFPUB, especially because it apparently references Wikipedia, which means it would fall under WP:CIRCULAR, so I wouldn't say it's a reliable source without serious evidence to the contrary. - SudoGhost 22:13, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

To be 100% accurate, DNA does have a structure above the basic double-helix. Read DNA supercoil for details. It's like if you twist together a rubber band - first you get a simple double-helix, but if you keep twisting, it starts to make larger-scale twists. However, this 'supercoiling' of DNA is not a permanent feature - it comes and goes depending on what the molecule is being used for in the body. There are enzymes that cause supercoiling and others that undo it. Hence, any weird "extra" coiling wouldn't be a permanent feature that would cause some visible feature in a person who has that DNA. Worse still for this incredibly stupid theory, DNA completely unzips itself whenever it's duplicated (see DNA replication) - so any kind of twist of any kind whatever would be utterly destroyed the very first time a cell containing it replicated.

This idea is quite utter bullshit - typical junk put about by people who have seen just enough science stuff on cable TV pop.sci shows to know the language - but who haven't taken the time to read enough actual science to come up with even a slightly plausible idea. Typical pseudoscience stuff. User:Nazar claims that this nonsense was responsible for "involving me into DNA study" - well Nazar, I strongly suggest you study a bit harder because you can discover these actual scientific facts with no more than 10 minutes of reading in the DNA article.

SteveBaker (talk) 20:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

First of all, I'd strongly encourage you to decrease the grade of emotions in your replies and my advice would also be to minimize the use of characteristics like "utter bullshit", "hogwash", "typical junk" etc.. According to WP:Civilty. Secondly, in spite of somewhat over-heated expression style, I appreciate your points, and I hope you're having as much fun (including learning new stuff) as me from this discussion. And thirdly, who said that the mentioned twisting patterns are supposed to be permanent or directly influence the physical biology? What I gleaned from Kryon's message was that these patterns are indicative of some "inter-dimensional" peculiarities. Also, who said that there are no other sources for that? Inter-dimensional DNA has been such a popular topic in New Age and channelling community for the last decade or so, that I would actually even be surprised if no skeptic of traditional scientist ever wrote a few lines to at least give a "scientific" perspective on the whole idea (which, just as Indigo children, seems to vary greatly depending on the author/channeller). BTW, this seems like a good idea for an individual Wiki-article ;) -- Nazar (talk) 21:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

A helix is defined as a twisted line- or lines, but the helix itself (rather than the lines) can be straight (as in a spiral staircase, which goes straight down. Nevertheless, DNA twists upon itself to form a line, then that line twists upon itself to form another, and so on, so as to save space in the nucleus. Hence, the helix is in fact twisted (hence the use of "twist within the twist" portion of the quote, rather than just "Twist").

Also, the "cosmic lattice" and interdimensional portion do seem to be in fact faith-based, and though I do not know that much about DNA, I don't think that the way the DNA twists affects how the body grows. Also, since people alleged to be indigo children also tend to be ADHD, etc. then there would commonly be differences in DNA that impart no credibility to the indigo ideas unless you see these psychological changes as being the core of indigo children, which I doubt, considering that an indigo child can supposedly remain one without these traits.

Also, I've only processed information from before Nazar's last comment, I began writing this before he sumbited this.

TielKiri (talk) 22:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Sure, it is possible for science to refute this - but that's not the point. Who made these measurements? Did the author of this book collect DNA from 100 kids - some "Indigo" and some not - then in a double-blinded manner go and count the loops and twists, then do statistics to show that there is a strong correlation, then do math to see if the loops showed some 4th dimensional component? Hell no! Some author looking for a source of ready cash wrote a bunch of vaguely scientific-sounding mumbo-jumbo in an effort to sell more books.

Scientists don't have the time or funding to refute the ravings of people who are just guessing like that.

There are much, much easier tests for the various claims of Indigo proponents - if you think these kids are telepathic then break out the "Circle/Square/Triangle/Wave/Cross" cards and run a few hundred cards past a handful of Indigo kids. If the results are statistically much better then chance then maybe you're onto something. Did any of the proponents do that? No...they did not - they guessed - or worse, they deliberately set out to write what desperate parents wanted to hear.

Science does not progress by people saying "I wonder if the phenomenon of electicity is due to charges being carried around in the shopping carts of microscopic green aliens from planet Zog?" - and then devising a devious test to prove or disprove that. If we just randomly thought things up and then made expensive experiments to disprove them - we wouldn't get any useful results in finite amounts of time because there are an infinity of such random thoughts and only a tiny percentage of them are true.

Instead, we make measurements about the real world - then come up with a feasible-sounding hypothesis to explain that - then make experiments to prove or disprove that hypothesis. What's missing here is the experiments in the real world. Nobody measured these supposed Indigos and compared them to non-Indigos. (Actually that would be a tough test since I have yet to come across a single parent who paid to have their kids "tested" by an Indigo-testing charlatan who didn't get a positive result!)

SteveBaker (talk) 16:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

"Did the author of this book collect DNA from 100 kids..." -- it's not the task of a channeller to scientifically test what he channels. Why not see it as an interesting statement and "scientifically" give it a slight chance of containing some useful hint? It's not anyone's duty to immediately arrange for the thorough tests of this, but, well, maybe it inspires someone to discover something new. For example, having read this, I was inspired to look deeper into what DNA is and what is today's status of its research. It's not even really relevant whether Kryon's (or Carroll's) statement is true or false (and I'm allowing for both possibilities, as well as the full spectrum of various half-truths), but it had accomplished the task of involving me into DNA study to the extent I wouldn't have gone without it. -- Nazar (talk) 18:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Because there are no independent reliable sources provided that mention it; short of that it has no place in any article, per WP:PSCI, it doesn't matter how "interesting" it is. - SudoGhost 18:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Yep, exactly. If these "channellers" don't test the things they say - then they do not constitute reliable sources for scientific claims and that means that Wikipedia sure as hell isn't going to quote them. Absent any scientific testing of these (clearly scientific) claims - this is pseudoscience, pure and simple. We aren't here to publish "interesting statements" even if there is a "slight chance of containing some useful hint" - and we don't care whether it accomplished some task of getting you interested in something. Quite the opposite in fact. Wikipedia doesn't give a damn about any of those criteria. Our criteria is mainstream acceptance amongst the scientific community - and that quite simply does not exist. SteveBaker (talk) 19:52, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

ADHD or ASD?

Came across a reference to indigo/crystal children in a book on autism and decided to check it out further. The characteristics of 'indigos' listed here and elsewhere fit well with Autism Spectrum conditions, why is only ADD/ADHD mentioned? Is this the only one mentioned by the sources quoted? You might like to read some Donna Williams (autistic - "Autism and Sensing: the Unlost Instinct"), Olga Bogdashina (teacher, lecturer, researcher on autism - "Autism and the Edges of the Known World") or if you can handle him, William Stillman (Asperger's - "Autism and the God Connection"). BTW I have synaesthesia myself but I certainly don't see auras! 1.124.213.59 (talk) 02:00, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

If it's not mentioned in reliable sources, then this is mere speculation and original research on your part, and thus does not have a place in Wikipedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:27, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh! Cool! I have Asperger's - so I'm an Indigo too! This changes everything. SteveBaker (talk) 16:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Of course you are. You wouldn't even be arguing here if you weren't... -- Nazar (talk) 11:32, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I haven't read any books by Donna Williams, but she's obviously a notable independent author, and a quick search reveals her thoughts on indigos published in her blog. I'd guess what she writes in her blog is likely to be used in the books as well (we must verify it, though). -- Nazar (talk) 09:55, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Invalid placement of criticism

There is no question in my mind that the assertion that the concept of IC is "pseudoscientific" belongs in the criticism section. The main definition section should be provide an unibiased description of the topic without resorting to editorializing. It is especially unsettling to see this sort of thing in the first sentence or two. There is no question about the author's about IC from the onset. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bknewyork (talk • contribs) 19:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

No - I strongly disagree. From the perspective of Wikipedia's rules on fringe theories and pseudoscience, the most important message to get across in the very first sentence or two is that "Indigo children is pseudoscience" - that's what the reliable sources say - and it is by far the single most important message on the subject that we need to impart. As WP:FRINGE clearly states: "While pseudoscience may in some cases be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description or prominence of the mainstream views." So the mainstream view absolutely has to be right there, front and central in the lede - lest it be obfuscated by the remaining text. SteveBaker (talk) 22:43, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The article lists the overall description of the subject, not just the definition from a single point of view. To move this into a criticism section and out of the lede would go against the WP:NPOV policy, specifically WP:PSCI: The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included. Since this is what reliable sources describe the subject as, it would go against the NPOV policy to bury this information in a criticism section. - SudoGhost 23:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I can understand your frustration at what you perceive to be a negative bias, but pseudoscience is not a negative condition. It is just a denotation, similar to "religion" or even "metamorphic." Though it is commonly used as an insult, there is nothing inherently wrong with it- it is not a criticism. At least not in my opinion, and I strongly urge you to not think of it that way as well. TielKiri (talk) 04:02, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. Look it up in any dictionary. The word "pseudoscience" merely says that the discipline or idea is something that could be scientifically tested - but which has not been tested. That's clearly a true statement about IC. Many of the claims that are made for IC are easy to test for experimentally. The authors of the various books on this subject have utterly failed to do that. Hence, by the simple dictionary definition, the idea of Indigo Children is a pseudoscience. Consider, for example hypnosis. It seems to work for people - yet there is no solid scientific basis for it. It is a pseudoscience. Things like polygraph "lie detectors", psychoanalysis, chiropractics and acupuncture are also pseudosciences - even though all of them are widely accepted and seem to work (at least to some degree). Being a pseudoscience doesn't necessarily mean "wrong" or "bad" or "evil"...although that is very often the case. SteveBaker (talk) 13:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

As I said above on this talk page, the article here basically fails to convey the actual idea of IC. It focuses on representing the views of its critics and skeptics, who in most cases don't even bother to look deeper into the meaning, background and implications of the concept. The rendition is squared, over-simplified and deprived of its philosophical/spiritual depth to conveniently fit into the skeptics' general pattern of derision. No credit is given to the positive results of implying the IC ideas in education, neither to the overwhelming volume of material available and broad public welcoming response to the concepts involved. A bunch of narrow-minded "guardians" cut off any information which does not fit into the scope of their own primitive definitions. In my view, only time will set the things right, as the overall approach becomes more flexible and open to abstract intuitive concepts. Currently, the predominant Wiki-community does not seem mature enough for adequate perception of topics like IC. -- Nazar (talk) 11:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know why you are surprised by that.

The "actual idea of IC" is ill-defined. No two authors (or even the same author in two or more consecutive books on the subject) fully agree about what an IC actually is. There is no authoritative definition that can be supported by WP:RS. We're not going to write about every single one of those authors and their own un-researched opinions because those are all primary sources of the worst kind. Without 'authority', no one author can lay claim to the right to define what an IC actually is. So we really don't have much solid ground to go on for a comprehensive description. On the other hand, the mainstream view is really solid and 100% unanimous - and that is something we can write about. What you seem to want from Wikipedia is free rein to write about all of this philosophical/spiritual stuff - without having the reliable, secondary and tertiary sources to back up what you want to say. But that's 100% disallowed by Wikipedia rules (which is very good thing BTW).

These "narrow-minded guardians" of whom you speak are in fact people who support the very foundations of Wikipedia. The rules under which we all given permission to use this web site. Editing Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right - and that privilege is granted under the strict understanding that you'll follow the rules, policies and guidelines laid out by the community. The rules are not arbitary, they've evolved over the past 10 years with input from thousands of people who care enough to want to write a solid encyclopedia - and they work. If you don't like those rules - you can discuss them on their various talk pages and try to work towards a change in policy (good luck with that!) - or you can go find some other online encyclopedia to edit. What you can't do is ignore these community-agreed standards and continue to edit here (caveat: WP:IAR). The "guardians" are here to make sure that we all abide by community standards such as WP:FRINGE, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NOR and so forth. What you call "narrow minded", I'd describe as "well focused" - it's a thin line!

I can't count the number of people who support fringe theories like this one who feel like you do - but this website simply isn't set up to write glowing descriptions of things that aren't a part of the mainstream view. Yes, we really are a boring, mainstream encyclopedia that isn't open to new ideas! Hooray!...because that's also the reason we're the 5th most popular website on the entire Internet and have become the single largest repository of boring, mainstream knowledge that the world has ever seen. If, as a reader, you want summaries of the writings of non-mainstream authors in fringe topics, there are plenty of other online resources for you to consult...I strongly advise you to read Wikipedia only if you want the mainstream view.

If/when mainstream science discovers children with notable genetic differences, physical changes, purple auras, functional telepathy and all of the other woo-woo that goes along with IC - then I'm 100% sure that Wikipedia will write about it - but until there is an article in "Nature" reporting on this stunning new revelation, this article will continue to follow the mainstream view which is clearly saying that this whole thing is a pile of complete hogwash pushed out by unscrupulous authors who are out to make a quick buck from naive parents.

SteveBaker (talk) 12:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I see in Nazar's viewpoint, he believes that the article is failing to convey they actual meaning of IC, is biased towards the viewpoints of skeptics, does not give due credit towards authors (and other sources of information), or those who believe in it, and that those who wish to keep the article in its current state are strangling any opportunity to improve it.

What I see in SteveBaker's viewpoint is that he believes that the idea of IC has no set standard (and lacking an authoritative figure is thus a problem that cannot be remedied), that even if we were to ignore that then the sources would be unreliable as they are un-researched and un-tested, that the guardians (who I assume are the admins) are doing their job of protecting Wikipedia's rules and regulations, that the rules must be obeyed, that Wikipedia was made for mainstream information, and that this article should follow the mainstream view rather than others which he sees as being "hogwash."

The first thing that I feel I should point out is the banner at the top of the page calling for cool heads (for all parties). The second is that the mere fact that SteveBaker is discussing this with someone else makes the subject non-unanimous. I am not well versed enough in knowledge pertaining to IC to debate the lack of consistency in IC, but considering that I (neutral on the topic) haven't read much about it, I highly doubt that SteveBaker (who is rather biased against it) has actually made any effort to check if this is true (though the mere fact that he visited the IC page may counter that argument). So, since we've gotten past that, I can point out that the mere fact that it is a pseudoscience verifies that it is un-tested (though un-researched is a different story- the authors could easily have researched it through other books, interview/word of mouth, etc.), but as it's status as a pseudoscience is mentioned at the top of the page, the sources should be able to be used. As for the rules being obeyed, I entirely agree, but nevertheless, see WP:IAR, which SteveBaker apparently mentioned himself. This doesn't mean that we should toss them to the winds, though.

Though Wikipedia was not made to "write glowing descriptions of things that aren't part of the mainstream view," neither was it made to beat down these ideas, and it also wasn't made to write things that are a part of the mainstream view- it was made to write both mainstream views and others. If it were made only to write about mainstream views, then we should delete this page- not use it to beat it's topic down.

As for Nazar's viewpoint, I, too see a bit of unbiased material in the webpage (namely the fact that a large portion the "Relationships to ADHD" section has little to actually do with its relationship and the large swaths of the article being used to mention critics and their beliefs rather than the actual belief in it). The credit ratio between IC believers and critics is relatively balanced, being 7:8, with a total of 7 neither for nor against it and several being used more than once. Even so, the fact that they are even is in and of itself not a very good thing. I am not recommending that the criticism be taken out- far from it; it has a right to be included- but it does provide credibility to Nazar's previous point that the article does not provide depth to the belief. For example: the page on Christianity has only two paragraphs of criticism out of a page long enough to contain 288 sources (though it does direct you to a criticism page).

Also, the admins are here to keep the rules enforced. That they do their jobs is no reason to call them names. Nor is the actions of a few reason to call the "predominant Wiki-community... [not] mature enough for adequate perception of topics such as IC." We have all perceived it- we just came up with different reactions. Claiming that you own opinion is superior to other is by no means neutral nor unbiased.

TielKiri (talk) 21:52, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't actually speaking specifically about Wiki-admins. There are always Guardians who's job is to protect the common sense and oppose various crazy ideas, lest these get too crazy and totally out of control. Such guardians are there in every sphere of life. It's the natural balance which keeps the evolution going. Thank you for reminding me about courtesy of discussion style, though, it can always be improved; and I encourage everyone to see my words in a more flexible manner, without looking for any personal offenses. None were intended. -- Nazar (talk) 22:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

It is never wise to just assume what other editors have or have not read. Especially me because I read two or three books every week - and I read about everything and anything. I have actually read "The Indigo Children: The New Kids Have Arrived" by Carroll and Tober, and I read a good chunk of "Indigos: The Quiet Storm" by Altaras and Tappe before I couldn't stand it any more! I've also skimmed through a great many other books on the subject looking specifically for the sections where they describe "What an Indigo is". What is super-spectacularly-abundantly clear from all of these turgid works is that every author feels the need to put their own stamp on the matter by adding more and more "symptoms" of Indigo-ness, while ignoring many (and sometimes *all*) of those put about by others writing about the field. Since not one of these authors has done a scrap of solid research of any kind whatever in the field of child development - they are of course at liberty to write whatever they want. Since they are all making money from writing these books - what they write is what parents of difficult children wish to read...which is that their kids are "special".

So here is the problem for this article: How do we complete the sentence "An Indigo child is..." with references to back up that claim? We simply cannot. Because the available books by proponents of the subject are all over the map as regards "symptoms" - and nobody in the field is any more authoritative (in Wikipedia terms) than any other. A consequence of that for an authoritative encyclopedia is that we have to limit ourselves quite strictly to what can be reported from reliable sources. Hence we're not going to write a long article about how Indigos have an invisible purple aura - because some authors assert that this is true while others put it down to synesthesia. We can't say that Indigos are natural telepaths because some books say "empaths" instead. We can't say that Indigo-ness is related to autism or asperger syndrome because that is a statement of a medical nature that requires a medically reliable source. Truly, there is almost nothing we can say about the nature of this claim that is sufficiently authoritative for an encyclopedia article. If we don't abide by Wikipedia's guidelines, we'll just be writing yet another bullshit book full of the random guesses and opinions of whichever pro-Indigo editors happen to drift through here.

If we had even one serious article, written in a mainstream, peer-reviewed child psychology or child development journal that described what an Indigo Child actually is and offered evidence to show it - then maybe we could say more on the subject. But we don't...so that's that.

What we have is shifting sands from the authors of junk-science books on the subject - and a few solid rocks that say that the whole topic is nonsense. We have to anchor this article to those rocks - because (rightly or wrongly) that's what Wikipedia demands.

You might be right about simply deleting this entire article - but the trouble with that is that this is a notable topic - and Wikipedia strives to have an article about every notable topic. I also think we owe it to the world to provide the mainstream view on this subject (which is that it's all a load of complete and utter nonsense).

So, what are we left with? Wikipedias rules and guidelines on how fringe articles should be written. I submit that we are doing that - and if we fail in some regard to do so, then I'm all for fixing it. But repeatedly telling us that the article is "biassed" or "POV" because it isn't filled with exciting news about what Indigo children are all about is to utterly miss the point about what Wikipedia is, and what it stands for in terms of notability, verifiability and mainstream coverage.

SteveBaker (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Since it was brought up in the context, I'd like to share that I actually haven't read any of Indigo Books. I'm in the process of slowly going through the Kryon series (which I find spiritually inspiring and containing some interesting insights and concepts). I personally find the Indigo subject quite distorted, and since Carroll's Indigo books are written by him personally (not in cooperation with Kryon), I expect them to be of somewhat lower inspirational quality than the Kryon series (that making them not a high priority reading). I do agree that the subject is heavily abused by those who wish to make a livelihood selling credulous parents the things they like to hear about their kids. But, in my view, it's not the complete story though. My feeling is that there's a valuable spiritual essence behind all the chatter, although it's being rendered by the authors (including Carroll) in much distorted way.

As to verifying, validating, describing etc., I'd say you formulate the tasks here in a manner in which they just can not be resolved, because of the nature of the subject. If you cast away all the various (often contradictory) claims surrounding the topic, what would be left is a very abstract and mostly spiritual idea, which can hardly be broken down to measurable statistics. If specific claims are being made by some authors, they are merely there to convey the idea to those who "believe in science". It's just another kind of wording, but the essence remains beyond the strict "scientific" definitions.

Finally, "science" is only one of possible paradigms of describing the reality; moreover, its boundaries and scope of acceptability are shifting with the time.

My own feeling here would be that the best Wikipedia can do in this case is just give a broader overview of existing definitions (however contradictory and unverified they could be). Because that is what accomplishes the task of conveying the background spiritual concept. And, from the above I'd say Steve hasn't managed to grasp that concept, although he seems to have read much more on Indigos than me. It's not in the letter, it's in the spirit.

-- Nazar (talk) 17:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

So you believe that this "Kryon" who is a "love-filled and empowering angelic being" according to at least a couple of fan sites wrote those books? Weren't they written by people who "channelled" Kryon or do we believe this angelic being sent the manuscripts to the publisher himself? Even assuming that this creature exists and that channeling actually works - there is still the problem that many, many people claim to be channeling him - and they all have different stories to tell as a result. So if Kryon doesn't talk to us directly, how the heck does Wikipedia know which of the many contradictory channelers to believe?

Oh! Wait! I think I just channeled Kryon too...hold on...he's saying..."Indigo Children is a load of bullcrap". Huh! Well, what do you know? I was right all along.

Now prove me wrong and all of the others right. You can't - it's unfalsifiable. Anyone anywhere can invent any supernatural being they like and claim that this being is saying whatever they want to add authority to. Why would you ever believe such nonsense?

Anyway - it doesn't matter - you think that Wikipedia should publish material "however contradictory and unverified they could be" - and that simply ain't gonna happen. We have rules here - and WP:V is one of the most important ones. Let me quote it for you: "All information in Wikipedia must be verifiable, but because other policies and guidelines also influence content, verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. Verifiability, and not truth, is one of the fundamental requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia; truth, of itself, is not a substitute for meeting the verifiability requirement. No matter how convinced you are that something is true, do not add it to an article unless it is verifiable.".

You say "it's not in the letter, it's in the spirit". Well, this is Wikipedia and you couldn't be more wrong. It is ENTIRELY in the letter and the spirit doesn't matter a damn.

So you can scream and kick and complain all you want - none of this nonsense makes it into our beloved encyclopedia unless it's verifiable - and it isn't. So you're not ever going to get what you want. Period.

SteveBaker (talk) 20:06, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

"many people claim to be channeling him..." -- many claim, but few actually do. And those who do, they aren't always faithful too in translating the messages they get. It's a path of many temptations. I'd say Carroll is far from being perfect, but for Kryon he's likely the best channel we've got atm. Also, the clarity of channelling has its own ebbs and tides. One needs to filter and watch it...

"So you can scream and kick and complain all you want - none of this nonsense makes it into our beloved encyclopedia" -- no need to scream and kick. It's already all over Wikipedia. Trying to beat it down only sifts away the weaker concepts. And in doing that you make the core ideas stronger.

"So you're not ever going to get what you want" -- why do you think that I want anything specific?

I'm just participating in the discussion here, expressing my points of view on the topic, and trying to be helpful. Sources abound. And it's only a matter of time till the ideas get formalized. There will be more academic publications on that as well.

On a side note, your emotional reactions and peppery argumentation style are very "indigo" ;) No other word describes it better...

-- Nazar (talk) 22:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Further discussion of this is truly pointless. You're not going to effect any significant change to the direction of this article without solid reliable sources - and you just don't have them or any realistic prospect of ever getting them. SteveBaker (talk) 14:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Indigo children/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

Rated article as Start-class. Rationalization follows. -Wooty Woot? contribs 03:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC) == Strengths == Article is relatively well referenced. POV is not a large issue here - the article is well balanced. Articles on pseudoscientific phenomena are usually not this well balanced, which is nice. Lead section is relatively well done and presents the article's subject well for a general audience External links section is free of spam and balanced == Weaknesses == Some references are incorrectly done - for example, using external links rather than reference tags. Adding to the point above, some news articles that could be used as sources are simply linked to in the external links section, and news articles that ARE used as sources are not correctly referenced. The article seems sort of clunky. I have done some reorganization. No images to be found. May have WP:MOS issues. Some sentence structures are unclear, needs a general copyedit. This article is completely biased and should not be in Wikipedia unless noted as an opinion piece. There is no objectivity at all in the article. Reference number [3] has been moved to a new address. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/nr.2009.12.3.60 — Preceding unsigned comment added by SVTVRX (talk • contribs) 20:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Last edited at 20:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC). Substituted at 20:33, 3 May 2016 (UTC)