Talk:Indigo children/Archive 2

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Request from Dezire321 

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

text: Sad to say, but Cracked is definitely not a reliable source. It is a humor website. SilverserenC 19:31, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Cracked mentions Indigo children in an article on bad parenting 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  I warned [[User:Nazar|Nazar]] about NPOV edits; he/she asked for an explanation here 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. SilverserenC 08:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Auras 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Original authors" are not Carroll and Tober 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: 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)
replies: text: Removed.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tag restated 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Archiving 

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

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Oh! Cool!  I have Asperger's - so I'm an Indigo too!  This changes everything. SteveBaker (talk) 16:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course you are. You wouldn't even be arguing here if you weren't... -- Nazar (talk) 11:32, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  ADHD or ASD? 

message: Substituted at 20:33, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment