Talk:Indigo children

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)

An attempt to garner some sources

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

• Creating an Inclusive School. by Richard A. Villa. ISBN 978-1416600497. -- references Carroll's 1999 Indigo publication.

Worthless - cites Carroll on two pages [1], [2], neither one of which actually mentions or discusses the concept of indigo children. So no. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:11, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. It actually says that the practices recommended by Carroll and Tober in their Indigo books (Carroll & Tober, 1999) are "beginning to gain attention in our schools". "Recognizing and capitalizing on the beauty and power of all diversity can be nurtured in our schools. Treating everyone with dignity and respect, valuing cooperation, and promoting mutual support and responsibility toward our fellow community members are just a few of the practices for promoting unity that have been proposed (by Carroll & Taber, 1999) and are beginning to gain attention in our schools."

Yes, and note the complete lack of the word "indigo" in that sentence. Too vague, nothing specific, unusable. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

"practices for promoting unity that have been proposed (by Carroll & Taber, 1999)" are the practices proposed for treating indigos. See reference list of this book, where "Carroll & Taber, 1999" is "The Indigo Children: The New Kids Have Arrived" -- Nazar (talk) 17:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• Indigo children: gestalt therapeutic guidelines for parents and caretakers; A Christian Perspective. Grobler, Hermanus Bosman. University of South Africa. June 2003

Doubtful, the author has no other publications, no citations, and the topic is not improved by adding another layer of invalid, anti-scholarly religious posturing. Plus, it's not a book, it's a Master's thesis. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:11, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's an independent publication, and a master's thesis is obviously a work of academic standards, verified and reviewed. It gives a valuable perspective on the subject. Its characteristic as "another layer of invalid, anti-scholarly religious posturing" is ungrounded. -- Nazar (talk) 09:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Has it appeared in a peer-reviewed journal? I see no reason to give this any weight. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

How many other refs in that article (including skeptic ones) appeared in peer-reviewed scientific journals? I see no reason to give more weight to speculations of journalists and skeptics than to an academic work reviewed according to the requirements of master's thesis. -- Nazar (talk) 17:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• From Changelings to Crystal Children: An Examination of ‘New Age’ Ideas About Autism. Mitzi Waltz. Journal of Religion, Disability & Health. Volume 13, Issue 2, 2009 -- could we link this to the other material about crystals and autism we've got at hand from pro-indigo authors and produce a section on it?

The abstract doesn't mention indigo children, making it worthless unless there is an explicit link. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:11, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Indigos and Crystals are overlapping terms and have been linked by many authors on the topic. I've inserted references to Tappe on that subject into the article, there are also similar statements by Carroll and other authors. The autism connection is also obvious. -- Nazar (talk) 08:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Here's one more:

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

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

This has a bare five mentions of the word and represents the author's non-notable theorizing about the phenomenon within his personal theory of art.

Five mentions is a lot. I doubt all skeptic refs have more than that. Why should it be less notable than skeptic refs? Also, it's not the number of occurrences of word "indigo" which establishes the notability of a reference. -- Nazar (talk) 17:11, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

And one more yet:

• Integral Psychology And An Artistic View Of Mental Disturbance. Elliot Benjamin.

This is a random webpage, failing WP:RS. It appears to be self-published. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:11, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The page you referenced is just a full text provided by the author for convenience. The material itself is referenced in Journal of Humanistic Psychology (as well as the above article), which, I think, is not self-published. -- Nazar (talk) 09:07, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

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

I've searched the JHP for the article and couldn't find it. Benjamin seems to reference it in another article in 2008, citing 2006, but a review of all 2006 articles didn't turn up this title. Before this can be discussed, a full set of citation information would be required. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• “There Are Many Flavors of the Truth.” Opposing and Embracing Science in a New Age Worldview. by Feline Perrenet. Faculty of Social Sciences and the Erasmus School of History, Culture and Communication. Erasmus University Rotterdam. Supervisor: dr. Stef Aupers. Second reader: prof. dr. Dick Houtman.

  "In the American literature on Indigo Children, Crystal Children, Star Children, etc., there is not one overarching term present to refer to all these types of children, although sometimes they are called ‘The Children of Now’ (e.g. Blackburn Losey 2006). In the Netherlands, however, the Dutch term ‘Nieuwetijdskinderen’ is commonly employed to refer to Indigo Children, Crystal Children and Star Children alike. Therefore, in this study an English translation of this Dutch term is employed to refer to the phenomenon of these children: ‘The Children of the New Age.’" -- hope this citation explains the linkage clearly enough :) -- Nazar (talk) 09:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

• "Autism and the Edges of the Known World: Sensitivities, Language, and Constructed Reality" by Olga Bogdashina. -- there's a direct linkage between autism, indigo and crystals. See page 173. -- Nazar (talk) 10:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

A single mention on one page that points out New Age ideas are full of speculation and lack skepticism. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

And that single mention connects in a perfect way the terms indigos, crystals and autism. -- Nazar (talk) 17:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• P. M. H. Atwater, Th.D., L.H.D., Ph.D. (Hon.) Beyond the Indigo Children. http://store.innertraditions.com/isbn/1-59143-051-8 -- Nazar (talk) 10:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

From a publisher of New Age claptrap with no scholarly merit. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

From a notable author of over a dozen of books, researcher, holder of titles and awards (see related Wiki page). Clearly not one of authors who originally introduced the term indigo. A worthwhile perspective. -- Nazar (talk)

• William Stillman. Autism and the God Connection. ISBN 978-1402206498. The Autism Spectrum and Beyond. Children of the New Earth magazine. "Indigo children could be included in my generalization of many individuals on the autism spectrum" -- Nazar (talk) 10:32, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The personal feelings of a non-notable individual with Aspergers published by a non-scholarly publishing house. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

A notable author on the subject of autism. Clearly not originally involved into indigo subject as well. Authored over a dozen of books. "His books have been featured on "The Glenn Beck Show" and the NBC-TV hit "Parenthood." To date, his books have been translated in three languages." -- Nazar (talk) 17:27, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• Several critical publications in Russian monthly magazine Школьный психолог (School Psychologist):
  • ДЕТИ ИНДИГО: осторожно – мистификация. by Александр САВЕНКОВ, доктор психологических наук, доктор педагогических наук
  • Фантазия в темно-синих тонах by Сергей СТЕПАНОВ
  • «Мой сын — индиго…» by Галина РЕЗАПКИНА, психолог

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

Overall these sources indicate, still, that the indigo concept is not scholarly, speculative, and not developed in a meaningful way. I've requested a reprint of the Waltz article, as a scholarly text it's the best source listed for any expansions ot the page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

"indigo concept is not scholarly, speculative, and not developed in a meaningful way" -- the concept is a New Age one. Therefore, it can not be scholarly in a traditional way (neither by its origin, nor by its applications and associated theory and terminology). But it's developed broadly enough and has sufficient notability and implications for publications of scientific standards to attempt assessing it, in spite of its relative historical freshness and young age. The connection to the topics of autism and Asperger's is obvious. The broad use of correlated terms, like crystal children, star children, New Age children, has been shown and confirmed. -- Nazar (talk) 17:35, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Yep, it is a New Age concept, which means we apply WP:FRINGE and don't pretend it's something real. The scholarly studies, of which there appear to be few, don't take it seriously. In fact, they are mostly absent - the majority of publications are books from shoddy publishing houses. The balance of text should be given to skeptical summaries. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:55, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

• "Exasperating or Exceptional? Parents' Interpretations of Their Child's ADHD Behavior" Heather C. Lench, Linda J. Levine, and Carol K. Whalen. Journal of Attention Disorders, first published on December 12, 2011 -- Nazar (talk) 19:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• "Raising a child with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: a parents' perspective" by Cosser, Catherine Phyllis. University of South Africa. June 2005. -- Nazar (talk) 19:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Cosser simply summarizes Caroll and Tober, and mentions that one parent she studied identifies her child with ADHD as being an Indigo instead. 'Linda believes she has proof of Ruth being an Indigo child because a photo taken of Ruth's aura clearly shows it to be "blue and violet."' The paper, following mainstream science, does not affirm the existence of Indigo children but does affirm the existence of ADHD.

Lench, et al. also affirms the existence of ADHD and only studies some parents who believe their children are Indigo Children (but does not affirm those parents' beliefs). Ian.thomson (talk) 20:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not trying to offer scholarly references which affirm the existence of indigo children as a scientifically designated category. It's a New Age meme. I'm giving references to scholarly sources which discuss the meme, its usage and popular interpretations by those who use it. -- Nazar (talk) 20:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• PARENTAL EXPLANATORY MODELS OF CHILDREN’S ATTENTION DEFICIT HYPERACTIVITY DISORDER. A dissertation presented to the Faculty of Saybrook Graduate School and Research Center by Carolyn Williams Orlando. San Francisco, California. December 2007 -- Nazar (talk) 20:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

• Freeman, Joan (2007) "Book Review: The Indigo Children: The New Kids Have Arrived, edited by Lee Carroll and Jan Tober," Gifted Children: Vol. 2: Iss. 1, Article 7. -- Nazar (talk) 21:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

• А.Г. Кузнецова. Indigo Phenomenon. Федеральное агентство по образованию. Государственное образовательное учреждение высшего профессионального образования «Рязанский государственный университет имени С.А. Есенина». АКТУАЛЬНЫЕ ВОПРОСЫ ГУМАНИТАРНЫХ НАУК ГЛАЗАМИ СТУДЕНТОВ. Материалы 3-й Международной научной конференции студентов и молодых ученых, 23—24 апреля 2008 года. Рязань 2008. ISBN 978-5-88006-552-3 -- Nazar (talk) 21:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

• Indigo Awakening: A Doctor's Memoir of Forging an Authentic Life in a Turbulent World. Janine Talty. Elite Books, 2009. ISBN 1600700632, 9781600700637 -- Nazar (talk) 21:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

• Beyond the Medicalisation of "Challenging Behaviour"; or Protecting our children from "Pervasive Labelling Disorder"’ by Richard House (Ph.D., an NHS counsellor, a Steiner Waldorf early years teacher and an academic writer/editor). Published in The Mother magazine, issues 4-6, 2002-3 -- Nazar (talk) 22:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

• Indigos in Hawai’i: A Phenomenological Study of the Experience of Growing Up with Spiritual Intelligence. Lulu Bagnol: Doctor of Health Sciences doctorate; Jeff Alexander, Associate Professor, Doctor of Health Sciences Program; Helen Ewing, Director and Assistant Professor, Doctor of Health Sciences Program; Department of Interdisciplinary Health Sciences, Arizona School of Health Sciences, A.T. Still University -- Nazar (talk) 22:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

This last reference is a doctorate student's paper, I'm not seeing any peer review there and the acknowledgement at the end seems to suggest that it isn't exactly a neutral publication. - SudoGhost 23:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Published in PACIFIC HEALTH DIALOG MARCH 2011, VOL. 17, NO. 1. ( http://www.pacifichealthdialog.org.fj/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=90&Itemid=64 ) The acknowledgement expresses thanks to Dr. Helen Ewing, Dr. Jeff Alexander, and Doris Chu, as well as additional thanks to Nancy Ann Tappe for spiritual guidance, to Dr. Kathleen Mathieson, OWC staff, etc. The usual traditional acknowledgement and thanks to those who inspired the author.

The publication is obviously peer-reviewed according to all academic standards. "PHD, the premier journal for Pacific health, is marketed to major health professional groups and those with an interest in Pacific health and welfare. It contains peer reviewed original papers, case reports, communications, viewpoints and opinions, reviews, and news from Pacific health institutions contributed by local and international health professionals" http://www.pacifichealthdialog.org.fj/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=74&Itemid=57

The SJR for that journal is (drum roll please) 0.03 - or to put it another way, between 2004 and 2011, papers in this journal were only cited in papers published in other journals a total of 9 times! That is spectacularly bad. The "R" in WP:RS stands for "Reliable" - and a journal that's been in business for 7 years and in all that time gets only nine cites in other journals is not by any measure "reliable" - this is a junk reference. SteveBaker (talk) 14:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

"SJR for that journal is (drum roll please) 0.03" -- which puts it at well above 12000th position among nearly 19000 other journals in that rating. Is there any Wiki-policy which requires SJR to be above certain threshold for peer-reviewed publications?

And, btw, I just checked that SJR index for "Nova Religio" and "Journal of Religion, Disability & Health", which both are used for skeptic info on the subject, and their SJR is (drum roll please ;) ) 0.026, which puts them well below 16000th position in that glorious rating :) -- Nazar (talk) 15:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

As WP:SCHOLARSHIP puts it: "One can confirm that discussion of the source has entered mainstream academic discourse by checking the scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes. A corollary is that journals not included in a citation index, especially in fields well covered by such indexes, should be used with caution, though whether it is appropriate to use will depend on the context.". So here we have an article with zero cites in a journal that's managed just nine cites in seven years(!!!) - and according to WP:SCHOLARSHIP that clearly can't count as mainstream - which is what WP:FRINGE requires of us. SteveBaker (talk) 19:18, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The above is a very tendentious reading of the policy.

• Firstly, the reference IS included into the discussed index and has a higher index than all other references used in the article so far.
• Secondly, if you want to compare the reference to publications in other fields, which have much higher index, then such a comparison is not adequate for the subject in question. A high citation index is a result of a publication being "popular" or "highly significant" for scientific community in general (all fields' inclusive). The highest index is received by publications which are either groundbreaking, contain information on the studies which are the "milestones" in the development of science, or are very actively researched and cross-referenced by multiple independent participants, or are published by the "key people" or "key research teams", or just get better attention and financing, etc... There are also other factors, both objective and subjective. Low "scientific popularity" is not necessarily an indication of low quality of publication. In fact, there's a vast majority of peer-reviewed professional journals which have a comparable range of citation index, and a vast majority of scientific publications which are not cited elsewhere at all. This is usually the case for most mid- or low-importance publications.
• Thirdly, the claims made and discussed are not WP:FRINGE. There's no scientific assertion that indigos do have telepathic powers, are coming from the stars with a special mission, or whatever other extraordinary ideas. It's an overview of life approach related to certain belief systems and its social, developmental, attitude building, cultural and other implications. If you don't like the term "indigo" being used in a positive way and treated as a part of a positive emotional identity in that publication, that is not reason enough for discarding this publication or giving it less weight than other peer-reviewed publications.
• And, lastly, the reference is just as good for establishing a mainstream view on the subject as other peer-reviewed references, and probably much better than press refs. We do not have any significantly stronger or higher rated/cited scientific references for this subject at the moment. Your eventual personal dislike of the authors' spiritual views, their positive use of "indigo" label, or the angle at which the phenomenon is presented in the publication, is not relevant for Wikipedia. It's obviously a publication which has been throughly vetted according to scientific scrutiny.

-- Nazar (talk) 07:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the main reason to ignore the article is it is a primary source (from the abstract, "This phenomenological study explored the lived experiences of 10 adult Indigos (≥ 18+ years old) on the island of Oahu, Hawai`i (7 females, 3 males; mean age = 52.4 ± SD).") The fact that it's built on phenomenological principles (i.e. "how people feel about stuff") and attempts to take pictures of people's auras (which don't exist) is yet more reason to ignore it.

As for the statement "Thirdly, the claims made and discussed are not WP:FRINGE. There's no scientific assertion that indigos do have telepathic powers, are coming from the stars with a special mission, or whatever other extraordinary ideas", may I present you the following excerpts from the paper?

• there is an extraordinary group of children who have high intelligence and intuition, healing abilities, and a strong spiritual connection with God. Some researchers claim these unique children are a whole new human evolution
• During the 1970’s tens of thousands of these children were found in China. These highly intelligent and clairvoyant children were gathered, institutionalized, and trained for military intelligence by the government
• Indigo children display a range of behavior associated with their special abilities

So again, the reference shouldn't be used and again the concept is not scientific. Nazar, I don't know if you think you are indigo or you think your kid is indigo or what, but please just let it go. We're not here to promote pseudoscience. Start a blog or something. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I seem to get more critical response here than I'd expect from a blog. This is also a relatively neutral platform (that's at least what it was supposedly designed and intended to be), where the validity of information can be tested and versatile views co-exist. Besides, my contributions seem really needed by certain Wikipedia sectors. So, I really do not see who are you to tell me I should leave? Or do you think Wikipedia is your private blog? It's my project just as much as it is yours. -- Nazar (talk) 16:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

As to what I think, please rest assured it's not what you think :) I'll give you a little hint, however: if this project was dominated by pro-indigo contributors, blinded by their beliefs and refusing to see the obvious flaws of their concept, I'd likely be on the other side of the argument ;) -- Nazar (talk) 16:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

If it were a blog I'd be free to point out this is patent nonsense based on long chains of speculation with no relation to physics, chemistry or reality, telepathy doesn't exist and these children just sound like mouthy brats whose parents taught them to be narcissistic. "Neutral" means "according to the attention given by mainstream experts". Who don't even think this is crap, because it's so non-noteworthy it only appears in flaky new age press or extremely low-tier journals with no real secondary attention. We don't need to treat this as if it were real; we shouldn't pretend it's credible. We don't need to include sources that treat it as credible, because it's not. The page should give a very basic overview of claims, then move on to criticisms. We shouldn't be writing it from the perspective of Tappe and her ilk. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

May all your dreams come true! Stay with us! :) Congrats on 4 mil articles, btw :) -- Nazar (talk) 18:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

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

• "Нікітчина Світлана. ОБДАРОВАНІ ДІТИ ІНДИГО – НАША РЕАЛЬНІСТЬ ЧИ АМЕРИКАНСЬКІ ДОМИСЛИ?" Гуманітарний вісник ДВНЗ «Переяслав-Хмельницький державний педагогічний університет імені Григорія Сковороди»: Збірник наукових праць. – Переяслав-Хмельницький, 2009. –Вип. 18. – 388 с. -- Nazar (talk) 15:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• Проходова Н. А.. Дети Индиго. Рекомендательный список литературы. Федеральное агентство по образованию. ГОУ ВПО «Новосибирский государственный педагогический университет». Новосибирск 2008. Lots of academic standard Indigo refs here. A list approved by Novosibirsk State Pedagogical University. -- Nazar (talk) 15:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Quote from Waltz

• "I've requested a reprint of the Waltz article, as a scholarly text it's the best source listed" that's what one of our most knowledgeable and active contributors (WLU) wrote about that 0.026 publication. But, by the by, could we request WLU to upload that reprint to some document shared viewing service (like scribd) so we can all examine that valuable material? -- Nazar (talk) 15:46, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

No. In my requests for reprints from authors I always indicate I will not share the publication and I adhere to that promise. I'm not engaging in copyright violation for a nonsense article like this one. As a fringe topic, the standard for extreme claims is always higher than the claims for the mainstream. If people want to claim that indigo children are psychic or have triple helix DNA or whatever nonsense they spout, that's fine. But wikipedia is not a soapbox for nonsense like this and we should report the mainstream position that the indigo child concept is little more than a face-saving rebranding for credulous parents easily separated from their money. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I just wasn't able to find the quotation you used in the article through search. Could you possibly provide somewhat broader context quotations? A few paragraphs at least? -- Nazar (talk) 16:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

You mean the Waltz paper I added here? Section is on pages 124-5, full quote is:

“ Unlike the changelings of old, the Indigo and Crystal Children are said to be friendly entities, which reconceptualizes the autistic traits associated with them as part of a positive identity. However, one can certainly see that there might be inherent dangers. Parents may deny obvious impairment and avoid helpful interventions, and may spend a great deal of money on interventions unlikely to be helpful. Virtue (2003), for example, recommends “attachment parenting,” chanting, meditation, yoga, and visualization exercises, amongst other things (pp. 157–165). Parents may also transmit belief systems to the child that are self-aggrandizing, confusing, or potentially frightening (for example, see Krider, 2002). ”

That's the only discussion of indigo children in the article, though there are minor and irrelevant mentions of crystal children elsewhere. It's a pretty good mainstream statement of the dangers of these concepts. Krider looks quite credulous but could be used to cite some basic facts - a reasonable source for star children as a synonym actually. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

crystal children aka star seed

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

New messages go at the bottom. Make sure you have reliable sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

With vague concepts like this, the best way of dealing with issues like these is probably simply to include these alternative names in the lead section and leave it at that. I don't see this as a particularly controversial point, but I also don't think it's worth trying to figure out the difference between the imaginary types. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The trouble is that once you start to throw around medical diagnosis (words like "Autism") - you are now making claims of a medical nature. That raises the bar for sources on Wikipedia from plain old WP:FRINGE/WP:RS standards to WP:MEDRS. WP:MEDRS says: "...biomedical information in articles [must] be based on reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge." - which will certainly result in us having to toss out all of the pro-Indigo references and speak only from the mainstream medical science view. IMHO, the claim that autism is involved is not backed by reliable mainstream medical science - so we simply can't say this in the first place.

Basically, we can't put this ridiculous claim into the article without some mainstream medical journal saying that it's true.

SteveBaker (talk) 16:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

rainbow children star seed etc

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

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

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

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

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

If the material is copyright, we should just delete it. It's irrelevant anyway, random webpages aren't reliable sources. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

www.childrenlights.com/Articles/the_children.htm

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

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

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

No, random web pages are not adequate. If no newspapers, independent books, scholarly publications or other reliable sources have documented these ideas, that strongly suggests they lack notability and we shouldn't talk about them here. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

over at amazon.com these BOOKS are published

Indigo, Crystal, & Rainbow Children by Doreen Virtue (Apr 15, 2005)-Abridged

The Children of Now: Crystalline Children, Indigo Children, Star Kids, Angels on Earth, and the Phenomenon of Transitional Children by Meg Blackburn Losey (Dec 1, 2006)

Indigo, Crystal & Rainbow Children - Who are we and Why are we here? (The Honest-to-God Series) by Aingeal Rose and AHONU (Apr 12, 2012)

Psychic Children: Revealing the Intuitive Gifts and Hidden Abilites of Boys and Girls by Sylvia Browne and Lindsay Harrison (Jul 1, 2008)

Page 15: ... our birthright. Indigo, Crystal, and Rainbow Children I can't even

Intuitive Child: A Guide to Understanding and Parenting Unusually Sensitive and Empathic Children by Catherine Crawford (Jan 1, 2009)

Conversations with the Children of Now: Crystal, Indigo, and Star Kids Speak About the World, Life, and the Coming 2012 Shift by Meg Blackburn Losey (Feb 1, 2008)

Excerpt - Page 5: "... Whether or not you believe in indigo or crystal children ...

Indigo, Crystal & Rainbow Children - Who are we and Why are we here? (The Honest-to-God Series) by Aingeal Rose and AHONU (Apr 12, 2012)

It's a term in wide use by new age and their books on amazon shows this.

I propose listing it as synonyms and similar terms in use by new age. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.94.2.90 (talk) 18:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

If all we did was list the synonyms, perhaps. We should not discuss any details regarding any of these synonyms unless there is an independent reliable source.

This discussion is of an incredibly unimportant fringe of a fringe idea, where basically anyone can say anything and there's no way to prove or disprove it. As wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, the further we get from the one notable concept, indigo children, the more tenuous things are and the less text and effort we should spend on it. The publishers of the books are of less and less reliability and I have very little inclination to trust any of them. I would much, much prefer leaving out these nonsense synonyms unless there is an independent, reliable source. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:47, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

ok how about list it under synonyms§

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

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

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

so how come the newest edition now has star seed crystaline children etc. as synonyms, when I added it it was deleted?

Primary source

I just removed the following source as a primary source.

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

Can you please substantiate your claim that the mentioned study is a primary source? I generally find this removal just a continuation of the above-discussed severe bias of skeptically minded editors, who just don't like any positive information about the subject being included into the article. It's likely the most reliable medical peer-reviewed source ever used in that article. Why should it have less weight than speculations of skeptics, based on nothing but personal opinions? -- Nazar (talk) 13:37, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:MEDRS#Definitions - "A primary source in medicine is one in which the authors directly participated in the research or documented their personal experiences. They examined the patients, injected the rats, filled the test tubes, or at least supervised those who did...A secondary source in medicine summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources, usually to provide an overview of the current understanding of a medical topic, to make recommendations, or to combine the results of several studies."

WP:PSTS - "Primary sources are very close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. An account of a traffic accident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the accident; similarly, a scientific paper documenting a new experiment is a primary source on the outcome of that experiment...Secondary sources are second-hand accounts, generally at least one step removed from an event. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them. For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research."

WP:USEPRIMARY#Uses_in_fields_other_than_history - "In science, data is primary, and the first publication of any idea or experimental result is always a primary source. Narrative reviews, systematic reviews and meta-analyses are considered secondary sources, because they are based on and analyze or interpret (rather than merely citing) these original experimental reports."

Original research and experiments are primary sources. This is uncontroversial on wikipedia. As a fringe topic, indigo children get an inherently different handling from say vitamin C, Barack Obama or other topics that are of mainstream interest. This maintains wikipedia's quality and prevents it from being a soapbox for nonscientific speculation, pseudoscience and nonsense. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I see your point. I'd still say this source is stronger than many other used in the article, and should be given appropriate attention. -- Nazar (talk) 16:54, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:USEPRIMARY is a subtle, nuanced guideline - there are times when a primary source is the best possible WP:RS for a statement (eg to back up a direct quotation or to demonstrate that some specific author does indeed hold some particular viewpoint) - but they can also be terrible sources (eg in a fringe article, it's all too easy to use primary sources to make unwarranted claims that some highly non-mainstream theory is "true" - and that would be "A Very Bad Thing"). So, here, in Indigo children (a fringe topic, for sure) - we really mustn't use primary sources to back up fringe claims because they can simply be the random opinions of any whack-job out there. Even if the source is a journal publication, if the theory it suggests is far from the mainstream, we need to have secondary sources to verify that this is indeed the mainstream view.

Another way to look at it is that when we say "Such-and-such is a fact" - and we provide WP:RS proof that someone claims it's a fact (in the form of a primary source) - then in a fringe topic where we're required to present the mainstream view as "fact", if there is any controversy about whether that primary source is mainstream or not then we're also going to need a reference to show that the primary source is indeed the mainstream view...and for that, we need a secondary source. It's like we're providing a secondary source that demonstrates that the primary source is indeed mainstream - if that is in any way controversial.

This is really only a problem in fringe topics where the literature abounds with marginal views that are far from the mainstream. In non-fringe topics, we don't really have that problem and primary sources are more useful (although secondary sources are greatly preferred). That goes double for medical topics (which this one is)...so for articles like this that are both fringe and medical - expect editors to demand iron-clad, gold-plated, diamond-encrusted second-source references for anything that's even fractionally controversial. SteveBaker (talk) 17:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Overall the study is a reasonable conclusion in line with the mainstream position and this page anyway - parents are happier lying to themselves about their children's diagnosis with a nonscientific cover story that reframes their behaviours as positive than they are facing the fact that their kid has, according to society and medicine, "something wrong with them". It certainly doesn't prove that indigo children exist, only that it's a convenient fiction and form of emotion-focussed coping.

I've requested a reprint from the authors, I'll see what it says. Their discussion may make the very point I do above, which is a reasonable inclusion. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)