Talk:Indigo children

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)

Pseudoscience

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

It is not WP:UNDUE to follow WP:FRINGE. The term is presented as a scientific one. Can you show any reliable sources that show that it adheres to a valid scientific method, has supporting evidence, or is in some other supports this scientific presentation? If not, it's pseudoscience by definition. - SudoGhost 14:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

"it's pseudoscience by definition" -- by who's definition? Your own? Or your skeptic friends here? This seems like an WP:OR. But, I stated above, I don't argue, there is some pseudoscience about it. Just provide that citation I asked about and you're good to go. I'm sure you can easily find another citation, if that one was a fail ref. Please follow the rules.

But that's not an issue, as I don't really mind "pseudo-science" being used and described as one of the attributes of Indigo children. The issue is that this is not the only attribute and not the only context in which this term is being used. And dictionary definitions point to it being a New Age concept as well as general descriptive attribute and meme used in some areas, which have really mostly nothing to do with either science or pseudo-science. If someone is called a hippy, an emo or something similar we don't call it pseudo-science, do we?

"The term is presented as a scientific one" -- is it? All over this article I don't seem to find a slightest shadow of this term being presented as a scientific. -- Nazar (talk) 14:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is presented as a scientific one and we've discussed this before on this talk page. This website, the one you describe as "the official website", describes it as "...the result of scientific observations". If that can't be backed up by scientific evidence, then guess what? That's pseudoscience, and not by "my definition", but per WP:FRINGE. "Dictionary definitions point to be being a New Age concept"? That's great! However, since when were they mutually exclusive terms? Moreover, why does the lede need to say nearly the same thing twice in a row? - SudoGhost 15:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Haha. So now you say Carroll is the official Indigo children source? That's BS. The concept is very wide and used by hundreds of different authors, in many different contexts. Some of them are very fringe indeed. Some are pseudo-scientific indeed. Some speak about paranormal auras indeed. And some other say yet other stuff. Obviously there's a lot of "science based" claims in Carroll's works and some scientific wording is used. But his works are spiritual writing first of all, and no one's gonna take them as serious scientific sources. If you want to describe all that in Wikipedia, I personally don't mind, you can put it all into expanded sections of that article. But that's not the core essence of the concept and not something for the lede. Much of it will also be your personal speculation, which does not belong into Wikipedia. -- Nazar (talk) 15:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Then Wikipedia isn't an encyclopedia either. Some of the content is encyclopedic, but there's also a lot of talk pages and help pages, so you can't call that an encyclopedia either. This article is a pseudoscientific subject, you can't use "But it's New Age" to remove what you don't like from the article. Oh, and "Haha"? Not that I don't enjoy being laughed at or anything, but if you're not here to discuss something civilly, there's no point in trying to discuss anything with you. The fact that you describe yourself as a "Pro-indigo contributor" kind of highlights why you're not exactly neutral on this subject, and why you've tried time and time again to remove pseudoscientific from the article. Maybe you can just wait until neutral editors simply die away. - SudoGhost 15:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

21st century lexicon

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

You're not using it just as a ref, you're essentially repeating the lede sentence all over again, that's the difference. Can it be a ref? Absolutely. Do you need to insert the entirety of the reference's text into the lede of the article, right after the lede, which says almost the same exact thing? Absolutely not. - SudoGhost 15:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you please quote that sentence, which "says almost the same exact thing"? Because I can't seem to find it there. Neither did I seem to notice any attempts on your side to save the ref for the article during your disruptive removals. -- Nazar (talk) 15:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

"Disruptive"? "Haha"? "That's BS"? If this is your idea of civil, I don't want any part of it. You're trying to copy the entirety of a reference into the article. Not only is that not looked well upon, but it's trying to in essence create two lede sentences. That's not beneficial to the article, if you want to do that, then get a consensus for the lede wording, but don't try to create two lede sentences to avoid doing that. - SudoGhost 15:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's your party's idea of being civil, I'm just returning the favor, only a small fraction of it, in fact. I noticed BS is a common "scientific abbreviation" for skeptics expressing their viewpoints here, so let's take it as "learned from true masters" :) And, let me repeat myself, where is that sentence, which "says almost the same exact thing"??? After you give that sentence, I'll go from that point on. -- Nazar (talk) 16:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

"Returning the favor"? I've never laughed at an editor nor did I call your edits disruptive. As for "your party", I'm not aware of being part of any "party"; I am an editor, my disagreeing with you does not place me in some group, nor does it warrant disrespectful comments due to what some third person has said. You need to drop this WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and until you do that I'm not interested in this "us v. them" push. Civility goes a long ways; "returning the favor" does not. See my previous comment, it is still my position on this. - SudoGhost 16:48, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm not in a hurry. And you have nothing to answer on point, as usually. I really wish wicked removers were banned from this project permanently. We'd have a better Wikipedia. Till then, I'm removing that false ref. -- Nazar (talk) 17:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

"I really wish wicked removers were banned"..."I'm removing that false ref". It's only "wicked" if you don't agree with it? You've removed a reference that you haven't read, in order to replace it with a {{citation needed}} tag. There are appropriate tags for that situation, but removing sources like that isn't appropriate. Since you apparently missed it ("nothing to answer on point"), I'll say it again: Not only can you not copy an entire reference like that, but you're trying to in essence create two lede sentences. That's not beneficial to the article. If you want to do that, then get a consensus for the lede wording, but don't try to create two lede sentences to avoid doing that. Now you can blissfully ignore that if you'd like, but that's not going to somehow cause your preferred content to magically appear in the article. - SudoGhost 18:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

This is a muddy situation.

• Firstly: the dictionary definition is at best a tertiary source - it would be a pretty poor choice for referencing such a statement in the lede. However, the way it's being used here is as a way to back up the fact that the dictionary really did say that - which makes it a fully acceptable source for a completely unacceptable statment (and, arguably, an egregious copyvio). If we were to remove the mention that this is the definition in that dictionary (as we must) - and using as a reference becomes incorrect.
• Secondly: this is quite possibly the only mainstream dictionary to define the term. If I go to Dictionary.com and search for (let's say) "elephant" - I get definitions from six different dictionaries. The fact that only ONE of the many dictionaries that dictionary.com searches had a definition suggest that we're giving undue weight to the fact that there even is a dictionary definition. Rather, our experience here on this article's talk page is that multiple references show that there truly isn't a single definition that even a fraction of the Indigo children promoters would agree with. Using a single dictionary in this way is a rather serious bias.
• Thirdly: the lede is supposed to summarize the remainder of the article. Since there is no discussion of the 21st Century lexicon's definition anywhere in the article, this sentence is not allowed in the lede because it's not summarizing anything.
• Fourthly: the main article has an entire section explaining the claimed characteristics of indigo's - much of it backed up by primary and secondary sources. The dictionary definition: "a term used for a powerful, intelligent, independent child who is believed to have an important spiritual impact" doesn't entirely jibe with our better-referenced claims - "an important spiritual impact" is hardly a valid summary of our findings from primary and secondary sources: "exhibit a strong innate sub-conscious spirituality from early childhood (which, however, does not necessarily imply a direct interest in spiritual or religious areas)"...so again, this dictionary definition isn't a summary of what is stated in the main article. The dictionary also states the these children really are "powerful, intelligent, independent" - which is a claim that's not backed up by WP:RS.
• So if this information from the dictionary is at all relevant to the article, then it should be in the body of the article - not the lede...and IMHO, the tertiary nature of the source makes it pretty useless for that also.

At any rate, since both sides have reached their WP:3RR limits and the debate is ongoing, I've reverted back to the way the article was before this started so that we can have time to consider what (if anything) should be done about this. IMHO, it's a bad addition to the lede...and would be at best a marginal addition to the body of the article. SteveBaker (talk) 20:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Dictionaries are adequate for definitions of well-understood and undisputed terms, indigo children is not such a term and is a poor choice to give a dictionary the definitive definition. In addition, sources need not be readily accessible to be used, they must be reliable. The CSI is an excellent parity source for a fringe topic like this. Nazar, if you want the source to be removed, you must demonstrate it is inaccurately summarized. The source was added by SteveBaker in November, 2010, as an editor in good standing you are basically accusing him of fabricating the citation. He went to the trouble of finding the citation, do him the same courtesy before removing it using a weak excuse. It very much looks like the source and text is being removed was because of a dislike for the information it verifies, not because it is genuinely believed the source doesn't provide adequate verification. There is considerable and obvious consensus against your actions, so please adjust them accordingly. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Anyone else starting to wonder when time for an RFC/U might be? Between the copyvio, the removal of a good source, and praising this POV-pushing edit warrior, we're getting a lot of evidence, and we all know there's more in the past. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:18, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

This might be a good reading related to above proposal. It's not really the first time certain people here suggest their opponents to drop the discussion, move to a private blog, or abandon any attempts to change what is written in the article here. I believe this is counter-productive to development of the content of any article in a dynamic environment (and especially an article like IC, which covers a very recent phenomenon, the notion and its area of use still being actively molded), as well as discouraging for users who are made feel like outsiders, whose attempts of positive input are disdained. -- Nazar (talk) 19:42, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

You might want to read the top of the page you linked, which says that it's humor, not even an essay, guideline, or policy. I'm serious. You've been engaging in all kinds of tendentious editing, and multiple users here are tired of your bullshit. If you could actually bring up something from WP:Wikilawyering in response, but seeing how it took you months to come up with that, it's pretty clear you couldn't. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:54, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I'm not really trying to sue you or someone else with some policy or guideline here. I was hesitating whether to reply your above suggestion, as it's not addressed directly to me (though it does relate to my actions). And it does not really sound friendly towards me. I find your general behavior and the wording you tend to use a bit offensive (e.g. "multiple users here are tired of your bullshit"). It also feels like you're trying to subtly intimidate and push out from the editing process an editor who does not share your point of view (just my personal feeling, not implying this is in fact your permanent and primary attitude). I wish to see Wikipedia as a positive project, which is open to people of good will regardless of their beliefs and standpoints. All my edits to this article have been directed at its constructive improvement. Moreover, I respectfully acknowledged the opinion of majority whenever it was against my edits. Therefore, I'm expressing the above concern. In this case it's not really much related to article content. It is my sincere wish we all could contribute to an atmosphere of mutual support, respect, learning and equality here. I'll be happy if you could adjust your position to better achieve it. Thank you again. -- Nazar (talk) 20:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

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

I've expressed my concerns above (and they are about attitude). As to your arguments against my edits in this article, I've been doing my best to find sources to satisfy the "social contracts" currently in force in this project. Please check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Indigo_children/Archive_3 (An attempt to garner some sources), as well as many other contributions made by me. Many of the sources I suggested are not WP:FRINGE at all, and do provide much better, broader exposure of the subject and its connotations. But, well, since the community here was not willing to accept these additions, I respected this decision in each individual case. Within a longer period of time I proposed many various sources, on various aspects of the article subject. The sources were notable press, primary and secondary publications, as well as academic sources. Your accusations about my edits not respecting the contracts here are poorly grounded and fail to recognize an editor's positive attempt to build a better article. On the side note, I find the way pro-indigo newbies are being treated here very harsh and unfriendly. I feel sorry for Wikipedia giving them a welcome like that. It's not really hard to see they mostly come with open heart and best wishes to build a better article (whatever that means for them). -- Nazar (talk) 20:52, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, your wording does not feel WP:Civil to me (in particular, I don't feel your repeated use of "bullshit" is the right way to go, and in my cultural environment it's not considered a part of polite discussion to say someone is "spitting in someone's face"). Let me repeat, I greatly respect the community here and never intended to spit at any of its members. For the sake of social contracts we try to respect, I suggest you adjust your expressive style. This is a mild request and I'm not going to sue you for not complying. My best regards and thanks (and I had no plans for any new edits to the article at this moment, so maybe we could just take a break here). -- Nazar (talk) 21:19, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm sticking by what I said. You've gone against WP:NPOV repeatedly, other editors have asked you to stop, you acknowledge the existence of the consensus but you still think you can get away with trying to subvert it with artificial sweetness. There is no other way to describe your interaction with consensus except that you've been spitting in the face of it, while hiding behind a saccharin smile. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:41, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

If you feel so dead sure about it, I encourage you to collect all the required evidence and submit a formal request for the system to take action against me (blocking, or whatever). Please be advised, however, that, IMHO, your position is distinctly offensive, non-constructive and not in accordance with WP:Civil and WP:AGF. Good luck. -- Nazar (talk) 16:11, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Except for this recent argument by you, you thankfully haven't been active since I brought up the idea of an RFCU. WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL don't forbid criticizing unacceptable actions by other users. I've commented on your actions, not you. I've not slammed your beliefs, but your behavior. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:18, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

And I greatly appreciate your criticism and comments :) They've helped me become more skillful in many ways. My humble advice to you, however, is to find an opportunity to improve your civility, ability to positively evaluate others' actions and see the project's development in broader perspective. Always your friend, -- Nazar (talk) 14:00, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

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

RS/N

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

Sad Passing of Nancy Anne Tappe

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

New stuff goes at the bottom of the page. Emails do not the reliable source guidelines, and this page is specifically not about Tappe. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know. May her path be filled with the light. There's a mention about her passing on her official web-site -- http://nancyanntappe.com/ . I neither strongly insist nor mind the inclusion of this info into the article, but personally I'd say such an inclusion would be a sign of respect towards the departed person, who played an important, notable role in the introduction of article subject to the world, and the fact is of certain relevance to the topic. If others disagree, please feel free to edit accordingly. -- Nazar (talk) 14:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

She is known for the introduction of this topic into the memesphere; but as others have noted, this article is not about her, but about the concept for which she is either to blame or to be credited for, depending on your level of skepticism and knowledge of science. Her death is not relevant to the article in any way. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Synonyms for "Pseudoscience"

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

"Pseudo-" means "false," so "pseudoscience" is "false science." The claims about Indigo children are readily scientifically testable and come up disproven or false every time. It is no more a value judgement than saying belief in a flat earth is pseudoscience. In fact, because we have peer-reviewed academic sources describing the concept of Indigo children as pseudoscience, we're obligated to do so. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Specifically, there is a long history of futile and in some cases embarassing attempts to claim some kind of scientific basis for the concept. That is what distinguishes actual pseudoscience from a purely religious or "spiritual" belief: the pretence that there is some kind of science behind the claims. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

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

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

"Considered pseudo-scientific by skeptics" woud be the neutral way to phrase it -- if there were any mainstream scientists who gave the idea any credence. And for the millionth time, claims about auras, telepathy, increased intelligence or empathy, etc, etc, are scientifically testable and come up negative. There are simpler existing explanations (such as autism and ADHD) that Occam's razor could only go with.

NPOV does go with absolutes: see our articles on Evolution (stated as fact) and Young earth creationism (pointed out as pseudoscience). For the millionth time, NPOV does not mean giving all views equal validity, especially WP:FRINGE views.

And it's nice you're finally admitting that you don't accept consensus because it doesn't go your way. Your variation on the Reductio ad Hitlerum fallacy (Reductio ad Sovietum, as it were) is offensive, though. NPOV is a social contract that all Wikipedians (directly or indirectly) agree to if they wish to continue editing. Just because it does not match up with your beliefs does not mean that it isn't neutral. You're no more Truth incarnate than anyone else here, and more people, based on the work of very reasonable and educated people, do not see any reason to give the same amount of credibility to for-profit ideas by insane and less-educated authors.

You're plenty welcome to go write a blog elsewhere. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, please. "Don't put words into my mouth", as you like to say. Soviet system was a great system, in many ways. It declared many freedoms and beautiful ideals (just like Wikipedia does). And many of them were in fact more or less functional. It had also achieved many great things. But it collapsed after 70 years, because it had some fallacies. I'm very hopeful and positive Wikipedia's community will be able to fix its fallacies without collapsing :)

But, coming back to the point, I'm really just addressing an issue which has been raised here (not by me) for the n-th time. So, maybe there's still something not very correctly rendered in that article, that people keep bringing this up. I'm not even trying to edit the article anymore (because I respect the current consensus of active editors) :) I hope commenting on the issues does not go against any contracts here? -- Nazar (talk) 15:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

If a million vandals push for something against NPOV, that does not change NPOV. Even though half of the US identify as YEC, YEC is (correctly) labelled pseudoscience. Back to the thread's topic, can you demonstrate that the scientific testable claims are accepted by any mainstream scientists? If not, there's no other way to describe this concept except as pseudoscience. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd point out that the argumentation style you tend to use is a bit heavy and on the verge of being uncivil. People trying to edit here are not vandals predominantly. You also did not say that, but your wording indirectly suggests that. I also greatly appreciate your suggestion to write a blog, but this, again, feels a bit like you're showing me the door and kicking me out of Wikipedia (which you're really not entitled to do in any way).

As to the article content, I'd like to remind you that Wikipedia is written by people and for people. Its policies are tools to achieve better results for general good. They are currently pretty balanced and fulfill their role in most cases. But, with the time, they will change too. Because it's science for the people, and not people for the science. And people's minds do change. Quicker than you may expect or want.

I'm not really much interested in either deeply exploring or debunking the "pseudo-science" part of the IC phenomenon. Use of scientific language to persuade less-educated followers is pretty common for such topics, and is often abused by authors (frequently with best intentions, though). For many, however, the concept resounds with deep spiritual meaning. This is what is important about it. This is what characterizes the idea. And the exposure of this spiritual significance will be good and healing for the article, whether it will actually happen in 10 or 50 years from now. I think after a few decades this will be what IC will be remembered for, and not the pseudo-science rubbish.

The emphasis and style of article could also be changed now, based on sources we've got. And the main thing which prevents it is the belief system of editors currently active here. When this system (or editors) change, article will be different, even based on the very same rules and policies (which, in turn, will change too, both in their letter and way of application, as the community gradually changes). It's that simple. -- Nazar (talk) 16:26, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Indigo children is not science. There is a citation for it being pseudoscience. The purpose of wikipedia is not to promote pseudoscience with no grounding in empirical evidence. We're pretty much done here. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Epoch era (talk) 19:53, 19 October 2012 (UTC) Epoch era (talk) 19:53, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Indigo Talk

Epoch era (talk) 19:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC) Epoch era (talk) 19:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)