Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indigos

Absolute nonsense. RickK 03:33, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I have actually heard of this. Whether or not I believe any of it is something else entirely. I suppose I'll say keep it, but give it weird looks now and then. Rhymeless 06:37, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Incoherent rubbish content. Delete. Same author is pushing "fifth world" idiocy elsewhere on Wikipedia.--Gene_poole 10:21, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Trash, utter trash. Delete. DO'Neil 11:11, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a suitable page of new age beliefs where this can be merged? The Land 12:38, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect both to Aura. Alcarillo 13:46, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both: unremarkable nonsense. Murky copyright status; text copied from [1] but no terms of use stated there. -- User:162.83.149.253, User:162.83.147.184, and User:162.83.239.157 (list not exhaustive) have been planting similar New Age stuff in several articles. See for example Fifth World. There's a substantial clean up job ahead. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:09, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pontless, it's not something I would find in, oh say the WoldBook™ Encyclopedia, so why should I have to see it in the Wikipedia Encyclopedia?
Delete. It would be impolite for me to call this nonsensical trash, so I won't. It's not even the encyclopaedic sort of trash. Lord Bob 14:51, May 5, 2004 (UTC)
- Describing belief systems, even kooky new-age ones, is a role of an encyclopedia. I've been interested to read the articles on magic. If 'Indigo' and 'Fifth World' actually have any adherents then we should aim to have a neutral article on them. The Land 14:57, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd change my vote if this belief system seemed to have any main-stream coverage whatsoever. All sorts of things that I think are insane ways to live your life are in Wikipedia and should be, but this doesn't seem...well, big enough. That said, if somebody points me to an article in mainstream publications on these guys or something, then by all means, we should keep. Lord Bob 17:38, May 5, 2004 (UTC)
- Murky, unsubstatiated, possibly POV. If similar references have been placed in other articles by the IPs that Wile E. Heresiarch has mentioned, it might even count as vandalism. Delete unles really, really substantiated. - Lucky 6.9 18:58, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  - - This particular brand brand of new age kookiness has only one "adherent", a New York resident by the name of Cesidio Tallini who has authored a mind-boggling array of utterly incoherent websites on this and related subjects.--Gene_poole 02:04, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that denying space to this topic is like denying Blacks to post on topics concerning Afro-Americans. I don't simply say Indigos exist like some of the persons you criticise, some with PhDs. I am an Indigo. Who are you to say that I am not, and I'm certainly not the only person that feels that way? If astrology is valid matter for an encyclopedia, because it also is a set of beliefs, then this is equally valid subject matter, and of concern to many parents who also swear they have these unusual children. Please also note that I can substantiate the parallels made between the Fifth World and Indigos, and these statements are not my own, but of two PhDs. Read HERE. Cesidio Tallini.

Keep. Sure, it's poorly written and New Age, but the term clearly has usage. It needs rewriting, but needing editing is not grounds for deletion. Just because they're crazy doesn't mean they don't get an article. c.f. Otherkin Snowspinner 20:10, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, with rewrite. While it may be part of a belief system, article presents as established fact. This seems more of a "fringe" speculation. Gwimpey 21:47, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I've rewritten to be NPOV. Snowspinner 22:14, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

While your piece may be NPOV, it is hardly an accurate description of how things are, or could be best described. The Fifth World legends existed before the Fifth World movement came into being, as some serious micronations splintered from traditional micronationalism and gave birth within a few months to most of the political and religious ideas that are now characteristic of authentic Fifth World nations. Also, Indigos were first discovered or noticed in the 1980s, this too long before the Fifth World movement. Another thing the brief on Indigos fails to mention is that the Indigo-Fifth World parallels were discovered by me, but were probably independently discovered earlier still from two other very bright and educated people I mention in this LINK. Another thing yet: most psychologists/educators believe that Indigos are some kind of a "condition," and in fact they often believe that the best approach with these kids is drugging them, because they are obviously not normal like the rest of us that believe everything is fine, and this world is not headed for an environmental catastrophe... Some psychologists/educators, on the other hand, believe Indigos are special children, for a special time that is coming, and that something may be actually wrong with most of us, and especially with our educational and spiritual systems. Add to that complexity that I'm probably the only person who sees Indigos as an actual New Race, which is something of a paradox, because this new race includes all the races we commonly perceive with our eyes. This new race is a new race not by commonly perceived physical characteristics (genotype), but by unusual and commonly perceived mental and psychological characteristics (phenotype). These unusual children seem like the helpers of the coming Pahana, a Native American Messiah of sorts, or perhaps the One-and-Only-Messiah of all religions. So you can see that the subject about Indigos is about Native American prophecy and spirituality, eclectic psychology and pedagogy, and you can add there a bit of anthropology and sociology as well. No science or other textbook can properly handle a subject as complex as this, but if you give me a little time I can attempt to write a good article on it, and the Wikipedia, because of its possibility of multiple links, is ideal for handling this kind of complexity. Cesidio Tallini --162.84.223.205 02:56, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I detest this sort of bilge but Google search on "Dr. Richard Boylan indigo" suggest this is a fairly widespread... belief? or thing. Whatever it is. Of course it's one more page which will forever be edit warred... --bodnotbod 03:19, May 6, 2004 (UTC)

May be ridiculous, but I've heard the term before. Keep the NPOV version - I do so dislike abuse of the word 'metaphysical'. -Seth Mahoney 22:11, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Finally was able to wikify the stub on Indigo child. Hope everyone likes the way it looks now, because I think it's is quite interesting and educational — not ridiculus, not a bunch of nonsense, but actually quite interesting. Cesidio --162.83.223.29 22:27, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
There are times I really wish I didn't have to be relentlessly NPOV, and this is one of them. I'm just going to put on my tinfoil helmet, ask the aliens to close the attic hatch when they leave, and shut up. Denni 05:06, 2004 May 8 (UTC)
Have further edited Indigo child. I think Cesidio's article was factual, references and written as an encyclopedia article. However it omitted to mention that the vasst majority of people think that the whole idea is pathetic nonsense. The Land 13:59, 8 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not up on copyright laws, but are the extensive quotes in the new version going to be an issue? -Seth Mahoney 20:04, 8 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If kept it should be re-stubified and we should start again (again) IMO. These long quotes from a controversial author are completely out of place regardless of copyright issues. Likely to remain a contentious article, it's new-age rubbish IMO but it's clever new-age rubbish. See [2], [3]. Lots of people, both parents and children, will identify with these descriptions! That makes it clever, but it doesn't make it true. Andrewa 04:37, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it. Same reasons as Bodnotbod --VTEX 05:17, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Any topic can be approached neutrally, even if introduced by someone holding a viewpoint on the topic. Focus effort on composing more cogent criticism than "rubbish" i.e. use editorial skills, not insults, to write an encyclopedia. SimBot2 17:27, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

The current version is still exceedingly POV, and needs to be severely pared down or deleted. RickK 04:39, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Before I begin: according to that list I have Indigo qualities. I'm not buying it. I think this is just plain wrong.

<rant>
It's scientifically unproven New Age tripe, IMO, and really doesn't deserve a page. It's NOT ENCYCLOPEDIATIC. It's the opinion of a couple of authors and their New Age following, fair enough, but is NOT, I tell you, something you are going to find in a scientific journal, and the fact that it made it this far makes me mad. Does anyone reading this also read Skeptical Inquirer? Real encyclopedias wouldn't touch this topic with a pole, and I don't think Wikipedia should have to, either.
</rant>
If all else fails (as all else is wont to do) then would someone out there please rewrite these things entirely and just make them nice little stubs explaing what this is all about, and that it is totally unproven. -Litefantastic 20:27, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]