Talk:Indigo children/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 →

Contents

3rd Opinion

Hi, I'm here from Wikipedia:3rd opinion, what seems to be the problem? — [Mac Davis] (talk) (Desk|Help me improve)

There was some brouhaha around the 1st of Aug 2006, with multiple reverts, accuastions of NPOV violations, and deleting of talk and article data. It seems to have calmed down now, and (in my opinion) the quality of the article has improved since then. 67.86.64.102 11:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, ok than. Shall I remove the request from the page? — [Mac Davis] (talk) (Desk|Help me improve)

Image

I reverted to remove an image from the article. The image in question is Image:indigoadult.jpg. I believe that the image should not be included since it is original research, there is no indication that the person in question is actually an indigo adult (other than the aura which has been added electronically, presumably). --TeaDrinker 01:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


Indigo photo

Your telling me to discuss this. Your assuming I added the aura electronically. What will it take for you to be convinced. Wo wants to volunteer to be a witness to watch me have another photo taken where they have the equipment to do it? --mycats 14 September 2006 (EST)

Well, at least you are talking on this page now which is good. Frankly no one wants to. Among other issues see WP:OR. If taking a normal photo of you produces this affect go talk to a newspaper. You'll be famouse quite quickly and be noted on Wikipedia then. Not before. JoshuaZ 02:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
You noted that the image came from a fair? While I don't mean to question your sincerity, but I'm not sure how you know the image was created. A machine which captures auras is certainly original research, since I know of no reliable source documenting such a machine's existance. --TeaDrinker 02:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't talk to you people when you are being very ignorant. The photo was taken with special equipment. You say you never heard of aura phtography equipment, therefore the picture cannot exist without manipulation. THen take a look at these links.

http://www.auraphoto.com/ http://www.aura.net/ http://www.auraphoto.com.au/ http://www.stephanyhurkos.com/aura.htm http://www.sedonanewagecenter.com/Aura/aura.htm http://www.auravisions.com/

Aura photgraphy equipment exists. Now what. Do I need a letter of authenticity from the photgrapher. ANd do I need letters of authenticity from psychics saying that an indigo aura indicates an Indigo person? --mycats 14 September 2006 (EST)

Thanks for the links, indeed aura photography is new to me. It reminds me of Kirlian photography, although the discussion on the websites you added make me think it is a different phenomenon. Letters from psychics (or really, anyone else), however, are not really reliable sources for establishing the authenticity of a phenomenon. Can you find a published result or study indicating that people who are documented with an aura actually have (at a statistically significant rate) the traits associated? --TeaDrinker 03:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I was able to locate at least one source which indicates aura photography does not exist. It is minimally researched (as it is a popular magazine rather than an academic publication), but you might be interested in this. Thanks, --TeaDrinker 03:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference that disputes aura phtography. I will look at it. --mycats 14 September 2006 (EST)

In any event, looking at the above links, they mention many other fringer beliefs including Reiki and ley lines. The only one missing is possibly red string. And more importantly, not one of them makes any claim about an association between Indigo children and a specific colored aura. So not only are they not reliable sources but they don't make any relevant claims. JoshuaZ 03:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok people lets ge this straight

i am an indigo child. i can confirm everything said on this page. i know that every person who is a skeptic is going to think i am lying. i am not. i was born in 1993. my vocabulary has advanced exponentialy scince abot 11 months. i can confirm the rumors of empathy, but telekenises has gone a bit far. psycokenisis sure, i have been manipulating minds for a long time, but telekenisis could only be achieved by someone very powerfull indee. most of us arent. i know of a good few in my hometown, ottawa. i hope i have convinced at least one skeptic,but if not, please beleive me believers.

So how come you haven't mastered basic English? You're supposed to put capital letters at the beginning of sentences. Also, for us to believe you I'm afraid you're going to have to sign your name. And if you are an Indigo Child, can you tell us if you're here to help the world? ThePeg 16:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

ROFL! That's totally made my day. Thanks ThePeg. --Plumbago 12:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Y'know there's a heroes for hires villain called the purple man who has been manipulatng minds for longer than you've been born. Just thought you should know about the competition. Also, since when do people claiming to be something on wikipedia become evidence used to modify a wikipedia article?? Wikipedia is not original research?

The article right now is way unbalanced, its a PR job for so called indigo children (by the way, I have all of the 'characteristics of an indigo' but I just can't really ever get around to curing AIDS or moving things about with my mind.) and has been kept this way by a lot of dirty editing tricks and blatant POV pushing. I understand that the article survived a deletion meeting before, but if it remains unsalvagable can another one be arranged? By the way, the difference between pseudoscience and protoscience is that protosciences accept criticism from mainstream science with an eye toward integrating into it. Indigo child theory, or whatever, is based around the complete unwillingness to accept any criticism from any authority whatsoever.Jimmyq2305 03:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Jimmy, one issue with better sourcing is that mainstream scientists haven't really bothered responding much to clams about Indigo Children. The claims are just too stupid. This is a problem with a lot of pseudoscience articles. If however you can find criticism than by all means it should go in. JoshuaZ 16:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)