Talk:Star people (New Age)

Contested deletion
Resources in the academic world are considered valid commonly based upon accepted theory or personal beliefs. This subject is certainly controversial, but, is based upon credible witnesses and strong historical beliefs of many ancient based cultures. Christianity is the religion of many millions of followers, however, most of what has been attributed to the actions and teachings of Christ are based on documents written hundreds of years after his death, yet, these scriptures of interpretation are considered fact and beyond reproach. Do not allow your personal beliefs to direct your decision. There is room for all beliefs and retaining this article in your encyclopedia does no harm and allows for free and open thinking. Who really knows who's right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.23.61.91 (talk) 03:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

"Wikipedia content is intended to be factual, notable, verifiable with cited external sources, and neutrally presented." - This is directly from the About Wikipedia page. Pikiwidia (talk) 02:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Suggested Deletion
The above comment does very little to highlight the academic seriousness of this article. The flow went from basing things on "credible" witnesses to referencing Christianity being treated as fact, which I'm pretty sure Jimmy Wales himself would say we don't do on Wikipedia.

Now, onto the article itself. No academic source is cited. Cited sources include one Discovery Channel Program that I cannot even find a record of existing. Other two sources are blogs, both of which without their own academic backing are entirely worthless. The vast majority of the article itself is entirely sourceless.

As far as "Starseeds in books, music, and movies" go, the list consist of not related subject material that share no commonality other than the name itself. The existence of this article is being used to push something as fact that really doesn't have any sourcing behind it, so I argue that it *is* doing harm.

I won't delete the text of the page, but I am removing the nonrelated material on the principle of libel. Velostodon (talk) 22:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Agreed with the proposed deletion. Judging by the list of characteristics, this concept seems more like a subbranch of Indigo children; it's extremely riddled with dubiously-worded claims (eg, "Starseeds differ in a theory that their genes contain alien DNA, and are encoded to awaken them and their awareness at a planned time"). With some hasty research, I'm not sure if I'd be able to find any credibly-sourced information with which to replace these nonsensical statements. Seraphnb (talk) 22:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The three remaining sources after fixing the article actually are sub bullet sites on the subject of Indigo Children, mostly basing their claims on the 1987 Brad Steiger Sci-Fi "The Star People". Velostodon (talk) 23:36, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Explanation of Changes
If the article isn't going to be deleted for blatant abuse of this website, then it needs to keep these changes. The previous version contains selected citations from works that cannot be found, have nothing to do with the subject in question, or are science fiction books. If Wikipedia is going to allow an article to exist with science fiction as its primary resource it needs to be written as that, fiction. If not, then it needs to be written from an academic viewpoint, which is to define the term as niche in nature, and likely resulting from a mental disorder. I am going to list the changes I made and explain all of them.

Removed Dead Source Links: If they aren't verifiable they are used to circumvent site policy.

Added Citation Needed Markers: This article makes a lot of big leaps in claims and provides no references.

Removed all claims of fact where there is no support: This was mostly by added works like "most" and "some".

Removed all viewpoint and opinion phrases: Pretty obvious why this would need done right?

Removed bit about different DNA and blood type: This needs a source. It is a massive claim that has no source, being that if true, a relatively simple test could prove the actual existence of this subject that is based on science fiction.

Added to Characteristics: I removed characteristics that apply to pretty much everyone. I also added that some are characteristics of Schizoid Personality Disorder because the list pretty much describes that disorder.

Completely removed music section: None of the music listed was actually about the subject and only shared similar names.

Removed literature pieces: Same reason as music, only two of them actually pertained to the subject.

As is, I am willing to sit and let whoever wants to continue this article's existence find more sources for it. As of right now it meets criteria of WP:DEL-REASON 6 & 7, paragraph 1 & 2 of "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought", is an invented subject (being that its sole source is a circular citation of a science fiction book and Indigo children articles), meets none of the notability criteria, and is currently being spread around the web as though this article is a fact. It is damaging to this encyclopedia's credibility.

If this article is reverted back to its previous state, add in WP:PROMOTION 1. As of now, it has a neutral standpoint. Changing back to what it was will undo that neutral standpoint. Velostodon (talk) 14:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Commendable. I'm curious as to why the speedy deletion request was denied. 72.64.208.14 (talk) 00:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Notability and reliability
I am not sure that this content is verifiable using reliable sources, and thus whether it is notable. The concept derives from a book called Star People by Brad Steiger, and might be best merged into his bio. In the meantime, I've moved the disambiguation page back to Star people, as it is far from clear that this topic is the primary usage. Fences &amp;  Windows  15:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

move
I'm so confused. This article was originally a disamb page, or at least so it says when I go and look at the earliest version in history. There are no move logs. How did this happen? I see that the mover has admin rights so they're able to move things without leaving a redirect, but it's still confusing????? — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 16:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the confusion. The page logs are here and here. What happened is that the page originally at "Star people" was a disambiguation page, but it was repurposed to be about the New Age concept in 2013 by BrokenAlpha. At the same time, they turned "Star people (disambiguation)", which had previously redirected to "Star people" into a disambiguation page - taking the content from "Star people".
 * History of the disambiguation page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_people&action=history
 * History of the New Age page (formerly a disambiguation page until 2013): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_people_(New_Age_belief)&offset=&limit=250&action=history
 * I hope that makes sense. History merges and splits are possible and could be done to tidy this up, but I'm not sure that's necessary. Fences  &amp;  Windows  21:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Banners
If this page's "talk" page is worthy of having the "supernatural", "alternative theories", and "occult" disclaimer labels, then the main page should as well. Frankly, this page shouldn't exist because there is absolutely no evidence for its subject's actual existence outside of a specific niche of internet users. (Is this Wikipedia or Know Your Meme?) But, since it does, might as well play into the "Wikipedia Alternative Theories" thing and put the banner for it on the main page. 63.239.65.11 (talk) 16:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The banners here belong to WikiProjects (collaboration areas on Wikipedia for people who are interested in working on certain topics), they're not disclaimers and they're not relevant to the concerns you express here.
 * The "Starseed" concept seems to pass our general notability guideline (WP:GNG) so the article will stay. If you disagree with that, please register an account so you will be able to create a deletion discussion (WP:AFD). — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 17:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Or if you're looking for a maintenance tag to slap on the article then see here: Template messages/Cleanup. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 17:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I have an account, but I am trying to keep my account and work computer IP separate. Anyway, there have already been numerous discussions about deleting this page since its basis is entirely imagination. It isn't some Pagan religion that has a lot of followers; its a small group of people, mostly on Tumblr, that want to be "special". The concept of "Starseed" didn't originate from Brad Steiger. Tumblr made it up and then found anything they could to justify its legitimacy. It makes a mockery of this encyclopedia.
 * I'll look at the tags when I have more time to find something I think fits. 63.239.65.11 (talk) 13:28, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a nice assumption there but it wasn't Tumblr that came up with the concept, it's older than the weird communities on there. I really hope you have better justification for your deletion/tagging campaign on this article, than this "I first heard about it on Tumblr so it must be a recent and unnotable invention" claim. We have plenty of articles on minor imaginary and spiritual concepts. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 14:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

You might want to search for the term starseed on Google Books. Pretty insane how those Tumblarians went back in time before Tumblr was founded and published books on the topic.

Speaking of which, I really think this article needs to be moved to Starseed. That's the term people look for. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 14:11, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Starseed is a disambig page and should remain so. Regardless of where it came from, that's the only reason its getting any attention. It is insulting to an encyclopedia to give credit to something so factually baseless and culturally insignificant. 63.239.65.11 (talk) 14:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Starseed is a redirect to Star seed, so technically it's free to use.
 * Please see Notability, we don't arbitrarily decide what's important enough to cover here based on our personal biases. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 16:51, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Links
I have added link to starseeds IRC channel. Wikipedia user Jeraphine Gryphon says it's spam, but that isn't true.

Well, Jeraphine Gryphon still removes it. It's not spam or commercial website.

Jeraphine Gryphon feel free to join our chat (www.starseeds.space) to see what it is about. It's not spam! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.248.182.120 (talk) 20:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Citation 5
Hi, I'm new here. Why is citation 5 an unreliable source? Soli58 (talk) 00:04, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

When did you? What was it like?
I'm starting to believe and feel like I'm a Starseed. Alot of what it explains seems like it fits. I've noticed similar feelings and thoughts. I have always felt like where ever i lived it wasnt home. Felt home sick or out of place all the time. Like i was alone among everyone, felt like an alien to everyone else. Always fascinated about space, Extraterrestrials and other dimensions. I wonder what it was like for others and how they found out. I wanna know im not alone and there is others out there. I'd like to meet other starseeds, talk and share experiences. ZekeSF (talk) 10:59, 6 June 2020 (UTC)