Talk:Indigo children

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aceandretti (article contribs).

Improving neutrality

The article seems short on material related to the new religious movement (spiritual community) aspects associated with this belief. The section related to this needs expansion. Skyerise (talk) 17:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• "The New Kids" by Daniel Kline, in Contemporary Esotericism (edited by Egil Asprem and Kennet Granholm, Routledge, 2014) - Discusses how the religious concept was brought up as a rejection of mainstream science, how it's rooted in pretty old and common occultist paradigms, and how the Indigo identity is sold to parents as a means to reimagine their children's diagnoses as something magical.
• "Seeing the Indigo Children" by Benjamin Witts, in the Skeptical Inquirer (Volume 33.4, July / August 2009) - mentions in passing in one line that Tappe claims one type of Indigo Child is expected to lead new religious movements (in addition to being a bully).

Other than that, I'm not really finding any WP:RSs on the NRM aspect of it. I will look into adding these shortly, but how do you propose we expand the article? If sources do not exist for a topic, it is rather unreasonable to expect it to be expanded.

Ian.thomson (talk) 17:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

All suggested sources are now cited. Is there any basis for the NPOV tag now? Ian.thomson (talk) 18:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I am appalled at the second paragraph of this article, which is nowhere near neutral but instead flecked with impatience, disgust, annoyance, and superiority. The second sentence of the second paragraph reads as a criticism by Wikipedia, rather than the report/summary of existing criticism. I also don't feel like I have any idea what an Indigo child actually is from this article. Goddesseverywhere (talk) 02:47, 30 May 2016 (UTC)goddesseverywhere

It would be non-neutral to lie and say there's anything more than an absence of scientific evidence. Granted, we could probably better reflect what it means to be an Indigo child, like this interview with an Indigo child does. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:15, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

In order to improve neutrality, I am attempting to add more sources of spiritual references if Indigo children, not associated with a religion or modern medicine, but in the same way that Nancy Ann Tapp saw them. She was a gifted person and her work can only be replicated by people with the gift of clairvoyance or through fringe technology like AuraStar200. I am trying to add credible support to the problems associated with diagnosing Indigo Children without the gift and using standard medical methods. I have chosen to cite the published works of two foremost experts in the field of reincarnation. 1) Dr. Ian Stevenson devoted his life to the study of children's past lives. He has studied thousands of children with knowledge of their previous life and documented how difficult it was for the parents to accept a child with knowledge and wisdom beyond their years. 2) Beatrice Brunner is the most prolific modern spiritual medium who channeled 2400 lectures over 35 years and specifically taught about the various levels that children enter an earthy incarnation. I attempted to add the following section to this article for these purposes and would like third party support to Nancy Ann Tapp's original view of indigo children. Shawn Murphy (talk) 07:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

"clairvoyance or ... fringe technology" are not simply spiritual claims, they are scientific claims and science has found no support for such claims. Calling a documented scientific mistake spirituality doesn't shield the claim, it only makes spirituality look bad. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:50, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Relation to spirituality (Proposed new subsection)

Indigo is associated with a level of non-material spiritual development pursued by various cultures, notably the Tibetan Buddhism pursuit of the Rainbow body. Indigo is the color of the sixth chakra, Ajna in the Hindu tradition, which is associated with clairvoyance. In most eastern spiritual cultures, indigo is associated with one of the highest achievable level of spiritual development. So from this protective, to be born an indigo child is to be born with the characteristics described by within these cultures, which are often foreign concepts to westerners.

• Virtuous - modest, loving, caring, generous, selfless, just
• Offended by lack of virtue - misuse of power, injustice, conflict, etc.
• Clairvoyance - knowledge and wisdom beyond their years

From the work of Ian Stevenson on Children's Past Lives we see that children raised in an unsupportive environment lose this innate gift through self protection. They hide their abilities when they find that they are not understood by parents and peers. Indigo children raised in a supportive and understanding environment grow to be amazing people, but their innate virtue means they are not widely recognized in society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bermuda shawn (talk • contribs) 07:49, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Your sources are unacceptable. WP:FRINGE and WP:REDFLAG apply here in WP:SPADEs. Dr. K. 07:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

As I've just noted above, claims about clairvoyance fall under Parapsychology, which is rejected by science as not only unsupported but disproven. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:50, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

References

Dallas Observer

I have replaced the Dallas Observer/Dusk/Avatar passage. This is exactly what I want to read in the article, but in the intervening six years the section "criticism" has been replaced with "commercialization". The only reason the then-editor gave for removing it was that the child's age (given as "eight") was not given. And they've been indefinitely banned since then. MartinSFSA (talk) 13:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

An isolated incident of one child is not notable. There could be dozens (or hundreds) or such incidents. Please get consensus here before you restore it. Sundayclose (talk) 14:54, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

It's a media organisation with a claimed circulation of 43,810. You're not a sock puppet, are you? MartinSFSA (talk)

Let me suggest that you read WP:AGF and stop jumping to a conclusion about sockpuppetry simply because someone disagrees with you. Do you think throwing out wild, baseless accusations does anything for your credibility here? As for the article, my point is irrelevant to the "media circulation". Using a single case out of many cases of claimed indigo is a huge violation of WP:WEIGHT. If other people come up with media reports of 10 or 15 more children who claim to be indigos (and I'm sure they're out there), do we include all of them? What makes this particular case more notable than any other except the fact that you like it? In any event, you need more support here before restoring the item. Sundayclose (talk) 02:51, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Indigo children. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.todayslocalnews.com/?sect=lifestyles&p=1170
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sentienttimes.com/04/feb_mar_04/color.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141205191633/http://www.divinity.cam.ac.uk/directory/beth-singler to http://www.divinity.cam.ac.uk/directory/beth-singler

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:47, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Information or editorial?

This page, as it currently exists, is less a source of information than it is an editorial of the validity of the subject. The various opinions of the scientific community do belong in it, as a reference. But the biased language of the author(s) comes through with every line. An encyclopedia doesn't judge its subject. This page doesn't meet the requirements of the purpose of Wikipedia. Information. Facts. Truth. The truth is, there are many strong opinions about the validity of this subject. That belongs in its own section, titled as such, with properly cited sources. MandieJ1975 (talk) 20:29, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Pease see WP:TRUTH. Dr. K. 21:45, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, Mandie. There are no reliable sources that validate any whit of this theory in any way, and we are under no obligation to pretend otherwise. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:08, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

"pseudoscientific"

Pseudoscientific isn't just another word for wrong. Pseudoscientific implies the claim purports to be scientific in the first place. No doubt many New Agers make pseudoscientific claims, but the subject is not intrinsically "pseudoscientific" any more than any religion or unfalsifiable intellectual endeavour is. Maskettaman (talk) 08:57, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

@Maskettaman:

Re Pseudoscientific implies the claim purports to be scientific in the first place -- this includes scientifically testable claims that pretend to be magic instead.

Re any more than any religion or unfalsifiable intellectual endeavour is -- There's a difference between "this is outside the boundaries of science" and "this is something scientifically testable but please don't." "Is there an Absolute or Ground-of-Being" would fall under the former, "I believe my baby will glow purple in Kirlian photography (even if I've not actually checked), so therefore anyone who says he has less than a 200 IQ and lacks telepathy is just testing him wrong" falls well into the later. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:24, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Science is just a school of thought based on(mostly) 3rd dimensional reality. Since you have not achieved Satori, you will never, ever, ever, understand anything. I have more content to add to this page, but it's all original research, because I am the one researching this in the western world. I am Metteyya. Jsderwin (talk) 10:19, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

@Jsderwin: Wikipedia does not use original research and talk pages are not general discussion forums. Take your pseudo-Buddhism elsewhere. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:18, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Ian, it's concerning when a person with your attitude, and editing power, thinks he knows everything. You are prideful. Good for you. Enjoy your role in the game. Cheers. Jsderwin (talk) 22:21, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

@Jsderwin: I never claimed to know everything. You, however, decided you know what my spiritual state is from a single post -- that's pride, haughty hypocrite. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:43, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

ian and the others 4 the record, " Take your pseudo-Buddhism elsewhere." Ian, if you don't know that that is rude, then I apologize. Otherwise, I rest my case. Jsderwin (talk) 12:50, 15 September 2018 (UTC)