Talk:Indigo children

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Indigo children. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Indigo children at the Reference desk.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Paranormal Start‑class

	This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Start‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Indigo children received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This article was nominated for deletion on May 5, 2004. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Archives

Index

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Crysal children

You guys, I want t read about Crystal children, DNA changes between these children and others, percentage of the population (30% has a new gene?). The readers want to have some real data. Most of this article is hatfull and spamish. 2 lines of information and 3 lines of "criticism". this is not helpful. I love critical thinking, but one first state what he is refuting.. Maybe I'll take the wiki vision and try to add some myself stuff after some research..:) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diza (talk • contribs)

There is no actual information to support any of these wacky claims that circulate under the radar of science. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that there are, nor am I taking sides. Yet an article about Indigo children should have content about.. Indigo children! Crystal children and their belief system. Having an article that is more than 30% criticism is not just very unenlightened but defeats the point of the wikipedia as a whole. Not everything needs to be "scientific", it needs thought to be relevant. for example an article on gene-therapy (science dogma) should not focus on why they are bad for me, it should focus on what the hell is it...:) In this regard this article fails. Needs more data and less "why are they all wrong" type of narrative. --Procrastinating@^talk2me 17:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When you get this far into the wilderlands of New Age thought, it becomes increasingly difficult to find reliable sources for even the fact that some of these claims are being made. Do you have some? --Orange Mike | Talk 17:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Echoing Orangemike - "pro" claims need reliable sources to support them, criticisms by mainstream scientists and researchers are supported. This is a fringe claim with no research on it. NPOV does not mean we ignore criticisms or give the theory a free pass - this has no mainstream support or research. If there are sources indicating their is support for the concept beyond the alt-med and New Age circuit, then feel free to add them. For that matter, DNA is readily measurable and change (point mutations? recombinations? triple-helixes?) should be easy enough to demonstrate. So if anyone is going to claim DNA changes, they need to get a source. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that gene duplication isn't actually rare. It wouldn't surprise me if 30% of the general population has an extra copy of at least one gene. So even if this claimed were sourced it would need to be approached very carefully. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know, if there is actually a study of gene duplication that mentions indigo children, I'm pretty sure I'd be willing to let it go up on the page. I'm even more sure that such a study has never occurred. Anything that isn't explicit on an indigo-duplication link certainly isn't appropriate. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take a closer look; the suggested claim isn't that a gene is duplicated, but that there is a new gene that they share. In other words, they're muties! (Of course, if that is true, then Cerebro should be able to detect them, right?) --Orange Mike | Talk 15:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop mocking the indigos, or they might kill us with their strange powers, inexplicable through science. Didn't you read the part about how if they go wrong, they become murderers? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

I have reverted the changes by IndigoAdult (talk · contribs). The edits removed a series of sourced criticisms, deleted information from the info box without reason, added unsourced information and an inappropriate further reading section in the lead, placed undue weight on the original authors without acknowledging new sources, and made wildly unsupported claims that gave the impression that there's actually merit to this nonsense. Inappropriate, this is a pseudoscientific fringe topic that does not get treated as a serious topic. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou WLU I see the error of my ways and actually prefer a few of your changes, Ive just fixed your errors however :) p.s. fear not Im not one of those Indigo murders you mention above, lol. In life you should try to be a little more open minded, you might actually learn something...