Talk:Indigo children/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

From Talk:Indigo child

Indigo child was merged into this article on July 8, 2004

From Votes for deletion

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

• 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)
• Incoherent rubbish content. Delete. Same author is pushing "fifth world" idiocy elsewhere on Wikipedia.--Gene_poole 10:21, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
• Trash, utter trash. Delete. DO'Neil 11:11, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
• Is there a suitable page of new age beliefs where this can be merged? The Land 12:38, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect both to Aura. Alcarillo 13:46, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
    • 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)
    • • 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)

• 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)

• 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)

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

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Keep it. Same reasons as Bodnotbod --VTEX 05:17, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
• 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)

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

• 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)

Talk

• While the article I wrote probably needed a little condensing, not necessarily an elimination of all the quotes; while I don't expect anyone to believe that my statement, that Indigos are a new race, is anymore than an interesting theory, not a proven fact, although quite frankly I'm seeing nowadays more junk science come out of places like Monsanto, not my mouth; what I most certainly didn't expect is perfectly rational people here is to continuously call Caroll and Tober's research "New Age rubbish." There is a big difference between protoscience and pseudoscience, and I don't believe the article you guys rewrote as more NPOV than mine at this point. My POV is made quite plainly, and I don't expect a theory to be called a proven fact, but classifying the rest, which is in fact pretty good research, albeit preliminary, as pseudoscience seems to have turned my promising article into a seriously flawed and biased one. I have yet to read any justification of this clubbing of perfectly good research, however controversial. And when you've got nothing to back your observations with, then I believe your opinion is just as good as mine, and doesn't make an encyclopedic article any less biased or flawed in its preconceived, half-baked conclusions. I am not impressed. --IndigoGenius 03:16, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Not aiming to impress you, just help build an encyclopedia. Admit my phrasing was a bit aggressive. However there are established disciplines which deal with child psychology which I have some knowledge of, and neither I nor no-one else here seems to have encountered the concept except as pseudoscience.
• I'm perfectly aware that the purpose of this space is beyond my exalted ego. However, before Caroll and Tober starting investigating this phenomena more closely, the best your standard science colleagues could do for these kids is legally drug them. Since smoking pot is illegal in the US, and in quite a few other decent places, I question the value of drugs that may actually be more dangerous than the aforementioned, as well as a methodology that instead of being open-minded, and trying to actually help these kids, their parents, and educators, does nothing but apply previously half-baked scientific theory, and I do mean "theory". I'm probably one of the oldest Indigos around (became 42 the other day), and while I was fortunate enough not to be placed extensively on drugs while I was growing up in more laid back and innocent Italy, during puberty I was placed on psychotropic drugs for a brief period. As a result of the mood swing I experienced I dropped those drugs, and I ended-up becoming my own doctor. My local pharmacist not only liked me, but she did nothing to discourage my exploration into natural substances that might have helped. I doubt I could have helped myself in the US with the local medical mafia's overbearing influence, which is probably unconstitutional at some level. I discovered that I probably needed more vitamins and phosphorus than most during my puberty years, and simple glutamic acid seemed to have a positive effect as well. During the summer I seemed also to be helped with additional potassium. Let me have you note that extra vitamins, especially B vitamins, are not particularly dangerous or mood-altering to growing bodies, extra phosphorus probably doesn't hurt a still developing nervous system, and glutamic acid is synthesized from the amino acids arginine, ornithine, and proline. When glutamic acid combines with ammonia, a waste product of metabolic activity, it is converted into l-glutamine. Glutamine improves mental alertness, clarity of thinking and mood. Glutamic acid is also a precursor of GABA, an important neurotransmitter in the central nervous system. Glutamic acid helps transport potassium into the spinal fluid, and is itself an excitatory neurotransmitter. It has been used to treat mental retardation, epilepsy, Parkinson's disease, muscular dystrophy, and alcoholism. Research has shown that supplementation of glutamine reduces the craving for alcohol, and it also seems to reduce the craving for sugar and carbohydrates. It seems useful also in the treatment of depression, schizophrenia, and with behavioral problems and autism in children. As you can see, not only I was able to alleviate much of the severe depression I suffered from, and without mood-altering, and dependency-fostering drugs, but perhaps I also boosted my IQ in the process as well, since my nervous system was well fed during a very critical time in human development. I hope you now understand why I'm so critical of standard approaches. Standard approaches work for standard kids, and Indigos aren't standard, neurologically-speaking. And you can't give the same gasoline to a Ferrari Testarossa as you would give to a Chevrolet, nor should you expect the same gasoline consumption from the two. --IndigoGenius 01:02, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

....um...fascinating, Indigo. i think the current version of the article is NPOV enough to keep. So it's an odd fringe theory that sounds like nutty self indulgence to most of us...It exists, it should be documented. The book appears to have been translated to hebrew, and shown up at my local library, so it's fairly widespread too. Datepalm17 09:47, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

§ The "Indigo Child" sounds a little like Colin Wilson's Outsider book of the 1950s. Interesting.

§ I'll have to read the Wikipedia article on "mysticism," but even if that article supports the pejorative sense of the word used in this article I think it is wholy unjustified. To regard the mysticism of Meister Eckhardt or Thomas Merton as some kind of "hogwash" reflects a point of view that disparages something that many very serious people take as an essential point of human life -- even though it is almost by definition "unscientific." Was there some compelling reason for chosing that term? Was it made a link to the Wikipedia article on mysticism for some considered reason? P0M 03:13, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

• No considered reason, have edited it (would have been bolder for you to!) The Land 15:21, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

• I think the article is fairly NPOV - the failure of medication to help with a condition does not imply the Indigo Child notion is valid - this is a false dilemma. Many of the criteria for an Indigo Child are vague: for example "They simply will not do certain things; for example, waiting in line is difficult for them". Many of them could be summed up as being egotistical. Autarch 13:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It might not be scientific or anything, but it deserves to be kept up here if for no other reason than so that people who want to know just what the heck the term means will have a wikipedia page to refer to. Even if it's an unscientific term reeking of claptrap and all. Monkberg 13:43, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure about anything. But speaking as one of those who has been listed by quite a few as an Indigo Child (or some just scanned it over and sounded like one), I do have to note that my parents were anything but "new age." So I don't look at that as the culprit. Though I think someone with a better mind than me should point out that an indigo child could be a new personality type emerging. I'm sure there should be some precedence in developmental psychology.

• Hmm, so they finally figured it out. Well, they have the percentages and dates off, but they're getting close. --Cyberman 17:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

• Can the NPOV dispute be removed now? And by the way, Wikipedia is not the skeptic dictionary and hence should the entry should not begin with criticism. I changed that. Andries 12:23, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Move

Page should be moved to Indigo children, as it doesn't deal with the book directly. TimComm

Done. --Joy [shallot] 01:09, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Bias

Bigz: I question the unbiased nature of this entry.

Kronos_o sez: This article says that there is no scientific basis for the aura, and that is absolutely not true.

What exactly is the scientific basis for the aura, then? Cite?

---

Note that quite a bit of discussion, including information on previous NPOV disputes, is still at Talk:Indigo child -RedWordSmith 06:21, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, this does seem kind of biased, I've talked to a woman who works with Indigo children, and there is a lot of backup info if you take a look around. I have nine of the ten signs of being an Indigo Child, but I actually have none of the symptoms of ADD.

I've looked around. I'ved fail to enconter nay evidence that does not have other more paluserble explanations. Feel free to provide any evidence for which you feel this is not the caseGeni 08:43, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Frequent uses of "us" and "we" are a bright spotlight on lack of objectivity. Unacceptable in any academic context. Also, very creepy.

Removed some Scientology-based comments

"Others point out the questionable safety and effectiveness of drug-based psychological treatment (ie. psychiatry) in treating many of todays problems. These same people might note the high degree of safety and effectiveness of treatments such as meditation, tai-chi, and megavitamin therapy in treating many of these problems, and theorize that that looking beyond the psychiatric model may therefore a worthy course of action as it relates to this possible phenomenom."

While they would arguably belong in an article about Scientology, or even Scientologists' use of "vitamin therapy," the vague comments suggesting that psychiatry is nothing more than "drug-based psychological treatment" and "questionable" (eg dangerous), and that mega vitamin therapy and meditation are all perfectly safe, not only are POV, they do not relate to this specific topic of "indigo children" or the previous discussion. It would be just as inappropriate and POV if someone wrote that all New Age beliefs were dangerous. For more on this issue, non-Scientologists may want to read Citizens Commission on Human Rights, about the anti-psychology group funded by Scientology. 67.10.133.121 01:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Not Nonsense After all

I agree that this article should be on wikipedia because it is in popular usage, but boy is this utter nonsense! I can't believe how stupid some people are! - Dancemaster 07:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• So? Quite frankly, I think that closed-minded people like you, are the stupid ones. Article talk pages should be used to help improve the information found in the articles, not to vent your closed-minded opinions, leave that off the website please. FistOfFury 12:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• "Open-minded" people like to accuse those that disagree with their pseudoscience of being close-minded. Think about this for a second--don't be so open-minded that your brains fall out. Don't take things at face value. This Indigo Children concept is a nice story, but has zero grounding in fact. Auras? Sorry, no scientific evidence. Special, in-borne purpose in life? Sorry, no scientific evidence. This concept has more in common with astrology than it does with any real science. Dragoniv 21:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• I've somehow strayed onto this article. I agree with your comments - what rubbish! It seems like a way people can call their children "Special" rather than sufferers from ADD. The problem with ideas like "Indigo Children" is that some people actually believe in them! --Albert 19:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I would just like to say that I second the last two comments. Have a nice day everyone SchnappM 06:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Please do not use this article discussion page to call people stupid and the subject nonsense. The discussion page is for discussing the article, not starting threads with little purpose beyond antagonising or simply offending. I understand that you may feel frustrated by such notions as 'Indigo Children' and that you may sincerely wish to challenge and debate, but this is not the place. Please try to consider views that you hold that may be out of line with establishment science. Information is often shrouded in all areas of modern life, be it medicine and the corporate pharmaceuticals, politics and spin doctors or biases in the media etc. Many of us are critical of the establishment line in many areas of life, I'm sure including those who are here arguing 'no scientific evidence'. I recently had a similar discussion in which I cited a range of research on ESP to someone who stated the same thing, I referred to Cornell University's psychology professor Daryl Bem and also to Dean Radin. I was simply told Dr. Bem's work was not real science. So again it comes down to opinion we must all accept that we might be wrong, that for me is the definition of an open mind. - Solar 11:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if my post was a little "heated." I agree with what you say, articles should present/describe the notable information related to the viewpoint. What frustrates me though, is that some people feel they have the license to bash or insult alternative viewpoints/informations, just because it doesn't agree with their viewpoint or "established" viewpoints. While viewpoints/information that are grounded in speculation, belief and subjectivity don't have 'scientific' fact associated with them, there are 'facts' associated with them in the sense that there are ideas, beliefs, and information shared by notable consensus. Therefore, that body of notable/consensus 'information' should be presented and described (regardless of if you believe in it or not), instead of pejoratively ranting on talk pages about how ridiculous, stupid, or nonsensical the article/subject is. This is what I originally meant in my previous post, but I got sidetracked, again, I apologize. And sorry for my late reply :). FistOfFury 01:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• • tons of poeple think ADD is "rubbish" too. it's called an opinion and that eoesn't make it true either. even if it's an educated opinion

Need Opinions: Non-Mystic Interpretations

At the end of the "Non-Mystic Interpretations" section was the following paragraph:

• However, Dusk was giving the man a verbatim quote from the Nickelodeon children's show Avatar:_The_Last_Airbender. This fact was not noticed within the article.

Karaveks Voice and I seem to be at odds about whether or not this is relevant. Does anyone else have an opinion about this? I think if the last paragraph goes, the whole section should go, as the idea of Indigo Children traits being an indicator of social trends makes no sense without adding that a supposed Indigo Child was quoting something from pop-culture. I would like to see that section kept though, as it seems interesting and relevant (at least to me). -DejahThoris 03:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

as indicated, i said its not a quote from that series at all. the data is erronious, in the first place. secondly trying to draw lines between such things is grasping at straws at best.Karaveks voice 04:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, you're right, there's no way to verify that quote. How about this instead?

• However, Dusk appears to be drawing on the popular Nickelodeon children's show Avatar:_The_Last_Airbender, which features a twelve-year-old Avatar, who is accidentely frozen for one hundred years, and can "bend" those four elements.

It's a little wordy, but more verifiable. Information from Avatar:_The_Last_Airbender. -DejahThoris 04:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The quote mentions nothing about bending.Karaveks voice 04:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but appearantly in the show they refer to controlling the elements as bending. Do you think it would look better as "who is accidentely frozen for one hundred years, and can 'bend' those four elements."? Or perhaps change the word bend to manipulate? -DejahThoris 05:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

again, ypu are grasping at strraws. "the avfatar cycle" is that when one dies the next is born, the hundred years thing doesnt mean swuat for the quote, please desist in this nonsensical attempt at discrediting this ideaKaraveks voice 05:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

next you will tell me that the daliaai lama watches avatar too, so hes gotta be a weirdo with no credibillity.... give me a break, dudeKaraveks voice 05:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Just because one child picked up something from a highly-rated T.V. show and repeated it does not negate the concept of Indigo Children. But ignoring the similarity between what this one kid said and the plot of a popular television show marketed toward his age range may make this article appear biased. I don't understand what your objection is to the one hundred years aspect. The child mentioned a time period of one hundred years in the article, and a period of one hundred years is an important plot device in the T.V. show. His statement bears an uncanny resemblance to the overall show plot. -DejahThoris 05:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

only to the ones who wish it to. the period of one huncred years is not important to what an avatar is, in the series, onlyu tothe charator of aang. also, the child DID NOT repeat anything from the show. thats my point, in part.Karaveks voice 11:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I am adding back in the section you removed, and removing the section you added about Galileo (completely irrelevant and off-topic). Please stop editing this until we can reach a concensus. Since you and I are obviously in disagreement about this, we should wait until other people give their opinions. You may also want to consider not editing this article, because you seem to have strong feelings about this subject (understandably, according to your user page), and it may prevent you from writing from a neutral-point-of-view. -DejahThoris 17:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

sorry, but it prooves a poimt, and the section i removed really doesnt jive with the restofthe artivle. oh yeah, and now how can you possibly write from a neutral pov when your pro science? not trtying to be confonatational, just a questionKaraveks voice 20:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Please try to remember, Wikipedia is not the place to prove a point. It is a place to present verifiable information as neutrally as possible. It's not really possible to be neutral in our personal views (or if we were, we'd be excedingly boring), but it is possible to write from as neutral a viewpoint as possible. Especially when we have the entire Wikipedia community to help us. That said, I think we should both stop editing this one for now, and wait to get some other opinions. No one else has had a chance to weigh in, we're both just too darned efficient!  :-) The paragraph you have added that I object to is:

However, throughout history, many, such as Galileo, were ridiculed by the establishment, but were later found to be correct. This might affect how seriously one might take such claims of the Indigo Child supposition to be an illegitimate scientific endeavour to study.

I feel readers are perfectly capable of drawing their own conclusions about the past errors of the scientific "establishment." Also, I don't think the "DNA activation" bit flows the way it is currently. Perhaps removing the bold words and leaving at the end of the "Indigo Child supposition" section? I still think it would sound choppy there, though. (On a side note, I am pro-science insofar as vaccines and anti-biotics and motorcycles and such go. Science has given a great deal of good things to humanity. Please do not make the mistake of assuming that because I appreciate science and find it valuable that I believe it carries all of the Answers.) -DejahThoris 00:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

i dont mean to assume, but i am, unfortualy rather jaded, in some ways. i didnt add it to proove my poinmt, its just a counterpoint to the scuebntific legitmacey issue, aand as asuch i thought it would work well... i didnt write the DNA activation thing, though it does sound at least plausable, in that we dontk now much about dna, as compaired to how much there is to know. ( i for one know that my own special talents are not genetic... m family are all what youd cal mundane) i really dont try to be ;pro anythiong, so iview science with as much suspicion as i view everything else. (seems to me that sceince is areligon, and im n ot talking scientology) but your right about hte dna activatio thing. ( oh and teh avatar quote is inacurate, in that such wordibng was never used in the series , i cheked)Karaveks voice 01:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I am editing the Avatar bit to remove the "quote" part, and make it as NPOV as possible. That being said, can we wait to edit any more until we can get some more opinions? Thanks, DejahThoris 02:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

yes, i will wait, sorry... im nothte most patient person...most of my instinct goes "DO SOMETHING!" most of the timeKaraveks voice 15:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

A source has now been cited for the Dusk/Avatar bit. It is not original research. Also, deleting an entire paragraph of text that you know is controversial is not a minor edit, please do not mark it as such. DejahThoris 01:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

You are grasping at straws because this paragraph does not fit your POV. Please stop. The statement is properly sourced. As it is written, it is entirely verifiable. Please leave it be. If I'm totally off-base, I'm sure it will be edited by someone who is not trying to use this article to proove a point. DejahThoris 19:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

As it currently stands that section makes no sense -it offers the quote but is missing the part which says why it is important. I think it needs to be included in the article and I think this is a legitimate source as a measure of people's reactions to the story [4] - the whole area of media influence is a genuine concern and that specific example is a good one and should be in the article. I'd also lean towards including this from an Indigo Teen: "I see dead people" [5] (Emperor 13:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC))

"Karaveks voice" removed the section rather than allow it to stand. 192.216.4.64 22:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

+cat

Do you think this article should belong to the Category:Homo sapiens progeny?.. --Koveras 09:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

It's been four days and no objection. I guess I just do it... --Koveras 10:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Is this why....?

Is this why children are now placed on drugs ? I have seen matrial of this sort on many sites, incl. this one, and on the originating sites as well when I investigate these claims. Martial Law 06:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC) :) I've seen a recent article that says that more and more kids, which I suspect are "indigo kids" are being placed on drugs so the drug companies can make a literal "mint". Martial Law 06:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC) :)

See also this link about medical effects of "Children's drugs". Martial Law 06:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC) :)

wikipedia article talk pages are not really the place for this kind of disscussion. Try the JREF forums.Geni 06:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

POV in first sentence

I have changed the opening sentence to read: "Indigo children" is a New Age term used to refer to a set of children who are claimed to have certain special psychological and spiritual attributes. The previous opening sentence implied that the existence of "Indigo Children" is a fact, when in reality it is merely a point of view. Hyperdeath 19:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

leave it be, its like saying " black is a spectrum of light said to be at (whatever frequencey) it doesnt jive to make it read that way... plus it just doesnt sound right, gramtically. besides, the current opening, before my edit implied the supposition is NOT a fact, when there is no proof of THAT point of view.Karaveks voice 18:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

That is a complete non-sequitur. Would you please refer me to the part of Wikipedia's editing policy stating that sentences have to "jive"? You complain about grammar, and yet your new sentence is a grammatical nightmare. It switches halfway from the present-simple to the present-progressive tense. Am I right in thinking that English is not your first language? If so, it is probably better to allow other users to proof-read your contributions before modifying the main article.

The existence of "indigo children" is a matter of debate. Therefore, starting the article by stating that they exist constitutes a point of view. Some people claim that they exist, whilst other people claim that they don't exist. Therefore, the "...who are claimed to have..." part of my sentence is perfectly justified. Hyperdeath 10:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

the burden of proof for disproving it is in the hands of the people, thereafore, leave it as true until proven wrong, shall we?Karaveks voice 18:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

No, the burden of proof always lies with the person making the positive proposition (i.e the proposition that something does exist, or is so). You say, "leave it as true until prooven[sic] wrong". If that is the case, what would you accept as proof that "Indigo Children" don't exist? Hyperdeath 10:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

ever heard of innocent until proven guilty? in this case the crime is being false.Karaveks voice 15:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Hyperdeath is right - the original opening sentence was stating as a fact that Indigo Children were real. Your legal analogy only works in the form: unproven until proven i.e. it is like hypothesis testing - the null hypothesis is that there are no such things as Indigo Children and it if you want to state it as a fact then you need prove it. If they have powers then these should be testable in a lab, if there are differences in their DNA then this should be easy to identify, etc. (Emperor 22:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC))

You've completely misunderstood the whole concept of what a positive proposition is. In a criminal court, the case for the prosecution is the positive proposition (i.e. the defendant has done something). Conversely, the case for the defense is the negative proposition (i.e. the defendant hasn't done that thing). Therefore, "innocent until prooven guilty" is in fact an example of the burden of proof being upon the positive proponent.

Hyperdeath 18:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

something is real until it is proven not to be, example, the earth is flat... at least until it was proven to be round. thereafore, the indigo children ARE real, proove to me they arent, and that may change.Karaveks voice 02:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll prove to you that "Indigo Children" don't exist, when you: 1. Prove that there is not a solid gold statue of a giraffe in orbit around Saturn. 2. Prove that Saddam Hussein can't fly. 3. Prove that you don't drink human blood.

Can't do it? That's the whole point of the "burden of proof being on the positive proponent" rule. Hyperdeath 18:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed some links in the article that had obviously lapsed and had been snapped up by squatter doman spammers. Vaginsh 09:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

) thanks!Karaveks voice 15:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

How can you have three demands in exchange for only ONE proof? That doesn't seem logical. Besides, what leads you to believe that Indigo children don't exist? I'm not asking for a proof, just an opinion... If you have no answer then you have no reason behind your beliefs. You are still entitled to them, but this page isn't for those who doubt. It is meant for those who either believe or are wondering, to help them learn more. Go start your own doubting page. Forbidden Angel 20:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Did you hear a loud whooshing noise passing above your head when you posted that last comment? My essential point is that it is impossible to prove beyond doubt that something doesn't exist. Therefore, if you want something to be accepted as fact, you must provide evidence for it, rather than asking skeptics to provide the impossible.

Also, you seem to be redefining the rules of Wikipedia. It is not just meant for "those who either believe or are wondering", but for everyone. Indigo Children are not an established fact, and hence Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View Policy requires that they not be described as such. Furthermore, the division of topics into separate pages with different points of view is forbidden, and hence your suggestion that I should "start [my] own doubting page" is also wrong.

Hyperdeath 11:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The "believed to posess" language comes straight from the entry on Psychic phemomenon, and it seems entirely appropriate for a controversial subject like this. Saying "Indigos have these abilities" would be a strong positive stance, not a neutral one. 67.86.64.102 02:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't say "believed to possess" it says "who are claimed to have". That comes off strictly negative to me. It basically says that they think and say they have certain powers but no one believes them and that it is NOT true. So, I'm still waiting for someone to tell me why they don't believe... sometimes you just have to have faith. Forbidden Angel 13:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. If something is claimed about something it means that it is possibly true but people aren't sure. If it is claimed that someone spoke to God it doesn't mean they haven't it means that they might have done. I think the line is very fair. We don't know if the Indigo Children phenomenon exists. Some people claim that they do, some people claim that they don't. That's all we know. I think its very fair. ThePeg 11:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Why is it so hard to believe that some individuals have unique gifts. The way I look at it; we are all born with these gifts, but society restricts us and tells us we are a freak or mentally un-healthy if we are not what society considers normal. What is normal anyways? My husband is psychic. As a child he thought he was a freak, because he always knew what was going to happen before hand and he was afraid to tell anyone. Then it came to pass that his father was also psychic ( a powerful one at that) he never mentioned it either; perhaps fear of what others would say, do or think. When I came into the family I asked the grandparents of my husband if either one of them were psychic. A look followed by a long silence- then grandpa started talking. When he was 6 he told someone they would die the next day; when the man passed his mother forbid him from ever speaking in that manner again. We can only imagine that this characteristic continues in the family blood. None of these three men are egocentric or consider themselves better than anyone else. It is a tool much like a hammer. It is only with practice that they can be keenly aware of what is "really" going on. Stress also plays a large role- my husband hasn't had a vision in a while due to his heavy work load. Given the characteristics of an Indigo "person" -sadly not in this definition, but from other sources both my husband and father-in-law fit the bill exactly. My husband and I have a unique little girl who just turned 1. We have no intention of having her grow up thinking she different or special compared to anyone else, but the fact of the matter is that we already know that she has the ability to see things we can't see. We have had 1 experience already that sort of blew us both away. As far as telepathic communication; I believe that was mentioned as a questionable trait as well. My husband and I don't have to talk; I am not quite as in tune with my spouse at times, but he always knows what I am going to say before I say it. It may be hard for some to understand, but we can glance over at the other and somehow communicate a complete thought process and the other will carry out whatever task that is needed. I think that is sort of the whole point of what this movement is suppose to be. More in-tune with our internal guiding system and being able to communicate without spoken words. GuidoZ'Girl

Indigo Girls

Is there any value in including something about the Indigo Girls? The amazing thing about these people is that they can play the guitar, write and sing songs AND bring out an album every two or three years. Incredible. ThePeg 11:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Environment and Evolution section is particularly biased

I replaced the NPOV-section template for this section. It makes several assumptions about the existence of unproven and unscientifically described spiritual and supernatural concepts. I suggest that this section be removed entirely, or cleaned up with language that is not biased towards automatically accepting original research. The wikipedia "Fairy" article, for instance, mentions their mythological or folklore aspects upfront, without assuming a priori positive existence.

how can one describe spirituality in a scientific way if it is inherently non scientific? please keep that in mind if you would.Karaveks voice 21:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The article, if it is to be neutral and encyclopedic, should not make any assumptions about a priori existence of unproven phenomena. The Bigfoot article does not assume that Bigfoot exists; nor should this article make assumptions about the existence of the various new age concepts discussed in this section. There should probably be an originalresearch template at the top of the entire article. For instance, what is an "Earth shift"? These are not well-understood, generally accepted concepts.

why not do some research? the indigo phenomenon is well documented.... do some reading, you wont have any questions after that, i would hope. oh and Bigfoot isnt about a subclass of humans, Indigo is. being "well understood" isnt lacking from this article, being well explained maybe, but these concepts arent exactly for the illuminati only...Karaveks voice 18:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Can you point me towards a reference documenting "Indigo Children" in a peer reviewed academic journal. In fact, can you point me towards any reference that doesn't involve either someone trying to hawk a book, or boasting about how they (or their children) are "Indigo"? Hyperdeath 18:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

ill see what i can find.Karaveks voice 18:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

ahh, why we look deeper in human evolution to reach like we us now certainly we have differ like human blodd cell type evolved, right now we have O,A,B,AB so what you think certainly they not come in same time that human red blood type. but that my only view.better we have common baby decomentet aura and human common aura and what indigo child aura to compare them.202.133.2.18 16:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Confused

I came here trying to learn what an ``Indigo child is and the article doesn't seem to clearly explain that. It's written like I already know what they are, and it's just reviewing some facts about them to refresh my memory. For example, if I went to an article on ``Cars I would want a clear description of what a car is, not talk about where the term car came from, when they started being made, how they relate to other modes of transportation, what their status is in society, etc. 134.117.226.52 14:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC) Jordan

As and when the belivers come to an agreement on what the term means we well write about that.Geni 17:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Paranormal abilities are not "special psychological or spiritual abilities" The very first paragraph is confused! This kind of article is why wiki doesn't have the best credibility. Too bad. I changed it but then it got changed back.68.163.214.17

It's more balanced than it was months ago; the sections on criticism and non-mystic interperetations are pretty good, and the article is clear that the scientific community thinks it is hogwash. I don't think an article that says "this is what Indigo supporters believe" is harmful; in fact that article is mostly "book A says X, book B says Y," which is pretty much how a controversial article should read. 68.163.214.17, some of your edits were inflamatory and did not contain any references for what you wrote. 67.86.64.102 13:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Narcissism

A prominent trait of indigo children is a "very high self-esteem", something that could be thought of as superficially resembling narcissism. Narcissism, however, is very fragile self-esteem, among several other defining points. In any case, I wouldn't feel very obliged to comment if I didn't become physically ill over corruption, injustice and greed. (not a very narcissistic trait)

If you have good reasons to be against the concept of indigo children, I definitely respect that, but if on the other hand you still believe in ADHD... then you're nothing more than a disgustingly pathetic waste of oxygen, and need to be DESTROYED IMMEDIATELY.

Well - very sensitively argued, I must say! 'DESTROYED IMMEDIATELY' eh? Great advert for believers in the Indigo Children! Let's hope they are here to help the world cos if their followers are as intolerant as you we're in big trouble! ThePeg 16:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Read the book "narcissism or self-esteem",(something like that) it's got some good points.

I agree! --Classic8uranus 20:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

A little creepy

I was just reading about Narcissistic Personality Disorder and it's REALLY similer to this 'indigo child' phenomenon.

Well you highlight something quite important. The personality traits described here don't suggest personalities geared to helping the human race. Rather the opposite - they seem arrogant and intolerant of human beings. Let's say these children are what these people claim them to be. Where are the qualities of compassion and understanding which we would hope would come with these heightened talents? Shades of the Midwich Cuckoos at the moment. ThePeg 16:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Re-adding relevant information

I am re-adding the information about an "Indigo Child" quoting information from a television show. It is relevant to the section of the article it is in. Please do not keep deleting it. Without that line the "Non-mystic Interpretations" section makes little sense. -DejahThoris 08:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It is by no means relevent. it could not be knowable at the time . .and even if it was, theres no garuntee that that cartoon was ever seen by the child in question. nor is it aa direct quote.Please dont grasp at strawsKaraveks voice 22:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Deletions from the talk page

74.106.54.232 , you have [deleted discussion from the talk page] twice, with no explanatory notes. Is it in violation of some guideline?

Discussion page vandalism/suggest ban?

I concur with 67.86.64.102 above; user Karaveks voice continually removes substantive discussion and repeated NPOV flags by other users. As it stands now, this article is hardly an unbiased review of the subject. - Quokkapox 03:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

What is the procedure for banning/blocking a user that repeatedly vandalizes the talk page (by removing legitimate discussion)?

I suggest we implement it. Quokkapox 19:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

See the Banning Policy for information about banning users. "Persistent edit warring and other disruptive editing tactics", is proscribed. I imagine that deleting legitimate conversation (as Karaveks Voice has taken to doing) is covered by this.

However, before action is taken, we must exhaust the other avenues in the Dispute Resolution section. Only then, can we make a Request for Arbitration. The first step in dispute resolution is talking it over.

Therefore: Karaveks Voice, why are you deleting other peoples conversations?

Hyperdeath 08:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV and this article

Karaveks, you seem to be reverting a lot of other authors' edits, and now you have deleted discussion about the article as well. What is your criteria for allowing edits to this article? --67.86.64.102 02:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to add the phrase "claims or who is believed to possess" to the opening (more in line with the articles on psychic phenomena,) restore the "Non-Mystic Interpretations" section [including the last paragraph about the cartoon] and revert [these two edits] - I think the older version is clearer and better sourced. Other opinions? 67.86.64.102 12:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

This discussion was removed from the talk page, but I think it's very relevant. 192.216.4.64 20:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

As a completely neutral observer (I'd never heard of "indigo children" before), I followed the link from Indigo Girls to see what the heck the term meant. As the article stood on Aug 3 2006, it gave me a fairly clear idea. While most New Age activity is tripe, I do find that some concepts worthy of ponderance do manage to come forth from time to time.

Though I feel that the page should be edited to make them more descriptive and less promotional, I am extremely happy that I can pop onto the page and see what it's all about. -BC-

Ritalin / amphetamines

Do these drugs help the children in any way to live "normally"

I am very nieve and would like to remain skeptical

i was on ritalin for years, and its by no means a good trade off for the indigo and crystal children. it hurts the mind morethen it helps it in ways.... its hard to explainKaraveks voice 20:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

It's mainstream, now!

Well, that it to say, tonight on the UK's Channel 4 is a documentary on this very subject called, "My Child's Psychic". That is what brought me to this page. On the question of deleting the article, I would say 'definitely not'. The belief in Indigo Children certainly exists, in the same way that religion or belief in astrology exist; and those two things deserve articles, whatever one's personal view on the truth of these beliefs. Peter Harriman 20:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

"There are no studies." - What's up Kraveks?

Kraveks, you have deleted this information twice, and I'm not sure why. It accurately represents the views of skeptics, and it's pretty well sourced:

Skeptics point out that proponents of the Indigo movement lack verifiable evidence to support their claims. Indigo literature frequently talks about "University studies" and "interested scientists," however as Russell Barkley, a research professor of psychiatry, has said "There's no science behind it. There are no studies."

I understand you disagree with the statement, but instead of deleting it, why don't you provide a competing link to a study so readers can decide for themselves?

Even if it is thier view, its not acurate in that they claim that there are no studies, and there are, though i have no links for my own to show, i have been shown a few.... im sorry if its heresay, but i dont think that the statement, being a lie, should be included...Karaveks voice 12:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Karaveks, I think that until you can provide citations that it is a lie, you don't exactly have solid encyclopedic footing to remove the current quote. Can you provide something to the contrary?--TurabianNights 16:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

There is often confusion when it comes to claims of scientific studies as many within the pro-Indigo camp refer to studies of ADD, ADHD, Dyslexia and Asperger syndrome. The truth is that 'Indigo Children' are a spiritual or new age interpretation of what mainstream science would term disorders. Therefore the indigo concept is more of an approach to observable new behavioural traits in many children than it is a scientific theory. Most professional interest in the concept comes not from scientists but from academics such as PHDs, psychologists, counsellors and teachers, some of whom are listed in books such as The Indigo Children by Lee Carroll and Jan Tober. - Solar 11:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you then saying that all (or most) of the acclaimed Indigo children have disorders? Who are you to diagnose us? And, although there might not be much proof, I see little but opinions to the contrary. In a battle of opinions, the side with the most wits wins... I see this isn't much of a battle then. :) Forbidden Angel 14:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Forbidden Angel, I assume you were addressing Solar. I realize that most mainstream scientific circles do use the word 'disorder', which can be misleading and even insulting, and creates a stigma. But rather than reject the observations and theories that grow out of such studies, perhaps it would be useful to you to mentally substitute another word of your own choosing, instead. Also, are you familiar with the concept of Neurodiversity? That model can probably satisfy the goals of the Indigo movement(s) while also identifying a potentially physiological basis for a seemingly anomalous phenomena. -FJ | hello 09-25-2006 15:45 PST

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)

The Question

Just leave it be. Anyone discussing this topic is bound to be upset, as there is no quantifying medium for discussion. Anyone who is an Indigo child would not be here arguing the point, as defined by the article. Anyone here who is not an Indigo would be arguing the point, as is defined by human nature. Feel free to attack me, but ask yourself why you bother.

We can't all be Charles Wallace —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.199.160.90 (talk) 02:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

neutrality Education

"Through the advent of the internet, many of these highly sensitive individuals are connecting and learning more about their place in the world.[17] There are many online communities where people are able to educate their selves, as well as a growing number of books on the subject." I question the neutrality of this statement --Aquahelper (talk) 23:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I question the grammaticality! —Wiki Wikardo 16:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Antisocial personality disorder

I removed the following section

Others have noted the similarity in the "diagnosis" of Indigo Children and the DSM-IV checklist for Antisocial Personality Disorder. [6]

since it is poorly sourced, generally inflamatory, and (at least on a brief search) could find nothing to support it. Thoughts, better citations, or suggestions on improvement? --TeaDrinker 08:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Good, I'm glad you removed it. I understand a mention of criticism here but it really does go too far. Originally its only link was a critial one. I added the positive link you see now. It was removed. I added it back. It was removed again. I added it back. So now at least we have one of each. Like I said on the discussion for the New Age page, this subject, like many other New Age topics, has to face an unfair amount of scrutiny here. Meanwhile pages for traditional religions, even Wicca, are left alone. Why all the scrutiny against New Age topics? Neurolanis (talk) 01:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

If I fit this catagory of people (indigo people), I expect this must be why I keep talking about wanting to continuous stop parents from smacking thier children. It is one of many issues that people seem to place at lower priority than they should for some reason that is part of a social phenomenon. Other examples include, abortion, the death penalty, release of carbon di oxide, leaving babies to cry all day, adults thinking children crying is less important than when adults cry, curtian kinds of animal killing etc etc. I am aware of the perception that people have that such things aren't issue e.g. that they do not think abortion is baby killing. Such difference from the truth is the phenomenon that prevents them seeing 'the real world'. But for some reason stopping spanking of children occuring is a very big issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.79.180.109 (talk) 16:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Why a plural article title?

Would someone please explain why this article title is plural? I tried to move it to the singular, and I find I would first need to delete the article that's already there, which has some history. Before I do that, could someone give a reason why I shouldn't? Michael Hardy 00:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Indigo children is the term generally used to describe the "phenomenon", not "indigo child". --Wooty Woot? contribs 01:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting comment. I suppose the subject is usually mentioned in plural so we just wrote it that way without thinking. Neurolanis (talk) 02:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Roger dodger. You make a compelling argument, w00t, as to why it should be plural, but I’m pretty sure WP:NC dictates singular. Barring any rebuttals, I’m going to have it moved by an admin. —Peace like that! (but not like that)

Neanderthals, Homo Sapiens and Indigo Children

I'd like to just ask something. Let us accept, for a moment, that the so-called Indigo Children exist and are, perhaps, a new phase in human evolution (in fact people have emerged all across the world in every period of human history with these talents). Here are a few questions: a) do they know this? b) Why are they described as being identifiable by having qualities which seem quite unpleasant eg arrogance, intolerance, a lack of interest in people not of their own kind c) how are they going to help the world if they don't have much interest in ordinary human beings and d) should we not remember that the arrival of Homo Sapiens meant the death knell of the Neanderthals who were eventually made extinct by their evolutionary successors? Shouldn't these prophets of the Indigo Children be asking themselves questions about the development of these children? There's something rather Nazi and eugenic-like about the uncritical way in which these people talk about these children and on the documentaries I have seen of them there is an arrogance and elitism (and underlying contempt for the rest of the world) surrounding some of these adults who claim to be custodians of the Indigo Children. I would love it if we were nearing a new consciousness of things but it all seems a little too easy to me this idea that all we have to do is wait for these kids to grow up and save the world for us. It smacks a little too much of quasi-religious, the Elect Will Be Saved, Chosen People/Master Race ideas to me. If we are going to be saved let's all be saved and let's all do it together as a the Human Race and not rush to make ourselves obsolete. ThePeg 16:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I can answer your questions, although I know that this isn't a forum, I am more willing to answer you if you send me an email at wonder@inbox.com (I'm an indigo adult, btw.) Wolfpeaceful (talk) 19:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Although you are not an "indigo adult" because there is no such thing as an indigo adult or indigo child (except in the minds of those who imagine it), I want thank you for not posting your answer here. Not only is Wikipedia not a forum, it saves the rest us from having to waste our time reading it. Ward3001 (talk) 19:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

--in response to this I'll only repeat what someone else already mentioned: "Anyone who is an Indigo child would not be here arguing the point, as defined by the article. Anyone here who is not an Indigo would be arguing the point, as is defined by human nature. Feel free to attack me, but ask yourself why you bother."Wolfpeaceful (talk) 23:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC) The point of this article shouldn't be whether or not indigoes exist, but to adeqautely equate the pro's for the possible existence; and the cons of the skeptics --- I would be more than glad if you can adequately PROVIDE a legitimate source to the counter claims to the existence of indigoes WITHIN the article, providing of course that you use VERFIABLE sources... but to attack my character on the discussion page is just plain rude and condescending. Thank you and have a blessed day. Wolfpeaceful (talk) 23:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC) In my defense though; I thought that someone who has grown up around the "theory" his whole life might have been able to actually relate the theory of the topic of the article more suitably than someone who has not, and to actually point you to some research material done by Uiversity Profressors about this "theory" but maybe I'm not welcome here, YOU TELL ME, thanks Wolfpeaceful (talk) 00:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I did not attack you personally. I simply identified "indigo child" (or adult) for what it is: Completely unfounded, and existing only in the minds of those who claim to be one (or the minds of their parents). But that's typical of most people who identify themselves with some special characteristic that's completely unverifiable; any questioning of its validity is considered a personal attack. And if you have research done by "Uiversity Profressors" [sic], then by all means please give us the links. But please don't waste our time unless the professor is affiliated with a university accredited by a regional accrediting organization, and the "research" is published by a peer reviewed journal within the past 15 years. Otherwise it's smoke and mirrors and idle speculation. We can get that by watching David Copperfield on TV. Now, that shouldn't be too hard for a true indigo to come up with. But we are left to wonder why, with all the scholars who contribute to Wikipedia, why such sources are not already cited in the article? Ward3001 (talk) 00:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

--A Professor of University of Berkley did a dissertation on the theory of Indigo Children, but it might take me a little while to do a little digging, and to actually get permission to use it. However, there are also articles in other scientific magaizines related to the postulization of indigos, again a little digging there too. Keep in mind that this is a pseudo-scientific (prob should be in caps) topic, meaning that the research is still an on-going process (and heck just for the heck of it, I'll throw in there, they used to think the world was flat, but later science proved that it was round; maybe indigos don't exist, and you're right, but do you have scientific proof of their non-existence? Nope, neither do I have proof of their existence, but there is research being done on this topic. And IMO, you should have used a reference point in the article... like I will do when I find the claims that support my position, you are more than welcome to use claims that supports yours as well (The reason I considered it a personal attack, was because I was responding to ThePeg, and you for some reason thought that you had to put your opinion about me in this discussion.) Wolfpeaceful (talk) 17:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• "dissertation on the theory of Indigo Children": Someone could do a dissertation about possible life on Mars. That doesn't mean there is life on Mars. Let's see the dissertation.
• scientific magaizines [sic]: Magazines are not peer reviewed. Some, but not all, journals are peer-reviewed. Don't waste our time with magazines.
• "do you have scientific proof of their non-existence": Come on, now. You indigos should know more about science than that. Science does not try to prove a negative because it's impossible to do so. There can always be an unknown exception to the negative. Science starts with the assumption that something is not true and tries to prove it to be true. Just for an introduction, try reading Null hypothesis. So the burden of proof is on those who claim the validity of the indigo concept.
• "you for some reason thought that you had to put your opinion about me in this discussion": I put my opinion about the non-existence of indigos in the discussion. But, true to form for someone claiming an unverifiable characteristic, you insist that it's a personal attack. Ward3001 (talk) 18:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. Jefffire 16:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

And yet there is plenty of discussion everywhere on it. Otherwise thanks for the insight but could you tell me how my comment is any more of a 'discussion' than half the other posts on this page - a page, I might add, which is described at the top as a DISCUSSION page? ThePeg 00:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The discussion page is intended for use discussing changes to the article, not for discussing the topic of the article. Sometimes it is misused, I agree... But we try to keep on topic. --TeaDrinker 01:03, 20 January 2007

(UTC)

Fair enough. But quite often the discussions are fascinating and as informative as the articles as ideas get thrashed out. ThePeg 11:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Like I said I can provide you with links if you email me, but this is NOT the place for that discussion, I am more than willing to provide you with a more suitable source for the discussion of your interest, if only you email me; I'm not going to answer your questions here, because they really aren't all that relative the actual article itself, but you can e-mail me, and I can give you listings of doctors who study this field, and other forums pertaining to this topic at wonder@inbox.com Wolfpeaceful (talk) 23:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Wolfpeaceful: you do realise that you're responding to a posting that's more than two years old? The only relevant discussion on this page is how we can improve the current article. If you've some ideas, please start a new discussion thread at the bottom of this page and lay out your ideas for improving it. In passing, rather than the names of doctors, more useful sources would be articles published in the scientific literature. Best regards, --PLUMBAGO 17:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

--I have disinteresetd myself from this article for a time... and life has gotten in the way. But yes, I forgot at that time to read the date of the comment (a silly mistake.) I may or may not make changes to this article in the future The dissertation I was referring to is now archived and accessible to students only, but it doesn't matter anyway, I'm not extensively working on this article (the changes I made previously were very few and the changes I make in the future will probably be few as well) Wolfpeaceful (talk) 18:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

In Fiction

I'm not sure if this is legitimate, also I've never edited a wikipedia page. But in Ray Bradbury's Childhood's End the ending of the novel involves a whole generation of children with the telekenisis abilities etc. Maybe this should be added to the "In Fiction" subheading.

Come to think of it, so does the ending of the Tarkovsky film Stalker. Once the main protagonists (the older generation) have returned from the Zone having failed in their quest and the Stalker has spoken his final words about their lack of faith the movie cuts to the Stalker's child looking at a glass on a table. As the scene continues the glass starts to move across the table of its own accord, as do some other objects. The inference is that the child, who's gestation period was effected by the extra-terrestrial nature of the Zone, has latent telekinetic powers. Funnily enough, I remember being angry about this ending too, as if it was too easy and too dismissive of the flawed humanity of the characters who had come before (the rest of the movie is superb). Still, it should perhaps be included in the "In Fiction" subheading as well. For a negative portrayal of an Indigo-like set of children read John Whyndham's The Midwich Cuckoos, which should also be included, really. ThePeg 17:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Fictional characters who are not identified as Indigo Children are outside the context of this article; a story that predates this movement that happens to show a child with mental powers or a detachment from the world around them is a coincidence. Next someone will suggest adding Children of the Corn. -- Xinit 18:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Childhood's End is by Arthur C. Clarke. --69.124.56.44 13:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

"In the arcade-adventure computer game Fahrenheit (also known as Indigo Prophecy), an Indigo child, Jade, is thought to be a prophet destined to bring some powerful truths into the world." I believe that the term "The Indigo Child" in this case is a coincidence. In the game world, it's referring to a one of a kind person who is refered to as the Indigo Child. -- Xinit 18:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. That game's "Indigo Child" isn't psychic or anything, just something with some reincarnation backstory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.99.138.73 (talk) 23:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

69.124.56.44 is right, it's by Arthur C Clarke, can you change it? Lunakeet 18:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Indigo another word for ADD/AS/autistic spectrum?

Here is something to make the shrinks unhappy. I'm going to bet that an 'Indigo child' raised as such will do far better than the same child diagnosed with ADD, AS or straight autism. People often live up to expectations. If the expectation is difficulties and gifts you may well see the gifts strengthened. If the expectation is dysfunction that must be fixed at all cost the gifts will be ignored "It will be lucky if he can hold a job at burger king!". Yes it would be, but if his gifts had been emphasized instead he would easily hold a job as a research scientist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.81.61.206 (talk) 06:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

Indeed: reframing the nature of children who meet these criteria as valueable rather than defective could change their qulity of life. --69.124.56.44 13:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Conflating separate DSM IV disorders is not helpful. ADD has nothing at all to do with the Autism Spectrum.Slagathor (talk) 00:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Except for the fact that a lot of these so-called 'Indigo Children' communities are as worrying as putting them in clutches of drug-wielding doctors. If there is such a phenomenon it is not properly understood and bringing them up in semi-New Age communities can be as damaging as shoving them on Ritalin (which I really deplore). I've seen websites from some of these Indigo Communities which are very upsetting (some are on this page as links). One has a child in a wheelchair supposedly saying that they may seem disabled but in fact they are an Angel of Light come to tell the world about our need to love one another. I for one find this tasteless and exploitative and as bad as diagnosing them as ADHD and consigning them to a walking chemical prison. As ever, we simply don't know how to cope with bringing up children. ThePeg 23:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention tbe popularity of marijuana and psychedelic drugs in some New Age groups as well as the predisposition of children raised with high expectations/low discipline to drug use later in life. 76.27.212.74 (talk) 15:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

i would but

i might consider reverting that last one somomeone did but i cant, cause some whoevers are mad at me or whateverCharred Feathers 21:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Be careful with spaces before your first word - it causes special formatting which makes your text very hard to read. We aren't mad at you, you just need to follow Wikipedia policy, especially WP:V (and thus WP:RS), and the WP:ARB/PS case (especially the Acceptable Sources ruling). By the way, you can still edit the article per WP:3RR, you just can't revert. --Philosophus ^T 21:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

So you just logged out to do your last revert? -- Xinit 21:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... that happened while I was writing a response here. Be careful, as per WP:SOCK, editing like that can result in severe consequences, far worse than those from WP:3RR. --Philosophus ^T 21:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

i was referring to the IP's reversion, but i cant touch anything for now.Charred Feathers 21:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

My mistake; I sometimes neglect to assume good faith. Personally, I just found this as a page with some pretty severe over-wording and duplication. I'm trying to work on formating, copy-editing and removal of Weasel Words for the most part; not trying to get into any sort of debate on right and wrong. -- Xinit 21:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

all good.... but could you maybe add the wording from claimed indigo abilites to the ability list by tober ( or whichever one is the main one)Charred Feathers 21:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look at the history shortly; see if there's anything fundamental that I missed; there were a number of items that were basic rewordings of the same thing; one stating that they're intelligent and creative, and another saying they're artistic... so I reduced. Once I'm done moving some of the old and resolved discussions here into the archive, I'll take another look at the list. -- Xinit 21:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Initial archiving setup

I've just archived a whole lot of items from the talk page here. Mostly started with the really old stuff on Archive 1, and then moved on to the resolved items or unhelpful items. I went on to start Archive 2 in an effort to keep the pages relatively small. -- Xinit 21:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. --Philosophus ^T 22:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed list of unsourced talents

I removed and otherwise consolidated a large number of points that were ascribed to Indigo Children...

There were a couple links that were cited, but I wasn't able to find the claimed powers listed;

• http://www.greatdreams.com/indigo.htm -- not a very good reference...
• http://www.starchild.co.za/angel.html -- not a very good reference
• I'd prefer to have the CNN transcript actually sourced from CNN directly, but it doesn't really provide any new information not covered in the Toller list above, and certainly not anything about telekinesis.

I think that the whole list that Wendy's site offers is basically pointless to include... for the reason that she claims that 95-99% of children born now are effectively above average... I question the source here too. The Toller list is the only one that seems to be consistent and as reliable as I can expect of any source on this topic.

"There's a very good chance your child is an Indigo 
if he/she was born after 1992. About 85% or higher
of children born in '92 or later, 90% born in '94
or after and 95% or more born now (some even say 99%)
are Indigo Children! Does this mean you aren't one
if you were born prior to 1992? No! I've heard reports
that they started coming in the 80s, but that means
coming in larger numbers. I believe there have been
Indigos born in every year, but perhaps not in high
enough percentages to notice their presence and see
what makes them so unique. So can you be a 24 yr old
Indigo or a 50 year old one? Yes!"

Some removed content:

"Many discussions of Indigo children in New Age
literature (including Kryon literature) claim that
Indigo children are born with part of their DNA
activated that most people do not have activated.
Some claim that it is junk DNA that they utilize
to "swap out" higher-dimensional
information, giving them special abilities."

I can't find any reputable claims of this sort.

Redundant items and otherwise non-sourced bits;

• Highly intelligent.
• Often very creative.
• Developmentally advanced in reading, walking, talking, etc.
• Psychic/intuitive abilities.
• Multi-dimensional awareness; they perceive a broader range of reality.
• Telepathic abilities.
• They sense and feel energies from people or other living things (aura reading).
• Telekinesis, etc. Moving objects with their mind energy and thought.
• Awareness of scientific, historical, anthropological and spiritual knowledge not consciously learnt. Sometimes called 'knowledge bombs'.
• Awareness of past lives.
• Extremely empathic to all creatures, not just humans but animals and plants.
• They can communicate with the unseen world, spirits and angels.
• Multi-dimensional healing abilities.
• Manifest unusual artwork, languages and scripts.
• Dual consciousness; feeling part human and part extraterrestrial.
• Have a sense of mission or higher purpose.
• Abilty to completely control emotions.
• Ability to control sexual desire, increase sexual direction. Can use sex and physical touch for healing as well as use it as a weapon. When with own kind, light can be created by the two auras coming together.
• Have strong self esteem, connection to source
• Have an obvious sense of self
• Refuse to follow orders or directions
• Get bored rather easily with assigned tasks
• Are rather creative
• Display strong intuition
• Have either strong or no empathy for others
• Develop abstract thinking very young
• Are gifted and/or talented, highly intelligent
• Are often identified or suspected of having ADHD
• Are frequent daydreamers
• Have very old, deep, wise looking eyes

If there's a reputable (within reason) source for these items, please let us know.

In another note, what exactly is "Multi-dimensional awareness"? I am aware of at least 4 dimensions, as most people are...

-- Xinit 23:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Characteristics section

As of now, this section is referenced with a link to a website that summarizes a book. In making this a proper reference, should the book be cited, or the website? If the website, how do we verify this is what the book and therefore the authors actually say? If we cannot, should we use the website itself as a source (does it pass WP:RS?). Input is needed here - the section may just need to be (temporarily) removed pending an investigation into the claimed reference. -Wooty Woot? contribs 02:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

if its tober's website then that should be self explainitory... same for the other one whos name i cant rememberCharred Feathers 03:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

If it's his website and not the book being cited then we probably need to remove it as a violation of WP:RS. I don't think that site meets it. -Wooty Woot? contribs 04:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

There are a number of other links in that section, such as the refs to Wendy Chapman that certainly have WP:RS issues and don't really help the article as a result. -- Xinit 08:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Trimmed it down to a couple of links. A lot of them are already cited in the references section anyway. -Wooty Woot? contribs 21:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

Would the editor who just removed it care to comment on why the pseudoscience category has been removed from this article? The subject clearly falls into this category. Is this a simple sub-category thing (i.e. it's a New Age topic so is already pseudoscience)? --Plumbago 10:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

seems more like spirituality to me.(even if its a bit off the wall)Charred Feathers 10:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, in terms of the claims for the purported abilities of these children, the idea of "indigo children" is surely pseudoscience? In fact, the article was listed as such until very recently, and it's only in the past fortnight that this category has been removed. Anyway, I don't think saying that it's spirituality is sufficient to avoid categorisation as pseudoscience - a subject can be both spiritual and pseudoscience. Making the sorts of false claims documented in the article can't really be described as anything else. Cheers, --Plumbago 10:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

you shouldnt assume that they are false claims, you should probably not call it fake by proxy either, with the claims of psudoscience....12:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Charred Feathers (talk • contribs).

Hmmm. The section in the article on the scientific community's view of "indigo children" is quite clear on this topic being pseudoscientific. While there are aspects of "indigo children" that indeed have some basis in reality (the Characteristics subsection of the article lists some of these; although they're hardly unique to "indigo children"), there are plenty more that are clearly pseudoscientific or completely lacking in evidence (e.g. "psychic abilities, empathic, spirit communication, 'multidimensional awareness', immunity to diseases such as HIV"). Cheers, --Plumbago 12:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

why is it so hard to believe that the possibillity exists that some of this is real? calling it psudeoscience is kinda mean, when it clearly (to me) isnt a sceintific issue, abillities such as TK arent based in the realm of scientifically measurable things, only those that believe they can use the minds powers can even hope to acutally do it, no matter how many scientiific tests are done..... i dont get why this has to be called " fake by proxy" with the psudeoscience label... ".Charred Feathers 13:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)not based in reality??" well horatio, all things in reality arent quantified or quantifiable yet....

Charred: Once again, this is a Original Research and POV again. It doesn't matter what you think, or I think, or whatever, for the purposes of Wikipedia. You can cite what reputable sources say on either side of the issue, but as regarding the status of the so-called Indigo Children phenomenon--in terms of reputable sources at this time--it's pseudoscience. Maybe someday that will be different, then it will no longer be classified as such. And you are right in saying that science, in the way we mean it today, only can measure material things and is limited by that, but you can't, on the other hand, then want "science" to back up the existence of the very Indigo phenomenon that you admit science doesn't have the competency or tools to measure. Either way, that's what "pseudoscience" is. Sigil7 13:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

i just dont like how its lumped in with ufo nuts and those other strange nessesses... i really do think its a wholly spiritual issue, like that dude who could punch a tree in half, but had no more muscle then a small child.... ( tibetan monk i think)Charred Feathers 13:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Charred: But this is my point! From the point of view of science, strictly speaking, it HAS to be lumped in with the things you mention, because they are equally un-"provable" by scientific methods. Even if science can observe and measure some paranormal events in action (like telekinesis), it can't account for its cause (since it's not material.Sigil7 13:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

ill give this up then, but you must admit, science is like an eternal child, never learning enough, cause its impossible by todays technological standards , and the rampant sceptisism (shrug)Charred Feathers 13:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Science--by its nature--is supposed to be skeptical. And "today's technological standards" won't fix the problem in this case. There are many issues that science will never be able to speak to--either now or in the future--because they are immaterial in nature or not quantifiable by material means.Sigil7 15:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for calling real pseudoscience by that name. However the Idigo child concept is more spiritual/religious in nature than pseudoscientific. Describing it that way early on should be sufficient to the task.

The repetitive skepticism of this article is grating. So the Indigo Child concept is New Agey and therefore WoooWooo. OK already! Someone attracted to the concept is probably a parent, and sad to say, most parenting advice is pseudoscientific. Parents are in the position of chosing which pseudoscience to follow. Rubbing it in doesn't serve much useful purpose. --69.124.56.44 13:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it does. It reminds parents that, no, your precious snowflake isn't a special individual who's experiencing difficulty because of psychic powers, but they're a child who would much rather be running around outside than learning how to multiply and divide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.64.10.249 (talk • contribs)

Obvious warnings in the text above

I am seeing reasoning for and against the pseudoscience categorization being advanced on the following bases:

• "calling it psudeoscience is kinda mean"
• "i just dont like how its lumped in with ufo nuts" (emphasis added)
• "So the Indigo Child concept is New Agey and therefore WoooWooo. ... Rubbing it in doesn't serve much useful purpose."

This is not valid logic on which to frame a debate over article categorization. According to Webster, pseudoscience is "a system of theories, assumptions, and methods erroneously regarded as scientific." Base your arguments on that, and don't forget to sign comments with four tildes: ~~~~ --Neurophyre^(talk) 10:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

i'll also vote for a better word than "pseudoscience" but i know where you're coming from--if science cant play with it, it's not scientific. what about miracles? not that indigo kids are miraculous, but when a nun's parkinsons clears up overnight, someone wants to know how prayer heals. "it just DOES" say the believers, and "yeah, but HOW?" say the scientists. perhaps until science gets around to building machines to examine and study it (germ theory was nonsense until the microscope)it's not so much "pseudo" as "proto." that's the stickler about the new-age movement. its not a subsequent age, based on the rules of the previous age. it's all new stuff to discover. and if grandma can remember a childhood with hand-crank washing machines, but her 10 year old grandchild can install her own Wii, yes, we're talking about a whole new kind of human, smart beyond her times, and frustrated at living with us dinosaurs. best to encourage her, no? 76.217.120.247 22:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying only indigo 10 year olds can install Wiis? Wiis are practically installed right out of the box. When I was ten I could take apart and put back together an entire computer, and that's not uncommon. It's not a whole new kind of human, it's not evolution, it's growing up around new technology in a society that's changing. When my mother was small she was told to cross the street if a black man approached; I'm half black and dating a black man. Same concept. None of that has ANYTHING to do with what shade of purple your aura is. Kuronue 16:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

i'm not even saying that indigo children are a reality. but every generation, imho, is a new kind of human. it's not uncommon now for kids to be so tech-savvy. but that the very young are so easily able to adapt to such a rapidly evolving world around them has got to bewilder the older generations. i was born into a world of 7 channels and pay phones and my speak'n'spell gave me hours of fascination. when i have kids, i'll have to have them program my cell phone because i'll be so 20th century that i'll be laughable. i dont put much stock in the indigo thing, but you have to admit that the wave of new knowledge we've had in the last 30 years is phenomenal, and the kids that are mastering this information (science, philosophy, art) can seem downright spooky. and when you see the whole generation doing at 10 what i (and my mom thinks i'm brilliant, go figure) dont expect to figure out till i'm 40, and maybe you've also let go of traditional ideas of classical science and old-school religion, you start to wonder if it isnt just kids functioning in the world, but thriving and changing the world. we all like mystics and saviors. and indigo believers simply believe that millions of kids are unlike all the previous kids, and in so many of the same ways that maybe, they say, there's something to it. instead of one special person, a prophet etc, they think all of humanity is becoming something profound. maybe we're all evolving. maybe those people are high. i cant say. but i do know a 17 year old that could work the vcr at 2 and didnt talk till she was 3. she still talks like a gradeschooler, but she draws well enough for disney. i think she's weird. others might call her gifted. if anyone had encouraged her to interact with grown-ups on their level, she may have graduated from college already. all i'm saying is that if so many people are seeing so much intelligence and intuition in a generation plagued with asthma/adhd/autism/allergies, (cant breathe, cant focus, but composed a symphony?) something is making them different. it's very likely the observers just seeing what they're wishing for. but even as a fringe/proto/pseudo science like ufology, studying it could yield some interesting info either about human development, or about societal paranoia. 76.217.127.153 16:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I have restored the tag. The belief is classic pseudoscience, as the refs., with their use of scientific terminology ("theorem," etc.) and numeric measure (percentage of children with supposed 'aura') are clearly trying to establish some scientific validity to the belief, while the evidence demonstrates the opposite. That's practically the definition of pseudoscience. To further define the term within the article, as Epadmirateur suggests, would be redundant. 138.23.246.2 (talk) 17:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, it appears that you're engaging in original research. Do you have a reliable source that explicitly states that this belief is pseudoscience? For example, does Russell Barkley state this? If so, then fine, put the pseudoscience category on. If not, please note that the criticism section lays out the objections to this belief pretty well. Adding the category without reliable sources shifts the article away from a neutral point of view, in my view. BTW, I have no personal opinion on this issue and no stake either way in how this particular idea is presented, only that it is presented from a neutral point of view, as all WP articles should be. Merci, EPadmirateur (talk) 02:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Substantial Change in Intro

The intro to this article has always bothered me, because the concept of Indigo children was not first publicized by Carroll and Tober, a fact which they openly acknowledge.
I removed the section "The reason for the use of the adjective 'indigo' is not universally agreed upon. It has been claimed that these children appear with an indigo-hued 'aura.'" I haven't seen any disagreement about who originated the term. In fact, the reference cited for that section (A New York Times article that is still a source for other parts of the article) also attributes the term "Indigo children" to Tappe.
I also added a couple of bits of info taken from (seperate) interviews with Tober and Tappe. I know it was suggested at one point that the intro be limited to one paragraph, but I felt giving it two brief paragraphs would give a more well-rounded explanation of the origins of the concept.
I hope no one is offended that I didn't discuss these changes here first, but a lot of the talk page seems to be more focused on the concept itself, rather than the article. 76.103.213.78 23:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the following:

"EDIT: Many children diagnosed with "Indigo" syndrome, do not belive in the new age side of it and rather that it is the next step in human evolution, a natural change in the way things are due to cultural influence and such, scientific explainability is preferred amongst this group and, while they DO show many of the traits listed below, the ability to read minds is more often not one of them, seen more as a well developed sense of psychological understanding (due to their ability to grasp complex things quickly and easily, human psychology is often one of the first things they learn)"

Unfortunately, this section cites no sources, and appears to be drawn from the personal experience of the editor. I know I have read somewhere that some believe that Indigos are the next evolution of humanity, but I cannot find a reliable source for it, so I will not include it at this time. I have not yet seen any interviews with people diagnosed as Indigos who are of this opinion. Until such an interview is published by a reliable source, I don't feel it is appropriate to include this opinion in the article. Please see Wikipedia:No_original_research and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources for more information. 76.103.213.78 01:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Evolution hypothesis

I can't say I know much about the subject, but I think I've heard or read about some hypothesis saying indigo children are the next step in human evolution. Does someone know about this? Can somebody add info about this to this article?

This is tied in with the belief in the photon belt. The photon belt is supposed to put us all in higher dimensions or something, but it didn't quite happen on schedule. The date at which indigo children first started appearing keeps getting more recent :) I guess they aren't ready to take over the world yet. These articles are hard because people don't hold these new age beliefs in isolation, but they don't all have the same set of beliefs associated with them. (not all new agers think the same thing about the photon belt, or even know about it). There is a series of Google videos called "Legend of Atlantis" that explains just one very well organized new age belief system. Puddytang 17:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

As I know it we are all becomming indigo, then crystal, but some a time before the others. I don't have the sources here.. Geir 10:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Luna Lovegood From Harry Potter

In Harry Potter and the Order of the phoenix, a 14 year old girl name Luna Lovegood has many of the signs of Indigo Children. Luna has many of the Indigo spiritual faith. In Chapter 38 Page 363 it stated “Luna believed so many extraordinary things.” She believed in that all people have a spirit that lives on after death. Many wizards in Harry’s world don’t believe in any after life unless you become a ghost. That is why Luna is called loony. It seems that Luna does have some telepathic ability. Proof of her talent is in chapter 38 were she said, “She shook her head in disbelief. “Oh, come on. You heard them, just behind the veil, didn’t you?” Luna can hear spirits of the departed who aren’t ghost. I place this in the talk area for additional information That I believe that Luna Lovegood has most if not all the Indigo traits. I did place this in Fictional Charactors but since Wikipedia don't accept orginal research, I decided to place it here for now until I can get hold of J.K. Rowling to clearfied if this character indeed an Indigo or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by A5of20borg (talk • contribs) 02:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

IDIOTS! 76.105.183.62 (talk) 05:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The ten attributes...

The ten attributes listed in the article are taken word for word from the indigochild.com. Is this blatant plagiarism or blatant advertising, or both? DDD DDD 03:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The whole page is a bunch of tenuously sourced pseudoscience, but if it's word for word I'd say it's a copyvio and should be re-worded. I definitely think the explicit reference to the website should be removed. WLU 10:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

If it's properly cited and attributed, it's called a quote. If not it should either be cited and attributed, changed, or removed. - perfectblue (talk) 17:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

"Purported characteristics" vs. just a kid being a kid

Is there material out there that points up the fact that the so-called special traits of indigo children are pretty much just part of being a kid? If so, it should be referenced. The article lists traits such as "insatiable curiosity," "they act and feel with a strong sense of entitlement" and "they oppose unquestioning authority," which describes most normal children. It all strikes me as part of the recent popular trend toward revering children as some kind of spiritual entities, reflected continually in popular culture.

In addition, there seems to me to be a contradiction between phrases such as "They have a clear sense of self-definition and in knowing who they are" and "most suffer from low self-esteem." A strong sense of self does not, generally, coexist with a low sense of self-esteem. PacificBoy 17:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Try to find some reliable sources on this, the issue isn't coherent, researched, or adequately described, so it's hard to make any hard statements about it. Be sure not to indulge in original research no matter how tempting it is to point out the various flaws, erroneous assumptions and illogic behind the idea. WLU 19:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to be a dinosaur when I was a kid. But I don't see that didn't pan out either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.124.176 (talk) 06:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I must agrue that a "strong sense of self" and "low self-esteem" do coexist. When a child has a self that is unlike those around them. They hear that they are different and since they can't change who they are they withdraw into their own world and hide from others by introverting. And this would cause them to doubt theirselves, i.e. low self-esteem. 75.90.198.43 (talk) 05:04, 7 January 2008

If a strong sense of self mean an awareness of themselves as being an individual, and low self esteem mean not being confident because they are aware that they are different, then yes, both can co-exist. For example somebody can be black and have strong feeling for their black heritage, yet have poor self confidence because they live in a white neighborhood and are reminded on a daily basis of the fact that they don't fit in. - perfectblue (talk) 13:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

plus the fact htat there are soem chidlren who share Indigo traits doesn t automatically invalidatethe science of Indigo Children. just becauseyou personally disagree with a certain pheonoemoen doesnt mean that tis be considered 'psuedoscience' and doesnt mean that the article is exempt from folowing WP:NPOV orany other doctrine regarding fair and accurate veifiable portrayals. Smith Jones (talk) 00:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

In order to satisfy WP:NPOV you need both arguments, and in order to satisfy WP:V you need citations for both. - perfectblue (talk) 13:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Russian additions

The additions about the Russian boy have potential but as the source is too far fetched to meet WP:RS. The boy may be able to be included it if can be demonstrated that he is notable though. So far only a percentage of the sources that I've read about him even mention indigo children. The rest put him as some kind of contactee style space boy, which isn't indogo at all. - perfectblue (talk) 16:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Characteristics and beliefs listed are all positive. Why?

It strikes me that if this article is to have any sort of credibility, even within the subgroup of people who believe in new-age type things, that in addition to the many traits listed that are all positive, there ought to be a list of negative traits associated with being an "indigo child". This is especially the case considering the second section of the article mentions a variety of psychiatric disorders that these children may be "misdiagnosed" with. Why? If they are so much better, wouldn't these be the children who, for example, somehow came out of miserable home lives completely well adjusted and successful in love, life, and happiness anyways, due to the (perhaps unfair) advantages their supposed gift had bestowed upon them?

It seems to me that for reason unknown, the negative characteristics of this subtype have not been listed by the proponents of the theory, leaving the skeptics to the task of listing them. Simultaneously, the skepticism section also lacks mention of how various psychiatric conditions might be adaptive traits for certain living conditions that are less prevalent in some areas or not so prevalent anywhere any more. This leaves the skeptical section looking completely depressing and full of bad news, but the reality is that the people who would be most skeptical of this article would actually have a lot of positive things to say about gifted children of any type, given appropriate fair time.Zaphraud (talk) 04:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Skeptics aren't going to start listing negative qualities for a phenomena that they are skeptical about! The skepticism doesn't arise from doubt about the details of what an Indigo child is or is not - the doubt is that the phenomena exists at all. Since there is zero evidence for the existence of auras - the evidence for pretty purple auras is also zero...no aura, no phenomena...case closed. The only reason people keep on with this nonsense is that all parents want to believe that their child is special and can do no wrong. Those people won't ever come up with negative traits. In real-world situations where children have special abilities (eg Asperger's syndrome) - there is a balance of positives and negatives that are discovered by independent scientific investigation. The parents of high-functioning Aspie's hardly ever see the downsides. SteveBaker (talk) 20:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

My favourite part was "97% of children are indigo children" hence 97&% of children are convention challenging system busters! Have the authors not been to a McDonalds lately, or noticed the yearly toy crazes? 99% of children are conformist drones, same as they always were.

Ayway, wouldn't being a system buster in a society of entriely system busters result in a lot of busted systems, and no one to fix things? Not intended as a negative, but surely shows the proponents havn't thought this through! Yobmod (talk) 15:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

They're called "indigo" because...

In Nancy Tappe's original 1982 book on this subject (Nancy Ann Tappe, Understanding your life thru color: Metaphysical concepts in color and aura, Starling Publishers, ISBN 0940399008) the term "indigo" referred to auras. According to the book review on Amazon, Tappe claimed the people having the most difficult challenges of all were "male violets" and "female yellows", the colors referring to the person's "Life Ring Color". Apparently there have been further interpretations, but the original reference was to a person's aura. --EPadmirateur (talk) 17:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

[deleted]

Last sentence of first paragraph

"In fact, there's nothing scientific about it whatsoever; it all amounts to self-deception and wishful thinking by the parents." I recommend this sentence be changed to: "There is currently no scientific support for this theory." As written, the statement appears biased and un-neutral.

Andiegoode (talk) 21:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you're referring to an earlier version that contained the "self-deception" comment added by an anon editor, which I reverted (twice). I gave the editor a warning. Ward3001 (talk) 22:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Origin of the term

An explanation about the 'indigo children' term is relevant in the intro, but since it's controversial and there isn't a generally accepted explanation, I don't think neither one of those belongs to the intro.

Nancy Ann Tappe, the creator of the term, explains she sees has a neurological condition called synesthesia, and that he experiences colors over a lot of things. Synestesia is a scientifically accepted phenomenon. So she can experience 'life colors' of people according to their personality (check out the synesthesia article , nancyanntappe.com and allaboutindigos.com ).

This has nothing to do with aura or aura colors. But for the New Age movement, and for those who doesn't understand synesthesia, it looks like the same phenomenon (and I'm not saying there's proof about auras). It's just like saying Kirlian photography or the corona effect is the same as auras, which are not.

Nancy Ann Tappe, Lee Carroll and Jan Tober, which are the most famous authors on the 'Indigo Children' concept (not necessarily the best or most formal), agree that it has nothing to do with aura. Check the sources listed in the 'Origins' section of the article.

I don't want to engage in an edition war or anything of the sort, but I'd like to hear your thoughts about this. Itzcuauhlti (talk) 07:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The difference is between a "life color" and an aura is not clear - by invoking synesthesia, is Tappe saying that the color is not real (not a measurable quantity), it's just her brain's interpretation of a personality trait?

Yeah, synesthetes who know they are synesthetes understand that their brains are wired differently and the colors (or other senses) they see are illusory. I know a bassist who 'sees' notes, and he finds this quite helpful with his music, but has no pretentious that they represent physical phenomena. Still, for him a D is purple. I agree, it would be good to have a citation that Tappe doesn't think she has magical powers, but that the article currently says she thinks she does is libellous if she doesn't, so not a good base assumption. 173.9.115.9 (talk) 21:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Regardless, it seems to me that although Carroll and Tober may be the parents of the "Indigo Children" concept, it has clearly "gotten away" from them and taken on a life of its own. I'm sure we could find cites and counter-cites in either direction. Xsmasher (talk) 01:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Ideally there needs to be sources discussing Tappe's original meaning of "indigo" and if a substantial portion of people now think it's related to auras, that should go in too. What is really needed though, is reliable sources that discuss the different versions. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

It is indeed an interesting possibility that the proponents of aura's are in fact undiscovered synesthetes. Synesthesia is a well researched, confirmed scientific finding...it's true...it comes about because some people's brains have a "defect" that allows one sense to feed into another. If Tappe and her followers are seeing colored auras around children - just as others see color when they hear a sound - or think of a prime number or whatever - then this would neatly explain everything and progress us from a pseudo-scientific new-age fringe theory into an interesting statement about synesthetes.

However, it says nothing whatever about the supposed "indigo" children themselves. The synesthetic observer would be unconsciously making the decision as to which color to see - on grounds that are difficult to impossible to measure. Just as some people smell chocolate when they think of the number 1234 - it's possible that the synesthete is "seeing" indigo when the child's voice hits a particular musical pitch - or when the person estimates their age or some other bizarre connection. It's even possible that a synesthete might see the color indigo when a child is particularly precocious or has some other noticable trait.

Unfortunately, what indicates that this is all bogus is that no two synesthetes can agree on which colors (or shapes, tastes, smells, sounds) are associate with which stimulus. Two musical synesthetes might see the note 'middle-C' as completely different colors. Tests have clearly shown that it's a totally individual thing. If multiple synesthetes were to observe children with particular traits as having 'auras' - then they would be highly unlikely to agree on what color they saw.

So this explanation might be an excellent explanation as to why Tappe has become so utterly convinced about this theory - but it goes nowhere to explain why all of the other people who support this crazy theory agree with her. BUT none of this matters for this article because it's just an idea we've thought up without any evidence - and Wikipedia strongly frowns on "original research". SteveBaker (talk) 02:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Changes to the page

So obviously I've made a lot of changes to the page. The topic is a fringe one, that the proponents admit has no science backing it. The most reliable sources are those from mainstream media outlets, and accordingly I've placed the most emphasis on the articles from the New York Times and the Dallas Observer (which gets the most references as it is the most lengthy). Since there are no authoritative books or research on the subject, it is undue weight to place a lot of emphasis and text on the self-published books and websites used by the proponents. Also, filling the page with spam (including books and websites in both the body and the further reading sections) is inappropriate. Since there are no authoritative texts, and the "classic" publications are already footnoted, they should not be given further mention. The DMOZ also contains a variety of links that should not be duplicated. "According to Tappe" followed by a reference to her web pages that do not actually support the statement, shouldn't be used, not for her estimates of the number of indigo children out there, nor for her belief that indigo children are here to build the bridge to the future and show us tomorrow - a meaningless sentence that is her own opinion and not in the citation it is linked to. Tappe is no longer the sole source on the phenomenon and her word is not gospel, particularly not after so much has been written by people other than her. Her division of indigos into groups is also undue weight, and I really didn't see the need for six references to the statement "Movement is said to be required to keep them better focused" when the references didn't actually verify this. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute

Myself and many other new agers have tried dozens of times to modify the content of the article because of how inacurate and biased it is. Published authors have been rejected flat out[7]. The whole article is peppered with blatantly biased statements about how the idea has no scientific backing. Quote from the characteristics section: "According to research psychologist Russell Barkley, the New Age movement has yet to produce empirical evidence of the existence of indigo children and the 17 traits most commonly attributed to them were akin to the Barnum effect; so vague they could describe nearly anyone." It is already stated at the top of the article that there is no scientific evidence, it's just redundant bias from skeptics. Not to mention the commercialization section which should be merged into the skepticism part since it's main source is skepticreport.com. I also would like to see a section about the online forums/communities that are expanding but i can't write it because it's hard to get sources.Kryptic.eye (talk) 01:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing to dispute. No reliable source has been rejected. And your one edit was unsourced personal opinion in which you (in an internal comment) first stated the shortcomings of your edits, then insulted anyone reading it and virtually dared anyone to revert it ("hmm i wonder how long until someone takes this down. Uhh i just think more should be added to the wiki about the online communities that have developed, several are growing too. this is my summary from personal experience so i'm sure some skeptic/mod will tear it off the page. i will attest that all the statements are true but this is hard to verify too lazy to try and get the format right"). Such edits are appropriate on a blog, but not here. Furthermore, the biased source that you link above does nothing to address these Wikipedia policies. You need to begin by reading a few core Wikipedia policies: WP:V, WP:RS, WP:CITE, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. Read those, find a reliable source, and discuss it here, and get consensus to add the information. Otherwise you will never be taken seroiusly, nor should you be. This is an encyclopedia, not a blog or a POV-pushing personal website. Look at the contents of other reputable encyclopedias, such as Encarta and Britannica, as well as their methods for reliable sourcing. If it wouldn't be accepted for publication in those, it doesn't belong here. And please don't think people will engage in endless arguments with you here until you take policies seriously. This message may be the only one you get if you don't. Ward3001 (talk) 01:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow. First off i did not insult you and commented on my own submission purely because i'm a noob to Wikipedia, but I read enough of the policies to know that it would immediately get taken down. I wanted to be bold, that's what this place is about look it up. To be clear I am not disputing my own submission but pointing out that the fact that the article chock full of bias and inconsistencies. for example "Others have stated that many of the traits of indigo children could be more prosaically interpreted as simple arrogance and selfish individualism, which parents with certain New Age beliefs see as being something that they are not." read the USATODAY[8] article it was sourced to and you'll see it never says anything remotely close to that. This is just one example really, but anyone who knows about the subject can tell it's not a very accurate description of it. Kryptic.eye (talk) 02:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:BOLD does not take precedence over the policies that I have linked above. There are blogs out there that would welcome your edits, but no quality encyclopedia would do so just based on what you have provided thus far. End of discussion for me unless you provide some evidence that you plan to take the policies seriously. Ward3001 (talk) 02:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

So what do you want me to do? Kiss your ass? This is completely ridiculous, you are still ignoring my main discussion points, and I doubt you will listen so yes the discussion will soon be over. The problem is that people are using reliable sources to back up personal opinion. Surely you understand that "Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions." The statement "Others have stated that many of the traits of indigo children could be more prosaically interpreted as simple arrogance and selfish individualism, which parents with certain New Age beliefs see as being something that they are not.", which is sourced to the USA Today article. I read over the article multiple times and this is never stated, or even implied. The statement cannot be verified. I suspect there are other inconsistencies as well. THAT is what I want to discuss not whether my writing is fit for your "quality" encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kryptic.eye (talk • contribs) 02:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Now you've committed a policy violation by making a personal attack. Consider this your first warning. Keep that up and you'll not be able to edit any article because you'll be blocked. Ward3001 (talk) 02:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

fine. if you refuse to even consider what I am saying about the neutrality, reliability, and verifiability of the article because of my earlier revision then so be it. I'll be back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kryptic.eye (talk • contribs) 02:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Now I know why most schools do not accept Wikipedia as a reliable source. The people who run it are biased and unreliable. If you had actually read or even skimmed the article that the statement is sourced to you would realize that the USA Today article never says anything remotely close to "arrogance" or "selfish individualism", those are completely opinions. The article NEVER says anything similar to "parents with certain New Age beliefs see [their children] as being something that they are not", and has a distinct POV that is very insulting to New Age beliefs. It's not neutral at all. Did you even look at the USA today article? It's mostly about the movie Indigo. It does not offer a opinion as to whether the phenomena is real or not, it simply explains the general concept.The content of the wikipedia article is biased and contains unverifiable information. but i guess that's why wikipedia sucks as an encyclopedia. *sigh to bad Mr. PHD ward has his head to far up his ass so he can't even listen to what i have to say, it's quite insulting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kryptic.eye (talk • contribs) 03:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

If we accepted some of the nonsense that has been posted to this article, we would be failing our duty to exclude nonsense and absurdities. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Paranormal

I see a lot of people objecting to the category "pseudoscience." How about "paranormal" instead? Crossbow1 (talk) 21:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I really don't see much objection to the category of "pseudoscience"; I see support for it. I also fail to see an clear relationship to "paranormal". Maybe you could explain further. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 22:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, "pseudoscience" implies that it's pretending to be scientific when it's not. I don't see it really pretending to be scientific. It's all purely anecdotal. "Paranormal" more generally describes things outside the ordinary that can't really be measured scientifically. Crossbow1 (talk) 22:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

In one sense "paranormal" means "can't really be measured scientifically", but in everday usage most people interpret it to mean "supernatural" and associate it with phenomena such as clairvoyance, telepathy, precognition, telekenesis, etc. Thus, there's good chance that describing indigos as paranormal will result in many people concluding that indigos have these supernatural abilities. That clearly is very misleading. As for pseudoscience, I think if you look at this talk page you will see a few people arguing (without basis) that the so-called "indigo" phenomenon has been scientifically verified.

My opinion is to use neither descriptor, especially not "paranormal". Ward3001 (talk) 01:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia will have to invent the flabergastingly new concept in the whole History of Hewmanity of the Mysterious and Wonderful Category of "Bullshit" to succesfully describe Indigosity —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.192.32.84 (talk) 08:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)