Talk:Indigo children/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Archive 1

Archive 2 →

Contents 1 From Talk:Indigo child 1.1 From Votes for deletion 1.2 Talk 1.3 NPOV dispute 2 Move 3 Bias 4 Removed some Scientology-based comments 5 Not Nonsense After all 6 Need Opinions: Non-Mystic Interpretations 7 +cat 8 Is this why....? 9 POV in first sentence 10 Indigo Girls 11 Environment and Evolution section is particularly biased 12 Confused 13 Narcissism 14 A little creepy 15 Re-adding relevant information 16 Deletions from the talk page 17 Discussion page vandalism/suggest ban? 18 NPOV and this article 19 Ritalin / amphetamines 20 It's mainstream, now! 21 "There are no studies." - What's up Kraveks?

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