Talk:Indigo children

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is not a forum for general discussion of Indigo children.
Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.
Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has an assessment summary page.
Peer review Indigo children has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on May 5, 2004. The result of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Indigos|the discussion]] was Keep.
Archive
Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2


Contents

[edit] 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. [1]

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)

Ok guys... what’s this about, i heard of this theory years ago when i was about 14, little did I realize that it's such a source of heated debate. Tell me, am I an indigo child, born 18th of April, 1983. All listed attributes as to what an indigo child possesses I have, except perhaps the high IQ. I do really want to save the world, if i could, but you cannot ultimately, the world is doomed, all things come to an end, but to help & try to make the lives of those in existence now better, is my mission!! All of us are lucky to have the time & the luck to be able to comment on such things. Our mission whether indigo inclined or not, is to spread that luck, & do well for others that are not so 'lucky'. Is only by virtue of birth are we born into our lives. Easy it could be for all of us, to be somewhere else, & perhaps less fortunate.

So this concept of indigo, whether real or not should not be the question. This generation will provide the proof. I hope that ultimately, the generation now, has learnt from mankind’s past, & will fight to make the world a better place!! If the stars & planetary positions, are somehow helping with this, then that’s wonderful. Perhaps though, now is the time for peace, empathy, time to get rid of the tyrants that control this world, or even better educate them, & their successors. Perhaps thats just the developmental stage that the human race is at. Perhaps it's all pre-destined, who knows!!

It's silly to say any person is chosen, & therefore is smacks of anti-Semitism. What’s real, is do you except what it is that you've been chosen for. As we have been, just by being here, by being born we are chosen, somehow. Who by & what for? Well.... I'm still searching. (who wrote this? (question asked by Neurolanis)


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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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;

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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)