Talk:Indigo children/Archive 1

message: Indigo child was merged into this article on July 8, 2004
===From Votes for deletion===
===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)
thread_title: From Talk:Indigo child

message: * 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)
thread_title: Talk

message: *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)
thread_title: NPOV dispute

message: 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)
thread_title: Move

message: 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)
thread_title: Bias

message: "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)
thread_title: Removed some Scientology-based comments

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Not Nonsense After all

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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  - 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"  (Emperor 13:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need Opinions: Non-Mystic Interpretations 

message: Do you think this article should belong to the :Category:Homo sapiens progeny?.. --Koveras  09:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been four days and no objection. I guess I just do it... --Koveras  10:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  +cat 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Is this why....?

message: 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)
thread_title: Indigo Girls

message: 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)
thread_title:  Environment and Evolution section is particularly biased 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Confused

message: 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)
thread_title:  Narcissism 

message: 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)
thread_title: A little creepy

message: 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)
thread_title: Re-adding relevant information

message: 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)
thread_title:  Discussion page vandalism/suggest ban? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  NPOV and this article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ritalin / amphetamines 

message: 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)
thread_title:  It's mainstream, now! 

message: I reverted to remove an image from the article.  The image in question is :Image:indigoadult.jpg.  I believe that the image should not be included since it is original research, there is no indication that the person in question is actually an indigo adult (other than the aura which has been added electronically, presumably).  --TeaDrinker 01:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: Your telling me to discuss this. Your assuming I added the aura electronically. What will it take for you to be convinced. Wo wants to volunteer to be a witness to watch me have another photo taken where they have the equipment to do it?
--mycats  14 September 2006 (EST)
: Well, at least you are talking on this page now which is good. Frankly no one wants to. Among other issues see WP:OR. If taking a normal photo of you produces this affect go talk to a newspaper. You'll be famouse quite quickly and be noted on Wikipedia then. Not before. JoshuaZ 02:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You noted that the image came from a fair?  While I don't mean to question your sincerity, but I'm not sure how you know the image was created.  A machine which captures auras is certainly original research, since I know of no reliable source documenting such a machine's existance.  --TeaDrinker 02:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the links, indeed aura photography is new to me.  It reminds me of Kirlian photography, although the discussion on the websites you added make me think it is a different phenomenon.  Letters from psychics (or really, anyone else), however, are not really reliable sources for establishing the authenticity of a phenomenon.  Can you find a published result or study indicating that people who are documented with an aura actually have (at a statistically significant rate) the traits associated?  --TeaDrinker 03:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was able to locate at least one source which indicates aura photography does not exist.  It is minimally researched (as it is a popular magazine rather than an academic publication), but you might be interested in this.  Thanks, --TeaDrinker 03:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indigo photo 

message: i am an indigo child. i can confirm everything said on this page. i know that every person who is a skeptic is going to think i am lying. i am not. i was born in 1993. my vocabulary has advanced exponentialy scince abot 11 months. i can confirm the rumors of empathy, but telekenises has gone a bit far. psycokenisis sure, i have been manipulating minds for a long time, but telekenisis could only be achieved by someone very powerfull indee. most of us arent. i know of a good few in my hometown, ottawa. i hope i have convinced at least one skeptic,but if not, please beleive me believers.
So how come you haven't mastered basic English? You're supposed to put capital letters at the beginning of sentences. Also, for us to believe you I'm afraid you're going to have to sign your name. And if you are an Indigo Child, can you tell us if you're here to help the world? ThePeg 16:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ROFL!  That's totally made my day.  Thanks ThePeg.  --Plumbago 12:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Y'know there's a heroes for hires villain called the purple man who has been manipulatng minds for longer than you've been born.  Just thought you should know about the competition.  Also, since when do people claiming to be something on wikipedia become evidence used to modify a wikipedia article??  Wikipedia is not original research? 
The article right now is way unbalanced, its a PR job for so called indigo children (by the way, I have all of the 'characteristics of an indigo' but I just can't really ever get around to curing AIDS or moving things about with my mind.) and has been kept this way by a lot of dirty editing tricks and blatant POV pushing.  I understand that the article survived a deletion meeting before, but if it remains unsalvagable can another one be arranged?  By the way, the difference between pseudoscience and protoscience is that protosciences accept criticism from mainstream science with an eye toward integrating into it.  Indigo child theory, or whatever, is based around the complete unwillingness to accept any criticism from any authority whatsoever.Jimmyq2305 03:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Jimmy, one issue with better sourcing is that mainstream scientists haven't really bothered responding much to clams about Indigo Children. The claims are just too stupid. This is a problem with a lot of pseudoscience articles. If however you can find criticism than by all means it should go in. JoshuaZ 16:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ok people lets ge this straight

message: Just leave it be. Anyone discussing this topic is bound to be upset, as there is no quantifying medium for discussion. Anyone who is an Indigo child would not be here arguing the point, as defined by the article. Anyone here who is not an Indigo would be arguing the point, as is defined by human nature. Feel free to attack me, but ask yourself why you bother.
We can't all be Charles Wallace  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.199.160.90 (talk) 02:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Question 

message: "Through the advent of the internet, many of these highly sensitive individuals are connecting and learning more about their place in the world.[17] There are many online communities where people are able to educate their selves, as well as a growing number of books on the subject." I question the neutrality of this statement --Aquahelper (talk) 23:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I question the grammaticality! —Wiki Wikardo 16:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  neutrality Education

message: 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. 
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)
thread_title:  Antisocial personality disorder 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: In Fiction

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Conflating separate DSM IV disorders is not helpful. ADD has nothing at all to do with the Autism Spectrum.Slagathor (talk) 00:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indigo another word for ADD/AS/autistic spectrum? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  i would but 

message: 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)
replies: text: Thank you. --Philosophus T 22:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Initial archiving setup 

message: I removed and otherwise consolidated a large number of points that were ascribed to Indigo Children...
There were a couple links that were cited, but I wasn't able to find the claimed powers listed;
* http://www.greatdreams.com/indigo.htm -- not a very good reference...
* http://www.starchild.co.za/angel.html -- not a very good reference
* I'd prefer to have the CNN transcript actually sourced from CNN directly, but it doesn't really provide any new information not covered in the Toller list above, and certainly not anything about telekinesis.
I think that the whole list that Wendy's site offers is basically pointless to include... for the reason that she claims that 95-99% of children born now are effectively above average... I question the source here too. The Toller list is the only one that seems to be consistent and as reliable as I can expect of any source on this topic.  
 "There's a very good chance your child is an Indigo 
 if he/she was born after 1992. About 85% or higher
 of children born in '92 or later, 90% born in '94
 or after and 95% or more born now (some even say 99%)
 are Indigo Children! Does this mean you aren't one
 if you were born prior to 1992? No! I've heard reports
 that they started coming in the 80s, but that means
 coming in larger numbers. I believe there have been
 Indigos born in every year, but perhaps not in high
 enough percentages to notice their presence and see
 what makes them so unique. So can you be a 24 yr old
 Indigo or a 50 year old one? Yes!"
Some removed content: 
 "Many discussions of Indigo children in New Age
 literature (including Kryon literature) claim that
 Indigo children are born with part of their DNA
 activated that most people do not have activated.
 Some claim that it is junk DNA that they utilize
 to "swap out" higher-dimensional
 information, giving them special abilities."
I can't find any reputable claims of this sort.
Redundant items and otherwise non-sourced bits;
* Highly intelligent.
* Often very creative.
* Developmentally advanced in reading, walking, talking, etc.
* Psychic/intuitive abilities.
* Multi-dimensional awareness; they perceive a broader range of reality.
* Telepathic abilities.
* They sense and feel energies from people or other living things (aura reading).
* Telekinesis, etc. Moving objects with their mind energy and thought.
* Awareness of scientific, historical, anthropological and spiritual knowledge not consciously learnt. Sometimes called 'knowledge bombs'.
* Awareness of past lives.
* Extremely empathic to all creatures, not just humans but animals and plants.
* They can communicate with the unseen world, spirits and angels.
* Multi-dimensional healing abilities.
* Manifest unusual artwork, languages and scripts.
* Dual consciousness; feeling part human and part extraterrestrial.
* Have a sense of mission or higher purpose.
* Abilty to completely control emotions.
* Ability to control sexual desire, increase sexual direction. Can use sex and physical touch for healing as well as use it as a weapon. When with own kind, light can be created by the two auras coming together.
* Have strong self esteem, connection to source
* Have an obvious sense of self
* Refuse to follow orders or directions
* Get bored rather easily with assigned tasks
* Are rather creative
* Display strong intuition
* Have either strong or no empathy for others
* Develop abstract thinking very young
* Are gifted and/or talented, highly intelligent
* Are often identified or suspected of having ADHD
* Are frequent daydreamers
* Have very old, deep, wise looking eyes
If there's a reputable (within reason) source for these items, please let us know.
In another note, what exactly is "Multi-dimensional awareness"? I am aware of at least 4 dimensions, as most people are...
-- Xinit 23:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed list of unsourced talents 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Characteristics section 

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

text: 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)

text: Well, it does.  It reminds parents that, no, your precious snowflake isn't a special individual who's experiencing difficulty because of psychic powers, but they're a child who would much rather be running around outside than learning how to multiply and divide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.64.10.249 (talk • contribs) 
===Obvious warnings in the text above===
I am seeing reasoning for and against the pseudoscience categorization being advanced on the following bases:
* "calling it psudeoscience is kinda mean"
* "i just dont like how its lumped in with ufo nuts" (emphasis added)
* "So the Indigo Child concept is New Agey and therefore WoooWooo. ... Rubbing it in doesn't serve much useful purpose."
This is not valid logic on which to frame a debate over article categorization.  According to Webster, pseudoscience is "a system of theories, assumptions, and methods erroneously regarded as scientific."  Base your arguments on that, and don't forget to sign comments with four tildes: ~~~~ --Neurophyre(talk) 10:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Pseudoscience 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Obvious warnings in the text above

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Evolution hypothesis 

message: 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)
thread_title: Luna Lovegood From Harry Potter

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The ten attributes... 

message: 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)
thread_title: Russian additions

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

message: "In fact, there's nothing scientific about it whatsoever; it all amounts to self-deception and wishful thinking by the parents."  I recommend this sentence be changed to:  "There is currently no scientific support for this theory."  As written, the statement appears biased and un-neutral.  
Andiegoode (talk) 21:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're referring to an earlier version that contained the "self-deception" comment added by an anon editor, which I reverted (twice). I gave the editor a warning. Ward3001 (talk) 22:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last sentence of first paragraph 

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

message: Myself and many other new agers have tried dozens of times to modify the content of the article because of how inacurate and biased it is. Published authors have been rejected flat out. The whole article is peppered with blatantly biased statements about how the idea has no scientific backing. Quote from the characteristics section: "According to research psychologist Russell Barkley, the New Age movement has yet to produce empirical evidence of the existence of indigo children and the 17 traits most commonly attributed to them were akin to the Barnum effect; so vague they could describe nearly anyone." It is already stated at the top of the article that there is no scientific evidence, it's just redundant bias from skeptics. Not to mention the commercialization section which should be merged into the skepticism part since it's main source is skepticreport.com. I also would like to see a section about the online forums/communities that are expanding but i can't write it because it's hard to get sources.Kryptic.eye (talk) 01:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There is nothing to dispute. No reliable source has been rejected. And your one edit was unsourced personal opinion in which you (in an internal comment) first stated the shortcomings of your edits, then insulted anyone reading it and virtually dared anyone to revert it ("hmm i wonder how long until someone takes this down. Uhh i just think more should be added to the wiki about the online communities that have developed, several are growing too. this is my summary from personal experience so i'm sure some skeptic/mod will tear it off the page. i will attest that all the statements are true but this is hard to verify too lazy to try and get the format right"). Such edits are appropriate on a blog, but not here. Furthermore, the biased source that you link above does nothing to address these Wikipedia policies. You need to begin by reading a few core Wikipedia policies: WP:V, WP:RS, WP:CITE, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. Read those, find a reliable source, and discuss it here, and get consensus to add the information. Otherwise you will never be taken seroiusly, nor should you be. This is an encyclopedia, not a blog or a POV-pushing personal website. Look at the contents of other reputable encyclopedias, such as Encarta and Britannica, as well as their methods for reliable sourcing. If it wouldn't be accepted for publication in those, it doesn't belong here. And please don't think people will engage in endless arguments with you here until you take policies seriously. This message may be the only one you get if you don't. Ward3001 (talk) 01:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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