Talk:Kairos (retreat)

message: Why are only the negative results from the report included in this article?  Shouldn't we include the entire report in the article or just link to it?  Why only quote half of it?68.50.107.40 21:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Report

message: There has to be a better way to do this... filling it with terminology that only makes sense to those who have been on Kairos (live the fourth etc.) is unprofessional and not in keeping with Wiki standards.  For now, I reverted to an older version -- if someone wants to work on developing a better version of this please do. 72.49.114.130 (talk) 02:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Mysterious Nature" section 

message: Look, there has to be a better way of maintaining secrecy than blanking sections.  It's just not professional.  I appreciate that some degree of secrecy is necessary, but the things in the process section are common knowledge at schools where Kairos plays a big role.  It's a possible candidate for a rewrite by someone who knows more than I, but overall it looks fine to me.72.49.114.130 (talk) 03:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have restored the information, as Wikipedia is not censored. This is an encyclopedia, & we can't remove relevant, verifiable information from secondary sources in order to protect the wrong eyes from seeing it. All of this information in this article already available on the Internet. If someone would like to keep it secret, they would be advised to avoid an uncensored encyclopedia article on the subject. hmwithτ 01:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I hadn't seen the article in a while, & I assumed that you were simply talking about the state of the article the last time I read it. Information in any Wikipedia article must be verifiable and have reliable sources. There is no place for original research on any article. I removed all of the unsourced information. Please do not re-add any information without references. hmwithτ 01:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

text:  Surely saying that information relating to what happens at one of these things because "it spoils the surprise" is somewhat counter to Wikipedia policy. Go on to the Wiki page for The Sixth Sense, you think they censored the fact that Bruce Willis is a ghost all along on that page? If the Church of Scientology have all of their beliefs up (despite claiming copyright infringement) then why are these being censored?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.47.222.104 (talk) 16:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

text: I strongly disagree. Wikipedia should be an unbiased source of information, unlike what you've imposed. Removing relevant information due to your belief in the experience and mystery isn't how this works. The whole air of secrecy around this retreat has no place on this platform. All relevant information should be re-added. ABoringEditor (talk) 01:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Process" section 

message: Is ANY of this stuff documented anywhere?  Can it even be documented as urban legend?  I move to scrap the whole section unless someone, somewhere can come up with a citation, preferably a proper one as defined by WP rules.  Seriously, if half this stuff was true, you think there'd at least be a findable court case or exposee in the media.Venus Copernicus (talk) 21:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secrecy Section 

message: The History section gives a rather different perspective to that given in the Walk to Emmaus article, although broadly compatible. Possibly both need some NPOVing.
See also http://www.kairos.org.au which is a similarly named and structured program in Australian prisons, based on a prison ministry by the same name in the USA. IMO both Kairos Prison Ministry Australia (aka KPMA) and its parent US movement should be mentioned in this article, and possibly deserve articles of their own. Andrewa (talk) 17:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: Ok, this article has two problems with references:
*First, it needs to present independent, third-party references dedicated to the topic in order to establish notability (WP:ORG).
*Second, once this is achieved, it is ok to use primary references, but these primary references need to be properly identified. Just dumping an url is not enough. Identify Author, title and year of publication. If it doesn't have these, it's not a reference.
As it stands, this article isn't fit for inclusion in Wikipedia. I am sure with some work, the proper references could be collected, but the burden of doing this lies with the people who are interested in keeping the article. --dab (𒁳) 20:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: Does "Processors" mean "Retreatants"? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 23:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Processors 

message: The subject of this page has no notable mentions. It is, however, a subdivision (youth outreach) for a notable organisation, Sword of the Spirit, and has been added as a subsection in the Sword of the Spirit article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sword_of_the_Spirit.
See above for some discussion of poor sourcing and NN status.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Linn C Doyle (talk • contribs) 21:09, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not what speedy deletion is designed for. Did you mean to start a debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:13, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah I see. Yes that is what I meant to do, thank you :) Linn C Doyle (talk) 21:23, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speedy Deletion