From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Time  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Time on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The Chinese for 'crisis'[edit]

The Chinese word for “crisis” is a pictograph of the two words “danger” and “opportunity.”
Actually, according to an article by Professor Victor H. Mair, this oft-cited factoid is not true. I recommend removal of references to it. --Pharaohmobius 14:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

That whole paragraph seems spurious to me; the idea that kairos implies crisis, and the significance of that, needs to be better documented or removed as unencyclopedic. --ScottAlanHill 01:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC

Needs lots of work! Wikipedia Cops should review this page immediately. POORLY WRITTEN. - Andala


I believe this section should be disambiguated.
--Arcking 20:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The retreat is too secretive/spiritual to really talk about on Wikipedia. I know WP is not censored, but not giving away what really happens on the retreats is somewhat important, since people may not fully under stand the context of some events. However, the retreat is different from what the Article is really talking about, because most of this article examines the "term" or definition part of Kairos. perhaps there can be an extra section? --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  02:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
No argument besides that of personal/national security or legality issues justifies censorship of any kind. Since the Kairos retreat is neither copyrighted or legally protected nor a personal/national security issue, there is no reason why the contents of the retreat should not be published. To not publish this information is against the very premise upon which Wikipedia is built.

--Evil666 23:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Heh, Good luck finding any reliable sources. Chances are the article will likely receive a Speedy Deletion for Original Research and user Attribution. In essence, writing an article about a secretive religious retreat using speculation and rumors stands against Jimbo and Wikipedia's policies and ideologies.  ;-) --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  03:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I could write out a 10 section article on Kairos retreats. Unfortunately, it would all be original research from my dual experience in them. There just aren't any decent references. I agree that Wikipedia is not censored, but everyone else is censoring themselves not to talk about it, so it's not being mentioned in any sources. Haha, the way the world works... нмŵוτнτ 23:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Article may require restructuring[edit]

To me, this article reads poorly and seems unstructured. I think there is some encyclopaedic content here, but it's poorly organised and obscured amongst a lot of dictionary-definition-type information and listing of organisations with Kairos in the name - the latter of which should be moved to a stub linked from a disambiguation page or omitted entirely if non-notable. --Rogerb67 (talk) 00:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

"KAIROS: Kairos Corporation is a non-profit organization [...] The website is"

This section just reads like promotional material, I don't think it's balanced or really making much attempt at objectivity. In any case it's a bit misleading because AFAIK the Kairos Corporation is the Spanish branch of the Kairos Foundation... This isn't made clear at all, it reads like they are two separate organisations SteveDavey (talk) 15:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Questionable Source: Freier Article[edit]

The first of the two references, Mark Freier (2006) "Time Measured by Kairos and Kronos", appears to be a self-published article. According to the guidelines for sourcing, "...self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable" (WP:SPS). There are numerous scholarly articles addressing this topic and I therefore suggest that the Freier article should be replaced by a reference to a reputably published source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abathologist (talkcontribs) 21:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. One good book to draw from for this article could be "You Talkin' To Me? A History of Rhetoric From Aristotle To Obama" by Sam Leith, a columnist for the Guardian. His explanation of the rhetorical concept of kairos seemed quite robust to me. I believe he published a revised version for the American market called "Words Like Loaded Pistols," because the original had too many Brit-specific cultural allusions. I'm not sure whether "Loaded Pistols" has the same passage on "kairos", though. YarLucebith (talk) 00:31, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Feedback on edits to "Modern rhetorical definition" section[edit]

Hello. I'm an undergraduate student, and I had to research and edit a page for my Rhetorical Process class. I chose Kairos and added some information to the "Modern rhetorical definition" section of the page. I would really appreciate any feedback on my contribution. Thanks. Rkg12 05:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkg12 (talkcontribs)