Talk:Kryon
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] please keep
This page was marked original research / unverifyable on 2005-12-11. I wish to point out, however, 8 months before there has been consensus to keep it. Still, I concur, and I want to read the article (hope it matures further). However, I expect recurring debate, because the subject matter appears to be seen as borderline by many, Yet, it is not the opinion of a tiny minority, as e.g. the booksales ranking on amazon.com may attest. To me it is borderline but inside the three core Wikipedia policies.
The article currently relies mostly on one source - the Kryon website and the books Lee Caroll has been publishing for more than a decade. While this may appear lacking a second opinion or a peer review, it is NOT original reserach / unverifiable per se. I would compare its verifyability to other widely-quoted sources, e.g. the Bible. The nature of the dispute is well put by following quote from the article itself, "After looking over the above claims, one might think they are far fetched. While these claims are essentially un-provable, they are also un-falsifiable." This may sound just like saying, "unverifyable" in other words, however, Wikipedia (or its related wikis) may be just the medium that a) enables review and verification, and b) offers the public test of time. I seek consensus to remove this NOR / UV marking. User:Bernd in Japan 2006-01-01 12:02 (UTC)
I don't think there is any way one could suggest this is a borderline article in terms of relevance to Wikipedia. The article itself may not be fantastic, but that just means it needs to be added to and Wikified. It would be good to have more siteable claims I think so that when people come here they have plenty of places to go to for more information. I stumbled across Indigo Children in wiki, which is a quality article to aspire towards, which is also related to Lee Carroll. MaxMangel 03:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
This page was voted on for deletion at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Kryon. The consensus was to keep it, or possibly merge it somewhere or move it. dbenbenn | talk 22:59, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Templates were removed
- See edit history of the article. One major content problem template at a time, please. Some people coming here may actually want to read the article. Restore if and when necessary. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:43, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Well, as it is you now have zero cleanup templates, not one. All that I can say is: On your own heads be it, then. I'm the only one who has attempted any major cleanup so far, out of all of the edits to this page, and my addition of {{POV_check}} and {{cleanup}} reflected my view, that I still hold, that what I did to the article wasn't nearly enough to bring it up to encyclopaedic standard, that my effort was only a partial one that other editors need to build upon, and that I wasn't confident that I had rendered a NPOV (or that the text that I didn't touch was neutral). As it stands, however, we find ourselves in the disappointing situation of the tags being removed without the work actually being done. I am in strong disagreement with that ethos. Uncle G 03:44, 2005 Feb 5 (UTC)
- Put one or two tags back if it passes VfD. No point in cleaning up and whatnot if it's going to be deleted. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:26, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- That's not true in the general case and it's not true specifically here. It's not true in the general case, in that it is worth cleaning up articles that are on VFD. There have been cases where editing the article to perform cleanup and render NPOV has changed "Delete"s to "Keep"s. (I've even been responsible for a couple.) Cleaning up, or indeed rewriting, articles on VFD is an inherent part of the process. It's not true specifically here because, as am I sure you can see as well as I, the writing has been on the wall for this article right from the start. It's going to be kept. As such, one might as well treat it as if it were not on VFD, and were simply a new article that had recently been submitted, which of course it is. Cleaning up and rendering NPOV is an inherent part of that process, too. Uncle G 22:23, 2005 Feb 5 (UTC)
- Put one or two tags back if it passes VfD. No point in cleaning up and whatnot if it's going to be deleted. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:26, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Well, as it is you now have zero cleanup templates, not one. All that I can say is: On your own heads be it, then. I'm the only one who has attempted any major cleanup so far, out of all of the edits to this page, and my addition of {{POV_check}} and {{cleanup}} reflected my view, that I still hold, that what I did to the article wasn't nearly enough to bring it up to encyclopaedic standard, that my effort was only a partial one that other editors need to build upon, and that I wasn't confident that I had rendered a NPOV (or that the text that I didn't touch was neutral). As it stands, however, we find ourselves in the disappointing situation of the tags being removed without the work actually being done. I am in strong disagreement with that ethos. Uncle G 03:44, 2005 Feb 5 (UTC)
[edit] I read the earlier books
Most people familiar with New Agey type things are probably familiar with the Scallion Map that purports to show a map of the world after being struck by various dramatic geologic calamities. In all the books I read (the last one being the purple-colored one), it seemed either Kryon or Lee Carroll would list an entirely new and different thing that was (before all the wonderful unexpected spiritual changes) supposed to bring about the situation indicated by this famous map. Everybody needs to make their own decision about what's valid and legitimate information and why, of course, but I eventually decided to simply look elsewhere for spiritual guidance because such blatant self-contradiction just made me feel as though I were being "played." Just my two cents.
[edit] Lee Carrol has never claimed to be the sole receiver of higher order information
Regarding the Commercial Success section, the article says "Large wealth generation through channeling entities is not unusual, with many people making similar claims to Lee Carroll, of being the sole receiver of higher order information". This is simply wrong since Lee Carrol has never claimed to be the sole receiver of higher order information, not even the sole receiver of Kryon information. Quite the opposite, in the GUIDELINES FOR DISCERNMENT - New Realities Magazine - July 1987, it is clearly stated in item # 5 that "Spirit will never represent a channeller as being the only source. Watch for this, for there are many channels of Spirit and they all coordinate their information to create a bigger picture, especially in this New Age. They will NEVER represent themselves as the ONLY source of information.". See Reference here: http://www.kryon.com/k_25.html#about
- Thank you for the information. I have made the changes. MaxMangel 14:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] What is with the sarcastic tone?
I mean I don't believe this rubbish either, but no need to be sarcastic.
- I agree. But furthermore, people who do believe it may feel at best unwelcome at the condescended tone of some parts of the article. Do we really want that in wikipedia??
[edit] Comment moved from Article page
I have read the first Kryon book and have visited the site often, Lee Carol does not profit from his site,he offers free information free to distribute, and often goes into such detail (pages and pages) that you would not need to buy a book to get his information. And he offers free downloads of his lectures, and free downloads of discussions. The Q&A on his website gives people the opportunity to ask whatever they want of Kryon and recieve an answer if it has yet to be answered. The books he does sell are cheap compared to other authors. Lee Carol is actually not just a chaneller but has a regular job as well. I think that this article is written from a skeptical synical point of view. Very slanted....but yet makes a person think logically. Thank you. Denise. --209.226.104.184 19:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Please do not keep
This article almost seems to be an affront on those who may hold any belief in the Kryon material. If such an article were written about Islam or Buddhism, it would immediately be replaced. If our goal is to be informative and unbiased, the the article should be shortened to the bare minimum, and then approached more delicately. --Sam W.--
[edit] Useful, Whatever You Believe (or Don't)
I have read a number of the Kryon books, attended a session, and met Lee Carroll recently. While I personally believe the material is valid, and the service that Lee renders is a valuable one, there is enough of a constituency and interest in this subject to warrant its objective coverage in Wikipedia. His impact on the world, and on history, is still a work-in-progress, and will expand as we gain greater context through the passage of time. He has spoken before the United Nations on multiple occasions and published the transcripts for all to see and contemplate. It doesn't matter whether a writer believes it is valid or not, as it wouldn't matter if a writer agreed with an edict from the Pope. It is likely that fewer people are interested in a conversation about quarks and super strings than Kryon teachings, but an article in Wikipedia would still be expected to be objective.
This article hardly warrants shortening. However, the cynicism with which some of the writing is laced, should indeed be removed. It is not only distracting, and possibly biasing to the reader -- whatever his or her point of view -- but it detracts from Wikipedia as a source of unbiased information. ~~Adam Abraham~~
[edit] It has right to exist
It is hard to try to be unbiased in such an issue when little (if any) research on it has been done, as it has already been pointed out. However, describing what the channeller claims and his main "theological" (?) points is not biased, it is not about saying if he is right or not, that will be decided in another place. Any encyclopaedia is about saying what takes place, and if it is decided that it is right or wrong, then that will be written too, that some other source said so.
Moreover, spiritual issues, as they have been described by many spiritual teachers and students, have an important part of subjectivity and that is why they have to be experienced first; so, whatever is written about it is like the tip of the iceberg.
Furthermore, I have seen how other writers' claims have been already posted, I do not understand why Lee Carroll's claims cannot be posted too, when it is such a huge phenomenon and of interest for so many people. In the end, people decide what is more desirable to appear in an encyclopaedia and thus more research on that topic will be done.
My opinion is that it has its right to appear in Wikipedia.
~~Pableras~~ 18/01/2007 22:55 GMT+1
[edit] Someone rewrite this, please!
This article should be completely rewritten by someone who knows a bit more about the material. For example, under the section Teachings, there is virtually nothing about Kryon's teachings, just the list of guidelines on channelling, which is nothing more than a sideline copied from the website and hardly a core Kryon teaching. The main author of this article, clearly a skeptic, should content himself with writing the criticisms section of the article, and let those who have actually read and understood the material be the ones to summarize it. 82.12.248.83 14:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Derek.
[edit] some sources
I haven't figured out yet how to add footnotes and such, but i saw the citation needed note and this link http://www.greatdreams.com/tuning.htm from the Kryon website shows that he did predict the magnetic shift (as near as i can tell, through the dreams of his followers. it's kinda far down the page before he gets to talking about the same magnetic shift as the CNN article, but it's there. and here's a CNN article on thier site that talks about a magnetic pole shift http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/04/07/poles.reverse/index.html I'm not trying to be lazy or anything, i just got the information, and didn't understand exactly what to do with it. (Nimue the mighty 05:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)).
