Talk:The Urantia Book/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archived discussion page

Obviously was getting rather humongous. Any conversations can be brought over here if necessary, probably would be a good idea to copy and paste where they left off in the archive to bring in some of the context. Wazronk 03:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Nice job! I like it. I've added a bunch, and will delete some of the quotes to shorten this page at your request. How did you do that? Where can I find out how to archive the talk pages? -- anonymous

The instructions can be found at Wikipedia:How_to_archive_a_talk_page. -- Wazronk 03:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Editors, Wow. Lots of changes. I like most of the direction this it going in. I am also happy with the archived talk pages, Wazronk. Thank you! What method did you use? Hanely 15:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I used the first one. Wazronk 04:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

intro and authorship

Authorship is one of two essential identifiers for any book in the English speaking world... you only have to look at any book cover, look up any well known book article in wikipedia, and the first two identifiers are always there: title and author.

OK, I agree, but it still could use improvement in the way it reads, but it is at least factual - not necessary to spell out the reason so much. Anonymous

In a citation, what are the first absolutely essential elements to list? Author. Title.

I deleted references to anybody being named actual author because that part is what skeptics think is the mystery, since they think they have the "unbias" then they have to leave it out for now till they prove authorship. It's redundant anyway since detailed info is in the M-of-O section. --Anonyn

Not mentioning authorship right up front, like has been done until recently, is no way to go. And to have a book where authorship is mysterious just makes it more important yet to mention. I've already listed out some of the most widely read religious books in the world (now in archived discussion page) and they address authorship issues up front, even when there are uncertainties.

What if The Urantia Book had a known author? Let's say that Dr. Phil wrote it in 1998. I have no doubt in my mind that that would be a fact mentioned right up at top in the first sentence, the first breath, in beginning an introductory statement about the book. To not have an author is even more reason to make mention right off the bat. The basic outlines of the mystery are not disputed by anyone who has looked into it, I've stuck to those undisputed verified facts that are accepted by everyone to give wikipedia readers the basics. Wazronk 03:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Here are random famous books / best-sellers from my mind, both fiction and non fiction (picked famous books since expect to have well-developed articles about them):

* War and Peace

* The Sound and the Fury

* A Brief History of Time

* Ulysses

* Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance

* The Grapes of Wrath

* Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone

Now checking those links, each and every one is directly identified by author right after the title. This is no suprise, try it for yourself with books of your own selection. This is the most basic and fundamental info about a book's existence, excepting only its title perhaps. Authorship isn't a discreet detail for fourth paragraph but necessary to mention up front at top. Wazronk 04:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Wazronk, Anonymous, Editors et.al: In order to stay with NPOV while a controversy rages on about whether celestial beings or human beings or both or neither or whatever continues in the realms of readers or skeptics etc., I think it is best to leave it unannounced one way or the other in the intro. in order to stay neutral and objective. If anyone is interested in the controversy history they can begin by going to the newly named "Mysterious origin" section and "see" works for me. I agree that it is problematic, and probably could be worded better, or maybe linked better, but I am not sure at this point how. By the way, anonymous, I like the new name, but 'Mystery of origin' was ok too. Either way is fine with me. Wazronk, I appreciate your rearrangements and well thought out points, too. Hanely 15:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

women as spiritual upholders of humanity

This item has been on the "Comparison to Christianity" list for a while as a difference with Christianity:

• Women are equal to men spiritually, and as concerns them overall and in religion, are not to be minimized in any way. The book even says that women more often than men have been the real spiritual upholders of humanity.

I've looked before for evidence in TUB for the last sentence and never found it. Due to the high frequency of suppositions about the book that have turned out not to be true, I looked again. The word "women" (case-insensitive search) appears on 378 lines in the book. I took 10 minutes of my life and scanned those quotes and did not see evidence for the claim made in the second sentence.

If there is anyone who cares to have it put back in the article, please cite the paper and a quote from the book to support the claim, thanks. Wazronk 04:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what search engine you use, but nobody who read the Urantia Book would ever question that addition which IS a difference in what mainstream fundamentalist Christianity would have their sect followers do and believe. Here ya go and THIS IS ONLY A START AT ALL THE WAYS IN WHICH THAT SHORT ADDITION SUMMARIZED AND PARAPHRASED THE CONCEPTUAL POINT!:

Page 938: Women seem to have more intuition than men, but they also appear to be somewhat less logical. Woman, however, has always been the moral standard-bearer and the spiritual leader of mankind. The hand that rocks the cradle still fraternizes with destiny.

[clipped out irrelevant quotes -- Wazronk 03:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)] *Thanks Wazronk, I'd have done it for you. -- anonymous

that anonymous editor, who now discerns that whatever your concerns about The Urantia Book really are is amazed to discover that you may not have read it.

My question wasn't about the comparison to Christianity. Really was simple. The article stated The book even says that women more often than men have been the real spiritual upholders of humanity, and was looking for verifiability on it. All the quotes afterward the above were about the first sentence, which was left intact, and wasn't questioned for verifiability. Wazronk 03:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, that isn't the exact way it was worded, but I understand. The stuff afterward is relevant to teachings overall, though. -- anonymous

Wazronk, Anonymous, et.al: On the issue of women in TUB and religion, it is clear through demonstrated stories, the evolution of mores, marriage institutions, Jesus' treatment of his mother, other women and the introduction of a Women's Corps that women are not to be minimized but equally respected. This would take an enormous amount of study to find all the conceptually pertinent material. But that one quote out of the papers is succinct in women's role as the spiritual upholder of mankind. In that section of the book are also wonderful things about men -- the books balances out the differences between men and women in a more fair way than this article does or makes it appear. Maybe when more of the conceptual matter is summarized this would make a good addition to the article? Hanely 15:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Can we delete that? Let's remember that 'fundamentalist Christianity' isn't ALL of Christianity, historically or in the present world - I personally read this and for six or seven seconds was almost amused or shocked at how misrepresented my faith seemed - as a generation Y Christian, it's a matter of course to me that women and men are spiritual equals. shuffdog 12:41, 11 May 2006

"Teachings" subsections

Hi Wazronk and Editors, "Topics summaries" - I'm thinking about this new title. It might be better as a sub heading under "Teachings", or maybe "Teachings" should go into some other sub section, in trying to be fair, I am not sure whether either one is relevant to an article that is about the contents of the book if the article is going to be outlined consistent with TUB. It seems to me that overall, TUB has a tone of being informational and is largely written in "narrative style" even in Part IV. So, I guess the question is, is "teachings" really a good way to introduce the papers? Are the teachings really those of Jesus? What papers use teach mode and what is taught? Hanely 16:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

For the time being, I've collapsed the various "universe" stub subsections into one overarching "Cosmology" subsection. I agree that "origin of universe", "structure of universe", etc, should be addressed, but think it's premature to have such fine-grained subsections on the topic. You know, only one paragraph (copied from elsewhere) and a quote from the book already are there. If a write-up on the topic gets so big that a break-up into multiple subsections is needed, that's great, but we seem a very long ways from that.

I agree with having a "History of earth" subsection. This is one that I can imagine evolving into an article of its own someday, since so much can be said on the topic.

I disagree about "I AM" as a subsection.

Wazronk, from a Christian perspective or religious one, I can see how you disagree. However from philosophy and science I disagree. -- That anonymous editor

That's not my point or my perspective. Looking at what TUB itself weights as most important in terms of what it spends the most time and energy explaining, I AM is a pretty small part of it. On one hand you have "history of earth" as a subsection, which is an entire Part -- or one fourth of the logical structure of the book -- and which I agree as a subsection, on the other a philosophical aspect to the teachings that is really only developed in-depth with two minor subsections of papers. It is evident from the quote itself that you put in the article. What in the world are these terms to the reader? They aren't defined and are just meaningless weirdness:

* Eternal Father

* Original Son

* Infinite Spirit

* potential of Total Deity

* divinity levels of Supremacy, Ultimacy, and Absoluteness

All those are necessary before I AM can be explained. This isn't good teaching but just throwing a lot of oddness at people. Wazronk 03:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Those designations can be linked to your "glossary" can they not? -- anonymous 2-1-2006

Well, the glossary shouldn't be looked at in this way, this article should be written so it stands on its own two feet. First of all the glossary is only linked in "See also" at this time... someone reading the article wouldn't know it exists at this point. All should be written to facilitate understanding as much as possible, but oddness like this sort of jargon just leads a person to tune out. The main article needs to aim for more basic targets. Secondly, even if a reader knows a glossary exists, it would be pretty awkward for a reader to flip between a glossary article and this main article whenever they see something they don't understand. I'm really doubtful people would bother, but would just consider it "weird" and be done with it. Thirdly, it would be awkward (and very error-prone) for random editors to be expected to add to this article and synch to glossary. I suggested the glossary last November as one of a series of daughter articles about TUB. It was actually easy to do over time, add a few entries here and there -- the easiest of the articles I suggested -- and after a little more than a month I posted it. But it's not meant to be a replacement for careful wording and explanations in this article. Wazronk 04:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Wazronk, Anonymous, can entries be added to the glossary and linked within the article just like other links are? I agree with Wazronk it is premature to add article sections without writing them up first. Trewbuk 14:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

_____________________________________

I instead suggest there be a "Nature of God" subsection -- probably to even be the lead subsection under teachings -- and "I AM" stuff would merit mention under that heading (though much else is important to mention before that). "I AM" stuff isn't even a paper of its own in the book, and after a brief description in the Forward, appears one instant in P002, a few scattered times here and there, and then gets its most specific treatment in only two short subsections of P105. I think a broader "Nature of God" subsection is a lot more important. I'll leave as is for now if you want to develop "I AM" but in the future think it is more one aspect of a larger topic.

The problem with a "Nature of God" section or subsection is that it is a specific Paper, Paper 2, in The Urantia Book. That summary would theoretically be included in a summary of Part I, or perhaps under a philosophy or comparison to other relgion header. -- anonymous 2-1-2006

OK, I'll think about that, too. The I AM is not a concept specific to the UB but appears in other realms of thought already existent. --anonyn again

I've returned "God and the individual" to the top of list since it is the most complete and readable (rather than have people go through a bunch of blank stubs and / or really really rough-draft material to get to anything of substance). It also reflects the organization of the book, since while it draws from a few other places, it mainly covers material from P001 - P005 (even includes two lengthy quotes from P005). The details of cosmology come later in the book. Deleted "celestial beings" subsection. I added it to begin with, as a suggested topic. People can bring it back and work on it if they want, I just know I probably won't, so didn't see a reason to have a blank stub sitting around for no reason. Wazronk 04:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, I think about this also. I agree on one thing, being such an underdeveloped article at this point, and also headed for a split at some point, an overall outline needs to be made that can be followed. I'm inclined toward following the outline of the book itself. --anonyn

Hi Wazronk, and Editors, I am getting the idea from this discussion that the outline of the article could go a couple of ways. It could follow the organizational outline of the book or it could be a new outline following the topics in the article's introduction: philosophy, destiny, science, etc. What do you think? Hanely 16:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Plagiarism and "Believer Perspective"

Wazronk,

There is a big difference between telling the whole truth by giving the whole picture in the Urantia Book and what it is about, what it means and what it says and "believer perspectives". This is because there appear to be believers who never read the whole thing, and obvious skeptics who did not. This is not unusual for human beings to do, in fact it common and it is the same phenomenon that churches and synagogues experience in their congregations with members who don't read their tenets, doctrines, laws etc. Scientists, philosophers and everybody with POV sectism do that to each other. Why read the material? How can anybody criticize something they only read ABOUT from someone else's writing? This is dependency on other people's opinions, a flaw in Wikipedia and a flaw mankind is in general susceptible to.

On Plagiarism, Block clearly renigged on his skeptical outlook and it is posted at Square Circles, a website hosted and maintained by his wife. Block is self published, too. I expect a good writer like you to include that in the section or just take out all references to his work. While he may very well have identified source materials, and is published on the web, and I personally think his work is valuable, I doubt it should be cited in the Wikipedia just yet - at least until it meets the criteria Wikipedia sets for validation. It is unfortunate because believers and skeptics alike are more and more becoming appreciative of his validation through the act of his research... it is just proving the validity of what the authors say.

Paraphrasing, summarizing, rewording and building on existent concepts is not plagiarism in this instance - a proper note of use was given in the book!

Anonymous Author

PS -- On thinking this over some more, since plagiarism is only "alleged" at this time, even with Gardner's references in his book, I'm just removing for now. -- Anonyn

I agree with the Block perspective being in there even though it's from a weaker source, since it allows for better believer perspective. As I said back in the archived pages, I've thought the believer perspective wasn't as well presented in the "Plagiarism" subsection, and it's fine to me that some improvements have been made there. If you'd rather have it sourced only from strong sources from published books you're only left with Gardner's critique, which is what I'll boil it down to. If you want to remove the Block quote, feel free. Wazronk 03:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry we don't agree, but here is why I don't:

Block is self published and his work is still undergoing review; it really doesn't fit the parameters Wikipedia has set, not yet anyway. I will remove references to Block. This is because of the little known publisher and also being self published. It might at a future time become more well known, and also by that time it will probably fit better as its own (huge) article, as should Gardner's work hold its own place as a book title. I will not write those articles because I will busy summarizing the papers. I wrote several comments just awhile ago that disappeared off the talk page... hmmm... anyway, I am writing them again. wow, it's all gone, even my references to other religio books layouts! -- anonymous

Wazronk has done a nice of fixing this now, in my opinion. Can we leave Block in since his concluded opinion is included now and says it is his opinion? I wrote in another comment today about NPOV again vs. this method... Wazronk, above is a good example of how NPOV can be missed, by presenting an article in opposed view mode, it makes for ambivalence to the reader and somehow distracts from the presentation of neutrality through factual presentation - hard to do! NPOV somehow skirts argument mode or maybe opposed view mode. Let me see what I can find in the help section in the way of examples. It sounds like you, Anonymous and Wazronk really agree and perhaps you just didn't see it? Hanely 15:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Adherents and Teachings

Some of the stuff in "Adherents" should be put in "Teachings"... how does one guage "adherents" since nothing published and verifiable about them? I vote making mention of the facts there isn't any way to guage it, and deleting the rest. -- Anonyn

PS -- on thinking about it, I just did that. Will add in teachings that appeared in 'adherents' in appropriate sections as they get built. All that stuff was inherent in the book anyway and will get covered appropriately as the article develops.

I agree. Hanely 16:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Rearranging for better structure, 2-2-06 and comments on NPOV, Critics, etc.

The rearranging I did today is aiming toward a better structure for an article set to split into many other articles at a later time. Overall this is a beginning to making a good outline and providing appropriate section topics for editors to work in. -- anonymous

I'm clarifying subsection titles for writing as it already stands and for more logical placement for readers. More specific development of "Science" and "Revelation" from the perspective of strictly UB-centric "teachings" is fine if you'd like to undertake that. I think some of the UB-centric perspective on those will tend to logically fall under "history of the earth", e.g. the five epochal revelations should be in that subsection. Wazronk 03:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I did some light rearranging, renaming and clipping out stuff today as regards critics, Block, etc. as ongoing discussions have indicated. I wrote in SEVERAL examples at Wikipedia with links to articles on religious texts including Bhagavad Gita and The Bible among about ten others that don't include criticism sections... I had listed three that had something akin like "critical reviews" or "critics views" etc. Considering the lengthy article this will become I am changing the title of the section to "Critics Views" for now ... where published verifiable views can be cited and/or summarized as they are now. Later, these "views" or "reviews" can be their own article linked here. Any revisions that need to be made go ahead. I removed stuff that I thought was Block's work, but if I've made a mistake, please feel to ask me to put it back or correct it. -- anonymous

Hi Wazronk, Anonymous, Editors, I agree something had to be done to fix the ambivalent article. It was going from bias, to bias - a writing style and method that Wikipedia is trying to help editors avoid. Neutrality is best, but not always achieved, so bias to bias occurs when that is difficult to do. But now the section on critics is appearing to be POV bias again. What if it was rewritten NPOV summary style or perhaps merged in the page for Martin Gardner? As it is now, while these may be facts or even published non-facts or whatever it sounds a bit defamatory to me. I have not read Gardner, but did a quick internet search and it appears he did have critics and admirers alike. I don't think all this needs to be in this article, maybe it is better to just to put Gardner's work in "see also"? Ideas, thoughts? Hanely 16:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC) PS - I was going to link to CSICOP to try and alleviate some of the bias, but these are clearly secular humanists out to debunk any theories or religions that have God in them, including a special "Intelligent Design Watch" section. It doesn't appear that the group is "reputable" in the way Wikipedia describes, but if it is I didn't find that today. Bias for sure. Gardner was clearly biased or he would not have affiliated with CSICOP, but this article about him may be more factual about him than it appears. What do you think? I still say so much about Gardner if anything needs to be removed to a more appropriate article or just deleted all together. His work about the Urantia Book needs a critical peer review, was there one? Hanely 16:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I think the stuff about Gardner can go, but if it stays it should be rewritten to be a lot shorter and more to point of Gardner's conclusions overall without any details. The name of the book calls Urantia a "Cult Mystery", and it is not a cult, and only the origin is a mystery. It sounded like an ad to sell his book before I put in some criticisms to counter balance the way it was written before. It is only fair to show background information on the source so often cited in this article as if it is some acceptable authority to judge. Just because some guy wrote a book doesn't make it a valuable source for an unbiased review of another book. Whoever wants it here needs to edit it. I am inclined to delete it and put his book in "see also" and let it go at that, but I think Wazronk and other editors have information there that they want to convey. In the spirit of Wikipedia's suggested editor's manners, I will wait a day or two. I took out the "split the section" notice on this section, it is already split and I think it needs to be reduced to reference links for critical views and list the books like other articles do. -- anonymous 2-2-06

I only have a moment today, but this tactic of splitting out critical POVs is definitely not the way to go, as has been explained many times in the past, it is the opposite of wikipedia policy. These criticisms aren't just Gardner's but rather are best represented through the work in his book. This section is not under an artificial timeframe to be deleted by non-critics in an arbitrary 1-2 day timeframe. Wazronk 19:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Wazronk, and Anonymous,

On critical POV's I recall, but can't find again right now, reading Wikipedia guides, where the method you cite, Wazronk, that was previously used in the article, was a method that should be improved upon to actually achieve NPOV. I remember something in the help section about how that other method of opposed views bouncing back and forth makes for a bad read when the points of view end up arguing in the article. I felt that was happening. What is presented here that is from Gardner's book needs to be referenced as such also, so perhaps we just need to make sure that the criticisms are a. valid and b. referenced? It may be that you just needed to keep looking for better word smithing. I will keep looking also. Hanely 15:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Wazronk, OK, I understand your POV. I am running out of time too. By a couple of days I didn't mean literally two days. Take your time. But to reduce the article to fun and games critiques isn't the point and other editors agree the article should be about the insides of the Urantia Book and not so much about all the stuff surrounding it - kind of like your opinion that what Gardner says in his book is more important that stuff about him above. Once the whole thing gets summarized do you agree that criticism/critical views can go to another article? Have you had time to look at how to split the large articles? Did you have time to check out any other formats or layouts for this article than what is here? Have you checked out other articles about books that do not have criticsms in them like the Bible and Bhagavad Gita, The Torah and several others? Since Gardner is about the only published source of criticism and a questionable source at that, what do you propose? -- anonymous 2 February 2006

Yes, I have checked out these articles on other religious books. The difference between them and this article is that those articles entirely are concerned with the history, structure, language, etc. of those books -- the "stuff surrounding" them -- and don't deal with the book's contents / teachings at all (except for very brief summary mention, the one exception being more detail in Bhagavad Gita). If anything, those articles weaken the case that this article should for some reason be devoted entirely to the "contents" and avoid mention of history and details surrounding the book. I fully agree that wikipedia is a place where the contents / teachings of TUB can be presented but that it also isn't what people are always looking for (or even usually looking for). The purpose here is to provide for a large variety of readers with many interests and varying levels of curiousity. As those articles demonstrate, encyclopedic knowledge isn't so narrow as to only be concerned with book synopsis summary of contents.

I'll have to come back again about Criticism, but my view in a nutshell is that I've never felt criticism should dominate the article but should have its place. It shouldn't be pinched off and shuffled away to a separate article, however if there is a buildup in extensive criticism, that can of course be more than what's suitable for this article and be placed in another with summary remaining here. Personally the criticism has been at the limits of what I would consider important / necessary and I don't see the need for large amounts of further elaboration. I don't intend to do it and would rather turn to better organization and development of teachings which is a large effort. Wazronk 04:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree criticism should have its place. It should not make the article sound argumentative and ambivalent, but be presented in its own NPOV. Hanely 15:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I object strongly to Wazronk's wholesale edit of the critique section of this article. It has destroyed the NPOV. It is perfectly valid for this Urantia article to acknowledge criticism in the vein of other Wikipedia articles on recent religious works such as Dianetics and the Book of Mormon. Comparisons to the Wikipedia articles on the Bible and the Torah are transparent attempts to put Urantia in the league of established religions (which have received leagues of critical analysis). In this edit, the plagiarism section was completely gutted by removing all references to Block and his research, which is one of the major critical analysis of Urantia. Likewise, if you have negative comments about Gardner, CSICOP or other critics, they don't belong in this article, and their inclusion smacks of a knee jerk reaction. VanDerRohe 10 February 2006.

Wazronk only did some edits on criticisms. Several authors have morphed that. Hanely 15:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from. You don't seem to have looked at the actual edit history of the article, I'm the one that has maintained the Criticism section against continual deletions by relative newcomers to wikipedia who strongly favor a believer POV. The Criticism and NPOV "destruction" was a "wholesale edit" by anonymous IP 69.137.116.242 (the third or fourth attempt by that IP to remove large amounts of criticism) and the ad hominem toward Gardner added by same. My comment above about Bible and Torah was toward the believer-POV editors, providing a big reason why criticism subsection is very appropriate here and in keeping with wikipedia standards. I agree those texts are in a different league from this book. Your points about Book of Mormon and Dianetics are the same I've made in the past.

It's funny. What I meant by "I'll have to come back again about Criticism" is that I've intended to address exactly what you've also pointed out. The Gardner comments are elementary ad hominem and typical Wikipedia:POV pushing.

I saw it as an attempt to make the article neutral, though it didn't completely accomplish it. Hanely 15:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

(And to begin with, the grouping of all criticism as under his book is a mischaracterization of the Criticism sourcing and not accurate.)

Well, a whole lot of the way the article is written is not accurate. But that is what editors fix, yes? Hanely 15:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[I just fixed the markup on the following paragraph, which was in "preformatted" style and displayed as one long line. -- 70.22.215.22 23:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)]

[Oops, that was me, being inadvertently anonymous. -- ACW 23:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)]

A dispute here about Block, which IMO does have legitimacy, is how much space to give him, since he is self-published. But Block has drawn the attention of others to look closer, including in this case Gardner. Gardner found he agreed very much with Block and I can include more specific quotes. Others likely in the future (if not already) will look at the parallels themselves, and readers of the wikipedia article are welcome to look on their own as well. Block isn't mentioned anymore as having weight as an expert (I'm not sure how ambiguous that's really been) but only in the historical context as the person who noticed and started to collect together a large number of noticeable parallels. The article states that he is only a reader and that his article was self-published. Parallels in the article represent examples of what Gardner thought were extremely large and obvious examples of borrowings from other sources, which were originally identified by Block. Eg. a Garner quote: "The extent of the UB's debt to Hopkins is indeed astonishing. Not only are facts and ideas freely appropriated, but often the very phrasing is copied." -- Wazronk 02:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing the stuff on Block. The way it was before took his findings out of context and did not represent his overall view. It does now. That's honest, and I think it is OK unless other editors object to his self published status. Hanely 15:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Evolution, Races in TUB

1. Paper 80, p. 899: Even in 3000 B.C. the ancient social groups were no more of one race than are the present inhabitants of North America."

-- Anonymous

"Esoteric cosmology" category

"Esoteric cosmology is cosmology that is an intrinsic part of an esoteric or occult system of thought." (category desc as originally created by Wikipedia users, including myself)

Esoteric cosmology is a cosmology that is little known. Occult is not intrinsic to the definition of the type of cosmology that can be presented in the category (only sometimes part of it). The UB has a cosmology that is intrinsic to it which is a little known system of thought, though not occult, cult or sect, more scientific than that, but has God in it. Hanely 15:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Esoteric cosmologies are related to cosmological systems as part of philosophies/techings in esoterism/occultism, either ancient (common alongide to earlier religions and races, as Surat Shabda Yoga, Sufism, Kaballah, Alchemy, and so on) or derived more recent or current-day philosophies which root themselves in development of those ancient philosophical systems (as Theosophical, Rosicrucian, and so on) Cosmology conceptions presented on this book are neither related to earlier ones which are inherent to esoteric knowledge, neither a development on those same basis (so please do not add it to this category with which it as not even close relation: that would be deinformation and publicity); and please understand that it is not my function here to say, or to analyse indepth, what this book may be. Regards, --GalaazV 16:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

GalaazV, I can see how you might consider this possible "deinformation" or sales or "publicity", or whatever because of your viewpoint that is lacking in some of the facts. However esoteric means "little known" and the Urantia Book presents immense cosmological thought similar to every one of the ones you've mentioned above but yours are better known and have countable or at least estimable followers where it crosses a line of sect, or cult or whatever. You yourself indicate you don't really know, must be because you're not familiar with it? It has been around in modern days since 1955. No indepth analysis is necessary to skim the contents pages to discern that the book presents cosmology, and understandably arguably esoteric or just plain cosmology. Why argue? Look at the contents page. -- Anonymous

Oh, but I agree with you my friend: it presents a cosmology, evolution, historical events, etc.! But, perhaps from a parallel universe and alternate history categories? On the other hand, not all mediunistic-level communications are said to be from entities aiming man's evolution. So, if usually none of us trust our own private life issues to strangers we can see, let us be carefull in trusting our own life to those we are not able to see. Although "There are more things in heaven and earth... that are dreamt on your philosophy" advising that we should keep a mind open to other conceptions, logic should be our best guide, specially, during our first steps (yet, having also in mind that our comprehension of logic is limited by our own mind's current capability). Thank you for your attention, Regards --GalaazV 04:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

GalaazV: Well, no, those categories are not what one of the main themes of the book is about (though it contains some of that). I'm sorry, is it because you are afraid of its origin? It isn't exactly fiction any more than the other theories are, either. Esoteric is esoteric, the book has been around 50 years, and is about an interesting cosmology (it doesn't say the universes are parallel universes, but something else). The cosmology is little known at this time and should be made available to researchers interested in the subject. The category is right - and right, we should keep our mind open and if I can understand the cosmological layout in the book anyone can. -- Anonymous

GalaazV and Anonymous: I'd prefer the cosmology to be in the cosmology category. But, I've restored the esoteric cosmology category on the basis that occultism is not intrinsic per se and that the cosmology is "little known". GalaazV, could it be that you only want the books you choose to put there to be in there? Origin of authorship is not part of how to decide. Humans played a large role in the creation of the book, so I don't see a problem. The category fits, in my honest and NPOV opinion. Hanely 15:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I apologize my dear wise friends. Please, forgive the intromission of this ignorant fool... So, once again the words of the Mystic turn to be true: "Set ideas render them impervious to the rays of truth.". Best regards, --GalaazV 15:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Wordsmithing

Hi Editors,

I made changes today as noted in my comments in the page history. I condensed (whittled) sentences and made other minor edits. I did the most in science - intended to clarify for NPOV and verifiable accuracy. I do not know what Gardner actually meant or wrote but only what editors wrote. It was not the truth so, I omitted a reference to there not being electrons in solar energy/radiation because they are. I don't have Gardner's book to verify what he was actually saying about photons and electrons, etc. I apologize if this doesn't reflect the skeptic view succinctly, but if not it should be rewritten if not. As it was previously written it was verifiably false as far as what science says and what is found in TUB (see reference links). Hanely 19:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow, good work [1]! Makes for a far more readable article, less opinion. HighInBC 19:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

_____________________________________________________________________

With some trepidation I am putting my toe in these waters. I value consensus and neutrality, and I hope I can be useful here.

I have not read The Urantia Book, and do not consider myself qualified to write about its content. I have read the entire discussion pages here, including archives.

I'm sticking my big nose in here because I found the style of the article to be tough going. I came in with a mild curiosity about the Urantia Book, but my head was soon reeling with complicated jargon, long explanations, and what seem to be disjointed fragments of unclear disagreements that have left their fossils in the article.

Having read the discussion page, I have a sympathetic understanding of how the article got the way it is. The editors are trying to walk a narrow path of NPOV through a minefield of strong, heartfelt opinions. The forces of opinion pull the article back and forth, and turgid style is a natural result as editors choose their words with increasing care.

I've made a pass through the opening paragraph, just to illustrate the kinds of things I think might be improved. Because this article has such an active, engaged group of editors, I feel that I should explain why I made the changes I did.

• I removed the three-letter acronyms TUB, UB, TUP, and FER, because these acronyms did not appear anywhere else in the article, so they didn't need to be explained. Probably the acronyms were used in earlier versions; someone on the discussion page mentioned eliminating TUB from the text.

• I took out the word "largely" from before "a spiritual, religious, and philosophical tome". If the book is anything else, then the omission is either major (in which case we should add it explicitly), or minor, in which case it's OK to stick with a 99.99%-accurate description. We want the first paragraph to be smooth, informative, and inviting: hedge-words like "largely" are like potholes in the narrative roadway.

• • The book covers sciences, logic, cosmology, history, and numerous other catagories, but is for the most part about spirituality, religioun, and philosophy. I think that is what the original author was trying to get accross. The actual list of subjects would be too long for this article and would read like a table of contents. HighInBC 03:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

As somebody who hasn't read the book, I depend on you experts to get the list of topics right; my only point is that in this crucial opening sentence we should either include or exclude each topic, and not muddy the waters with "largely" or "and many other topics". There is plenty of space to give more exhaustive lists later, after we have caught the reader's attention with the main idea. ACW 19:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

• In a similar vein, I changed "covers an in-depth portrayal of" to "discusses". A minimal change would have been "is an in-depth portrayal of", but I don't think "portrayal" is right here: portraiture isn't involved.

• I moved the business about "Mysterious origin" into another sentence, saving some repeated words and smoothing the flow. At the same time I wikified the reference to the "Mysterious origin" section.

I don't plan to be as detailed in defending future edits, but I wanted the established editors to see what I was about. Great job so far! ACW 01:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Good show, somebody who has not read the book is in a better position to make technical and style corrections without changing the content too much than people with strong opinions about the book. HighInBC 03:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I can't quite tell if you're being sarcastic or not. But, it being my policy is to assume sincerity in cases of doubt, I thank you for your kind welcome. And perhaps I will eventually destroy my statesmanlike ignorance by reading a paper or two. ACW 19:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi ACW,

You and your big nose are welcome here, thanks for the edits. I hope you'll stick around and continue to help with the article. Development has become especially active in the past 2-3 months, but we're probably overdue to have some fresh input. I like the idea of people completely new to the topic evaluating the article for how well or how badly the material is presented and look forward to more edits and comments from you. -- Wazronk 05:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Regarding yesterday's shorter article w/new edits, back to dubious representation, IMHO

Dear Editors,

I applaud the efforts to improve this article, with the good news being it is shorter, to be sure. However, it now reads as an even less accurate representation of the overall Urantia Book with too much use of phrases like "it says" in the same section. One time in the article is enough, but I would concede one time per section if done right . If you would take some time to think about a reader seeing those kinds of phrases after every sentence or two you would realize it becomes redundant and irritating. The reader knows this after it is said once and it is like saying I must remind you, I must remind you - they know.

I feel also that editors have identified only false "believer" perspectives. In calling it a "believer" perspective, this is bias and indicates a lack of understanding of the contents of The Urantia Book. In other words, the previous, longer, but more accurate article was not biased, it represented material that was verifiable in the pages of the book and those were things that needed to be in the article where skeptics had the article a myopic and less than factual representation of the wide range of principles, concepts and general information in the book.

I also object to the style of writing that makes the The Urantia Book sound like a target for the Christian point of view only. There is a lot in common with that, but even more that is not. Only someone who is mostly interested in Part IV would write this way about the book creating what I suspect is not recognized by the editor as being biased, but it actually is. The focus of this article when I first encountered it was like reading "tunnel vision".

I don't mean to be harsh, and I really do understand how and why this is going on. And I truly sympathize with POV's. This book is big and anyone can read whatever part they want and ignore whatever part they want. But in all honesty and truth to write an article about it requires a more well rounded widened view - present the whole then look at the parts. In order to actually achieve NPOV, this has to be done objectively. Counting pages is unfortunately truly not an accurate way to decide what is most important to write the most about in The Urantia Book if NPOV is going to be actually achieved. The entire tome is loaded with conceptual philosophy that is inherent in the whole thing and that requires a summary of the meanings and values presented in the Foreword and the first three parts! Those are jam packed with new ideas. Readers of the article would want to know about these.

Wazronk, I know your opinion about some of these philosophies and truly I think it is an insult to people interested in esoteric cosmology to assume they won't be able to understand "gobledygook". I disagree. I think people are more curious and intelligent than that and readers would want fair summaries presented so they could decide if they wanted to read the book or not on their own. They aren't looking for opinions about it. Most people can make up their own mind about something if they are presented all the facts. Especially this applies to people who go looking to find new things to read about...little known books like this one. I also object to your change in the "Adherents" section. This steps back out of line with objectivity and verifiability according to Wikipedia guidelines.

On the edits of the overview, I object to omitting some of the more important page titles in the parts. These titles are biased to the Christian interest and leave out things that non-religious or other religion background people would find important to know about the book. I'd like to see some discussion here about which titles to pick out and put in...

ACW, I agree with Wazronk, we like having your big nose in here, especially to help with what makes sense and good grammar, sentence structure etc. THANKS!

I think the Christian spin, interest, POV, is worthy here, but no more and no less than any other POV, to take out the other stuff is making the article less than representative of what is actually, factually, verifiable in the book.

I know this is a difficult article to keep short, but in shortening, can we be more fair and reasonable about total representation?

Hanely 14:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I know I didn't have a chance to explain my many edits last week, instead I had to put my time and efforts into the article itself, but appreciate the time you've taken to carefully explain your viewpoints on these topics even when I didn't. (As you so often do.) I'll explain more of my thoughts behind the edits topic by topic further below.

The edits were intended as the result of taking more of reader-centric view of recent additions and whether comprehension or confusion was facilitated. I see much of the text I revised (and which was subsequently restored by you) as unnecessarily difficult to follow. I've taken a bunch of babysteps in making some more revisions that are similar to last week's. Please carefully review the reasons on each of my edits and the actual edits, as I think you will see that these were for reasonable purposes. Additionally, the text directly imported into the Thought Adjuster page from here invoked such a reaction against it's blatant NPOV that it was considered prosyletizing and the page was marked for deletion! This is the same inadequate text that you restored, and which I'm editing again. Additionally, some of the wording actually *wasn't* supported by TUB, for instance the fused human and adjuster *is* called an "entity" and this was erroneously edited out before as not being accurate.

A few things more here. I can't respond to all the ground you cover above but here are few things I should clarify:

• "gobbledygook" -- I actually have quite the opposite opinion from what you ascribe to me. I think the basic premises and teachings behind the book aren't really all that inaccessible, and my edits always are to make it more accessible for the average person. What I object to is the propensity to use terminology and jargon without explanation. How does it insult the reader to understand as an editor that jargon with zero explanation doesn't increase understanding? People aren't mind readers. Explanations should be on a silver platter for them, and none of this idea of hoping / expecting curiosity is sparked by the jargon so they go looking elsewhere for help is good enough to me. The question to me becomes whether an explanation for this or that term is so crucial at such and such a point in the article and in its context that an explanation has to be included. And when I see that it really doesn't rise to that level of importance, then it's best taken out. I'm following wikipedia style guides and basic common sense for explaining these things. Perhaps a term will be better elsewhere at another place or in another article, I've reordered things like that, but just because a certain piece of jargon appears in the article, I don't feel automatically obligated to preserve it. Sometimes a judgment call is that it wasn't a fit, this is a legitimate edit to make. Multiply this across many other instances and that's the motivation behind a number of the edits (but not all).

• "it says", "it describes", etc -- I disagree. We're describing what the book teaches, not writing statements that the teachings are facts, which is how it reads when you want to make statements along those lines. This fundamentally breaks NPOV. The phrasing doesn't have to be "it says" "it says" "it says" all the time and can and should be reworded. No way does only one instance of the phrase at the beginning of the article suffice! And one per section also isn't some kind of rule to follow. I understand we'll have differences of opinion on this but wikipedia policies have to be followed.

• I didn't understand what you were trying to say in the second paragraph above, would you mind elaborating, giving an example or two of objections? I know NPOV is important to both of us and I do want to understand what you're trying to say.

OK... by false "believer" perspectives as noted by editors I mean that what is actually in the book and verifiable as such is not necessarily a believer perspective. There were identifiable comments in editors notes that indicated this... but I don't have time to point them all out. A previous blatant one was the satan thing... you might remember that comment.

Rather than being identified as "beliver perspective" these items were just a fact of what is in the book - that which is part of the story. Therefore it is false to call it a believer perspective.

A neutral example, sorry I'm pressed for time, would be to say we were writing about Goldilocks and the Three Bears. An editor summarizes this point: Goldilocks ate the porridge. But somebody who didn't read the story and/or had some critical opinion about it, say a lawyer, he might say "this is simply the perspective of someone who believes in the story" we do not know if Goldilocks ate the porridge you have to say Goldilocks allegedly ate the porridge - now we know the person saying that didn't read the story, and has a believer or disbeliever perspective all their own. ha ha. Still, funny, but true. Hanely 19:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with what you're saying, I think: that just representing what is in the book isn't "believer perspective" but just plainly... what is in the book. I entirely agree with that. And the article shouldn't be edited for POV issues just for plainly saying what's in the book. As someone who has used "believer POV" in a shorthand way in comments, I'm trying to remember back to where I might have done anything like that, but that wasn't my intentions. When I've used "believer POV" as shorthand it's been more in regards to edits that so clearly to me were over-accentuating what the book promotes in language that wasn't NPOV, and not infrequently those changes were side by side with edits that were heavy handed in de-emphasis of criticism (even drastically cutting it out entirely... "gutting" it as the other person wrote above). Maybe what happened is sometimes language crossed the line from plainly telling about the book to the use of language promotional in nature (though technically describing what is factually between the covers and verifiable). We can work on it with future edits. Wazronk 02:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

More below, topic by topic.... Wazronk 23:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

OK... Thanks Wazronk. This time your edits already make more sense - while I am not sure I totally agree on everything, at least I see what you intend- and I appreciate your efforts! I still don't agree with keeping so many "the book says, it says, it says". I wouldn't put a number or limit like it sounded when I suggested something like once per section, but not more than once in a paragraph, puleeeeeeeeeze it really is insulting to the reader's intelligence. My old English teacher would be rolling over in her grave!

I will continue to study the article and your edits as I can. Additionally, I would like to introduce to you the concept that the most neutral pov about The Urantia Book that I can identify at this time is that it is a cosmology with God in it as the basis of everything. It is not a religion, and it is not a science. (though some people believe it is not all do). It says its not in all its ways. It is just a unique cosmology that not only accepts God as a fact but uses some rather sophistocated logic to show why and how God is a fact. Then it goes on to explain all the rest that goes with this huge cosmolgoy with God upholding everything. Just some thoughts. I'd be interested what you think about that. This was why I thought "teachings" connotes a religion perspective. Hanely 19:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

See below about teachings, I'll add more of a comment there. Wazronk 02:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Restoration 'God and the Individual'

I've restored to the previous version "God and the Individual". Even though this is a longer version, it contains information that should not be cut and lost. I suggest wordsmithing rather than cutting. I hope I have not omitted anything myself, and if I have I offer my sincere apologies upfront. Hanely 17:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Did some wordsmithing, much of the so-called cutting was from redundancies taken out. Also, parts redistributed to Thought Adjuster article. Finally, parts that weren't "God and individual" but more "history of earth" Wazronk 23:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Restoration 'Philosophies'

I put the philosophy section in again. A great deal of philosophical concept is offered in TUB and thisd section, though small now should grow. Hanely 17:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I've happily edited out my own stubs in the past, for example a subsection on "Celestial beings" and "Comparison to New Age". I fully think those are appropriate topics to have. But when a section is added, for example when I put in "Comparison to Buddhism", something of substance should be there that has been sourced and verified. Stubs have been placed for long periods as suggestions and then languished. The edits to clean this up is for the readers and editors shouldn't be so attached to stubs. This particular "section" is comprised of exactly one jargon-rich quote with no explanations and two stub markers and has sat there for over a month without going anywhere. I'm not disagreeing that such topics can be developed, but add back when actually there is something to say. In addition to that large issue in general, the "I AM" topic isn't even representative of TUB's "philosophies" but is more a religious concept than anything, and like I've pointed out, isn't even enough of a topic in the book to merit more than a sentence or two in the article at most. This isn't even a removal of anybody's writing but of a cut-and-pasted quote from the book. Wazronk 23:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Adherents - again

I restored the previous paragraph and kept the new one too. I suggest editing the grammar to streamline or wordsmithing, but points are well made, imho. Hanely 17:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Thought Adjusters

I still think the way the new version here was written this is very misleading as to what is actual, factual presentation of the concepts in the book. However, I've restored TA stuff as it was in "God and the Individual" section. If another article is to be written, I suggest getting the whole picture and writing it up pretty fast. The article on Thought Adjusters has been recommended for deletion, so... just my thoughts. If the article is deleted, then a topic summary can go in here for now... Hanely 17:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The primary reason for the deletion flag was because the wording was so blatantly not NPOV that other wikipedians saw it as prosyletizing. This is exactly the language I cut from this article and which has now been restored here, so I'm making some additional edits to improve NPOV here. Wazronk 23:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, Wazronk! Good idea. I just restored it and didn't have time to rewrite. I think we are actually getting somewhere. Hanely 04:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Teachings vs. Topic Summaries

Some people view The Urantia Book as religion with religious teachings. But this has been argued and argued. It should be presented as one of the arguments by skeptics and religionists in the critical view section and avoided being presented that way in the other sections. An NPOV article about it will be more objectively written - while we editors are going to have our opinions we as good editors must try to be more objective than that. For example scientists don't care about this POV and neither would philosophers. So... hard to do, but can we try? Hanely 17:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

TUB says that epochal revelations like itself are "teachings" so this isn't the POV issue you've described. The disagreements I believe you are refering to are whether the "teachings" are to be accepted as "teachings" but that is separate from the book's stance that it definitely promotes what it is informing its readers as "teachings". To date this section has been variously called "Tenets", "Themes", "Teachings", and now "Topic Summaries". Of the four, "Teachings" is the most accurate especially since this is how the book describes itself. Wazronk 23:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Just saw this entry after I wrote my other note about TUB's cosmological npov. You make a good point which I've been grappling with about teachings/topics/story/etc. Epochal revelations are teachings - which I have no problem understanding the meaning behind that. But then you get into the same potential problem about false "believer perspective" claims using that. What really is neutral? Hanely 19:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

This is where "verifiability" goes hand in glove with NPOV and how the main policies behind wikipedia end up so linked together. I addressed above about what I think you're saying with false "believer POV". I think we're pretty much in agreement actually. I agree the article's "teachings" section should simply present what the book says -- what is verifiable. What I've seen in the past is that sometimes the article will present what is in the book, but the word choices are promotional or fawning instead of just a matter-of-fact presentation, and that's been a beef.

More of interest beyond those basics are the ongoing questions of what are the essential, major, top-level teachings that merit mention in the article. Everything can't fit. We're just getting into those decisions. But I think whatever the decisions, the article text of "teachings" should be grounded in what the book says. I don't have an NPOV problem with that. I do think style-wise it should be written not just as regurgitation of the book or with an overdose of quotes but from the understanding that these should be explanations for a general audience. Jargon should be explained, and the more complex concepts in the book should be built from blocks of earlier, more basic concepts.

I agree "jargon" should be explained where necessary. Hanely 00:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Above, you made the suggestion of presenting the book overall as a cosmology with God as a fact. That is one way to go. Is it supported by the text? What comes to mind to me are statements like "In him we live and move and have our being." That God is the first reality and that cosmology as we understand it is a repercussion. From that perspective, it would be necessary to describe in teachings first what TUB means by "God" and only later can cosmology come. How do you see these things? Wazronk 03:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the presentation of God and cosmology in TUB is exactly that and so is just a fact of the book. If one was to summarize it in one single sentence that would be the only way I can think of to describe it NPOV. NPOV though is somewhat nebulous with this book as we all have discovered because of the authorship, origin and unusual, unique presentation that has caused various types of POV to surface in debate - true, not true, religion, philosophy, etc. I searched in some online libraries, at the Library of Congress and even wrote to the Urantia Foundation to inquire about the history of its official categorization in hopes this would help. So far, I found it listed under scientific religion, religion, non-fiction, cults, and got lost with all the changes due to copyright issues and various changes in status at the LoC. The book itself says it is an epochal revelation, which is the fifth to the planet. It describes itself as clearing up misconceptions regarding God, deity, and divinity. Religious science, scientific religion, esoteric cosmology, religious cosmology, what? Perhaps just writing this in a paragraph would be useful. Answering this would help to streamline the rest of the article, while increasing it at the same time, I think. What are your thoughts? You know if we wrote that The Urantia Book is an epochal revelation containing religio-scientific cosmology... there would then start more POV debating. Hanely 00:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I would be one of the people disagreeing with wording like that in the intro, and have in the past. I think it's one thing to loosen up in the "Teachings" section and just relate what the book presents. I think that can be a fair thing to do. But in the intro, a statement like "The Urantia Book is an epochal revelation" is phrasing that reads like an assertion that this is a settled fact, when of course there is disagreement. Right before that you have a perfectly NPOV statement though: "The book itself says it is an epochal revelation, the fifth to the planet. It describes itself as clearing up misconceptions regarding God, deity, and divinity." Any editor can read that and go into the book and see that, yes, there it is in black in white, the book says it's an epochal revelation. Your wording makes plain you are relaying what is stated in the book. The POV problem is when these sorts of claims by the book are instead simply parroted in the article. Yes, you can likely get to a point where you can relax some and not be "it says" "it describes" "it states" all the time, but especially at the beginning, before that context is thoroughly established, it won't read as NPOV.

I will use a drastic example for illustration (even though it is perilously close to running afoul of Godwin's Law). In an article on Mein Kampf, the book by Hitler that outlined his anti-Semitism, an article wouldn't be NPOV to state in its intro "Mein Kampf explains how the Jews are conspiring to dominate the world". Yes, that is perhaps what is in the book, but it isn't going to last long on wikipedia as being neutral!

I think it's coming back to me now about some edits called "believer POV". For example, text in the intro in the past has said "The Urantia Book is written as if presented by celestial beings." That to me is fine as NPOV. But an edit to make it like this -- "The Urantia Book was written by celestial beings." -- is problematic and reads as "believer POV". Wazronk 04:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Overview - restored - choosing paper titles

I've restored the overview because it is more well rounded and grammatically sound. While longer, it is a better selection and representation of paper topics per section it by no means covers them all (that really would be long). These paper selections, however, cover the basic subjects mentioned in the introduction section of the article here at Wikipedia therefore representing more of what TUB is actually about with more of an equal leaning on the esoteric cosmology, philosophy and destiny presentations. I also noticed that when the editor picked up the older version of the overview the titles of papers had this error: "title," "title,"...etc. - the comma goes AFTER the close quotation mark like this "title", "title", ...etc. As with other sections I restored, I think wordsmithing is a better way to go to fix the length problem.

I'd like to see editors use this section of talk to discuss titles of papers that can go in and be taken out of the overview and why. I also liked that this version is readable in spite of the title listings. Hanely 18:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The "Overview" is unwieldly and much too long IMO, I'm not cutting it down as far as last week, but am reducing it some. Wazronk 23:41, 4 March 2006 (UT

I agree - long, unwieldy. Right now, with all the time spent on the talk page I've run out of time to check out the titles. A skim tells me this is better! Nice beginning so far. (admittedly at a glance) Hanely 04:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Discuss the Article Split or Series Here

I've created this spot for editors to discuss their ideas and make proposals on how to either split the article or make it into a series. Hanely 18:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Ummmm, I think it's okay as it is. If you have a specific or vague idea of how to make the split, it might generate some interest. The book's subject matter is certainly heavy enough to fill several articles. Xaxafrad 04:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Picayune wordsmithing

I gave the second and third paragraphs a little going-over. In each I encountered something that made me hesitate; in the end, I didn't change the things that troubled me, because I wanted to hear other opinions first. Both are minor, but it would give me pleasure to resolve them somehow.

The glitch in paragraph 3 is easier to describe. (Forgive me for being wordy about it: I want to make sure I say this clearly.) The paragraph says three things:

1. In the usage of The Urantia Book, the word "Urantia" means "Earth".
2. In the usage of The Urantia Book, the noun "Urantian" means "denizen of Earth". (I assume that the adjective "Urantian" is also used, with the obvious meaning of "pertaining to Earth", but the paragraph does not say this, and as I have confessed, I have not read the book.)
3. Some use the noun "Urantian" to mean something different.

Urantian is not a denizen. Please see my edit, thanks for your help. Trewbuk 14:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Urantian is just the same as calling a person from Kentucky a Kentuckian or someone from California a Californian or someone from Europe a European, etc. Therefore it only denotes where these people are from - their native land, or where they live. It is not the name of a religion, it is used in the book only to denote people who live on earth, "Urantia". If you are interested go to http://www.urantia.org/booksearch.html you will be at a search engine of TUB. Type in the word "Urantian" according to directions. You will see from this that the word isn't used by the authors to denote followers, or adherents or anything like it. It is mainly used to denote stuff from or about the people of the planet earth. More below on this. Hanely 04:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

It is in the third point that the paragraph fails, in my opinion, to be entirely clear. It leaves some questions unanswered:

• Is the alternate usage also sanctioned by The Urantia Book itself, or is it merely a (potentially confusing) colloquialism?

See my answer above. Yes, not just potentially confusing. More below. Hanely 04:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• Exactly what is the alternate meaning of "Urantian"? The paragraph says, "a reader of the book". Does this mean that any reader of the book would be considered a Urantian in this alternate sense? Would this remain true even if the reader found the content abominable and disagreed with every sentence? Or do we mean to say that "Urantian" means "an adherent or follower of the teachings of The Urantia Book?

It is an informal, inaccurate use of the word. Colloquial. Because of the trouble editors are having, I've omitted the reference. It was a remnant sentence from a previous version. It's not needed in the intro. any more. What about the glossary of terms? Trewbuk 14:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

When the word "Urantian" is used to denote anything other than someone from earth, or even some thing specific to earth such as, and I quote some phrases directly, "Urantian religious thought" or perhaps "the Urantian cerebral cortex" and "identified by Urantian astronomers" etc. it is a creative spin - perhaps colloquialism? But it isn't accepted among TUB reading peers as that. When it is used to denote someone who has adopted the book as their "religion" or "belief system" it isn't even a colloquialism but individualistic - or perhaps it is an evolving colloquialism with objections by people who have actually read the book? Maybe this is the confusing part? The tension has to do with the problem that the book does not condone the practice of turning it into an religion. I have heard "readers" who believe in it call themselves a number of things, such as truth lovers, or Sons of God even Urantian, but they argue! There is no organized religion called "Urantian" and that would only be specific to specific individuals who might perchance decide to adopt that name for their relgion (but that wouldn't be a total adherent, fundamentally speaking). So, yes, it is only a colloquialism-(or is it?) when used that way. The problem is with the book's meaning, anyone from earth is a Urantian whether they read the book or not. You do not have to know you are a Urantian to be a urantian, John Doe's house is a "Urantian house". Make sense? Strill? ha ha! But I understand. Can you help? You've been really good at condensing the article so far. Not me! Hanely 04:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I pose this second question gingerly, because I sense some tension around this question of adherents. I don't understand this tension completely. What is the right word to use for the following meaning: "A person who has read The Urantia Book, admires the sentiments and philosophies expressed in it, believes that its statements are factual, and tries to follow its teachings"? Suppose we provisionally adopt the word "Strill" for such a person. (I made it up. My apologies if it has any connotations whatever.) Then, my best guess is that the third point of the paragraph, the one that was unclear to me, was: "Some use the noun 'Urantian' to mean 'Strill'." What I'm hoping is that we can come up with a clear (and brief) way to say this. It shouldn't be hard, were it not for the tension I alluded to above. I'm getting a weird sense that Strills don't want people to think there's any such thing as a Strill, and it confuses me mightily.

It isn't that there isn't such a thing as people who believe in the book. The problem with "adherents" originally, for me as an editor, has to do with connotations of their being an organized religious movement with tenets and a belief structure surrounding the book. It wouldn't be right to connote that someone who reads and believes the book has an organized religion surrounding the book in the manner the article on "adherents" claimed, it was truly bogus and outright incorrect on several counts - dubious at best. The article overall has changed to represent more actually what a person who believes in it really believes in. On the contrary to having a religion about a book, if an adherent, they can throw the book away and just "follow God". /For example, if you believe the book, then you eventually learn you do not need that book and it will become outdated sometime anyway. It makes no claims to being sacred like that. I realize this sounds funny, but you'd just have to read it to understand, it's true, though. That was the big problem with the original article under the adherent's section - it was misleading to the point of being just plain false. I don't know of a good word for it - I have heard the following: Truth Seekers, Sons of God, Jesusonians, etc. But all are individualistic phrases with no organized groups. Jesusonians by the way is in the book and would, imho, be the closest name for an "adherent", but that was never mentioned in the original article. If the article was accurately written and depicted even "Jesusonian" wouldn't represent "followers" or "adherents". The book doesn't instruct a reader to become any specific named group specific to the book - it instead would have you go study everything and take the best from it, especially to learn to identify the best of truth in all relgions and philosophies of the world. If you read the book you may or may not be an adherent as well - you might even be Jesusonian even if you never heard of the book, and you are a Urantian according to the book, like it or not. Good questions! Hanely 04:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, I was going to talk about my concern with the second paragraph, but this is much too long already. So I'll spare you this time! Thanks in advance for your help. ACW 00:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Picayune wordsmithing is at the heart of this article -- welcome to the club! You're fitting in nicely here. I've looked for the mythical "Strill" word myself, and haven't come across it yet. I will offer these comments:

• Yes, "Urantian" is used by the book similar to how a word like "Californian" is used, meaning both a person from there or an adjective meaning "of or pertaining" to it (eg, "Californian wine").
• Outside the book, not infrequently the word "Urantian" has in fact been used to mean "A person who has read The Urantia Book, admires the sentiments and philosophies expressed in it, believes that its statements are factual, and tries to follow its teachings." This is mainly from non-believers though from what I can tell. Gardner used the word in this sense in his book. A person who would fit the criteria would naturally know that "Urantian" essentially means "earthling" so isn't likely to accept the term. My opinions on the topic are mixed and not strong in any direction. Although I am sympathetic to believers not being called "Urantians", since I agree it doesn't make sense, people in general don't always make sense, and I will not be surprised if that becomes a term used to identify them. It is arguable whether it is a common enough term to be used in the article. There certainly are sources that show it is a colloqualism in use. A parallel perhaps of interest... did you know that Mormons don't like to be referred to as "Mormons". It also is a colloqualism, "Mormon" to them is the name of the prophet after whom the Book of Mormon is named.
• Where "readers" comes from. In looking into the Urantia Book movement / subculture, you'll notice that people sometimes admire and read the book for long periods of time, decades, and they speak in terms like "I've been a reader for 30 years". That is the sense of the word as it appeared in the article, although I can understand how this would be confusing from a literalist perspective. An anecdotal example: when Matthew Block first was mentioned in the "Alleged plagiarism" subsection, there was back and forth by editors about whether he was a "believer" or a "skeptic". I'm not sure where the idea ever came up that he was a skeptic, since all materials (including Gardner's book) said he was a believer, but he has a website, so I thought, hell I'll just email and ask. His reply? He said he didn't think it was necessary to say either way, and he'd prefer just to be called a reader. Seemed fair enough to me. And that's how the section still stands.

Maybe this week now you will be lucky enough to address a few words in a second paragraph! I'm not sure that I've helped though in your attempt to improve even the one you tried to edit last week. Wazronk 04:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Disputed

Criticism of portraying socialism and fascism as superior

I am dubious of this section. The book does not decribe this planet as one to use as a role model. It says "Of all the Satania worlds which became isolated because of participation in the Lucifer rebellion, this planet has experienced a history most like that of Urantia."

It is not claiming this planet is superior, only similiar. Unless a compelling arguement to the contrary is provided I will remove it tommorow. HighInBC 23:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I've removed this recently added subsection for several reasons. First, it's factually incorrect, it was written as if Urantia (planet earth) is what is being described: Paper 72 "Government on a Neighboring Planet" describes life on the planet of Urantia in what is called the "Continental Nation", a mistake throughout the whole subsection. The paper doesn't have to do with supporting fascism or socialism, though a few out of context quotes were chosen to kinda sorta make it seem like it does. And I'm not clear, it's saying these supposedly are superior to what? This seems to be one person's opinion from a rather limited reading of the book. The criticism section to date attempts to detail the most common criticisms as backed by multiple sources -- a verifiable source for this criticism is necessary to show that it is more than one person's misreading of the book. Wazronk 01:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Good call HighInBC 02:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, Thanks Wazronk! ~Anonymous 3-15-06

POV - God and the individual

Hello 70.171.55.216, I noticed you added a POV tag to the section God and the individual. That is a large section, please be specific in where you believe there is a POV problem. Thanks! HighInBC 15:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I read the article section and it goes right along with what is found in The Urantia Book. What is not neutral? Anonymous March 19, 2006

I am going to remove this tag until it is justified on the talk page. HighInBC 18:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi HighInBC, Anonymous and 70.171.55.216, Was it my edits? I took another pass at them. In the past editors have had a problem with sentence structures that don't reference the book specifically in nearly every sentence. I have disagreed with that style of writing. The style caused tension between summary style and quoting and making sure the reader knows what is in the book and what is opinion or pov. What I have put in here IS IN THE BOOK and IS IN SUMMARY of many places the concepts can be found. These edits are designed to show the reader who God is in the UB teachings that make it so "God and the Individual" is represented properly in this article. I hope the edits are improved and I welcome comments, suggestions, and further edits to improve quality readability and accuracy. It gets tiresome to keep saying, according to the book... but that, I guess may be the complaint. I hope to think of some more ways to say that without sounding repetetive, redundant and irritating. Some people don't agree with the UB concepts about God and so they think it is POV when in actuality it is just in the book. After all this is an article about the book. Thanks for all the help! Hanely 19:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I would not worry too much about that tag, it was not justified and may be the result of somebody reading the section out of context with the article. If you look at the contributions of user 70.171.55.216, you will see this is the only contribtution by this user. I made a note on the user's talk page saying that if the tag is justified on the article's talk page then people will give the tag more consideration. The section seems very NPOV to me. This happens sometimes when an article is about a book. The statements from the book seem POV, but are NPOV in the context of the article's subject, which in this case is the contents of the book. HighInBC 19:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Picture/Image of Earth?

What happened to the picture of the world? Can it be restored? Hanely 19:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I will find a good PD image of the earth(urantia) from the NASA site. HighInBC 19:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I used the same image Earth uses: Image:The_Earth_seen_from_Apollo_17.jpg HighInBC 19:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Removed "Opinion" out of the "Overview"

Dear Xaxafrad,

Thank you for trying to help with the article here about The Urantia Book. I read the following paragraph you added to the "Overview" of The Urantia Book article. I believe this is strictly opinon, and POV which I further think doesn't belong in the overview.

Your paragraph read: "Be advised that while large portions of this book are very easily understood, there are some extremely difficult sections, especially near the front of the book. It is generally agreed that the Foreword is the most difficult portion of the book. An unprepared reader might start with the Foreword, find it overwhelmingly impossible to understand, and then give up on the book. This is unnecessary, as large portions of the book are easily read and understood. The sort of dry, scientific, methodical presentation used in the early pages is simply the setting of the stage for the beautiful and inspiring literary prose adopted by the final, biographical narrative."

I appreciate your efforts to contribute to this article and heartily welcome participation and constructive input - thank you - and I hope you don't take this wrong way, after all Wikipedia is about editing...and getting edited. But, there has been a great deal of work between editors over the last few months to really reach a stage in this article where it is totally neutral in its point of view as per Wikipedia help and guidelines sections.

As an encyclopedic entry about the contents of The Urantia Book, I feel your paragraph doesn't fit where it is, firstly and secondly is only opinion. I don't know if this opinion can be considered published, or documentable, verifiable, criticism, if so, then it could be noted in what publication and by what author in the criticism section. Otherwise the Foreword and first part of the UB are represented in a totally neutral manner without the new paragraph. Anonymous - 4-3-06

No hard feelings, here. Being a wiki newbie, I'm happy to follow in the footsteps of those far more experienced than I am. And since you pointed it out, yes, I'll agree that paragraph was opinionated. Actually, the surrounding several paragraphs were even more opinionated, enough such that I declined grafting them into this present article (they originally came from the 3rd or 4th edit of the Urantia Book article; it's Crystal hawk777's paragraph). My only reason for it's inclusion was as a warning for folks who were curious enough to start reading not to get discouraged by the extensively confusing and convoluted foreword. But, ummmmm....well, the more I think about that objective the more inappropriate it sounds for wikipedia. I'll shut up and leave now. Xaxafrad 04:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

God and the Individual--Clarification of Philosophy of Encyclopedic Summary and Editing

I'm a relative newbie to Wikipedia but a long-time reader of the Urantia Book--30-years.

Yesterday, I changed some minor points "subconscience" and "superconscience" [sic] to "subconscious" and "superconscious," the actual terms used in the book and different in actual meaning from what the prior terms would mean. I won't discuss that here.

I was about to substantially modify and add to this paragraph:

"Humans go from a beginning existence in finite time-space creation through a long series of 570 translations in an intervening space heretofore unknown to mankind termed 'morontia' which prepares him one world at a time for the final translation to eternity-infinity. Once they graduate they will figuratively come 'face to face with God' on the Eternal Isle of Paradise. In the book, the universe is 'one vast school' that prepares a surviving mortal for fulfillment of the mandate to find God and 'be perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect.' After attainment of this status, the book goes on to discuss the potential destinies of these 'glorified mortals of the realms'."

My version: "Humans begin finite existence in the time-space creation here, as material beings, on Earth. Following this relatively short life, the next lives or translations occur in the 'morontia' realms—a subspiritual state of being interweaving material characteristics of 'survival value' with spiritual character acquirements from each life experience lived. Each succeeding morontia life follows the previous one through a progressive series of 570 increasingly spiritual and decreasingly material translations lived on the higher worlds of the local universe. The final morontia life, lived on the headquarters of the local universe of Nebadon, is also the transformational stage from the morontia life to the beginning of life as a true spirit being. The spirit ascender continues their progression in the spiritual realms through minor and major sector levels to the superuniverse level, graduates to the billion perfect and eternal worlds of the seven circuits of Havona—spirit 'finishing school,' finds God, and then comes 'face to face with God' on the Eternal Isle of Paradise. In the book, the universe is portrayed as 'one vast school' that prepares a surviving mortal for fulfillment of the mandate to find God and 'be perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect.' After attainment of this status, the book goes on to discuss the potential destinies of these 'glorified mortals of the realms'."

As I was about to do so, I saw this new insertion (possibly from a reader I know) clarifying some of the former paragraph. It immediately precedes the paragraph as follows: "From Paper 5 (line 66): "The great God makes direct contact with mortal man and gives a part of his infinite and eternal and incomprehensible self to live and dwell within him. God has embarked upon the eternal adventure with man. If you yield to the leadings of the spiritual forces in you and around you, you cannot fail to attain the high destiny established by a loving God as the universe goal of his ascendant creatures from the evolutionary worlds of space." To want to know God and become like him should be the supreme quest of each person. God mandated "be you perfect, even as I am perfect," so a vast universe scheme of ascension was created and now exists to assist mortal man in attaining this eternal goal. Mortal man is an experiential creature and so he must 'experience' in order to 'become'. The destiny of humankind is to traverse the universes of creation to 'meet God'.

We could easily begin a lot of reversions here. Before doing so, I will monitor some discussion.

Among other things, How much is too much in an encyclopedic article? and What is the balance between clarifying a previous summary with some necessary expansion and reduction by summary to avoid overwhelming quantity of content? or How do you keep an article representative--accurate or true to the content being represented--and still readable--something the person interested enough to have looked up the entry, will give them the knowledge they want without diminishing motivation to keep reading?

I wish to be a cooperative Wikipedia editor and have competence with regard to this material on the Urantia Book. It is "dense" material--easier to expand than to contract without some distortion of concept. Harmony among editors in this undertaking is therefore essential. --Ensa 21:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello Ensa, Thank you for coming and working to assist in improving this article. All your points are very good and I agree that work needs to be done. I would not agree to do any more reversions. The older versions were riddled with not only punctuation, grammar and style problems, but also a large degree of bias and inaccuracies in every section. What I feel is best is to rewrite, morph or edit what is here now. To do it using complete neutrality and a condensed or "summary" style according to Wikipedia standards is a challenge. Wikipedia will put a notice at the top of the page when it gets too long. Eventually, the article will have to be very generalized and previous editors have agreed that some way or other the article will need to split or become a series according to wiki. anonymous - 4-9-06

Science edits

A few changes were made in recent weeks that no longer reflected verified sources but seemed more to be personal theorizing by editors, and this has also led to some large inaccuracies. Original research isn't meant to be on wikipedia (see no original research, which is one of the three main policies along with NPOV and need for verifiable sources). This includes collecting together some published facts and extrapolating an argument or point-of-view that isn't itself in a verified source. You'll need to point to published, reputable sources for these analyses / arguments I'm changing back to their verified state:

About the Tenskwatawa eclipse:

• The link to eclipses that was added to the article pointed to an incorrect century, 1800 BC. Note the negative signs in front of the years and title of the page that says these years are BCE. The dates for eclipses inserted in the article were from 3,800 years ago, around the time of the Nordic Bronze Age and just a little before the rise of the Hittites civilization, not the time period when Tenskwatawa lived. This is why the June 16, 1806 event wasn't seen on the list (and so was mistakenly edited out of the article). Please see the link to the correct century here.
• The idea that any of the dates listed on the page could have been potentially the Tenskwatawa eclipse isn't true. Any given solar eclipse is only visible to a very small slice of the earth's surface. Also note that the list has 3 different types of eclipse: partial, annular, and total. The prediction by Tenskwatawa according to historic references was for a total eclipse. There was only two total eclipses during the lifetime of Tenskwatawa that were viewable in North America. The first was on June 16, 1806. This is perhaps best represented visually with a graphic of the paths of occlusion for total and annular eclipses during that time period according to NASA (1801-1820). The other one was in 1834, two years prior to his death (1821-1840).
• All scientific evidence, all calculations, all historical records point to the Tenskwatawa prediction eclipse as the total eclipse having occured on June 16, 1806. Editors will have to provide published scientific and historical evidence to support any theorized doubts about this as the correct date of the eclipse that Tenskwatawa is associated with. Any argument about 1808 being a date when the eclipse was predicted rather than when it occured isn't relevant before that's established, since 1806 is before 1808. In addition, a theory like that would have to be provided with a citation showing it comes from a verifiable, reputable source and isn't an editor's own personal brainstorming.

About electrons vs. photons as solar radiation:

* The text in the "Solar Radiation" section of Paper 41 does describe sunbeams as electrons and this is a verified, published science criticism. The criticism isn't whether electrons are emitted by the sun but whether sunbeams -- light, solar radiation -- are electrons. They aren't. I understand that people who want to find an interpretation of the TUB text that isn't in conflict with science can do that, but this part of the science section of the article is documenting the published, verified interpretation that is critical.

Wazronk 21:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Wazronk, no, the link pointed to a chart of eclipses at NASA where any of the years mentioned could be found - 1806 was there. Hanely 18:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Wazronk, Anonymous, HighinBC and all editors, I trust the holidays have been good to all of you. I've restored some links, sentences, etc. today out of a sense of trying to impart some fairness and also to allow for better wordsmithing to occur rather than sweeping deletions. Wazronk, you appear to have a tendency to ignore changes made by editors who don't sign in but go by their isp number instead. If I am incorrect, I do hope you will accept my apology - but you did threaten one such editor in a way that I didn't think was very fair. So, I've restored all that work editors did to the science section because each link there isn't original reasearch - I checked all those links and they are documented, respectable references. It was all linked to official documentation which supports the editors changes... mostly at a disadvantage to Gardner's criticisms, admittedly, but let's try to go more neutral because this article is not mainly about Gardner's book, or his criticisms, it is about what is in TUB - even if published criticism is available, and is mentioned in the article, I remember an entry here in "talk" from you about agreeing that the criticism should not be there if it is verifiabley false either in the pages of the book or documented elsewhere. The argument about sunbeams,and electrons was not a realistic argument at least as presented in this article - after reading the papers where mentions of these occur, one can see Gardner or whoever documented this criticism was ignoring the actual meaning. I, as a sincere editor am hoping to get a really great article with true NPOV - even when writing about criticisms. I hope that this restoration has been helpful in settling disputes rather than creating any further tension because editors can now rewrite that which needs improving rather than going back to that which caused editors to feel it needed challenging or changing. I appreciate everyone's efforts - even though we don't have a perfect article yet, avoiding disputes will be helpful in finally achieving realistic and useful entry here. As for science disputes does it matter so much if the criticism is proved to be a useless criticism by that which is actually stated in the book? I think if it is the case the criticism should be omitted all together. Hanely 18:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Hanely,

The holiday was a good one, hope yours was also.

First thing I should say is I've restored my comments above, they got a little misformatted with the new in-line comment you placed. With future comments, would you mind summarizing your comments after other people's comments? With the in-line comments, it gets difficult to read who is saying what. I hope you don't mind that I put your inline comment after my first comment above.

Would you take another few moments to read and follow the links on the comment I wrote above? I'm not getting the impression you actually did already.

This is the link that was in the article -- look closely at the very top of that webpage, it says "Solar Eclipses: -1899 to -1800". Those negative signs are important. As the line beneath the title clarifies, the whole page is talking about eclipses that occured "1900 BCE to 1801 BCE". That's before the Greeks and Romans, etc., way way ancient history. These are flat out incorrect dates to even consider as relevant to the article and right off that's reason #1 to edit them out. The link I gave in my first comment shows the actual 1800 AD century of eclipses that coincides with the time period when Tenskwatawa lived.

Additionally, it's flat out incorrect to say that any of these dates can be picked out from the list and attributed to Tenskwatawa -- any given solar eclipse can only be seen from a very small part of the world. Take 1808 as an example, because the article has been edited to imply that somehow TUB maybe means 1808 was when the T. eclipse occured. Here are the eclipses:

May 25 -- Antarctica, south of Africa

Oct 19 -- Antarctica, south of Australia

Nov 18 -- Northern Russia

Tenskwatawa and his followers couldn't even see them. And not only that, but all of these are partial eclipses not total.

This is what's needed here, and it's not a "threat" but the most basic sort of request an editor should be able to answer -- what is the source for this theory that for some reason June 16, 1806 wasn't the date of the eclipse that Tenskwatawa predicted?

I think it's just an editor's personal guesswork, "original research" theorizing from google results that were misinterpreted. I think this idea that the T. eclipse didn't occur on June 16, 1806 isn't from a published reputable source. It's not enough to collect some facts together from published sources, the theory has to be too.

Definition of original research:

"Original research is a term used on Wikipedia to refer to material added to articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been published already by a reputable source. In this context it means unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, or arguments that appears to advance a position or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation.""

I think it is definitely a "novel narrative or historical interpretation" to say that the eclipse didn't occur on June 16, 1806. Please cite a reputable source if you think otherwise, or let the anonymous editor, that's what's needed.

As for other edits, such as with links, a number of links were made to external sources side-by-side with links to the wikipedia article. The articles do the trick and I don't see the external webpages as necessary, I figure the wikipedia links do the best job. If the external pages have information that's good and not in the wikipedia article (eg for nebular hypothesis), it would be best add to those articles. If you want to discuss more about electrons vs photons I'll have to do it with another post at a later time. Thanks. Wazronk 03:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

HI Wazronk, Editors et.al,: Thank you for your studious and thoughtful response to changes that have been made (some by me) in the Science criticism section (and others). It is regrettable to me that at this time I am highly limited in time, even woefully behind on some other matters which must take precedent - to include some very serious issues outside the realms of Wikipedia.

I wanted to let you know I am not forgetting about you or trying to avoid completion of the article neither am I trying to avoid or ignore doing the research needed to address the issues. It may be weeks, or even months before I can again come and address the situation here in any real depth, but overall I will summarize my honest convictions and reservations about these entries.

For what it is worth, there are two mentions of the "solar radiation" vs. sunbeams and photons or electrons issue, which when viewed in their overall context still can be argued as to whether the documented criticism is actually worthy of note here. Are sunbeams solar radiation? No. Only partially does radiation make up a sunbeam, the context is about solar radiation specifically - or so this is as I understand the discussion to mean in TUB, not what Gardner or whoever the critic was picked it off to be so he could find issue and fault.

The same problem I see with the Tenskwatawa issue has to do with the wording of the sentence in TUB in which he is mentioned. It is unclear to me why any real serious critic would even bother with it considering the context and intention of the use of the illustration of Tenskwatawa would have anything to do with science considering TUB uses him to illustrate the fact that new prophets arise through history who are willing to overthrow or try to overthrow the older more superstitious practices - step by step history shows this, Tenskwatawa is used to illustrate his willingness to denounce Shamanism and its false religious/pseudoscience/evil practices. I don't feel this criticism is worthy of note either - for THESE reasons - as well as the sentence itself that was in the article for illustrative purposes - which was unclear as to whether the prediction was made in the year or whether the eclipse occurred in that year. An easy to see problem with the sentence, but no problem with understanding the use and reason of illustration for the subject at hand in the Paper, section, and paragraph.

And again, I see the same problem with the mention of Mercury facing the sun or slowly rotating. The illustration is for the purpose of describing gravitational pulls - and some other things, which if you just look it up and read it, again the critic is out of order - beside the point, in my opinion. so, again I don't believe the mention of this critic's faux pax deserves note in the article either - if that is really what they were criticizing.

I do respect that "what science?" was asked and you, Wazronk, responded with this list, I think that's great you supplied something for it. But is it more fair to show balance and real, honest, true criticism rather than a bunch of word twisting, context ignoring, and POV while doing it? I think editors, me included, who went in with examples of either rewording, rebuttal, or attempts to prove it incorrect, instinctively know that either something is amiss with the way the criticism is written here, or maybe with the criticism itself, but something about it doesn't jive when you read TUB and how the subjects of criticism are really used and what they really mean to convey by presenting them. And timelines in the history of science show clearly that a mathematician like Gardner (or whoever the critic is) may have had some of his facts messed up.

thanks for letting me know about my mistakes errors posting here and in the article. I only want a good result.

Perhaps these things will help to address the cricisim section, and I am frustrated that I must sign off for a time - an amount of time unknown right now.

"Till we meet again", NPOV, truth, peace, light and life, Hanely 15:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Hanely, I won't belabor points since I know you don't have the time. I'm sorry that you disagree about the validity of the criticisms, but I'm not convinced by your arguments above for a number of reasons. Presenting criticisms in a neutral way is hard (impossible?) to accomplish with full universal consensus, especially with religious and political topics. I doubt we would ever have it here, but I do think that the statements in the article are straightforward and not problematic like you've described. I'll edit the line about electrons vs photons to say that it's a way the TUB text can be interpreted and I'll edit the Tenskwatawa line to be more clear about the discrepency between TUB and the documented science and history of the eclipse. I'll be happy to go into more detail for you at a later time about the validity of the criticisms if you want me to, or for anyone else who has opinions like yours.

I have to say though, as I've written in past comments, that I've never seen the criticism section as needing to dominate the article (or editors' time) and that it would be good for efforts to go into development more of the many other topics that could be expanded. I had hoped we would have moved more in that direction, but what I see still are efforts being expended on trying to water down valid statements that are critical of the book. I know that we are each trying to make the article better and I do hope you'll be back sooner rather than later to assist even though we have differences of opinion. -- Wazronk 05:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Links

I've noticed duplicate links in the article are being added (e.g. for "God"). Only one link at the first instance of any given word is the typical way to do it. Also, it's usually not necessary to link plain English words. Have a look at this useful article, Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context.

The other week Xaxafrad added external links for papers listed in the Overview section. I liked how this turned out. An argument can be made (and I think has been made in the past with some external links that used to be in the article) that wikipedia isn't meant to be a repository of links (see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not). In the overview section, I think it's appropriate to link to the sampling of papers that are listed, since this is a public domain book. I also preferred how it colors the titles blue and the remaining descriptive text is black and visually easier to see in each paragraph. Wazronk 21:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Citation of The Urantia Book

This has been edited a number of times over the months. The citation style on wikipedia follows Harvard referencing and is meant to provide reference information needed to identify and look up the book and isn't an attempt to describe the origin of the book. I've had it as "Unknown" and "Unknown author(s)" before. No book is authored by "Mysterious Origin" and so that change doesn't work to me. That's a development of wording only on this article and not true reference information for the book.

I looked into how author is actually referenced by libraries and book sellers, and found all sources use Urantia Foundation as the author, so I've changed the reference accordingly. It will likely be necessary to footnote the designation due to the inevitable perception that this is stating the UF is the author when there have been court cases etc. on the issue. But in terms of providing the information to correctly identify and reference the book in a citation so that it can be looked up by people, that should be the one to use.

Second comment on the entry... The citation style of wikipedia standardizes around ISBN and I think this format of writing a citation line should be maintained. The Library of Congress number was added at the end in a non-standard way. I know this was added to be of extra use, but I think the standard citation format should be followed, and I think ISBN accomplishes everything the Library of Congress number accomplishes and then some. ISBN covers the US and everybody else's home country equally, since it is an international number. I think the citation looks cleaner only with the all-inclusive ISBN and all other wikipedia citations are written this way. Wazronk 21:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Martin Gardner's statement regarding Part IV

Skeptic Martin Gardner considers Part IV to be an especially "well-written, impressive work," and says, "Either it is accurate in its history, coming directly from higher beings in position to know, or it is a work of fertile imagination by someone who knew the New Testament by heart and who was also steeped in knowledge of the times when Jesus lived."

If I recall from travels through the article history this statement was once removed previously. I believe the contention arises from quotes without references. I haven't read the Urantia Great Cult Mystery book--is that where he makes the above comment? Xaxafrad 21:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I added the lines originally. They were first removed by 71.138.88.168 on 2/17/06 and then again by 71.139.236.142 on 4/18/06 without a comment on either occasion. (The same person behind dynamic IPs?) I had different thoughts on why they might have removed the lines, but really it's just guessing because the editor(s) didn't say why. If the question is about where the quote originated, yes, the quote is from Gardner's book Urantia: The Great Cult Mystery. I typed it in directly from the source. In the absence of an argument about why the lines should be cut -- I think they're relevant and should be there, which is why I added them of course -- and since I know them to be a verified, I put them back. -- Wazronk 18:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I concur with your reasoning Wazronk. M. Dynamic IP is either a foe or friend of Gardner (someone for whom Gardner provides an emotional charge anyway). In 50 years since publication, we are blessed to have commentary of any kind. No one who reads the UB should be afraid of commentary. It often leads to new truth and here he is actually friendly to the Book. A reference is a reference, not opinion, for Wikipedia. Put it in and leave it in. Thanks for your diligence with this important corner of Wikipedia. Ensa 21:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

External Links

I removed the external link to the UBHoax website because I don't think it serves as a good reference for several reasons:

1. Please see "Links to normally avoid" in the Help section on Wikipedia:External links. Please note particularly numbers 1, 2, 11 and 12.

2. There is no author cited at the website and only a copyright for the webpage is shown there - a copyright of the type which is inherent in the law even if you don't put in the symbol. I personally think it is hosted by one person, doing "original authorship" and who doesn't necessarily represent the views of all Christian Apologetics - the writs there are unverifiable as true published sources that are not "original authorship".

3. I think a line referencing the view of "Christian Apologetics" as opinion in the criticism section would be more acceptable if it can be shown from an appropriate source.

69.137.116.242 16:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)Anonym

Esoteric Cosmology

I removed TUB article from the category of "Esoteric cosmology" here at Wikipedia. They now have it clearly defined as being "occult" with chosen few. This does not apply to the Urantia Book. They also define "esoteric(ism)" as being "Esotericism is knowledge suitable only for an inner circle of the initiated, advanced or privileged". This is positively inappropriate and misleading. 69.137.116.242 16:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Anonym

There is a great deal to take exception with in this article

Martin Gardner is given excessive credit here -- as though he is a sounding board having some authority to the publication. He certainly does not, nor does it make sense to refer to his opinion.

There are countless 'efforts' I will suppose, to maintain a neutral point of view, that simply 'give up the ghost'. Too many examples to cite here, it would be easier to just edit the article.

In addition, the topics chosen for presentation are questionable for their 'holes' i.e. what is left out.

In brief the UB is to be touted for its value to mankind as the FER, rather than dismissed because Martin Gardner can't come on board!

Here is a cute excerpt --

"There was no Fall of Man".

The 'fall of man' is the entire story of Urantia civilization! Yes, I understand the point being made since it is written with a link to the entry 'fall of man' where the reader has the opportunity to revisit the myth in its entirety -- but never gets the benefit of knowing the myth is an approximation, perhaps simplified by its authors, perhaps covered up by its authors, we don't know how the myth came along but we do know what really happened -- man fell from his higher appointment by the default of the first two epochal bestowals -- not to mention the tragic ending of the fourth and don't get me started talking about these early years of the fifth. Thank God for Melchizedek -- but no credit goes to the sons of Abraham and their decendants! If man has not fallen I don't know what you would call this unending plummet down the hillside of his intended ascent.

Mention of the atonement veers sharply off course and concedes valuable space to less important issues than 'the choice Jesus made to fulfill the prophecies of sacrifice' and add his own 'new revelation'.

The creator of the Universe walked in step with man, ancient man, as one of them! I challenge Donald Trump to take his time with the Sudanese, or Afghans. The public laughs as high princess of the elite Paris Hilton scoffs at the 'Simple Life' of rural Americans. It would be more entertaining, more socially correct, and certainly more Christian if she dropped her stature and blended in, doing good where she could with the wealth and power behind her using the hollywood elites who prefer only to thumb their noses at those who worship them and bestow their fame upon them by their adoration.

Because of the centrality of the wikipedia on the web, this article deserves more careful scrutiny.

Under the litature heading, it is not appropriate to say the UB is enjoyed as science fiction, fantasy ...etc. This amounts to 'roll over and play dead' -- using the most important piece of liturature in the world as a pet; the UB is the most important written work of all time. The UB is enjoyed for its profound use of the English language and for what it has to say. As a literary work, it stands alone. As a erudition of religious teaching, it extends every faith man has conceived. As a cosmology, it expands the reaches of our best science, our most furtive imaginations, and unifies science, religion and philosphy at once for our age and for milleniums to come. As a social treatise, if finalizes every doubt in ourselves, promising that we must find ourselves at peace with one another while giving every reason to do so.

surely you can see how it is difficult to maintain an article on such a book for us mere humans. Perhaps a team of angelic writers can come down from on high and help us. HighInBC 13:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to wikipedia, 67.101.52.69, and to this article. Extra scrutiny of the article to make it more accurate is something everybody wants, so continue to point out places where you think the article falls short. The article has its "holes", I think everybody would agree with you on that, and there is plenty of room for improvement, but also consider that it's been picked over by many people and some of the places where you may have disagreement may actually be there for a good reason. Since you are new here, one suggestion I have is for you to air out some more of your observations on the discussion page rather than assume the worst (eg people are ignorant, or the article is slamming the book just because it is documenting critical views). Have a look at this excellent article on an important principle here, Wikipedia:Assume good faith.

You seem to summarize your view of what the article should become with this statement: "In brief the UB is to be touted for its value to mankind as the FER, rather than dismissed because Martin Gardner can't come on board!"

I have a number of objections to this:

• First and foremost it is contrary to the non-negotiable, fundamental policy of wikipedia to present points of view but not assert any view as the correct one. From Wikipedia:Neutral point of view: "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It should not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions."
• Secondly, I don't see the assertion in the article that TUB is to be "dismissed" because of Martin Gardner. On the contrary, the article points out that many "believers" share the same views as critics such as Gardner about shortcomings in the science in TUB and allegations of plagiarism and don't have a difficulty reconciling that with their belief. Please point out the specific place(s) in the article where it is instructing wikipedia readers that TUB is to be dismissed / rejected.
• You take acception to Martin Gardner's book being used as a source to document criticisms of The Urantia Book and say that he is overemphasized. First, as to whether his work can be used, information from his book most certainly fits the criteria of Wikipedia:Verifiability and is cited and quoted as specified by wikipedia guidelines. As to whether he is overemphasized, he is noted clearly as a "critic" and "skeptic" in the article so that it's fully understood what point of view he represents, and appropriately enough, the mentions of him are in the "criticism" section, which is only about 15-20% of the article. Even then, "allegations of plagiarism" is split between Block and him, and "criticism of science", while largely listing out criticisms of hard science that he compiled, also devotes about a third of its space to a quote from TUB and in describing the two primary "believer" perspectives. The one place outside of "criticism" where he appears is in the quotes of his opinion in the "consideration as literature" section that actually commend the book. It's appropriate documentation of verifiable opinion that is relevant and notable in this context because: a) he is a critic, b) he is a professional writer.

The purpose of the article is to present the basic informational facts about The Urantia Book and the multiple views people have of it, as grounded in verified sources and worked out by the community of editors.

As a part of the wikipedia process, the real scrutiny that take place is against the documented sources for what's written in any article. Wikipedia policy: "Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it." Articles don't present the original theorizing, ideas, or opinions of editors but are only to gather together information from verifiable published sources. A fair amount of work has been put into the article to meet these wikipedia standards for verifiability. Gardner's work happens to be one of the very few books published by mainstream press to assess TUB and that also is a reason for his name appearing in several instances around the article.

You offer some suggestions and criticisms of the article. Ultimately the validity of your suggestions will depend on the strength of your verifiable sources. In light of wikipedia policies and my understandings of The Urantia Book, I have these comments:

• You assert that TUB teaches a "fall of man". You are free of course to have this viewpoint as a visitor to the article and accept or not accept that this is what TUB teaches. However, in order for your viewpoint to be accepted by other wikipedia editors as the viewpoint to have in the article, a citation is needed to support your claim that your view is the correct reflection of the book. Here is the quote from Paper 75, section 8 "The So-Called Fall of Man" that leads to the statement in the article about TUB teaching there wasn't a fall of man:

"There has been no "fall of man." The history of the human race is one of progressive evolution, and the Adamic bestowal left the world peoples greatly improved over their previous biologic condition. The more superior stocks of Urantia now contain inheritance factors derived from as many as four separate sources: Andonite, Sangik, Nodite, and Adamic.

"Adam should not be regarded as the cause of a curse on the human race. While he did fail in carrying forward the divine plan, while he did transgress his covenant with Deity, while he and his mate were most certainly degraded in creature status, notwithstanding all this, their contribution to the human race did much to advance civilization on Urantia."

If this statement is contradicted and superseded by another passage in the book, please cite the quote.

• You make a large claim: "As a literary work, it stands alone" and it's "the most important piece of liturature in the world." Please cite a published literary assessment of the book by a reputable source to support this assertion. For example, Modern Library published a list of the 100 best novels of the 20th century (see here). If we were in an article where you were suggesting, "As a literary work, 'Ulysses' by James Joyce stands alone," this is the type of support that definitely would put you on strong footing. While I can see you wouldn't classify TUB as a "novel", please provide a similar published assessment that places TUB as the most important piece of literature in the world. At least provide some objective support. When was it ever on a best seller list, much less the best seller lists of the majority of countries in the world?
• You claim: "As a erudition of religious teaching, it extends every faith man has conceived." You'll need to cite published assessments from notable proponents of other faiths that concede and describe how the book has extended their faith for this to be supportable.
• You claim: "As a cosmology, it expands the reaches of our best science, our most furtive imaginations, and unifies science, religion and philosphy at once for our age and for milleniums to come." Please cite the best physicists who have published assessments that it has expanded the reach of science's understanding of cosmology. The ideal would be to show The Urantia Book is referenced in serious peer-reviewed published science papers since this is the only way science is accepted to have been expanded in the views of practicing scientists. I actually know of one citation in geology but don't know of any influence at all in astrophysics.
• You further write: "As a social treatise, if finalizes every doubt in ourselves, promising that we must find ourselves at peace with one another while giving every reason to do so." I'm not entirely clear what you meant by this, I don't think you really meant that it "finalizes every doubt". But you seem to be saying at least that it is a "social treatise" of importance, and like my other points, what's really needed here is published assessment of this importance by somebody who could be accepted by others to have some authority on the topic.

Again, I do welcome you here, even though I have these points to make about your suggestions. You seemed to say you have other observations about the accuracy or reliability of the article, post them and let's see what improvements to the article might come out of it. Thanks. Wazronk 21:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)