Talk:The Urantia Book/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

New page

This page was mistakenly begun with the idea that there is a religion called "Urantia". Most of it should be transferred to a new page called "The Urantia Book", leaving only those comments behind which pertain directly to the word itself, i.e., used in conjunction with the word "movement" to convey the idea of its readership and organizations; i.e., the name of earth. It might be well also to go into the etymology of "Urantia" and any other interesting aspects of the word on the "Urantia" page.

But the two are NOT the same, and this is perpetuating confusion imo.

DONE! Hanely 17:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Book

So who wrote the Urantia Book?

Considering the superb writing style and profound insights in the Urantia Book

it could well have been written by the celestial beings cited. Also, rather than plagiarism, many instances of edited inclusions of the best of men's writings are stated intentions of these beings.

And, whether read as fact, or fiction, it remains a stellar text. Indeed, on the next to the last page it gives skeptics an opportunity to doubt its factuality by saying: "Much of man's universe romancing may not be fact, but much, very much is truth." Other passages in the book reinforce the helpful semantic distinction between fact and truth. Btw, the first entry above is mostly accurate and its suggestions might be good to heed; however, the balanced views of supporters and critics is well done under the current article title. Richard s 17:24, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Considering the superb writing style and profound insights in the Urantia Book

it could well have been written by the celestial beings cited. Also, rather

than plagerism, many instances of edited inclusions of the best of men's

writings are stated intentions of these beings. And, whether read as fact, or fiction, it remains a stellar text. Indeed, on the next to the last page it gives skeptics an opportunity to doubt its factuality by saying: "Much of man's universe romancing may not be fact, but much, very much is truth." Other passages in the book reinforce the helpful semantic distinction between fact and truth. Btw, the first entry above is mostly accurate and its suggestions might begood to heed; however, the balanced views of supporters and critics is well done

under the current article title. Richard s 17:24, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Although I respect your admiration for it isn't the statements about "sterling writing style" a bit subjective? Amazon's reviewers give it an average of four out of five stars, but Amazon readers give "Stranger in a Strange Land" 4 stars, "Dianetics" 4.5 stars, and some translations of the "Tao Te Ching" get five stars. Can you in least cite book reviewers that indicate Urantia really is that great of a book? I'm not going to complain or anything, I'm just wondering.--T. Anthony 09:13, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I've edited a bit to allow the criticism to be treated in a bit less dismissive and hostile a manner. I'm slightly surprised this page has not received an NPOV tag, but like I said I won't give it one. Everything indicates it's really not a religion and mostly harmless. (Although I admittedly choke on saying that as I have osteogenesis imperfecta and Urantia's apparent view is that I naturally won't or shouldn't reproduce.)--T. Anthony 06:03, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm including a link to the NPOV page for everyone's info. I agree neutrality is missing in much of the article in several sections both positive and negative. I'd like to suggest getting the neutrality issue cleared up before proceeding to breaking up the article. It could have a bearing on the way the article morphs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NPOV Hanely 17:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

____________________________________

For T.Anthony: Regards "reproductive-values", if you consider the Life Carrier's statement regards "In every living plant or animal cell, in every living organism--material or spiritual--there is an insatiable craving for the attainment of ever-increasing perfection of environmental adjustment, organismal adaptation, and augmented life realization..."[737,par1-2], i think you could consider such a view is suggesting a far-different mechanism than the genetic or biological concluding than most scientists are presently engaged upon.

To understand the above, the Life Carriers are insisting a qualitative importance exists in the fact that we "remove the life" from our modelling when we assume such methodology leads to advances or greater clarity. [one could perhaps consider the parameters being utilised when predicting from mice to humans, with the rise of the phenomena of iatrogenia--which is illnesses caused directly by such-designed medications].

Although it is not generally recognised, areas of modern science have for nearly a century been presenting the Urantian-view that is more beneficial to considered man as a living and vital being.

Such work can be found in Emeritus Professor H.Saxon Burr's work at Yale University, and also the BMA's(British Medical Association)support of Radionics from that time. Their findings may be described as "holistic" by stating that bio-chemistry crosses-over the various fields of science which we deem as separate disciplines.

Interestingly, the Urantia Book recommends the same inter- disciplinary approach when it states systems function synergetically: performance over-and-beyond the sum of the contributing parts will result. These ideas of "synergetic behaviouralism" of living-things is also recognised by chemistry and biology in such areas as as enzyme-functions,the understanding of chemical toxicities,and also as a property of fluoride-interaction in biological systems.

To re-state again,the Urantia presentation, by drawing the distinction between "animate" and "in-animate" modelling in our science disciplines, is suggesting that inanimate or "empirical" modelling will under-state the actual properties of most living objects.

This chemical-empiricist school that commenced with Leipzig, and claims that chemical-properties are "fixed" in reaction potentials, and their medical equivalent, the empiricist school, based upon Pasteur's claim that germs "operate in isolation" only, has (a) been retracted by Pasteur,while (b)must use law rather than science to cover the "dangers" of chemical mishap and environmental pollution.

In lieu of outcomes one could argue that in-animate empirical-modelling actually leads away from the Life Carriers insistence that "living things ceaselessly strive to adapt, perfect and realize.

The Life-Carriers also raise a preference for the "animate" model regards disease and cure when they state that most illness would not occur if the original Adamic Life-Plasm had been more enthused.

The "supra-ability of cell-potentializing" is further discussed under the heading Triune Development where biological triune-ity is defined as capable of being attuned, and balanced growth is the outcome of that process.(1209:4).

From the above the observation may be made that the idea of racial or genetic "pre-determinants" should in no sense be suggested as a Urantia concept, and that such a limited factorising of LIFE only creates the misconception that disease and/or degeneracy of human-stock is a fore-ordained condition.

[PS i've offered this edit mostly to highlight the issue that it is not even feasible to claim that dominance, regression or superior race-modelling can be assumed as a "matter of fact" within the Urantia Papers].

I've followed this page for a while, you'll see that periodically people who have a lot of enthusiasm for the book will sweep through. Earlier in August the page was in a more neutral and measured tone. It would have been tempting to revert, I think some ideas are worthwhile to keep though (unfortunately in addition to the non-neutral tone, a more lax grammar was also introduced, but this seems to be getting cleaned up piecemeal). Good edits on the Criticism page. I think the Overview section also could use work, perhaps it was too slim before, but now it really is not very useful to an average person reading this as reference material. I agree with whoever trimmed the "Tenets" lead-in a day or two ago and am going to do the same even though someone else reverted it. El C, it seems to me that a dictionary definition of tenet is not needed on the main page, and this was an attempt at argumentation. That is more for this discussion page, so I've added a section below. Your thoughts? How about the person who added the definition on 8/23?

Judging by the return of glowing enraptured statements that brook little dissenting opinion I'm thinking Urantia must be the source of a pretty devoted new readership movement.--T. Anthony 11:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Tenets?

Is it actually controversial if the page says there is a major tenet? I think it is definitely inaccurate to say there are *no* tenets promoted by the book, as the page said until I edited it. Having read the book, I think it's possible to encapsulate the book's ideas as coming from one primary tenet, my opinion is that it is close to what the earlier versions stated regarding the "Thought Adjuster" concept, and for now I'm going to take it back to that point pending other people's opinions here. I would actually argue that the primary tenet is that there is a God and God should above all be considered as a fatherly personality (the Thought Adjuster being a mechanism of fatherhood, ie "a part of the Father lives in the child"). My reasons for seeing this as the primary tenet is that it's considered the gospel in the version of the Jesus story given in Part IV, and is returned to again and again throughout the book, all the way up to the very last sentence summarizing the entire thing: "When all is said and done, the Father idea is still the highest human concept of God."

10-19-05

Comment: I've read The Urantia Book three times. I want to thank you for your contributions to the articles here. You have made an excellent start with a huge undertaking and also in trying to be objective while using encyclopedic language.

The Urantia Book begins with the statement that "In the minds of the mortals of Urantia, that being the name of your world, there exists great confusion respecting the meaning of such terms as God, divinity and deity." (see p. 1 of the Foreword).

Here we find a clear statement about what the authors purpose for writing the book is.

The Urantia Book purports to clear up misconceptions about God, divinity and deity.

To do so it takes a 2,097 pages, but the major theme running through them reveals God as a loving Father and the brotherhood (family) of mankind. Part of the material which explain how it is that human beings are "sons of God" is by way of the narratives on Thought Adjusters.

Much of that material appears to be original and unique (even considered partially revelatory) until such a time as any previously known concept of the same is found. But to liken that material to being a "major tenet" isn't entirely the full story.

I respectfully submit to you that while The Urantia Book describes the spiritual significance of Thought Adjusters to human life and to God Himself, it is only a piece of the picture which The Urantia Book teachings are actually about.

I feel that if Thought Adjusters are to be mentioned then so do the seven mind adjutants, the personalities of the Original Trinity, God the Sevenfold, God the Supreme, Ultimate and Absolute, Majeston, Michael of Nebadon and Mother Spirit of Nebadon, The Melchizedeks, and several others of divinity and deity status. The scenario is huge with personalities of vast importance to "tenets". To understand the "tenets" if they can actually be called that, then one must list them out.

To do that one would really have to study and outline something that I'm not even sure the word "tenet" applies to, so I felt "themes" might work better considering the style of writing and the point of view that the article had followed.

This leads me to another point that only discussing Jesus who is of poignant significance to human beings on the planet and in The Urantia Book message, only mentioning him in the article is again missing the whole story and true intention of The Urantia Book's authors. Their intention is to clear up misconceptions and confusion not only about him.

I hope I have been of service and assistance to you in explaining some of the edits I have made.

10/20/05

Thank you for your comments. I just made a large edit and was switching here to explain it, only to find that you've already provided a good basis of further discussion for exactly the topics that are on my mind. I hope you find the word "Teachings" an appropriate and neutral way to describe the section. I noticed that you edited "Adherents" to also use the word, and I think it is a more specific and maybe a less "English class" of a word to use than theme (which in any case was an improvement over "tenet"). My edits put a beginning emphasis on the Father concept, which I think is most justifiable as the real unifying concept of the book, like you also say. You quote the first part of the Forward as indicating the overall intention of the book as clearing up confusion. However, you only quote part of the statement, which goes on to say: "Because of this conceptual poverty associated with so much ideational confusion, I have been directed to formulate this introductory statement in explanation of the meanings which should be attached to certain word symbols as they may be hereinafter used." The statement about confusion involving terminology more directly can be read as explaining why the Forward was written as it was, not the purpose of the entire book, although that clearly is one of the purposes of the book.

After taking the Father concept as the central idea of the book, the Thought Adjuster then becomes the direct concept for how this is justified, and is a term unique to the book as far as I know. It seems that that is appropriate to define and elaborate upon before other new terms. Then as for Jesus, with my edit I pulled in a quote from Paper 196 which explains why it is important to emphasize him when discussing what the book is about. I can't agree that mentioning him with prominence is "missing the whole story and true intention" of the book, when the book itself, in the final summarizing paper of everything -- after all the details, cosmology, hierarchies, terms, the Part IV "biography" -- says that an understanding of his religious life is "of all human knowledge, that which is of greatest value". *The* most important piece of human knowledge *ever*! I think that's necessary to mention in a prominent place when conveying what the book is about. Additionally, Jesus is a cultural and religious icon familiar to almost anyone who reads the article, and it connects the book with what is already understood, instead of a series of concepts and foreign terminology, which is easy to get buried under. I agree with you that it is a monumental task to organize and present a summary of the book. I think part of the continuing challenge is to find the right balance between the enormous amount of detail in the book and the distilled essential points that best represent it for use as reference material.

Comments:

HI! Thanks for coming back and writing in. Now I understand you better.

While we agree on some points we apparently have different views (but maybe not actual disagreement) on others.

With respect to the purpose of the Foreword and the purpose of The Urantia Book I would like to clarify.

Right, the Foreword gives definitions to terms, words and names, etc. in order to facilitate understanding on the part of the reader who reads The Urantia Book. However, this is only a focus on the clarification of meanings and terms just as it says it does. Also correct is the fact that the entire Urantia Book takes "great pains", if you will, to spell out and explain every concept it presents in every paragraph and paper with as much detail as (allowable by the Orvonton Corps of Truth Revealers) necessary to make it as clear as it can in order to clear up misconceptions and also the possiblity of misunderstanding. This is artfully done with every paper whether the material is new (revelatory) or old (existent and humanly sourced).

So, I respectfully submit it is all together correct as well as important to say the purpose of The Urantia Book is to clear up man's confusion regarding "God, divinity and deity".

Right: A central theme is God as your loving Father. Another is Jesus. These are what mainstream Christianity recognize, except for the ones still embracing the wrathful jealous God ideas and a few others straying from the Love of God ideas.

Please do not misunderstand me when I say to only mention Jesus is only part of the picture. He is a large part, but He is not all of it. Misunderstanding of and about Jesus is abounding according to The Urantia Book and this is a very important, critical and serious area to clear up. Thus Part IV and all the other ways and places he is mentioned in order to make it very clear. It was and is integral and necessary to the purpose of The Papers to do all of that. That He is the Creator of Nebadon should be mentioned. That He has a Universe Consort: Mother Spirit of Nebadon and that she was declared by Him to be considered equal to Him in all respects is also needed.

God the Supreme, The Ancients of Days, and others are mentioned not only in the Bible, but also other religions and their roles and personalities as divinity and/or deity are also clarified and explained. This is essential revelation.

This is a big departure from Christianity (and any other religion or universe belief to my knowledge).

I've made some other corrections. I will come back and do some more as time permits.

Thanks for thinking it through. It is nice to know that the truth will be out there for people to sort out on their own.

Peace...

Neutrality

2-Nov-05

This article continues to drift farther from NPOV. I especially ask that the devotee of the book who keeps wanting to align each section of the article with your personal religious sentiments that you review wikipedia's policy of neutrality. The NPOV is being consistently lost, and from my viewpoint, attempts are being made to make the article into a proselytizing tract. In particular there is intolerance of criticism and fawning biased language. I'm glad there's the presence of someone who believes so strongly in the book, it's crucial for the article to grow accurately, but I strongly see it as disrespectful and untruthful to modify a number of sections the way they have been edited. When I read what was done the other day to the section on treating the book as literature, it read as deliberate misinformation. Other editors have taken the time to research how other people actually look at the book, for instance by reading reviews at amazon.com, and I know from my own experience about how people look at the book as literature, but it was replaced with a wishful over-the-top dream on how a believer wants people to consider the book because of his or her religious convictions. I feel strongly enough about this false presentation that I've restored the language as it stood before. I personally have evaluated the science and have a strong education in science, and so felt competent to address that section. Recently this accurate -- and what I felt was even-handed -- statement on how some people perceive the science was replaced with a flat statement that all the science is true. This just doesn't carry water for someone like me and you can't understand how terribly uninformed it sounds. An editor may believe all of the science is true and people are welcome to that belief, they are even welcome and encouraged to have that belief represented in the article, as I modified the section to represent, but it is not a consensus and should not be stated as consensus fact. And to put it as the lead-in to a "criticism" section -- well, you aren't a critic by a long ways.

This article isn't somebody's personal tutorial and soapbox but sounds like one now. Viewpoints that are less than adoring of the book are actively being repressed and watered down.

++comment 11-5-05++

Thank you for clarifying your lack of neutrality as well.

This is good. We can both then seek factual representation together and arrive at it better.

Viewpoints have not been edited out, but simply factualized and represented more accurately as opinions rather than facts. I'm glad you are trying to overcome bias as am I. It appears to me that both of us are having this problem.

The blatant bias that existed prior to my discovering this writ was blaring with the usage of such phrases as were there. But I recognize the need to be neutral, factual, honest, truthful and actual. So do you, and I am glad.

In your opinion some things that aren't facts are being represented as facts and the same is true for me. What I saw was a gross, probably mistaken, misrepresentation of the Urantia Book as a whole and those who believe in it and even of those who do not... being wholly biased as to it being fictitional. The truth is from a scientific, fact-finding based logic one HAS to SAY it is mysterious and to SAY that nothing proved or disproved by that method or any other.

Let's work on saying so when there is controversy and when this is the case. If we do we can come up with a real, truthful, honest portrayal that is worthy of being an encyclopedic entry for people truly interested in reading about the papers.

I've studied the controversies, facts and fictions, opinions surrounding the controversy of the Urantia Papers for almost 8 years. Nothing is proven, it IS a mystery and should be presented honestly as such.

I am considering looking at other encyclopedic entries on mysterious books as well as entries on scientific publications and relgious ones too. I don't think that even paragraph structure, the division of categories here at Wikipedia or even some of the sentence structure are as well written as they could and should be.

I consider this to be a work in progress, but by English standards and the necessity of writing a complete factual encyclopedic entry, it needs a lot of improvement.

I'm glad you are sincerely helping out, but let's be honest about it.

~peace

Additional Comments 11-05-05:

My apologies for numerous returns to this comment page, life's situations arise over which I have no control.

In addition to agreeing with you and Wikipedia's rules to make a fair and unbiased report, which I hope is self evident in my comments, I would like to state that the previous entries as I found them about The Urantia Book appeared to be wholly biased by someone who is not only a skeptic, but also by someone who had not read the entire book. That doesn't mean it is actually the case, considering entries in the Wikipedia are "works in progress".

In my educated opinion, one should never attempt to write about a book they have not read in full and who do not have a full understanding of its contents.

That is simply a ridiculous thing to do.

However, to write about the controversies over the book without having read the whole book itself could be done, but those writings should only be limited those sections in the encyclopedic entry dealing with the controversies themselves and stay away from actual content and context of the meanings contained in the actual book. Those controversies are real and do exist.

In fact the controversies are many - they include controversy over the origin, over the factual content, over the authors, and over the value and meanings contained.

Not all of these controversies are represented - not in full scope - therefore making the representations that are depicted in the article limited range when in fact the controversies are wide ranging especially from the religious point of view, but also from historical, scientific and philosophical points of view as well.

If the Wikipedia is to represent a full view, then all views must be equally balanced and place properly in a category according to accepted English standards.

In my opinion, the whole arrangement needs redoing. And no writer need to contribute unless they have actually read the book.

In truth.

==== 11-13-05 ====

I have noticed a tendency in this article to push in favor of this book far too strongly and dismiss all critics as "not reading it right." I don't think this would be acceptable on any other religious text. That said it is true I have not read it so back when maybe I shouldn't have edited. However I think a non-reader can edit word choices when they are far too immoderate and unverified.

Anyway there is bound to be in least some who read it and felt

1-It's a mixed bag. Or

2-It's just not that good as a book or religious text for whatever reason. Or

3-It's downright bad for whatever reason.(Ethically, Literary wise, etc) Or

4-Some mixture of the following three

Last time I checked it nothing like this seem to exist. I will avoid editing it as a non-reader, but I hope some balance is made.(And I would say the same about works in my faith and have in fact)--T. Anthony 13:28, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia entries that cover large topics tend to go through an eventual transition where multiple articles are needed to do them justice, and this one seems to be nearing that point. I agree that the coverage of the book's topics is inadequate right now, and we have a similar line of thinking, I also was going to say the other day that it'd probably be a useful exercise to have a look at how similar wiki subjects are handled. See new topic below on structure. T. Anthony, you might not have read the book, but that perspective is a valuable one since that is where most people come from, not many have years of in-depth scholarship. Perhaps you aren't liable to contribute to explaining intricacies of UB concepts and themes, but I'd be interested in views you might give below in the "structure" section concerning how well the current article succeeds or fails in addressing basic issues / questions for people with little or no knowledge of the book. Wazronk 19:36, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Structure of UB article(s):

I think we should consider an expansion of the UB topic into a collection of articles. This wikipedia article on article size make good points worth reading, as does this one on summary style. While the current UB article may not seem adequate in presenting enough detail on the many concepts in the book, it is better seen as a "survey article" of the UB topic as a whole. Most wiki readers who go to a given article are looking to quickly skim to get the gist of a topic, and as the article on summary style points out, 15-20 minutes of attention is usually as good as an article is likely to get from them (less so from children and people with attention and/or reading disorders). Several different audiences should always be considered with articles, and the current form of this UB one seems most tuned to those who are after a basic primer on the UB, the background behind it, and its core teachings. The kinds of questions people have are: What is Urantia and The Urantia Book? It seems like a religion, what does the Urantia Book teach? Who wrote it? What are people's opinions about it? What's its history? Having an article that mainly deals with top level basics like these is in line with how other religions and complex schools of thought are presented on wikipedia.

But some readers are after a lot more detail, and the UB topic isn't built up yet to serve them. It's common for new UB readers to be swamped by the complexity of the book and by the terminology, I imagine they could use a reference source to help sort things out. These are the ones that are more likely to be after help on things like Ancients of Days, Majeston, super universes vs. local universes vs. master universe vs. grand universe, Life Carriers, etc.

The article doesn't fit the bill for people after that amount detail. Here are a couple growth options I see:

a) Follow the structure of the book and present guidance along those lines, eg have separate articles to summarize each paper of the book. Did you know there is a wiki article for every book of the Bible? A huge task. Maybe a more manageable goal at this stage would be an article to summarize each Part of the book and the Forward. (I think the entire Table of Contents with subheaders should be put in a wiki article.) To see how another complex book with unusual terminology is handled, I recommend looking at the wiki article on The Silmarillion, a fictional book by JRR Tolkien. The Silmarillion has multiple parts, not unlike the UB, and separate wiki articles cover each part. From more of a religious side, see the entry on the Old Testament.

b) Anticipate what people are interested in and write articles on those topics. I prefer this growth route, because I can think of basics that could help students of the book while also being "click-worthy" links for people who come by with only limited interest. Example:

• "Concept of God" or "Nature of God", something along those lines. I know the UB has a paper with that name, and that has elements to draw on, but I see an article on this topic as compiling information from other papers as well.
• "Evolution of religion". Describe the UB story of how religion evolves, the difference between fear-based and revelation-based, the developments the UB describes for the future.
• "Death and afterlife". People are always curious, and there is considerable detail that can be provided.
• "Cosmology". Describe in one place how the universe is said to be organized. Perhaps a basic overview of personalities can fit with this, perhaps that is better for a separate article of its own.
• "Guide to terminology." See this list of Islamic terms to get an idea of what can be done.
• In comments above, mention was made of controversies that could be described in more detail. At this time, I'm not as interested in detailed coverage of that topic compared to others, but it would also fall in this category.

I would suggest that editors figure out common ground here where efforts can be pooled for quicker, better results upfront. Do easy stuff first where people agree. My vote is for us to start something like "Guide to terminology", since it's straightforward to get underway but will need time to grow, and in terms of an article of wide interest, my choice would be to build up an advanced article on "Death and afterlife". Any other ideas and opinions are welcome.

I also suggest that people who intend to make many edits or additions sign up for a wikipedia account so that edits are more easily recognized as coming from one person or another. I will make my future edits with this account. Wazronk 19:36, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I can't say much at the present, I slept bad and company was visiting, but I agree this should maybe be more then one article. It might be slightly unusual to do multiple articles on a single book, but it's certainly not unheard of. For example there is an entire category for Don Quixote. The ideas you list sound workable to me. Although Urantia is not a religion it is some kind of religious book that apparently has a following. It seems like it's readership following merits some kind of something in its own right. I don't know quite how Wiki deals with the "readership following" of a religious book when that following or book is not a religion or religious movements itself. A Course in Miracles is the closest thing I can think of at the moment, but I'm not quite sure it's remotely analogous. In fact I'm likely not making any sense so will basically stop for now. Although separating out a bit sounds like a good idea.--T. Anthony 04:24, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Long overdue, but thanks for the link to A Course in Miracles, of course all these sorts of books are different, but ACIM is a closer analogue to TUB than the Old Testament, Book of Mormon, Silmarillion, etc. The movement around it even has surprising similarities to the one around TUB. I do think the ACIM article is much too long and hope this article can be more user-friendly for the average person w/o 30-40 minutes of attention span. I'd still be interested in your views about success or failure of this article from the viewpoint of informing someone who hasn't read the book, should you come back here. Any others who haven't read it welcome to comment as well. Thanks. Wazronk 01:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Plagiarism Section Suggestions

12-07-05

Comment:

The section on Plagiarism can not claim actual plagiarism until actual plagiarism has been proved. Therefore, I suggest making sure sentences referencing plagiarism may not do so unless qualifier words such as "possible", "probable", or "alleged", are added to the sentence to keep the ideas objective and factual.

Additionally, Matthew Block has stated himself that he is both skeptical and not skeptical. He has often indicated that he is bouncing back and forth on the issues as he discovers new references and materials through his endeavors and research to discover what the sources are/were.

Please note that Matthew Block doesn't have a distinguishing authoratative degree such as a PhD. etc.

I also contend that "other researchers" must be qualified as actual people for factual purposes. You must give names and titles or distinguishing authoritative sources and/or references as applicable.

I have changed a couple of the sentences, grammar and punctuation today, but I have run out of time at present.

Thanks for your consideration in the matter.

HC

69.137.116.242 21:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I've emailed Matthew Block directly and asked for clarification on his views. What is your take HC regarding what would constitute proof of plagiarism? Thanks. Wazronk 20:10, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

-- 12-07-05 --

I'm glad. I would have done that myself, but ran out of time.

To plagiarize means to pass off as one's own without crediting a source. But The Urantia Book says itself that it takes ideas from human sources - and makes no known or shown use of humanly sourced material which it claims as its own original idea.

Merriam-Webster Online:

Main Entry: pla·gia·rize

Pronunciation: 'plA-j&-"rIz also -jE-&-

Function: verb

Inflected Form(s): -rized; -riz·ing

Etymology: plagiary

Main Entry: pla·gia·rize

Pronunciation: 'plA-j&-"rIz also -jE-&-

Function: verb

Inflected Form(s): -rized; -riz·ing

Etymology: plagiary

transitive senses : to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own : use (another's production) without crediting the source

intransitive senses : to commit literary theft : present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source

``````````

Therefore, until it is shown that any material which is suspected to have been used by a writer in the Urantia Papers in a way that actually IS stealing someone else's ORIGINAL thought or idea (which also is known not to already be a public domain idea previous to that writing), and also that the writer of the Urantia Paper in which the idea is found is shown as having used that idea as its own original idea instead of some indication of the original writer to whom the original thought should be attributed, then no plagiarism can actually be claimed as a fact.

In other words, it must be shown that the "said source material" which purportedly shows plagiarism by the writer of something in The Urantia Papers was ORIGINAL with that "source material author" as well as showing that the way in which it is used in The Urantia Book is in fact actually stealing the idea and using it as its own.

Does this make sense when writing an encyclopedic article which is supposed to be objective, factual, and without bias?

To my knowledge no research has gone this far as to show either case in a manner which is absolute or unarguable. I see no real official finding on the matter, at least not yet. While I am aware of suspicions, that is all they can be said to be at this time.

The fact that plagiarism has not been proved in any official manner ought to be enough to alert Wikipedia authors to remain "on the fence" in a neutral manner. I'm not even sure if it is worth mentioning in the article about the Urantia Book. It may be worth mentioning in another entry though.

Is it really a necessary part of the entry here on what the Urantai Book is? Do you usually see "skepticism" and other types of objections being added to entries on the Koran, The Bible, The Vedas or say entries about other books like that? How about philosophical books?

I really do not know, but when I imagine reading an entry in an encyclopedia about a book I expect an objective description and review of the contents. People's claims and objections are only opinions in my view.

To summarize, you can't say anything is plagiarized until it is proved.

HC

HC, I agree completely that "researchers" is inadequate, and whoever added it should have given specific names / references. I know Gardner covered the plagiarism topic, I've changed "researchers" to "Gardner". If there are other published sources beyond Block and Gardner, they probably aren't so numerous that "researchers" is sufficient, better to name them.

Having a skepticism section is in line with other similar wikipedia topics. The plagiarism one is doubly pertinent since it has to do with the question of "where is the book from". Some people see the evidence and say it's plagiarism, other people see it and say that it's masterful weaving and editing by revelators. Readers of the wikipedia article can make up their own minds on the topic. You say "it must be shown that the "said source material" which purportedly shows plagiarism by the writer of something in The Urantia Papers was ORIGINAL with that "source material author" as well as showing that the way in which it is used in The Urantia Book is in fact actually stealing the idea and using it as its own." I agree with you that the skepticism section doesn't need to dominate the article and in my opinion enough space already goes toward it. I can include published citations of findings along those lines though if you feel the article needs that. Wazronk 01:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Merging "The Fifth Epochal Revelation" page to The Urantia Book page

To Melaen:

As regards merging this, I do not think that it would be as useful and if I had thought so I would have put this right on The Urantia Book page.

I was hoping to make not only a cross reference for the name, but also to clarify what "The Fifth Epochal Revelation" means, literally. It will probably end up being two to four paragraphs when I finish, as time permits. It will be linked to epoch, and epochal as well.

I believe it will be informative even to just the inquisitive person who hears the phrase and wonders what it is and what it means without having to go into the depth and breadth of the whole Urantia Book - that is for the page "The Urantia Book", imo. The link to the Urantia Book page will be there if someone wants more indepth information.

As it is, "Urantia" as the header isthe planet earth. "Urantian" is used to denote a movement inspired by The Urantia Book or The Urantia Papers. "The Urantia Book" is what the actual title should be for the page.

I don't know how to correct the errors on the "term" issues, and apparently others have noticed this as well. It may seem trivial to someone who has never read that book, but it is literally incorrect to call the book solely "Urantia".

Back to the "FER" merger question, when someone is looking for "The Fifth Epochal Revelation" or hear the phrase used for The Urantia Book, a short, informative reference with an explanation would be handy, imo.

Can "The Urantia Book" be found at Wikipedia if someone types in the various nomers such as TUB, TUP, The Fifth Epochal Revelation, The Urantia Papers, etc.? If so, how do I make it do that? If the search words at Wikipedia would lead someone looking for these nomers to "The Urantia Book" page (not "Urantia" as it is now) then I guess you would have a point.

How to clean this all up? Do you know? I am fairly new at using Wikipedia.

Hanely

23:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Hanely, I just created redirects for you so that anyone who goes to TUB, The Urantia Papers, or TUP on wikipedia is taken to this article. I see you already moved the "Urantia" article to "The Urantia Book".

Good to see all the recent contributions. May I suggest that the article "The Fifth Epochal Revelation" also be set up to be a redirect to this page, since it's essentially synonymous with "The Urantia Book"? Let me know what you think. In my opinion, if you have an interest in describing the concept of "epochal revelation" and the details of the ones prior to the FER, a more general article titled "epochal revelation" would be a more fitting home for it. Wazronk 01:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

On The Fifth Epochal Revelation, let me think about it. I had about 2 - four paragraphs in mind, but I could redo my thoughts. It'll take time with the holidays being here. Thanks for the redirects, nice job! Hanely 16:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Breaking Up The Urantia Book Article Sections into new articles

See Wikipedia:How to break up a page

I agree that the overall article is getting long and some of the sections are only stubs, but also carries informative material that should not be lost. I will try to help break it up as I can, and as I learn how to do that.

Hanely 23:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Note, I'm going to take out all the stub markers for the sections except the "comparison to other religions". While much more can be written about any given section, this article already is at or beyond the typical length for a wikipedia article. For example, I took out the description of Lucifer added to the "Revelation" section, not because it wasn't a worthwhile topic, but it didn't fit under "Criticism -> Revelation" and also IMO is one of those hundreds of side topics related to TUB that could find a place on wikipedia but isn't likely to merit being on the main "survey article." Like you say, we aren't limited to this one article. See above section "Structure of UB article(s)" from November on ideas for expanding. I invite you to also have a look at how other large subjects, esp. religious ones, are organized on wikipedia. Before significant structural changes are made, it would be good to pool together people's thoughts. Wazronk 01:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I've put back in some of the sectstub comments you took out, but not all. Hanely 17:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

_________________________________

Hanely 16:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Wazronk, and T. Anthony and mysterious visitors:

I don't mind that the information regarding Satan and the Lucifer Rebellion was removed per se, but I wonder why the comment about the papers being satanic must remain? Why do readers care about such opinions when they are false - it is obvious to neutrality in the pure scientific sense that such things are nonsense, to an honest reader of the book it is not true, and only people who have never really read the narratives could or would argue such a thing. How is this useful to someone who reads the article?

To me a Wikipedia article seeks to be accurate. Factuality about the Urantia Book, its contents, and even criticisms about any of it needs to remain intact in an unbiased manner that is not misleading - so a measure of understanding is necessary to convey.

In seeking to understand to better write articles here I found the following two links (among others):

Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words

Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms

Unfortunately there are quite a few of these salt and peppered throughout the article and mostly the criticism section. So, I suggest taking another look at the wording and referencing.

Anyway, what to do as the best solution, I'm not sure, but I feel that now that a false statement is in the article about criticism several things could happen that would improve the article's factuality.

1. The two short paragraphs about the Lucifer Rebellion and Satan's being held in contempt could go into another more appropriate section. I suggest copying it from the previous rendition and pasting it back in, either in the teachings section or comparison to Christianity section. There may yet be somewhere else, but these come to mind first.

2. The wording in the criticism section be neutralized, factualized and streamlined. (the rest of the article needs this, too, imo.)

3. The main article on The Urantia Book needs to stick to information about the book itself, its history and its contents in complete neutrality. Links to the other articles should appear in "links" or in the article sections.

4. The Criticism section could become its own article elsewhere with links.

5. Yet a third article could be written about Gardner's skeptical review (I've heard it said many times that Gardner didn't even read the whole UB, or that it is satire, or that it was a religious fanatic who was afraid of a book, and other things... but I don't know first hand if any of that is true and so I won't be the one to write that). Of course, if anyone reading this has read his book and the Urantia Book the article could come off well done with links.

6. A "source" material article could be written on Matthew Block's work.

With the holidays upon us, I can not guarantee how often I'll be able to return.

Oh yea, Wazronk, I have read all the comments on this "talk" page. I will comment as time permits. Perhaps my suggestions above coupled with the others regarding breaking up the article could be merged to come up with a smashingly great solution? Ideas?

Thanks for all due consideration folks ~ and to those of you liking it, Merry Christmas and those of you affiliated otherwise, Happy Chanukah, and Happy Holidays!

Hanely

Hi Hanely, and others,

First, a further clarification on the concept behind wikipedia, neutrality is a fundamental pillar, but there are two others as well, no original research and verifiability. This takes us into the "weasel words" you mention, which it's true is an area where improvements are needed with the article. A reader should be able to independently check everything written in a wikipedia article should they want to, and as such, wikipedia is more about providing verifiable information rather than what a given editor simply thinks or believes is "true." You specifically cite the Criticism section, and I agree. "Plagiarism" has evolved the furthest of the three subsections IMO and is solidly referenced with verifiable sources (I think the believer stance(s) aren't presented as well as they could though), and the same should probably be done for "Science" and "Revelation". For instance, one thing that can be done for "Revelation" is cite the low book sales and distribution of the TUB instead of the simple current statement that it isn't widespread. "Peacock terms" have been an ongoing challenge from my perspective, commonly inserted throughout the article in a way that aggrandizes the book, but I think this is currently toned down.

What I'm hearing from you Hanely overall is a suggestion to focus on TUB alone, make the article perhaps a book summary with some history added, and put everything else in other articles. It is one way to go, and you specifically mention Criticism-related topics as being placed elsewhere. This would also need to be true of the adherents section and anything "pro". I don't agree with this tactic however, for reasons of wikipedia policy and overall usefulness to the average reader. What makes TUB interesting and worth writing & reading about is that it purports to be more than a typical religious book, and people accept it as such. I think that is a highly intertwined element of the TUB topic, and it fits in this article, and by the same token the reasons people *don't* accept it as such is part of the story. I think it is a challenge to have the article reflect these differing perspectives, but that's a basic challenge involved with wikipedia articles in a nutshell. Writing separate articles for separate points of view is discouraged. See POV forking.

I think there needs to be a top-level article that is a summary of The Urantia Book basics, its teachings, its history, and those who are pro and con on topics related to it. Other articles can then develop certain topics in more depth, if needed or wanted. I don't see why the top-level article shouldn't be this one, it already serves as that, and other similar topics on wikipedia are structured the same way (for instance A Course in Miracles isn't a simple book synopsis & some words about the history, but covers pro and con viewpoints, as does Book of Mormon, which also has a plagiarism section). I certainly do not accept that for some reason everything to do with Criticism should be tucked away in separate articles. This is inherently biased toward the idea that the main wikipedia article is only for those seeking viewpoints where nothing negative is said. Audiences also come to learn about contrary viewpoints, and those viewpoints are just as valid.

On the points you brought up, my thoughts:

1. I've seen a tendency over the 1+ year I've followed this wikipedia article off and on for people to add many digressions to the article. And understandably so, TUB is enormous and has thousands of interesting details and side stories. But not all will fit in the main article. I've seen multiple people each add a few sentences here and there, and over time, the article has become enormous and unfocused with all sorts of illogical disorganized digressions. Like you say, this article can stand to be streamlined (you should have seen what it's been like before!). IMO, the Lucifer rebellion story, while interesting, doesn't quite make the cut in terms of being essential enough to mention on the main page. Perhaps an article summarizing TUB's view of the history of earth is worthwhile to build up? The Lucifer / Caligastia / Satan story would fit in article such as that, for example.

2.-5. Like I've said, Criticism is appropriate to have, as is the view of believers, and a POV fork is contrary to wikipedia standards. In terms of Gardner specifically, despite any opinions on his conclusions about TUB, his book is one of the few published about TUB to analyze it from a nonbeliever perspective and it's entirely appropriate to use and cite as reference material for the article. I say that even though I'm not personally convinced by arguments he makes. I've read his book, have access to a copy, and can make edits regarding it or provide clarifications for any questions about it that people may ask (and have made edits and corrected errors in the article regarding it already). A wikipedia article can be written separately about his book, sure, but it is entirely relevant and appropriate to use as a reference for alternate views in this article as well. For instance, the Bible like any other religious text covered on wikipedia, doesn't simply use the Bible alone as reference but many other books are cited as well.

6. IMO, the article by Block works on its own in terms of detailing possible outside source materials, and is appropriately linked to from this wikipedia article. The possible use of outside source materials is germane to the book's history and authenticity, and is relevant in this article. (I don't see how it couldn't be.) If somebody would like to write a more involved wikipedia article about the published findings regarding human source materials, that's fine of course, but coverage of the topic should also be here and not simply de-emphasized by placing elsewhere in a side article.

Yes, the ever-elusive, smashingly great solution, that would be great to find somewhere, wouldn't it?? As I've said before, I think there's a lot to be said for editors finding common ground here and working together. I suggested articles above to work on together, but also there are ongoing questions of how to improve neutrality. As you wrote way above, Hanely, that would be good to tackle before any thoughts of expansion into multiple articles. How about if we go through a section and see about getting it to an acceptable NPOV with verifiable citations? I will even boldy suggest that we start by taking on the "Criticism" section, if we can do that we can do anything. A new section on this discussion page along the lines of "Criticism section neutrality" would be good if people agree.

Merry Christmas as well! -- Wazronk 21:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Wazronk,

I'm considering all you've written. I agree the article is greatly improved now by comparison to older versions... even to my short existence here, it is better. I agree working on sticking with Wikipedia guidelines is good to do.

I don't agree that working on the criticism section is the most important thing to do first. I think making sure facts are factual and falsehoods are eliminated is necessary first. This would be in line with presenting a whole picture of facts even if the article still has grammatical, layout, streamlining, referencing problems to do.

I think readers want real facts that have merit as well as verifiability. I think criticisms can be made by anyone at all, but those honest criticisms with true merit are useful. Criticisms that are obliterated by quotes or other writings in the contents of TUB, such as the issue of the papers being satanic, should be omitted. This criticism can not be the case when the book denounces Satan and promotes Godliness, truth, beauty, and goodness. This is a verifiable fact in the contents, not just an opinion ~ no bias on that. I agree that criticism can be okie dokie but I don't agree criticism that doesn't hold any merit has a useful place. I think it has to hold merit and be verifiable, not simply verifiable as something somebody wrote once in a book about TUP.

I disagree that what makes TUB interesting to people is that it purports to be more than just a religious book. I've personally discussed and read many entries on a popular TUB internet site why people like it or dislike it. Most think it's great because it lead them to God. Don't believe me, though, I'm not published. ha ha, just have 8 or so yrs. experience with it. There is also a book called "How I Found The Urantia Book" that has lots of stories about how and why people like that book. I personally found information in it that was the cooles thing I ever read. But I know I can't say that in the article here. ha ah.

Low book sales? Over a million is low? Maybe. I think that is not necessary to bring up, and now it is in the "talk" section anyway.

I agree about the plagiarism section, both counts, has verifiable references but is too long and wordy, needs refining.

The science section needs referencing both from the book and outside scientific sources to show the argument/criticism is valid or not.

I don't disagree at all that criticism is a useful section. I disagree with invalid criticism that is patently false. Why do readers care to hear it if it is verifiably untrue?

I agree adherents section needs work, not only in peacock and weasel statements, but it is still missing key points and covers others too much.

I think the first section is what needs work first, key points missing, and other things have too much emphasis.

Overall I think the article is coming along nicely, needs work, needs help and will eventually come around.

Hanely 02:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)Hanely

Hi Hanely,

I understand and agree with your pointing out the "satanic" adjective as an inflammatory one and not honest criticism. I'm unsure where it originated, but it's also true I haven't touched it despite other edits to surrounding text. I agree that the text of TUB would not be construed that way by any reasonable reader. I've referred to an article by Meredith Sprunger here on his experiences with trying to introduce TUB to mainline Christians and edited "satanic" out.

Yes, the "talk" page is one place to put reference citations. To clarify my low book sales and distributions comment, what was in my mind was the 2004 Urantia Foundation Annual Report, which was summarized in a newsletter I saw: "Urantia Foundation sold or donated about 20,000 books last year [2004], 52% English, 45% Spanish, and 3% in the other languages." Further along is the statement: "October 2005 will mark 50 years since The Urantia Book was first published. Just a handful of books were sold the first year, while in 2005 more than 20,000 will be dispensed in more than ten languages." I don't propose placing all this in the article, just am documenting it here. I see 1 million copies as 50 years * 20,000 / year and am not sure if that's where the figure you've seen originates. Of course that wouldn't take into account earlier years of much lower distribution. And in the other direction of adding to the number, this is the Foundation only, and I'm not sure about printing and distribution by other organizations now that the book is public domain. What is "low" or "high" book distribution is subjective of course. Quantitatively, approx. 10,000 copies in English distributed worldwide per year however is considerably less than distribution of books such as Book of Mormon (much, much less than the Bible, Qu'ran) and seems also less than Dianetics, ACIM. Its electronic distribution would be hard to speculate about (I'm someone with an electronic copy who never owned a hardcopy), all the annual report mentions is 3,000 hits per day on the Foundation website in 5 languages.

One other thing about wikipedia is that it isn't a forum or message board at heart, glad to see edits and counter-edits underway, we don't have to craft wording by committee here on the "discussion" page. I've made a few of my own. -- Wazronk 20:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Religioustolerance.org

This article uses the religioustolerance.org website as either a reference or a link. Please see the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org and Wikipedia:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org as to whether Wikipedia should cite the religioustolerance.org website, jguk 14:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Does "talk" page need to be archived?

Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page

Just wondering!

HC

12/20/05 Revision

I revised the introductory "Overview". I don't think I've omitted any information, such as a link or idea, but if so, please just edit it back in.

I hope this is an improvement that is acceptable to everyone.

Merry Christmas, Hanely

About the cosmos, quotes

Wazronk,

I restored Hanely's quotes. This is significant Urantia Book material to cover. May I suggest you consider summarizing it in your own words? If you can not or do not wish to, please leave the material there until it can be done by another editor.

Thank you,

Trewbuk

I disagree about its significance to the nonreader who will be the typical audience of the wikipedia article. I think its general importance can be condensed to something along the lines of "Urantia is one of many inhabited worlds in the universe." The verbiage about "Orvonton", "Nebadon", "Havona", seven "superuniverses", a "commission" hailing from "Uversa", while briefly defined by the paragraph and understandable to people who've read the book, is mainly a whooosh of babble past most people's eyes. -- Wazronk 23:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Wazronk,

The "Kingdom of Heaven" is like the family that had a big party. Seeing that there was an impetuous crowd out front blocking entry, close friends and neighbors decided to go in by way of the back door. Some strangers saw the the small group going around to the back. Thinking it was the thing to do they followed with high hopes. When the strangers went in they realized the party was not what they expected. Disappointed and a little disgruntled, they left.

Trewbuk

If the inclusion of the quote is meant in some way to be a proper way to lead article readers into a "Kingdom of Heaven", then I'm even more sure it's in there for the wrong reason. On rereading it, I think the reader is as poorly served by talk of different "universes" as by the strange words. When people think of a universe, they think of everything, the entire cosmos, and the distinction between TUB "universes" and the standard dictionary definition isn't provided. While it could be placed somewhere in the article, I don't agree with placement of a "universes" tutorial starting with the third paragraph in "Teachings". Actually some basic explanations could fit more naturally under "Overview of The Urantia Book" and I'll consider making edits there that will use the material. If so, I'll remove the quote again. I'll leave for now but still think it is superfluous. I also think it unnecessarily diverts from the Father concept being explained at that point in the article. Wazronk 00:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Trewbuk and Wazronk,

Wazronk and Trewbuk you seem to both be on to something. What I think is the widest view should first be presented. Then detailed. The Urantia Book is written that way too. So, naming the universes is the big thing. It fits what is in the book. Maybe placing it in the teachings is good and that is actually one of the first things taught in the book. Therefore seems good to place it there, first. The naming is not in the top section, only found in the "teaching" section later. I think it's fine except the "teaching" section needs a lot of "summary style" editing.

Anonymous

Style

See the wikipedia manual of style, love it, cherish it... I've put some notes together based on style-related variations I've noticed with this article and research I've done to find answers.

General:

• The titles of books, such as The Urantia Book, should always be italicized. "The" should be included in this case since it's part of the full name of the book. Alternative names such as "The Urantia Papers" or the "Fifth Epochal Revelation" aren't the official title of the book so as far as my understanding goes they shouldn't be italicized.
• Titles of subsections of books like chapters, or in this case individual papers and the parts, should be in double quotes. Single quotes shouldn't be used, based on wikipedia standards and for search-engine reasons. Italics are only for the title of the full book.
• If abbreviations are necessary for a subject they are to be used consistently. For instance, sprinkling a few instances of "TUB" around the article is inconsistent, either it should be used after it's defined or not used. "TUB" to me is slangy, something for web forums and emails, and I think the title should be spelled out. It's not a long title. "TUB" certainly shouldn't only be randomly used here and there throughout the article, it makes for somewhat of a careless appearance. Personally I also have a dislike for how "TUB" inadvertently brings in word-associations that have nothing to do with the book... tubby, bathtub, tub o' lard... Maybe for a similar reason you don't see the BOM abbreviation in the Book of Mormon article.
• Words and jargon shouldn't be introduced without explanation. I think it's easy for people who know the book well to casually introduce these without meaning to. I think there's a very large amount of explanation about the book (even its most significant religious teachings, remarkably) that can be accomplished without too much jargon, and that's preferential. Even the book's authors say this is always to be preferred. A large additional benefit is that by using regular language rather than introducing jargon where possible, the concepts are more effectively and cleanly presented without tangents into definitions. Obviously, book-specific words and jargon are sometimes very important and need to be used. Opinions may vary on what those are. But all jargon introduced should be explained within the article. If it isn't explained, or if the explanations add convolutions and diversions that outweigh what is really getting across, it's best taken out (ideally for use in side articles to focus on these sorts of details better -- the idea isn't to withhold information but to concientiously present to the reader what's digestable and most important for the typical interest level).
• The possessive of words that end in "s" like Jesus and Socrates is made by adding an apostrophe to the end, e.g. "Jesus' teachings," "Socrates' daimon" (as opposed to Jesus's or Socrates's).
• Somebody recently took the time to comb through the article line by line to make sure punctuation like commas and periods were within double-quotes when they are adjacent. Thanks, whoever you are, for cleaning all that up.

Specific to this article

• My copy of the book only refers to the forward as "Forward", not "The Forward." I can say that much. I'm not sure about what is the right way to present it stylistically. Should it be the Forward, the "Forward," or perhaps even just the forward (since this is a general word, like preface or epilogue)? Does anybody know and can you provide a link?
• I've seen "FER" used sometimes here but since this is an article titled "The Urantia Book" I can't agree with its use, even less than "TUB." It has even more of a slangy sense to me, I think the article is stronger without it. Also, the book itself says it is epochal revelation number five, but doesn't refer to itself as the "The Fifth Epochal Revelation" with officious capitalization. (Actually the phrase "fifth epochal revelation" does not appear in the book anywhere, even in lower case.)
• I checked their website and Urantia Foundation doesn't appear to have a leading "The" in its legal name. Calling it "the Urantia Foundation" should be fine but the "the" won't be capitalized. No article is written on it yet, but I've changed the red link to be for "Urantia Foundation" instead of "The Urantia Foundation."
• Speaking of leading "the"s, always will need to be looking out for double "the"s, e.g. "the The Urantia Book". Is easy to slip these in without realizing it.
• Pronouns. Some people are inclined to capitalize pronouns and certain other words in reference to God or Jesus -- "He", "His" -- which as far as I know is a Judeo-Christian tradition out of a person's reverence. The Urantia Book does not capitalize these pronouns (except when a pronoun begins a sentence). I don't agree that the article should be transformed to have these capitalized and I definitely don't agree with the way some have been spottily capitalized on a random basis so far. I think this is from believer inclinations from intermittent editors. For neutrality reasons and since it is not even in line with how the book is written, I think these should be lower case, and I've made edits so they are lower case.
• I've unfortunately seen a lot of invented titles and phrases that are made to seem like they are in the book but which are not. Strangely it even seems like they come predominately from editors that otherwise are quite familiar with the book's contents and are even believers. To pick one example that was edited out recently, "Heavenly and Unseen Father." Nowhere in the book is God refered to with this title. Sometimes the adjective "unseen" (lower case) is placed before "Father", similarly "heavenly." But neither are used as a title, either separately much less together. People should double check whether their wording truly is reflective of the book. I think it should not be so difficult to do esp. because this wikipedia article can only possibly contain but a capsule summary of a 2,097 page book. Only the top-end, most visible, most common concepts & phrasings can really be the ones to fit in the article and be represented here. So they should not be difficult to double check. Another example... Thought Adjuster is described by a list of synonyms that was recently appended with yet two more entries, "Thought Controller" and "Father Fragment." First of all, "Father Fragment" with capitalized "Fragment" is a made up title again that does not appear anywhere in the book! Is it that some people have a general sense of things but don't want to bother themselves with checking their facts? It ends up being left to others to clean up the degraded quality. The word "fragment" is used dozens and dozens of times -- perhaps more so even than Mystery Monitor -- and this is appropriately used in the article already as a part of the initial description of a TA. Also, the general phrase "Father fragments" is used in the book. But this is a class of fragments, TAs being only one type deriving from the "Father" -- i.e., "Father fragment" and TA are not strictly synonymous in the book. Then in regards to "Thought Controller," this only appears one single time. I've decided to edit it out because it is so rare, and also because the phrase "Thought Controller" seems more important in relation to signifying the concept of how the TA-human relationship matures. IMO the Thought Adjuster article is a much better place for explaining the significance and context of this more advanced concept.

Opening

Wazronk,

I streamlined the opening even more as regards authorship and put it into the last paragraph as a mention with "see mystery of origin" intact. I think this is better general information and leads the reader to where to find more. Hanely 15:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

___________________________________________________________

Hi, the opening sentence needs more context. I stumbled across this article via the random article button, having never heard of The Urantia Book before. Unfortunately it's not immediately clear to the casual reader what it is, exactly. I hesitate to change it myself because I know nothing about the subject, but the first line should ideally be a concise summary so people know wheter they want to read further or not. Perhaps you could model it on other religious text articles, eg. Koran:

The Qur'an (Arabic: القرآن al-qur'ān, literally "the recitation"; also called Al Qur'ān Al Karīm or "The Noble Qur'an"; or transliterated Quran, Koran, and less commonly Alcoran) is the holy book of Islam. Muslims believe that the Qur'an is the literal word of God in Arabic and the culmination of God's revelation to mankind, revealed to Muhammad, the final prophet of Islam, over a period of 23 years through the angel Jibril (Gabriel).

The first sentence would best read similar, "The Urantia Book is the religious text of [Urantians?] and is held by adherents to have been written by [spiritual beings?]. The tenets of the book can be summarised as such:" and there you have a concise introduction. As it stands I think the vital imformation is spread out over too many paragraphs, and that makes it difficult for people who just glance at the page to know what it is about. That's the problem I had. You can review the guidlines for lead sections if you want. Cheers, - Randwicked Alex B 13:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that's my worst-spelled comment ever. - Randwicked Alex B 13:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Symbols

I reverted back the meaning of the three concentric circles to what I had contributed before. I believe it is wrong to say that the concentric circles represent the three persons of the Paradise Trinity. They represent instead attributes of the Paradise Trinity, namely, eternity, infinity, and universality. This is how it is actually written in the referenced paper.

Anonymous

Major rearranging

I've made some major rearrangements and adjustments on the Criticism section due to Wazronk's referencing the verifiability and no original authorship sections at Wikipedia. I think too the Adherents section and the comparison to Christianity need the same type of whittling - anyone who read Gardner's book could help with the criticism section! His book appears to be the only not self published that would be worthy as a validatable source by Wikipedia standards...the rest is original authorship and not kosher. Thanks for pointing it out, Wazronk. Wow, a lot needs fixing now. Be back later.

Hanely

Hi Hanely,

I've stepped up to the plate to work on verifiability, thanks for getting the ball rolling. First of all, the Plagiarism subsection by no means lacked for verifiable resources, that was in a different ballpark from Science and Revelation criticism subsection. As I've said before, I've read Gardner's book, as well as Block's article, and the Plagiarism section very much complies with these sources. Please obtain a copy of Gardner's book from a local library or bookstore if you wish to investigate further, rather than deleting what others have already directly obtained from his book and cited appropriately in the "Reference" section. I'm restoring as is.

See below for more on Science and Revelation. While I'm working on Science, would you mind taking a detailed look through "Mystery of origin"? I noticed some large discrepencies with sources as I've read and understood them. For example, weren't Parts I-III said to have come about in 1934 and Part IV in 1935? The current article says they came about piecemeal up until the 1950's. Another apparent mistake is how Forum and Contact Commission are said to be the same. The wording seems misleading and vague in a number of other places as well. Help is appreciated.

Wazronk 00:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Science criticism subsection

I've added section tag about disputed verifiability, this is to be addressed, as other editors also agree. Wazronk 00:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Verification, "Revelation" subsection statements

I've mostly restored the text to the "Revelation" subsection as it stood a few days ago. This short subsection in the article under "Criticism" documents the viewpoint of people who are critical of the claims of revelation and the most common reasons behind this viewpoint. Here are sentence by sentence source citations for the "Revelation" criticism subsection text as of today. Was a good exercise to go through and pull together these for the record. I'll made the necessary additions to "References" section of the main article.

Significant claims are made by the authors of The Urantia Book about its importance. The book states it is the fifth epochal revelation to mankind in all of history, the fourth having been the life of Jesus.

From the book.

The book has been in print since 1955,

Well-known, well-documented...

but in comparison to better known holy books that also have a recent origin, such as the Book of Mormon, it has not been widely distributed or accepted yet.

See previous citation above from December.

Unlike more high-growth new religious movements such as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Scientology, and Church of Christ, Scientist, the movement has no institutions such as churches, reading rooms, or temples and has not formed into a religion with membership.

All three of these religions / organizations have hundreds of such buildings across cities worldwide. All three have millions of devotees. See wiki pages for each. As has been stated so many times on this article, there is no central church around UB and no "membership." I've taken out mainstream Christianity since this is comparison of religious movements with modern origins. Apples to apples.

The Urantia Foundation has one office in Chicago and five people on staff as of 2004.

2004 Annual Report from the Urantia Foundation.

The claim of religious revelation has been criticized for various reasons. Skeptics such as Martin Gardner point to aspects of its science that they see as flawed as evidence that it is a product of human efforts.

See his book. I changed from "atheists" to Gardner to reflect specific citation. Note, Gardner is not an atheist according to some of his writings.

Those reviewing it from a Christian perspective who are unconvinced by its claims note that the book does not support fundamental tenets of orthodox Christianity, and at the same time claims to contain the real story of Jesus' life in Part IV. Some have considered it to be gnostic for this reason.

See citation above from December about Meredith Sprunger's attempts to introduce to mainline Christians. Yet another three "gnostic" assessments are recorded in the second Sprunger article below. See also this article [1] for a more vehement Christian reaction. (And it also considers it "gnostic"). But mainly see also Charts of Cults, Sects, and Religious Movements, by Dr. H. Wayne House, 2000, pgs 253-282, ISBN 0310385512 for detailed comparison to orthodox Christianity. Also serves as verifiable source for "Comparison to Christianity"

Other critics have felt that at over 2,000 pages — nearly twice the length of the King James Bible — it is too long, complex, and bureaucratic in its thinking.

Citation again from the Meredith Sprunger article above and also this one titled "Clergy Evaluate The Urantia Book I." [2] Sprunger sent the book to "ministers of one of the most progressive denominations of Christianity". Length of book and difficulty to get started a common comment. Adjective "too long" representative of the criticism. Also is commonly seen in book reviews. The word "bureaucratic" also quite commonly used by those with negative opinions and it is in the Sprunger article as well. Adjective "bureaucratic" representative of criticism. The Sprunger article also quotes the word "laborious" although with a slightly different context. I think it is an appropriate description, but a similar common criticism is that it is "overly complex." I've substituted "complex" for "laborious" since "overly complex" is a direct statement in this particular citation. The complexity of the book is also noted with criticism by Gardner.

Wazronk 00:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Verification, Deadsy and Miscellaneous

I put back in the Deadsy pop culture reference. Citation of song lyrics here [3], "mansion worlds" and "morantia minds" a theme as well as references to "Urantian girls". Image of "mansion" appears on CD art. Also corrected UB reference removal from Deadsy page, is verified as an influence. See also online interview / biography of band here that even starts with Urantia Book reference [4] ! I don't know about belief of lead singer.

Wazronk 00:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Wazronk,

Thank you for the fixing. It is improved yet again, but still has a long way to go. I think you should make your verification for "Deadsy" available in the article or at the end somewhere. I had looked on and off all over the internet for several weeks and never found your link above.

On the issues regarding your suggestion that I read Gardner's book, I can't get to it any time soon. So, I hope, since you have it and have read it you will be able to discern if anything is incorrect.

Per your request that I look over "Mystery of Origin" I made some changes and fixes last night. Today I made some others that had been on my mind for awhile. The article will seem to be too long until "Adherents", "Teachings" and "Comparison to Christianity" can be streamlined into a better summary style. I'll be interested in your input on all of that as well as anything new or old.

Hanely 19:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

With Deadsy, I didn't know about them, but a google search for "deadsy urantia" did the trick. If you're puzzling over anything else feel free to go fishing here on "discussion" for any suggestions.

The "Mystery of origin" looks better now. I'm still eyeing it as one that could stand to be more concise, and might turn to it again.

If you're of the mind that things should be streamlined more into summary style, that takes us back to prior discussions of how this article is best expanded into sub-articles, since summary style isn't just about slimming down but putting details into more appropriate side-articles. I can see many possibilities for "Teachings." Wazronk 03:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Teachings Edits

I've made some preliminary adjustments to the "Teachings" section. In previous renditions there was emphasis on Thought Adjusters while little to none was placed on the rest of the huge book. The main recurring theme as the section is beginning to reflect is "God as a loving Father and the relationship of Man to God and ALL THE OTHER UNIVERSE CITIZENS TOO. This is the FIFTH revelation full of details about these celestial inhabitants of a vast, vast grand universe. Jesus made "The Fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of mankind" a theme of the FOURTH revelation, the FIFTH expands it further: as the UB teaches: "widen the view".

I have run out of time today, I hope these first paragraphs are in good order, but would appreciate a review and any corrections needed. I realize at this time it still needs a summary style fix, but at least the information is getting out there.

Hanely 21:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Great job, I liked the edits. I did move a few things around but was minor. Wazronk 03:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Rearranging the sections/improving the overall summary

Dear Editors, Wazronk,

It wasn't until after I hit the "submit" button I realized that wikipedia recommends submission of redos like this to the talk page. For that I apologize, I am still learning.

Even so, I enjoyed Wazronk's last edits and the ones by anonymous editors as well.

I hope you will look over the rearrangement, consider the rebalancing of the flow of the article and let me know any other improvements you think should be made or just do them!

I felt the article contained a great deal of information that should be kept, just rearranged in a more presentable narration that is easier to read to anyone passing through. I don't think I've lost any concepts that have been previously contributed.

I agree with Wazronk about removing stuff about "Jesus, A New Revelation"... it doesn't really belong in the article about the Urantia Book, but perhaps could go into a separate article somewhere on copyright infringement cases, or maybe be submitted as its own article? I really do not know where it could go, I just know it was not appropriate here if the article is to stick with encyclopedic information that is useful to someone wanting to know what the Urantia Book is about.

I think this must have happened as editors came by when the article was first written mistakenly as "Urantia" and as a religious sect and all the controversies about the book were being submitted. While all this did happen, the article's first and main objective in duty to a Wikipedia reader is to inform them what is in the book...not all the history behind groups of people who fought about it. That history is real, and can and should be addressed, but in a more appropriate unbiased manner somewhere else ... either in the article (some of it is) or in forks? What do you think?

This article is now more appropriately about The Urantia Book - if the article can summarize what is in the book then I think it will be a successful entry in Wikipedia - then in the sections and subsections other articles and verifiable writs can be addressed in accordance with what i have learned about really good Wikipedia presentations.

Hanely Hanely 17:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the restructuring, looks good to me. I think one additional subsection should be a comparison to New Age, since some people do make that association. I've added it as a stub. I've also edited some of the titles. Note, wikipedia style of titles is to only capitalize the first word, eg "Comparison to Religious Teachings" should be "Comparison to religious teachings." Of course, proper nouns in titles should remain capitalized, eg "Overview of The Urantia Book".

Though it looks like a duplication in the table of contents to have the word "Comparison" in these subtitles, I think it makes for clearer reading when someone is down there in the article and not looking at the table of contents. See also ACIM article structure.

I removed "Secondary/controversial works" because, like you, I didn't think the material was a fit for this article, but also because I knew how it came about. It's history was different than you've imagined. Some people have a sensitivity about Part IV being talked about on its own, due to their beliefs in the inviolate cohesiveness of the book. In the section about considering it as "literature", past versions of the article have made statements like, "considered as a stand-alone book, Part IV has been...". This small sand grain triggered build ups of defensiveness about how interconnected Part IV is with Parts I-III... and then a tangent into past controversy about the printing of Part IV as a separate book... and then talk about legal battles, etc. At one time, all of this was dangling under "literature". As it was more about the movement and history, I placed it under adherents a while back. My personal recommendation is that if anyone cares to write about the history of the movement in a side article, that would be the best place to put information like this. Wazronk 20:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

A few things cleaned up today

I don't enjoy having to always scrub up these kind of errors but still they keep being added in a constant way, even major factual ones:

• The article previously described Adjusters as "leading" individuals, which is incessantly the word the book uses to describe their work. This was changed to "inspire", which I could not find ever used. If it is, it's very rare.
• The quote "All who will, may come" was made up and not in the book.
• The quote "the universe is one vast school" does not appear in the book.
• "Fusion" as an "explosion" is an invention. Was in the article with quotation marks as if in the book. Not once called an explosion much less a "stupendous and powerful physical [sic]" one. Made up and with hyperbolic language not meant for this type of reference writing.
• Elijah "chariots of fire" said to be from apocryphal Book of Enoch. Wrong. It's from the Old Testament (Book of 2 Kings).
• "Translation" watered down to be described as "likened" or "may be similar" to Elijah being taken to heaven in chariots of fire. Not true. Book directly says "chariots of fire" is a description of translation.
• From what I can tell there is an enduring misconception of "fusion" vs. "translation" with some editors. The terms are not the same. Fusion is more general and is whenever joining of Adjuster and human occurs. Translation is specifically an occurance of fusion in mortal life and part of it is the body being consumed as if by fire. Is factually incorrect to say, as the article said, that "fusion itself is a spontaneous immolation of the material body as the soul is translated".

How does the idea come about that the Elijah story is from the Book of Enoch or fusion is an "explosion" or that it's okay to make up quotes from the book? Think and please DOUBLE-CHECK FACTS before making edits. Wazronk 00:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello Wazronk, Hanely, and other editors:

I've noticed that Wazronk seems to be unable to use words that are there to add a more interesting flair to the reader of this article.

They are there to help avoid a very boring read using the same words over and over again. The intention in changing some words such as from "leading" to "inspiration" is actually a preferred style of writing for a reader - a thesaurus and dictionary have been used to check the validity of the word - and what does it matter if it summarizes the concept presented in The Urantia Book rather than the verbatim word use? Thought Adjuster are the "wind in the sails" and they NEVER actually LEAD. This is taught in all writing classes and is fair use of the English language when summarizing in one's own words.

On the use of the word "choice, or choose, or align" vs. accept...accept is misleading in that it implies passive puppets. The Urantia Book doesn't teach anything passive with regard to the individual learning how to align their own will that of God - or the "leading" of The Thought Adjuster. Mere acceptance is not really what goes on.

As for "translation" and "fusion" not being exactly the same - no, they aren't...also, fusion is NOT something that is "more general"...it is something akin to an explosion like a combustible that is SO terriffic the midwayers have to carry the fusion candidate high into the atmosphere of the planet for it to occur on planets like ours that do not have morontial temples that can withstand the event. If you want to differentiate between what translation and fusion actually and literally mean, then it would be helpful if you describe it more efficiently in the article so any reader can understand it - otherwise being a summary style article the two things occur as a result - fuse and translate to the new morontial world. I agree the sentence makes it sound like it could be but there was a whole paragraph describing it that you took out, Wazronk and I recall something you wrote before about trying to keep what is written without changing so much - someone else wrote that (bad in my opinion) portrayal of fusion that I tried to clean up.

In my opinion the whole section on "Teachings" is very misleading as to what the Urantia Book really is teaching and is not yet efficient material for someone searching to know the facts about what is in the book. I can't imagine a college student who might be doing a study on esoteric cosmology who comes across this thing and tries to use it in class... gosh.

I agree with Hanely on the issue that it needs revising - but I think it is so off balance that it should be wiped out and started over. I am talking about mainly the teaching section (but comparison to christianity is a mess that needs help too). I don't mean to sound "mean" but in reality the editors over time have added this and changed that so that now it is a messy hodge podge that doesn't read well, is boring, misleading, and not representative of the whole book. While I can see how that happened, it now needs to be redone.

If memory serves me correctly the story of Elija was in the book of enoch. But if that is incorrect, then please accept my sincerest apology.

According to the Urantia Book itself everything I edited is verifiable within the pages of the book as to being true and correct reflective summarization of some of the teachings it imparts. If you want to be directed to quotes, I will do so.

My suggestion is to structure the "teachings" section with the same type of outline as the UB. That is, summarize each part's teachings beginning with Part I and go to Part IV. That way the article won't get so bogged down with Thought Adjuster stuff and what is all that attention to personality when that is only a teensy tinsy bit of what the authors spent their time imparting to the Forum.

Mention Thought Adjusters in one or two paragraphs, personality in one paragraph, then get on with the summary of the book's teachings of the rest.

Sincerely!!

It's completely true I tone down flamboyant language, because I recognize that that's not what this particular site on the Internet is about. Sorry if you find it dry and want to jazz things up out of a sense that this is suppose to be an enticement or advertisement for TUB. So often the added "flair" here is in a way that completely sensationalizes and lauds the book in non-neutral language, and in the past the article has even out-and-out prosyletized. No way is that representative of the type of "flair" that could and should be brought to the table, if we were in some hypothetical other wikipedia realm where articles are suppose to be written that way.

Do you want "satanic" to be back in the article? Do you want the criticism section to totally blast the book with colorful amped up language? Because those sure peak the readers' attention too, if that's what you're after. If we were to really provide the reader with juicy flair, all sides get in on the action.

The neutrality policy cuts both ways and all sides should be presented in factual, straightforward language with verifiable references.

Policies, and wikipedia methodologies, and community standards for neutral language.... You know, it crimps my style too, but I respect that I'm a guest in this wikipedia world and I've carefully studied the rules and that's what I'm playing by. If you see anywhere that writings of mine aren't in accord with wikipedia standards, I am entirely open to suggestions for improvement.

I see the article's style as very much in line with the style of others on wikipedia, following the same policies. It's not exactly a best-selling shoot-em-up pageturning thriller to me either. That's fine to me. All I care about is that people find the organized and straightforward information they're looking for.

The purpose here is for the article to present factual and neutral point-of-view details about the book, the readership around it, and the main representative viewpoints of those who are pro and con about it.

As for the actual content and future growth of this article, I've made the same suggestion you've made. I'm completely fine with expanding the information on wikipedia to go into more specific details Part by Part for people who want those details.

But like I've said before, and something I'm sure is very clear to you, it is simply impossible to present the book's "teachings" comprehensively in this article. There is always more that can be added. There is always an inevitable argument that can be made about how such and such should be here or this and that shouldn't be. We need to think beyond the horizon of this one article.

Rather than jostling and elbowing for the limited real estate here, let's finally make some breathing room and create new articles. You want to go through the book in order, I'm completely on board, let's start one up for Part I, and get going on developing a detailed synopsis of its teachings. So much effort is being wasted because it's so narrowly focused on getting to a mirage of an ideal summary of all "teachings". In no way does this limit us from taking gems from a Part I article and putting them here as they are developed and polished. -- Wazronk 00:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I just added four new sub-sub sections under teachings, one for each part of the UB. Let's get rolling.

On the issue of Elijah, that story appears in the Bible in "Kings" I think. No problem, everyone makes mistakes.

I'm somewhere in the middle with anonymous and Wazronk on the issue of how the article reads. Wikipedia encourages a good flowing narrative. It doesn't really want boring. I have not seen anything inflamed as much Wazronk does, but to each his own. Together we can make it a good article. Some things are just "poetic license" and others are more "expository". A happy medium would suffice.

If we get the summaries fixed then we can see clear to separate articles maybe - and a little more on some of the links pending with nothing there. I still haven't figured out what is really ok for Wikipedia on the issue of certain topics in the Urantia Book and what isn't. Some things won't fit the criteria, I don't think. But I'm saving that for another day. Tackling Part I as a summary style encyclopedic entry is going to be a challenge and half.

Wazronk, your redo of the Criticisms/science subsection reads much, much better than before. Good job! Makes me happy! I don't know how to check for accuracy and bias or unbias with all that science theory, but as a "read" it is really good. It's informative, no passive voice, thank heaven, good sentence structure and grammar, and it makes sense to the lay person. I also like your addition of the link of glossary terms. Do you know if the glossary is correct, that is, have you checked it out for accuracy? I have not as yet. When I read the Urantia Book the words I didn't understand came into focus as I went or I looked them up ... no glossary needed, but for this article, yes, it's a good idea.

I like anonymous's changes, but they would have been better had the whole article been worked on in that style rather than just in spots. I hope this is helpful. It is ok to redo, just don't lose critical contributions and be ready to back up your change.

It is so much better than it was ... wow, look what a bunch of people can do together. Cool!

Hanely 05:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Hanely and anonymous editor,

I agree with both of you that it's no virtue for the writing to be "boring" here. That is fine and writing should be engaging. These are considerations that trump that:

• Is it verifiable? Much that I've seen added as flair is personal opinion and not backed by cited sources.
• Does it adhere to NPOV? Much that I've seen (both pro and con toward the book) does not adhere to NPOV.
• Does the more "engaging" style of wording still preserve the true meaning of the concept being described, or is something lost?

I would like to point out that some of us have read and reread the article text many dozens of time over the course of months. I've seen sometimes where the language is played with in a way where it seems to me it was likely fine before, but a person personally has grown "bored" with it. If we want fresh perspectives here, it is not hard to drop a message on a random wikipedian Talk page with an invite to have a look.

What I would like to get across to the anonymous editor, and which may not have been as tactfully done as it could have been the other day, is that this article is beyond the stage where it's okay to only put in a person's guess or best rememberance of what the book (or any other source) says.

Hold my feet to the fire on verifiability. Hold my feet to the fire on the accuracy of what I write. I've recently been called to account on issues of verifiability, and my response is that I've taken up the challenge, I'll continue to pick up my game. The article is better for it (I'm glad you like the Science edits, Hanely). That was a dust mote in my eye that I'm glad was pointed out, other editors have to watch out for these issues.

This is the dust mote that I see in the eye of the anonymous editor. You are imprecise in your recollections of what is in the book, and you do not take the effort to check the facts of your edits. I likely presented this in away that wasn't so conducive to you having the spirit of happily "taking up this challenge" of improvement, because of my personal frustration at the moment, but I hope that will be the end result for you. The article will improve, and trust me, you will also benefit from increased understanding. I've become much more knowledgeable about the book because I double-check and not infrequently find I have erroneous recollections.

I don't write people off and I look forward to the day when I double check your assertions and find they do match sources. Right now though, I find the majority of what I check does not hold up to closer scrutiny, over and over again.

In the past, you took issue with another editor who had not read the book but was making edits, and you sternly let him know in no uncertain terms that "no writer need contribute unless they have actually read the book." To me that editor had at least one superior quality however because he recognized and admitted what he did not know, whereas many times I see that you think you know what you know, but a comparison to actual text shows you have not faithfully remembered the text. So while I can mostly agree with what you told that editor, I will also add this: "No writer who doesn't bother to double check their facts need contribute to this article."

I'll choose the examples here for illustration, not to belabor points, but so you understand what the perception is from my point of view.

I made a list of problems I found with your edits before I gave up and just changed it to a previous state. I *double-checked* every one of my assertions. Your response showed that not only had you not done so yourself, but in defending yourself, you didn't even bother to check the accuracy of your strongly stated rebuttals!! If you show such careless unconcern for the veracity of your statements, why should other people take your edits seriously? You stated:

"Thought Adjuster are the "wind in the sails" and they NEVER actually LEAD."

My goodness. A simple search of the book comes up with pages of quotes where the Adjuster is said to "lead" a person. I will select just this one as illustration, partly because this one also says how people must choose to "accept" the leadings (as tons of other quotes also show), which you so firmly and incorrectly say is wrong:

Paper 5 - "[People] all enjoy the same divine presence of the gift from the Father, and they are all equally privileged to seek intimate personal communion with this indwelling spirit of divine origin, while they may all equally choose to accept the uniform spiritual leading of these Mystery Monitors."

A search for the word "sails" shows exactly one quote in the entire book:

Paper 159 - "Faith is to religion what sails are to a ship; it is an addition of power, not an added burden of life."

You make a statement that Adjusters are the "wind in the sails" and here is but one other example of exactly the sort of mis-remembered, invented quote that you so often have put into the article!

What should my reaction be when this is very nearly the rule whenever I look deeper for the basis of your edits and not the exception? What should my reaction be when in one session of editing I get to be zero out of six for confirming veracity? Should I really keep slogging to salvage maybe one or two statements that *maybe* turn out to be right?

The bar to reach is a little higher, now that the article has evolved for a while, and for that we should all be glad. If you won't take the effort going forward to verify your edits (or even the accuracy of your replies when called to account), you'll continue to see your edits drop from the article. This isn't anything about you but about making the article better.

I'll let you in on something. The book is too big to grasp for any person except brainiac freaks of nature with perfect photographic memory, which I'll wager none of us are. The book is available electronically for free. I have such a copy and can scan the whole book, and I do so often when I want to make an edit. I recommend you do likewise and learn a way to search the whole text. It's not my job or any other editors to constantly correct your mistakes. This is where the accuracy level is and the bar you need to rise up to IMO.

Hanely, I'm glad you like the glossary, I wrote it myself. Each entry was taken directly from a reading of the book's text. Any errors are my own and I hope they will be caught and corrected.

I had another thought since two days ago regarding this article. Like you, it crossed my mind to use subsections in Teachings as a stepping stone, rather than just launch articles. Some have said the "teachings" are too adjuster-centric. If instead we call this subsection, "God and the individual", or something similar, does that become an accurate "container" really for describing what's going on in the "teachings" section? I don't think adjusters should be over-emphasized either, but they do become pretty intertwined with the concepts of individuals and their relationship to God, their future, etc.

In terms of "boring" vs. "engaging", I think it may be more engaging to have a few over-arching topics rather than Part by Part breakdown. I see your edits and additions as one suggestion and a visual, see mine also that way. Your thoughts? Wazronk 22:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Wazronk,

OK, what a tirade. But I take your intention seriously and believe you actually are trying to mean well. We shall both be the better for it. However your treatment of me is about as good mine was of T.Anthony - maybe worse. On the level.

As for your charges yes, I agree to an extent. To the extent that I need to hone my communication skills. I will try and I will work to better my verification skills as well. For now, however, I am going to have to hold off of things due to personal life.

Regrettably, I should have used more tact with those working on an entry here who have not read the book. It is not in my knowledge base anywhere that such a thing would ever be tried - I wouldn't have ever thought to do that. It was a shocking realization to say the least. Books have beginnings, middles and ends. The Urantia Book is no different and to not read it as a book and then try to write and article about it is most odd! Though I doubt it it really matters to those who just thumb through it and don't ever get into it. Everyone thumbs through a book before deciding to read it or not. To have to think that someone would try to write an encyclopedia article without reading it is an amazing thought to me. I would never have imagined someone doing that - ever. Why in the world would people do that? Well, I can imagine it may have been some person who thought The Urantia Book was written by the devil or it was Satanic. How sad.

Anyway, I'll be away awhile -- Anonymous

Wazronk, I want you to know it has been very, very difficult to respect the points you were trying to make because of the way you made them. I made some changes and additions today I hope you don't just "delete" that isn't fair. --anonymous

Title of the Book

Editors,

Should the title, because of Wikipedia software connections to things like categories and other languages, etc. be "Urantia Book, The"?

People will not look under "T" for it.

Anonymous

Class Action Lawsuit against Wikipedia

http://www.wikipediaclassaction.org/

There is a class action lawsuit against Wikipedia for untrue and/or harmful content.

Be careful, Posting actually true, provable, unbiased content is best. When you go to this page, click on the icon on the left hand side of the page that says "Click here questions?" for more information. Among other important facts, it says "Where free speech ends is where injury begins."

User

Then why don't people who are feeling harassed just create an account, justify why the information in the article is fake, and then remove it or change it to what it is supposed to be? If people are refusing to stop reverting articles back to false information, then they can call a mod or something, or even bring in the arbitration committe, and then they can reaserch it and come up with a real decision, and most likely fix things. Have all the people in this lawsuit tried this?Homestarmy 02:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

objectivity in intro

Hi Hanely,

Would you mind clarifying the specific objectivity issue(s) you see in recent edits to the intro? I could only find one, the statement that "author remains unknown", which I imagine can be construed by some as implying there is an unknown human author. I've changed it to "no human author is associated" with TUB which is fully true and the best neutral statement I can think of that keeps concise and documents both believer and non-believer perspectives.

Basic information added in my edits which I'd like to hear your specific dispute about in regards to their objectivity, since I honestly don't see how these are anything but plain and simple facts, and have verifiable sources both from believer and non-believer perspective that they are agreed by all:

• Book came about in Chicago, Illinois
• Book originated from an unidentified patient of respected physician Dr. Sadler
• The exact circumstances of its genesis are a mystery
• The Table of Contents was written by Dr. Sadler's son, Bill Sadler Jr.
• Book says it was indited in 1934 and 1935, history of movement says it was refined post-1935 by revelators working through Contact Commission, skeptics say it could have been edited up until 1955. The statement "originated...sometime between 1934 and 1955" is wording designed to capture these varying viewpoints while getting across the point the book came about approx. 50-70 years ago (as opposed to 100 years ago or 1000 years ago)

The edits are meant to provide wikipedia readers with the most basic and elementary context. Mostly it only adds specifics and replaces less detailed wording about the same topics. Please let me know your specific disputes with either their verifiability or their neutrality. Also please note that my edits also fix a mistake that celestial-being designations appear at the end of each paper (isn't true for Part IV). Thanks. Wazronk 21:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Wazronk, Editors:

No problem, Wazronk. Sorry I had to leave before posting a message to you. I was delayed in getting back - and even letting you know I would.

In writing a short, general, introduction I think it is best when it is a summary of the contents of the book. So, I agree that readers here need only the most basic information: "What is the book about?". In fact, for me personally, I would not even include any history until later, but I have tolerated that being there because of previous editor's contributions. I personally would not write the entry that way, but apparently others feel they need to have that information there (though I suspect it is religion that has them doing it).

All the other information surrouding the book about the authorship, the mystery, the publisher, the doctor, etc. is expounded upon fully, later in the article to a sufficient degree. I don't think it needs to be explained any further for the Wikipedia reader in the introduction, in my opinion. I feel that "see _______" is sufficient considering the contents are clickable so as to take you to each section that gives a fuller explanation of those external things about the book's authors and history, etc.

Good catch about Part IV, I'll see if I can edit that back in some way!

I just don't feel that anything more is needed in the introduction because the history, authorship, mystery, and other stuff is sufficiently addressed already in the body of the entry. In fact, I think it would be a better composition if the introduction was only a generalized summary of the contents of the book leaving history, authorship, publishers etc. to the other sections.

I feel editors should try to steer away from the use of phrases like "as if" and "is said to", "many", etc. considering Wikipedia's suggestions about being bold and saying something straight out to avoid "peacock and weasel" edits. The way it was did that a little better, I think.

This is how I was taught to write papers in English in college...you have an article, an intro, an overview and then orderly sections. The reader doesn't need constant reminding that "the book says" or "the authors purport" and phrases like that as often as appear there now, so... I guess once you learn to "ride a bike" you always know how to "ride a bike".

An example might be that if I were to write an article here about "Goldilocks and the Three Bears" I'd say it was about __________ by _____________ and probably give a little bit about its publisher(s) and a generalized history. We know this is a rather condensed format to follow because there are a lot of interesting points to be made about the tale and even history surrounding its origin and creation. Same with the UB, but stick to the story itself, first and foremost, then go for the other things. See what I mean? In the end of the article should be a summary paragraph too.

Because The Urantia Book is so big and covers so many topics and at the same time has an interesting history surrounding it, it's easy to digress to discussing that instead of the "story" inside the book, which is what the Wikipedia reader would first want to know. With a single click on the contents links they can get more details.

What we have here with this article, and this is just my observation and opinion, at Wikipedia, is like a patchwork quilt that needs to have some patches moved to other parts, some patches added new, and other patches replaced in hopes to end up with a newer and better design which does a better job of covering a king sized "bed". But for me, it would be easier to just rewrite the whole thing and paste it in... but that wouldn't be very nice, would it?

Anyway, again, I'm sorry for the delay in writing back to you. I appreciate your hard work and hope that you'll keep on adding your good points.

Hanely 04:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Hanely,

I see your rationale, and thanks for laying out all your arguments, but still, all it really comes down to from what I can tell is that this is your own personal preference and opinion for the focus of the intro. Your opinion is that details like when and where it was written, and just a simple statement of who was involved, is not important enough to be in the lead. However, other people strongly feel this is very relevant and very basic information, and should be included.

My view is the latter, and it is not even just a personal opinion, but because of study of many other wikipedia pages. I have these as examples and outside support for my rationale:

• Bible
• Bhagavad Gita
• Guru Granth Sahib
• Book of Mormon
• ACIM

These all devote considerable lead space to the basics of history and authorship with specific details provided. Obviously these books all have their content. But the history and origin of the books are what sets the stage for the content, rather than the other way around. In fact, I'm unable to find any religious books on wikipedia where this isn't the case.

In return for this list, I ask that you please support your position with more than your personal opinion. I especially don't understand why a statement like " the table of contents is not attributed to a celestial author" is to be prefered over the same-sized sentence with heartier detail "the Table of Contents was written by Dr. Sadler's son, William Sadler, Jr.". My edits did not even increase the size of the intro but provided specific details in the place of general statements, so I don't agree with you that diversions were introduced. Details and more specificity were introduced. And this is bad why?

As for wording choices, I cannot agree that phrases such as "purports" or "the book says" are to be taken out the way you are suggesting (and editing). This is precisely how articles are suppose to be worded for neutrality purposes. When a statement is this:

• Numerous personalities, whose designations appear in the papers, collaborated to write The Urantia Book.

That is an assertion of fact and consensus and is neither for other wikipedia editors. That is only one viewpoint and not accepted fact.

Hanely here: Yes it is. Either human or divine there is plenty of information both in the book itself, Sadler's and other's writings and also in Gardner's that more than one individual, again, whether human or not, wrote the book. The sentence is generalized because introductions are SUPPOSED to be general info.

You aren't seeing what I'm seeing in this statement. No "human" personality designations appear in the papers. Only "divine" personalities. So this is an assertion that "divine" personalities collaborated to write the book and can't be read as being ambiguous either human or divine. Wazronk 22:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

What if I would write this sentence?:

• Dr. Sadler wrote the book as if presented by numerous personalities, whose designations appear in the papers of The Urantia Book.

Hanely here: That would be biased... one way or the other stating Sadler wrote it. See what I mean?

Yes. Just like it's biased to say that the personalities designated inside the book -- which are all superhuman -- collaborated to write the book. Wazronk 22:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Many people have that viewpoint. No hemming or hawing in that statement either, which is your argument for the reason to take out conditionals. I feel you would have a disagreement with it though.

Hanely here: I do because it is biased which doesn't belong here.

This statement however:

• Numerous personalities, whose designations appear in the papers, are said to have collaborated to write The Urantia Book.

Hanely here: I disagree with you because of the inherent meaning ion your phrase and usage of the phrase in the sentence. "Said to" by whom? To explain the details on that requires the information to be in the section addressing it... not in the intro.

We can clarify then that it is said to by the book itself. Wazronk 22:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a statement that is true to everyone. It is not asserting a fact that the book was a collaboration but is asserting the fact that it is said to be a collaboration with celestial beings. Here is the basic concept of neutrality from Wikipedia:NPOV:

• Articles without bias describe debates fairly instead of advocating any side of the debate.

Hanely here: "Said to" implies biased toward the side which doesn't want to believe in celestial authorship (in this sentence). Just as your "many" want to believe it was humanly authored, just as "many" want to believe in celestial authorship. See what I mean? It is a biased way to write it for sure.

What is your suggestion then? You don't seem to have noticed that the phrase was biased to your POV by stating that the supermortal personality designations collaborated, but now knowing that, feel free to make another suggestion. Wazronk 22:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

So often these bits of wording are removed by the supporters of the book and it very nearly always is done in a way so that their personal beliefs are asserted as facts over the viewpoints others have. This isn't a "weasel" word issue but a neutrality issue. And NPOV is policy, unlike much lesser "weasel" stylistic considerations. Wazronk 22:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Hanely here: Yes, "supporters" remove it in an attempt to be unbiased just like you do. The problem is using those phrases doesn't actually take away bias it just supports another view which is also bias of another kind.

I apologize for being a hurry - check out the better ways to write in your NPOV and take a look at true unbias.

True unbias tells the facts without having to resort to "said to" etc.

Wikipedia is trying to tell us editors how to avoid this kind of subtle bias by telling us to write it straight out.

Introductions are GENERALIZED for a purpose. Details go later. It is simple logic and also an accepted English standard. Details are never put in an introduction, but something general about the issue can be said. Even if the current introduction isn't perfect, which it isn't, at least it doesn't just pop off with some detail from some side issue which is discussed later in the article.

I am sorry you disagree with that. Just because other articles resort to that doesn't make them good, unbiased articles or even well written ones. Articles like that become ABOUT THE DEBATE and miss the POINT of the article's intention.

The good news is, you can always create sections or new articles to address your and other concerns about the debates and arguments surrounding The Urantia Book in their own appropriate contexts. You already have "sections" devoted to doing just that and these sections are best suited for laying out whatever "debate" you see as necessary to present. A history of The Urantia Book is not about The Urantia Book. A history of debates about The Urantia Book is not about the book, all of these are digressions from the entry here called The Urantia Book which is supposed to become an article about the insides of that book.

As for my opinion, you asked me, I gave it to you. But please think about it. Who needs a rocket scientist to know that? You appear to have an education and even say you wrote the glossary to words in The Urantia Book. I think you know how to write a good article that stays on task and on point.

Hanely 17:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I have more to add but will do it with regards to specific edits. Wazronk 22:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

God is love

In the Comparison to Christianity subsection, there is a list of religious teachings common to both Christianity and TUB. I've made "God is love" a quote because it is from both the Bible:

• 1 John 4:8 - "He who does not love does not know God, for God is love."

and TUB (just a few of many):

• P092 - "Jesus, the revelation of the highest type of religious living, proclaimed that 'God is love.'"
• P130 - "In answering this question, Jesus said: 'My brother, God is love; therefore he must be good, and his goodness is so great and real that it cannot contain the small and unreal things of evil.'"
• P134 - "The family of God is derived from the love of God -- God is love."

TUB at one instance makes this more nuanced distinction:

• P002 - "God is love, but love is not God."

Since I can only find that this is TUB specific and not a commonality with Christian doctrine, I've trimmed the clause "love is not God" from the comparison list and just stuck to "God is love." Please show how it's a teaching of Christianity (preferably from the Bible) if I've overlooked it. Thanks. Wazronk 21:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Funny! Today the pope comes out with his first encyclical, and it is titled .... "God is Love", or in the latin, Deus Caritas Est. My search through the text on the Vatican website [5] does not reveal the phrase "love is not God", however, I admit I haven't (and won't) read for paraphrased versions of the idea. Wazronk 02:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Hanely here: Wazronk, on thinking this over for several weeks I think maybe it should be removed from the list because the UB makes it so clear to explain how love is not God, but God is love - or perhaps put in the differences also? It is just misleading to leave it dangling out there without a little more clarification. Did you know that there are a lot of different interpretations to "God is love" and what it really means? Anyway, I hope I didn't miss anything, I have to run for now.

Hanely 17:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Hanely. Like I listed out above, the teaching "God is love" is a direct quote and teaching from numerous places in TUB (I could have added about a half dozen more quotes). Full stop, no further qualifications. TUB only makes the distinction, "God is love, but love is not God" (not the other way around, which is important in stressing what's important here IMO), on a single occasion in P002 that I can find, and doesn't really elaborate. It's a verifiable fact that TUB teaches "God is love", likewise the Bible and many Christian faiths. My read of the P002 text in TUB is that it is a moment where a slightly more philosophical commentary is attached to the idea, but one which in any case fully leaves intact the teaching that "God is love". You might disagree and see it as so much an essential that the absence of the "love is not God" statement hurts the factuality here. Instead of complicating with clarifications and interpretations, if you want to remove "God is love" from the end of the list item, I don't have strong feelings about it, feel free. "God is a loving personality" would remain. Wazronk 22:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Wazronk, Editors,

OK, I think I'll leave it for now until I make up my mind about counter balance somewhere...but you may be right to just take it off and leave the loving personality thing. Hanely 19:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Buddhism

I've added a Buddhism subsection. I don't know of outside references that compare it to TUB teachings so at this point the section mainly compiles a TUB-centric view of it. Primarily this is from Paper 92, Paper 94, and Paper 132. Wazronk 21:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Origin of Life

Hi Wazronk and Editors:

Hey, I discovered a problem with the internal link to "origin of life"; it looks like someone else did, too - it seems some editors don't want the book listed in "see also" and at least one doesn't want it listed in "origin belief".

Would any of you be interested in going to the articles origin of life and origin belief and checking those out to see if you think the UB should be linked there? What do you think about their "consensus" about the title of their article? What do you think? Why?

I think the UB should be listed in at least "esoteric" or "alternative" POV in at least one of them if not both, my arguments are posted in talk.

Also, would you make note of the impression some of these editors are getting about the UB from this article? What do you think? Observations? Aren't some adjustments needed if that is the impression? Do you agree there are nuances of false impressions? (see: Homestarmy 19:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC))

Thanks!

Hanely 19:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

PS - Today, I decided to remove the internal links to origin of life, that article is clearly unacceptable. Hanely 18:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)