Talk:The Urantia Book/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Missing material

I'm not at all sure this article yet meets our NPOV criteria. One aspect of the Urantia book that is discussed in some of the sources used but not in the article is channeling. Another is possible Seventh Day Adventist influence, and a third is a splinter group called The Teaching Mission composed of believers who think they are in touch with "unseen friends". These are all more significant than the Kary Mullis stuff. Dougweller (talk) 19:58, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure if I understand you correctly. Do you think that my editing changed this article from the anti-Urantia propaganda based on Martin Gardner’s biased book into a sort of pro-Urantia promotion and there isn’t NPOV? The addition of channeling and possible Seventh Day Adventist influence will definitely make the origin of TUB less unusual, but nearly every religious group claims that the origin of their beliefs is somewhat unusual or miraculous as the Book of Mormon printed on golden plates. I don’t think any addition of splinter groups to this article is a good idea since on the two main websites of this movement there isn’t any information about the continuous communication with the "unseen friends". As there are more splinter groups (Urantia United) it can be the material for a separated article. Kary Mullis opinions are only the top of the iceberg. There are about 25 examples of “unusual science” in TUB and it’s only a matter of time when they will find their way to publication as reliable sources. Jaworski (talk) 02:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Poor quality external links

User:Nebadonurantia is adding poor quality spam external links essentially identical in nature and of little value to the article.

• Paradise Organizational Chart based on the Urantia Book universalfather.info

• Paradise Descriptive Diagram based on the Urantia Book visionafar.com

• Nebadon Organizational Chart based on the Urantia Book nebadon.info

• Orvonton Organizational Chart based on the Urantia Book orvonton.info

I have removed them.Theroadislong (talk) 19:05, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Criticism of "channelling"

Found an interesting link here: The URANTIA BOOK on CHANNELING and the ‘TEACHING MISSION’ claiming that the Urantia book did not emerge as a result of "channelling". Illustrates pretty well the mechanism why religious movements tend to shut off "more revelations" and claim that one book/teaching is the latest valid "revelation", i.e. to protect against cultic leaders leading people "astray" in the sense of "causing grief". Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 05:07, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

On the 16 September 2012 Theroadislong has inserted a tag “A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject.” To find a possible resolution of this problem it would be good to know which editor Theroadislong speaks about as they are many of them? Jaworski (talk) 00:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I left a message on User talk:Theroadislong. If no response in a few days, I'll remove the tag. Further concerns can be addressed here on the talk page. Xaxafrad (talk) 18:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

It was this [1] that led me to tag the article.Theroadislong (talk) 19:21, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Perusing the discussion on the COIN, it seems the consensus solution was to rely on "print media not connect to TUB" to write a NPOV article. Any disagreements? Xaxafrad (talk) 08:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

To NPOV....and beyond!

That's an over-dramatic section title, but I think it conveys my point. Several sections have been suggested to bring this article close to a NPOV, and online, UB-promotional sources have been discouraged. I see little reason to disagree with these suggestions. I'd like to go through the references and identify those that are promotional in nature, and then remove the statements they support. As always, feel free to disagree and discuss. Xaxafrad (talk) 03:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

....I don't have any print references presently available, but I'll keep looking for them. Otherwise, my next idea is to see what remains after all electronic references are removed. Xaxafrad (talk) 05:51, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

....I finished excising the electronically sourced bits from the article, as shown here. If I don't hear any comments in a few days, I'll post the draft over the main article, which will most likely ensure some comments at that point. Xaxafrad (talk) 08:10, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

why info box is deleted? Rajcelem (talk) 20:13, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

why all "teachings" is removed? Direct sentences from the book about teachings will be consistent with NPOV? Rajcelem (talk) 20:26, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

The infobox is only missing because it's a user subpage instead of an article in the main namespace. I removed the teachings section because it was only referenced with the UB itself; I thought it made the article seem like it was a propaganda piece. Xaxafrad (talk) 07:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The sections "Teachings" and "Comparisons," as they currently are, need to be either drastically shortened, sourced to secondary sources, or deleted. As it is now, they're full of original research based on a primary source. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:36, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Basically agree with Ian. There are independent reliable sources I know of which discuss the subject of Urantia beliefs to at least some degree. Martin Gardner's book on the topic comes to mind, for instance. Material cited from them would certainly be acceptable. But for any religious or philosophical group, we do really need independent sources regarding their beliefs. "Comparisons" might be a bit more problematic, I don't know, but some of the independent sources might even deal with that. If those independent sources aren't produced, however, I would favor removal of the primary source-referenced material myself. John Carter (talk) 16:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I've gone on ahead and removed the Comparisons section. Books.Google won't let me check out Gardner, but I've found:

• The Invention of Sacred Tradition, by James R. Lewis and Olav Hammer, Cambridge University Press, 29 Nov 2007.
• Gnosis and Hermeticism from Antiquity to Modern Times, by Roelof Van Den Broek, SUNY Press, 1998.
• The Skeptic's Dictionary: A Collection of Strange Beliefs, Amusing Deceptions, and Dangerous Delusions, by Robert Carroll, John Wiley & Sons, 31 Jul 2003.

I will understand if the last of these may be viewed as POV, though I would argue that it would be acceptable for documenting WP:FRINGE beliefs the group holds. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:46, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I think sources can be POV, as long as our article isn't. Xaxafrad (talk) 07:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

from WP:PRIMARY: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge", why that statement is wrong: According to The Urantia Book, God is omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, infinite, and eternal spirit personality. Rajcelem (talk) 17:22, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

There's still the issue of due weight. The Urantia book isn't notable for most of those teachings, most theistic religions (especially the monotheistic and pantheistic ones) teach that the supreme being has those traits. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

This article is about a book and it is good to use the text of this book to describe its content. The Urantia Book is reliable source for its own statements. I don’t understand what kind of propaganda is in the description of the text of book with the references to specific chapters (papers). Everybody can read these references and verify the text of the article. Most of the Wikipedia articles about books use the text of the book as a source of its content. In the whole Wikipedia there is no policy that forbids the use of non-printed electronic media. Such sources are widely used in most of the articles. There are policies how to use it. I quote some of them:

"Websites and publications of political parties, religious groups, anti-religious groups, or any other partisan group, may exhibit bias and should be treated with caution. Neither political affiliation nor religious belief stated in these sources are in themselves a reason not to use them, as these websites can be used to present the viewpoints of these groups, if properly attributed. Such sources should be presented alongside references from other sources in order to maintain a neutral point of view." WP:RSEX

About self-published website:

“Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications”. WP:IRS

And some quotations from Reliable Sources Noticeboard:

“For some religions there is a wealth of academic sources, arising from a long history of theological study. If there is only a website, then that is what should be used.” [2]

“So much depends on exactly what the source is being used to support. For a statement as to the religious beliefs of the authors, the source is reliable. It might be reliable for a statement as to the beliefs of a specific group of people. It would not be reliable for a statement as to scientific fact, or to "counter" a statement of scientific fact.” [3]

This is the reason for restoring of teaching and other paragraphs, however I agree with Ian.thomson that the section "Comparisons" contains original research and I didn’t restore it as well as some speculations about ultimaton.

Jaworski (talk) 01:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

As I said just above you: "There's still the issue of due weight. The Urantia book isn't notable for most of those teachings, most theistic religions (especially the monotheistic and pantheistic ones) teach that the supreme being has those traits."

Also, you didn't just restore the web-sources, you removed Xaxafrad fine addition of secondary sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Jaworski: I don't want to simply dismiss your arguments without weighing them for merit, but it is my understanding your arguments have been discussed in a mediation forum (COI noticeboard), where the final consensus for this case was to avoid website sources. I'm not some a kind of hardcore dictator not willing to discuss specific exceptions, but we need to discuss exceptions for specific cases. Which website do you propose is a reliable source? (I'm asking that question seriously, not rhetorically) Xaxafrad (talk) 02:52, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

statement about god described in urantia book could be undue weight when appears on article about religion but our is about book, so why it is issue? Urantia Book is about god so such statements could stay. Maybe title "teachings" should be changed to something less promotional? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajcelem (talk • contribs) 20:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The issue with using the UB as a source for information on the article about the UB is that it is known as a "primary source". We need to use a secondary source to support statements regarding teachings unique to the UB; a published author who has analyzed the peculiarities of the UB can support statements about the nuances of the difference between the religion about Jesus and the religion of Jesus. Xaxafrad (talk) 20:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The online sources that I use are the websites of the major Urantia organizations - Urantia Foundation, The Urantia Book Fellowship and Jesusonian Foundation. All of them exist nearly from the beginning of Internet.

As for use of primary source please read the following link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_25#Bible_as_a_reliable_source

Jaworski (talk) 00:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Topics called for to achieve NPOV

Without meaning to interrupt the discussion above, I just wanted to add this subsection to maintain the call for sections on channeling, possible Seventh Day Adventist influence, and the Teaching Mission to reach NPOV, as requested by User:Dougweller. Xaxafrad (talk) 06:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Removal of non-print references

I tried to remove only the non-print, electronic-only referenced material from the article. I may have removed one or two electronic versions of printed sources. Feel free to revert as necessary, if I over-did it. Xaxafrad (talk) 09:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Per the discussion on the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard wherein Jaworski was identified as a biased editor, it was highly suggested that we, as editors of this article, avoid using electronic resources for references. Therefore, I will add another volley in this edit war. Xaxafrad (talk) 02:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit conflicted with you, was just going to save with the edit summary "Removing WP:UNDUE weight to WP:PRIMARY sources on topics that would be better interpreted through secondary sources (as explained on talk hours ago and again just a few minutes ago), restoring secondary sources that Xaxafrad found." Ian.thomson (talk) 02:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

In last message Xaxafrad wrote:

"Per the discussion on the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard wherein Jaworski was identified as a biased editor, it was highly suggested that we, as editors of this article, avoid using electronic resources for references. Therefore, I will add another volley in this edit war. Xaxafrad (talk) 02:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)"

This is totally untrue statement. I never was identified by noticeboard as biased editor. This was false accusations done by Wazronk. This COIN case went to the archives inconclusive.

As I see if you cannot answer my questions about Wikipedia rules (online sources), you try to discredit me personally. This "highly suggested" statement is a personal advice for me and not the policy of Wikipedia:

" If you want a way out of these constant challenges to the article content, I suggest limiting The Urantia Book article to books, magazine articles, and newspapers - print media - that is not connected to The Urantia Book."

The Urantia Book is a printed source too, so Xaxafrad you contradict yourself by removing the material based on this source. However, I use and I will use online sources as they are permitted in Wikipedia. The creation of specific policy for one article not consistent with Wikipedia policy can be considered as pure vandalism. Xaxafrad please stop inserting distorted information about me and about COIN Noticeboard.

Ian.tompson

I do not understand the reason for the removal of teaching from this article only because it is similar or identical with other religious views. The information about the content of book in the article about book has nothing to do with WP:UNDUE. I hope this time I didn't remove any material based on secondary source.

Jaworski (talk) 07:23, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

How did you manage to misspell my name that badly when you would have had to read it correctly to know what it was to begin with? Also, there hasn't been one policy created just for this article (though there are such actions taken in drastic times, and when consensus is behind it, it is not vandalism), but the application of WP:RS and WP:UNDUE combined resulted in online sources being the ones removed.

The Urantia book is not notable for the teachings that were detailed here and sourced to online sources (nor were many of those teachings especially unique), so it was undue weight to include them as if that is what the book is known for, and as if those things are especially unique to the book. So far, consensus is for keeping those materials out, because this isn't a Urantian Sunday school. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:43, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I am really very sorry for misspelling your name.

No consensus can overtake any Wikipedia policy.

Proper description of the book content or religious beliefs of some group is not a propaganda.

Jaworski (talk) 03:55, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I am attempting to insert accurate information. If I misinterpreted a lengthy discussion, or if I misspoke about that discussion, I apologize. After reading through the archived discussion about a potential conflict of interest in the authorship of this article, I came to the summary that Jaworski and Wazronk were the defendant and plaintiff, as it were, and Uzma Gamal and Dougweller were the mediators representing Wikipedia policy. I have been trying to push their agendas from that discussion as I have come to understand them.

Again, I apologize if I have falsely accused Jaworski of having a conflict of interest. I only made such implication due to the accusations I read about. I'm not familiar enough with COIN procedures to determine the outcome of an ambiguous case.

Judgments aside, where does the statement: "limiting the article to print media not connected to The Urantia Book," imply that the UB is an acceptable source?

Finally, I have to agree with Ian, in that community consensus has created a specific policy for this one article. All editors are, of course, free to challenge such a special policy. But the point, at the end of the day, is to abide by the decisions made by the admins. And if those admins make a mistake of some kind, there are procedures to appeal their decisions. Xaxafrad (talk) 04:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Consensus can overtake Wikipedia policy (see the Jesus article, where BC/BCE and AD/CE are used instead of just one format or the other), only Arbitration decisions override consensus. Policy simply represents site-wide default consensus for most articles. But that isn't even the case here, the consensus here is that the material removed was undue weight focused too much on primary sources. You've provided no policy that consensus here has gone against but only shown that, in the right circumstances (should they not go against WP:UNDUE or WP:NOR), primary sources may be used to discuss things that anyone who skims the work can note of it. That does not mean that someone can go through a book's various parts, synthesizing different portions of the work to give any sort of "definitive" list of what the book "really" teaches. Multiple editors have expressed concern or agreed with those who took action to address those concerns, so consensus leans with leaving those parts out. No policy requires those parts to be included.

"Proper description of a book" does not mean "detailed description of the religious beliefs," but "a summary of it's general plot, as determined to be notable by even non-adherents." Notice that the Bible article (which cites mostly secondary sources) says nothing about predestination or free will, rituals, mythology, or ethics. It barely mentions monotheism, and only off hand, when discussing the plot of the Bible instead of it's teachings. Notice that the Quran article doesn't even really discuss monotheism or zakat, central features of Islam. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:29, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I posted a request for advice on the NOR noticeboard. I'm not personally concerned about COI issues regarding editors, but rather am I concerned about issues regarding the content of the article. Xaxafrad (talk) 05:03, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

monotheism and others are described quite good in articles dedicated to them. Such article about teachings from Urantia book will appeaer when someone write suitable secondary source. Warnings about primary sources should be treated as info for readers and request for help, not as request for deletion. It's not Template:Unreferenced. Curiosity: The Hobbit has no single citation about plot, why no one noticed that? Rajcelem (talk) 19:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Please actually read what I wrote: I said that the article on the Bible and the Quran do not discuss monotheism much. On that basis, articles on religious texts are more concerned with their structure rather than teachings.

Until secondary sources appear on the Urantia book's teachings, we do not have to include it.

As for The Hobbit not having a citation for it's plot: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and it's fine to use the primary source to discuss the structure of the book. Notice that the critical analysis section is cited entirely to secondary sources, not once to the primary source. Following that example, this article could cite the Urantia book for the overall structure of the book, but should wait for secondary sources for the teachings section. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:36, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Could you be more specific about WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which part talks about plot in the books? Shortened adventures of Bilbo is a structre of book? What is plot of The Urantia Book then? Until secondary sources appear, primary could be used - that's wikipedia policy WP:NOR: "For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do". "Content" from article about Urantia Book should be reviewed for such analyzes and interpetings but not entirely deleted. Teachings from The Urantia Books is a plot as Bilbo adventures are. Rajcelem (talk) 20:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

A few comments, observations, and suggestions...

The COIN discussion that showed Jaworski's conflict of interest didn't result in a new policy specially made for this article, it was just a reaffirmation that core content policies are what need to be followed: WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR. Reliable sources need to be used, not questionable sources. For this topic, there are plenty of reputable print media third-party sources that are wholly adequate for making a top notch wikipedia article. So that's what should be used by default. There are actually very few electronic sources on this topic that meet WP:RS -- "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." The problem with electronic sources isn't that they are on a computer screen instead of printed paper but that they so often aren't from third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

The advocacy for a special policy situation just for this one article is actually coming from Jaworski as it happens. There is rather repetitive bluffing (or a willful case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT?) in pretending that there is a "policy" of WP:RSEX; see above for this once again. This is the basis (along with two posts from random people whose comments were dug from deep in noticeboard archives) of the argument to then allow for any ideas and speculations from believer websites to be pulled into the article, causing these continuing disputes and major quality issues. But nope -- WP:RSEX is not a policy. That is an essay. It's got a big statement boxed prominently at top: "Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion. Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines."

My two cents:

• It's inappropriate to include online sources from Urantia organizations into this article except for very basic factual pieces of information at most (see policy: WP:QS)
• Exceptional claims require exceptional multiple sources (see policy: WP:REDFLAG)
• I agree with the deletion of the Teachings and Comparisons sections for now, and I say that as the person who wrote a lot of the material. It was written in good faith from both third party sourcing and supplemental primary sourcing, but before in-line citations were being used in the article. I've intended to go back and add in-line citations, inspired by the excellent William S. Sadler article as a template. It's fine if it's deleted in the interim. When material is challenged the burden is on the editor who includes it to have the demonstrable appropriate sourcing. (see policy: WP:PROVEIT)
• Of course if any one else wants to undertake in-line sourcing of Teachings and Comparisons to third-party sources, that brings it back too. You can get Gardner's book and Gooch's book together off amazon.com for the price of a cheap lunch. I have those and the Lewis chapters, as well as most other sources.
• To the point I'm interjecting inbetween that Ian and Rajcelem are discussing (sorry about that): I do actually agree with Rajcelem that primary sources shouldn't be entirely verboten. But I think the shape of the topic should be from what third-party sources highlight, with only supplementation from the primary. See the "Contents" section of On the Origin of Species as an example. I fully agree with Xaxafrad, Ian, John Carter, William Connolley (in archives now) about WP:UNDUE concerns. On the topic from further up, I do disagree though that just because the UB is a public domain book now and online that it suddenly falls into a category of "online sourcing" that can't be used. Obviously it is a print book as well, and to the point Jaworski and Rajcelem make, it is the reliable source of its own statements, and strictly within the bounds of WP:PRIMARY I don't see why it wouldn't be ok.
• I think a goal should be to reach WP:GA status with this article Wazronk (talk) 00:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

To be clear: I don't think that primary sources are forbidden either, just that they should only be used for the obvious structure of the work, and not themes, teachings, or other bits of interpretation. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I misinterpreted and misspoke again regarding the COIN discussion and the suggestion to exclude non-print sources. I don't believe there is a hard policy especially for this article; I think I have a tendency to use strong language in the wrong instances sometimes.

Moving on....I'd like to highlight the main sections supported by the primary source: Overview, Content/Teachings, and Symbols. I think the content/teachings section should be removed, while the overview section could be expanded (slightly). Maybe symbols would be a logical subsection at the end of the overview? Xaxafrad (talk) 03:58, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, I'd like to share a top-notch analysis of the structure of the content of the UB. I wouldn't use it as a source myself, unless I can find something like it from reliable secondary source...unless community consensus will allow this as a specific exception. Xaxafrad (talk) 04:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

"Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities....". WP:ABOUTSELF

This policy is additionally explained in Wikipedia essay:

"Websites and publications of political parties, religious groups, anti-religious groups, or any other partisan group, may exhibit bias and should be treated with caution. Neither political affiliation nor religious belief stated in these sources are in themselves a reason not to use them, as these websites can be used to present the viewpoints of these groups, if properly attributed". WP:RSEX

Almost every article that explains religious beliefs uses websites of religious organizations as a source of their beliefs and activities - The Book of Mormon, A Course in Miracles. I will adhere to Wikipedia policy and the examples from the articles about religious books.

"The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context." WP:IRS

The Urantia Book is a reliable source for its own statements and in such capacity will be used in this article.

There is something interesting to read about such kind of sources on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard: [4] [5]

Ian.thomson wrote: "That does not mean that someone can go through a book's various parts, synthesizing different portions of the work to give any sort of "definitive" list of what the book "really" teaches."

Using The Urantia Book as reliable source for its statements I don't synthetise different portions of the work but I "summarize source material in my own words as much as possible" WP:V WP:OR

Editor Rajcelem did great work by adding the references from The Urantia Book, so every reader of this article can verify WP:V all these statements.

Even now, after deleting most of the teaching section there still remain one sentence about cosmology and one paragraph about Lucifer rebellion as the whole teaching of the book. Ian.thomson and Xaxafrad what happened to you, experienced editors of this article, that you left the teaching of the 2097 pages in this condition (below) for a several days?

Cosmology

The book teaches that the universe is the product of intelligent and purposeful organization.

History and future of the world

In the book, Lucifer is classified as a "Primary Lanonandek Son" and head administrator of his attending system. He proposed the concepts of personal liberty, self-autonomy, and self-assertion. These concepts were adopted on Urantia first by the head of its human affairs, Caligastia. By joining Lucifer, Caligastia caused the eventual collapse of the same fragile civilization he had come to guide as "Planetary Prince" of the realm.

My all attempts to correct this resulted only in edit war.

This is not only distortion of article but disgrace for Wikipedia.

Xaxafrad, you edited this article a few hours ago, but the teaching section was not extended. Still Lucifer is the main subject of TUB teaching. As if some editor reduced the teaching of Bible to a few sentences what the Bible tells about Lucifer or Satan. Why the religious beliefs of this small group of people are offended on the Wikipedia by editors with agenda?

This is totally unacceptable and I restore the former version.

Wazronk. About COIN. Stop talking about me in such manner that suggest that I have a conflict of interests. If you have any more evidence, reopen this case and we will talk about this in the appropriate place. On the COIN noticeboard you have offended the believers of this book by called them to have "a degree of paranoia". Do you have any evidence of your diagnosis?

Jaworski (talk) 16:28, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Neither A Course in Miracles nor Book of Mormon contain a section synthesizing the teachings from different parts of the book, as you keep reinserting. As I pointed out earlier, neither do the articles on the Bible or the Quran. Following the example of those articles, as well as the Pāli Canon, Rigveda, Principia Discordia, Book of the Dead, Emerald Tablet, Ginza Rba, The Satanic Bible, Oahspe: A New Bible, Isis Unveiled, and Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, we do not add a "teachings" or "themes" section unless it is sourced to secondary sources, because such sections would be interpretation, for which we do not rely on our editors but on secondary sources. WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:RSEX do not override WP:PRIMARY or WP:SYNTH. That the the citations have to jump about to various parts of the Urantia book (instead of being in straight order) is an indication that it's synthesis, not summmary. Summarization that is not synthesis would be straight forward and only about the structure, not it's themes or meaning (as with the plot summaries for The Lord of the Rings or The Hobbit). Even then, secondary sources would be preferable, as with the Bible or Quran. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

You didn't give any examples of the synthesizing of teachings. But your attitude toward other editors is clearly explained by your own statement: "I just hate everybody and have a strong desire to crush your work"

Jaworski (talk) 18:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

The section "Nature of God" has to combine sections from papers 1-3 (ok, in order) with 6, 8, 10, 21, 32, 105, 117, and 196. That's not a straighforward summary, that's synthesis, no matter how much you refuse to acknowledge it. It would be really tendentious to make me count every single instance of WP:SYNTH in that edit. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:52, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

As Ian hasn't defended himself, I'll explain that the 'I just hate everybody' is taken out of context. It's from User:Ian.thomson/MeVsXians and the full sentence is " I just hate everybody and have a strong desire to crush your work for stupid reasons like not following the site's arbitrary guidelines, that I totally make up just to mess with you." which is actually a link to Wikipedia:Sarcasm is really helpful (and please don't take that literally either, read it). Dougweller (talk) 21:34, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I haven't expanded the teaching section of this article because I don't yet have any printed secondary sources available to me. If this article remains in a sad, pathetic, unfinished state for several more months, until the teaching section can be better fleshed out, then so be it; Wikipedia is known to be a work in progress. I think I've seen a template that puts up a box asking for editors to expand an incomplete section.

And to consider another option, how about we simply remove the abbreviated section about the book's teachings? I think the currently unreferenced and unchallenged overview section does a suitable job providing a summary of the basic topics covered by the UB. Xaxafrad (talk) 02:14, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Suggested article restructuring

After scanning over Ian's list of examples of similarly themed articles and making a table of their major sections, I came to the following conclusion of suggestions to streamline the conceptual organization of this article:

• rename teachings section to content
• move overview to subsection in content section
• rename authorship section to background
• move copyright section to subsection in background section
• move symbols section to subsection in content section
• make influence section
• move adherents, teaching mission, and popular culture sections to subsection in influence section

I'll be bold and do it myself when the article is editable again, but for now I'll post these ideas for discussion (and so I don't forgot them). Xaxafrad (talk) 06:55, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

....I made a draft example of the above changes. Xaxafrad (talk) 07:09, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

"Symbols" isn't really hardly anything from the perspective of what's the "content" of the book, and sources indicate its notability is more from how it's been given importance by Urantia organizations and adherents, I think it's still best where it was before. In terms of "teaching mission", I'm not quite convinced of its merits as a standalone section. The one or two sentences about this were in their own subsection but it seems fine just within "Adherents" really. Wazronk (talk) 04:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Primary versus Secondary Sourcing

Dnelders (talk) 17:34, 24 November 2012 (UTC) I have a question about the Wikipedia article on The Urantia Book. I am new to this process so forgive me if I do not do this properly.

For the record and to be completely transparent, I am a long-time reader of the book and although I am currently not affiliated with any of the social organizations, I have served over the years in various organizational roles. Because I am a reader and because I often send folks to Wikipedia to learn about The Urantia Book from a reliable, independent source, I was a bit dismayed recently when I logged on and saw that a good amount of informational material had been deleted from the article. Though I have had my account for a year or so, I have only made minor edits once or twice mostly because I felt the article was fairly balanced in providing both information about what is offered in The Urantia Book along with measured, independent criticism. From some of the editor commentary on this TALK page and from a recent complaint of Conflict of Interest, I wanted to understand the reasons for this deletion of material before adding this comment to the TALK.

My primary observation is this: for whatever reasons The Urantia Book has not to date generated a body of independent authorship to support its claims. Most of the meager amount of independent authorship has focused on criticism. So even though I appreciate the intent on the part of Wikipedia to insure that the content of an article for a book like The Urantia Book is based on independent, published, secondary sources, that is not yet possible for The Urantia Book. As a result, for the Wikipedia article to be informative to a reader seeking to learn more about it, there seems no other option than for the book itself to be used as a source to inform Wikipedia readers about its content. If that is not consistent with Wikipedia rules, the article ends up as it appears today—a little bit of descriptive information and the rest independent criticism. That hardly seems to represent a fair-minded portrayal of the book's contents and structure for those folks logging on to Wikipedia to learn what they can as a part of their presumed intention to decide for themselves whether it is true or not.

Finally, I came across an article on the Science of Mind and noticed that the primary source for much of the content of that article came from Ernest Holmes' original writing (there may be other similar articles as well). I wondered in what ways that article differs from The Urantia Book in the use of primary sources? Your responses could help me understand how the article could be made better in the context of the Wikipedia protocols.

It's just not that notable. As a reader/believer, I wish we could fill this article with all the nuances that make the UB attractive to myself, but that's not what Wikipedia is about. There are plenty of other websites that Google returns when you type the word "urantia" that go into significant detail on the book's teachings, but we've come to a relative consensus that, as Wikipedia editors, we're going to rely on non-electronic media for referencing. That we shouldn't use the book itself as a primary source is a general Wikipedia policy. When we can find an independent, reliable, and verifiable, third-party published source for details on the specific teachings of the UB, I'll be right here, expanding that section as much as would be appropriate (and possibly more). Xaxafrad (talk) 18:37, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with the decision that the text of this book as well as electronic media should not be used as sources of this article. There are many critical secondary printed media about this book but I doubt if they can be used in the description of its content. Xaxafrad, you claim you have consensus. Probably you right, but it would be much appreciated if you present editors who support you, as for me the position of some of them is unclear. I am going to withdraw myself from the editing as well as from future discussion for a long time. I will be quiet observer of editing process and I will learn from you how to build a good article with NPOV. Good luck.

Jaworski (talk) 00:03, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe if you tried actually reading what other people actually said, you wouldn't be so disappointed. It wasn't decided that primary sources cannot be used, it was decided that they were being used improperly, and should only be used for the overall structure (or "plot") of the book, within the limits of due weight. The application of this resulted in the electronic sources being removed. How many times does this have to be explained? Xaxafrad isn't claiming to have consensus, he's pointing out the bloody obvious! He's not probably right, several editors, including many with no prior involvement, and most (if not all) with more experience than you and Xaxafrad put together, have said that the article was full of WP:PRIMARY WP:SYNTH. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:02, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is the case, as in the WP:FTN post. History2007 (talk) 09:25, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:FTN

I saw a discussion of this on WP:FTN and as stated there, I also think there is way out primary sourcing, WP:SYNTH and and undue amounts of WP:Undue here. History2007 (talk) 20:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

William S. Sadler referencing style

Looking at the FA'd article on Dr. Sadler, I thought this article should imitate it. And instead of having a section on references to the UB, perhaps it should be transitioned into a notes section, in the style of Sadler's article. Xaxafrad (talk) 10:17, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

It's called the shortened footnote style of citations, see Help:Shortened footnotes, I've been intending to switch the article over and just took care of that. Going forward, it's a superior way to reference citations down to the page number, which is an area where this article can stand to be improved. Wazronk (talk) 04:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Wow, that looks much better. Awesome work! Xaxafrad (talk) 04:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I should also mention, there are a few new sources in the bibliography for use in the article that aren't actually being used just yet (eg, Lewis 2003, the Maaherra court case, the Wilensky-Lanford book). But, they're ready for anyone who wants to look into adding material from those too. Wazronk (talk) 04:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Expanded Contents: Overview Section

I think that the article could be more informative if the Overview section was expanded somewhat to provide readers of the article with a sense of the subjects/concepts addressed by the authors in each section. I have prepared an expanded section but before editing it into the article I wanted to have a few more experienced editors take a look at it to make sure it is consistent with Wikipedia protocols. You can find it here. Dnelders (talk) 17:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

After wikification, formatting the footnotes, and some minor wording changes, my opinions are these: a little heavy on what could be called original research, or undue weight, or POV pushing, or something. I'd like more references from Locke, less UB-imitative exposition, and I'm not sure about the reliability of Keene-Lund's publisher (just based on their name...Locke's book seems as reputable as Gardner's). All said, it looks like a good start. Xaxafrad (talk) 19:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Your help is very much appreciated. Keene-Lund's book is a substantial, 400 plus page book of some depth, that was some 12 years in the making. However, I am unable to validate the reliability of the publisher either. Having said that, what is my next step? Further editing referencing Locke? If it ready to be edited into the article, I am unsure how to take that step properly.Dnelders (talk) 19:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if "Document It! Publishing" is acceptable or not...I hope other, more knowledgeable editors will share their opinions eventually. I couldn't find any Google results for the publisher that existed outside of a connection to Sheila's book; she may have been working on her book before the publisher had starting doing business. More Locke refs would be nice...I would rather read Locke's description of the various parts of the book than read a list of paper titles formatted in a sentence. Personally, I think a good rule of thumb for comma delimited lists in sentences is to have a maximum of 3-5 items, anything approaching 7 or more should be made into a bulletted list or something that's not a sentence. Xaxafrad (talk) 19:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I will do additional revisions tomorrow in line with your comments while awaiting additional editorial input. I did a bit of research and determined that Document It! Publishing is a publisher Keene-Lund founded in 1991 that specializes in procedures analysis and documentation for Fortune 500 companies. Would that automatically disqualify it for this use? Dnelders (talk) 19:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The article really should stick to reputable independent publishers. For self-published books like Keene-Lund's, see the policy on wikipedia about using those, WP:SPS. There's plenty to draw on from other sources that don't have that issue though, and also there's a helpful pattern in secondary sources in that they commonly are drawn to similar topics, which does point the way toward highlights to cover in the article: the book's cosmology, various aspects of the book's theology, Jesus, Adam and Eve, comparisons to Christianity, comparisons to Seventh-Day Adventism. Sources do tend to summarize the structure of the book similar to the "Overview" section in this article but it's in a minimal way. I don't think "Overview" should be expanded much beyond its current size really (if any). Wazronk (talk) 04:34, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

What about references to Urantia Book text in Overview section at least as many as to the Gardner Book ? Rajcelem (talk) 17:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I was trying to avoid using primary sourcing. The few UB refs I included I took from Gardner's book. Xaxafrad (talk) 21:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

References from secondary sources are necessary, but why avoid primary sourcing? Rajcelem (talk) 22:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Article categories

I'm removing the category "UFO religion" and adding "Religious texts". The reason for the latter should be obvious, and the former, in my opinion, carrier incorrect connotations. The book may assert the existence of aliens, but they are not worshipped, they are not a source of knowledge, and they do not travel across space to meet us; the book only mentions aliens in the context of physical planetary inhabitants, the starting point of a vast spiritual career in the afterlife, which is the main focus of the first 1400 pages. If the Caligastia, Adam, Eve, Machiventa, and Jesus incarnations, and angelic appearances count as alien visitation by spiritual beings not born but created, if all that qualifies the UB as promoting a UFO religion, than the category should stay. Any objections? ( <-- friendly tone of voice, not angry) Xaxafrad (talk) 09:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the category was added by someone based on there being a chapter about the Urantia Book in the book titled "UFO Religions" (Partridge, 2003). The chapter was by Sarah Lewis, who 4 years later also had a similar chapter in the book "Invention of Sacred Traditions". The "UFO Religions" chapter though, when you actually read it, doesn't have anything about the Urantia Book being considered a UFO religion and summarizes it instead as you'd expect, as a supposed spiritual phenomena not a supposed UFO alien phenomena. Long story short, agree with your removal of the category, based on what the source says. Wazronk (talk) 17:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Channeling section suggestions

Soon, my next effort will be in adding Gardner references concerning channeling and the UB. In my view, there should be two new sections added: first, pre-publication claims of channeling, focused on William Sadler and Wilfred Kellogg, and second, modern day channeling, focused on the Teaching Mission and other groups and individuals. Barring suggestions from others, I plan to create a "Claims of channeled material" subsection in the "Background" section to cover Kellogg's story, and "Teaching Mission and other channelers" in the "Influence" section. Xaxafrad (talk) 07:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The effort you all are making in improving the article is clear. I do have a question, however, on the overall balance of information in the article. A preponderance of the text focuses on authorship, ownership, and criticisms--all valid aspects related to The Urantia Book. But for a reader who reaches out to Wikipedia in an effort to understand what the book actually offers for their consideration and evaluation in terms of conceptual knowledge, especially new concepts, I would observe that the article as now constituted simply does not provide much in the way of that information. A knowledge-seeker may learn how the book is purported to have gotten here and that it claims to be a revelation. They will also learn why some folks doubt that origin based on the skepticism of a few secondary authors like Martin Gardner. But they won't actually learn much from the article about the conceptual material included in the book which would seem at the end of the day to be the reason the book's article is in Wikipedia at all. Said another way, if the only knowledge of apparent value is the controversy over authorship and ownership, that would hardly seem to qualify as useful knowledge for a people's encyclopedia. As I wrote previously, there just isn't a sizable body of independent expository authorship focused on the book at this point, either supportive or critical, despite the fact that more than 700,000 books have been printed and distributed worldwide since 1955. So, if there is some editor agreement about this lack of balance, how can it be corrected to make sure the article offers Wikipedia users the knowledge they seek? Dnelders (talk) 16:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree, there should be more information about actual content, for example Talk:The_Hobbit editors agreed, that plot does not have to be sourced at all. I hope "Teaching Mission" would be well referenced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajcelem (talk • contribs) 22:31, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I think (correct me if I'm wrong) the article should contain pro and con facts about the Urantia Book in an organized, preferably well-written, format. You say there's a shortage of pro-facts in this article? Also, which UB concepts would you recommend adding (Thought Adjusters comes to mind)? Xaxafrad (talk) 11:38, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

In response to your question about which UB concepts might be considered for inclusion, I have copied the text of a paper drafted years ago by Dr. William Sadler outlining 64 knowledge concepts he believed were original to The Urantia Book. I offer this not to suggest that it be included in the article but only because it provides the most complete listing of new conceptual material in The Urantia Book of which I am aware. Sadler's long involvement with The Urantia Book put him in a fairly unique position to assemble this list. You can find it User:Dnelders/sandbox. Dnelders (talk) 17:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

That looks like a lot of primary references. I don't think we should put in a 64 point list. How amenable is that list to converting to prose? Xaxafrad (talk) 08:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I uploaded the list for information purposes only. I also don't think it is appropriate as is. After the first of the year I will do more research to see if Sadler's list has been published and/or I will see if there is a way to convert the more important new concepts to prose treatment. As you can see from the list, there are a number of significant conceptual items and a number that represent less significant conceptual knowledge The more important include the concept of the Thought Adjuster, the bestowal of unique personality, the claimed prior divine identity of Jesus, the entire narrative of the concept of mind stepped down to our level, the asserted details of our universe career after bodily death, the origin, nature, and destiny of the soul, etc. I suspect that we might identify 4-5 new concepts in each of the four parts of the book. Dnelders (talk) 19:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Proselytizing UB concepts on Wikimedia projects

Upon some thought, I have concluded that Wikipedia is the place for facts about the Urantia Book. Wikiversity is the place for facts of the Urantia Book.

....Is that a clear idea, or should I explain some of my thoughts that led to it? Xaxafrad (talk) 03:57, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that no Wikimedia project is for proselytizing any worldview (simply for explaining it), but if I'll grant that Wikiversity is more open to including POV material and original research in the right places with the right labels. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I understand your point but would echo what is said above--the intent is simply explaining, not proselytizing. As I noted in an earlier comment, it is not about a detailed exposition OF the concepts offered in the book but rather a straight-forward and factual statement providing information as to what subjects it addresses, what it is ABOUT. Other than the very short "Overview" section, the current article focuses mostly on authorship, ownership, and criticism--all valid topics which would seem useful only in relationship to how the book got here, who publishes/reads it, and some descriptive information as to what conceptual knowledge it addresses. So if a Wikipedia reader, typically using the words, The Urantia Book, as a search term finds his/her way to the article, do they find a balanced presentation of the information they are seeking? Dnelders (talk) 19:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Xaxafrad's been doing a good job of about in the proper Wikipedia way of using secondary sources. If one wants to put one's own interpretations of the Urantia book somewhere, Wikiversity would be more appropriate. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Basically, I figure brief explanations of UB-specific concepts are appropriate for Wikipedia, but the more nuanced details of aspects of Urantian philosophy should go on Wikiversity, a project designed to elucidate such teachings (although I'm not sure what the requirements are for verifiability, or other criteria). Xaxafrad (talk) 08:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Tertiary sources

Wikipedia policy on No Original Research (for quickie reference):

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to the original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

Tertiary sources are publications such as encyclopedias and other compendia that summarize primary and secondary sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source. Many introductory undergraduate-level textbooks are regarded as tertiary sources because they sum up multiple secondary sources.

Policy: Reliably published tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other. Some tertiary sources are more reliable than others, and within any given tertiary source, some articles may be more reliable than others.

I'm not sure if these exactly qualify as 2nd or 3rd sources. Reading the online version of the Skeptic's Dictionary, it seems most of it references Gardner, but some statements could be used in a secondary reference manner, so I'm still not sure.

• Carroll, Robert Todd (2004), The Skeptic's Dictionary: A Collection of Strange Beliefs, Amusing Deceptions, and Dangerous Delusions, Wiley Press, ISBN 978-0471480884
• Landes, Richard (2000), Encyclopedia of Millennialism and Millennial Movements, Routledge, ISBN 978-0415922463
• Mather, George A.; Nichols, Larry A. (1993), Dictionary of Cults, Sects, Religions and the Occult., Zondervan, ISBN 0-310-53100-4
• Melton, J. Gordon (1990), New Age Encyclopedia (1st ed.), Gale Research, Inc.

Does anybody have these handy? Xaxafrad (talk) 09:52, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Examples and examples of bad UB science

Criticizing the UB's science isn't difficult...maybe we can do it without an excessively long bulleted list? Maybe the article reads fine without the list at all? The remainder of the criticism section doesn't seem too short, but I haven't yet read it in it's new form.Xaxafrad (talk) 07:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The real issue is the original research and unsourced material put into the article. Heapings of it had been added to the section without independent third party credible sources, such as:

• A WP:OR analysis of age of life on Earth from science vs. from the UB
• A full extra WP:OR paragraph on Mercury that didn't even make sense and only had a citation to a self-published website of a Urantia prosyletizer (plus another full paragraph of a quote from UB about it)
• Concerning the insertion that the "commonly accepted lineage of the human species ... includes the Chimpanzee in its sequence", this statement isn't true, for one thing, and then beyond that was used as the basis of someone's WP:OR.
• The insertion of the idea that UB's "sudden mutation" idea of speciation is compatible with punctuated equilibrium isn't true and is WP:OR

Etc. There's ultimately a limit stylistically of course to what makes sense to have in a main article, but to the extent that a topic is rooted in solid credible sources, that's what daughter articles are for. In this case the issue of tightening up the section is solved simply by adhering to wikipedia core content policies. I've returned the well-sourced informative criticisms that were deleted, added citations sentence by sentence instead of the broader citation to Gardner's book that was previously in place, and left out this WP:OR material that had been added. Wazronk (talk) 06:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Revisions for NPOV and more complete treatment of article's subject

I've finished a broad survey of secondary and tertiary sourcing on the topic. On the sourcing front, in the absence of adequate citations for the material about the contents of the book, late last year an editor started to methodically go through the article sentence by sentence and annotate each with links and citations to places in the UB where that sentence's statements could be supported. Some sentences had as many as five annotations each. It maybe was a WP:GOODFAITH effort with the idea of showing each point as being WP:V back to the UB, however the result was pretty over the top, with a flood of over a hundred of these link spam annotations, giving an impression that everything was simply from WP:PRIMARY when that wasn't representative of the background of the material's inclusion. It also had a proselytizing feel like it was trying to lead people into clicking into the book instead of simply providing an encyclopedia article, misusing citations as spam into the online text of the book.

Though an explanation of the UB's main contents had been developed a while back with secondary/tertiary WP:RS, the primary source, and wikipedia content policies, and with input and contributions from many editors over time, the bulk of it dated to an earlier time when the references were simply listed at the end of the article instead of with in-line citations. For a while the article has been in need of conversion to a more rigorous level of in-line citations. Essentially every secondary and tertiary source on the topic spends a fair bit of time trying to explain what the book's contents are and what the book is about, and nothing else is to be expected in the article as well. Almost all of the sources compare it to other topics to better convey and categorize what it's about (Christianity, SDA, other similar books, etc.).

I'd been intending to put in-line citations in place to the secondary and tertiary sourcing, and have gone and done that now after having a chance to revisit the major secondary sources (Gardner, Gooch, Lewis 2003, Lewis 2007, House) and several tertiary. Supplemental points from primary are according to WP:PRIMARY. Mainly this has been an exercise in WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM.

Various other miscellaneous edits:

• More informative lead to the article
• Changed subsection title from "Authorship and publication" to just "Authorship", since "publication" is just half of a sentence in that section
• Deleted redundant small sub-section about Wilfred Kellogg. The main point is that Gardner thinks he was the "conduit", which is already explained in the "Authorship" section.
• Due to reinstatement of more detailed WP:V description of book's contents and main concepts, streamlined the bulletpoints of the four Parts of the book. Also, fixed titles per WP:MOS (quote marks not italics)
• Added comparison to Seventh-Day Adventism
• Rewrote "Other comparisons" to reflect secondary sources instead of being based only on primary
• Reinstated detailed science criticisms that had been deleted

Feel free to share any comments and ideas for further improvement. Wazronk (talk) 06:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I would like to observe that from my perspective your recent editing and that of Xaxafrad has improved the article, especially the balance between knowledge about the Urantia Book's content and the commentary about its authorship, ownership, and criticisms. I will see if I can dig up copies of the sources Xaxafrad listed above. Dnelders (talk) 15:15, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow, Wazronk, that was a massive edit, in both quantity and quality. I scanned through it, and it is nothing but an improvement to the article. You should get a barnstar! I think I'm now interested in promoting this article to the GA nomination committee. Xaxafrad (talk) 04:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:The Urantia Book/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

==Initial rating== I'm actually unsure whether this article might qualify for GA-class and mid-importance status, and hope a second opinion will concur one way or the other. Xaxafrad 19:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC) Hi Xaxafrad, I would tend to think a B rating is about right at the moment, after reading through the rating scale. Some improvements to me would include more visuals (eg a photo of the Sadlers), and perhaps a rewrite of the cosmology section, which is probably overboard with the lengthy bulleted list and terminology. I've argued before that a more specific topic on "Jesus" in TUB is a large gap under the "Teachings" sub-section, although a person who doesn't know the topic wouldn't miss it. Would be nice for an independent assessment to get a further sense for what might bring the article to the GA level. As for importance, Wikipedia:WikiProject Religious texts/Assessment makes this statement for one of the ranking levels: "Few readers outside the atheism field or that are not students of religious texts may be familiar with the subject matter. It is likely that the reader does not know anything at all about the subject before reading the article." To be honest I would tend to think this best summarizes the book out of all the options, unfortunately this is considered "low". A "mid" ranking would mean "Many readers will be familiar with the topic being discussed, but a larger majority of readers may have only cursory knowledge of the overall subject." I think that's an overstatement of the familiarity an average person has on the book. Wazronk 01:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC) == Raison d'etre == Why do talk pages have subpages? A talk page with a subpage for comments sounds redundant by definition, but it must've made sense to somebody in the past (hrm, if I'm the creator of this page, I think I followed a link to do so). Today, this seems obsolete and deprecated. I recommend speedy deletion, under the general housekeeping criteria. Or Proposed deletion, or whatever is applicable. Second thoughts, please? Xaxafrad (talk) 07:08, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Last edited at 07:08, 19 December 2012 (UTC). Substituted at 20:52, 4 May 2016 (UTC)