Talk:William S. Sadler

(untitled)

Something about this strikes me as vaguely POV, but I don't know enough about the history of American psychology to say. It would be nice though if it had some kind of, preferrably non-Urantian, source for statements like "regarded by his colleagues as a professional researcher of considerable integrity", "considered one of the world's foremost authorities", etc. I did find a site on the chautauqua scene that stated he was known for exposing medical quackery and one on Adventism that said he was known as a physician. So it might all be legitimate, but it would just be nice to know where these accolades came from.--T. Anthony 08:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Improvements

A few months ago I made some minor edits to this article to lessen POV. It was the first article on Wikipedia I edited. Current article is a great improvement, day and night type of change. Should it still be considered a stub?--Edivorce 16:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Sadler published a book titled Long Heads and Round Heads in 1918, which attempted to explain how the German "race" could produce both artits like Beethoven and brutal soldiers currently capable of bayonetting Belgian babies . His conclusion was that there were long-headed Germans ( e.g. Lundendorf) and short-headed Germans ( e.g.Hindenburg), the former being civilised and higher-evolved, the shorter ones brutish and less-evolved. Happily for Americans, he concluded that the good long-headed ones moved to the US, but this left the brutal short-headed ones in charge for WWI. Not sure how to tie this with the rest of what seems an exemplary career in psychiatry, but the Social Darwinism is quite a product of the time.96.239.135.225 (talk) 22:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)Bodark3 21 August 2008

More improvements needed

In the text:

“Sadler did not adhere to purely mechanistic or materialistic views of psychology and psychiatry and was a consistent advocate of broad and rational principles of psychiatry”

Then, later:

“[He] held the life-long opinion that all psychic phenomena was explainable within the confines of the laws of nature.”

There is a blatant contradiction here. Moreover, I don’t see why adhering to “purely” mechanistic or materialistic views wouldn’t be consistent with broad and rational principles of psychiatry.

Also, the text is somewhat glorifying but improperly referenced. For example: “He was considered one of the world's foremost authorities on the subject [...]” – by who/what organization? The only way to know him seems to be through an organization that is directly linked to him and that would benefit from his glorification. I strongly feel this as unacceptable for an encyclopaedic project. ScienceStorm (talk) 04:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Inadequate Article

This article serious misrepresents the man and his life work. The coverage of the Urantia Book is especially deplorable. A few matters that are missing from the article include:

Sadler received his initial medical training at Battle Creek Clinic and graduated in 1894 as a qualified Medical Evangelist.

Sadler initially sided with John Harvey Kellogg in the disputes with the Adventist General Conference and Ellen White over control of the clinic.

Sadler initiated a dispute with Ellen White over the authenticity of some of her organizational visions for the future of the Adventist medical enterprise, eventually leading to a complete break with the church. Yet Sadler totally missed the rebellion of the young doctors (Battle Creek early graduates) against Kellogg that led directly the formation of the College of Medical Evangelists within the church organization and eventually gave birth to the adoption by Adventist physicians of modern medical practice. Refer to background on how Adventist medical school at Loma Linda California came into being.

Sadler recognized early that he was in no way qualified to practice medicine, even after his subsequent education and chose to make his way in the emerging field of "mind cures" (for psychosomatic illness).

Sadler is known to have visited Freud and rejected the foundations of emerging psychoanalysis on moral and ethical grounds.

Sadler was a significant figure in the popularization of mind cures in the Chicago area and used his lecturing skills as the basis for building his practice in the Chicago area (office eventually located at 533 Diversey Parkway, now occupied by Urantia Foundation).

Sadler is known to have experimented with "radium emanation" (now recognized as the element Radon) in his practice. He kept a lead-lined box mounted to a wall in the laboratory in his office at 533 for the storage of Radium. When Urantia Foundation redecorated and upgraded the first floor of the building at 533 Diversey, the walls and floor of this room (then being used as a kitchen by Urantia Foundation) were found to be covered with sheets of lead. As far as I know, no formal effort was taken to decontaminate the facility. Perhaps, after 50+ years, it was no longer necessary.

Sadler authored a vast number of books, mostly of a popular nature, some of a dogmatic and semi-political nature (e.g., the popular Longheads and Roundheads and the more obscure academic treatise Racial Degeneracy), and at least one well-known textbook (Theory and Practice of Psychiatry).

Sadler abandoned the use of hydrotherapy, a mainstay of Battle Creek, and eventually settled on electroconvulsive therapy as the basis for his practice (aside from the more benign and better informed talk therapy).

Sadler was far more deeply involved in the activities that led to the publication of the Urantia Book than this article suggests. The Appendix to his semi-professional book debunking psychic phenomena (The Mind at Mischief) contains his description of two cases of psychic phenomena which he found inexplicable. The first of these is clearly the case of Ellen Gould White (the prophetess of the Adventist movement who picked up the cult where William Miller left off). The second and more extensively discussed is the case of the contact personality through whom the supernatural contact that led to the creation of the Urantia papers was facilitated.

Sadler created a group, known as "the forum", comprised of selected patients and family members, that met regularly at 533 on Sundays to discuss the content of the Urantia Papers, which were allegedly being actively edited by the supernatural beings with which he had initially established contact around 1906. This group was entirely Sadler's enterprise, and he ran it with an unchallengeable authoritarian manner.

The Forum included William M. Hales, prominent member of the Board of Trade, who made the market in malt. While Hales was enormously wealthy, Sadler refused to allow him to fund publication of the Urantia Papers as the Urantia Book, insisting that all the interested Forum members contribute according to their ability and no one dominating the enterprise. Hales created a family trust, which was one of the financial mainstays of Urantia Foundation (publisher of the Urantia Book) and the Urantia Brotherhood, an affinity group for persons interested in the Urantia Book (now named The Fellowship for Readers of The Urantia Book) especially in the early years after publication in 1955.

It is not known how many of the early Forum members were selected from Sadler's ECT patients, but William M. Hales is known to have been one.

At his death, Sadler had bequeathed ownership of the clinic building at 533 Diversey to Urantia Foundation, with a proviso that certain individuals (Emma Christensen and Leone Sadler, the first wife of his son, Bill Sadler, Jr.) be given lifetime residence in apartments within the building.

There is much more that could be added to flesh out this article; however, this is already enough for an entire book.

In his final opus How to Know What to Believe (ca. 1976), Harold Sherman provided a concise and negative portrayal of much of the Forum activity during the years he was initimately involved (and lived in an apartment building across the street from 533). Square Circles Press (http://www.squarecircles.com) has recently published Harold Sherman's collected papers from an archive at the University of Arkansas in six volumes. The papers provide a much less negative but much more detailed picture of the Forum and its associated members than contained in How to Know What to Believe.

On very limited evidence it appears possible that the Urantia "contact" person was brought to Sadler's attention by Harry Loose, a retired and slightly disabled Chicago police officer, who lectured on the Chautauqua circuit with the Sadler troupe (not as a member of the troupe, just another Chautaquan). There is some slight evidence for Loose having been at the time a member of an occult initiatory order in the Chicago area--possibly the Chicago chapter of the Astrum Agentinium or the Ordo Templi Orientis--but this borders on pure speculation.

Since the bulk of this information is based on personal experience and accounts of the period from friends whose families were variously involved in the Forum, it probably would not meet Wikipedia standards. I have presented it here as an archivable addendum, which may inspire others to write more fully on the subject. Or perhaps I will find time and motivation to convert some of it (for which published documents exist) into the main article someday. Ldmjr (talk) 08:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I have corrected my previous remarks regarding the Sadler bequest to Urantia Foundation, where I had incorrectly named Bill Sadler, Jr.'s second wife as his first. Bill's divorce from Leone was a subject of considerable division of affection within the family and Forum. Bill's second wife, Florine Hemmings, was not fully accepted within the Forum community, although a dedicated supporter of the Urantia movement. This was related closely to the first split within the Forum, which led eventually to the formation of the distinct First and Second Urantia Societies in Chicago, with the Second focusing more on Bill's scholarship than on his father's leadership in the original Forum. After Bill's death (on November 22, 1963, the day of the Kennedy assassination) Florine campaigned for and achieved private publication of Bill's papers about The Urantia Book as A Study of the Master Universe and Appendices to A Study of the Master Universe with the support of the Second Society Foundation (the Second Society dissolved after Bill's death), the Orvonton Urantia Society, and especially the First Urantia Society of Oklahoma City, all of which had bonds of affection to Bill.

After Dr. Sadler's death, the third floor at 533 continued as the residence of Emma Christensen and the rear half of the second floor was the residence of Leone Sadler and Helen Carlson (who were, I think, both sisters and widows). For many years after publication of The Urantia Book, Leone and Helen, and, then Helen alone, served as the Custodians of The Urantia Book, maintaining detailed records of the destination of every single copy of the book shipped from 533. This function was terminated after Helen's passing and the ancient files may not have been preserved.

With regard to the speculation about the role of Harry Loose in bringing the "contact person" to the attention of Dr. Sadler, it should be noted that there are many theories of the origin and nature of the contact. Some among the followers of Bill Sadler believed that he had been the contact. If so, the phenomenon would have begun when he was a child, perhaps 6-7 years old. This view departs greatly from the idea that the contact occurred as described in The Mind at Mischief; however, the experience for Dr. Sadler and Lena Sadler if this occurred would have taken the phenomenon totally outside the range of typical human experience and justified the level of interest, spanning many years, which the two doctors had in the continuing contact. This theory has some difficulties with family chronology, since Bill is reported to have enlisted in the Army at an early age (around 17) and served in the largely forgotten occupation of Nicaragua. Thus, if Bill were the contact, such contact would have been interrupted after a mere 10 years, well before the Forum began its study of the papers.

The other prevalent theory as to the identity of the contact has been presented by Martin Gardner in Urantia: The Great Cult Mystery, in which Gardner names Wilfred Kellogg, who, with his wife Ruth, lived in an apartment over the garage at the rear of 533 while employed by Dr. Sadler as the business manager for his practice of psychiatry. Wilfred was the first person to attempt creation of an index to the book, an effort which passed to Edith Cook, one of three sisters close to the Sadler family and the Forum. After the book became better known in the 1970's and once inexpensive indexing software became available for personal computers in the 1980's, a number of believers indexed the book, experimenting with various tools until several versions indexed with Folio Views appeared more or less simultaneously in the late 1980's and early 90's. These tools finally enabled both Urantia Foundation and their legal opponent in the landmark copyright litigation, Harry McMullan, III, to create fairly scholarly printed indexes, although the first such reference tool had been created much earlier by Clyde Bedell (Forum member and later member of The First Urantia Society of Los Angeles) and published, with copyright approval, as Clyde Bedell's Concordex of The Urantia Book. The Concordex, though a somewhat interpretive and personal work lacking very specific references, was the mainstay of devoted students before the advent of more complete indexes, and continues to be used by many.Ldmjr (talk) 14:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:William S. Sadler/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ItsZippy (talk · contribs) 22:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC) I shall review this nomination. I'll have a look and should give my final assessment in the next few days. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 22:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	This is mostly fine. In the views section, it refers to "Age of the Earth" and "Age of the universe"; in both cases, the a should be lower-case. Aside from that, no major problems. There are some clunky bits of prose, especially the last paragraph of the lead and the first of the section on Urantia revelation, but not enough to fail the GAN. The grammar has been fixed. Still some stylistic issues, but not enough to fail at GAN.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	This all seems fine.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	No issues here.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	This seems fine.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Not a problem.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Seems to cover the important details of his life. The only thing I am wondering is whether there have been any significant reactions or criticisms to him or his work; if so, they should probably be documented here, too. If there is nothing, that's fine (just let me know). This has been addressed with the addition of a reception section.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Certainly.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Everything is presented with a NPOV.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit-warring, etc.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	The one image is correctly tagged.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The image of Sadler is certainly relevant.
	7. Overall assessment.	This should pass soon. I'm holding on for an answer to my question on reactions and criticisms. I am happy to pass this now, following the changes made.

• Thanks for the review and comments. I agree that more reaction/criticism probably would be a good thing, I'll take a look through the sources--I should be able to dig some up without too much trouble. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
• Alright, I started a section on his posthumous reception, not sure how well it came out. Hope it comes across as balanced, but as is often true of religious leaders, it's easy to find hagiography and polemics, but not much it between. I'll see if I can find someone to take a run over the prose, I've been looking at it so much lately I have no strategic distance at this point. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The reception section looks good and does come across as balanced; I am happy to pass the nomination now. The prose still needs to be looked at though; I'd suggest (as you have said) getting someone else to give it a copyedit at some point. Still, that's not enough to affect the nomination at GAN. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

a couple of edits

I visited the lede for a little bit this afternoon. The first thing that I noticed was 2 sentences in a row beginning with, "After...". So I started there. Unfortunately, I ended with one of the sentences containing the word "patient" twice. It's tough to get a handle on how to say that Sadler heard an extraterrestial speaking through the patient. The word 'subject' threw me a little (is the subject the same as the patient? etc). So, there it is.  :) Probably more muddled...

Minor edit on the meetings at Sadler's home.

The last sentence I had a little trouble with and it's subjective, I think. To me, a 'book' can't become an organized religion. The 'study'/'belief in'/'following of' the book can. It's semantics and I'm not sure I'm on the right track. So I made that little change. Accept or reject - won't hurt my feelings at all!  :) Nice article! Wikipelli ^Talk 19:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey, thanks. Those edits look fine to me. Good catch about the book there! Mark Arsten (talk) 20:24, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Peer review

Lead:

- changed "In 1907, along with his wife, Sadler" to "In 1907, Sadler, along with his wife,"

- would suggest removing the entire "along with his wife" clause, as the rest of the sentence refers to "he" everywhere, or was she also a highly-paid, popular speaker?

- for flow, that sentence should change its pronouns (or remove the wife clause) to:

In 1907, Sadler, along with his wife, became speakers on the Chautauqua adult-education circuit, where they became highly-paid, popular speakers.

or, depending on the intent of that sentence,

In 1907, Sadler, along with his wife, became speakers on the Chautauqua adult-education circuit, where he went on to become a highly-paid, popular speaker.

I'm not crazy about saying they became speakers and then he became a ... speaker. Different word at the end maybe? Guest lecturer? Educator? Orator?

- corrected "debunker" (from dubunker)

- replaced the ':' with a ';' as per MOS

- added the "they" in "and they conversed about spirituality"

More later... --^Despay_re (^tal_k) 02:27, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the help thus far, hope you've recovered from your Megatron-copyediting :) Mark Arsten (talk) 02:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Had to abandon Megatron, too messed up, needs to be split, probably into 3. Oh well... Early Life and education:

- removed misc wikilinks as per wp:overlink

- semi-colon as per MOS

- removed "california" designation from san fran

- grammar fix, "an early" not "a early"

- this sentence "The Sadlers later joined other former Adventists to criticize the church"

do you mean they went to a meeting, or do you mean they were vocal, like other former adventists, and the sentence should maybe say:

"The Sadlers later joined other former Adventists in criticizing the church"?

I'm not crazy about this phrase either "Sadler rejected his faith in some Seventh-day Adventist teachings", seems to me, you either reject a faith, or you don't, you can't reject your faith on some of your faith. maybe "Sadler rejected some Seventh-day Adventist teachings"

That's it for this section, more later today... --^Despay_re (^tal_k) 08:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Great work thus far, keep it up! Mark Arsten (talk) 16:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Career:

- minor prose fix, replacing another "also his wife" phrase

- changed "promoted prayer on these grounds" to avoid any literal interpretation

- at least part of this sounds like a quote, "He argued that pastors should be educated in basic psychiatry, so they could recognize symptoms of mental illness in congregants." from the Chicago Tribune, if so, it should have some "'s

Checked again, doesn't look like a quote or close paraphrasing.

- grammar touchups, removed wikilink on orchestra, Northwestern University, and world war I, as per wp:overlink

- added wikilink for skeptic, borderline call, meh :)

- this section wasn't too bad at all

Urantia revelation:

- minor prose tweaks

- removed wikilink to colgate U.

- removed wikilink to skeptic, since its linked above now, also stops that run-on links thing, lol, there's a policy... :)

- changed "argue" to "posit" to avoid ambiguity

- removed God and Bible wikilinks, as per , blah blah blah :)

- "Wilensky-Lanford argues that" who is that? I see him in refs, but he's nowhere in the text till now, needs some context. Author? historian? religious scholar? psychiatrist? Other? (other, you know, like drive-thru technician, ya, other!) :)

lol, I thought I had mentioned more about her.

- also, there should be a link between that sentence and the next one, about Gardner, "Meanwhile, Alternately, On the other hand, Although", something like that should start the Gardner sentence imo, showing it's the other side of the argument, but the two sentences are linked

Ok, added a "however".

- hahah, ok, I like when ambiguity strikes... "Lena Sadler participated in the forum until her death in 1939. One forum member wrote that Sadler's personality changed after her death", uhm, ya, she became a lot less fun at parties? She died! :) Perhaps that sentence could be re-written as "Until her death in 1939, Sadler's wife Lena was a regular forum participant. One member wrote that Sadler's personality changed after her death"?

Yes, that is better.

- Gooch mentioned in the last paragraph, other than refs do we know who this is yet?

Yeah, he's introduced in the career section.

- wikilinked proselytizing, pretty sure most ppl don't know that one :)

Final years:

- removed Macmillan Publishers wikilink, they aren't relevant to the topic

- While good health seems to be implied by him living to 93, it seems a little funny to say "he remained in good health, well, if you don't count the part where he lost an entire eye from disease" which is the sense I get from that, possible re-wording might be better

He was in great health, until he died :)

- changed old, to "older"

- Who is Christensen? Did I meet him already in the article?

Yes, way back in early life.

Reception:

- changed "novel theological" to "avante-garde" and wikilinked the term, avoids that literal use of novel, which is what I thought the sentence was going to talk about (his support of some book in contradiction to his advocacy of science and reason) until I'd finished reading it

And that's it! Well done here. The rest all looks good to me, and most of what I found was minor minor! Certainly a less challenging task than some of the articles I've cleaned up on the March drive (yes, I'm looking at all 11,000 original words of you, Mr. Shinji Takahashi! :) ) --^Despay_re (^tal_k) 17:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I'm still not crazy about the visual flow of those two pictures in the article (the last 2), they just seem to be "stuck in there", I know they're relevant, and I'm not suggesting remove them, but space them a little more maybe? I dunno, just an opinion, and I'm not an artist ;) Ciao!. --^Despay_re (^tal_k) 17:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

disambig page

I added him to this page, you may want to change the text or something, but I thought he should be there, since I was looking him up, couldn't remember his first name, found Sadler, and he wasn't there. --^Despay_re (^tal_k) 18:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Edits, in particular "extraterrestials" to "celestial beings"

This article has really been shaped up into excellent form. A few revisions of mine were just reverted with a request for more explanation, I understand and I was trying to be as complete with my edit summaries as possible, but I'm happy to explain more completely here as well. The sourcing for my edits were in the summaries and it's no problem to in-line them of course. I have all the major sources in the article on the UB topics and that's what I'm going by: Gardner's book, Gooch's Godtalk, both Lewis 2003 and 2007 chapters, the Urantia Book itself, and others.

One key thing that bears clarification is who the so-called "beings" were that were claimed by the Sadlers to be behind the book. The article currently states these as "extraterrestials" (without inline citation). I did notice in the edit history that someone a few weeks ago changed this to "angelic beings" and was reverted for not including sourcing. The term "angelic beings" actually isn't accurate either, not using that phrase is all well and good as far as I'm concerned too.

The sourcing for this really is very clear in all the major outside references for the UB topic, its the main characteristic of the UB emphasized at the outset by each commentator:

• Gardner, starting on pg 11 and then throughout his book -- "No author's name is on the UB's blue cloth cover on its title page. The contents consist of 196 "Papers," as the chapters are called, each allegedly written by a celestial being."
• Gooch, pg 3 and onwards -- "Yet [Sadler] lives on in thousands of minds as the man responsible for the 2,097-page Urantia Book, which is said to have been transmitted during the early part of the twentieth century by celestial beings through a "contact personality," a reluctant Chicago businessman who to this day remains anonymous."
• Lewis (2007), pg 199 (the first page of her chapter in The Invention of Sacred Tradition, Oxford Press) -- "All that is told of the person chosen by the ‘‘student visitors’’ or ‘‘celestial beings’’ to be the ‘‘vehicle’’ through which these revelations would emerge is that it was a male patient of Dr. William Sadler..."
• The United States Court of Appeals[1], "In approximately 1900, an unknown patient ("the Conduit") sought psychiatric help from Dr. William Sadler.(1) The Conduit behaved strangely in his sleep, and during sessions with the Conduit, Dr. Sadler became convinced that the Conduit was channeling "celestial personalities." At some point, the Conduit began presenting Dr. Sadler with handwritten "papers," purportedly consisting of the fruits of his communion with these celestial beings."

It's understandable both how the interpretation "extraterrestials" and "angelic beings" can come about. "Extraterrestials" can come about from how the UB describes that spiritual beings live on other worlds, they don't free float out in space. But there is also very much a connotation with that word of "little green men" from other planets, ie mortal rather than spiritual beings. The major outside sources (Gardner, Gooch, Lewis) don't use the interpretation "extraterrestials" and since there isn't a citation in the article for that specific word it's not clear on where it traces back to precisely. (Another inaccuracy about the "extraterrestial" interpretation that should be mentioned is that fully one third of the UB isn't claimed to be from spirit beings allegedly from another world, it's claimed to be from an order of celestial being called "midwayer" that originated on earth and reside on earth.) For now I have gone ahead added back the designation "celestial beings" since that does trace back to 4 solid WP:RS, I'm happy to discuss further as well of course.

On the other point I was clarifying with my edits, here's the copyright litigation court case again (since it's convenient) [2]:

"Sometime later in the course of his treatment, Dr. Sadler opened up his sessions with the Conduit to a group of relatives that referred to itself as "The Contact Commission." During its sessions with the Conduit, the Contact Commission prepared stenographic notes of the Conduit's celestial dialogs, but it destroyed most of them. The notes formed no part of The Urantia Book."

Other sources, like Gardner and Gooch and Lewis are in agreement. The article currently says:

"The book is said to be a compilation of conversations Sadler believed he had with extraterrestrials speaking through a sleeping man."

That statement in the article isn't in agreement with WP:RS. My other change to the article was to have the statement be:

"The book is said to be a compilation of writings that Sadler and his wife obtained from a man whom the Sadlers came to believe was acting as a conduit through which celestial beings communicated."

The later part of the article in the section "Urantia revelation" describes it this way as well, as does WP:RS, so my edit was to fix this inconsistency and match up with WP:RS. Again though, I want to emphasize, really fantastic job on this article over all! I'll try to take a closer look a little later to see if I can contribute anything further. All the best. Wazronk (talk) 18:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the compliments, and the detailed explanations. I'll read over what you say here and then check the sources and reply in more detail tonight, when I'll have my books handy. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The body text of the article says, in a direct quote, "visitors . . . from another planet." It is correct to summarize that as extraterrestrials in the lead. I don't know whether the source quoted from reinterpreted things, though. Churn and change (talk) 19:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, the lead is generally supposed to follow the body. You shouldn't add material to the lead that is not present outside of it. Citations are not required in the lead, either. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• • Ok, have check the sources, and I'm quite confident that "extraterrestrial" is the word we should be using: A. Lewis 2003 (In a book called "UFO Religions" p. 132: "The voice identified itself as a student visitor on an observation mission from another planet". The same quote occurs in Lewis 2007 p. 132. In Gooch 2002 p. 7 "The Forum members would then serve as a focus group, submitting questions to the celestials for further clarification (the transfer of information between the earthlings and the extraterrestrials was never entirely explained" p. 15 "Because of its insistence on having been written by a committee of extraterrestrial beings, The Urantia Book' for most people falls to the far left of believability.". So reliable 3rd party sources support the idea that these were purported extraterrestrials. The word "celestial" is vague, and can refer to astronomy or spirituality, so I think it should be avoided in favor of more clear language. I'll read more about the conversations and notes vs book and try to come to a conclusion later. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:31, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I think "extraterrestrials" as a standalone term is a less than clear term as well in this particular context unfortunately, since extraterrestrial life is well understood in a physical sense, "as alien life, or simply aliens (or space aliens, to differentiate from other definitions of alien or aliens). These hypothetical forms of life range from simple bacteria-like organisms to beings far more complex than humans."

Or more illustratively, this.

The peculiarities of a topic like this is what makes it of interest, and I think it'll be good either way not to end up so parsimonious with phrasing as to lose that. Gardner, Gooch, Lewis et al very amply show it's clear that by non-Earth beings they're describing spiritual celestial beings, starting from the WP:RS cited above including the Gooch quote you just cited, "... submitting questions to the celestials for further clarification....". (Boy it pains me to see an English professor like Gooch turn an adjective like "celestial" into "celestials".) And as Lewis said about the "student visitor" angle, she's said it as well (2007, pg 199) "All that is told of the person chosen by the ‘‘student visitors’’ or ‘‘celestial beings’’ to be the ‘‘vehicle’’ through which these revelations would emerge is that it was a male patient of Dr. William Sadler".

A middle ground or extra clarifications in the article is needed if "celestial being" isn't considered good enough on its own, that's fine, but "extraterrestrials" on its own isn't accurate or clear enough either. I personally considered "celestial beings" as the best phrasing to go with since it was straight from 4 major WP:V 3rd party sources (including Oxford Press, Martin Gardner, and a US court of law) and the UB itself, it'll need to be added in the article just for WP:NPOV purposes in any case.

And as I mentioned in my earlier post, in terms of the UB itself, while some of the so-called spiritual celestial beings were from other worlds and in that sense "extraterrestrial", it is simply not an accurate word to summarize the alleged beings for the whole of the book. Part IV (which is more than one third of the content by pg count) is claimed to have been written by terrestrial spiritual beings. Some of the papers are said to have been written by angels, but not all of them, so it is inaccurate to say the book is allegedly from "angelic beings". Some of the papers are said to have been written by celestial beings who are from other worlds, but not all of them, so it is inaccurate to say the book is from "extraterrestrial" beings (celestial or otherwise) as the article is now saying again in the lead. These are from plain and unambiguous WP:RS.

I hope the extra degree of picayune review and commentary from me is ok, I am just being forthright about these as I know the sources well, and for FA I think there is a need for very extra precision. I well know how this is an odd topic, it's actually a fun challenge to get the NPOV right! I'm happy to help any way I can. I think the end of the article especially is handled very well with the varying POVs from the sources on this peculiar subject but it's a pretty significant absence in the WP:RS WP:V story that spirit personalities were claimed by Sadler to be the source of the book yet this isn't being said forthrightly and clearly. Wazronk (talk) 01:01, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Too be honest, I'm a bit surprised at how insistent you are that we do away with the term "extraterrestrial" in favor of "celestial". I appreciate your forthrightness and desire to fine-tune the article though, as well as your willingness to discuss this. As to the substance of the matter: the important thing is matching up with the reliable sources, and they do state that Sadler spoke with (or thought he spoke with) extraterrestrials. To exclude that information would be a disservice to readers; featured articles are supposed to be comprehensive. I understand your point that terrestrial angels were supposedly involved at one point, so I tweaked the language to make sure that the article didn't state that only extraterrestrials talked through him. I edited a bit in response to your questioning of whether the notes Sadler took vs the papers the mysteriously appeared comprise The Urania Book. I think that's fixed now too. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:39, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• I think we should avoid direct discussion of the primary source, the "Urantia" book. We should restrict the discussion to the secondary sources—Gooch, Lewis, and others—without trying to analyze the primary source ourselves. Since I don't have the secondary sources, I have nothing to say on that part of the debate. One further point: 'celestial' means heavenly, and hence 'not earthly.' A celestial being cannot be terrestrial, the second word defined as 'earthly.' So if the secondary sources refer to extra-terrestrial and celestial beings only, they are really referring to the same thing content-wise. It is just the connotations (think E.T.) at issue. I think that should be decided by which word the secondary sources focus on more, not by which word the original book or Sadler's interpretation of it uses more.Churn and change (talk) 01:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Churn and change,

Yep, oh I totally agree, that's exactly my point, the secondary sources are what needs to be the pointer toward what to use, that's why I listed them out above showing, a) that's where the point comes from, b) it's the point made by the sources from their very earliest pages onwards.

• Gardner -- in his 445 pg book, which is devoted only to this topic, starting at pg 11 the term he uses is "celestial beings" and "celestial intelligences" as the purported beings Sadler claimed was communicating with him, and then he continues with those designations throughout the hundreds of pages of his book
• Gooch -- first page of his chapter on the topic he calls them "celestial beings", and then throughout his chapter as well ("celestials"), though yes there are a few occasions he terms them as "extraterrestrials" as well
• Lewis (2007) -- similarly, from the first page of her chapter on the topic and onwards, she specifies them as "celestial beings": pgs 199, 200, 203 ["celestial agencies"], 206, 207, 208, 210. One of the sections of her chapter is titled "CELESTIAL BEINGS AND COPYRIGHT LAW". She does not use the term "extraterrestrials".
• There's one significant secondary source you can see for yourself if you'd like, the copyright litigation in US court is a public record and therefore accessible in the link I gave earlier.

Nothing more, nothing less than following the sources. I guess I'll flip it around, I truly don't quite see why the above extensively sourced basic information on this topic is actually being questioned, and even after directly cited to 4 major WP:V 3rd party independent sources (3 of them liberally used already in this article), it is reverted in favor of selectively one part of Gooch's phrasing. Of course, to the point you make Mark, your same logic is applicable quite the same the other way around as well, that "to exclude the information would be a disservice to readers." WP:V -- "When reliable sources disagree, their conflict should be presented from a neutral point of view, giving each side its due weight." That's the way we'll need to cover it it looks like.

Good to see the reworking of that other point in the lead, thanks. Wazronk (talk) 05:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm getting tired of arguing about this (I tire quickly of such things), so how about a compromise: I don't think it's Ok to withhold the fact that Sadler initially spoke to a purported extraterrestrial (and there's a high burden of proof for omitting reliably sourced information like this), but we can add the word "celestial" as a compromise, since you seem to feel very strongly about this word and it is used in a number of sources. Mark Arsten (talk) 09:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Looks good, thank you. Wazronk (talk) 23:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Double checking references and citations

The other day I happened to notice a page reference was slightly off, I only spot checked a few of the in-line citations earlier but with a little time on my hands, and since I have the source books from Gardner, Gooch, Lewis (2003) and Lewis (2007), I'm giving the citations for these a further double-check as time permits. I'll fix anything that is clear and straightforward as needing it but will post here about anything to discuss. Starting with...

Were the Sadlers urged by Kellogg to go to Michigan or Chicago?

The article currently states:

• "In 1904, they returned to Michigan, where Sadler attended the American Medical Missionary College, from which he received a Doctor of Medicine degree two years later."

This is sourced to Gardner (pg 36) and a further note is attached to this sentence cited to Gooch (pg 26) that says, "Kellogg had encouraged the couple to return to the area."

Gooch pg 26 however doesn't say that Kellogg encouraged them to move to Michigan. Rather, Gooch writes, "Dr. Kellogg, however, urged them to return to Chicago, which they did, matriculating at the Rush Medical College at the University of Chicago. They both graduated in 1906 and began their medical practice together."

The current note in the article is a mismatch with the source, in saying that Kellogg wanted them to move to Michigan when Gooch says that Kellogg wanted them to move to Chicago. That being said, Gooch is implying they graduated from Rush in Chicago in 1906. This is in conflict with Gardner, who says they graduated from the American Medical Missionary College in Michigan in 1906, and then went to Chicago to attend Rush (which isn't mentioned in the article).

My recommendation: add mention in the article that they moved to Chicago for William Sadler to attend Rush and have the note which is cited to Gooch be attached to that statement, not the statement about the move to Michigan. Wazronk (talk) 00:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Huh, that is odd that the sources conflict. I've rewritten it for now to remove the contradiction with the sources, I'll try to look at them in more detail later. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Excommunicated father-in-law?

The second paragraph has this statement:

• "Although he was a committed member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church for almost twenty years, he left the denomination after it excommunicated his father-in-law in 1907."

Is that in reference to John Harvey Kellogg (who was excommunicated in 1907 as the article says later)? As he was the uncle of Lena Sadler, "father-in-law" wouldn't be an accurate description of the relationship between John Kellogg and William Sadler. Wazronk (talk) 03:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I changed "father-in-law" to "wife's uncle". Mark Arsten (talk) 18:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

There really is a word uncle-in-law, though it exists only in the very biggest version of Merrian-Webster and in OED, though the OED meaning is different (aunt's husband). Yeah, can't think of a simpler way to put that. Churn and change (talk) 19:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks. I guess we'll leave it as it is for now. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Cousin marriage confirmation

From Gardner pg 98: "It was probably in Battle Creek that Wilfred met John Kellogg's niece, Anna Bell Kellogg (1877-1960), the sister of Sadler's wife, Lena. An Illinois law prohibited the marriage of first cousins. To make their marriage legal, the couple were first married in Kenosha, Wisconsin (a state that did not forbid cousin marriages), on the morning of Wednesday, August 28, 1912." ... Pg 99: "Anna and Wilfred were first cousins by way of Wilfred's mother, Emma Kellogg." Wazronk (talk) 21:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks for digging that up. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The talk section is an excellent addition to the article. In the section referencing Bill Sadler's military service, where it says "Bill is reported to have enlisted in the Army..." it should read that Bill is reported to have joined the Marines. I heard this directly from Berkeley Elliott, a friend of Bill Sadler's in Oklahoma City. It is also on one of the audio tapes of talks he gave either in Oklahoma City or California in the late 50's (1957 1958), where Bill states he was a Marine. Mchallis (talk) 17:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to see a published secondary source, if possible. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:44, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Bibliography

I changed the "Bibliography" section to a subsection of "References". We use subsections for related content and as presented this appeared to be an out-of-place "Works" or "Publications" section. MOS:NOTES: "Bibliography" may be confused with the complete list of printed works by the subject of a biography ("Works" or "Publications") and not "works cited". It is relatively minor, inline with MOS, and does not change the citation styling. Otr500 (talk) 10:49, 4 February 2020 (UTC)