Talk:The Urantia Book/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

Tenskwatawa eclipse of 1806

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

In paper 90, section 2 of the The Urantia Book, there is a statement about Tenskwatawa:

"Ever and anon, true prophets and teachers arose to denounce and expose shamanism. Even the vanishing red man had such a prophet within the past hundred years, the Shawnee Tenskwatawa, who predicted the eclipse of the sun in 1808 and denounced the vices of the white man."

This has been cited in the article as a mistake in the book under the "Criticism of science" section with this language:

"The book says that a solar eclipse was predicted in 1808 by the Native American prophet Tenskwatawa. The eclipse actually was predicted in late April of 1806 and occurred on June 16, 1806."

Every so often, a person will come by the article, and add commentary that there were in fact 3 solar eclipses in 1808, and they will cite a source such as NASA to prove it. This is true, there were 3 solar eclipses in 1808. But unfortunately, these edits are not made with a full understanding of solar eclipses, or with the well-documented historical record of this event.

Most critically, the idea that any of these three could have been potentially the Tenskwatawa eclipse is mistaken because any given solar eclipse is only visible to a very small slice of the earth's surface. The three eclipses of 1808 were extremely remote and were not visible to Tenskwatawa or his followers:

May 25 -- Antarctica, south of Africa
Oct 19 -- Antarctica, south of Australia
Nov 18 -- Northern Russia

Also, the prediction by Tenskwatawa according to historic references was for a total eclipse. There are 3 different types of eclipse -- partial, annular, and total -- and only two total eclipses during the lifetime of Tenskwatawa that were viewable in North America. The first was on June 16, 1806. This is perhaps best represented visually with a graphic of the paths of occlusion for total and annular eclipses during that time period according to NASA (1801-1820). The other one was in 1834, two years prior to his death (1821-1840). The three solar eclipses that occured in 1808 were not only extremely remote, they were underwhelming partial eclipses.

All scientific evidence, all calculations, all historical records point to the Tenskwatawa prediction eclipse as the total eclipse having occured on June 16, 1806. See the book The Life of Tecumseh and of His Brother the Prophet for historical documentation of 1806 as the year (because its copyright has expired, it can be obtained for free from books.google.com). Editors will have to provide published scientific and historical evidence to support any theorized doubts about 1806 as the correct date of the eclipse that Tenskwatawa is associated with. Wazronk 05:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

NASA lists 3 eclipses during 1908 1908 Jan 03 Total 130 1.044 04m14s ne Australia, w N America, nw S America [Total: Atlantic, Costa Rica] 1908 Jun 28 Annular 135 0.965 04m00s America's, w Africa, w Europe [Annular: Mexico, U.S., Mauritania, Senegal, Mali, Burkina Faso] 1908 Dec 23 Hybrid 140 1.002 00m12s S America, Antarctica, s Africa [Hybrid: Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, s Atlantic]

The June 28 annular eclipse shows a path directly over northern florida http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEplot/SEplot1901/SE1908Jun28A.GIF The quotation in the Ub does not say anything about a "total" eclipse. The material now contained in Wikipedia regarding an error in the Ubook is mis-leading at best. user:Majeston

I didn't say that TUB says the eclipse was total, and the article hasn't said it either. I said that "the prediction by Tenskwatawa according to historic references was for a total eclipse". This event was in relatively recent times (compared to the history of human civilization as a whole) and is well-documented, see here for a write up available online:

"At around noon on the appointed day, June 16th 1806, a total solar eclipse crossed the region. A long eclipse with a band of totality stretching from near the southern tip of Lake Michigan to just north of Cincinnati it encompassed most of the lands inhabited by Tenskwatawa's followers. In Greenville, where Tenskwatawa and Tecumseh waited for the event, close to a thousand had gathered to see the Prophet's sign. The Prophet waved his arms towards the eclipse at the appropriate time, and the people were truly impressed."

The article is accurate and clear. What is misleading is that you suggest an annular eclipse that took place in Florida 62 years after Tenskwatawa was dead and gone has anything to do with this. You are off by a century in your list of eclipses. Wazronk 17:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Wazronk on this one. ^(H) 13:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Adding chalkboard

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I've added a link to a chalkboard to display proposed revisions to the article so people can see the proposed revision and comment on it.

I think the dots under "Comparison to Christianity" are hard on the eyes, and would propose a wikitable instead. I am constructing one to show what I mean, and comments would be welcome here. Richiar 20:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Urantia Book chalkboard

Hi Richiar,

I'm not sure about the bullet points being hard on the eyes. But then, I didn't have a problem with all the links that used to be in the "Overview" section, which drew enough comments over time that made it seem better to do without. It would be good to hear multiple comments. Wazronk 19:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

It was pointed out to me by another editor that the "chalkboard" was an inappropriate use of

the namespace. What seems to be more standard I've been told is a sandbox for TUB. So, that has been activated. The idea is to be able to place and arrange content so the article can be trimmed and developed without disturbing the entire ecosystem, if you know what I mean. More on that below. I'm not sure where to put the sandbox link for TUB. Richiar 21:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Removal of link

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The link for the Urantia readers international was removed recently. It seemed like an appropriate link to me, and seemed to contribute to this article. There was no explanaton of why it was removed, and if there are no comments to the contrary, I'll put it back in shortly. Richiar 14:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I see the link was just placed in a different position. Never mind. Richiar 15:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Richiar,

I'm glad you mention this link. I did move it to a lower position the other day, and have done so in the past. I've not had overly strong opinions about its legitimacy in the article, but more and more I am becoming convinced this is an inappropriate link, which is only being placed on wikipedia for advertising purposes. This is top of the list under WP:LINKS as a reason for a link to not be included on wikipedia.

The only person who has maintained the link in the article over time is 66.177.21.64. Actually the only contributions to wikipedia by this IP has been to propagate the link. I see now that 66.177.21.64 has again shifted this link up the list of "External links", and my growing impression is that this person is not just satisfied with a link from this wikipedia article, but 66.177.21.64 wants to make the organization appear more prominent than it is by manipulating its placement on the external links list.

My understanding is that the three top-tier organizations in the Urantia movement are: Urantia Foundation, The Urantia Book Fellowship, and the Urantia Association International. The first two have historical roots back to the beginning of the movement in the 1950s and the third is the fraternal organization closely backed and supported by Urantia Foundation for going on 20 years. I agree with having links to the websites of these three organizations, and to me it makes sense that they are the first three links under the "External links" section of the article.

The reason I moved the placement of the Urantia Readers-International link to a lower position the other day is that it had been placed before the Urantia Book Fellowship and Urantia Association International, but from what I can see these two organizations are more prominent and should be listed first.

I have now removed the link altogether, pending evidence that it is being placed in the article for more than advertising purposes. The person 66.177.21.64 should address this concern, and I ask that they take a moment to read WP:LINKS. It seems likely to me that there could even be a conflict-in-interest and this person is in some way associated with Urantia Readers-International. From WP:LINKS:

"Due to the rising profile of Wikipedia and the amount of extra traffic it can bring a site, there is a great temptation to use Wikipedia to advertise or promote sites. This includes both commercial and non-commercial sites. You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked. If the link is to a relevant and informative site that should otherwise be included, please consider mentioning it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it."

Wazronk 19:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Urantia Readers-Intl

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

From WP:LINKS, "Adding external links can be a service to our readers, but they should be kept to a minimum of those that are meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article." And "No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justified". Under "Links to normally be avoided", see numbers 1, 3, and 13 in particular. The link to Urantia Readers-International seems to be important to one individual but it isn't clear why it is a meritable organization or unique resource of information regarding the article's topic. As I wrote in the "Removal of link" comment above, I understand the notability of three other organizations from third-party published sources. The pattern of edits on this even is suggestive that it is for advertising purposes, which is a no-no. Wazronk 16:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[Uncivil comments removed]

This thread is over per a complaint. The commentary showed that the link to Urantia Readers-Intl was being added to the External Links section by a representative of the organization. By consensus of other editors, it was removed from the article. Wazronk 20:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Sandbox

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

The chalkboard is not appropriate, I've learned, but a sandbox is, so here's the link: Talk: The Urantia Book/sandbox. Richiar 21:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I've done a little rewriting of the Intro, Overview, and Teachings, for anyone to look at and comment on. Richiar 22:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Lol

Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

This article treats the book as if it isn't two thousand pages of bullhockey. Wikipedia can be so funny sometimes. - ∅ (∅), 03:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to promote your beliefs about what is "bullhockey", please do not mock other peoples beliefs. ^(H) 13:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Skeptics generally don't care about facts, they care about supporting a position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Majeston (talk • contribs) 19:00, May 25, 2007

That isn't any better of a comment than the bullhockey one. Wazronk 16:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't the place to promote your religious beliefs, either. HAND. :-) - ∅ (∅), 02:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

the ONLY religion one CAN have is there very own... because one's connection to 'god' is unique. All organized religions and groups that exclude others are cults. a famous man once said " Be yeah free thinkers but do not become a 'group' of free thinkers". ...an open mind does not exclude others beliefs... it either adopts the beliefs or discards them... but the choice is made of free will... not the programming of antecedant causation.

To argue over spiritual data is sillious... and ignorant. lol

14:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)~ tawQuin Raamany

Popular Culture

Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

proposed additions;

Ashtar-Urantia- Audio CD- Celtic-flavoured progressive rock,

Urantia Rising by Various Artists (Audio CD - 2006) -Import

 Mykl Lozin -Ascension - the 7th Wave -Audio CD-Australian composer and Violinist - Mykl Lozin. 3.Urantia

I looked at both those articles: I don't see that either of them as having anything to do with the Urantia Book. I'm not intending that to be a negative comment, but I don't see why those should be added. Richiar 02:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

In the first case I believe Ashtar is the name of the recording group and Urantia is the CD title. I do not believe it has anything to do with the wikipedia entry for Ashtar. In the second case the title is Urantia Rising; In the Mykl Lozin, Urantia is the title of one of the songs on the CD. Of course all 3 have something to do with Urantia and further illustrates that the heading should be changed to Urantia with the Urantia Book as a subheading which was the cause of this explosion in cultural phenomenon. The memes of the Urantia book have and are permeating every part of society on earth, the coming years will only exponentially increase. You can certainly expect more from a fifth epochal revelation, but nothing less. Majeston 03:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at the Elvis Presley article; then take a look at the Elvis Presley phenomenon. It seems that to eliminate the Urantia Book article heading, would be similar to placing the Elvis Presley article as a subsection of the Elvis Presley phenomena. No??? Yes??? Richiar 15:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

There's some dispute on wikipedia about how worthwhile trivia sections like this are and whether they are encyclopedic. I think it's okay up to a point to have a section like "In popular culture". But there's a tendency for any little thing to end up in these types of sections, which is a main reason why they are criticized. Some of these entries aren't anything remotely "popular" I would say. From WP:NOT, "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." Wazronk 21:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

List of 59

Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Alright. There's a long list of references. The suggestion has been made by Majeston that the article "Urantia Book" be renamed "Urantia" because there is a Urantia movement. I am trying to visualize this in an encyclopedic manner and see how to relate those two. Maybe if there was more elaboration on those thoughts, I could get a better idea of what is meant.

In the meantime, I'm interested in looking at getting some of the sections we currently have into a more encyclopedic and readable prose. Richiar 02:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

This article is about the book. Any movement based on the book would be a new subject, and if it meets our inclusion criteria would make a fine new article. The book itself is very clear that it is not an how-to to make an organized religion/movement. The book stands alone, and any movement would be an independent entity from the book itself. ^(H) 13:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

If there's an interest in documenting the movement around TUB on wikipedia, my suggestion would be to develop this starting with "Adherents" section as a good place to incubate the topic. If it evolves to where it's a bit much for this article, it could be split to its own topic, something with a title like "Movement surrounding The Urantia Book". At this time, the article isn't about the movement but about the book itself, so the title to me is right the way it is. And, anyhow, the word "Urantia" is actually a very simple word to explain and a topic with this title would be a narrow and short one: "The Urantia Book defines the word Urantia as the name of the planet Earth." To me it wouldn't be about the book and wouldn't be about a movement surrounding the book per se. Wazronk 21:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you on this. Richiar 18:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I think an article about the "movement" would have to be a NEW article, and I wouldn't agree to use "adherents" at this point unless there is some documented information out there now. There wasn't any a year ago... to my knowledge. I agree with whoever it was (HighinBC?) indicated the book is clear about not creating an organized religion from it. The Urantia Book is about a personal relationship with God, not about having readers form institutionalized or formalized religions or "movements" - it is very clear about that. So, on these points I would discourage adding anything to "adherents" section unless of course it is backed by reliable documentation. If there are any organized groups, they are actually not in conformity with the book. LOL. Hanely 14:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Simplifying

Latest comment: 16 years ago13 comments3 people in discussion

Looking at the sections "The Nature of God" and "God and the Individual", it seems like they could benefit from a simpler rewording, and make the sections more readable. I'm not going to proceed with that however, unless I hear there are no objections. Richiar 17:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I've looked through the "Nature of God" proposal at the sandbox link above and the "God and the individual" that you have on your user page.

I don't see these proposals as being so NPOV unfortunately. For example, the sandbox uses uppercase such as this: "God is the Creator and Upholder of all reality", and this: "God is a mystery to his created beings not because He is hiding from any of his creatures, but because of the absolute nature of His qualities and the perfection of His personality." These types of capitalizations and assertions are POV, and the capitalizations aren't even how the book itself uses those words.

A lot of the simplification reads to me more like a move from broader encyclopedic context to making non-NPOV assertions. For example, the current article has this wording:

"God according to the book is one Deity who functions on a range of different levels of reality, both personal and impersonal. God is taught to exist in a Trinity of three perfectly individualized persons who are co-equal: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Spirit."

The suggested change says:

"God is a Deity who functions on a range of different levels of reality, both personal and impersonal. God exists in the form of a Trinity of three perfectly individualized persons who are co-equal."

This is an assertion that is no longer neutral and has taken out the important context of attribution as to who makes this assertion. Wazronk 21:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at that and for your comments. You have a way of looking at the issues and bringing in clarity in a succinct manner which I find quite helpful. When I looked at the capitalizations agsin, I agree with you on that. About the assertions, as I look over the style of writing on encyclopedic articles, it seems assertions are the main writing style. So if its communicating a pov, it must be for some other reason, it would seem. I'll try and elaborate a little below. Richiar 18:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

To elaborate on what I was saying, if you were to say "I think what you said assumes too much of a religious stance for a general reader, and thus seems to have too much of a religious pov", I would understand that.

When I look at the Urantial article in its current state, what I see is an article similar to the Qur'an article. It seems to rely on to many quotations for an encyclopedic entry. Perhaps there could be a link from the article to a page of supporting quotations. This was done for example with the Philosophy article. Richiar 19:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The way I'm looking at it, assertions are how an encyclopedia is written. I think the issue may be one of exegesis; drawing meaning out of and putting meaning into text; also, there is a kind of pov about pov, meta interpretation, which has to be taken into consideration. I don't think using assertions means one is therefore guilty of injecting pov. See the article on truth properties of language. Richiar 19:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC) truth and redundancy

It isn't the writing style of using assertions that I disagree with, it's "non-NPOV assertions". Anything can be stated in a crisp, simple, declarative statement but when it is an opinion that is stated this way without attribution it's no longer neutral. A good place to look is this section of the NPOV policy page, WP:NPOV#A_simple_formulation.

"Assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert the opinions themselves. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." ... By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean "a piece of information about which there is some dispute.""

"Wikipedia is devoted to stating facts in the sense as described above. Where we might want to state an opinion, we convert that opinion into a fact by attributing the opinion to someone."

To take one sentence as an example, the article currently says this:

"God according to the book is one Deity who functions on a range of different levels of reality, both personal and impersonal."

Your suggestion is this:

"God is one Deity who functions on a range of different levels of reality, both personal and impersonal."

It takes out the attribution and makes a statement of opinion appear instead as a fact when it's not at all "a piece of information about which there is not serious dispute".

I looked at the Qur'an article, I see your point on that. I don't think this article is as bad off, but we probably could do without some of the quotes. I don't think it will be realistic for there to be a side article for quotes, the whole book is available online if people really would like to see what's in it, but I think it's useful for some select quotes to appear in the article to get across a few key points and give a small taste for what the text is like. Wazronk 18:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

All right, I've taken out some of the quotes, see if that looks like an improvement or not. The ones I left were ones I thought were making reasonable and clear points where they were, and it seemed to me liked paraphrasing or cutting them wasn't going to be as helpful. The reduction in quotes also made it more reasonable to collapse the "Cosmology" part into one overall section, which I think is a good simplification. Wazronk 02:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

:) Hi Wazronk. I think I'm going to have to print out the two versions and compare them to get a good read on the changes. When I look at them under the history tab, I can't really get a good sense of the differences because of the formatting. Because my printer isn't working, I have to use somebody else's. I won't be able to get that for another 4 days. It will probably be another week before I can respond, but I'll get back to you on that. I did another rewrite and left it on the sandbox. I will have to explain my thinking on it step by step, and that will probably take me a week also. I'm working on it intuitively, and I don't always know what my thoughts are why until I step back from it and look at it from a distance. You probably shouldn't consider a serious response to it until I can put down what I was thinking. At the moment I don't even know. Richiar 04:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I finally was able to review the changes you made. I agree with the changes. As I look at the article, I think its about 3 % of what needs to be done. I am not saying that in a critical manner, but so you can know what I’m thinking. Why don’t we discuss this some. Maybe we could discuss the details of this on our talk pages: see if we can develop a collaboration. If we hash out some of this on our talk pages it might save the Urantia talk page some tedious discussion. Richiar 20:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't say I'm in agreement about the need for a 97% overhaul. We can talk about it though. I see your ideas from the sandbox setup you've worked on. To me (to start with where I have most disagreement) some parts of the article in particular I know to have been polished and enriched over a long time by contributions of many people to reach the current state. I'm less supportive of overhauls of these sections in the absence of people being squeaky wheels about there being such significant shortcomings to merit it. For example, the "God and the individual" section -- many people have collaborated on this part, argued over its language, and refined it over a long time, a touchy subject for POV and other reasons, and I see how it has matured into a stable, balanced, well-sourced section now as a result of the collaborations. It hasn't provoked POV or content disputes for quite a while. Simplification is one characteristic to consider to make language more effective but also simplification is in the eye of the beholder. Though intentioned for improvement I don't agree it should be done just for its own sake by one or two people as this is from subjective opinions ultimately and overrides the natural development and growth these sections have seen by many editors. It would be a loss not a gain in my view (comparing current article version to minimalistic, 4th-grade-reading-level version in the sandbox).

On the "Nature of God" section, this is a more recent development that branched off from "God and the individual". I'm the one who did that. The first paragraph and some other parts were taken from "God and the individual". I added material, and probably a third of it has been cut since then. I did some of the cutting myself and others have also. I personally think it's currently a pretty decent, lean summary of the main macro-level points on the topic "Nature of God" (considering there are hundreds of pages on the topic in TUB). If I thought otherwise I would have already edited it directly to improve. But this is a section I know has had less richness of editor collaboration and so I recognize that more input and discussion probably could help it be better.

I see you've added a lengthy comment to my talk page, I'll add some more points there. Thanks. Wazronk 19:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello Wazronk, Majeston and Richiar,

Greetings all! I hope and trust all is well with all of you.

Upon my return here after many months absence, one of the first things I've attempted to assist with is the refinement and improvement of the "God and the Individual" section. But I had not seen this dialogue yet.

I had been bothered by the way this section was written with a POV which made the Thought Adjuster sound like some sort of parasitic foreign entity entirely different from what the Urantia Book says it is in whole. Part of the problem here, I think, is because of the linking to articles which continue morphing, too. Using the comparison to a daimonion such as Socrates is said to have referred to for example, in the book is only crudely similar and only in limited ways by comparison with all that is really written about Thought Adjusters in the Urantia Book. And Thought Adjusters are the "way" God and the Individual have direct communication and communion with each other.

I've attempted to clarify only some of the ideas presented about TA's in the last paragraphs today. I hope that, at least this attempt spurs some evolution of the section toward better representation of what a Thought Adjuster actually is, how it relates to the title of this section "God and the Individual" and to make the point of focus about what the book says about God and the Individual. We shouldn't have to sacrifice well rounded representation of TA's in this section for the sake of efficiency and condensation of the section if we think it through carefully.

Overall, I am impressed with the general improvements of the article and thank you all, and commend you on the headway you have made. I apologize for not having looked here at the discussions before making my changes, but I hope you will understand. Thanks to all of you this article is really coming along superbly, and I certainly understand if you now would like to change what I wrote today. :) Best wishes to all, Hanely 17:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to try to present some thoughts about what I mean when I say "simplifying the article". I think it is a bit difficult to try to sift through whats in the UB and convert it to a good article type of state, so I'm going to put some of my thoughts down, and I may need to revise my comments as I proceed, as discussion develops.

In terms of style, I would like to see a more simple use of language, that is informational and smoothly readable, with ideas that are easy to comprehend by the general reader, that has no background in the UB. What it seems that we have in some sections is a promotional and subtle pov style. I think some things could be said more directly, with less superfluous additional material, or exposition. There may be a simpler, less complex way to present the complex ideas in the UB. There are a number of areas I think might be improved in terms of the above ideas, but its probably best to just look at a section at a time, and go from top to bottom, a little at a time.

I am envisioning that it might improve the article if we look at three areas:

a) style: simple and informational and smoothly readable vs promotional and pov oriented,

b) content: direct vs superfluous, or expository

c) complexity: present the easier ideas in the main article. the more difficult ones should be considered for side articles.

In looking at the introduction, here are my thoughts:

1) I think the second sentence is unnecessary, and superfluous, and detracts a little from a smoothly read section.

2) I would drop the term "philosophy", because while the UB talks abou the dimension of the mind that is philosophical, it doesn't really talk about philosophy, except to call metaphysics a "failure", and it doesn't explain this statement. Philosophy is a complex field and there is no light shed on it from the UB except to combine science philosophy and religion as part of the cosmic intuitive mind in human experience.

3) The first sentence of the second paragraph is an important point to make: but can it be said in another place, and improve the readability of the introduction? If the sentence is placed in the Revelation side article, the Revelation article is improved, the readability of the intro is improved, and the content of the purpose of the revelation is still retained.

Then we would have an introduction that reads as follows:

The Urantia Book is a book that discusses God, science, religion, history, and destiny. The book originated in Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A. sometime between 1924 and 1955, but its authorship is considered to be a mystery. (See Mysterious origin.)

Among many other topics, it expands on the origin and meaning of life, describes humankind's place in the universe, discusses the relationship between God and people, and presents a detailed biography of Jesus. The book is 2,097 pages long, and consists of a Foreword and 196 papers, divided into four parts. (Preceeding sentence removed below).

The Urantia Book introduces the word Urantia as the name of the planet Earth. "Urantian" is a derivation used to denote anyone or anything that originates on Earth. Colloquially, the word "Urantian" is sometimes used to denote an individual who admires and believes in the book, but this meaning is not found in the book itself. (Preceeding sentence removed below).

The Urantia Foundation first published The Urantia Book in 1955 in English. Translations into numerous languages are available with several new translations in process. In 2001, Urantia Foundation lost the U.S. copyright to the English version in a court decision and it went into the public domain,^[1] and in 2006, the international copyright on the English text expired.^[2] Complete, searchable editions of The Urantia Book are available on the Internet, as well as free audio versions.

End of modified draft. Richiar 17:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

With a little more modification, and removal of a couple more sentences that seem unnecessary, we arrive at this version:

The Urantia Book is a book that portrays itself as having been written by spiritual beings as a revelation to man from God. The book originated in Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A. sometime between 1924 and 1955, but its authorship is considered to be a mystery. (See mysterious origin).

The Urantia Book introduces the word "Urantia" as the name of the planet Earth. Its topics of discussion include God, science, religion, history, and destiny, and it expands on the origin and meaning of life.(1,2,3) It discusses humanity's place in the universe, (1,2,3) discusses the relationship between God and humanity, and presents a detailed biography of Jesus.

The Urantia Foundation first published The Urantia Book in 1955 in English. Translations into numerous languages are available with several new translations in process. In 2001, Urantia Foundation lost the U.S. copyright to the English version in a court decision and it went into the public domain.

End of modified draft 2. Richiar 17:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Version three of the intro

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The Urantia Book is a book whose authors are portrayed as spiritual beings, and is said to have been composed by them for the purpose of communicating a revelation to our planet about God. The book discusses a variety of topics about God, science, religion, history, and destiny. The book originated in Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A. sometime between 1924 and 1955, but its authorship is considered to be a mystery. (See mysterious origin).

The Urantia Book does not present a formal religion, but discusses the fundamental nature of religion itself, and how the combination of religion with other areas of human experience, can act to improve life. The word Urantia is introduced by the book as the name given to refer to the planet Earth.

The Urantia Foundation first published The Urantia Book in 1955 in English. Translations into numerous languages are available with several new translations in process. In 2001, Urantia Foundation lost the U.S. copyright to the English version in a court decision and it went into the public domain.and in 2006, the international copyright on the English text expired. Complete, searchable editions of The Urantia Book are available on the Internet, as well as free audio versions.

This is the version of the intro that I support for the article. (I would retain the internal links where they already exist). Richiar 04:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Richiar,

Nice work so far and overall. I agree with you in general about cleaning up the tone and grammar for the sake of simplifying the article and improving the POV to be one of factual content relating to the book and what is in it. This will help authors to steer away from generalizations that may or may not be true, but also POV problems associated with the emotional reader who either believes it or does not believe it. This article is not to be about that, but to be an informative encylopedic entry reflecting what is The Urantia Book? A successful article therefor, will stick to the facts about the contents of the book.

I have assisted in the making of the introduction, and, as it stands at this time, is vastly improved over the original morphings up to now. Even so, those revisions were microscopic and pertained to the article as it existed at the time. Now that the article has expanded so much, and spawned side articles, I think revising the Intro is necessary. The intro needs to reflect on the sections of the article in order of import and relevance to the purpose of having the article entered in Wikipedia in the first place.

What I have learned in English is that an introduction is a type of summary - but it introduces in summary style what the guts of the article covers. Just as a closing paragraph sums up the totality in its own way, an intro does this too.

I'm not convinced that philosophy should be left out as one of the things TUB presents and covers in its pages. I did a quick online word search and got 76 hits for that word alone in TUB. Philosophy is very intertwined with religion and science...people understand there are grey areas associated. Of course if one was to read TUB, they would understand it is all about the love of truth and fact, and the adventures associated with finding them.

Well, I hope this has been helpful in some way!

Hanely 17:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thought Adjuster

Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I have added some apostrophe's to the term Thought Adjuster, to at least qualify that it is a term that is used commonly throughout the book; but the term is not in general use. In fact, its probably never before been used on the planet until the Urantia Book. So, to use it throughout the article is submitting the readers to the use of jargon and specialized language, that only readers of the Urantia Book would be familiar with.

Its like the Scientology article using the term "Thetan" or "static" or "ARC" throughout the article, as if we all talk like that. Its way too presumptuous, and is not appropriate for a general encyclopedia article. Also, there is a side article on Thought Adjuster, which is appropriate, and thats where a lot of the material thats in the section on God and the Individual would appropriately go. Much of the material on Thought Adjuster rightly could go to the side article. Richiar 01:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Richiar,

While I understand what you are saying, I disagree that it is inappropriate. Many authors here composed that section. In English, I was taught to introduce a new term in the beginning, and make sure the definition is there, then you can use it the rest of the way because the reader now has the meaning to apply to their reading the article (same thing with using abbreviations like TUB). In definining God and the Individual, the article could be overhauled, but it evolved just like the rest of the article has with many authors. I think it is improved and does not need "quotation" marks after the first time where it is explained to be a fragment of God's spirit. Only someone who doesn't read left to right top to bottom would be confused. And that's their problem, not the author's.

Hanely 02:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi. If you want to change the quotations back, go ahead. I'm not going to proceed with changes unless it suits people. You were here before I was and probably took part in the composition of that section and others. You are correct about the grammar rule of following through down through the paragraphs of the section.

What I'm saying is there is a lot of redundancy in the sectiont that is unimportant. Its important to the people who wrote the section, but not important to an encyclopedia article, particularly the introductory article to the Urantia Book. This would not pass in a newspaper article, and it wouldn't pass if we submitted it for good article status. If you think it would, lets do it.

There is a subtle pov in the writing, that people are blinded to because they are Urantia Book readers. It is a promotional style of writing. Not informational. I can't make it any clearer. If people don't see it, I can't make them see it.

I know a lot of people worked on the section. That doesn't mean that it passes for an encyclopedia article, if 10 worked on it, or 100.

Anyway, I'm going to change it back, and leave it alone, unless there is a consensus to proceed otherwise. However, I do think your additions to the section were an improvement. Regards. Richiar 04:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Richiar! :)

Nice to hear back from you so soon. If there are any promotional areas that you can identify specifically I can try to help rewrite them more matter of factly. As for redundancy, same thing...if we can be specific, then we can fix.

The introducing of the section entitled 'God and the Individual' was someone else's idea. I don't recall who it was or when but have a vague recollection of it being insisted upon. So, I don't want to make waves until something pans out better. But if it has to be there, then we can at least improve it and link into other sections of the article to avoid redundancies. For now, I'm just going to review it and make whatever fixes I see. Let me have a good look at the whole thing :) because it is all changed around anyway! :)

I agree about overall quality not being up to snuff. One day, perhaps it will be such a wonderful article it could be nominated for a Wikipedia award? Let us not hold our breath, but get busy... >grin<

Hanely 16:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

OK friend. I think the title "God and the Individual is a good one. First let me get your opinion on version 3 of the intro above. Also, if Wazronk and High in BC have an opinion, perhaps they'll share it with us. They're both major contributors here. Then I'll focus on God and the Individual section.Richiar 03:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

New article and navigation template

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I started a new article on universe reality, that has a link in the Nature of God section. I'll be working on it some. Also, I'm looking at starting a navigation template. I like the appearance of Physical Cosmology, and would recommend that format. Richiar 00:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The idea of maybe a Wikiproject here for the Urantia Book occured to me. Also, the taskforce idea, but there would need to be a more robust editing community for the taskforce to be viable. Richiar 16:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Possible violation of WP: OR

Latest comment: 16 years ago12 comments3 people in discussion

I have been advised that the following articles may be a violation of WP: OR: "universe realtiy", "Thought adjuster", "Glossary of terms", and "History and destiny of earth". I have placed below the discussion with another editor, likely to be an administrator. If this is the case, the only way any of the content in any of these article could be preserved is to include them in the main article. This would greatly expand the article's length, so that would mean some serious editing would be required. Richiar 19:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Transcript of communication with Skomorokh below:

Please explain
Could you explain what the objection was that prompted the template for the universe reality article? If the issue of notability is your concern, then you would have to question the validity of the Urantia Book article. The universe reality article is a summary of what is said in the Urantia Book. There are no third party sources of the Urantia Book on the matter of universe reality. The problem is the nature of the material in the book itself. The Urantia Book itself does clearly meet notability requirements. Richiar 14:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, the Urantia book article fulfils the notability criteria because among other things, it is the subject of at least two independent books as noted in that article. Yet that is not enough to prove that Universe reality deserves its own article - each article must stand on its own. As someone completely unfamiliar with the subject, it is far from clear to me that this is deserving of its own article. So, following the guideline at WP:N, I "put the {{notability}} tag on the article to alert other editors". Because the article, as it stands, contains neither introductory explanation nor sources to support it, it could be, hypothetically a) completely made up b) unable to meet notability criteria c) worthy of inclusion, but only as a subsection of another article or d) a perfectly good article that just needs a little work to be brought up to standard. I added the tag to alert editors (particularly yourself) that the article was in danger of deletion unless a claim for notability was made. It would be a shame for a perfectly good article that you have obviously put a lot of work into to be swiftly deleted by an unsympathetic passing editor. Regards, Skomorokh ^incite 15:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. I don't think the ideas in "Universe reality" can be a stand alone article, because it is not possible to validate them, and the Urantia Book has not been around long enough to generate 3rd party sources on the structure of universe reality. But is is a summary of what the Urantia Book says. I was intending it as a side article of the Urantia Book.

It is intended as a side article of the Urantia Book with some direct relationship to cosmology. Maybe you can suggest how I can move it in that direction. Richiar 16:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Unless you can find sources, the article is almost certainly going to be deleted. Unfortunately, as interesting as it might be to examine the relationship between Urantia Book's conception of universe reality and cosmology, unless you use only academic or other notable scholarly sources, this would be a violation of WP:OR. I suggest merging (by copy/paste) the text of Universe reality with the existing Urantia Book article, perhaps as a subsection. Alternatively, if you can find consensus among other editors or independent sources, you could start an article on Urantia movement, Urantia philosophy, Urantia cosmology etc., if such things exist and are notable. Best of luck, Skomorokh ^incite 16:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

There are 4 other articles that are identical in nature to the universe reality article. They are: 1) History and future of the world (The Urantia Book) 2) Glossary of terms in The Urantia Book 3) Revelation (The Urantia Book) 4) Thought Adjuster. How can universe reality be a violation of OR and not these other articles? None of these other articles meet the criteria you mention, but none of these were considered a violation of WP:OR. Richiar 18:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have been unclear, allow me to rephrase. While there may very well be interesting/important etc. links between concepts (including universe reality) in The Urantia Book and existing spheres of knowledge (cosmology etc.), unless they have been made by independent, notable, third party scholars, they have no place in Wikipedia. If you or I were to make such links, it would be a WP:OR violation. Sorry for the confusion.

As for the other articles you linked to, none of them meet the notability criteria and are at risk of being summarily deleted. They may or may not be OR - I am in no position to judge. Regards, Skomorokh ^incite 18:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Due to the advisement that the articles above may be designated for deletion, and further advisement that the material may be appropriately included into the main article, I have added the universe reality article and revelation article to the main article, until we can get this matter further sorted out. Richiar 20:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It's incorrect that the articles are "at risk of being summarily deleted". There's a process for deciding whether articles stay or go. Thought Adjuster and Glossary of terms in The Urantia Book both have undergone this process and to date have been considered acceptable by the broader wikipedia community. I think there's less basis for inclusion on wikipedia for extended topics like "History and future of the world" and "Universe reality" because these really don't have any verifiable objective evidence to support claims of notability. I think Revelation (The Urantia Book) can be justified as a topic although the current form of the article isn't too polished. Wazronk 15:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer that the side articles not be deleted, as I think they are appropriate. As you've probably noticed above, the comments were made by Skomorokh. (And his (or her) comments were intended to be helpful, not a confrontation or warning).

Is your point that "Thougy Adjuster" is not a violation because it is shorter than the others?

~~About the WP: OR "policy"—it is not an absolute policy, it states on the article page that it is a guideline.~~ Because of the nature of the material of the Urantia Book, it would seem proper to consider that side articles be allowed. The main article would be improved if there were some side articles (as we've tried to do). Verifiable objective third party evidence is proper for most of the articles for Wikipedia, but a rigid application of that idea here would not be proper for the UB in my view, as I've said, because of the nature of the context of the book itself. And it may be 100, 200, 300, 400 years before any commentaries on the theology of it appear. Richiar 17:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Correction above: WP: OR is a policy. WP: notability is a guideline. If universe reality is not allowed due to the OR policy, I'm having a hard time following the logic that Thought adjuster and revelation, and supreme being for that matter is not OR. (Again: I am in favor of keeping these as side articles, as we have been doing). Richiar 17:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Richiar,

Yes, I understood who was saying what, and that comments from Skomorokh aren't your own views. Skomorokh is someone unfamiliar with these topics and the conclusion from him or her on a first pass look at the articles was that none of them meet notability. It's an understandable conclusion, I didn't view it as unfriendly or not in good faith.

My view is from the perspective of having read many secondary sources, and it's that notability can be easily established for "Thought Adjuster" and "Revelation" topics. If these articles need edits to establish that for others who aren't familiar, to me it's no problem. As for the glossary, that was voted to be kept on wikipedia by a wide margin after a nomination for deletion not even two months ago and is fine, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Glossary_of_terms_in_The_Urantia_Book. I'm not pushing for deletion of the other articles but I don't have arguments or sources to support their inclusion and would understand if deletion would come about.

How is notability established (WP:NOTE)? It's not about length of article but about whether a topic "has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Like Skomorokh said, each article should be able to stand on its own merit.

Thought Adjuster coverage:

Gardner's book
New Religions: A Guide: New Religious Movements, Sects and Alternative Spiritualities by J. Gordon Melton and Christopher Partridge
Larson's Book of World Religions and Alternative Spirituality by Bob Larson
Charts of Cults, Sects, and Religious Movements by Dr. H. Wayne House
to a limited extent Gooch's book as I recall

From what I've seen a majority of outside secondary sources that looks into "Urantia" movement at all, even if only to describe it in a few paragraphs, mentions the concept of the "Thought Adjuster". It is one of the main concepts in the book and different sources cite it over and over as a primary feature of the book's teachings.

About "Revelation", similarly, it is always noted that the book claims to be a "revelation". The entirety of Gardner's book is an evaluation of this claim.

As per WP:NOTE, "Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles, which is governed by other guidelines such as those on using reliable sources and on handling trivia."

Notability can clearly be established by the wikipedia guidelines for these articles and it is acceptable for them to draw on TUB directly for content, as they do. I haven't seen sources remotely similar to establish notability for "History and future" and "Universal levels" topics, and the inclusion of a sub-section in this article claiming to describe what are "Original religious concepts" in TUB is most definitely original research without citations of who made these assessments of which concepts are "original". How do you know they are original? Where is there an analysis published by a reliable, objective source? All the best. Wazronk 19:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the nice note. That helps explain the situation better. I haven't read any of those books you mention above. I've concentrated on trying to understand the concepts in TUB. Based on that point of view, would the side articles of universe realities and the History and Future sections possibly be deleted then? That would seem to mean significant sections of TUB couldn't be elaborated on. Richiar 22:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

While I highly doubt a speedy deletion as Skomorokh implied, a nomination for deletion through the AfD process is possible for those. I would even expect it sooner or later. A crude first attempt by someone for a Thought Adjuster article was deleted originally and the current one had to survive an AfD. I would also expect an AfD for the Revelation article some day though I think that one is an acceptable topic. To me it reads as rough and unencyclopedic and that increases the likelihood of AfD. If an AfD would come about for any of the three articles, I believe the Revelation one would be most defensible (though modifications are needed) and to the extent of my understanding of secondary sources there isn't much to defend the other two unfortunately. On the other hand, I don't pretend I know all books that mention TUB; for example, I wasn't aware of Gooch's "Godtalk" book until it popped up on this article.

Yes, there are significant sections of TUB that don't meet criteria for inclusion on wikipedia. That can change as additional books and articles are published by reputable, verifiable sources (or others already out there are discovered by wikipedia editors). To the extent that topics related to TUB aren't published by outside, objective sources, unfortunately that's the extent that such topics don't meet criteria for inclusion on wikipedia. I think a topic on the TUB topic of "Jesus" would be a significant one that does meet inclusion. Perhaps also "Cosmology". As Gardner said, the "cosmology outrivals in fantasy the cosmology of any science-fiction work known to me." Wazronk 00:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

As I don't know whats in any of the 3rd sources, I'm not sure what would be appropriate. A Jesus article seems appropriate, but would possibly have similar constraints. I'm going to have to rethink what I try to do, as I don't want to put a lot of work into something that ultimately turns out to be Wiki improper. Is there some way to work out a compromise? (My guess is in the last analysis, probably not). Richiar 23:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Richiar, I will help you and share what I know of secondary sources if you have questions about any particular topics and whether they are suitable (although I should warn that I've had less available time for wikipedia in recent weeks unfortunately and may not be timely with responses, sorry about that). I recall once we talked about "philosophy" and you might remember that I asked you if you knew of any book that analysized the philosophical content of TUB and compared to regular philosophy. Because a lot of work could go into building up a "philosophy" article but without sources and establishment of notability it can be a house "built on sand". I would doubt you can hope for a compromise that allows an article to stay even though it doesn't meet wikipedia policies. But people working together can pool what they know and what sources they find. Keep in mind I don't know all sources that may be out there, maybe if you search for sources you can find something I haven't. Majeston compiled a list of many books, probably which he got by searching with the word urantia on amazon.com. But look through that list and see if there are any leads to help. I was able to find Gardner's book and Gooch's book at my library maybe you would be able to also. Wazronk 20:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll proceed in that fashion. I apologize for not answering your question about philosophy. I didn't realize I had neglected that. No, there are no books I know of that address the relationship of philosophy to TUB. There are some important distinctions in TUB that could impact on the field of metaphysics, but no work has been done on it that I know of.

We did talk about some side articles a while back. I will have to go back and see what we talked about. I will think about what might be good to work on, and get back to you on it. I'll be aware that you have other time commitments too. Richiar 23:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe that Dr. Jeffery Wattles and some others have done work in this area. Wattles site is the ReligiousTolerance.org site listed. O'mura. Sprunger and others may also have addressed the philosophical issues. Majeston 00:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Changes to comparison

Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

As there was no discussion to the changes made to the article recently, it is not likely that these changes will be retained. However I'll put that issue aside, as it seems the recent changes were good faith edits inorder to improve the article.

I want to call attention to the wording of the two versions, the previous one and the present one.

A) Previous version:

Of all current world religions, The Urantia Book's teachings are likely the most consistent with the teachings of Christianity. There are significant differences between The Urantia Book and commonly accepted Christian beliefs though. Many believers see it as extending Judeo-Christian religious concepts in the same way the New Testament may be considered an extension of Old Testament ideas.

Jesus is held in high regard by The Urantia Book, as he is in the New Testament of the Bible. Part IV, more than one third of the content in The Urantia Book, is devoted to a narrative of his life and teachings.

B) Present version:

There are many similarities between The Urantia Book and Christianity. Most believers see the Urantia Book as a re-enstatement of the teachings of Jesus. Since Christianity has over 40,000 sects and their belief system widely varies, it is beyond the scope of this entry to compare the book against such a wide array of belief systems and do justice to the many viewpoints of held by theologians and scholar worldwide

1) I personally agree with the the second version, but it is just a different way of saying what was in the first version. If there is no compelling reason for the change, I don't think we can change the work of previous authors once it has been accepted by the editing community.

2) About the first version: there is the phrase: "Many believers see it as extending Judeo-Christian religious concepts in the same way the New Testament may be considered an extension of Old Testament ideas".

I personally agree with this statement, and I believe it is true, based on my own point of view and the point of view of other Urantia Book readers that I know. And I think it contributes to the article by helping to orient the general non Urantia Book reader in how Urantia Book readers view the Urantia Book, in my experience. However, does this statement use weasal words? Is this statement verifiable with notable 3rd sources? (The same can also be said of the current version) Richiar 13:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I also can agree more with the gist of the second version of the sentence you highlighted Richiar, although the distinction should be made that Part IV is what is considered a "restatement" not all of TUB. A way to solve the highlighted sentence's verifiability would be to take the attribution away from the phrasing of "many believers" or "most believers" (which is weaselish) and instead attribute directly: "The Urantia Book says this part is a restatement of Jesus' teachings and life based on a gathering of "superior concepts" of his teachings from over two thousand people who have lived since his times." Or something to that effect.

From the Acknowledgments at the end of paper 121... "In carrying out my commission to restate the teachings and retell the doings of Jesus of Nazareth, I have drawn freely upon all sources of record and planetary information." .... "The memoranda which I have collected, and from which I have prepared this narrative of the life and teachings of Jesus -- aside from the memory of the record of the Apostle Andrew -- embrace thought gems and superior concepts of Jesus' teachings assembled from more than two thousand human beings who have lived on earth from the days of Jesus down to the time of the inditing of these revelations, more correctly restatements." ... "In behalf of the Brotherhood of the United Midwayers of Urantia, I most gratefully acknowledge our indebtedness to all sources of record and concept which have been hereinafter utilized in the further elaboration of our restatement of Jesus' life on earth."

I don't agree that the section is problematic in the other ways cited. For example, this was put into the article as a replacement for the entirety of all comparisons: "Christianity has over 40,000 sects and their belief system widely varies, it is beyond the scope of this entry to compare the book to such a wide array of belief systems and do justice to the many viewpoints held by Christian theologians and scholars worldwide."

The wording already acknowledges the diversity in Christianity and doesn't claim to be a comparison to every single little varient ever in existence. The article says there are differences between TUB and "commonly accepted Christian beliefs". It says TUB has similarities and " shares the following general concepts with most Christian faiths". Nor should there be a comparison to every single little sect's ideas, Wikipedia WP:NPOV policy in fact is that tiny minority views don't need to be covered. The article is only dealing with top-level basics.

It isn't neutral for the article only to say there are "many similarities", there are also differences that people find substantial and they are well-documented. I wouldn't agree that the article should only say there "are many differences" and I don't agree only "similarities" should be accentuated. Both aspects are to be represented. Same for Buddhism section, differences shouldn't be glossed over. Wazronk 20:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

So to summarize this: the restatement of general ideas about Jesus that have similarities to Christianity (and some differences) would be adequate and not be OR? That works for me. Richiar 00:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It may confuse things a little to use the word "restatement" the way you have just there, since you're using it in a slightly different way than it has been so far in this discussion. What I was saying about "restatement" just is that I agree it is the direct wording TUB uses and so seems preferable to the previous wording. I think it was a good catch on Hershberger's part. It allows this part of the article's text to be attributed specifically to the book, and not in a weasel-word way to "most believers" or "many believers."

I'll reword your summary this way and answer: "So to summarize this: writing up general ideas about Jesus that have similarities to Christianity (and some differences) would be adequate and not be OR?"

Does that still preserve the meaning you were conveying?

I think this touches onto a bit of a gray zone with OR. If you have a clearly documented comparison by a reliable source, that should be no problem. If you have one fact from one side and another from the other side and put the facts side by side in the article as a "similarity" or "difference", some may consider that original research. To me it might be original research, but isn't necessarily always so.

As an example, let's pretend I wrote the original article on "Jesus" and included in there that according to the Gospels his parents were Mary and Joseph, and cite whatever the bible verses are. Let's say that later I came here and wrote that TUB has an account of Jesus and in the account his parents are Mary and Joseph. Also has a citable basis behind it, no problem.

I don't see that it violates WP:OR if there is a statement "A similarity between the Biblical account of Jesus' life and the TUB account is that his parents were Mary and Joseph". Both those facts can be verified, and there is no position being advanced. It's like 1 + 1 = 2.

Certain comparisons inevitably are going to be less black and white and be more contentious. I think specific comparisons that are contentious should invite debate among editors, and hopefully resolutions can come about to make edits and resolve differences. If there isn't a specific source to back up a particularly contentious comparison, then probably shouldn't be on wikipedia. Hershberger obviously is contending that at least some of the comparisons don't work for him or her but those specifics should be brought up for discussion instead of unilaterally flattening a section to nothing the way was done. Wazronk 01:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Good answer. Thats making things a little more clear for me. Richiar 14:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Link to Urantia readers international

Latest comment: 16 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

I have observed a bit of an edit war over the addition of this link. As far as I can tell, it seems legitimate to me. It has some clear presentations of the origin of TUB that I don't find elsewhere; but if it doesn't belong there, then it appears that an adimiistrator will be needed to block the ongoing edit war. This appears that it will go on indefinitely. Richiar 18:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The link has been added by an individual at the organization to promote it with wikipedia, which is an abuse of the site. It is link spam and isn't legitimate. There was a lengthy discussion about this already, I'm surprised you missed it. See here. The resulting indefinite block of User:UrantiaRI for their threats and uncivil behavior led to yet more here. Wazronk 05:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't exactly miss it; I was more like trying to understand the issue. They definitely haven't come forward to present their case in a satisfactory manner. I perceived their site as more informational, even though one of them was vicious, and received a well deserved block. But I know that others have percieved them as self promoting. I was more asking what am I missing to see them as self promotional? If they are inapproprieate, the URI link is inappropriate, 72_ _ _ _ _ may need to be blocked by an administrator, as 72 _ _ _ _ _ _ keeps popping up every two weeks, thinking we're not watchin, and he can slip something up there. One guy was blocked, but the other was left alone, and he's incorrigible. He needs a block if he's not legit. Richiar 08:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Just because there are multiple IP addresses doesn't mean there are different people. It looks like it's from the same person as before. The link itself is a form of promotion for the site and is called link spamming. Wikipedia is not the place for it. The link has been added by a person with a conflict of interest in that their edit is to promote their organization and not to improve the encyclopedic content of wikipedia. See WP:LINKS, see this about link spamming in particular, and see WP:Conflict of interest. Wazronk 15:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for those references. I follow that now. Should there be a block on that IP address to stop it? Richiar 16:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

That would be nice. Majeston 23:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

It is a possibility. At this point the spamming effort has been so trivial that simple removal by other editors has been sufficient as far as I'm concerned. Majeston, I've seen you've also caught it coming back sometimes. I recommend if you see the link return again, also check the Revelation (The Urantia Book) page, since the individual always seems to spam that one in tandem for whatever reason (one of the quirks that makes it seem to me this is all from the UrantiaRI user). Wazronk 23:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Mercury Tidal Lock

Latest comment: 16 years ago17 comments4 people in discussion

Mercury’s Rotation Report Prepared by Halbert Katzen with special thanks to Phil Calabrese [Updated 2/22/07]

The Urantia Book states that, “The planets nearest the sun were the first to have their revolutions slowed down by tidal friction. Such gravitational influences also contribute to the stabilization of planetary orbits while acting as a brake on the rate of planetary-axial revolution, causing a planet to revolve ever slower until axial revolution ceases, leaving one hemisphere of the planet always turned toward the sun or larger body, as is illustrated by the planet Mercury and by the moon, which always turns the same face toward Urantia[Earth].” (See Urantia Book 57:6.2)

Wikipedia.com makes the following commentary on the subject:

“For many years it was thought that Mercury was synchronously tidally locked with the Sun, rotating once for each orbit and keeping the same face directed towards the Sun at all times, in the same way that the same side of the Moon always faces the Earth. However, radar observations in 1965 proved that the planet has a 3:2 spin-orbit resonance, rotating three times for every two revolutions around the Sun; the eccentricity of Mercury's orbit makes this resonance stable — at perihelion, when the solar tide is strongest, the Sun is nearly still in Mercury's sky. The original reason astronomers thought it was synchronously locked was because whenever Mercury was best placed for observation, it was always at the same point in its 3:2 resonance, hence showing the same face.”

This discovery was made ten years after publication of the Urantia Book.

Notwithstanding that the Urantia Book avoided the pitfall of agreeing with science that was wrong at the time of its publication, there is still disagreement between the Urantia Book and contemporary science. While the Urantia Book says that tidal friction causes “a planet to revolve ever slower until axial revolution ceases,” contemporary science is now supporting the notion that Mercury has a stable 3:2 spin-orbit resonance.

Whether further research will harmonize with the Urantia Book’s assertion that tidal friction will cause the planet to cease rotating is still an open question. And whether such harmony will occur any time soon is doubtful because current observations suggest that its 3:2 spin-orbit resonance is stable. Nonetheless, additional observations may yet reveal that Mercury’s axial rotation has a measure of instability that will eventually knock it out of what currently appears to astronomers as a stable 3:2 spin-orbit resonance.

Mercury is known for having an “eccentric” orbit. Wikipedia.com states, “The orbit of Mercury is the most eccentric of the major planets, with the planet's distance from the Sun ranging from 46,000,000 to 70,000,000 kilometers.” This eccentricity creates variations in the speed of its orbit. Tidal friction, which is an ongoing process, may yet cause a shift in both the orbit and axial rotation of Mercury.

Some research has gone in the direction of calculating such a probability/possibility of Mercury could have developed a 1:1 spin-orbit resonance, or to it put another way, no axial revolution with respect to the sun. From l’Observatoire de Paris’ analysis in a report titled The explanation of Mercury's capture into the 3:2 spin-orbit resonance as a result of its chaotic orbital dynamics , we have the following, “ With their extended numerical simulations, the researchers found that the capture into the 3:2 resonance is in fact the most probable outcome of the planet, with 55.4 % chances to occur. The remaining possibilities being a capture into the 1/1 resonance (2.2%) as for the Earth-Moon system, capture into the 2/1 resonance (3.6%), or no capture (38.8%). Temporary capture into higher order resonances (5/2 or 3/1 for example) are possible, but none of them survived over the full integration, as they become destabilized when the eccentricity of Mercury decreases to low values.”

This leaves the question a bit open by indicating that other possibilities existed. However, the vast majority of research on the subject does not address other possibilities the way they are talked about in the above article and there seems to be a fairly uniform acceptance of the notion that the rotation is stable for the foreseeable future. Even this article suggests that the other possibilities were with respect to things that could have happened during Mercury’s initial stages of development, not future developments.

With regard to a separate issue, some people have suggested the Urantia Book says that Mercury’s axial revolution has come to a stop and that, therefore, the Urantia Book is incorrect with regard to its statements about Mercury. This opinion comes from extracting the following phrases from the sentence in which they occur: “leaving one hemisphere of the planet always turned toward the sun or larger body, as is illustrated by the planet Mercury”.

This is a flawed analysis of the phrases because they are taken out of context both within the sentence from which they are taken and with respect the context created by the previous sentence. Proper interpretation of these phrases requires that they not only be put fully in the context of the sentence in which they occur but also in the context of a sentence-to-sentence analysis.

The previous sentence states: "The planets nearest the sun were the first to have their revolutions slowed down by tidal friction." Here it is important to note that the larger context is specifically about our solar system and the lead-in sentence of the paragraph, quoted above, relates to planets in our solar system being slowed by tidal friction. It does not say that any of the planets have stopped due to this effect. The slowing is the issue being noted and there is no mention here or anywhere else of any planet having stopped already. Though this first sentence would not be inconsistent with a planet having stopped, it certainly does not imply or suggest such a thing either.

Next, and more importantly, we must appreciate the phrases within the context of the sentence in which they occur.

The phrases in question are qualifying/clarifying phrases, additions to the main point of the sentence. This interpretation is necessary and supported by the fact that the first part of the sentence, "Such gravitational influences also contribute to the stabilization of planetary orbits while acting as a brake on the rate of planetary-axial revolution, . . ." is a complete thought within itself. A period could have been put at the end of this first part of the sentence and it would have been grammatically correct. Not only would it have been grammatically correct, but additionally and more to the point, it would have been instructive all by itself because it brings together two distinct issues. The one issue being the stabilization of orbits and the other being the braking effect on axial revolution. By starting with a complete thought, grammatical conventions require us to interpret what comes afterwards and is separated by commas in terms of how it fundamentally relates to this initial concept/complete thought.

Now let’s consider the first qualification/clarification, separated by a comma, that comes after the complete thought — "causing a planet to revolve ever slower until axial revolution ceases, . . ." The clarification is that the process mentioned above, as regards the braking/slowing of the planets (clearly, this is not addressing the orbital stability issue), is that eventually there is finality to the process, the planet stops. This does not imply that any particular planet has reached the point of having stopped because everything that comes before this comma-separated phrase is in general terms. Therefore, this phrase should not be construed to mean that stoppage has actually occurred, only that the process of tidal friction will eventually lead to this result.

Then we get the next comma-separated phrase which qualifies/clarifies the previous phrase — "leaving one hemisphere of the planet always turned toward the sun or larger body, . . ." What this phrase does by way of clarification of the previous phrase is to state specifically what is meant by stopped (i.e. one hemisphere always turned toward the sun) and then it adds an additional clarification that this process not only relates to planets but also to other orbiting bodies. This is what the "or larger body" contributes to the clarification of the main point regarding the effects of tidal friction; it expands the tidal friction effect to other orbiting spheres.

Then comes the next clarification —"as is illustrated by the planet Mercury and by the moon, . . ." So now the question is, "What is illustrated by the planet Mercury and the moon, that they are both examples of the effects of tidal friction (something that eventually leads to stoppage) or that they have both stopped?" To answer this question we must go to the last qualifying/clarifying and comma-separated phrase — "which always turns the same face toward Urantia[Earth]."

This last qualifying phrase distinguishes the moon from Mercury. It could have just as easily said something like, "both of which now turn the same hemisphere toward the body around which they orbit." But it does not do this. Instead, it distinguishes these two bodies from each other by only addressing the status of the moon. By distinguishing the two spheres from each other, it leaves Mercury standing alone as an example of the main subject of the sentence, i.e. that tidal friction slows planets down, eventually to a stop, and first affects the planets closest to the sun. Majeston 08:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

And, voila, once again another Urantia Book believer strains mightily against plain English on this topic, and doesn't even realize the resolution they think they have explained is attributing two other errors to TUB anyhow. Wazronk 19:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Please cite your basis in wikipedia policy for the deletion of the Mercury material. It is 100% attributable, verified, and referenced to a reliable third-party published source as per WP:V. See Gardner's book.

Per wikipedia policy: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source."

Your only statement is that it is "POV" but that is a non-reason. You don't get to delete material just because it isn't a POV you agree with. Wazronk 21:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Wazronk, verifiability is not that cut and dried. There is exceptions to that rule where credibility overrides the pov. published or not. It appears that you are scrounging up any little tidbit of a negative tone simply to include some controversy in the article. Your entry implies to the reader that the science in the Ub is incorrect when in fact it is an interpretation of the english language of the 1930's. It is not a science argument and certainly not one that should be left with a negative slant. At worst if you wish to include it you need to mention that there are other ways to interpret that sentence. Majeston 15:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Glad you agree that "there is [sic] exceptions to that rule where credibility overrides pov." Mr. Katzen has zero credibility as a source, not only is his whole conclusion based on a lack of understanding of the basic science involved, not only does he have no discernable education in either science or language much less make a profession in either field, the article above isn't from a third-party published source but is from his self-published website ubthenews.com. If wikipedia policy was willing to quote from sources like him we would also be sure to freely load up the article with the views of sites like ubhoax.org etc.

Sorry you personally feel there is some kind of "negative slant" or "controversy" here, all the article does is point out examples of flaws in TUB science. That there are shortcomings with the science in the book is utterly uncontroversial to practically everyone. Even when you get down to the less than 0.01% of the population that believes in TUB, it is uncontroversial because TUB itself says there are flaws and that it's cosmology "is not inspired" (which the "criticism of science" section generously gives as the lead quote, and goes into even further with the Meredith Sprunger quote). All POVs or analyses in a wikipedia article must meet WP:V and WP:RS and if you feel one is out there that isn't adequately represented the burden of proof is on you to back up your proposed edits with a credible, reliable source. It should also be kept in mind WP:NPOV is clear, "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia." Or as it also says "Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all." Published sources cited in the article place the Sprunger viewpoint as a minority view at best and everything I've seen so far is this flawed, biased rationalization that Katzen came up with to mentally cope with a TUB cosmology mistake is most definitely a tiny-minority POV. Wazronk 05:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The article was not from Katzen it was from Phil Calabrese who is more than qualified and Calabrese is not the only Urantian scientist with credentials and experience to offer his valid opinion. Ceretainly more qualified than Gardner the uneducated athiest octegenerian puzzle writer. In your zeal to offer an apparent balanced pov you include the most torturous examples of what you or scant others can offer as examples of flaws in science. The Mercury tidal-lock is an example of such an effort. The 1806/08 eclipse although somewhat valid can easily be seen as a transcription typo between a 6 and an 8 rather than making such a big deal as an example of flawed science in an encyclopedia. The Ub science is on solid ground and doesn't change with the "theory du jour". In most all cases that I have seen over 40 years science du jour gravitates to the Ub view eventually and the ones that haven't, eventually will. You don't seem to understand the not-inspired quote. Not inspired does not mean not correct. Majeston 10:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Complain all you want. Published credible sources that meet WP:V is what you need for inclusion on wikipedia, not scrounged up copy and pasted material off random websites. READ WP:V and WP:RS already. You don't have a reliable source but your own personal beliefs on the topic and a cut and paste from a self-published website by a tiny-minority apologist without even a science education. You claim Phil Calabrese is actually the author but the byline from the article itself does not credit him with being the author instead giving him an undefined "special thanks" ("Mercury’s Rotation Report Prepared by Halbert Katzen with special thanks to Phil Calabrese"). Even if you claim Calabrese has credentials on this topic, that's just you talking, show an independent, published credible source. I've read Calabrese, his view is "At this time our human cosmic philosophy needs some divine revelation to make adequate progress" not independent scientific analysis of topics. Wazronk 18:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Waz, your attitude leaves much to be desired, perhaps you may take a hint from your own words "It is sad to see on the other hand the incivility of your last comment toward the editors ". The article no matter what Katzen's byline says is from Calabrese PhD. His credentials certainly are more trustworthy and recognized than Gardners. It is not me, but yourself who has scrounged up irresponsible and unreliable sources to attempt to justify your claims of scientific irregularities, simply because someone of questionable motives has published something on the topic which meets some strange requirement of wiki. The Urantia papers is not your ordinary book or topic and much trouble and error comes because of it. It falls into a catagory unlike any other and discretion must be given to other writers on the subject who have studied and written material but not published by conventional means especially in a time when anyone may self publish. This is verified by 62 titles I have noted as well as hundreds of commentaries. Truth does have a place. Your Mercury tidal-lock is an example of the ludicrous. Your authors Gardner and Gooch for support is not credible. The interesesting quote you have culled from Calabrese has nothing to do with his scientific writings over the past 30 years and is out of place in this discussion. You should voluntarilly remove/edit your entries to show alternative interpretation instead of adding to the apparent obvious error of the conclusion which has been drawn. Your own motives for inclusion of such entries are questionable as well as your understanding of the material. Majeston 14:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course my attitude leaves much to be desired in your worldview. The only acceptable attitude to you is All Hail the Wonderfulness and Perfection of the Almighty Urantia Book.

Incivility doesn't include challenging Katzen and Calabrese's obvious lack of credibility and Katzen's flimsy, critically flawed article as a source for wikipedia.

I stand by my statements 100% and the statements in the article. They will not be removed. They are entirely valid criticisms and a POV that meets all wikipedia requirements from WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:OR. No edits to the contrary will be accepted unless backed by credible, verifiable, published sources that fully meet WP:V and WP:RS and which are demonstrably not tiny minority views per WP:NPOV. Wazronk 17:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I will be editing the article. Apparently you think you own the article and are the judge and arbiter of what will and will not be allowed. I am also opening the discussion for a concensus viewpoint to the other interested editors. Majeston 23:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I look forward to examining the published source(s) you cite for any new assertions you may wish to place in the article. You haven't given a published credible source yet, and now even seem to think the rules don't apply to you ("The Urantia papers is [sic] not your ordinary book or topic ... It falls into a catagory unlike any other and discretion must be given to other writers on the subject who have studied and written material but not published by conventional means especially in a time when anyone may self publish"). So I'm curious what you're going to come up with.

From the policy page of wikipedia, WP:V:

"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation... Any edit lacking a source may be removed."

I haven't been telling you what's approvable or not as some kind of arbiter, I'm telling you what the requirements are from wikipedia policy: "No edits to the contrary will be accepted unless backed by credible, verifiable, published sources that fully meet WP:V and WP:RS and which are demonstrably not tiny minority views per WP:NPOV."

A point to add, your surprising and repeated assertion that the byline of the Katzen article is false and another individual, Calabrese, is really the person behind the article demolishes whatever minimal semblence the article can claim as a source that has any bearing on the wikipedia article. You've insisted: "The article no matter what Katzen's byline says is from Calabrese PhD." Aside from the multiple reasons that already rule it out as a source according to WP:RS, it is emphatically a failed and inappropriate source for wikipedia purposes with the actual writer of the article disputed and your claim that the byline can't even be trusted! Wazronk 00:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Waz, you don't seem to understand the obvious. it is not a scientific dispute. It is an interpretation of grammatical English language sentence structure. Anyone who would include this Mercury tidal-lock as an example of faulty science is an idiot with an agenda. It does not meet the standards of credibility. You should be ashamed of yourself, certainly, if you have something of value to offer regarding faulty science you should be able to do better than this. Majeston 10:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Majeston, you don't seem to understand the obvious. You ain't got nothin here at all still, you need to cite a source.

A published verifiable credible source.

A reliable source per WP:RS.

A non-self-published-somewhere-out-on-the-internet source.

So it's a grammatical English language issue now to you. (And those of us who don't share the POV of the Katzen article are "idiots". That is, idiots "with an agenda". Unlike the purity and unbiased agenda-free positions you take!) Glad this is all clear finally and in such a classy way.

Gardner is a nationally-known professional writer who has made his career with the English language, with over 60 books to his credit and had a regular column at a major national-circulation magazine "Scientific American". His book that is cited in the article on this topic was edited and published independently by a publishing house and meets all of WP:V and WP:RS.

So, again, what is your published third-party credible source(s) to back up your agenda and different perspective in POV? Katzen has zero published writings apparently or any notable education in English, the basis of his odd views on how grammar works seems to come entirely from his need to sooth a conflict between his religious views and plain wording easily and obviously interpretably by others as multiple science errors (one which Katzen recognizes, one which he's clueless about that actually destroys the entire conclusion he puts so much effort into reaching!). But wait, inexplicably, you've claimed Calabrese is actually the person behind the arguments. A mathematician, also with no apparent experience as a professional writer or a background in English, no credibility on wikipedia at all on giving independent assessments of grammar, no independently published views on this topic at all. Still waiting for published sources from you on this topic per WP:V and WP:RS. Wazronk 16:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Somebody asked for a consensus of other editors a while ago....So I'll throw my two cents in: I agree with Majeston that using the convoluted sentence of "Mercury and the moon, blah blah" as an example of faulty science is an example of faulty linguistic interpretation. At best, it's a weak example of faulty science: there are better, so use those. </2c>

Wazronk: which do you value more: Wikipedia policy or the teachings of the Urantia Book? But don't get me wrong, I think both of those things are really, really good, for what they are. Xaxafrad 05:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Xaxafrad,

Welcome back, haven't seen you here in a while. I noticed all the work over at wikisource by the way, good job with that.

I still have to ask my same question as before on this topic, what is the credible, published source that it is a "faulty" linguistic interpretation? And what is the "correct" linguistic interpretation anyhow? According to who?

I disagree that the interpretation in the article is faulty, it's an obvious and clear interpretation to any outside person who doesn't have a religious stake in TUB or in TUB inerrancy.

Several TUB inerrantists have come by to edit this criticism line about Mercury that you would consider is a weak example of faulty science. They certainly consider it a troublesome line, and I also don't consider it a weak example but a rather clear, obvious, and easy-to-summarize one. Their interpretations that it is "faulty" have included attempts to fish for a "correct" interpretation. The main one of these appears to have floated around in the Urantia sub-culture for a while, I've found. This and its variations (including Katzen's views from the article cut-and-pasted above) have had the embarrassing problem though of going through all their efforts to try and dispel TUB's flawed science about Mercury and the Moon as a "linguistic interpretation" problem, only to declare solutions that are themselves science flaws (unrealized by the writers, who are amateurs about the science and about "linguistics").

Even giving the disjointed, uncredible rationales a pass, and just accepting the tiny-minority TUB inerrantist conclusions as the "correct" interpretations, you still have science criticisms. In a way they are stronger, even more damaging criticisms:

"The book, according to some believers, proposes that Mercury is an illustration of a planet that is in the process of slowing until one hemisphere will eventually always face the sun and the planet's axial revolutions will stop. Scientists have known for hundreds of years though that a planet's axial revolutions do not stop due to tidal friction as The Urantia Book claims. Martin Gardner in his critical book points out that even Oahspe, published in 1882, correctly accounts for this fact in comparison to The Urantia Book. Even if Mercury were to be synchronously locked to the sun in the same way that the Moon is locked to the Earth, it would be revolving on its axis constantly at the rate of once every 88 days. At the time the book was written, scientists did believe that Mercury had one hemisphere always facing the sun, just as the Moon has one side always facing the Earth. But radio astronomers discovered in 1965 that one hemisphere of Mercury does not always face the sun, and neither is the planet in the process of reaching that state. Instead, it is in a stable 3:2 spin-orbit resonance, a type of orbit that was unknown at the time The Urantia Book was written. Due to the stability of the spin-orbit resonance, astronomers do not expect that one side of Mercury will ever become locked to face the sun, contrary to the claims in The Urantia Book that planets are slowed by tidal friction until one hemisphere faces the sun."

The tiny-minority TUB inerrantists don't fully understand the topic they are talking about and have so far only inserted a foot in their mouth with their "linguistic interpretations" that they think for some reason resolve the science flaws. In fact they do the opposite, they highlight more flaws.

Here is Katzen's summary statement as an example, the last sentence from the article quoted above:

"By distinguishing the two spheres from each other, it leaves Mercury standing alone as an example of the main subject of the sentence, i.e. that tidal friction slows planets down, eventually to a stop, and first affects the planets closest to the sun."

Wrong. That is a science error by what virtually everyone would understand the word "stop" to mean in this context (axial revolutions equaling zero), and it is a science error even by Katzen's own stated alternative definition of what he thinks is meant by "stop"... "(i.e. one hemisphere always turned toward the sun)". Wazronk 03:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that educational reply. I see you value Wikipedia policy the most, which makes you a valuable editor for this article. As for me, I've never heard of Katzen or Calabrese, and I'm a layman without a telescope, so I'll trust the experts on this (the experts that I can see, that is). I don't really care about the scientific criticisms, my faith doesn't need scientific support. I've heard most of the arguments, weighed their merits, and come to my own conclusions. And I'm not a UB inerrantist. Xaxafrad 02:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

This is Halbert Katzen. I have just become aware of the discussion related to my article on Mercury's Rotation. There are a few things I would like to clear up. First of all, the statement "Prepared by Halbert Katzen with special thanks to Phil Calabrese" means just that. I wrote the article. Phil Calabrese reviewed it before I published it and he also brought the subject to my attention. Regarding my credentials: I have a degree in law from the University of Colorado at Boulder and did practice law for a while in Colorado. A law degree (JD), I think it can be fairly said, is a doctorate in, among other things, slicing and dicing language. It requires the highest degree of sensitivity to grammatical construction. Whatever one may think about my POV, it is a POV from someone who is degreed in slicing and dicing language on a professional level where there is a lot at stake. As well, a degree in law prepares one and requires one to be able to apply law to the widest variety of subject matter. So, as well, I have a doctorate in a field that requires one to know how to become self-educated in other disciplines. Being very new to the whole wikipedia thing, I must say it is very odd to me that all the back and forth went on about my credentials without anyone bothering to check what they are. I am googleable. It is not hard to find this information out about me. Just this last week I was paid by Denison University in Ohio to do presentations in two of their classes- World Religions and The Nature of Religion- about the work I am doing with UBtheNEWS and as a scholar of the Urantia Book. My undergraduate degree is in The Nature and Development of Religious Experience. Both my doctorate and my undergraduate degree support me in and are directly related to the work that I am doing with UBtheNEWS. I am getting paid to do it and I do it on a full time basis. Because the nature of the subject matter- scientific corroborations of the Urantia Book- is such that the reports get updated on an ongoing basis as new science develops, this material will never be ripe for commercial publication. Nor is it the type of information that lends itself well to commercialization. I appreciate the guidelines that are in place for wikipedia regarding issues related to being independently published/verifiability/etc. However, some topics, such as this one, simply do not lend themselves well to the strict interpretation of these guidelines. UBtheNEWS 09:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)UBtheNEWS

Hey this is joey: My take is that it looks very obvious UB is making a false statement saying that Mercury is initiated in tidal friction. The statement of Mercury being involved in a tidal friction is completly wrong, and that is why there are people like myself needed here to edit this. I can see obviously that UB is not saying Mercury is not involved in Tidal Lock, even as someone who is agaisnt the book I will acknowledge it is clearly pointing to the Moon for that. However the statement of Mercury being involved in this so-called friction and eventual locking is unscientific, and should be presented as such. Even if UB is right that Mercury is iniated in tidal friction, it changes nothing. There is no proof that it is Friction occuring, which makes the entire paragraph in UB wrong.

pov tag

Latest comment: 16 years ago12 comments4 people in discussion

"Wikipedia isn't the place to promote your religious beliefs", wrote an editor above.

Unfortunately, WP has become the place to promote religious beliefs in this article. I am adding a pov tag (just see the POV lead talking of so-called mysterious origins!). It may be reverted by True Believers but what is needed is more skeptical editors committed to balance this article, just as there are enough skeptical editors debating right now with scientologists —and even sending a noisy scientologist to WP:RFAR! Tito58 07:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you willing to be one of those editors committed to balance the article or is this a drive-by POV tag? You provided one small example of what you feel is POV but tagged the entire article as not being neutral, it'll be more helpful to give further specifics and stick around to see discussions through. Thanks. Wazronk 17:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I felt the same way about the drive-by shooting pov tag. The only reasonb given was something about mysterious origin. Well the whole universe has a mysterious origin. The Urantia origin was not mysterious anyway. It was legally copyrited by Urantia foundation as owners and authors.

I agree with Wazronk that if this editor wishes to stick around and discuss an article intelligently everyone here would be welcome to his imput. I doubt though that Tito58 has either read or studied this book or even knows anything worthwhile about it. I wonder what his drive-by graffitti motives are. Many editors over many yeras have devoted much time and energy and thought into this WP entry. Until Tito can contribute and receive consenus for his drive by graffitti banner he can keep it to himself.Majeston 18:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Now Majeston, in wondering what the person's motives are, it's best to go with WP:GOODFAITH, a POV tag isn't too big of a deal. It certainly isn't vandalism. More substantive reasons (preferably with suggestions and involvement with changes) are needed to merit the tag for the whole article but it's good if Tito58 (or others) can articulate more reasons for the tag and in particular assist with constructive discussion about the article's balance. Wazronk 22:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Greetings everyone, To call the origin "mysterious" is the most factual thing to say, even scientific because this relates to the human mind as it seeks to discover human origin. The problem is that all accounts of human origin have never been factually proved, because there is missing information; all other conclusions from the research/discovery standpoint are based only on circumstantial evidence. True POV believers in the book will argue that the authors are as so stated in the book, and other POV believers in human authorship will argue the opposite - some saying Christy, or Dr. Sadler, or the unidentified sleeping subject, and yet others claim it was a corroborative effort of the people involved in the forum. So, claiming in the article here as being "mysterious" is the best answer so far unless other wording such as "undetermined" can be found. Best wishes for resolution, The good luck lady

Ludicrous. Material that states or implies the book was written or may have been written by space aliens has no place in this article except as a quote or attribution. It is appropriate to say the publishers claim it was written by whomever or whatever but absolutely absurd to say that there is some "mystery" or that there is any mainstream question about it. The only supporters of this notion are a tiny handful of people directly associated with the book. Wikipedia does not need to represent or give equal time to extreme fringe beliefs. We do not say "X-strange-belief might be true." We say "Some people believe in X." -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 00:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi fourdee,

Thanks for participation here. Well, you have your quote, I inserted material from Sadler's Mind at Mischief book.

You are right, there should be no place in this article where it's stated as some kind of encyclopedic fact that the book was written by celestial beings. That is clearly a POV and requires attribution. I've noticed that when you got here there was at least one statement like that due to recent subtle edits from those with a believer POV that hadn't been changed back to NPOV. I would hope the latest version of the text is an improvement, let me know if you see further specific improvements to be made.

It is also right that there should be no place in this article where it's stated as an encyclopedic fact that a specific person or group of people have been identified as the author. Fill in the blanks on this statement from a verifiable source to show otherwise:

"After exhaustive research, Mr./Mrs. __________ in his/her book _________ was able to uncover that the author of The Urantia Book was in fact __________".

The Good Luck Lady is right on this, it is an open question as to who wrote it and the details of how it came about. Ergo -- mystery. You are incorrect that there has not been mainstream acknowledgment of a purported "mystery" behind the book. Martin Gardner after writing an entire highly critical book to get to the bottom of it -- Urantia: The Great Cult Mystery -- didn't get to any solid resolution. Of course, believers think that the celestial beings "indited" it. But they have no idea who the so-called "contact personality" was, and as the article explains, the Sadlers and others claimed they didn't understand how it came about. You can read some of the cited sources that show their POV if you want, they are online linked in the article and not too long. For example the affidavit by Meredith Sprunger. Wazronk 01:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and there was an entire court battle over the copyright of the book that ended up with a determination by the US courts that the copyright belonged to the so called "contact personality", and since neither this mysterious anonymous person or their heirs renewed the copyright, the book went into the public domain. All mainstream US public records. Wazronk 02:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

So what's the "mystery"? Not everything that is not known is "mysterious" This is a woeful and perhaps intentional misuse of the term mysterious which is absolutely not a synonym for "unknown" or "not certainly known." "Mystery" implies the metaphysical or religious or otherworldly. Please refer to the dictionary entries for mystery and mysterious. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 11:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

As I've already said, "it is an open question as to who wrote it and the details of how it came about. Ergo -- mystery." As the article subsection title has said, "Mystery of origin". As I've also pointed out, the term "mystery" has even been used by the biggest and strongest published critic to date on the topic of the book's origin, even in the very title of his book. As the lead sentence of the origin subsection says, "The exact circumstances of the origin of The Urantia Book are unknown." So why are you still asking what is the mystery? The details of the book's origin including the big question of who wrote it is the mystery.

The definitions of mystery from my Webster's:

something unexplained, unknown, or kept secret
a) any thing or event that remains so secret or obscure as to excite curiosity b) a novel, story, or play involving such an event, esp. a crime and the gradual discovery of who committed it
the quality of being inexplicable; obscurity or secrecy
[pl] secret rites or doctrines known only to a small, esoteric group; specif., in ancient Greece, religious ceremonies or doctrines revealed only to the initiated
any of the ancient cults characterized by such ceremonies [the Eleusian mysteries]
mystery play
a) a sacrament; esp. the Eucharist b) any of fifteen events in the lives of Jesus and Mary serving as a subject for meditation during the saying of the rosary
Theol. any religious truth made known to man only by divine revelation and believed through faith

I still think "Mystery of origin" is the most appropriate title, and would support that being the subsection title if others agree. You say that not everything that is not known is mysterious and that "unknown" and "mystery" aren't synonyms. But this is a case where what is unknown has been considered a mystery even by published sources on the far end of the spectrum of non-believer POV. How is that a "woeful and perhaps intentional misuse of the term mysterious"?

"Unknown authorship" inevitably will be disputed by believer POV editors, and it would be more correct to broadly have it as "Unknown origin". I have a sense that "unknown origin" overstates things though because the broad outlines aren't unknown, as described in the article. "Unclear origin"? "Uncertainties about origin"? Something along those lines. I've gone with the last one but still have more of a preference for "Mystery of origin".

You seem to be coming to the topic purely from a theoretical approach based on your own personal viewpoint and not from having examined many (if any) of the references for the article or from having looked much into the book itself that the article is about. But as someone who has read the third-party published sources, has read the book, and does know about the many different perspectives people have about the book, the origin is a mystery and not just an unknown. Published third-party non-believer POV assessments even from staunch critics agree it is an unusal book, in terms of the quality of the writing and the sheer scope of its story, and there really is an open question -- a mystery -- of who wrote such a book and how it came about. Maybe it will be a closed and solved mystery some day but it isn't currently. Wazronk 19:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Everyone, I'm with Wazronk. There really isn't a good argument to change it from Mystery of Origin. It's just a simple semantic argument rather than one with any real meat behind it. The Urantia Book, is not claimed to have been written by space aliens, but instead beings belonging to God's Heavenly Host: celestial beings or spiritual beings. Anyway, I think it is fair to let mystery of origin stand. I've put it back. But I do want to thank fourdee for trying and being here to help present a balance of POV so that the article will come out to be truly unbiased/and objective - that is very important for a good article here, and I appreciate the thought and effort. Still...where did the space alien idea come from? The Good Luck Lady

I feel that it is a misuse of the term. The topic headings should be only factual and not embellished and "mystery" has a lot of connotations that are not factual - all of its connotations are highly subjective and many imply the religious or supernatural. Since this article is about a mystical or religious topic, the use of "mystery" will immediately lead some readers familiar and accustomed to the more traditional meaning of "mystery" to the wrong sort of conclusions. This may be a "mystery religion" but the appearance of a book in print is not really much of a mystery. How about just calling the section "Authorship"? -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 03:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

P1987:4 And these Jews have not been the only ones to fail in the recognition of high and holy obligations of a divine nature while giving meticulous attention to things of trifling importance to human welfare in both time and eternity. Majeston 05:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello again everyone, Fourdee, first I'm sorry for my typo in your nomer, I've corrected it - I hope you'll forgive me. First, my understanding is that the book is not a religion, but it imparts a lot of information that is religious in nature and scope. Anyway, I can live with "Authorship"... while I don't agree with you on your reasons for not liking "Mystery of Origin", "Authorship" works well too. I feel the average readers would have discernment of their own - the title makes the reader interested in "what's this? a mysterious origin?" rather than, what's so great about "authorship"? I tend to the belief that most people understand the word mystery to be an unsolved case or problem that is/was ongoing and incomplete: having a resolution that doesn't exist (yet) as the FIRST and most popular use and meaning. People deal with mysteries or things that appear to be mysterious to them every day and of course on T.V. there are lots of mystery shows and movies - still, spirit stuff is mysterious, particularly if it is said a book was written by a spirit being called a Midwayer or a Divine Counselor, etc. God, to many people is mysterious. I still feel that more authors here writing the article could live with "Mystery of Origin" than not, so with that said, I'll leave it as is but, if anyone wanted to change it back, I would let it be. Thanks for taking the time to work it out! Majeston, I appreciate that quote, but I don't think it really applies here, what I think applies is a lack of knowledge of the book, and that is the audience this article will be addressing rather often. Have a great day, everyone. The Good Luck Lady

Well, thanks Good Luck Lady for your pov, but I think it does apply here quite well.

Hi Majeston, (is that you?) Well, yes, for someone who read the Urantia Book and believes in it, then of course the issue of authorship is of trifling importance -- the message is what counts regardless of who it came from. And to those who have never checked it out thoroughly and have made a knowing decision to reject the named authors, then it is trifling to them too - to them, they already think they know. But to those who are not in the know about its contents, this issue becomes a central focal point of interest. It doesn't necessarily make them bad in same sense as the "Jews" of Jesus day who rejected him knowingly. The authorship DOES have an interesting history and provides a pretty complex set of clues for those who are thus minded to delve into it fully. As with anything in life, so often people just assume they know things without having all the facts and could not care less if they tried. The Good Luck Lady

~~I think the pharmaceutical industry has advanced far enough to help clear all these matters up in short order.~~ -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 14:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the "Authorship" compromise is a good one and appreciate the collaborations. It is sad to see on the other hand the incivility of your last comment toward the editors who have their religious views on this topic, that was unnecessary. Wazronk 05:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Main topics again

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Wazronk; I'm returning to the conversation we had on April 6, now that I have a little better understanding of the NOR policy. We were talking about the focus of 3-5 topics to make the cut for the main article, and had considered "God" or "God and the Individual", or "The nature of God". I'm still in support of that. Also, we considered important "History and Future", just to refresh your memory. I guess topoics need to be adequately sourced in other references. I don't know what is said out there in other sources about God in terms of TUB, nor with future or history.

As I've worked on the universe reality section, I came to realize that theme (in my view) may be the major theme of the book; it certainly qualifies as a close second or third. But I don't know if any outside sources say anything about it. It certainly consumes a large percentage of the material. Anyway, I would have to ask what is there in outside sources that would allow inclusion in the article?

About the issue of philosophy: Hanley mentioned the word is used in TUB 76 times. Yes, but how is it used? On this planet, there are aproximately two common uses of the term: general, and technical. In general, it is used as "whats your philosophy of life?" "Whats your philosophy of politics"? meaning one's personal point of view and attitude toward a subject. The technical use of the word "philosophy" is in reference to the discipline and field of philosophy. Peruse through the philosophy section on Wikipedia to get a sense of just how detailed and technical it gets, or go the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy online. TUB does not make that distinction, and the context of the word in TUB is in the general sense, not the technical sense. So I think the use of the word "philosophy" is confusing in the article, as well as in TUB. Having said that, I would further submit that there must be an outside source to refer to to include that in the article.

About the word "mystery". I was fine with the use of the word "mystery". I have no objection to fourdees objection, but the heading "Uncertainties of origin" seems ackward. I would suggest "Unknown origin".

About mars: I'm trying to follow Majestons objection. I don't understand the issue really. I'll keep reading his/her post. Richiar 20:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Richiar,

I did a case-insensitive search of the book for the word fragment "philosoph" and came up with well over 500 lines. By searching on that fragment it catches variations of "philosophy" such as "philosopher", "philosophers", "philosophic", "philosophically". Just the word "philosophy" alone accounts for about 350 of those lines so not sure how the low figure of 76 came about.

In looking over the sentences with "philosophy", I agree it does seem to be used more descriptively than technically or what would probably pass for philosophy to others. TUB's "philosophy" is entirely built around its particular spiritualism, is inextricably linked to it. For example this sample sentence: "Philosophy, clarified by revelation, functions acceptably in the absence of mota and in the presence of the breakdown and failure of man's reason substitute for mota -- metaphysics." TUB's brand of philosophy definitely is constructed as if "clarified by revelation" and without belief in its revelatory claims it isn't so much philosophy to others as TUB-spiritualism. I agree that a credible, published outside source is needed for an analysis to be included on wikipedia covering how TUB's view of "philosophy" compares to the technical mainstream sense of philosophy. Perhaps the first sentence of the article should be changed, instead of saying this:

"The Urantia Book is a spiritual and philosophical book that discusses God, science, religion, history, philosophy, and destiny."

to say this:

"The Urantia Book is a spiritual book that discusses God, science, religion, history, philosophy, and destiny".

The adjective "philosophical" is probably overstating the role of philosophy in the book as most people would understand it. The inclusion of the word "philosophy" later in the list of topics to me, on the other hand, is in the general sense of the word rather than technical and seems okay. Just my perception.

I think a topic like "universe reality" can be interpreted differently by people and is perhaps vague. The term "universe reality" I should point out only has very few mentions in the book: 35. By way of comparison, "history" has 175, "religion" has about 1400, "Urantia"/"Urantian" has about 1800. The word "Jesus" appears a whopping 5000 times. I would say if there is one large deficiency in the current wikipedia summary of the book's teachings it's that the Jesus topic isn't covered except for a few scattered comments and what's in Comparison to Christianity subsection. I think enough references about it exist to even justify eventual expansion to a side article such as "Jesus (The Urantia Book)", one of the few Urantia-related topics where that can be said.

With your interest in "universe reality" you may find the transcripts of Bill Sadler talks of interest (here). He also wrote a book A Study of the Master Universe that is online. To me these aren't the type of third party independent published sources that would add much to an argument about these topics' notability on wikipedia but maybe you would find them interesting. Wazronk 05:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

A couple of brief responses: I didn't know about the Bill Sadler resources. Thanks for pointing those out. Those are indeed relevant to my interest, and I have paraphrased them in a similar way, I guess. Glad to see Sadler explaining those ideas in detail so long ago. You mention that those references would be weak on the notability scale. If so, then universe reality is not likely to survive a tough review. I used the term "universe reality" as an attempt for a user friendly term for "infinity reality". That idea seems to be directly involved in large portions of section one and three, in various forms. However, as you say, there seems to be a requirement for topics to be adequately covered in other sources. That was an impressive analysis on the word frequency. If Jesus, Urantia, and religion are adequately covered in outside sources, then they probably should be in the article. Richiar 07:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

^ Michael Foundation, Inc. v. Urantia Foundation v. Harry McMullan, III US Court of Appeals affirms a jury decision that Urantia Foundation does not hold the copyright to The Urantia Book and the book is legally in the public domain
^ 2006 Urantia Foundation annual report (PDF)

[court_decision-1] Michael Foundation, Inc. v. Urantia Foundation v. Harry McMullan, III US Court of Appeals affirms a jury decision that Urantia Foundation does not hold the copyright to The Urantia Book and the book is legally in the public domain

[UFAR2006-2] 2006 Urantia Foundation annual report (PDF)

[1]

[2]