Hi Hanely and others First a further clarification on the concept behind wikipedia neutrality is a fundamental pillar but there are two others as well no original research and verifiability This takes us into the weasel words you mention which it s true is an area where improvements are needed with the article A reader should be able to independently check everything written in a wikipedia article should they want to and as such wikipedia is more about providing verifiable information rather than what a given editor simply thinks or believes is true You specifically cite the Criticism section and I agree Plagiarism has evolved the furthest of the three subsections IMO and is solidly referenced with verifiable sources I think the believer stance s aren t presented as well as they could though and the same should probably be done for Science and Revelation For instance one thing that can be done for Revelation is cite the low book sales and distribution of the TUB instead of the simple current statement that it isn t widespread Peacock terms have been an ongoing challenge from my perspective commonly inserted throughout the article in a way that aggrandizes the book but I think this is currently toned down What I m hearing from you Hanely overall is a suggestion to focus on TUB alone make the article perhaps a book summary with some history added and put everything else in other articles It is one way to go and you specifically mention Criticism related topics as being placed elsewhere This would also need to be true of the adherents section and anything pro I don t agree with this tactic however for reasons of wikipedia policy and overall usefulness to the average reader What makes TUB interesting and worth writing reading about is that it purports to be more than a typical religious book and people accept it as such I think that is a highly intertwined element of the TUB topic and it fits in this article and by the same token the reasons people don t accept it as such is part of the story I think it is a challenge to have the article reflect these differing perspectives but that s a basic challenge involved with wikipedia articles in a nutshell Writing separate articles for separate points of view is discouraged See POV forking I think there needs to be a top level article that is a summary of The Urantia Book basics its teachings its history and those who are pro and con on topics related to it Other articles can then develop certain topics in more depth if needed or wanted I don t see why the top level article shouldn t be this one it already serves as that and other similar topics on wikipedia are structured the same way for instance A Course in Miracles isn t a simple book synopsis some words about the history but covers pro and con viewpoints as does Book of Mormon which also has a plagiarism section I certainly do not accept that for some reason everything to do with Criticism should be tucked away in separate articles This is inherently biased toward the idea that the main wikipedia article is only for those seeking viewpoints where nothing negative is said Audiences also come to learn about contrary viewpoints and those viewpoints are just as valid On the points you brought up my thoughts 1 I ve seen a tendency over the 1 year I ve followed this wikipedia article off and on for people to add many digressions to the article And understandably so TUB is enormous and has thousands of interesting details and side stories But not all will fit in the main article I ve seen multiple people each add a few sentences here and there and over time the article has become enormous and unfocused with all sorts of illogical disorganized digressions Like you say this article can stand to be streamlined you should have seen what it s been like before IMO the Lucifer rebellion story while interesting doesn t quite make the cut in terms of being essential enough to mention on the main page Perhaps an article summarizing TUB s view of the history of earth is worthwhile to build up The Lucifer Caligastia Satan story would fit in article such as that for example 2 5 Like I ve said Criticism is appropriate to have as is the view of believers and a POV fork is contrary to wikipedia standards In terms of Gardner specifically despite any opinions on his conclusions about TUB his book is one of the few published about TUB to analyze it from a nonbeliever perspective and it s entirely appropriate to use and cite as reference material for the article I say that even though I m not personally convinced by arguments he makes I ve read his book have access to a copy and can make edits regarding i