Talk:Uriel's Machine

message: Ok, this article just seems absurd to me. To begin with, 'Uriel's Machine' is the title of a book. It is not, as far as I can tell, an accepted factual thing of any kind (other than the book itself, which I guess is extant ;). So, at best, this article needs to be rewritten as a discussion of the book, and the theories contained therein.
Having said that, what then makes this article notable or encyclopedic? Giving benefit of doubt, this still appears to be nothing more than a minor and very fringe theory that borders on pseudohistory or even New Ageism. So why, then, would this article not constitute little more than spam for the publisher of said book?
Having thought all that, my first instinct would be to AfD this article, but on reflection, that's overeaction. In fact, I care so little about this issue that my entire input is likely to be limited to this rather cynical note. Eaglizard 17:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Megalithic yard info will need putting back in, since it is the proposed unit of measurement in building an Uriel machine. Burns flipper (talk) 14:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The 'Uriel machine' seems to be an invention of Knight and Lomas, so it seems ridiculous to me to give it its own entry. I think something has to be done about it, either AfD or make it on the book. BUT I've been told that an article on a book can't criticise it!--Dougweller (talk) 13:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD? 

message: This is an article about an "Uriel machine", and as previously stated it appears to be more about a critique of a book.  This article should contain info about what the machine is, how it is made, who developed it, history, usage and evidence.  Counter-evidence should also be presented, sourced. Burns flipper (talk) 14:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've started rewriting; my first task is to describe the object in terms of the above, then to add in the commentaries from third parties/criticism. Burns flipper (talk) 12:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite needed 

message: I don't care about centre/vs center, but the A and an article says it should be 'a' before words like unique where the u has a 'y' sounds -- so it all depends on how Uriel is pronounced! I prounce it almost like you, so I'd put an 'an' before it...--Dougweller (talk) 13:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Grammar and spelling

message: I've removed text from the article that implies the Uriel machine was originally constructed to predict cometary impact - it wasn't.  The book states that Enoch was taught how to build one for the purpose of preserving advanced celestial mechanical knowledge into a time of upheavel when it had been identified by the so-called Watchers that a cometary impact was coming (and the book doesn't state or imply that they gained this knowledge from using an Uriel machine).  Using the template in the Book of Enoch, anyone can then construct a machine for the purpose of solar, lunar and venusian predictions.  The book never states anything about using it for predicting cometary impact.  I've also removed the counter-evidence, as this doesn't apply since that's not the purpose of the machine. Burns flipper (talk) 08:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds reasonable.  I've reinstated my sentence about mainstream not agreeing with the idea, as to the best of my knowledge and research (which I have done) that's a factual statement and shouldn't be considered POV.
Hold the presses. I just looked at the flyleaf on my copy, which says the international (sic) network of observatories could "accurately predict cometary impact years in advance."  I can see the problem. Which is why I think this article is badly named.  It really is about part of the book and this device is about part of that network, a crucial part, right? So I'm not convinced you should have removed that bit wholesale. I presume you have the book handy? If not, I do.--Doug Weller (talk) 09:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes, I have the book handy and I think the problem is that the 'blurb' in the front flap states it could be used for this, whereas the main text of the book doesn't suggest it is a main feature of the device (the 'blurb' being the more sensationalist bit to grab potential buyer's attention) - at best, it's feature of being able to 'measure the declination of any heavenly object' (p 247) would allow someone to notice an object moving differently over time, although no other heavenly objects are stated.  Your statement "No mainstream archaeologists or astronomers back this idea" cannot be sourced unless you have spoken to every 'mainstream' archaeologist and astronomer, and remains POV - feel free to reword to something more specific. Burns flipper (talk) 23:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's got to be some way to say it, how about 'not supported by'?  Lomas & Knight would have made a big thing of any mainstream support.--Doug Weller (talk) 05:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Book is not about predicting cometary impact

message: I was looking for an article on the book Uriel's Machine (which this article is obviously about,) yet typing the name of the book redirects to this page.
How about an article on the book instead of a redirection?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.77.45.29 (talk) 12:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The article should have been about the book, and I've renamed it, reworded the lead, took out some trivia about the alleged machine. Dougweller (talk) 18:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Book Uriel's Machine