Talk:The Urantia Book/Archive 5

message: Seemed time for a new archive and a nice, fresh discussion page.  Wazronk 04:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would seem to be necessary for documentation of the 25 or so titles as offspring of The Urantia Book, and then would need to be noteworthy for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Is the suggestion for change of The Urantia Book title warranted on those criteria? Richiar 04:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sandbox 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Popular Culture

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: I agree with you on this. Richiar 18:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  List of 59 

message: 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)
thread_title:  New article and navigation template 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Wikiproject 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: That would be nice. Majeston 23:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Link to Urantia readers international