Talk:The Urantia Book/Archive 1

message: This page was mistakenly begun with the idea that there is a religion called "Urantia". Most of it should be transferred to a new page called "The Urantia Book", leaving only those comments behind which pertain directly to the word itself, i.e., used in conjunction with the word "movement" to convey the idea of its readership and organizations; i.e., the name of earth. It might be well also to go into the etymology of "Urantia" and any other interesting aspects of the word on the "Urantia" page.
But the two are NOT the same, and this is perpetuating confusion imo.
::DONE! Hanely 17:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New page 

message: 2-Nov-05
This article continues to drift farther from NPOV.  I especially ask that the devotee of the book who keeps wanting to align each section of the article with your personal religious sentiments that you review wikipedia's policy of neutrality.  The NPOV is being consistently lost, and from my viewpoint, attempts are being made to make the article into a proselytizing tract.  In particular there is intolerance of criticism and fawning biased language.   I'm glad there's the presence of someone who believes so strongly in the book, it's crucial for the article to grow accurately, but I strongly see it as disrespectful and untruthful to modify a number of sections the way they have been edited.  When I read what was done the other day to the section on treating the book as literature, it read as deliberate misinformation.  Other editors have taken the time to research how other people actually look at the book, for instance by reading reviews at amazon.com, and I know from my own experience about how people look at the book as literature, but it was replaced with a wishful over-the-top dream on how a believer wants people to consider the book because of his or her religious convictions.  I feel strongly enough about this false presentation that I've restored the language as it stood before.  I personally have evaluated the science and have a strong education in science, and so felt competent to address that section.  Recently this accurate -- and what I felt was even-handed -- statement on how some people perceive the science was replaced with a flat statement that all the science is true.  This just doesn't carry water for someone like me and you can't understand how terribly uninformed it sounds.  An editor may believe all of the science is true and people are welcome to that belief, they are even welcome and encouraged to have that belief represented in the article, as I modified the section to represent, but it is not a consensus and should not be stated as consensus fact.  And to put it as the lead-in to a "criticism" section -- well, you aren't a critic by a long ways.
This article isn't somebody's personal tutorial and soapbox but sounds like one now.  Viewpoints that are less than adoring of the book are actively being repressed and watered down.
++comment 11-5-05++
Thank you for clarifying your lack of neutrality as well.
This is good. We can both then seek factual representation together and arrive at it better.
Viewpoints have not been edited out, but simply factualized and represented more accurately as opinions rather than facts. I'm glad you are trying to overcome bias as am I. It appears to me that both of us are having this problem.
The blatant bias that existed prior to my discovering this writ was blaring with the usage of such phrases as were there. But I recognize the need to be neutral, factual, honest, truthful and actual. So do you, and I am glad.
In  your opinion some things that aren't facts are being represented as facts and the same is true for me. What I saw was a gross, probably mistaken, misrepresentation of the Urantia Book as a whole and those who believe in it and even of those who do not... being wholly biased as to it being fictitional. The truth is from a scientific, fact-finding based logic one HAS to SAY it is mysterious and to SAY that nothing proved or disproved by that method or any other.
Let's work on saying so when there is controversy and when this is the case. If we do we can come up with a real, truthful, honest portrayal that is worthy of being an encyclopedic entry for people truly interested in reading about the papers.
I've studied the controversies, facts and fictions, opinions surrounding the controversy of the Urantia Papers for almost 8 years. Nothing is proven, it IS a mystery and should be presented honestly as such.
I am considering looking at other encyclopedic entries on mysterious books as well as entries on scientific publications and relgious ones too. I don't think that even paragraph structure, the division of categories here at Wikipedia or even some of the sentence structure are as well written as they could and should be.
I consider this to be a work in progress, but by English standards and the necessity of writing a complete factual encyclopedic entry, it needs a lot of improvement.
I'm glad you are sincerely helping out, but let's be honest about it.
~peace
Additional Comments 11-05-05:
My apologies for numerous returns to this comment page, life's situations arise over which I have no control.
In addition to agreeing with you and Wikipedia's rules to make a fair and unbiased report, which I hope is self evident in my comments, I would like to state that the previous entries as I found them about The Urantia Book appeared to be wholly biased by someone who is not only a skeptic, but also by someone who had not read the entire book. That doesn't mean it is actually the case, considering entries in the Wikipedia are "works in progress".
In my educated opinion, one should never attempt to write about a book they have not read in full and who do not have a full understanding of its contents.
That is simply a ridiculous thing to do.
However, to write about the controversies over the book without having read the whole book itself could be done, but those writings should only be limited those sections in the encyclopedic entry dealing with the controversies themselves and stay away from actual content and context of the meanings contained in the actual book. Those controversies are real and do exist.
In fact the controversies are many - they include controversy over the origin, over the factual content, over the authors, and over the value and meanings contained.
Not all of these controversies are represented - not in full scope - therefore making the representations that are depicted in the article limited range when in fact the controversies are wide ranging especially from the religious point of view, but also from historical, scientific and philosophical points of view as well.
If the Wikipedia is to represent a full view, then all views must be equally balanced and place properly in a category according to accepted English standards.
In my opinion, the whole arrangement needs redoing. And no writer need to contribute unless they have actually read the book.
In truth.
========== 11-13-05 ==========
:I have noticed a tendency in this article to push in favor of this book far too strongly and dismiss all critics as "not reading it right." I don't think this would be acceptable on any other religious text. That said it is true I have not read it so back when maybe I shouldn't have edited. However I think a non-reader can edit word choices when they are far too immoderate and unverified. 
:Anyway there is bound to be in least some who read it and felt
::1-It's a mixed bag. Or
::2-It's just not that good as a book or religious text for whatever reason. Or 
::3-It's downright bad for whatever reason.(Ethically, Literary wise, etc) Or
::4-Some mixture of the following three
:Last time I checked it nothing like this seem to exist. I will avoid editing it as a non-reader, but I hope some balance is made.(And I would say the same about works in my faith and have in fact)--T. Anthony 13:28, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia entries that cover large topics tend to go through an eventual transition where multiple articles are needed to do them justice, and this one seems to be nearing that point.  I agree that the coverage of the book's topics is inadequate right now, and we have a similar line of thinking, I also was going to say the other day that it'd probably be a useful exercise to have a look at how similar wiki subjects are handled.  See new topic below on structure.  T. Anthony, you might not have read the book, but that perspective is a valuable one since that is where most people come from, not many have years of in-depth scholarship.  Perhaps you aren't liable to contribute to explaining intricacies of UB concepts and themes, but I'd be interested in views you might give below in the "structure" section concerning how well the current article succeeds or fails in addressing basic issues / questions for people with little or no knowledge of the book. Wazronk 19:36, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: :I have noticed a tendency in this article to push in favor of this book far too strongly and dismiss all critics as "not reading it right." I don't think this would be acceptable on any other religious text. That said it is true I have not read it so back when maybe I shouldn't have edited. However I think a non-reader can edit word choices when they are far too immoderate and unverified. 
:Anyway there is bound to be in least some who read it and felt
::1-It's a mixed bag. Or
::2-It's just not that good as a book or religious text for whatever reason. Or 
::3-It's downright bad for whatever reason.(Ethically, Literary wise, etc) Or
::4-Some mixture of the following three
:Last time I checked it nothing like this seem to exist. I will avoid editing it as a non-reader, but I hope some balance is made.(And I would say the same about works in my faith and have in fact)--T. Anthony 13:28, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia entries that cover large topics tend to go through an eventual transition where multiple articles are needed to do them justice, and this one seems to be nearing that point.  I agree that the coverage of the book's topics is inadequate right now, and we have a similar line of thinking, I also was going to say the other day that it'd probably be a useful exercise to have a look at how similar wiki subjects are handled.  See new topic below on structure.  T. Anthony, you might not have read the book, but that perspective is a valuable one since that is where most people come from, not many have years of in-depth scholarship.  Perhaps you aren't liable to contribute to explaining intricacies of UB concepts and themes, but I'd be interested in views you might give below in the "structure" section concerning how well the current article succeeds or fails in addressing basic issues / questions for people with little or no knowledge of the book. Wazronk 19:36, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: ==== 11-13-05 ====

message: I think we should consider an expansion of the UB topic into a collection of articles.  This wikipedia article on article size make good points worth reading, as does this one on summary style.  While the current UB article may not seem adequate in presenting enough detail on the many concepts in the book, it is better seen as a "survey article" of the UB topic as a whole.  Most wiki readers who go to a given article are looking to quickly skim to get the gist of a topic, and as the article on summary style points out, 15-20 minutes of attention is usually as good as an article is likely to get from them (less so from children and people with attention and/or reading disorders).  Several different audiences should always be considered with articles, and the current form of this UB one seems most tuned to those who are after a basic primer on the UB, the background behind it, and its core teachings.  The kinds of questions people have are:  What is Urantia and The Urantia Book?  It seems like a religion, what does the Urantia Book teach?  Who wrote it?  What are people's opinions about it?  What's its history?  Having an article that mainly deals with top level basics like these is in line with how other religions and complex schools of thought are presented on wikipedia.
But some readers are after a lot more detail, and the UB topic isn't built up yet to serve them.  It's common for new UB readers to be swamped by the complexity of the book and by the terminology, I imagine they could use a reference source to help sort things out.  These are the ones that are more likely to be after help on things like Ancients of Days, Majeston, super universes vs. local universes vs. master universe vs. grand universe, Life Carriers, etc.
The article doesn't fit the bill for people after that amount detail.  Here are a couple growth options I see:
a) Follow the structure of the book and present guidance along those lines, eg have separate articles to summarize each paper of the book.  Did you know there is a wiki article for every book of the Bible?  A huge task.  Maybe a more manageable goal at this stage would be an article to summarize each Part of the book and the Forward.  (I think the entire Table of Contents with subheaders should be put in a wiki article.)  To see how another complex book with unusual terminology is handled, I recommend looking at the wiki article on The Silmarillion, a fictional book by JRR Tolkien.  The Silmarillion has multiple parts, not unlike the UB, and separate wiki articles cover each part.  From more of a religious side, see the entry on the Old Testament.
b) Anticipate what people are interested in and write articles on those topics.  I prefer this growth route, because I can think of basics that could help students of the book while also being "click-worthy" links for people who come by with only limited interest. Example:
* "Concept of God" or "Nature of God", something along those lines.   I know the UB has a paper with that name, and that has elements to draw on, but I see an article on this topic as compiling information from other papers as well.
* "Evolution of religion". Describe the UB story of how religion evolves, the difference between fear-based and revelation-based, the developments the UB describes for the future.
* "Death and afterlife".  People are always curious, and there is considerable detail that can be provided.
* "Cosmology".  Describe in one place how the universe is said to be organized.  Perhaps a basic overview of personalities can fit with this, perhaps that is better for a separate article of its own.
* "Guide to terminology."  See this list of Islamic terms to get an idea of what can be done.
* In comments above, mention was made of controversies that could be described in more detail.  At this time, I'm not as interested in detailed coverage of that topic compared to others, but it would also fall in this category.
I would suggest that editors figure out common ground here where efforts can be pooled for quicker, better results upfront.  Do easy stuff first where people agree.  My vote is for us to start something like "Guide to terminology", since it's straightforward to get underway but will need time to grow, and in terms of an article of wide interest, my choice would be to build up an advanced article on "Death and afterlife".  Any other ideas and opinions are welcome.
I also suggest that people who intend to make many edits or additions sign up for a wikipedia account so that edits are more easily recognized as coming from one person or another.  I will make my future edits with this account. Wazronk 19:36, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't say much at the present, I slept bad and company was visiting, but I agree this should maybe be more then one article. It might be slightly unusual to do multiple articles on a single book, but it's certainly not unheard of. For example there is an entire category for Don Quixote. The ideas you list sound workable to me. Although Urantia is not a religion it is some kind of religious book that apparently has a following. It seems like it's readership following merits some kind of something in its own right. I don't know quite how Wiki deals with the "readership following" of a religious book when that following or book is not a religion or religious movements itself. A Course in Miracles is the closest thing I can think of at the moment, but I'm not quite sure it's remotely analogous. In fact I'm likely not making any sense so will basically stop for now. Although separating out a bit sounds like a good idea.--T. Anthony 04:24, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Long overdue, but thanks for the link to A Course in Miracles, of course all these sorts of books are different, but ACIM is a closer analogue to TUB than the Old Testament, Book of Mormon, Silmarillion, etc.  The movement around it even has surprising similarities to the one around TUB.  I do think the ACIM article is much too long and hope this article can be more user-friendly for the average person w/o 30-40 minutes of attention span.  I'd still be interested in your views about success or failure of this article from the viewpoint of informing someone who hasn't read the book, should you come back here.  Any others who haven't read it welcome to comment as well.  Thanks. Wazronk 01:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Structure of UB article(s):

message: This article uses the religioustolerance.org website as either a reference or a link. Please see the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org and Wikipedia:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org as to whether Wikipedia should cite the religioustolerance.org website, jguk 14:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Religioustolerance.org

message: Wazronk,
I streamlined the opening even more as regards authorship and put it into the last paragraph as a mention with "see mystery of origin" intact. I think this is better general information and leads the reader to where to find more. Hanely 15:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Qur'an (Arabic: القرآن al-qur'ān, literally "the recitation"; also called Al Qur'ān Al Karīm or "The Noble Qur'an"; or   transliterated Quran, Koran, and less commonly Alcoran) is the holy book of Islam. Muslims believe that the Qur'an is the literal word of God in Arabic and the culmination of God's revelation to mankind, revealed to Muhammad, the final prophet of Islam, over a period of 23 years through the angel Jibril (Gabriel).
The first sentence would best read similar, 
"The Urantia Book is the religious text of [Urantians?] and is held by adherents to have been written by [spiritual beings?]. The tenets of the book can be summarised as such:"
and there you have a concise introduction. As it stands I think the vital imformation is spread out over too many paragraphs, and that makes it difficult for people who just glance at the page to know what it is about. That's the problem I had. You can review the guidlines for lead sections if you want. Cheers, - Randwicked Alex B 13:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Wow, that's my worst-spelled comment ever. - Randwicked Alex B 13:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening 

message: I've made some major rearrangements and adjustments on the Criticism section due to Wazronk's referencing the verifiability and no original authorship sections at Wikipedia. I think too the Adherents section and the comparison to Christianity need the same type of whittling - anyone who read Gardner's book could help with the criticism section! His book appears to be the only not self published that would be worthy as a validatable source by Wikipedia standards...the rest is original authorship and not kosher. Thanks for pointing it out, Wazronk. Wow, a lot needs fixing now. Be back later.
Hanely
:Hi Hanely,
:I've stepped up to the plate to work on verifiability, thanks for getting the ball rolling.   First of all, the Plagiarism subsection by no means lacked for verifiable resources, that was in a different ballpark from Science and Revelation criticism subsection.  As I've said before, I've read Gardner's book, as well as Block's article, and the Plagiarism section very much complies with these sources.  Please obtain a copy of Gardner's book from a local library or bookstore if you wish to investigate further, rather than deleting what others have already directly obtained from his book and cited appropriately in the "Reference" section.  I'm restoring as is.
:See below for more on Science and Revelation.  While I'm working on Science, would you mind taking a detailed look through "Mystery of origin"?  I noticed some large discrepencies with sources as I've read and understood them.  For example, weren't Parts I-III said to have come about in 1934 and Part IV in 1935?  The current article says they came about piecemeal up until the 1950's.  Another apparent mistake is how Forum and Contact Commission are said to be the same.  The wording seems misleading and vague in a number of other places as well.  Help is appreciated.
: Wazronk 00:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major rearranging 

message: I've added section tag about disputed verifiability, this is to be addressed, as other editors also agree. Wazronk 00:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Science criticism subsection 

message: I've mostly restored the text to the "Revelation" subsection as it stood a few days ago.  This short subsection in the article under "Criticism" documents the viewpoint of people who are critical of the claims of revelation and the most common reasons behind this viewpoint.  Here are sentence by sentence source citations for the "Revelation" criticism subsection text as of today.  Was a good exercise to go through and pull together these for the record.  I'll made the necessary additions to "References" section of the main article.
Significant claims are made by the authors of The Urantia Book about its importance. The book states it is the fifth epochal revelation to mankind in all of history, the fourth having been the life of Jesus.
From the book.
The book has been in print since 1955,
Well-known, well-documented...
but in comparison to better known holy books that also have a recent origin, such as the Book of Mormon, it has not been widely distributed or accepted yet.
See previous citation above from December.
Unlike more high-growth new religious movements such as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Scientology, and Church of Christ, Scientist, the movement has no institutions such as churches, reading rooms, or temples and has not formed into a religion with membership.
All three of these religions / organizations have hundreds of such buildings across cities worldwide.  All three have millions of devotees.  See wiki pages for each.  As has been stated so many times on this article, there is no central church around UB and no "membership." I've taken out mainstream Christianity since this is comparison of religious movements with modern origins.  Apples to apples.
The Urantia Foundation has one office in Chicago and five people on staff as of 2004.
2004 Annual Report from the Urantia Foundation.
The claim of religious revelation has been criticized for various reasons.  Skeptics such as Martin Gardner point to aspects of its science that they see as flawed as evidence that it is a product of human efforts.
See his book.  I changed from "atheists" to Gardner to reflect specific citation.  Note, Gardner is not an atheist according to some of his writings.
Those reviewing it from a Christian perspective who are unconvinced by its claims note that the book does not support fundamental tenets of orthodox Christianity, and at the same time claims to contain the real story of Jesus' life in Part IV.  Some have considered it to be gnostic for this reason.
See citation above from December about Meredith Sprunger's attempts to introduce to mainline Christians.  Yet another three "gnostic" assessments are recorded in the second Sprunger article below.  See also this article  for a more vehement Christian reaction.  (And it also considers it "gnostic").  But mainly see also Charts of Cults, Sects, and Religious Movements, by Dr. H. Wayne House, 2000, pgs 253-282,  for detailed comparison to orthodox Christianity.  Also serves as verifiable source for "Comparison to Christianity"
Other critics have felt that at over 2,000 pages — nearly twice the length of the King James Bible — it is too long, complex, and bureaucratic in its thinking.
Citation again from the Meredith Sprunger article above and also this one titled "Clergy Evaluate The Urantia Book I."   Sprunger sent the book to "ministers of one of the most progressive denominations of Christianity".  Length of book and difficulty to get started a common comment.  Adjective "too long" representative of the criticism.  Also is commonly seen in book reviews.  The word "bureaucratic" also quite commonly used by those with negative opinions and it is in the Sprunger article as well.  Adjective "bureaucratic" representative of criticism.  The Sprunger article also quotes the word "laborious" although with a slightly different context.  I think it is an appropriate description, but a similar common criticism is that it is "overly complex."  I've substituted "complex" for "laborious" since "overly complex" is a direct statement in this particular citation.  The complexity of the book is also noted with criticism by Gardner.
Wazronk 00:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verification, "Revelation" subsection statements 

message: I've made some preliminary adjustments to the "Teachings" section. In previous renditions there was emphasis on Thought Adjusters while little to none was placed on the rest of the huge book. The main recurring theme as the section is beginning to reflect is "God as a loving Father and the relationship of Man to God and ALL THE OTHER UNIVERSE CITIZENS TOO. This is the FIFTH revelation full of details about these celestial inhabitants of a vast, vast grand universe. Jesus made "The Fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of mankind" a theme of the FOURTH revelation, the FIFTH expands it further: as the UB teaches: "widen the view".
I have run out of time today, I hope these first paragraphs are in good order, but would appreciate a review and any corrections needed. I realize at this time it still needs a summary style fix, but at least the information is getting out there.
Hanely 21:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great job, I liked the edits.  I did move a few things around but was minor. Wazronk 03:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Teachings Edits 

message: http://www.wikipediaclassaction.org/
There is a class action lawsuit against Wikipedia for untrue and/or harmful content.
Be careful, Posting actually true, provable, unbiased content is best. When you go to this page, click on the icon on the left hand side of the page that says "Click here questions?" for more information. Among other important facts, it says "Where free speech ends is where injury begins."
User
Then why don't people who are feeling harassed just create an account, justify why the information in the article is fake, and then remove it or change it to what it is supposed to be? If people are refusing to stop reverting articles back to false information, then they can call a mod or something, or even bring in the arbitration committe, and then they can reaserch it and come up with a real decision, and most likely fix things. Have all the people in this lawsuit tried this?Homestarmy 02:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Class Action Lawsuit against Wikipedia 

message: I've added a Buddhism subsection.  I don't know of outside references that compare it to TUB teachings so at this point the section mainly compiles a TUB-centric view of it. Primarily this is from Paper 92, Paper 94, and Paper 132. Wazronk 21:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buddhism 

message: Hi Wazronk and Editors:
Hey, I discovered a problem with the internal link to "origin of life"; it looks like someone else did, too - it seems some editors don't want the book listed in "see also" and at least one doesn't want it listed in "origin belief".
Would any of you be interested in going to the articles origin of life and origin belief and checking those out to see if you think the UB should be linked there? What do you think about their "consensus" about the title of their article? What do you think? Why?
I think the UB should be listed in at least "esoteric" or "alternative" POV in at least one of them if not both, my arguments are posted in talk.
Also, would you make note of the impression some of these editors are getting about the UB from this article? What do you think? Observations? Aren't some adjustments needed if that is the impression? Do you agree there are nuances of false impressions? (see: Homestarmy 19:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: PS - Today, I decided to remove the internal links to origin of life, that article is clearly unacceptable. Hanely 18:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of Life