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 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 9 |
Seemed time for a new archive and a nice, fresh discussion page. Wazronk 04:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
It appears that it might be appropriate to change the topic heading from The Urantia book to simply "Urantia" with the Urantia book as a sub heading. I only suggest this as the book has evolved into a rather large developing movement which has in excess of 25 titles having to do with Urantia and hundreds of study groups and Internet websites which have nothing to do with the Urantia foundation as well as translations in excess of 10 languages by authors other than Urantia foundation. User:Majeston 13 May 2007
1. The Urantia Book by Urantia Foundation (Hardcover - Mar 2000)
2. The Urantia Book: Indexed Version With Free Audio Book on DVD by Uversa Press (Hardcover - Mar 2005)
3. How I Found The Urantia Book by Saskia Praamsma (Paperback - Sep 5, 2001)
4. The Birth of a Divine Revelation : The Origin of the Urantia Papers by Ernest P. Moyer (Paperback - Feb 16, 2000)
5. Urantia United: Tapping Into The Mind Of God For Religious Equality by A Transcendentalist (Paperback - Jan 22, 2007)
6. The Great Chain on Urantia by Nicholas P. Snoek (Paperback - Jul 5, 2006)
7. The Secret Revelation: Unveiling the Mystery of the Book of Revelation by Stella Religa and Byron Belitsos (Paperback - April 1, 2001)
8. The Sherman Diaries, Volume One: Dawning Revelations 1898-1942 by Matthew Block and Saskia Praamsma (Paperback - Feb 10, 2003)
9. Urantia: The Great Cult Mystery by Martin Gardner (Hardcover - April 1995)
10. SONSHIP AND THE URANTIA PAPERS: Sharing the Mind of God by Robert Crickett (Paperback - 2000)
11. An Introduction to the Urantia Revelation (2nd Edition) by David Bradley (Paperback - Mar 2002)
12. The Center Within: Lessons from Heart of the Urantia Revelation by Fred Harris and Byron Belitsos (Paperback - Dec 1998)
13. The Fifth Revelation : A Collection of Key Passages from The Urantia Book by Kelly Elstrott (Paperback - Oct 1, 1998)
14. Edgar Cayce and The Urantia Book (Hardcover )
15. Source Authors of the Urantia Book by J. T Manning (Hardcover - Jun 2002)
16. Concordex of the Urantia Book by Clyde Bedell (Hardcover - Mar 1986)
17. Urantia Book Concordance by The Urantia Foundation (Hardcover - Jun 1993)
18. The Urantia Book Workbooks: Topical and Doctrinal Study (Urantia Book Workbooks) by Urantia Foundation,
19. The Tao of God: A Restatement Based on the Urantia Book by Richard Omura (Paperback - April 2000)
20. A History of the Urantia Papers by Larry Mullins and Meredith Justin Sprunger (Hardcover - Dec 18, 2000)
21. El Libro De Urantia (Spanish) / The Book Of Urantia by Urantia Foundation (Hardcover - Nov 30, 1999)
22. Het Urantia Boek (Hardcover - Jun 1998)
23. Das Urantia Boek (Hardcover - Dec 2005)
24 Urantia-kirja (Paperback - Feb 2000)
25. The Urantia book basics by Mary Ebben (Unknown Binding - 1994)
26. Khnta Ypahtnn by Urantia Foundation (Hardcover - Jun 1998)
27. Birth of Revelation: The Story of the Urantia Papers (Paperback - 1994)
28. Le verbe s'est fait livre: La révélation protégée par la Fondation Urantia (Collection Rencontres d'aujourd'hui) by Jacques Rhéaume ( - 1990)
29. LES JUMEAUX D'URANTIA by NORMAND CANAC-MARQUIS (Paperback - 1992)
30. Study aids for part IV of the Urantia Book: The life and teachings of Jesus by Ruth E Renn (Unknown Binding - 1975)
31. Kick Start: Cosmic Biker Babe's Guide To Life And Changing the Planet by Carol Setters (Paperback - April 27, 2005)
32. Spiritual Leadership: Wisdom for Work, Wisdom for Life by Erik Van Praag (Paperback - Aug 1, 2004)
33. Steve Vai, Flex-able ( Urantia , 1984), Flex-able Leftovers ( Urantia , 1984),
34. Paramony by Duane L. Faw (Paperback - Oct 1, 2002)
35. The Technology of Love, Vol. 1 by Charles E. Hansen (Hardcover - Aug 2005)
36. Nebadon: Our Creative Universe Series by Darka Watters (Paperback - May 11, 2005)
37. The Celestial Songbook by James W. Cleveland (Paperback - Mar 2, 2004)
38. The Alien Intimacies by James W. Cleveland (Paperback - Jul 3, 2003)
39. Celestials OVER Cincinnati: Lessons of the Planetary Correcting Time by James W. Cleveland (Paperback - Jan 6, 2004)
40. Beyond Cynicism by James W. Cleveland (Paperback - Dec 1, 2003
41. Discovery Of Atlantis by Robert Sarmast (Paperback - Oct 1, 2003)
42. Trillion by Mark Kimmel (Hardcover - Jun 2002)
43. Mandala: Journey to the Center (Whole Way Library) by DK Publishing
44. A Study of the Master Universe - bill sadler
45. CORRECTING TIME by Fred Harris
46. THE STORY OF EVERYTHING by Michelle Klimesh
47. The Seven Circles- Richard Omura
48. How To Recycle A Disposal Planet- Tommy L. Clendening
49. God, Man, and Supreme- Origin and Destiny by Stuart R. Kerr, III
50. Jesus - A Revelation of God by Laurence Whelan
51. Urantijos Knyga (Lithuanian Paperback)
52. Cartea Urantia (Romanian HTML CD-ROM)
53. Kniga Urantii - Russian Hardcover
54. The Urantia Book - Korean Hardcover
55. Il Libro di Urantia - Italian Hard Cover
56. Up Close and Personal with the Urantia Book- by J. J. Johnson 2007
57. UFO Cults and Urantia by Kevin Lewis, Kenneth B. Samples
58. Adam and Eve: A Tragic Love Story (Paperback) by Louis J. Bartolomeo (Author)
59. Gospel Gospel- by Louis J. Bartolomeo
60. Simon Said- By: Kenneth Becnel
61. DAVID ZEBEDEE AND RUTH- By: Helena Sprague
62. THE FAMILY MEETING HANDBOOK-By: Robert Slagle, Ph.D.
63. The Universal Religion: Essentials for a Joyful Life-by Christopher Lepine-
64. God Without the Garbage: A Reasonable Approach to God - by Christopher Lepine —Preceding unsigned comment added by Majeston ( talk • contribs) 10:42, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
In paper 90, section 2 of the The Urantia Book, there is a statement about Tenskwatawa:
This has been cited in the article as a mistake in the book under the "Criticism of science" section with this language:
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:
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'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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 9 |
Seemed time for a new archive and a nice, fresh discussion page. Wazronk 04:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
It appears that it might be appropriate to change the topic heading from The Urantia book to simply "Urantia" with the Urantia book as a sub heading. I only suggest this as the book has evolved into a rather large developing movement which has in excess of 25 titles having to do with Urantia and hundreds of study groups and Internet websites which have nothing to do with the Urantia foundation as well as translations in excess of 10 languages by authors other than Urantia foundation. User:Majeston 13 May 2007
1. The Urantia Book by Urantia Foundation (Hardcover - Mar 2000)
2. The Urantia Book: Indexed Version With Free Audio Book on DVD by Uversa Press (Hardcover - Mar 2005)
3. How I Found The Urantia Book by Saskia Praamsma (Paperback - Sep 5, 2001)
4. The Birth of a Divine Revelation : The Origin of the Urantia Papers by Ernest P. Moyer (Paperback - Feb 16, 2000)
5. Urantia United: Tapping Into The Mind Of God For Religious Equality by A Transcendentalist (Paperback - Jan 22, 2007)
6. The Great Chain on Urantia by Nicholas P. Snoek (Paperback - Jul 5, 2006)
7. The Secret Revelation: Unveiling the Mystery of the Book of Revelation by Stella Religa and Byron Belitsos (Paperback - April 1, 2001)
8. The Sherman Diaries, Volume One: Dawning Revelations 1898-1942 by Matthew Block and Saskia Praamsma (Paperback - Feb 10, 2003)
9. Urantia: The Great Cult Mystery by Martin Gardner (Hardcover - April 1995)
10. SONSHIP AND THE URANTIA PAPERS: Sharing the Mind of God by Robert Crickett (Paperback - 2000)
11. An Introduction to the Urantia Revelation (2nd Edition) by David Bradley (Paperback - Mar 2002)
12. The Center Within: Lessons from Heart of the Urantia Revelation by Fred Harris and Byron Belitsos (Paperback - Dec 1998)
13. The Fifth Revelation : A Collection of Key Passages from The Urantia Book by Kelly Elstrott (Paperback - Oct 1, 1998)
14. Edgar Cayce and The Urantia Book (Hardcover )
15. Source Authors of the Urantia Book by J. T Manning (Hardcover - Jun 2002)
16. Concordex of the Urantia Book by Clyde Bedell (Hardcover - Mar 1986)
17. Urantia Book Concordance by The Urantia Foundation (Hardcover - Jun 1993)
18. The Urantia Book Workbooks: Topical and Doctrinal Study (Urantia Book Workbooks) by Urantia Foundation,
19. The Tao of God: A Restatement Based on the Urantia Book by Richard Omura (Paperback - April 2000)
20. A History of the Urantia Papers by Larry Mullins and Meredith Justin Sprunger (Hardcover - Dec 18, 2000)
21. El Libro De Urantia (Spanish) / The Book Of Urantia by Urantia Foundation (Hardcover - Nov 30, 1999)
22. Het Urantia Boek (Hardcover - Jun 1998)
23. Das Urantia Boek (Hardcover - Dec 2005)
24 Urantia-kirja (Paperback - Feb 2000)
25. The Urantia book basics by Mary Ebben (Unknown Binding - 1994)
26. Khnta Ypahtnn by Urantia Foundation (Hardcover - Jun 1998)
27. Birth of Revelation: The Story of the Urantia Papers (Paperback - 1994)
28. Le verbe s'est fait livre: La révélation protégée par la Fondation Urantia (Collection Rencontres d'aujourd'hui) by Jacques Rhéaume ( - 1990)
29. LES JUMEAUX D'URANTIA by NORMAND CANAC-MARQUIS (Paperback - 1992)
30. Study aids for part IV of the Urantia Book: The life and teachings of Jesus by Ruth E Renn (Unknown Binding - 1975)
31. Kick Start: Cosmic Biker Babe's Guide To Life And Changing the Planet by Carol Setters (Paperback - April 27, 2005)
32. Spiritual Leadership: Wisdom for Work, Wisdom for Life by Erik Van Praag (Paperback - Aug 1, 2004)
33. Steve Vai, Flex-able ( Urantia , 1984), Flex-able Leftovers ( Urantia , 1984),
34. Paramony by Duane L. Faw (Paperback - Oct 1, 2002)
35. The Technology of Love, Vol. 1 by Charles E. Hansen (Hardcover - Aug 2005)
36. Nebadon: Our Creative Universe Series by Darka Watters (Paperback - May 11, 2005)
37. The Celestial Songbook by James W. Cleveland (Paperback - Mar 2, 2004)
38. The Alien Intimacies by James W. Cleveland (Paperback - Jul 3, 2003)
39. Celestials OVER Cincinnati: Lessons of the Planetary Correcting Time by James W. Cleveland (Paperback - Jan 6, 2004)
40. Beyond Cynicism by James W. Cleveland (Paperback - Dec 1, 2003
41. Discovery Of Atlantis by Robert Sarmast (Paperback - Oct 1, 2003)
42. Trillion by Mark Kimmel (Hardcover - Jun 2002)
43. Mandala: Journey to the Center (Whole Way Library) by DK Publishing
44. A Study of the Master Universe - bill sadler
45. CORRECTING TIME by Fred Harris
46. THE STORY OF EVERYTHING by Michelle Klimesh
47. The Seven Circles- Richard Omura
48. How To Recycle A Disposal Planet- Tommy L. Clendening
49. God, Man, and Supreme- Origin and Destiny by Stuart R. Kerr, III
50. Jesus - A Revelation of God by Laurence Whelan
51. Urantijos Knyga (Lithuanian Paperback)
52. Cartea Urantia (Romanian HTML CD-ROM)
53. Kniga Urantii - Russian Hardcover
54. The Urantia Book - Korean Hardcover
55. Il Libro di Urantia - Italian Hard Cover
56. Up Close and Personal with the Urantia Book- by J. J. Johnson 2007
57. UFO Cults and Urantia by Kevin Lewis, Kenneth B. Samples
58. Adam and Eve: A Tragic Love Story (Paperback) by Louis J. Bartolomeo (Author)
59. Gospel Gospel- by Louis J. Bartolomeo
60. Simon Said- By: Kenneth Becnel
61. DAVID ZEBEDEE AND RUTH- By: Helena Sprague
62. THE FAMILY MEETING HANDBOOK-By: Robert Slagle, Ph.D.
63. The Universal Religion: Essentials for a Joyful Life-by Christopher Lepine-
64. God Without the Garbage: A Reasonable Approach to God - by Christopher Lepine —Preceding unsigned comment added by Majeston ( talk • contribs) 10:42, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
In paper 90, section 2 of the The Urantia Book, there is a statement about Tenskwatawa:
This has been cited in the article as a mistake in the book under the "Criticism of science" section with this language:
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:
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'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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)