This is thetalk page for discussing improvements to theThe Urantia Book article. This isnot a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Religious texts, a project which is currently considered to bedefunct.Religious textsWikipedia:WikiProject Religious textsTemplate:WikiProject Religious textsReligious texts
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofscience,pseudoscience,pseudohistory,conspiracy theories, andskepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles onReligion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help usassess and improve articles togood and1.0 standards, or visit thewikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
The Symbols section is short and doesn't seem to need to standalone. The detailed explanation of the concentric circles emblem contains a lot of technical detail from the book itself. What seems germane here, however, is the copyright status of the symbol.
I propose simplifying the text and merging it into the copyright status section, summarizing the Foundation's2017 copyright policy
An important symbol described in The Urantia Book is three azure blue concentric circles on a white background, said to be "emblematic of the infinity, eternity, and universality of the Paradise Trinity." Urantia Foundation, the original publisher of The Urantia Book, holds a United States trademark on this design. They permit certain fair use of the symbol for non-profit, personal, and artistic purposes as long as no connection is implied to the Urantia Foundation. Commercial use of the symbol, except for small amounts of collectibles and jewelry items, remains an exclusive right reserved by Urantia Foundation.
The majority of the references use SFN format. However, there are many book and journal refs that are inline. I cannot tell if this is intentional. I feel that these inline refs should be changed to SFNs. Wikipedia style is not to mix. I do not propose that every ref be changed to SFN, web and news articles often make poor SFN refs (no author, date or page). Changing would improve the appearance of the References section.User-duck (talk)16:59, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Most other languages of this article seem very different from the English one. TheFrench one even has NPOV disputes. Is there any formal or accepted process for helping improve this situation, using the English article as a base? (it's gotten so much work over the years) Is this even seen as a problem?btw i'vea COI, so i'm only writing on talk pagesBrad606 (talk)18:21, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Each Wikipedia is independent, and each has its own polices, standards etc. Any issues with the French-language article need to be resolved there.AndyTheGrump (talk)20:01, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @AndyTheGrump. I'm concerned that my sudden appearance on the scene, speaking through a machine translation, may not be so well received. But maybe it's worth a shot.Brad606 (talk)16:44, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What makes Martin Gardner's book, which is used many times in this article, a reliable source? Gardner has a BA in philosophy, he is not an expert on religion.KnowDeath (talk)06:20, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is a respected publisher. Do you think only academic publishers are reliable? The book received entirely positive reviews from what I can see, is widely cited (for the Urantia Book, anyway), and is itself notable.PARAKANYAA (talk)07:05, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why does being respected make it reliable? Prometheus does not do peer review and the author isn't an expert on the subject, so the book isn't reliable.KnowDeath (talk)07:30, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Why does being respected make it reliable?" - that is how reliability is determined? SeeWP:RS andWP:V. "Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include: University-level textbooks,Books published by respected publishing houses, Mainstream (non-fringe) magazines, including specialty ones" That is what being 'respected' is. RS gives an example of such a publisher asRandom House, for example. Peer review is also not a panacea.PARAKANYAA (talk)07:51, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Random House is just given as an example of a publisher, not a respected or reliable publisher. I think the fact that the author of the book isn't an expert on the topic or even a related topic still makes the book unreliable or questionable.KnowDeath (talk)08:18, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So? Not all our sources have to come from one discipline. I still don't see why you would count out someone with a background in philosophy from commenting on religion - philosophy has plenty to say on religion. This article is about a book, not a religion, anyway.PARAKANYAA (talk)10:10, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Gardner has only a BA in philosophy, he is not an actual academic. And anyways, it would make sense if a source with philosopher writing about the book's philosophy was used, but Gardner is mainly pointing the scientific mistakes of the book. TKnowDeath (talk)10:29, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And why would you need a degree in religious studies to point out scientific mistakes in a book? A recognized scientifc skeptic oublished by a reputable publisher seems fine for that.PARAKANYAA (talk)10:55, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable.
Arguments in favor of reliability:
1.WP:RS requires that a source's publisher be reputable.Prometheus Books publishes a range of non-fiction books and does not violate any of the requirements of the guidance.Y Valid publisher.
2.WP:RS requires that the author be authoritative in relation to the subject.Martin Gardner is a recognized expert in the analysis of pseudoscience.Y Valid author.
3.WP:SECONDARY policy states that Wikipedia articles primarily rely on secondary sources for their content to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources.Urantia: The Great Cult Mystery is a secondary source.Y Valid classification.
4.WP:NOV requires that a Wikipedia article be written from a neutral point of view, including significant and critical views published by reliable sources. Including Gardner's criticisms supports the neutrality of the article.Y Valid POV.
5.WP:FRINGE/QS states that articles about hypotheses that have a substantial following, but which critics describe as pseudoscience, may note those critics' views. Gardner is a critic who describes the Urantia Book as pseudoscience.Y Valid criticism.
In short, for a source to beun-reliable it must violate one or more of the tenants in the aforementioned guidance. I do not see any such violations, but I will address some of the arguments raised in the thread:
1. "Gardner is not an expert on religion, therefore his views can not be cited." Gardner is a published and reputable expert on pseudoscience, and his criticism of the Urantia Book comes from a perspective of pseudoscience critique.N Unsound logic.
2. "Prometheus isn't an academic publisher." Prometheus Books publishes a range of academic works in the humanities, including studies of skepticism. Furthermore,WP:SOURCE permits material from reliable non-academic sources.N False claim.
3. "Prometheus doesn't do peer review, therefore their books can not be cited."WP:SOURCE prefers material from academic and peer-reviewed publications, but does not require it. Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, including textbooks,books from respected publishers, magazines, newspapers, and digital articles. Though, sources which perform more analytical scrutiny take precedence.N False claim.
4. "Wikipedia articles can only accept sources from authors with one topical background." There is no policy requirement that an article can only accept sources from one background.N False claim.
In conclusion, there does not appear to be any major credibility issues with the indicated source at this time. Some caveats for clarity might include that those views be attributed properly (e.g., "According to Gardner..."), balance it with other views (this point seems sufficiently met as of now), and do not use it as the only source for a major disputed claim. These caveats will help to highlight Gardner's writing as skeptical and critical.
This comment of mine isn't really about the book anymore, but you have some misunderstandings. RS doesn't require any of these things, it just says that they make a source more reliable. Secondary is not relevant here. That is not what 'academic publisher' means, and 1, 3 and 4 are misrepresentations of what I said.
Does this really count as a fringe topic? This isn't a conspiracy theory or total pseudoscience like anti-vaccination or flat earth.KnowDeath (talk)20:26, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Y Valid publisher.
N Unsound logic.
