Talk:The Urantia Book

Merger proposal
The Urantia Foundation article has never been substantial since its initiation in 2008, and it has been identified as lacking notability since 2014. Its only substantive content is on the copyright status of The Urantia Book, which is already covered in this article. I suggest merging. Discussion? Brad606 (talk) 18:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Merging is not a good idea. They are substantially different topics.  The book stands for itself, and the organization should as well.   It isn't like the organization authored the book.  You could have 12 organizations that promote the book, but there would only be one Urantia Book; each should have to stand on it's own merits as far as notability is concerned.  As for length, that is meaningless.  There is no policy has says an article must be a given size.  Not every topic needs a large article. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 19:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with Dennis Brown. The Foundation is an organization that promotes The Urantia Book, similar to the Urantia Association International, but is independent of the book and it's authorship. It should be allowed to have a stand-alone page from the Book itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:8D13:B900:ADD3:EE29:78D5:9B28 (talk) 23:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the thoughts. I agree with not merging, and considering notability of Urantia Foundation separately. Brad606 (talk) 19:11, 24 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm in favor of merging the content of both articles in question, as the Urantia Foundation's sole purpose for existence is to preserve and disseminate the Urantia Book. What has the Foundation done that hasn't been connected to the Book? If not for the Urantia Book, is the Urantia Foundation notable? The content of the Foundation article is meager enough that it could be merged without causing any lengthy article issues. Xaxafrad (talk) 03:48, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Merge Symbols section into Copyright Status
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's 2017 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.'''

Discussion? Brad606 (talk) 20:07, 3 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Given that absolutely no source is cited for the claim regarding copyright, I've removed it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:23, 27 October 2021 (UTC)


 * And further to this, just how 'important' are symbols anyway, if the only source we cite regarding them is Gardener's book? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:10, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

JJ Benítez
In Libro de Urantia and Caballo de Troya there is some information about the relation between Urantia and J. J. Benítez's Caballo de Troya. However, it is not clear at the first look whether it is plagiarism or inspiration. --Error (talk) 17:58, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

inline vs. SFN.
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)

Non-English versions of this article
Most other languages of this article seem very different from the English one. The French 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've a COI, so i'm only writing on talk pages Brad606 (talk) 18:21, 26 June 2023 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)