Welcome to Hanely's Talk Page[edit]

Post below the line. Thanks!__________________________________________________________________________________

Urantia - Not Proven to be Channelled?[edit]

Hanley - I just noticed that the Urantia Book was no longer listed in this list of channelled works and that you seem to be the one who removed it around April 2008.

I then noticed that you have been active in adding and editing content about The Urantia Book.

I have to ask why you wouldn't want The Urantia Book listed in the list of Channelled Texts? I don't see how any work can be 'proven' to be channelled. Most people would dispute whether channelling is a genuine phenomenon. So I don't see the 'proof' angle.

Secondly, I am well aware of the dispute over whether the Urantia Book was 'pure' or was somewhat or substantially modified (or even generated) by certain individuals. In any case, it seems pretty clear that the content is at least purported to be channelled and as such it would seems to be more accurate to include it on the List of channelled texts and to make a note that directs the reader to info on the controversy regarding the origin.

I have read a majority of the channelled books listed and The Urantia Book is well above average in terms of the quantity, quality, and uniqueness of its content. It seems a shame to not have it listed there.

I would appreciate it if you would provide some insight into your rationale. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.242.161 (talk) 01:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hanley Replied ----

Hello 71.230.242.161 No. The Urantia Book is not factually shown to be channeled by the methods commonly understood and known. Instead it was said by Dr. Sadler to have "mysteriously materialized". Though there was reportedly a "sleeping subject", it was never explained save for hearsay, just what went on. In fact, it is contradictory to the writer's of "The Urantia Papers" to call it channeled. If it was, then why do they denounce channeling as a "sordid" practice?

I think it is something entirely different as Sadler tried to show - hearsay or not, but this factoid renders the actuality of its having been channeled unproved. Whether is was or wasn't, it just isn't shown as a fact of its history. - so we cannot say it is.

I am sorry for the disappointment. For me, it's just the way it is.

Hanely

71.230.242.161 replies ----------

I won't push this any further if you would rather not have it listed on that page since you seem to be the keeper of the keys to the source and truth of The Urantia Book. I had not heard the part about channeling being a sordid practice. I do know that the source of UB is disputed, but for me, I see many strong points in favor of listing it as channeled and only a few weaker point (IMO) for it not to be listed that way.

Points in favor:

Each chapter lists an otherworldly source - if they aren't channelled then how did UB come to be? Even if you were to argue that each chapter was magically materialized, it still qualifies for me as 'channeled' because we have no other known form for categorizing 'revelations' or revelatory works like this. Channeling has it's detractos, and they would go completely nuts if you said something just materialized. (I know that is a part of the gist of what was told to the early people who were part of the working group. It was said that stacks of typed pages would just appear on the desk overnight.)

What other options are there besides 'channeled'?- The content is not said to be fiction. It is purported to be factual and it refers to things beyond normal human knowing.

the Akashic records - these are supposed to be something like supernatural records of the history of the universe since the beginning of time. Those records were tapped for the story of the origins of the universe, the history of Adam and Eve, and the history of the life of Jesus which are in the book. Again, what other source is there for this information?

I look forward to your reply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.242.161 (talk) 20:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your work on The Urantia Book[edit]

Great work cleaning up the grammar in this article, also good work removing unneeded opinions and such. This article needs it and it is a daunting challenge. Keep whittling. HighInBC 17:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, humbly - from my heart. Your thoughts and comments make it all worthwhile. There is much more to do. I hope you will drop by and help out. Hanely 04:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may find this interesting, it is a stats page for wikipedia, here are the stats for The Urantia Book HighInBC 20:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello[edit]

You and I haven't formally met, but I've read a lot of your edits in the Archives, and I know you've put a lot of work in the article. This is just to welcome you back. Richiar 05:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Current effort[edit]

Hi Hanley:

Thanks for your message. I am currently working on "simplifying the article". I seem to be silent for periods of time, because I'm studying the article and how to proceed. The language of the UB is somewhat difficult unless a person has the patience to read it over many years, and learn the terminology. I am trying to convert the language being used into more simplistic prose, to fit into an encyclopedic article, while retaining as much of the content from the current article as possible. Right now there seems to be a difference of opinion on the interpretation of the style of language that is used for the article. What I mean is, I think Wazronk views the conversion of the UB style of writing to a more simplistic style, which I prefer and think improves the article, as being "original research".

I am reviewing the archives again, and see that this issure came up before: specifically, with user Sweet Bear, in Nov '06. I haven't had a chance to read the archives as much as necessary, which I plan to do, so I can more fully understand the background before I came in Dec '06.

We hope you can stay for a while, but your cheerfulness is greatly appreciated.

Thanks.

Richiar

Hi Richiar,

Thanks back atcha. I will come by as often as I can, but I have many irons in the fire right now and so my visits will be sporadic, I am sure. :) I love to help when I can, though.

I have written to you in your "talk" page about "original research"... maybe it will be helpful? Hanely 16:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophy[edit]

Whenever you can show up is fine with us ! Allright on Philosophy. I'll keep it in. I guess we could say that philosophy is said in the UB that it should be combined with science and religion, so that in a sense is about philosophy. Also, it says in the last 2 or 3 chapters of the book that materialism, secularism, etc, will lead to more war, unless the religion of Jesus is brought to the world and the brotherhood of man is honored. So that could be included in a general way as "philosophy". However, anyone familiar with the field of philosophy, who reads the UB, would clearly see there is no content that relates to the field of philosophy. So maybe a clarifying notation might be placed at the bottom or something. Richiar 00:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Epochal[edit]

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Epochal, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 05:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

copyright issue[edit]

This is for the person that has posted this page - the name that you are using is copyrighten by myself. Please change your login name and the name of this page.

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanelyryder (talk • contribs) 23:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]