Talk:Benjamin Urrutia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Aug 22, 05: I'd like to contact Benjamin to ask if he has done any Mormon studies writing in the Spanish language. If you see this and know his email address can you please pass my interest on to him or ask him to contact me? (if you click on my user name and select "email this user" you can contact me). Stirling

Goethian, you seem to have worked a bit on it — was your work purely editorial, or do you have any sources for information on this guy? When I google, the only hits I get are wikipedia or generated from wikipedia. Slrubenstein | Talk

You must be doing something wrong, then, because anybody else who googles Benjamin Urrutia gets a long list of page after page of hits, most of which have nothing to do with Wikipedia.


This cannot be a "Vanity Page" - several different people have added to it, edited it, revised, reworked and rewritten it.


Should we delete all the less-famous scholars to make room for more politicians?

If the article were "vanity" it would have a lot more about Urrutia's life, and a much longer list of publications. mikka (t) 18:14, 23 August 2005 (UTC) See below under "Googling."

It is true that Benjamin Urrutia is not very famous, but the books and articles he has written and published are all there. Not all have been posted on the internet, but they all exist in print.

Ecuadorian politicians for the most part have caused nothing but misery and suffering to the Ecuadorian people.

It is an outrageous viewpoint that politicians deserve being in Encyclopedias more than scholars and writers.

When I Google, I get an enormous list of mentions of Benjamin Urrutia.

It makes a big difference whether you use the Spanish spelling with a tilde on the i or the English spelling without the tilde. However, it is the same person.

Certainly anyone who has been published in the Publications of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, in American Antrhopologist, in Man, in the Journal of Human Evolution, in Mythlore, deserves to be in Wikipedia.

It is a fact that Benjamin Urrutia was the first person ever to translate the Spengler Module, which no one before him had been able to translate. His translation has not been disputed in all this time; it is unquestionably correct.

If we delete scholars who are not famous in their own lifetime, we have to delete Gregor Mendel, whose work on genetics was not recognized for forty years after he published it.

As far as anyone knows, Benjamin Urrutia has published nothing in his native language, Spanish, other than a couple of letters to the editor.

Not true! His book of poetry, Slanted Glory/Gloria Oblicua, is a bilingual work, with every poem both in English and in Spanish. --anonymous comment by 66.99.0.124

Benjamin Urrutia participated in archaeological excavations in both Ecuador and Israel.

It is true that The Logia of Yeshua was never a bestseller and did not have any major impact, but those who have read it can testify that it is a wonderful little book. More people should know about it.


The attack smells to me of religious bigotry against Latter-day Saints, ethnic bigotry against Hispanics, or both.

Maybe Urrutia is not so famous now, in spite of his four books and hundreds of shorter pieces, but who knows, he may get more famous in the future.

Instead of deleting, expand the article to include Benjamin Urrutia's accomplishments as missionary and soldier.

I know Ben very well, and I can testify that his computer is only a word processor without Internet access. He does not send or receive e-mail. Never has and probably never will. He's an old-fashioned kind of scholar and poet.

It's not about the man, it's about the ideas. B. Urrutia has very important and interesting ideas.

Certainly his notion of Jesus as a Leader of Nonviolent Resistance is one the world needs to hear.

Maybe the hostility against him is due to this idea, not to his ethnicity or obscurity,

Yes, the ad hominem attack is just an excuse to persecute the idea. For months the article stood unchallanged, but as soon as information about the Leadership of Jesus in Nonviolent Jewish Resistance was added, the attack began.


- Maybe there are anti-Semites out there who strongly object to seeing Jesus as a Jewish leader.


Many Presidents of Ecuador in the second half of the 20th century were crooks or madmen or both.

  • The very fact that his ideas are so little-known is all the more reason to help disseminate them, not to suppress them. They are interesting, original and provocative ideas, whether you agree with them or not. And he gets his facts right.


  • Does anybody really think it's a good idea to delete original and provocative ideas to make room for more biographies of politicians?

Contents

[edit] What turns up on Google

I did a big of Googling[1], and followed some of the links I found, and, ignoring WP mirrors, this is what I've come up with:

This is just from the first two pages of hits... He isn't sufficiently noteworthy that he's made it onto my radar, but he's certainly made it onto a number of other peoples'... Tomer TALK 23:15, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] VfD

Survived Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Benjamín Urrutia. mikka (t) 23:28, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

A bit of discussion to address two issues brought up in the VfD discussion:
  • According to my understanding, Urrutia is called a translator in discussion of The Logia of Yeshua because of his rôle in translating the "logia" from Greek, not because he translated The Logia of Yeshua from some other language.
  • From what I've read, the guy writes in English, from the US, not in Spanish, so that should go a long way toward explaining why there are so few Google hits for him (a) in Spanish language articles and (b) in Google Ecuador. Tomer TALK 00:04, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tolkien

Benjamin Urrutia has written a large number of articles on Tolkien, but only one of them appears in the Bibliography in the article. He has written a few but important articles on French Structuralist anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss, and none of them are listed in the article's bibliography. The article and its bibliography are very much in need of expansion. --anonymous comment by 66.99.1.126

The External Links section should also be expanded.+

[edit] LDSF

my source for adding biblio entries that Mikkalai deleted: [8]

--goethean ॐ 18:49, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Protected

User:Katefan0 protected this article yesterday, apparently over a content dispute. --Tony SidawayTalk 17:04, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I did, thanks much for adding it to WP:PP, it was an oversight. · Katefan0(scribble) 17:23, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bibliography

goethean, why are you so dead set against the LDSF books? Is it because you are brutally anti-Mormon? And why are you so dead set against including scholarly articles from American Anthropologist and the Hebrew University? That does not make any sense at all. And why do you say "your" book reviews and "your" journal articles? They are not mine. We are talking about Benjamin Urrutia. And your approach to editing is one of bullying and blackmail. Not cool. --anonymous comment by 66.99.0.124 (talk · contribs)

How soon we forget who fought to keep this article from being deleted. I most certainly am not anti-Mormon. Wikipedia has an interest in limiting the use of itself for self-promotional purposes. I am trying to balance the interests of Wikipedia versus your apparently very strong interest in promoting Benjamin Urrutia. Pardon me for assuming that you and he are the same person. You must admit that you do seem to know an awful lot about how to order his books, information that none of us have turned up in our research. Wikipedia bibliographies include books authored, not articles or books edited, and only books whose existence can be independently verified — that is, which are not self-published. Also consider Mikkalai's comments:
An encyclopedic bibliographic list usually includes major works of a person. Being an editor is hardly an important contribution to be mentioned...By "Source" I mean exact printing data, preferrably ISBN. But my main objection was includion of "Slanted Glory" with no traces whatsoever.

All right, keeping the article basically as it is at present, with the addition of External Links to the Peaceable Table, LDSF, Logia of Yeshua, American Anthropologist. Does everybody agree?

I am not B.U., but I do know him personally. I have no interest in promoting him, but certainly in making his ideas -which are excellent and original ideas - available to everyone.

The notion that being "an editor is hardly an important contribution" is nonsensical. It's like saying only the players in an orchestra are important, the conductor is not important. Besides, B.U. wrote some of the articles and stories in the LDSF books. He is a player as well as the conductor. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.99.1.118 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

It's like saying only the players in an orchestra are important, the conductor is not important.


No American Anthropologist. Wikipedia articles do not list journal articles in bibliographies. No Slanted Gloria unless you can come up with an ISBN or real publication data. As far as I know, BU only edited LDSF2 and 3. If you cannot provide evidence to the contrary, please stick with those claims.
And please consider that the article is simply better the way it is now — without listing a bunch of only tangentially related, out-of-print books. Peruse Wikipedia articles and let me know if you can find another that listed books that were merely edited by the subject of the article. --goethean ॐ 14:52, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotected

Doesn't seem to be a lot of discussion going on, so I've unprotected. Be nice. --Tony SidawayTalk 04:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Peaceable Table

Okay, Mr. Goethean, now how about adding those Peaceable Table External Links you offered? Once those are in place, the article should remain as it is until Urrutia's next major book is published. Peace.

I didn't add the external links because you never agreed to stop adding inappropriate entries. Namely: LDSF, Slanted Gloria, and the journal articles. Do we have an agreement? --goethean ॐ 16:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, we have an agreement. You win.

Done. I'll put the titles of the books in later. --goethean ॐ 16:27, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Accuracy tag

Unless someone has a fact that they'd like to dispute, I'd like to take the tag off the article. --goethean ॐ 16:57, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Now that the controversy has been peacefully resolved, it is indeed time to remove the tag. Goodbye, and thanks for all the fish. --anonymous comment by 64.107.2.66 (talk · contribs)

Hey, who took off the External links to the Peaceable Table? Please restore them. - Das Baz.

Thank you very much for the quick restoration! - Das Baz.

[edit] Excessive "see also" section

The links in the 'see also' section should be moved to the body of the article and fleshed out, indicating the relevance of the linked articles to Urrutia. — goethean ॐ 17:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Spangler Nodule text

The text of the Spangler Nodule - YHWWY - could be a variant of the Tetrgrammaton. Urrutia's is the only reading and translation of this text that has been offered in the last 208 years. Das Baz, aka Erudil 15:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

You don't seem to grasp the fact that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to post your ideas of what may or may not be. And you are also for some reason assuming that there was a text, which is definitely not proven nor likely. Doug Weller (talk) 20:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC) (signing a bit late, sorry)

Dear anonymous: The text exists. Das Baz, aka Erudil 16:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

So what? There is nothing to link the text with the bit of iron it was allegedly copied from. And that still doesn't justify original research by you.--Doug Weller (talk) 20:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

What original research? Benjamin Urrutia said the YHWWY text may be a variant of the Tetragrammaton. That is in the reference we are both citing. There is absolutely no reason to not mention that bit of data about BU on the SN. On the other hand, your saying that the Text did not come from the Nodule, but from somewhere else - now that is Original Research, very much so, unless you can come up with a reliable source for it. And even if your theory is true - which I doubt very much - that is no reason not to mention BU's theory on the Text. Das Baz, aka Erudil 15:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, just give me the quote where Benjamin Urrutia says that and the source of the quote. I have never said that the text did not come from the nodule, I have simply said that we have no evidence linking the text with the nodule, and that is simply a fact. We have no reason whatsover to rule out forgery.--Doug Weller (talk) 15:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The reference: NPSEHA, number 155 (1984). Sure, the Spengler Nodule may be an 1800 forgery, but no one - except you - has suggested that the text Urrutia translated did not come from the Nodule - so that is your Original Research - or rather, your original guess. Das Baz, aka Erudil 15:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)