User talk:Smkolins/Archives/2014/January

Polemic Pot
There is nothing Polemic about this text.



Earl Elder was the primary translator, whatever you personal views on William Miller. The Royal Asiatic Society is a reputable scholarly institution with educational pursuits, not a biased agenda. Have you read this text personally? Let's see some specific examples and evidences of this being the "highly polemic translation" that you assert. I have personally reviewed William Miller's personal copy deposited in one of the University Libraries. He was convinced that there was an effort to conceal the English translation of this text, as seems to have been done with the 1900 Anton Haddad Translation. An open mind might cause one to consider asking what lead him to such a view. He left notations with his copy about such suspicious efforts to withhold a text so important to the Baha'i community. Nevertheless, I repeat and emphasize - He was not the principal translator

Seems to me you are just blindly repeating a biased "party line", rather than independently investigating truth and reality. Is this embodying a Baha'i character? Seems to me you are the polemic pot calling the kettle black.

So, please, by all means, support your assertion with some supporting facts.

68.101.69.1 (talk) 03:17, 10 January 2014 (UTC) Blindness is a weird thing.--Smkolins (talk) 03:19, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

How very scholarly and educated of you. Ignorance that is self-righteous and unyielding; that is an even weirder thing. So, I take it from your rather curt and snide remarks you have nothing worthwhile or constructive to offer in respect to the challenge made; Just incoherent assertions based upon biased views? 68.101.69.1 (talk) 03:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Please desist from personal attacks.--Smkolins (talk) 03:31, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Review of that source fails critical examination. --Smkolins (talk) 03:33, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

If you want to keep the dialogue professional, behave professionally. If you seek to keep the dialogue impersonal and focused on facts, then behave accordingly. You are not acting in good faith as you are redacting sources that have nothing to do with the Royal Asiatic Socity's translation fo the Kitab-i-Aqdas. Moreover, the rebuttal text "The Baha'i Faith" fails to support your assertion that the RAS translation of the Kitab-el-Aqdas is polemic, as has been previously stated, was primarily translated by Earl Elder.

Provide specific support as to how this translation by the ROyal Asiatic society differs to such a degree as constitutes a polemic. Provide support as to why you redact the 1900 Anton Haddad translation.

Clearly you are seeking to limit a educational and informational tool to conform to your personal religious views and dogmas, and is why you remove all other sources from references that are not authorized by the World Baha'i Center in Haifa.

If you do not cease and decist, I will persist; and, as is self evident by your behavior and lack of critical review and inquiry, and lack of thoughtful and meaningful response on this matter, eventually... well someone with a bigger hand will step in and fix the matter.

It is precisely for these reasons that so many scholars and academics are forced to leave enrollment with the Baha'i Faith and the trend on censorship within the Baha'i faith has grown exponentially. However, Wikipedia is not your personal soapbox to censor. You have been duly noticed. 68.101.69.1 (talk) 03:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The presentation questions Miller's balance and he is key to the source you present. The provenance of polemics is clear. And you are the one making personal characterizations.--Smkolins (talk) 03:55, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Miller is not the primary source of the translation, Elder is. The Royal Asiatic Society, a scholarly institution, is not going to publish something biased on the bases of an authors personal reasons; much like one might expect from an extremely insular religious congregation seeking to limit the scope of scholarly and critical examination and inquiry.

Moreover, you have yet to explain adequately why it is you remove all reference to the Anton Haddad translation of the text. Do you assert polemics here as well?

The fact that you summarily remove all of my edits without regard to critical differentiation demonstrates absolutely and self evidently that you are operating in bad faith with a personal agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.69.1 (talk) 04:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Lisa Janti
The real issue with this article is that it is still in violation of NOTADVOCATE and that of Neutral_point_of_view, focusing more on her life as a Bahai, which is not encyclopedic in the least, instead of her career as an actress, which justifies an article on her at Wikipedia. I have kept your edits but have added the template, because the article needs severe work to focus on her career instead of advocating for her religious beliefs.--Guiletheme (talk) 01:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * except where sources indicate it is important to her. --Smkolins (talk) 01:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)