Talk:Subh-i-Azal

	; Archives (Index) ;
	1;
	This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Babism (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Babism, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BabismWikipedia:WikiProject BabismTemplate:WikiProject BabismBabism articles

Bahá'í Faith Low‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bahá'í Faith, a coordinated attempt to increase the quality and quantity of information about the Baháʼí Faith on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.Bahá'í FaithWikipedia:WikiProject Bahá'í FaithTemplate:WikiProject Bahá'í FaithBahá'í Faith articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Do not remove sources and then claim you are cleaning up the article

Removing relevant sources from the bibliography and claiming you are cleaning up the article is vandalism. Stop it! 2001:8003:ED8F:EB00:C0FD:47AF:3A54:1336 (talk) 01:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there are references that are not used in the article, they get removed. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 23:33, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And upon what basis is this determination made other than your own? Leave it alone because what you are doing is a form of intellectual vandalism. 2001:8003:ED8F:EB00:D4E0:5622:579E:2FC4 (talk) 02:25, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you are removing are also catalogued sources appearing on *WorldCat* as well as the catalogue of the *National Library of Australia*. So what you have determined as "unreliable" is your own bias, and has nothing do with with any objective determination or criteria to anything that Wikipedia is specifically saying. See for yourself:

https://search.worldcat.org/title/1452284554

https://search.worldcat.org/title/1452285135

https://search.worldcat.org/title/1452285121

And given that these citations are more recent than the others, by any objective academic (or even non-academic) criteria they not only require inclusion but override the older cited works, and so must be cited because they are about the topic of the entry.

2001:8003:ED8F:EB00:D4E0:5622:579E:2FC4 (talk) 02:29, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]