Talk:Gustav Baron

Citation Style

I'm removing the tags unless it's clarified what exactly is "unclear", and what exactly needs "additional verification". --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Rather than just put an external link at the end and call it a reference, it would be clearer if footnotes were used. Also additional references would be nice beyond this single link to a biography.--RadioFan (talk) 21:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

And what exactly would be clearer? This whole article is more or less a direct translation of the source provided at the reference link of the official Uni biography page (and since you don't know the language, you wouldn't know that, would you). I think that you have no interest whatsoever in trying to establish additional veracity, resolve potential controversial statements or simply improve encyclopaedicity of the bio article of some boring theologian, but are simply trying to pump the edit-count by semi-automatic placement of some ugly template that needlessly introduces "issues" where there are none. This article is sufficiently referenced for its scope, does not introduce any kind of controversial claims that need sourcing, and if you think that there are some particular parts that need referencing please elaborate it here and tag them, otherwise.. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 22:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)