Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Reliability

Citation needed removal drive?
(directed from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Citation cleanup, carried over here.)

Hi! I'm pretty sure this is the place to ask, so I'm asking if we could do citation needed tag removal drives. There's a large amount–according to Category:Articles with unsourced statements, there's more than 500,000 articles containing either citation needed or failed verification tags. So, in order to reduce those by replacing the tags with reliable sources, should we start a drive to remove and replace the tags listed above? Thanks! Tails  Wx  14:55, 22 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I like this idea a lot; I've drafted a mock-up of the drive page here. Hopefully that will help get this off the ground. I'd be happy to help coordinate the drive if it does happen. Edward-Woodrow  •  talk  20:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Edward-Woodrow, @Tails Wx: Happy to help as well, if needed. imo, the bare url drive you mentioned on the other talk page also sounds good, since its simpler to clean up, and has no concerns about citogenesis. (though the cn tags are probably more important/time sensitive) ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 16:31, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think this looks great! It would be awesome to see the backlog number come down (instead of go up) after such a drive. huntertur (talk) 04:58, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @ARandomName123, @Edward-Woodrow, @Huntertur, @Tails Wx, any update on this? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @CactiStaccingCrane: I don't believe there are plans for one any time soon. Edward did draft a mock up of the page, so planning could be started up again, if necessary. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 17:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I wasn't sure if the drive was going ahead, so I didn't touch the drive draft until there was more activity here. I think what we should do is set a hard date for the drive (June?) so that everyone's on the same page. —{The user formerly known as Edward-Woodrow} Cremastra (talk) 20:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Cremastra: June sounds fine. @CactiStaccingCrane, how do you feel about pushing the unreferenced article drive back to Aug/Sept? ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 20:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Makes sense :) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Here's what I have for scoring, but I fear it is a bit too complicated. What do you think?
 * Cremastra (talk) 11:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, ARandomName123 has bowed out of co-ordination, so we might need a second user besides myself to help answer questions, resolve technical problems, hand out barnstars, etc. I'll be moderately busy around the end of June, and will have less time than usual. Any volunteers? Cremastra (talk) 21:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I personally think that scoring criteria is too complicated. Unless its done on an honor system, without a script/tool to assist, that level of granularity would make verifying scoring absolutely laborious. czar  04:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * , I'm also busy through June as well - early July could also be a bit busy for me. However, I think I could co-ordinate this drive! Any opinions on hosting the drive in July instead? That month could be less busier for us both.
 * Also, I agree with Czar's point above - it seems like it's a bit complicated without having scripts or tools. We could have the scoring similar to CactiSteeringCrane's unreferenced articles backlog drive back in February 2024...and additionally, I feel like the 4 points for replacing a tag with a citation could be bumped down to 3, since I think it's a bit too much. Thanks! :) ~ Tails   Wx  (🐾, ⛈️) 23:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, it's a bit last-minute to change the date: I've already moved the drive page, advertised the drive at WP:WPRE, and filed an edit request for a watchlist notice. I'll make the scoring adjustment, though. And look into semi-automatic scoring; however, the GoCE drives seem to do fine without it. Cremastra (talk) 00:22, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah, that’s alright, @Cremastra. Thanks for implementing the change! However, since we’re doing it in June (that month’s when I’m on vacation), I think I’m not going to co-ordinate this drive, actually. I did like to clarify above that if the drive was pushed back to July, then I could’ve. ~ Tails   Wx  (🐾, ⛈️) 15:17, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I understand. No worries. Cremastra (talk) 15:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Actually,, since we seem to be alternating vacations (I'm away in July), would you consider handing out barnstars some time in July after the drive is finished? Thanks, Cremastra (talk) 20:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I’m out for the first few days of July; but afterwards, I think I’m okay with doing so. Is that alright? :] ~ Tails   Wx  (🐾, ⛈️, ⚧️) 23:22, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That's great. Thanks. I'll probably be able to lend a hand now and then. Cremastra (talk) 23:54, 27 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Relatedly, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anarchism is a live cleanup drive right now  czar  04:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Update
Cremastra (talk) 22:39, 9 June 2024 (UTC)


 * The drive is going well! Great! — Iadmc  ♫ talk  12:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Updated for 11 Jul. The drive is not going well. :( Cremastra (talk) 19:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Who will win: This drive, or the secret drive to add [citation needed] to unsourced statements? I think that's the better way of interpreting this development! //Replayful (talk &#124; contribs) 21:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * To be fair, the cn tag is just the flag to add citations or remove the unverifiable content. They are very necessary. But so is the need to cite over them and other unsourced material... — Iadmc  ♫ talk  21:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think cn should only be very rarely applied: if you come across unsourced content, you should either add a citation, or, per WP:BURDEN, remove it entirely, as you are well within your rights to do. I usually do the latter. Cremastra (talk) 22:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I add CN tags and try to remember to check the page again in a couple of weeks and remove content that hasn't been cited. Half the time I forget though.
 * Fyi, my laptop broke down the other day so I am currently on a Wikibreak. I'm hoping to get it fixed by the end of the week but I'm having trouble with the warranty so it might take longer. I've tried editing Wikipedia on my phone and tablet but I absolutely hate it so will be waiting for the laptop. Anything I can help with in the meantime, leave a message on my talk page or send an email. Adam Black  talk &bull;  contribs 22:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No worries. Thanks for all you've done so far. Cremastra (talk) 23:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It'll probably be the beginning of next week before I'm back online normally. Today was my birthday. Aging isn't as fun as it used to be - excessive quantities of alcohol had to be consumed to make the day tolerable. I doubt I'll be fit to negotiate laptop warranties in the morning. I've got a Bluetooth keyboard and mouse, I might have a go at editing on tablet again over the next few days. Will try to keep contributing, at least. Get rid of some unsourced statements if nothing else. Adam Black  talk &bull;  contribs 01:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * mentioned on Discord that the large amount of cn tags for May 2024 and June 2024 are due to no sources added with Module:Sports table. It's possible that the spike in the total of cns are from these table tags, like at 1898 Argentine Primera División. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yuk. That module should just disallow adding the information if you don't provide a citation... although I guess we'd likely end up with a boatload of bad citations. Cremastra (talk) 23:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Is there a reason this graph hasn't been updated for some time? //Replayful (talk &#124; contribs) 16:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Replayful Laziness. I've got all the data in a spreadsheet; I'll upload a new version shortly. Cremastra (talk) 16:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yay, AMAZINg! I was afraid something had come in your way. //Replayful (talk &#124; contribs) 16:47, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Should be ✅. You can look here because there's often quite a lag between my upload and the update here. Cremastra (talk) 16:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ooooh! That's some great work! //Replayful (talk &#124; contribs) 16:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Just wondering, why is 13 June asterisked? Adam Black  talk &bull;  contribs 17:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Because was late adding the data to the spreadsheet, so it actually comes from early June 14th. :/ Cremastra (talk) 12:15, 21 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Update for June 21st: for the first time since the start of the drive, the number of articles in the backlog is lower than 520,000. We've net reduced the backlog by almost 1.5 thousand articles. Cremastra (talk) 12:15, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh no, that didn't last long! //Replayful (talk &#124; contribs) 22:07, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Templates that generate a citation needed display, but don’t actually have the tag
Thoughts on whether templates that display citation needed when a parameter meant to hold a reference (like ) is blank should count or not? See Special:Diff/1229622445 as an example. I first thought it counts since if you were to use the content without being in template form, it would include an actual tag. On the other hand, these are not tags that were specifically placed by a human, but automatically included by default. -2pou (talk) 22:06, 17 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I noticed this a few times. I suspect only the original counts —  Iadmc  ♫ talk  10:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * As long as there is a [citation needed] tag on the page, which there was in this case, I don't think it matters whether it was placed there manually or automatically. I would say, however, external links do not belong in the article body and this reference should have been provided as an in-line citation using tags, preferably in the form of a CS1 or CS2 citation (with an access date). This article is littered with improper citations. Adam Black  talk &bull;  contribs 11:23, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Adam Black, I've often thought that it was odd to use this format for all the association football articles I have seen (2023–24 UEFA Champions League and 2023–24 UEFA Champions League knockout phase, for example). I don't know the origin of this style, but changing it will be a massive effort.  I didn't realize this until now, but the styling seems to be widespread across sports articles, including American football (2023 San Francisco 49ers season), NBA basketball (2023–24 Boston Celtics season), even cricket (2023 Chennai Super Kings season - seems to mix external links for "Scorecard" with cs1 links for "Source"), possibly more (+Major League Baseball-2023 Minnesota Twins season). A proper fix probably needs to be brought to the village pump with several other WP:SPORTS subgroup notifications. -2pou (talk) 16:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I wonder if it has to do with translclusions to higher-level WP:SUMMARYSTYLE pages.  If using a cs1/2 citation, you can easily end up with multiple numbered references listing the same source in the references section (if you don't name the ref), or you can get a reference warning that "was defined multiple times with different content" on a higher-level page if anybody changes an access date on one subpage that is transcluded, but not another.  I don't know if that's a reason that the basic external link format is commonly used, but I found it interesting when updating the original example... -2pou (talk) 17:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I have zero interest in sports (aside from ice hockey but even then that's only because my best mate is a professional hockey player) so I don't have much experience with sports articles, but that's very odd. The external links and verification policies are quite clear that external links should not appear in the body of the article and in-line CS1/CS2 citations with a references section are preferred. It's odd that sports editors have taken it upon themselves to change policy for that subject area (not aimed at you, but towards wherever this consensus came from). When I have a bit more time I'll look into it more thoroughly and take it to the village pump. Adam Black  talk &bull;  contribs 18:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think if the article has [citation needed], no matter what it's caused by, you get the points. Cremastra (talk) 20:27, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Barnstars
Will there be a barnstar for reaching 3,000 points? I'm getting there... LOL — Iadmc  ♫ talk  10:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)


 * There is a special barnstar awarded to first place. Adam Black  talk &bull;  contribs 11:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ping pong for me and Conyo! — Iadmc  ♫ talk  11:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This reminds me — I'm going to unavailable at the start of July, starting June 28th or so. I've made WP:JUN24/B to facilitate handing out barnstars. It works like this:
 * (The point bracket, e.g. 200)
 * The rest is automatic. So, for example,  gets you


 * If at some point in July (I should be able to help as well) and/or  could hand out some barnstars, I'd really appreciate it. Cheers, Cremastra (talk) 20:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No problem, I'll be available to help. A small suggestion, though, could we add "earning you this [award name]" or something like that. E.g.:


 * I'll try, to add that; I think it can also be done with . Also, I realized that the template probably shouldn't be subst'd. Cremastra (talk) 21:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I just noticed your response (had a wall of notifications the other day). Isn't it standard practice to subst barnstars? E.g. WP:BARNSTAR lists all of the barnstars there like  Adam Black  talk &bull;  contribs 19:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It is, but I noticed that when this particular template is subst'd, the paraphenalia is visible in the source. I guess that isn't that big a deal, since people aren't analyzing the aesthetic value of the source code of their talk pages. But I've also heard of this thing called "safesubst", which I'll give a try. Cremastra (talk) 19:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I see that only a handful of barnstars have been awarded. Should we wait for the return of Cremastra to hand them out? I can do a few if needed (though I suppose it would be weird to hand out one to myself!) Pichpich (talk) 19:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)


 * It would be wonderful if you could help out. I can do a few, but I'm travelling and on holiday until August. Cremastra (talk) 21:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I just sent out thirty or so barnstars (up to and including That Tired Tarantula if anyone else wants to help out). I'll try to do a few more tomorrow. Pichpich (talk) 22:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I will be back to distributing barnstars in the coming days. I've had a string of technical issues the past few weeks and unfortunately haven't been able to contribute as much as I'd like. My laptop (which is only 2 months old and had an in-warranty repair last month during the drive) is now definitively dead and I'm being sent a brand new one. It should arrive in the next few days. I've made the occasional edit on my phone recently but I really hate editing without a mouse and keyboard. Adam Black  talk &bull;  contribs 13:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Update: I've sent the barnstars up to Mgp28 (included) if anyone wants to take over. A little over 30 are left. Pichpich (talk) 16:37, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I've finished awarding the barnstars. I'll leave to Cremastra the pleasure of awarding the special barnstar for the highest score (which goes to Iadmc with a whopping 3104 points). I think the drive was a big success. It should be repeated! Pichpich (talk) 21:59, 10 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Great, thanks! Cremastra (talk) 22:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Partial citations
How should removing a tag be counted if it is placed after two sentences; one of which I was able to source and the other I had to delete? ❤History Theorist❤  05:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)


 * 5 points! — Iadmc  ♫ talk  08:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I concur with Iadmc. Cremastra (talk) 13:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Deleting pages with citation needed tags
If I delete an article with outstanding citation needed tags, for instance when closing an AfD (as happened at least once today), does that count for the drive as removal of unsourced statements? I just noticed this by chance – and while it is technically a removal, I'm not sure if it counts, for being a byproduct of another process. Complex / Rational 19:54, 19 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I think it shouldn't count, because as you said it's a byproduct of another process. But I'm not going to stop you from taking the points if you really want, since this is an extreme edge case. Cremastra (talk) 22:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I also think it shouldn't count as it's a byproduct of another process but also because @Cremastra, @Tails Wx and myself are not administrators. We will be distributing the barnstars but wouldn't be able to check the number of tags on a page before it was deleted. I completely trust that you wouldn't be claiming points you weren't entitled to, my only problem is that all other editors' participation can be easily verified through the page history but administrative actions can't be. Adam Black  talk &bull;  contribs 19:33, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. Cremastra (talk) 19:36, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Rewriting over a tag
Does it count (as 4 or 1 or 5 or at all) when one rewrites the claim and then cites that new material. Eg this edit. — Iadmc  ♫ talk  06:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I've done this several times, btw — Iadmc  ♫ talk  06:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't know about the particular edit, but since adding a will likely also mean changing a sentence etc. to better be in line with the source, it should count as fixing a tag, even if it you're deleting stuff for it to reflect the source added (as long as not deleting the whole statement). //Replayful (talk &#124; contribs) 16:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, it counts (4 points) – you've fixed the tag, you've just brought the claims in line with what sources you could find. Cremastra (talk) 19:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks both! — Iadmc  ♫ talk  19:26, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I have no power here, except the lack of power to stop myself replying with my take on this stuff... //Replayful (talk &#124; contribs) 20:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Another one to confirm
Does count? — Iadmc  ♫ talk  09:22, 21 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oh, damn, I forgot about that one. Ideally, I think it would be included, but since I've been saying from the start of the drive that you get points only through citation needed, fact, cn and so on, it feels dishonest on my part to let this one in through the back door two-thirds of the way through. Cremastra (talk) 12:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Next time — Iadmc  ♫ talk  12:17, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you organisers!
This was the first drive of this type I've taken part in and I really enjoyed it - many thanks to Cremastra for organising it. Turns out I'm really motivated by the promise of virtual points! Orange sticker (talk) 09:04, 1 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I found this to be oddly entertaining hunting for sources, some of which were easy, and some that required a deep dive. Thanks from me as well.  The graph shows a serious dent put into the overall number, but it always moves towards an upward slope--almost Sisyphean, yet still entertaining trying to bring it down.  I was always more hesitant about removing statements than trying to source them... "There must be a source for this somewhere; I just can't find it... Maybe someone else can."  I don't know if others felt the same, but if so, I'm sure that overall number would sink dramatically if we were more bold in just removing them. I think the chart was key for my participation, and FYSA on how I found the drive (in case it helps for the future), I found the drive via a notification in my watchlist.  Thanks! -2pou (talk) 16:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * And a big thanks to for lending a hand as well, and for offering along with  to hand put awards while I'm away on vacation. The drive wouldn't have been as successful without them. Cremastra (talk) 19:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Past closing date
Is the drive properly closed now? At least remove the "Sign up" button? Mox Eden (talk) 09:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Bit of an aside here: I don't know what the final value was at 00:00 1 July 2024, but for posterity sake, right now, the total sits at 520,265. Since the number displayed on the main page is a moving target from the category. -2pou (talk) 17:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Cremastra said earlier he would be unavailable in some unspecified early part of july //Replayful (talk &#124; contribs) 20:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, the drive ended at the end of June. Cremastra (talk) 21:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Statistics if any
I'm interested in any statistics regarding the dispositions of the tag during the project. A while back I did a personal project where I resolved about forty or so randomly selected such tags. It turns out with little effort I found valid references for about 80% of them and with minor editing another 10% or so were referenceable leaving about 10% for deletion of the tagged statement as not referenceable. I suspect most are attached to valid statements and too many have been applied by tag bombers who have no idea whether the tagged statement is valid or not, see for example Remove tag bombing of Floppy Disk Article wherein an editor admits to tag bombing for nearly two decades

It seems to me that such tag bombing litters Wikipedia with unjustified questioning of facts which to the casual reader makes Wikipedia seem to be much less reliable than it actually is. I'm going to propose a change to the policy regarding to make tag bombing explicitly a form of disruptive editing; it would useful for such a proposal to have more statistics on how many  tags have been replaced by readily found references.

Any statistics would be appreciated. Tom94022 (talk) 00:13, 3 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks you all for your efforts in the June 2024 drive to reduce unsourced statements. A while back I ran into a tag bomber at a site I monitor, so I did some research and found that most fact tags were applied to readily verifiable statements; is this your experience?  It would be great if you had some qualitative or quantitative information about your June experience that you would be willing to share.  If inclined to do so you can post it below. Thanks Tom94022 (talk) 16:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * While I didn't keep any specific quantifiable notes, I can say that, yes, I did experience some cn tags that were unnecessary. In cases where they were obviously not needed, I removed them altogether, noting this in the edit summary for forensics if someone objected.  I didn't find a lot of these, but there were a few dozen maybe.
 * Also, since I work a lot on the Westerns project and its task forces, I focused on articles in that space. I found that when looking at actor biographies, there were often cn tags for credits (such as a TV show where the specific episode is noted). These are not necessary, since the credits of the show noted are the primary source (per MOS:TVPLOT: Plot summaries, and other aspects of a program's content, such as its credits, may be sourced from the works themselves, as long as only basic descriptions are given., emphasis added).  In those situations, if I could locate a decent secondary source, I did that.  Otherwise, I left the tag.  I would feel that these cn tags could be removed, but really only if the credits were verifiable.  Some of these classic TV shows did not always list everyone in the onscreen credits, so it's better to verify rather than assume.
 * I don't know if that helps. I'm certainly willing to go back over my stuff and give some specific examples for review.   Butler Blog   (talk) 16:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I likewise didn't keep notes, and it's hard to offer anything but vague impressions after the fact. Since this was framed as a drive with a time limit, I was cherry-picking tags that were relatively easy to fix. The majority could be referenced with articles via Newspapers.com – a resource that not everyone has access to – or Google Books. A significant fraction of them, maybe 10%, could be resolved by adding a footnote to one of the citations already present in the article. A small handful of statements weren't verifiable and were sufficiently dubious that I ended up removing them.
 * I don't know that I saw too many instances of clear-cut tag bombing. There were at least a few articles where someone had slapped CN tags on almost every paragraph. Nick Number (talk) 17:51, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes. Most tags were attached to easily sourced material. Made it easy to get so many done, though! — Iadmc  ♫ talk  19:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I was mainly doing sports articles, so a majority of them were needed and easily accessible, but some not so accessible. Only in 5 instances, that I can recall, did a source already exist in the article and be used again for a cn tag. The remaining ones were "source=" tags for sports tables. Conyo14 (talk) 19:10, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Of the ones I found (also sports), I'd say about 50% did need a citation and it took some effort to find (either with newspapers.com or book sources), 25% needed a citation and were easy to find, and the remaining 25% were either uncncyclopedic things that I removed as trivial or things that really did not need a cite (I found "he became a free agent after the season[citation needed]" multiple times despite the next sentence being signed to a new contract which proves the prior sentence). I did find a few articles that do have ref-bombing and it made me question the point of doing so (one had 30+ cn tags and it was a rather short article). Wizardman  20:35, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I have to say I dislike the characterisation of tag-bombing as intrinsically bad. Yes, there are a few problematic editors who inappropriately tag, but one of the most important policies of Wikipedia is that everything must be supported by reliable sources. Any editor who questions the validity or verifiability of any content should always feel free to tag it. If the tag is inappropriate or unnecessary, it can be easily removed. Adam Black  talk &bull;  contribs 13:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * While it is true that everything needs to be verifiable only those "likely to be challenged" require inline citations! When an editor who has never made a contribution to an article adds 30  tages in one edit I have to question whether that editor has a "good faith" basis for adding such tags particularly since there is a presumption of "good faith" of the editors who created and allowed the material to stand until the tag bombing.  Removing such tags is tedious so they tend to remain in place littering Wikipedia and making it seem less reliable than it actually is.  I think we need a change to the policy to make removal of such tags easier.  Tom94022 (talk) 17:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd argue that someone attaching a cn tag to a statement means it more than meets the threshold of being "material whose verifiability has been challenged", the second type of statement which requires a citation as per WP:VERIFY. I've already conceded that some "tag-bombers" as you call them are acting in bad faith but the vast majority of cn tags I have come across in my editing were valid and vilifying those who tag uncited statements because it is "tedious" to remove them appears to me to be incredibly bad faith.
 * If anything, I think we need to be much stricter on verifiability. You claim these tags make Wikipedia seem less reliable than it actually is, but in its current form with over 6.8 million crowdsourced entries the vast majority of Wikipedia articles are about as reliable as the rhythm method is at preventing pregnancy. Hit the random article button and you're way more likely to be hit with an unreferenced stub than a reliable, well crafted featured article. Adam Black  talk &bull;  contribs 00:55, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I believe there is independent evidence that Wikipedia articles are at least as accurate as Britanica which is quite a bit more reliable than the rhythm method. Personally, I undertook a small study of fact tags and found most of them were applied to verifiable statements; although my sample size is small I believe the study is statistically valid and it seems to be supported by qualitative experience of these participants above. There are 500,000+ fact tags throughout Wikipedia, if most of them are attached to referenceable statements then I consider litter to be an accurate description and such litter has to make a casual reader question the accuracy of the article; there is no such litter in Britanica.  This is particularly so when a tag bomber places 30+ tags in one article to which they have never made a contribution.  We obviously disagree and I look forward to continued discussion when I raise the policy question regarding improving the criteria for adding and removing fact tags Tom94022 (talk) 06:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * FWIW I tried your random page test; only one of the ten pages had an article needs references tag; none were stubs. Tom94022 (talk) 06:08, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

ALPH
A novel written by Charles Eric Maine is not included in his written works@ 2601:1C2:100:E9E0:D173:9CB5:2C76:7DB1 (talk) 07:24, 21 July 2024 (UTC)