Jimbo wrote:
I would recommend that anything like this for which no citation appears within 7 days be removed or edited in some fashion to remove the need.
With equal emphasis on the "edited in some fashion to remove the need" part, bearing in mind that in many cases the appropriate edit is simply to remove the tag. Although many instances of the {fact} tag are properly applied to surprising or dubious facts which do need to be cited or removed, many others refer to obvious facts or facts which are in fact supported by an article's existing references. So (as ever) some care is needed here; anyone who got the idea that "any fact left uncited for 7 days may/must be removed" would be setting themselves or the encyclopedia up for a fall.
(My point here is not to argue against use of the {fact} tag or the removal of unsourced facts. But of course the reality is that we've currently got extra-zealous editors strewing this tag around *everywhere*, and not always appropriately.)