[WikiEN-l] good example of overuse of {{fact}}

[Jimmy Wales]

First, and example, and then a question/suggestion.  If you get bored 
with my example, please continue anyway to my question/suggestion. :)

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2006/10/15/how_many_times_must_a_man_look_it_up/

 >Some are easy, of course, like the Wikipedia entry claiming that the 
 >word blackboard ‘‘is now perceived by some as being ’politically 
 >incorrect’ in the United Kingdom.’’ ‘‘Citation needed,’’ a parenthesis 
 >cautioned. Indeed: a Nexis search of UK publications found some 30 
 >blackboards in a week, against just three chalkboards.

This is a quote from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_change

Our full text reads:
 >Political correctness is a real or perceived attempt to refine or 
 >restrict language and terms used in public discussion to those deemed 
 >acceptable or appropriate. For example "blackboard" is now perceived 
by >some as being "politically incorrect" in the United Kingdom, 
[citation >needed] and so teachers are instructed to call it a 
"chalkboard" >instead.


The tag was added here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Semantic_change&diff=43364581&oldid=43286452

So from March 12 until now, we have a request that this dubious tidbit 
be sourced, with no movement.

I think that clearly this bit should have been sourced or removed a long 
time ago.

-----

Is there any way we could have a date-stamped fact tag?  Which would put 
such things into a category or other similar page?  The purpose would be 
to provide a mechanism for people to find *older* examples of fact tags, 
in order to go ahead and remove them.

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.

--Jimbo