[Dylan16807]

Are you playing a game here?

Normally people provide relevant links. Even if this is showing bad sourcing, it still sources the important numbers. "External links" is helping with that too.

And this 2003 vs. 2004 distinction is a waste of time when wikipedia has a perfectly good history feature.

If I ask pretty please will you name the element?

[BeetleB]

I side with elif here.

> Normally people provide relevant links

It is relevant. It's pointing out that lots of articles back then were not well referenced. It doesn't have to be his article. I know this quite well as I added a lot of stuff to Wikipedia in those days, and never provided a reference. No one challenged me.

Likely the page he got his information from didn't provide any reference for that number.

[Dylan16807]

But the linked page has a very thorough source for its numbers; it just happens to be in the "external links" section. And looking through those links for a couple minutes they seem to pretty well cover the text.

The lines are not individually cited but that's a stylistic thing, not a failure to have references. I'm sure there's several lines without backing but overall this has reasonable links and I don't think it supports the narrative about having "one" reference and getting a "fundamental digital fact" wrong like that.

So I would like to see the real example. Or one that is equivalently bad. And linking it would be in the best interests of a fruitful discussion; it's not like a particular element is going to be a controversial issue that causes a time-wasting tangent.