In fact, one of the most egregious ways in which tags are being abused is that they're being used for POV-pushing and opinion mongering.  Wikipedia doesn't allow personal opinions in the bodies of articles, and has numerous safeguards in place to prevent it, but having your personal opinion about the nature of an article in the format of a tag, and that opinion will be allowed to disfigure the article practically forever.Were I of a mind to fight against an article I disagree with, politically or philosophically, I wouldn't try to change the text or duke it out on the talk page, I'd stick a "neutrality disputed" tag on it and walk away.  The tag would sit there on the top of the page, big as life, scaring people away from the article, even though I provided no evidence to back it up, and did not have to go through any process before I posted it.  In fact, by simply starting an argument on the talk page, I can provide the backing someone disputing the tag might need  and I get the argument out there without it having to prevail  simply the existence of the argument justifies the tag.I'm not at all saying that's what's going on here  as I said I'm not concerned with this specificity of this tag  but it's another example of why tags are dangerous and should not be accorded the kind of carte blanche they curently receive.  If the references and citations in this article are wanting, the place to let people know that is down by the references and citations, not at the top of the article, not as long as tags can be placed without going through a process of justification beforehand.  (talk / cont)