:I agree that references are important and that in general the author adding a statement has the burden to provide the references to back up the claims. I try to check all the claims made in this article and add any valid references that I can find, even if someone else added the statement. If a contributor was really interested in improving the article, then why doesn't he just save us all some time and at least do a very quick search on google to try to verify the claim that he is about to cite-tag or remove and then add the found references himself before requesting references or removing whole sections. It's not that these references are that hard to find. Also, I don't think we need a reference for each and every sentence if everybody can verify the sentence in question in like 10 seconds using any search engine available. I wouldn't be surprised if this article had more references than any other computing related article. I can see many signs of disruptive editing here. I also get the impression that some people just want to hide existing positive responses to the Office Open XML standard in order to mislead the reader into thinking that there is nothing else but criticism around these formats. IMHO it speaks volumes that cite-request tags are almost never added to criticism, they are only added to supporting responses. And nobody adds similar tags to almost identical statements on the OpenDocument article. And many of these editors never contribute anything else of significance to this article or to any other article on Wikipedia. This seems like a campaign to drive away productive contributors.