" (UTC)

This debate is essentially about what can be stated unqualifiedly as fact. The consensus definition of fact is ""something that can be demonstrated to be true"", in other words, ""something based on empirical evidence"". I think that most dissenters would acknowledge that their views are not by this definition ""fact"", that is, they would not claim that their views are ""built on empirical evidence"". Frankly, the definition of fact is very much linked with the definition of science, as the goal of science is the establishment of fact. Thus, statements about which there is no fact-based debate, such as the roundness of the earth, can be stated as fact. Non-fact-based dissenting views can be stated as dissenting views, preferably in their own articles to avoid confusing the fact-seeking encyclopedia user.
The alternative, as far as I can figure, is to not state anything at all as fact, which would make Wikipedia a useless hellish cauldron of boiling fat. As one who believes that Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia, this isn't a very attractive prospect. If anyone can think of a different way to determine what can be stated as fact, go right on ahead.   07:41, 29 January 2006"