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