Wikipedia talk:Facts precede opinions

I like the notion, and think we should consider inclusion into WP:NPOV. &mdash; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 21:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Problem is, it's often nearly impossible, or even completely impossible to check an actual fact. I can straightforwardly (in most cases) check reliable sources. Therefore this idea is impractical, it results in an unverifiable wikipedia. I'm pretty sure it was deliberately avoided for that reason when they started writing the wikipedia.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 00:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The other problem is it assumes that people act reasonably. If people don't (and there is no incentive to for people that strongly believe something) then you end up with 'facts' in the wikipedia that are not facts. There would be no way to force people to act reasonably, and you couldn't make them cite.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 00:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

"FPO"
"FPO" is a bad choice for a mnemonic acronym, as WP:FPO redirects somewhere else. Perhaps the info in this essay should be with the info in the essay WP:FACTS; saying that if a fact is cited it should not be presented as an attributed opinion. It should be presented as an attributed opinion when significant published dissenting opinions exist (attributed examples of such dissenting opinions should also be presented, of course, IAW WP:NPOV). -- Boracay Bill (talk) 22:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)