User blog comment:DancePowderer/No Room at the Inn, Deductive Reasoning/@comment-10543621-20150615064534

I have a question. Most people that rage over 'unconfirmed' information stated as facts tend to take particular offence at a piece of information being stated as concrete fact, when the evidence are what they perceive as insufficient.

Using dead or alive people as an example, my question is why is there a need to definitively conclude their living status? For example with Sabo, why did we have to state that he was killed when we could have just said that his boat was fired upon by the tenryubitto and exploded into flames. Heck even for Monet, why do we have to say she was killed when Caesar stabbed her heart? Why can't we say that Caesar stabbed her heart and leave it as that? What difference does that extra word kill or dead make?

I understand that the character infobox states their status as living or deceased. I think for that bit, we have no choice but to categorise according to what is most likely as offered to us. A good gauge would be what other characters seem to believe as Ryu has pointed out. Sometimes, if we can't conclude something, we can only state it as what is known to be until contradicting info comes up, and unless there is specific and direct info presented to us as audiences that characters are not privy to, I would agree that what the characters perceive should be heavily considered in establishing whether something is fact or not. I would like to suggest that we change to presumed deceased instead of deceased for characters where their death can still be argued about, but I also understand the hesitation behind doing something like that since we might potentially have a whole lot of presumed deceased to change. But for the actual content stated in the character history, why do we insist on using sweeping words like killed and dead? What difference does it make to simply state the event that occured?

Similarly for Trebol's fruit, what is so terrible with simply STATING everything the fruit has been demonstrated to do, and not conclude whether it's Logia or Paramecia? Even if you had to categorise the fruit in the infobox, can't we put something like 'likely paramecia' as opposed to flat out paramecia? That way, we are showing that we're presenting facts as it is, and categorising them as well as we can without directly concluding something that can still be perceived as ambiguous.

Look, just for the record, I personally have no issues whatsoever with Monet being dead and Trebol being Paramecia. Those are the conclusions I arrived to myself as well. I also have no issues with the practice of presenting information as they are, and only changing them once contradicting information presents itself. But I'm just proposing/asking why an alternative way of writing that could potentially satisfy or at least shut the people who are extremely insistent on having only hard blatantly confirmed facts to be stated as facts up, is not utilised in this wiki.