Talk:the fact that

@Imetsia: This sounds very SOP to me. Not sure why other dictionaries deemed it worthy of an entry, but I don't think we should. PUC – 21:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@PUC: I think it is — at the risk of sounding like a broken record — a set phrase. It's much less common to hear "the fact being...," "the fact of...," or similar. These other constructions also don't convey (or, at least, don't naturally convey) the meaning in sense 1. You can send the entry to RFD, and I don't doubt that this is somewhat of a close question. I would personally prefer to keep it. Imetsia (talk) 21:30, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@Imetsia: Meh, no, that's okay. I'm fed up with the RFD procedure, so let's leave it at that. PUC – 21:34, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

 @PUC: It’s a whole conjunction, used when mere “that” is too misinterpretable. Leaving out the that new conjunctions are formed—e.g. während, nun, trotzdem, falls, all first used with daß —, so intermediate stages are worth to be documented. Fay Freak (talk) 23:06, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Usage note

Fowler reads

When standing at the head of a sentence the fact can sometimes be omitted but a degree of emphasis or focusing is lost. Moreover, nominalizing a clause by simply adding that is a literary device, and may sit uneasily with the style of the sentence. 

Verbs such as accept, acknowledge, announce, convince, discover, etc. (unlike ignore) that can be complemented by a that-clause, do not need to be linked to the clause by the fact that. Owing to or due to the fact that and despite the fact that can normally be replaced by because and although respectively, thereby producing a more economical and clearer structure. --Backinstadiums (talk) 09:22, 27 August 2021 (UTC)