Wikipedia talk:Sham consensus

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organize and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.Wikipedia essaysWikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysTemplate:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays pages
Low	This page has been rated as Low-impact on the project's impact scale.
	The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

talk elsewhere

The content of this essay is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Consensus#link to essay on sham consensus. Nick Levinson (talk) 15:42, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re-write?

A sham consensus is either a false consensus or a wrongful consensus, or both. In general, a false consensus is in violation of an ArbCom decision and a wrongful consensus is in violation of a policy or guideline. A sham consensus includes an absence of a consensus where the absence has the same cause as a false or wrongful consensus. Discussion in here to a sham consensus includes the absence of a consensus because of such a cause.

This material seems legitimate, but it's hard to understand exactly what's being said. Is the false/wrongful division a natural dichotomy, or is the point of the essay? "Discussion in here" - should that say something like, "For the purposes of this essay..."? Anyway, I suggest giving this essay some serious editing for clarity. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:8DC4:BB80:568F:2021 (talk) 09:00, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I clarified. It was developed in response to criticisms elsewhere and I tend to write too concisely at times, thus the confusion, but I hope it works now. One preposition was nonsensical and I wrote it originally, but I fixed it. The distinction between false and wrongful is due to other essays already existing and that it was unlikely they'd be merged. I wanted to add this to one of the older essays but that was essentially nixed. I hope the essay is okay now. Nick Levinson (talk) 02:40, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]