Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Power in international relations/Consensus

How was consensus reached?

I'm working in a WikiProject in which reaching consensus is of the essence (WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation), and I would like to learn from this project. How was your consensus reached? — Sebastian 04:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those ones that are presented here were undisputed facts which were accepted through the presentation of references and through common sense. In cases in the project where things have come under dispute. We have generally had very hectic and tiring discussions. In the end consensus can be reached when there is an immense majority of people supporting one thing. If there is no such majority or a vote is not proper for the discussion, then you can seek compromise or RFC to get consensus. It's basically the policies of Dispute Resolution of Consensus. In general, this project knows that Wikipedia is about the sources that it uses, there was a rigorous discussion on Talk:Great power about the inclusion of Italy as a great power and you may see on that page that numerous other countries were brought into question in recent times. But in general, if a Reliable source supports a fact then it is worth Wikipedia including the fact. — Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 04:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your quick reply! That answers the biggest part of what I needed to know. One thing I was wondering is why you don't cite the sources (or reference the specific discussions) on this page. I was thinking about doing this for WP:SLR, but it may be overkill, and I'm not sure if it serves to calm down discussions. — Sebastian 04:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC) (I stopped watching this page. If you would like to continue the talk, please do so here and ping me.)[reply]

Misleading

I belief this article is a bit misleading. First of all it is named "consensus" while providing a list of items that are stated to "have not been discussed". And the header of the list is uncontested facts while right beneath that the words "in most cases (?) these facts are obvious" are used. If you browse through the archives and current discussions of Talk:Great power and Talk:Superpower you will find that those "facts" are constantly questioned and challenged. The current superpower article states that the status of the United States and Russia are a matter of debate. While in this list it is presented as fact that the United States is a "superpower", and Russia is a "modern great power". I belief this list doesn't present consensus, or facts, but the opinion of User:Nobleeagle and in part User:João Felipe C.S. I'm not saying I disagree with every single item of the list, but I do strongly disagree with the way they are presented. As User:SebastianHelm also suggested, sources and/or references to the specific discussions should be included - not the opinion of two editors. =Species8473= ^(talk) 06:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the list to what is currently reflected on the relevant articles. I definitely agree that references should be included. Nirvana888 (talk) 17:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]