Talk:consensus

Return to "consensus" page.

UsageEdit

Building ConsensusEdit

"“The essence of democracy,” he reminds all of us, is “making your case, debating with those who [sic] you disagree… building consensus by persuasion, and answering to the will of the people.” Yet this is the same President who refuses to allow dissident voices in the same room with him, forces his will upon the people with lies and distortions, and orders the vilification of his political opponents through the dissemination of state secrets by his cronies, and fabrications created by his lying media minions."[1]--Halliburton Shill 22:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

"The plan envisions asset sales, private concessions, leases and management contracts across the Iraqi economy, including the oil industry. It foresees that the first year would be spent building consensus for privatization, to be followed by asset transfers over a three-year period. (12) The Wall Street Journal article compares the program to what was done in Russia, but does not mention the corruption, massive job loss and gaping inequality that ensued during the Russian makeover."[2]--Halliburton Shill 22:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

In a blog tagged as "building consensus":

"Polk may be the only predecessor who matched Bush's determination to drive massive change on a minute margin of victory. Polk won by fewer than 38,000 votes of 2.7 million cast. Over four tumultuous years, he pursued an ambitious, highly partisan agenda that offered little to those who had voted against him. Sound familiar?"[3]--Halliburton Shill 22:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Text removedEdit

The following text was removed from the main entry:

====Usage notes====
*Building consensus is a phrase often used by politicians as doublespeak for:
*#They want more time to get the majority on their side of an issue.
*#They want more time to figure out which side of an issue to take.

We are trying to define words here. Trying to convey a nonce or satirical usage is clearly exceeding our remit. Perhaps the contributor could start their own doublespeakwikti but this obviously is not what we are here for. --Connel MacKenzie T C 00:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

We have pejoritive senses, why not satirical? You may be right about the doublespeak issue. That's probably pushing the definition too far. Anyway, I'll see if I can find some more examples where consensus is being used in the sense that's in my head before changing again.--Halliburton Shill 00:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
If a satirical use could be said to be in wide use, I suppose that might be an argument. In any case, entries are labelled as pejorative, if they are; they still have to meet our criteria for inclusion. The satirical definitions are in far too narrow usage to seriously be considered. --Connel MacKenzie T C 00:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Requiring agreement by all partiesEdit

"A specific method of community decision making where agreement by all parties is required, and one party can block the decision." I think this is either a very uncommon definition or an incorrect one. I am not aware of consensus models where all parties must agree. Only some where those who disagree must consent to the outcome. --Xixtas 17:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Last modified on 22 March 2007, at 17:10