" October 2008 (UTC)

more on consensus
The following (about consensus) followed slrubinsteins Wikipolicy essay
I pretty much agree with all that, but it seems incomplete.  There are other important policies and guidelines.  For example, there's WP:Consensus, and WP:Summary style, and WP:Undue weight to name a few.  Just because some inserted material satisfies WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOR does not mean that an editor can insist (repeatedly) on inserting it into an article.  And whether the material satisfies those policies should be determined not just by an individual editor but by consensus.  

Ferrylodge, I certainly accept that other policies may apply.  And I know you are acting in good faith with good intentions.  But with all due respect, I think your message muddies the waters.  First of all, ""undue weight"" is a subsection of NPOV.  By my linking NPOV, I simultaneously included undue weight.  The difference is, I made it clear that NPOV is the umbrella policy and ""undue weight"" is just a component of that policy and has to be interpreted in the context of the policy as a whole.  You took it out of context which could mislead some people.  Also, ""Summary style"" is not a policy.  I was talking primarily about policies.  Summary style is a guideline and it may be useful to editors but it does not have the force of a policy.  Finally, I agree with you about consensus, but the consensus policy addresses a different issue than I was raising.  My point was about what can go into articles.  Consensus says nothing about what can or cannot go into articles.  The consensus policy is about interpersonal behavior and process.  The consensus policy is not about content; NPOV, V, and NOR are about content.  It is NPOV, V, and NOR that determine what is acceptable and unacceptable content.  The consensus policy lays out a process for resolving conflicts over content.  But it does not establish principles for resolving the conflict.  The principles remain NPOV, V and NOR.  When editors get into a conflict, we should consult WP:CONSENSUS for ideas about how we can better work together.  But before consensus-based editing, the first step to working together is agreeing to abide by the content policies, NPOV, NOR, and V.    |  Talk 

I agree that ""whether the material satisfies those policies should be determined not just by an individual editor but by consensus,"" but consensus does not mean unanimity (according to the policy), it is a process of collaboration.  And to participate in this process everyone has to agree that ""if content is a notable significant and verifiable view from a reliable source it will go in even if I do not like it,"" if they cannot say this, and mean it, they are not participating in a consensus process.  And some people above have argued that content should not go in even if it is notable, verifiable, and from a reliable source.  Those people are not participating in a consensus-building process.    |  Talk 19:51, 6"