"

Yet, LK is claiming that there is a consensus of opinion (see below). This is extraordinary.   

 Revisionist definition of ""consensus""? 

With regard to the RFC: ""Should this page discuss only right-libertarianism?"", the conclusion has been stated thus: ""The consensus was: ""Libertarianism"" should be broadly construed to include all significant viewpoints from reliable sources.""

The definition of Consensus ""is defined in English as, firstly - general agreement and, secondly - group solidarity of belief or sentiment.""

Wikipaedia's own definition goes on to declare that,

""The formal process of achieving consensus ideally requires serious treatment of the considered opinion of each group  member: those advocating the adoption, say, of a particular course of action, genuinely wish to hear those who may be against the proposal, since discussion, it is supposed, can only enhance ultimate consensus. The hope is that in such circumstances action, or the adoption of group opinion, without resolution of dissent will be rare.""

The dispute has not been resolved in any way. There has been little (read: no) compromise by the parties on either side of the dispute. The parties on both sides of the dispute remain as intransigent as ever. NO consensus has been achieve on this issue.

Why has consensus been claimed, in regards to such a polemic issue, when no such consensus exists?   "