Saying something is disputed is standard procedure while it is in fact disputed We slap various dispute tags on articles whose appearence is much more important than policy pages I do not need a consensus merely to state there s a dispute there need only be a dispute an ongoing disagreement to write that there is I m not proposing to change the actual criteria on the page without consensus I m only proposing to write that there s significant disagreement one of them I fail to see how aknowledging on the page that a number of people disagree with its contents is circumventing consensus