Talk:Rough consensus

self reference?
This page lists Deletion guidelines for administrators in the see also section. Isn't this a violation of WP:SELF? Should it be removed? Thanks, delldot | talk 22:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree that this reference was a violation of WP:SELF. It is using Wikipedia as an example of another organization that uses this concept, which is fine.  Take a look at the examples at WP:SELF, it seems to me to make it clear that such references are fine. Wrs1864 04:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this a current term or a once-off
I only see evidence of the term being used once. Should "Rough consensus is a term used" be changed to "Rough consensus was a term once used"? SmokeyJoe 03:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think if you do some more searches, you will find many references to "Rough consensus" in the IETF field. It is a key concept there.  It's usage has spread to places like the W3C and even here in the WP:AFD process.  Do a google search on "rough consensus and running code", there are almost 30k hits.  Wrs1864 04:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

IETF was not the first to use the phrase
I've changed "The term was first used by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)" to read "The term was used by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)" on the grounds that the claim that it was first used by the IETF is nonsense. Let's look at the evidence, taking into consideration that the IETF was established in 1986 and that the citation dates to 1998: I rest my case.
 * 1980, Friendly Fascism: The New Face of Power in America: "... there is a rough consensus among intellectuals on political issues ..."
 * 1979, Legislation to Revise and Recodify Federal Criminal Laws ...: "After a few minutes' discussion, usually a rough consensus is arrived at."
 * 1971, The Nature and Function of Scientific Theories: Essays in Contemporary Science and Philosophy: "... are able to achieve a rough consensus regarding posterior probabilities ... and this argument can be adapted to show that rough consensus regarding posterior probabilities can be achieved ..."
 * 1881, The Philosophy of Carlyle: "... and experience certainly proves that it is safer to trust the rough consensus of the fairly enlightened nation ..."
 * and so forth

Now that I've debunked this claim, it seems someone might want to rework the article so that it's a great deal less about the IETF and imputes less relevance to it, and perhaps gives some service to the history of the phrase before the existence of the IETF. Largoplazo (talk) 00:47, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * This article should be deleted. "Rough consensus" is a long existing English phrase with a perfectly transparent meaning. The ways different organizations use to determine rough consensus should be covered in articles about those organizations (if at all). --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 21:46, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree. It's like having an article on "difference of opinion" (an article by that name exists, but it's about an Australian TV program) or "beyond all recognition" or "foregone conclusion" (an article by that name exists, but it's about a fictional rock band). Largoplazo (talk) 02:11, 18 July 2023 (UTC)