Wikipedia talk:Sham consensus

talk elsewhere
The content of this essay is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Consensus. Nick Levinson (talk) 15:42, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Re-write?
This material seems legitimate, but it's hard to understand exactly what's being said. Is the false/wrongful division a natural dichotomy, or is the point of the essay? "Discussion in here" - should that say something like, "For the purposes of this essay..."? Anyway, I suggest giving this essay some serious editing for clarity. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:8DC4:BB80:568F:2021 (talk) 09:00, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I clarified. It was developed in response to criticisms elsewhere and I tend to write too concisely at times, thus the confusion, but I hope it works now. One preposition was nonsensical and I wrote it originally, but I fixed it. The distinction between false and wrongful is due to other essays already existing and that it was unlikely they'd be merged. I wanted to add this to one of the older essays but that was essentially nixed. I hope the essay is okay now. Nick Levinson (talk) 02:40, 27 October 2015 (UTC)