" 

 :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.""     "