Or, you can put it down to an honest mistake or difference of opinion. That really is the oldest written constitution in the world, or it’s got a valid claim to be, and those people don’t want to add any respectability to their pet project.
Tough choice. The phrases “die on that hill” and “never interrupt your opponent when they’re making a mistake” come to mind. Do continue.
This must be one of the more bizarre conspiracy theories I've heard.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Constitution_of_Medina/Ar...
Explain it. Lay it out.
It does not persist today; I removed it. It occured once, 10 years ago, and again, a few months ago.
Regardless:
- The page is still titled "Constitution…" when the opening paragraph contains "The name "Constitution of Medina" is misleading as the text did not establish a state." Make that make sense.
- "and the first "Constitution"" is still in the page
It persists.
Now, what I might consider bad faith is:
- being unwilling to answer simple, straightforward questions, which is apt, considering Socrates was an Athenian
- having such an interest in the page that you claim you made edits
- not checking properly and thus thinking this only happened twice, and wasn't part of attritional arguments, rollbacks, edits and counter-edits
Wikipedia must be alright if one does not wish to see a problem.
>> those protecting the page have meddled with the title too
> Why is this "consensus not to include the claim" relevant when the claim was already included? Because anyone can dispute anything. But saying it's some kind of agenda by a group of admins is incorrect.
> Why did it have to go to dispute at all? Because someone disputed it. Though, really, it may not have been necessary in this case. You may also refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/One_against_man...