3 ms·

I don't really understand how you've come to that conclusion. If you look at the protection log[1], Constitution of Medina was protected in 2016 for a bit under

I don't really understand how you've come to that conclusion. If you look at the protection log[1], Constitution of Medina was protected in 2016 for a bit under a month, and never outside of that. The "earliest constitution" was also discussed in 2016[2][3], and there was consensus not to include the claim. Then, in November 2025, it was re-added by a new editor who made no other edits[4]. Looking at the talk page of Constitution, it was discussed exactly once, in 2005[5]. So, next example? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Constitution_of_Medina https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Constitution_of_Medina#First_Constitution_of_Democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_n... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Constitution_of_Medina/Archive_2#Unprotection_and_earliest_constitution_sentence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Constitution_of_Medina/Ar... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Constitution_of_Medina&diff=prev&oldid=1323817902 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Constitution_of_M... [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Constitution/Archive_1#First_constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Constitution/Archive_1#Fi...?

brigandish 9mo ago
Why is the protection of a page relevant? Why is this "consensus not to include the claim" relevant when the claim was already included? Why did it have to go to dispute at all? > So, next example? Please.
- Gander5739 9mo ago
  > Why is the protection of a page relevant? >> 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_many https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/One_against_man...
  - brigandish 9mo ago
    You’re taking those questions too literally. The need for dispute resolution implies a dispute, well done… if you’re in to one-step thinking. Explain how there was a dispute over the facts there and how it wasn’t intentional misinformation pushed by a group of interested parties that have continued to press their case from before that date until now. 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.
    - Gander5739 9mo ago
      I cannot fathom where you get "intentional misinformation pushed by a group of interested parties". You're welcome to read the original dispute at [1]. Such things are not uncommon when collaboratively editing. There doesn't need to be a cabal of editors behind it. This must be one of the more bizarre conspiracy theories I've heard. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Constitution_of_Medina/Archive_1#First_Constitution_of_Democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Constitution_of_Medina/Ar...
      - brigandish 9mo ago
        Again, please explain how such an obvious piece of misinformation wasn't misinformation but an honest mistake, yet occurring over several years and with several people, some of whom were sock puppets and still it persists in some form. Explain it. Lay it out.
        Gander5739 9mo ago
        You seem to be arguing in bad faith, so this will be my last reply. It does not persist today; I removed it. It occured once, 10 years ago, and again, a few months ago.

brigandish 9mo ago

Why is the protection of a page relevant? Why is this "consensus not to include the claim" relevant when the claim was already included? Why did it have to go to dispute at all? > So, next example? Please.

Gander5739 9mo ago
> Why is the protection of a page relevant? >> 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_many https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/One_against_man...
- brigandish 9mo ago
  You’re taking those questions too literally. The need for dispute resolution implies a dispute, well done… if you’re in to one-step thinking. Explain how there was a dispute over the facts there and how it wasn’t intentional misinformation pushed by a group of interested parties that have continued to press their case from before that date until now. 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.
  - Gander5739 9mo ago
    I cannot fathom where you get "intentional misinformation pushed by a group of interested parties". You're welcome to read the original dispute at [1]. Such things are not uncommon when collaboratively editing. There doesn't need to be a cabal of editors behind it. This must be one of the more bizarre conspiracy theories I've heard. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Constitution_of_Medina/Archive_1#First_Constitution_of_Democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Constitution_of_Medina/Ar...
    - brigandish 9mo ago
      Again, please explain how such an obvious piece of misinformation wasn't misinformation but an honest mistake, yet occurring over several years and with several people, some of whom were sock puppets and still it persists in some form. Explain it. Lay it out.
      - Gander5739 9mo ago
        You seem to be arguing in bad faith, so this will be my last reply. It does not persist today; I removed it. It occured once, 10 years ago, and again, a few months ago.