[Gander5739]

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/Ar...

[brigandish]

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]

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]

"Arguing in bad faith" - what would that actually mean? Would it be the same as using a sock puppet to push an agenda? That wasn't me, that's what I'm pointing out and you're dismissing for no good reason.

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.