Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

"WP:DRN" redirects here. For the "Deny Recognition" essay, see WP:DNR.

Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)

This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Wikipedia. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Wikipedia policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. This may also apply to some groups. Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN. Do you need assistance? Would you like to help? Request dispute resolution If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible. This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment on the contributions, not the contributors. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion. We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other content or conduct dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments, Articles for deletion, or Requested moves. The dispute must have been recently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN. The discussion should have been on the article talk page. Discussion on a user talk page is useful but not sufficient, because the article talk page may be watched by other editors who may be able to comment. Discussion normally should have taken at least two days, with more than one post by each editor. Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: {{subst:drn-notice}}. Be sure to sign and date each notice with four tildes (~~~~). Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice. Do not add your own formatting in the conversation. Let the moderators (DRN Volunteers) handle the formatting of the discussion as they may not be ready for the next session. Follow moderator instructions There will be times when the moderator may issue an instruction. It is expected of you to follow their instruction and you can always ask the volunteer on their talk page for clarification, if not already provided. Examples are about civility, don't bite the newcomers, etc. If you need help: If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you. This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy. For general questions relating to the dispute resolution process, please see our FAQ page. Become a volunteer We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over the volunteer guide to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input. Volunteers should remember: Volunteers should gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants. Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Wikipedia, except as noted here. Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute. Listed volunteers open a case by signing a comment in the new filing. When closing a dispute, please mark it as "closed" in the status template (see the volunteer guide for more information), remove the entire line about 'donotarchive' so that the bot will archive it after 48 hours with no other edits. Open/close quick reference To open, replace {{DR case status}} with {{DR case status|open}} To close, replace the "open" with "resolved", "failed", or "closed". Add {{DRN archive top|reason=(reason here) ~~~~}} beneath the case status template, and add {{DRN archive bottom}} at the bottom of the case. Remember to remove the DoNotArchive bit line (the entire line).

Case		Created		Last volunteer edit		Last modified
Title	Status	User	Time	User	Time	User	Time
15.ai	In Progress	Ltbdl (t)	15 days, 4 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 21 hours	BrocadeRiverPoems (t)	19 hours
Tuner (radio)	In Progress	Andrevan (t)	11 days,	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 16 hours	Kvng (t)	20 hours
Wolf	In Progress	Nagging Prawn (t)	6 days, 10 hours	NotAGenious (t)	3 days, 5 hours	Moxy (t)	2 days, 7 hours
Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic	New	Randomstaplers (t)	2 days, 14 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	20 hours	Randomstaplers (t)	3 hours

If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 17:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Current disputes

Stakeholder Capitalism

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Bolgerb1953 on 15:04, 5 September 2021 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Stakeholder Capitalism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Bolgerb1953 (talk · contribs)
• MrOllie (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

An individual has arbitrarily decided that the concept of Stakeholder Capitalism is the same as Stakeholder Theory, likening it to another name for "fish and chips." He summarily deleted the entry and redirected it to Stakeholder Theory, which isn't even mentioned in all of the business media now discussing the topic. However, a quick Google search will reveal that the concept of Stakeholder Capitalism has become an international topic being debated in such leading media as the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Forbes, Fortune, the Financial Times, Business Roundtable, etc.

https://www.google.com/search?q=stakeholder+capitalism&sxsrf=AOaemvJldTUqIUgvk7nSpI5SlhcuQ-kTMQ%3A1630852325850&source=hp&ei=5dQ0Ya3nMKKx5NoPhd65kA4&iflsig=ALs-wAMAAAAAYTTi9fC1kNvvoMIJfFshlkOwnQDytU-i&oq=stake&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EAEYADIECCMQJzIECCMQJzIECCMQJzINCAAQgAQQhwIQsQMQFDIICAAQgAQQsQMyCAgAEIAEELEDMgUIABCABDIICC4QgAQQsQMyCAgAEIAEELEDMggIABCABBCxAzoICC4QsQMQgwE6CwguEIAEEMcBEKMCOgsILhCABBDHARDRAzoOCC4QgAQQsQMQxwEQ0QM6DgguEIAEELEDEMcBEKMCOgsILhCABBDHARCvAToLCAAQgAQQsQMQyQM6BQgAEJIDOgsILhCABBCxAxCDAVCK1gFYxNoBYLbmAWgAcAB4AIABcogB7wOSAQMzLjKYAQCgAQE&sclient=gws-wiz

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Here is a thread of the dispute. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MrOllie

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Review the many articles referencing Stakeholder Capitalism against the article Stakeholder Theory. If everyone thought Stakeholder Theory was the same as Stakeholder Capitalism, why is everyone using the term Stakeholder Capitalism in these many articles and no one is using the term Stakeholder Theory.

Stakeholder Capitalism discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Preliminary Discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:50, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Volunteer Note User:Bolgerb1953 - I am neither opening a discussion nor closing this request at this time. One of the rules of this noticeboard has always been that a dispute can only be pending in one place, either here or somewhere else. You have raised this issue in at least four places: here (DRN), twice (and I closed the second filing because it was disruptive); your talk page, at too much length; the Teahouse, and the AFC Help Desk. As I said at the other two forums, before we can open any discussion, you must answer the question about conflict of interest. It was asked at your talk page, but you responded instead with a filibuster. You must answer the question. After that question is answered, there may possibly be four more questions: 1. Are stakeholder capitalism and stakeholder theory two names for the same concept? 2. If yes, which is the preferred name? 3. If not, what is the difference, and do we need separate articles, or can we combine them into one article? 4. Are there any other content issues? Answering the first question concisely is not optional. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:48, 5 September 2021 (UTC) Stakeholder Capitalism discussion Thanks. Please forgive me. I am completely perplexed by the complexities and conventions of Wikipedia, find the instructions arcane, and I had no idea I had responded in so many places. I have not been able to find the aforementioned conflict of interest page but you have provided a link and will try that. I am not even sure I'm responding to you in the right place. Since I don't even need to be mentioned in this, I don't see the issue. I could have asked someone else removed from my organization to post this, and they would have legitimately cited me as a credible source. The simple answer to your questions is: Stakeholder Theory is a subset of Stakeholder Capitalism, just as quantum mechanics is a subset of physics. For one thing, Stakeholder Capitalism also includes the environment, wherein Stakeholder Theory makes no mention of the environment...Also, here are other approaches to the people aspects of Stakeholder Capitalism, one is known as Enterprise Engagement and is also on Wikipedia. I would argue that quantum mechanics merits a separate entry on Wikipedia from physics, and note that it has a separate entry. You can combine quantum mechanics and physics, but it would do neither justice, and I would argue the same applies. That said, yours would be a compromise at least fair to your readers. Bolgerb1953 (talk) 22:00, 5 September 2021 (UTC) Second Volunteer Note User:Bolgerb1953 - You have stated elsewhere that you are not being paid for this article. That is only a partial answer to the question. Please declare, either on this page or on your user page, what your organization is, and what your relationship is to your organization, and why this qualifies you as a subject matter expert. Also notify the other editor,and any other editors with whom you are involved in this dispute, by posting a notice on their talk page. After you have notified the other editor and properly clarified the matter of your interest, I will open this dispute for moderated discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:28, 6 September 2021 (UTC) Hi, I posted the disclaimer information in the talk string with Mr. Ollie, and I created a user page where I posted the information, along with my Linked in page. And, of course, I provided in my earlier answer to your request. I greatly appreciate your reviewing this matter, as I believe it is clear mistake based apparently on an edit I made on Stakeholder Theory which apparently read to Mr. Ollie as if they are one in the same topic, when in fact one is a subset of the other. Finally, your idea of combining the two would be a compromise but the entire Stakeholder Theory article would have to be rewritten in the context of the broader movement of which it is a part, which I think would be unfair to the topic, in the same way it would be wrong to combine obstetrics and medicine in a single article. Bolgerb1953 (talk) 13:30, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Reply by Bolgerb1953

Bruce Bolger has been an editor and a publisher in the people management space for over 30 years in the US. See: https://www.linkedin.com/in/brucebolger/

I am the owner of the Enterprise Engagement Alliance at http://TheEEA.org, a think tank on people management that publishes Engagement Strategies Media at http://EnterpriseEngagement.org, and have written hundreds of articles and two books on people management issues. Our revenues come from businesses seeking to promote or profit from the concepts of employee and customer engagement.

I am not being paid by anyone or any sponsor publish this article Wikipedia.

Because our organization supports a strategic focus on people, we write about over two aspects of people management, including sales, marketing, human resources, supply chain and distribution management, and many related topics.

We began writing specifically about Stakeholder Capitalism when the Business Roundtable in the US changed its charter to focus on addressing the needs of all stakeholders, not just shareholders.

Other than our interest in the subject, and my extensive experience in people management, neither I nor my company will derive any direct or indirect financial benefit from the publication of this article. It was scrupulously written to address both sides of the growing debate.

Please note, as the article demonstrates, there is a large and public debate about the concept of Stakeholder Capitalism, which embraces both people and the environment, not one of which even mention Stakeholder Theory. As earlier stated, Stakeholder theory is a subset of Stakeholder Capitalism, as is Enterprise Engagement, ESG, and other approaches to its implementation. It is the equivalent of quantum mechanics to physics, or obstetrics to medicine.

Bolgerb1953 (talk) 13:20, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Preliminary matters. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:50, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Third Volunteer Note The filing editor, User:Bolgerb1953, has not yet notified the other editor, User:MrOllie, of this filing here. Notification must be done on the other editor's talk page, User talk:MrOllie. (I know that you say that you find Wikipedia incomprehensible, but you do know where the other editor's talk page is.) Robert McClenon (talk) 00:05, 7 September 2021 (UTC) Thanks. Yes I do know that and have notified Mr. Ollie per your instructions. Much appreciated. Bruce Bolgerb1953 (talk) 00:45, 7 September 2021 (UTC) Pre-Closing Statement The other editor, MrOllie, has erased the notice of this filing. This means that they have seen your notice of the filing and are declining to participate in dispute resolution, which is their privilege, since most forms of dispute resolution are voluntary. I will close this case in 24 to 48 hours, but will first explain where this dispute can go from here.

The dispute is about the redirecting of Stakeholder Capitalism to Stakeholder theory. This was done because MrOllie concluded that Stakeholder capitalism was a content fork of Stakeholder theory. A content fork is the situation in which two articles are about the same or almost the same topic but have different content, often because they have competing points of view. That is, two articles in Wikipedia disagree, and appear to be arguing with each other, because their authors were arguing with each other. For obvious reasons, Wikipedia cannot allow content forks to exist. That is why I asked these questions a day ago:

• 1. Are stakeholder capitalism and stakeholder theory two names for the same concept?
• 2. If yes, which is the preferred name?
• 3. If not, what is the difference, and do we need separate articles, or can we combine them into one article?

It appears that MrOllie's reading is that they are the same concept, and it appears that Bolgerb1953 is now saying that one of them is a superset of the other. What Bolgerb1953 should propose is a split of the article into two articles. The merits of the split should be discussed on the talk page of the existing article, Talk:Stakeholder theory. If there is a consensus to split, then two articles will be the result. It will be necessary to compare and review the two articles to ensure that they are neither duplicative nor contradictory. If there is a consensus against splitting, then the current article will remain, and can and should be edited to incorporate any additional information. If discussion is inconclusive, a Request for Comments can be used to obtain additional community input.

I have not reviewed the content of the articles and am not offering a view as to whether there is one topic with two names, or whether one topic is a superset of the other.

There has also been a question about whether Bolgerb1953 has a conflict of interest as the head of a think tank that publishes on people management and employee and customer engagement, including on stakeholder capitalism. I am not offering a view at this time as to whether Bolgerb1953 has a conflict of interest that will constrain their ability to edit in this area collaboratively.

Changed.
I am leaving this statement up for 24 to 48 hours for general information before closing this dispute. Discussion on splitting can begin at Talk:Stakeholder theory immediately. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:36, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Response by MrOllie

On the contrary, I reverted the notification because I asked Bolgerb1953 to stop posting on my talk page after a round of personal attacks. It was only in part a notification, so I elected to remove it. I'm willing to participate here if we can head off a repetitive talk page discussion which I suspect will be in the offing otherwise. - MrOllie (talk) 04:03, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

First Statement by Moderator (Stakeholders)

Thank you, User:MrOllie.

I will try to act as the moderator. Read the ground rules. Each of you are responsible for complying with the rules. If you do not comply with the rules, I will fail the discussion. I will try to be neutral, but if one editor complies with the rules and the other does not, I will stop being neutral. Be civil and concise. Overly long statements are not helpful. They may permit the poster to feel better, but they often do not clarify the issues, except to establish having a strong opinion. Civility is required everywhere in Wikipedia, and especially in dispute resolution. The purpose of discussion is to improve the article or articles, and so should be focused on the encyclopedia. So discuss content, not contributors. Discuss edits, not editors. Comments that get into personalities will be collapsed. Also, do not reply to each other or engage in back-and-forth, except in the space that I provide for you (where back-and-forth can be ignored). Address your answers to me, as the representative of the community, not to each other.

I have outlined above what I think the issues are. Please provide one paragraph to address those questions. That is one total paragraph, not three paragraphs. Also, if there are any other issues, please state them in one other paragraph. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:50, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Addendum to Moderator Note:

User:Bolgerb1953, User:MrOllie - Please reply within 24 hours, if, as stated, you do want to resolve the content dispute of how many articles there should be, and any other content disputes.

Robert McClenon (talk) 15:02, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

First Statements by Editors (Stakeholders)

These are two names for the same concept. The Investopedia definition cited on Stakeholder Capitalism is "a system in which corporations are oriented to serve the interests of all their stakeholders. Among the key stakeholders are customers, suppliers, employees, shareholders and local communities." Stakeholder theory is defined by our article as "a theory of organizational management and business ethics that accounts for multiple constituencies impacted by business entities like employees, suppliers, local communities, creditors, and others." - clearly the same thing. The citations covered are very similar, too: for example 'Capitalism' credits a publication by Klaus Schwab as the first reference to the concept, and so does 'theory'. Notably Bolgerb1953 wrote in an edit summary last week that Stakeholder Capitalism is "the more commonly used term today for the same concept." Per google books, 'Stakeholder theory' is clearly the common name, see ngrams].

The other issue as I see it is that Bolgerb1953's preferred version of the article is largely based on a new, more expansive definition of the concept that he wrote and has published through self published sources such as his 'Enterprise Engagement Alliance' and a Forbes contributor piece he is the coauthor of. I don't believe these are usable sources for Wikipedia, and I think we can't write about that version of Stakeholder Capitalism until it is picked up by the academic community at large and secondary, reliable academic sources become available. - MrOllie (talk) 15:18, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Second Statement by Moderator (Stakeholders)

Perhaps I need to explain why I say to be concise. The purpose of a statement is not to provide all of the facts to a moderator who will be acting as a judge and who will read the statements of facts in detail. I am not acting as a judge or arbitrator, and will not make any ultimate decisions as to article content. Any statement has at least two purposes. The first is to try to persuade the other editor or editors. An overly long statement is not likely to be read at great length, and it is likely to be ignored. See too long, didn't read. The other editors really may skip an overly long statement. The second purpose is to persuade the community. If moderated discussion fails, we will use a Request for Comments or some similar consensus process. Outside members of the community really may skip an overly long statement, and may be persuaded by a concise statement.

I said to provide a one-paragraph statement, and I meant one paragraph, not 1000 words. (But User:Bolgerb1953s statement is not "well below the 1,000 word limit". I didn't set a 1000-word limit, but MS Word counts 1012 words.) So I have a statement from User:MrOllie and do not have a concise statement from Bolgerb1953. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:40, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I had asked:

• 1. Are stakeholder capitalism and stakeholder theory two names for the same concept?
• 2. If yes, which is the preferred name?
• 3. If not, what is the difference, and do we need separate articles, or can we combine them into one article?
• 4. Are there any other content issues?

MrOllie says that they are two names for the same concept, and that the common name is Stakeholder Theory. If so, we only need one article, which is why he redirected one article to the other.

Bolgerb1953 says that Stakeholder Capitalism is the broad concept, and that Stakeholder Theory is a subset. He then gives analogies that seem to inflate the topic with grandiosity. No, there hasn't been as much written about stakeholder theory or stakeholder capitalism as there has about quantum mechanics or obstetrics, let alone about physics or medicine. And you don't need to make grandiose comparisons to explain what a subset-superset relationship is to a computer scientist. And if you mention quantum mechanics too many times, a lot of editors will move on to something else, because they find quantum mechanics incomprehensible, and they will be correct, because I have studied enough quantum mechanics to know that it really is incomprehensible.

So I will ask User:Bolgerb1953 to explain concisely what is meant by stakeholder capitalism and what is meant by stakeholder theory so that a fourth party can see how there is a subset-superset relationship (and what the other subsets are).

I am not the judge on a content issue, because the community is the judge; but it appears to me that only one article is needed, because the topics either are the same or are closely related, and the content is not enough to justify a split. If either editor disagrees, they can explain concisely how they disagree.

I will also ask both editors whether there are any other content issues that need to be discussed. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:40, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Back-and-Forth Discussion (Stakeholders)

Please note my reply is longer because it includes considerable substantiation but even with all the links is well below the 1,000 word limit.

1. Stakeholder Capitalism is the umbrella term for a wide variety of theories and processes advocated by different parties cited below. It’s first use can be traced to the early 1970s in the context not only of stakeholders but also the environment. A. Stakeholder Theory is to Stakeholder Capitalism what Quantum Mechanics is to Physics, not the other way around, as MrOllie has implied.

2. Stakeholder Theory is a concept developed by Edward Freeman, a professor at the University of Viginia in 1983 and is a subset of Stakeholder Capitalism. Mr. Freeman is certainly one of the pioneers in the concept of Stakeholder Capitalism, but his is only one of the many approaches to its definition and implementation. A. I confess to have made a sloppy edit on the Stakeholder Theory page that implied otherwise. My point was that many people are using Stakeholder Capitalism instead of Stakeholder Theory, as will be substantiated below, because it is the broader term inclusive of multiple approaches as well as the environment. C. Darden’s work is only just one of many constructs for Stakeholder Capitalism. Other processes include the concepts of Economics of Mutuality, Inclusive Capitalism, Conscious Capitalism, B Corporations, Enterprise Engagement, and ESG, to name a few. It should be noted that all of these organizations make reference to Stakeholder Capitalism in their communications, with little or no reference to Stakeholder Theory.

3. If usage is an important determination in Wikipedia, as it is in the world of dictionaries, the distinction between the two terms is further confirmed by a Google search. A search for Stakeholder Theory turns up mostly arcane or academic references to Mr. Freeman’s theory, mainly related to debates about his work. A. A search of Stakeholder Capitalism yields a wide variety of highly credible recent sources, include Fortune, Forbes, The Economist, New York Times, Financial Times, Harvard Law Work Life Forum, Heritage Foundation, not one of which even reference Stakeholder Theory, as cited below. B. In the past month alone, the concept of Stakeholder Capitalism has been written about and debated in authoritative business and academic journals without the existence of any formal definition in Dictionary.com, Merriam-Webster, or to our knowledge Oxford. How one defines the concept is critical to the nature of the debate, as one will see in reading the references below. B. This is why it is so important to discuss the definition that was removed from the Wikipedia article before the article was removed in its entirely. C. As the following links show, there is an enormous debate raging about Stakeholder Capitalism which can only be answered based on a clear definition that doesn’t currently exist. D. Furthermore, a review of these articles cited below in both popular business media and business journals in the past few months about Stakeholder Capitalism clearly shows that people would be confused if they were referred only to an article on Stakeholder Theory on Wikipedia, which doesn’t even make mention of the broader field of which it is a part.

E. Not one of the articles below about Stakeholder Capitalism in current media make any reference to Stakeholder Theory, because it is simply one of the approaches to implementing Stakeholder Capitalism; multiple articles will show the need for a clearer definition.

This article appeared in early Sept. in the National Review--it demonstrates how the definition one uses for the term determines whether Stakeholder Capitalism robs from shareholders to give to other stakeholders, as some of the right allege, or whether it's a means of creating wealth for everyone, as this advocate from the right agrees in this recent article: https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/08/the-importance-of-stakeholders-to-profit/

• https://www.ketchum.com/stakeholder-capitalism-is-back-is-your-next-earnings-call-ready/

• https://www.linkedin.com/posts/yale-center-for-customer-insights_yale-professor-ravi-dhar-on-stakeholder-capitalism-activity-6837051981085859840-ka9S

• https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/stakeholder-capitalism-is-a-trojan

• https://www.aesc.org/insights/magazine/article/shifting-stakeholder-capitalism

• https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/stakeholder-capitalism-is-here-to-stay-2021-08-24

• https://www.gcu.edu/blog/business-management/10-stakeholder-capitalism-examples

• https://www.wsj.com/articles/stakeholder-capitalism-esg-business-roundtable-diversity-and-inclusion-green-washing-11629313759

• https://fortune.com/2021/08/18/stakeholder-capitalism-business-roundtable-corporate-purpose-just-capital/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=ceo-daily&utm_content=2021081812pm&tpcc=nlceodaily

• https://www.ft.com/content/be140b1b-2249-4dd9-859c-3f8f12ce6036

• https://fortune.com/2021/08/18/stakeholder-capitalism-business-roundtable-corporate-purpose-just-capital/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=ceo-daily&utm_content=2021081812pm&tpcc=nlceodaily

In addition to the academic articles cited above, the following papers have appeared in multiple academic journals in the US, Great Britain, Australia, Singapore, etc.

A. Oxford: https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/business-law-blog/blog/2021/05/what-stakeholder-capitalism-can-learn-jensen-and-meckling B. New York University: https://www.stern.nyu.edu/experience-stern/faculty-research/how-make-stakeholder-capitalism-work C. This same article appeared in a Stanford University publication earlier this year: https://ssir.org/articles/entry/how_to_make_stakeholder_capitalism_work D. London School of Economics: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/2020/02/06/employees-the-missing-link-between-stakeholder-capitalisms-pledges-and-metrics/ E. Singapore University: https://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/stakeholder-capitalism-is-having-its-day-in-the-sun F. Amrita School of Arts and Sciences, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham: Amritapuri, India.http://www.ieomsociety.org/ieom2020/papers/639.pdf G. The University of Sydney, Australia: https://www.sydney.edu.au/science/news-and-events/events/iagnzgs2021-conference/stakeholder-capitalism.html

4. Given that the debate over Stakeholder Capitalism clearly cannot be resolved without a proper definition, it is completely appropriate to cite a Forbes article (not a blog) co-authored by a professor of finance at the London Business School, with whom I have no financial or other connection for that matter, and for which I was not paid. A. Edmans has done considerable work in this domain, and has been published in the Harvard Business Review, Harvard Law School Governance Journal, and is author of Growing the Pie. See these links to his work. https://hbr.org/2016/03/28-years-of-stock-market-data-shows-a-link-between-employee-satisfaction-and-long-term-value. https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2020/12/03/the-edmans-bebchuk-debate-on-stakeholder-capitalism-the-case-for-and-the-case-against/ https://www.growthepie.net/ C. An article by Mr. Edmans published just yesterday in the University of Chicago Stigler School of Business publication on the topic of Stakeholder Capitalism contains no reference to Stakeholder Theory. https://promarket.org/2021/09/07/business-roundtable-shareholder-capitalism-promise/?utm_source=linkedin&utm_medium=post&utm_campaign=linkedin-stigler-business-roundtable-shareholder-capitalism-promise D. As the articles above demonstrate, the concept of Stakeholder Capitalism has been raised at Harvard Law School, Yale, and the Stiglitz Business School at the University of Chicago.

In summary, Stakeholder Theory is a subset for the overall concept of Stakeholder Capitalism, because: • The use of the term Stakeholder Capitalism predates the work of Mr. Freeman by 10 years or more and also includes the environment and multiple implementation approaches. • Stakeholder Theory is only one implementation approach for Stakeholder Capitalism, many of which already also have entries in Wikipedia. Stakeholder Theory is appropriately mentioned as one of those theories in the Stakeholder Capitalism article Mr. Ollie removed. There is no reference to Stakeholder Capitalism on the Stakeholder Theory page, which is why I attempted to make that edit. • It is a fact that the definition of the term Stakeholder Capitalism is still in question, that the nature of the definition has a major bearing on the debate, and that Professor Edmans is a highly credible authority to propose a definition more consistent with the term “capitalism” than others that seem to apply it’s a “trojan horse” for socialism. • Nonetheless, the article removed by Mr.Ollie accurately depicted both sides of the debate, and so the two definitions should be restored along with the article as there is no final definition anywhere.

Thanks for your consideration.

Bolgerb1953 (talk) 17:59, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Template:Serena Williams

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Revolynka on 18:58, 8 September 2021 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Template:Serena Williams (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Revolynka (talk · contribs) Fyunck(click) (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Icons for Olympics medals only are misleading in tennis player templates because Grand Slams are the most important trophies in the sport, SINGLES ones. I've uploaded the two missing ones to Commons (for women's tennis) and added them. They have been removed as "teensy weensy trophies". Cities for WTA 1000 / Masters 1000 tournaments have been replaced with "Open" which is also misleading for new users who might think it's Italian Open is more "cool" than Madrid Open because it's the whole country. Usability issues. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? History of revisions How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I might be wrong but these icons provide useful information. Summary of dispute by Fyunck(click) Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Template:Serena Williams discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Panjshir conflict

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by 213.107.67.243 on 19:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Panjshir conflict (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved 2401:4900:5557:545F:D188:831F:15E5:F3FB (talk · contribs) Cipher21 (talk · contribs) TranceGusto (talk · contribs) Viewsridge (talk · contribs) Boud (talk · contribs) Applodion (talk · contribs) Georgethedragonslayer (talk · contribs) AlphaTangoIndia (talk · contribs) TranceClub (talk · contribs) JavaHurricane (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The article lists Pakistan as a belligerent based on Indian newspaper articles which are dubious, outright false on the matter and have been debunked, yet for whatever reason - some users are still keen on definding the articles. Many users were involved in the debate, but I have tagged the ones who were actively participate in the discussion. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Tw threads have taken place where arguments from both sides have been given. The first thread was supposed to take votes on whether the references should be used or not, though I believe the majority opposed the references, they have yet to be removed. How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Well preferably by removing Pakistan as belligerent alongside the Indian articles, but personal opinion aside, to explain whether the dubious articles can be considered reliable or not and whether Pakistan should be listed as a belligerent or not. Summary of dispute by 2401:4900:5557:545F:D188:831F:15E5:F3FB Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Cipher21 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by TranceGusto Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Viewsridge Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Boud Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Applodion Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Georgethedragonslayer Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by AlphaTangoIndia Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by TranceClub Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by JavaHurricane Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Panjshir conflict discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pentagon UFO videos

– New discussion.

Filed by Deathlibrarian on 09:55, 10 September 2021 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Pentagon UFO videos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Deathlibrarian (talk · contribs)
• MrOllie (talk · contribs)
• LuckyLouie (talk · contribs)
• JoJo Anthrax (talk · contribs)
• Hob Gadling (talk · contribs)
• LuckyLouie (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

This is a disagreement over the inclusion of a statement that counters the proposal that "radar spoofing" is an explanation for Unexplained Aerial Phenomena. I regard the statement as a valid inclusion, various other editors do not.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Talk:Pentagon_UFO_videos#Issues_with_NPOV_on_this_page, posted to 3o where it was discussed but the third opinion editor disqualified themself

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

If a neutral person could look at the suggested inclusion, in it's context and decide if it is a suitable.

Summary of dispute by MrOllie

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by LuckyLouie

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by JoJo Anthrax

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Hob Gadling

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by LuckyLouie

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Pentagon UFO videos discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.