User talk:Bolgerb1953

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

April 2020

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Capitalism, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Because of that, I declined your pending change. {{replyto}} Can I Log In's (talk) page 19:44, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Stakeholder Capitalism

Hello, Bolgerb1953. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Stakeholder Capitalism".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:35, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you have started to replace the external links in the article as proper citations. I have done one today but I note there are many such links left. The purpose of citations is to verify the assertions made in the text, not (for example) just to link to the top level of a website for an organisation that doesn't have a Wikipedia article. Hence I removed the link to Peppers & Rogers. Such links can be considered to be spam and could lead to the article being declined, so you do need to remove them all or preferably turn them into proper citations. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:19, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am not sure you will receive this as I don't understand how to reply but I greatly appreciate your taking the time to communicate this...I will remove links to anything that I am not citing and will make sure there is a citation if I do.

That's fine. Good luck with the article. I may edit it a bit if I see anything simple I can add. As to "don't understand how to reply" all talk Pages work the same way: you edit them to add something and anyone who has those pages on their "Watchlist" (see menu item at top of all pages) will note that the page has a new entry. It is Talk Page etiquette that if I add something to your Talk Page, we continue the conversation here until we complete our chat. You don't place anything on my Talk Page because that would just fragment the discussion. Also note that you can "View history" for this page and see my additions to it. If you want to acknowledge that you've read my new bit but don't feel the need to reply because there is nothing new to say then you can "thank" me for my edit here by clicking on the blue link next to my edit (the choices are undo | thank) and I'll get a message from the system. I'll take that as an "over and out" for this thread. If you wanted to contact me again about a different issue, you could then click on the link in my signature to move to my Talk Page to start a new section on whatever new topic you wished — and we would continue that conversation solely on my page. Don't forget to end Talk Page additions (including on your own page) with four tildes, ~~~~ to sign and datestamp them. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:00, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Stakeholder Capitalism has been accepted

Stakeholder Capitalism, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

The Living love ^talk 17:51, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I assume you know that this article was taken down when it is clear you made the right decision. I am working with the professors who created the concept of Stakeholder Theory, including its original author R. Edward Freeman, who will gladly support the need for a separate submission. Stakeholder Capitalism, which is very much in the news, is a movement based on the theory--two different things. Bolgerb1953 (talk) 20:10, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mustapha, I will do my best to improve the article.

Hi, Mustapha, please note that one of your colleagues deleted this article because he is confusing it with Stakeholder Theory....I have filed a dispute with Wikipedia. Stakeholder Theory happens to be a specific concept developed by a single professor in the US....If you do a Google search for Stakeholder Capitalism, you will see that no one is referencing Stakeholder Theory in current usage. Bolgerb1953 (talk) 15:23, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bolgerb1953 (talk) 15:23, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These changes were made to address accusations that this is article is biased. I have tried to make sure all points of view are expressed in a balanced matter without bias.

Hi, Mustapha or whomever is monitoring this page, can someone tell me how we can translate this article for publication in other languages in Wikipedia?

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Bolgerb1953. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 23:09, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for volunteering to edit content for Wikipedia and contacting me. The change I made is completely objective with no commentary. I am merely adding facts to the subject. As an early expert in the field of Stakeholder Capitalism, I have the same interests any Wikipedia contributor would have to have in order to be qualified to write on the subject. The fact is that I do not advocate one view or another of the field but report on all sides, as my entries clearly indicate. There are both opponents and proponents, and my entries reflect both views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bolgerb1953 (talk • contribs)

Thank you for your contributions, but you should stop adding your own name or citations to things you've written and websites and/or organizations that you are affiliated with. That is a clear violation of WP:COI and WP:NOR. - MrOllie (talk) 23:37, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Thanks.

Hi, I notice that someone went in an removed all references to the author, which is fine, but now the article has been entirely removed without any comment or notification. Why would that be? How can it be restored?

As you can see Mr. Ollie, this article was accepted. There are so many references to Stakeholder Capitalism by so many authoritative organizations, it seems highly inappropriate to remove it

Your submission at Articles for creation: Stakeholder Capitalism has been accepted AFC-Logo.svgStakeholder Capitalism, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer. If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

The Living love talk 17:51, 25 July 2021 (UT

Bolgerb1953 (talk) 13:30, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure the AFC reviewer only accepted it because they didn't notice that we already had an article on the same topic at a different title. We don't keep two pages about the same topic. MrOllie (talk) 13:42, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Ollie, Would you please explain how I can appeal your decision. Again, just because there is a relationship between the two terms doesn't mean they are the same. Again, I would recommend you conduct a Google search and see all the references to Stakeholder Capitalism. If the Financial Times, Economist, Heritage Foundation, New York Times, Forbes, Harvard Law School and many others thought it was the same thing, why aren't they calling it that. How about the World Economic Forum, the Business Roundtable, JUST Capital, and so many others. It seems odd that one person can overrule use of a term by some of the world's leading authorities.

Again, I would great appreciate your explaining how I can appeal your decision. Bolgerb1953 (talk)

You said they are the same yourself, in this edit. - MrOllie (talk) 13:52, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, I said there are similarities. Again, would you please let me know how I can appeal your decision. If the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Economist, Financial Times, and so many others thought it was the same thing, they would use the Stakeholder Theory...I am sure you wouldn't mind having others review your decision if you would kindly explain the process for appeal.

Bolgerb1953 (talk) 13:57, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what you wrote in that edit. Also, I hear the brits call french fries 'chips', but that does not mean they aren't the same thing. MrOllie (talk) 14:03, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you are so sure of the validity of your unilateral decision, why aren't you telling me how I can appeal your decision.Bolgerb1953 (talk)

You can revert it yourself, but if you do it's just going to end up in the deletion process and waste a lot of people's time. - MrOllie (talk) 14:08, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So, then how can I appeal this rather than simply reverting it as I believe you have made a wrong decision...That article has been up for months and you are the only one to have reached this conclusion. Bolgerb1953 (talk)

Feel free to ask questions about how Wikipedia works at WP:TEAHOUSE. In good conscience I cannot advise you on how to engage in a process that has zero chance of success. - MrOllie (talk) 14:27, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In good conscience, I can't let a clearly uninformed person make determinations on word meanings that show no regard for sources far more qualified than you to make decisions on this matter. What do you think you are God?

Bolgerb1953 (talk)

"'Added reference to the emerging concept of Stakeholder Capitalism, which is the more commonly used term today for the same concept.'" - MrOllie (talk) 14:44, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying you added that to the article on Stakeholder Theory...I don't see it on the article...Or are saying that is what I added to the article....If you are correct in your interpretation, why is all of the debate in all the periodicals cited above talking about Stakeholder Capitalism and not Stakeholder Theory. If you are right, then, I am going to have to update the entire Stakeholder Theory Wikipedia page because it's entirely out of date. There is an enormous debate on the subject that isn't present in the current entry.

Bolgerb1953 (talk) 14:56, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is what you wrote three days ago, when you apparently did believe that both terms refer to the same thing. MrOllie (talk) 15:01, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have filed a dispute with your conclusion. However, I am also going to accept it and am going to significantly update the Stakeholder Theory entry as it is completely out of date. There are no references to the many controversies surrounding the subject which make the current entry completely dated to the point of being almost useless. And why would you have deleted the reference to the new name for the term if it is clearly the term that is now in current usage all over the English speaking world. Again, just Google it. Bolgerb1953 (talk) 15:09, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:RS before you begin, the sorts of sources you have been using so far have often been lacking. MrOllie (talk) 15:14, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. If the New York Times, Forbes, Fortune, the Economist, and the Financial Times are not good sources, I am not sure what is. In the meantime, I have filed a dispute with your decision as well. Bolgerb1953 (talk) 15:17, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, why is there no mention of Stakeholder Theory in this commonly used definition for Stakeholder Capitalism. If Stakeholder Theory adequately described the subject, why does Investopedia have a separate definition: https://www.investopedia.com/stakeholder-capitalism-4774323 In fact, the term Stakeholder Theory isn't even mentioned in Investopedia. Bolgerb1953 (talk) 15:20, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes hosts a lot of unreliable blog posts. Please, read and try to understand the guidelines you have been linked. MrOllie (talk) 15:22, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What does Forbes have to do with this....Not one of these articles from these authoritative journals make any reference to Stakeholder Theory...I would like to see the credentials in your profile that make you qualified to make such a dubious decision.

Are you saying none of these are acceptable sources?

If Stakeholder Capitalism is interchangeable with Stakeholder Theory, why does not one of these articles make any reference to it.

I cannot find how to revert the article, and if I could, I would with the citations above.

Bolgerb1953 (talk) 15:34, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re: 'What does Forbes have to do with this' You literally just mentioned Forbes. You were adding inappropriate citations to Forbes hosted blogs yesterday. You must remember this. It is getting to be hard to assume good faith when you keep making patently contradictory claims. Also: Synonyms exist. That Americans say 'french fry' does not mean it is incorrect when a Brit says 'chips.' MrOllie (talk) 15:41, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good faith? You have not responded to any of my factual statements and instead keep repeating your same conclusion without any substantiation. If Stakeholder Theory and Stakeholder Capitalism are the same thing, why is no one even referencing Stakeholder Theory. This has nothing to do with British English versus American English--your analogy is false. The British are equally using the term Stakeholder Capitalism with no reference to Stakeholder Theory. Stakeholder Theory is just part of the long history of Stakeholder Capitalism, a term that was used long before Stakeholder Theory. You've got it reversed...Stakeholder Capitalism is the dominant term, not the other way around. Look at the history of the word usage.

If you were acting in good faith, you would let me know how to revert the entry so it can get a proper airing from more than one person.

Bolgerb1953 (talk) 15:53, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That article in Forbes was written by a professor at London Business School, with me as a co-author. Are you questioning the credentials of Alex Edmans? https://www.london.edu/faculty-and-research/faculty-profiles/e/edmans-a

Are you saying you know more about this subject than he does.

It is you who is not acting in good faith. You have made an uninformed arbitrary decision with no serious explanation refuting any of my points above.

Again, if everyone thought you were right, we'd be all using the term Stakeholder Theory, when in fact no one is using it.

Bolgerb1953 (talk) 15:57, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of people are referencing stakeholder theory, all over the academic literature and in books. That you can cherry pick some articles that use a synonym has no bearing on anything. Re: the forbes piece, I am questioning your understanding of Wikipedia's sourcing requirements if you are citing blog posts, and articles that you have (co)authored. MrOllie (talk) 15:58, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, your lack of knowledge on this subject is stunning. Stakeholder Theory is specifically the term used by one man, a professor at the University of Virginia: https://www.stakeholdermap.com/stakeholder-theory-freeman.html

Somehow, you have come to the conclusion that the entire field of Stakeholder Capitalism is defined by a professor who never even uses the term...You also fail to recognize that the term Stakeholder Capitalism was used well before Stakeholder Theory, and that it's usage today is far broader than the contributions of a single man.

Don't confuse my aggravation with having a single uninformed individual arbitrarily removing this article with a lack of good faith. If you had good faith, you would come up with a more cogent argument than essentially saying, "you say potato, and I say potatoe." No, with all due respect, it's not the same thing and you are patently wrong.

If you were so confident of your position, you'd explain how I can revert the article. I can assure I will find a way with or without you.

Bolgerb1953 (talk) 16:05, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am writing this for the benefit of the individuals called upon to resolve this dispute.

1. Mr. Ollie has unilaterally removed an entire article on Stakeholder Capitalism because he incorrectly believes it is a synonym for Stakeholder Theory, when in fact he has his facts confused. A. His only argument is that Stakeholder Capitalism is the equivalent of the US calling it "French fries," whereas the British call it "chips," when in fact British journals are all using the term "Stakeholder Capitalism" separately from "Stakeholder Theory."

3. Also, before removing the article altogether, Mr. Ollie also removed a definition for Stakeholder Capitalism that was co-authored by a professor of finance at the London Business School, on the basis that Forbes is not reliable and that I am co-author of the article: https://www.forbes.com/sites/lbsbusinessstrategyreview/2020/08/26/can-stakeholder-capitalism-save-capitalism-first-we-must-define-it/?sh=60225b661aa7 A. By removing this alternative definition, Mr. Ollie distorted the entire point of the entry, which was to note that this is a major new field with no formal dictionary definition. This begs the question, why did he bother to edit the article before removing it? B. Note that Stakeholder Theory does not have an official dictionary definition either and is never used anywhere interchangeably with Stakeholder Capitalism. C. Mr. Ollie has made completely unsubstantiated statements to defend his claim that my very well documented article is unsubstantiated.

4. As one of the early observers of the field of Stakeholder Capitalism, it is very difficult for me to remove all references to myself or my own work, but I have done so to comply with conflict of interest rules. A. All references to me have been removed and I made no attempt to add them back, so there is no reference to me. If anything, the article is incorrect in not including me in its history. Should I ask someone completely removed from my business to submit this entry? B. It would almost be possible for people writing about a field such as Stakeholder Capitalism in Wikipedia to have no connection to it, otherwise what would make someone qualified to even write about it?

5. Mr. Ollie has also implied that my sources are not adequate, and yet he has not recommended any specific changes to make those corrections. A. Multiple other people have reviewed this article. A few made suggestions, and I addressed each and every one of them. B. It seems highly inappropriate that one editor can summarily remove an article. How do we know Mr. Ollie does not have a conflict of interest?

6. Mr. Ollie claims that I have admitted that Stakeholder Capitalism and Stakeholder Theory are one in the same thing, when all I meant to say is that Stakeholder Theory is part of a bigger movement that includes other thinkers besides the professor who postulated the term "stakeholder theory." A. Mr. Ollie has no basis to claim that Stakeholder Capitalism all comes from the theory and a name given to that theory by a single professor.

6. Finally, Mr. Ollie discredits an article in Forbes as a blog post. There is no evidence that this is a blog post: https://www.forbes.com/sites/lbsbusinessstrategyreview/2020/08/26/can-stakeholder-capitalism-save-capitalism-first-we-must-define-it/?sh=60225b661aa7

Bolgerb1953 (talk) 17:15, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bolgerb1953 (talk) 16:52, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have been asked to respond to the questions about Conflict of Interest here. I would have done so sooner but did not understand how or where to share this information.

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 to publish this article Wikipedia.

Because our organization supports a strategic focus on people, we write about over two dozen 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) 13:23, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 2021

Please refrain from using talk pages such as User talk:Bolgerb1953 for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Your reply to User:MrOllie about conflict of interest is a non-responsive WP:FILIBUSTER. If you will answer that question concisely, then we can try to address article content at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:52, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for indulging my ignorance. Again, I hope you understand to the outsider Wikipedia is incomprehensible. I read the directions from the link you sent me about conflict of interest: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#howtodisclose.

This made no sense to me. I saw no link to a form I could fill out, and since the article has been removed, I don't see how I can comment on it.

Can you please tell me what to do and I'd be happy to do it. I read the directions and have not a clue what to do.

If anyone checks my Linked in page at https://www.linkedin.com/in/brucebolger/one can see that I am the editor and publisher of a publication that covers the field of people management at http://EnterpriseEngagement.org but that the article published on Wikipedia edited out all mention of our organization, even though any objective third party would consider us a founder of the field as much as Freeman or anyone else mentioned in the Stakeholder Theory article.

I'm fine with that.

I read the definition of filibuster and that is exactly what Mr. Ollie was doing to me--he did not answer any of my questions as to why he had removed the article.

If I filibustered, it was unintentional. I have no desire but to be transparent. Thanks again.

A Comment

If, as you say, you and your organization have extensive knowledge of the area of people management, then I think that it should have occurred to you that, when entering a new organization that you find incomprehensible, it might have been prudent to be cautious and to see what reaction you got initially. You were behaving like a male bovid in a pottery boutique, maybe because you found the organization and the pottery and the potters incomprehensible, but maybe you should have asked for advice in comprehending things rather than flailing around in confusion. You were not acting like someone having knowledge of the management of people. You were acting in a way that was destined to annoy people. If you didn't see that you were going to annoy people, maybe you should have thought back based on your experience in advising on the management of people. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:34, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I greatly appreciate your candor. Quite refreshing. What set me off, I must confess, was not the criticism or questions. What shook me up was that one individual had the authority to simply take the article down without even giving the author the courtesy of a notification.

First, he made some edits that rendered the main point of the entry incomprehensible, then he simply eliminated it. There was no message to me. And, when I asked him why he did shut it down, he, as you would say, filibustered me. I was not aware that one person can arbitrarily make such a decision without any oversight.

Upon reflection, thanks to your input, I should have just started the dispute process.

Finally, I assume you know that Wikipedia is widely known to be inscrutable to many outsiders and that attempts to understand it are met with what to many are inscrutable explanations. To date, I have found it difficult to understand any of the explanations I have looked for on Wikipedia. I know I am not alone.

I would not have had a clue as to who to go to for advice, so I appreciate your message.

I also have no idea of the dispute process but assume I'll just wait.

Thanks again.

Bolgerb1953 (talk) 23:03, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Offer of assistance

Hi again Bolgerb1953. I had this Talk Page of yours on my watchlist owing to our previous "conversation" here about a year ago. Hence I noticed today that you had added a recent comment and this seems to be your first new edit since your contributions to Talk:Stakeholder_theory#Threaded_Discussion last October. I fear that no-one but me may have your personal Talk Page on their watchlist, so you may get no reply and wonder why! The ways of Wikipedia are somewhat arcane and if you wish to reactivate a discussion, it is best to create a new section on your Talk Page or elsewhere and "ping" the editors you wish to engage in discussion with at that point, using the {{ping}} template (click on that link for instructions how). Since this is a volunteer project, you may find even then that no-one responds but active editors almost certainly will. I assume that you want to discuss the idea of re-creating an article on Stakeholder Capitalism (the movement) with different content to either Stakeholder theory or Stakeholder management. I am no expert on any of these but can certainly help you on the "how". Note that, as of today, clicking on the first of these links take you or any other reader to the stakeholder theory article. This is because the former is currently a WP:REDIRECT, although the underlying page and its history are still there if one uses the alternative link URL without the redirect, namely this one. Once on that page, you can click on its "history" tab to check all the earlier versions, which include, for example this version visible on 2 Sep 2021 just after you had made an edit. Very little on Wikipedia is ever truly gone, if you know where to look, so it would be relatively easy to start again on a draft that contained some of the prior material.

I won't bore you with more details but simply suggest you contact me again (with ping) here if you have questions about the technicalities of taking the next steps you wish to make. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:14, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are so very kind to respond. Yes, I do not understand any of the process and can't even find the ping link you mention...Yes, I would like to update the article in my Sandbox and resubmit...So I will read your post about and do my best. My question is--would it help if I had the professors who created the entire concept of Stakeholder Theory weigh in on this discussion. If so, how would you suggest I do that. Thanks again. Bruce Bolgerb1953 (talk) 13:33, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the best "next steps" for you are to read the articles at WP:EXPERT and Help:Academic. These should help you understand why getting such professors to weigh in would not work and might even be counter-productive. Wikipedia relies entirely on already-published sources and many of its editors make up for their lack of domain knowledge with their ability to read and paraphrase those sources for our readership. Also, we rely on WP:Consensus to decide the content of articles and their is no hierarchy here: competence is required but no-one can force their version of an article against the consensus. So, I suggest you copy/paste into User:Bolgerb1953/sandbox whichever version in the history tab of the original Stakeholder capitalism article you think is the best to work from and continue to improve it, intending to re-submit it as a new Draft for approval (WP:AFC will remind you of the process). Bear in mind that, whether you like it or not, you have a conflict of interest since you will be citing some sources written by yourself. This is perfectly acceptable (see WP:SELFCITE) but you do need to ensure that what you write here has a neutral point of view. Good luck! Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:28, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are a very nice person and it is much appreciated. I have my work cut out for me. Bolgerb1953 (talk) 12:16, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]