Jump to content

Talk:Conflict (process)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 April 2020 and 20 July 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gdally17.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

History of the article

[edit]

It seems that we had an article on conflict (yes the chair=400064740 latest version) that was first moved to conflict (sociology) and then merged in 2010, without discussion, to conflict resolution. It was a poor article, with only the conflict resolution being referenced, and that part of the merge was reasonable, but the elimination of the article on the concept (process) of conflict was obviously an error. I've written this article from scratch before seeing this history, and frankly, I can't find anything from that old article to salvage here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the old article on "Conflict" was unbelievably horrible and unsalvageable, FWIW, so writing from scratch was probably best. Not entirely sure that merging the "idea" of conflict was "obviously an error" of course - as noted, that type of thing has a tendency to devolve into rambly dictionary definitions as every editor says "term X can be used this way, and this way, and that way! And also this way!" SnowFire (talk) 18:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article and social conflict

[edit]

This article focuses more on the neutral process, and is closer to psychology and sociology. Social conflict article is related to the sociological conflict theory, and is less neutral (per the very nature of the conflict theory). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus; no support for the proposal offered after two weeks. --BDD (talk) 19:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Conflict (process) → Conflict – I think this should be moved to conflict, where the old article was, as this is the primary meaning of this term. The current disamgig should be at conflict (disambiguation). (See my note above for what happened to the old article that was there). Thoughts? (Note to closing admin: the disambig talk page will need fixing, too, it wasn't properly dealt with in 2010). Relisted. BDD (talk) 19:20, 18 October 2012 (UTC) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:54, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose / Merge to Conflict (sociology) instead. (Note: I was the person who moved the godawful old article at "Conflict" to Conflict (sociology) then redirected that ramble to Conflict resolution instead in 2010, see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conflict_(sociology)&action=history .) First off, this article is actually referenced, so nice job making it. That said... and I am exposing my own biases here... I find these sociology type articles still verging on Wiktionary territory, as we have a "definition" of Conflict, and "types" of conflict, but nothing on "conflict (as a whole / as a process)", whatever that is. Which isn't surprising; it's just a term, there can be conflict over anything, and it's hard to have a unified article on conflict when it can apply to anything from sports to wars to arguments. Anyway, there are at least sociologists talking about the term, so it's a worthy article, but if we pretend that this article is "Conflict in sociology" or "Sociologist's views of Conflict", that doesn't feel particularly like a "primary" article at all. It feels like a normal sub-article that can be linked to from the disambiguation page like everything else. (And hence I'd support a move or merge to Conflict (sociology) instead.) SnowFire (talk) 19:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I rather strongly disagree with this. You mention biases, and in good faith, I'd like to suggest you have a bias against social facts. The concept of a social fact, like conflict, is as notable, as a concept about a natural sciences fact, like neutron or bridge. Unfortunately, we are predisposed against recognizing social facts as notable, because we often think that certain social facts are "obvious"; this is why the social science is relatively newer than natural science, as it took humans longer to reach the level of understanding deep enough to realize that our social life is, in fact, worthy of study (with my bias as a sociologist, I'd argue that it we sociology is much more important for living a good life than the understanding of most natural sciences, and schools should teach more sociology than biology or physics... :>). Social sciences are not covered well on Wikipedia, but this is simply a reflection of them being less famous / understood / financed (in research). This article is not about conflict in sociology, it is about conflict as a concept in general, also relevant to psychology, and other fields. It is a key concept in peace and conflict studies, of which sociology of peace, war, and social conflict is only a subfield of. Properly expanded, it should also discuss the characteristic of subtypes such as armed conflict, social conflict, interprersonal conflict, organizational conflict, and various other typologies). PS. You may be interested in the renaming of social conflict (see my comment on talk there). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 21:29, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, like I said, I'm not asking for this article to be deleted; published sociologists have clearly talked about it, so Wikipedia certainly can report that. I just don't believe sociologist views on "conflict" have primacy over everything else in this case.
To draw an example: War is another article on an impossibly broad topic. It is not very good, but the article is clearly "war", as much as an encyclopedia article can be written thereof. If this article was a similar attempt at "Conflict (in general)", I'd agree it has an argument to be the main article at Conflict... except... attempting to make that article would probably result in a terrible article that should be deleted. The older Conflict in 2010 had that problem, so I hope you don't take this as a suggestion that you attempt to over-expand Conflict to take into account some general theory of conflicts! Anyway, I see this article as a smaller, more focused article on what sociologists view about conflict, which is good and possibly even merits the first link position you stuck it in on the disambiguation page, but not the primary topic any more than Social conflict / Conflict theory / Conflict (narrative) / etc. which are also notable. SnowFire (talk) 18:43, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • While you are right this article is about conflict (in general), I disagree that such an article has to be terrible. Yes, writing on broad concepts is difficult, but not impossible. And yes, eventually such an article should (briefly) summarize conflict resolution, theory, and such (per WP:SUMMARY). I do believe that sociology is the best science to see this topic through the prism of, although I certainly acknowledge this may evolve towards more of an interdisciplinary topic. Anyway, since this is an article about conflict (in general), I do believe it should be at conflict. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 21:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Title

[edit]

One has to wonder, given the text, if "Conflict theory" might be a better title. OK, there's already an article with that title, but the preponderance of the theoretical in this article ought to be recognized (or the article expanded...). --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 14:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict theory is not about conflicts as usually understood, it is about a certain limited aspect of them (conflict between social classes in the context of inequality and power imbalance). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:32, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe if this article wants to be different from social conflict it should be moved to "Interpersonal conflict". groupuscule (talk) 18:04, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Interpersonal content would make a good subarticle, likely using much of what is present here. But conflict, as a concept, is a parent subject to the ideas such as social conflict, interpersonal conflict, or war. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 21:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello hello word 41.57.95.248 (talk) 16:22, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Types of Conflict

[edit]

This section starts out assuming something that doesn't seem to be present. "These are cases" refers to what? Does it mean to say "There are cases"? It can't be referring to the four items in the previous section, because those are written in the context of intergroup conflict, not intragroup conflict. "They may also be" refers again to what? Does it mean "There may also be"?

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Conflict (process). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:21, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Competitive Conflict

[edit]

A competition, like a game is a type of conflit.[1]

References

  1. ^ "Why Do We Play Games? - YouTube". www.youtube.com. Retrieved 2021-01-12.

Second paragraph in the lead section

[edit]

In this paragraph it demonstrates a conflict process in a group but it isn't linked to any sources and I feel like it should have some sort of source connection for having pretty specific terms being used throughout this paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AJGonz (talk • contribs) 02:56, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clarified the 2nd paragraph of the article to emphasize the resources available to a group (time, attention, expertise, connection with other peo., etc.); the unity of that group is such a resource. Therefore commonality of the group's purpose is needed, and the group's internal communication is part of the development of its members, or else they should split from the group.

For example, there was a typo in the section above; as a reader of the talk page, I improved its appearance, to aid talk page discussion. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 15:46, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Conflict_(process)&oldid=1201098217"