Talk:Conflict continuum

Wikify?

I posted an article yesterday (Conflict Continuum) that was immediately given the "wikify" tag; apparently there were not enough internal links in it to other Wikipedia pages. I've gone through it again and added a few links, but there really aren't that many references to people, places, and things suitable for linking. Have I wikified it enough to remove the tag?

Frank Rawland (talk) 17:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)Frank Rawland

COI

As User:Amedea is the author of the theory and has edited the article, I have tagged as WP:COI. Widefox (talk) 18:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

References were added that show where the information came from. The content did not change. The original author of the article should have made the citations. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 20:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:COI e.g. "They are also encouraged to disclose their interest on their user pages and also on the talk page" I am encouraging. Also, adding primary sources is not helping the notability at all. Is this article notable? Call for expert help. Widefox (talk) 23:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The history shows that the content was not written by (Amedea. If the added references are accurate then their presence in the article improves the article. Even if (Amedea is the author of the theory, which has not been established, adding references does not detract from the quality of the article. Since the original article author (Frank Rawland has not made a Wikipedia contribution in nearly three years, it seems silly to expect that that user and no one else should add references to the article. The COI tag seems a harsh overreaction that casts unwarranted aspersions on the content of the article. Is something else going on here to justify the COI tag? Perhaps offering a positive solution rather than a punitive tag would be more helpful? I now see a deletion tag has been added. This really seems punitive and uncalled for.ProfGiles (talk) 04:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, actually this has been established, which is why I've followed the guideline and asked for that to be posted here. The editor Amedea has claimed to be the author here [1]. Please see the COI guideline, and detail any deviation from it, rather than making comments about other editors motives, which fails WP:AGF. Widefox (talk) 11:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The only editor who had their motives questioned was Amedea. I certainly did not question yours, I asked for clarification. The adding of references does not violate the COI guideline, which is pretty obvious from the text of the guideline. As someone who was just passing by, this looks like a personal conflict between editors rather than a discussion of the merits or accuracy of the article. I asked for justification for the placement of COI and Deletion tags. A link to a nearly three year old comment on a user talk page doesn't, in my opinion, rise to that level. Why after nearly three years is this suddenly a burning issue? I don't have a dog in this personal conflict but it sure doesn't look good to see this type of thing on Wikipedia. I hope you two can resolve your conflict civilly. Peace. ProfGiles (talk) 04:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Speculation on editors is off-topic, reply to this here ProfGiles. Widefox (talk) 10:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm Amedea, whose citations seem to have sparked the controversy. I'm puzzled over the conflict of interest tag.

My intentions were to add citations, per the original flag request. My identity is no mystery, and as a new user I requested help in following Wikipedia protocols. Two requests were made on this talk page, although those requests are now missing. It might clarify the discussion if those earlier requests for advice could be restored.

I apologize if I should not have added citations. It helps to know more about Wikipedia guidelines. The discussion history shows it was an honest mistake, made while following advice. There seems to be no question of the accuracy of the footnotes, only that an involved individual added them.

I understand the need to be vigilant over the misuse of editing. However, it's hard to see where this was more than an error.

"Conflict of interest" is a pejorative term, at least in American usage. It's hard to see it justified with documentation of acting in good faith. Amedea (talk) 17:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I see no controversy, and no drama. Please read COI, although COI is now moot - it is likely the article will be deleted as it fails notability anyway. The only way to save it is to add secondary sources. If you wish to keep it, please add them yourself, which is fine. Widefox (talk) 23:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Focus of article

I took the article to be about 'conflict continuum' as a model or concept to aid in the study and discussion of conflicts.

I have started constructing a new lead paragraph at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ariconte/sandbox in the hope of converting this to a 'notable' article. Please comment here. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 01:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Andra Medea's book / model is not notable, and should not be included in any new article. Articles deleted should not be recreated in new forms. Widefox (talk) 08:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

References needed

We need references specifically addressing 'conflict continuum' as a modelling method in conflict theory. I have references showing its use but (so far); I don't have articles talking about it's use.... ie, What is needed is secondary sources. Please add them to the article if you have them. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 19:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

No matter which article in wikipedia, the Medea book/theory/reference is not notable and should not be included. Without secondary sources as well, this is OR, as explained by another editor. Widefox (talk) 9:39 pm, Today (UTC+0)

Here is a course guide from a class in conflict management from Sacramento State University (California). The course was for the California Dept. of Corrections. Page 11 describes the three everyday levels of the conflict continuum, page 12 gives ways to apply the knowledge. It's conveniently concise and practical. http://www.dpa.ca.gov/staging/training/supervisory-training/managing-conflict/participant-guide.pdf Amedea (talk) 18:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for finding this but I don't think it solves the problem. We need references that talk about the use of 'conflict ... continuum' in the social sciences. References that use it are interesting but if we use them we are open to the 'Original Research' charge see WP:OR. We need 3rd parties (sources) saying something like 'In 1962 Elise Boulding (editor of the International Peace Research Letter) used the concept of a conflict continuum when describing...'. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 20:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Ariconte. Still getting the hang of this.

How about the references for the Boulding draft in my sandbox? Do those references work? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Amedea/Sandbox Amedea (talk) 14:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think that one is OK. I couldn't find any reference to conflict continuum in the Croatian focused article. I will rewrite a bit on your user page (I hope that is OK with you). I think you should put it up in the 'main' space if you want. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 22:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome to make any re-writes in the sandbox you like, especially if you explain the Wiki-thought behind it. Terribly helpful.

In the Croatian article, Boulding's conflict continuum is mapped at the end, in footnote 19. The related text refers to a chapter in The Quest for Peace, which Boulding published in London in 1987. This seems to be the first place Boulding published her continuum.

Is the Croatian analysis allowable? It's not neutral; also seems to misinterpret 'mediation' -- but it raises interesting points about the use and meaning of this model. Amedea (talk) 19:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I have done my changes.... I used http://www.webcitation.org/ to create a permanent copy of the web page. Then I used http://toolserver.org/~magnus/makeref.php to make the formatted reference. I still see some issues: (A) The last item you have is 'Union' the last item in the reference is 'Transformation'. Why are they different??? If based on another reference ... it should be here. (B) Websites are down the list on the 'goodness' scale of references. See WP:RS. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 22:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

My error. I was referencing a textbook, Interpersonal Conflict, 4th edition. But that's not viewable on the web so that's not allowable. The textbook references Boulding's 1987 British book, like the Croatian article. It looks the earlier, British version ends with Union, while a later American version ends with Transformation.

The Inst. for Global Leadership page seems to reference Boulding's 2000 American book, Cultures of Peace. The illustrations page for Cultures of Peace shows Boulding's continuum on page 90, but that's not viewable on the web either.

What's more, the Institute page says that Boulding added reconciliation to her continuum, but doesn't say precisely where. I take it that information is not allowable. Best to make no reference to reconciliation at all? Amedea (talk) 19:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

No, No, No. Please go and read WP:RS. Text books are good... The only plus to a website is their availability... It is easy for other editors to look at. To repeat myself "The last item you have is 'Union' the last item in the reference is 'Transformation'. Why are they different??? If based on another reference ... it should be here." Regards, Ariconte (talk) 21:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah- textbooks are acceptable even if they can't be read on the web. Got it.

On Union v. Transformation: Boulding changed her mind on the last stage of her 11 stage continuum. For the first 10 stages, can list the primary source as The Quest for Peace, Sage Publications, London, 1987. The secondary source can be the college text Interpersonal Conflict, Hocker, Joyce & Willaims W. Wilmot, Brown & Benchmark, Madison, 1995. Page 21. However, need separate sourcing for that last stage, since Hocker & Wilmot don't reference her later work.

For Transformation (not Union) the primary source would be Cultures of Peace, Syracuse University Press, 2000. The secondary source is the website for Inst. for Global Leadership. But that's only for the final stage. No workable source yet for the other change Boulding made, adding Reconciliation.

Kind of complicated. Does that make sense? Amedea (talk) 00:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Now Be Bold WP:BB; edit it in you sand box... and then move it to the main article. Cheers, Ariconte (talk) 04:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's the latest: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Amedea/Sandbox Please check if the coding for citations came out right, not mangled.

Would like to include an introductory line about Boulding as a Quaker, affected by the events of WWII. Quakers have a tradition of scholarship informed by spirituality, and Boulding is well within that tradition. Would think that's relevant, especially given her end result of Transformation.

The best articulation is on Boulding's Wikipedia bio page. Is that acceptable? The page isn't yet archived. Amedea (talk) 18:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

No need to archive WP pages. They never go away unless the page is deleted. Click on the history link for each page and you can see each edition of the page. I edited a bit. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 19:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Got it,WP pages don't get archived. OK if I replace the citation to the Wikipedia bio? Thing is, Hocker & Wilmot don't discuss Boulding's background. The Wiki bio provides that info. Amedea (talk) 20:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Will go ahead and post Boulding's model. Ariconte, thanks so much for stepping me through the process. Greatly appreciated.

BTW, used a heading of Elise's Boulding's Conflict Continuum. Her husband Kenneth Boulding is also quoted on power and conflict, and the two seem to get confused at times. Amedea (talk) 23:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Practical protocol

I would like to add material on models by Elise Boudling and J.W. Keltner, as well as straightening out mistakes in the model that's already posted. Would like to get the article improved and the tags removed. Need a practical way to proceed.

My work is involved, and I don't want to go within miles of COI. A practical approach is to work under the supervision of an editor, in someone else's sandbox. Material would be posted after approval by someone knowledgeable in Wiki protocols. This seems a practical way to avoid controversy.

How exactly can this be done? What would be the next step? Amedea (talk) 16:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Create a sandbox for yourself by clicking this link; Edit it as you want. For more information on sand boxs see Help:Sandbox and Help:Sandbox_tutorial.

The Focus and Reference paragraphs above are the key issues. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 20:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's a draft on Boulding's continuum: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Amedea/Sandbox Sources are in text, not properly coded.

Boulding also appears in editions of standard textbooks like Interpersonal Conflict by Hocker and Wilmot. However, those are expensive books with no "Look inside" features, so those sources aren't viewable on the web. Is there anything to be done with that?

Also, a Canadian (advocate? analyst?) of Croatian background offers an interesting view applying Boulding's model to the War in the Former Yugoslavia. This writer finds the model accurate, but points out that union with Serbia is hardly a good thing for Croatia.

Now, it's not my place to get into the controversy. Is it OK to say something like, whether positive or negative, Boulding's 1987 model closely reflected subsequent events. Amedea (talk) 01:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Be Bold v. COI

Appreciate the encouragement to Be Bold, but this article already has a COI tag, due to adding footnotes. The footnotes are gone, but the COI tag remains. Similarly, the spam/ promotional tag is still there, and it's hard to see how that happened at all.

These tags seem to have a life of their own. Hard to get lifted, perhaps easier to prevent.

Common to have specialists who work in a field, and so have potential for COI. One protocol is to put a layer of insulation between the specialist and public. So the specialist might write something up, but a third party would approve or post it. These guidelines protect everyone.

Meanwhile, how does one ever get tags removed? Amedea (talk) 19:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Tags are just text in the article. Any editor can remove them. I would suggest that you let some other editor do that.... if you just add good information, properly referenced, about other peoples concepts, methods, theories, etc. .... then you can't fall afoul of the COI rules. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 20:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

So, if in good form, it would be a non-event to post information on Boulding's model. Do not do changes around my own. Got it.

How would another editor notice the article to review tags? Does the article get flagged automatically when new material, like Boulding's model, gets posted? Amedea (talk) 20:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

See WP:WATCH. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 21:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

External links

Added a link from Elise Boulding's bio page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elise_M._Boulding to this article. Would it be appropriate to link from the entry on Quakers? Amedea (talk) 01:37, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

If a link is appropriate in the Elise Boulding article; it should be an internal link in the text or in a See Also section. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 02:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Use of Medea's Conflict Continuum by California State University Sacramento and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

The Conflict Continuum model presented by Andra Medea in her book Conflict Unraveled was used in a pilot training course for supervisory training at the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Because of budget cuts, the pilot course and associated materials were never finalized into official curriculum. The pilot materials were made available to other training professionals in the State of California for review via the State Trainers' dedicated web page. The incorrect version of the course materials was posted; therefore a version without correct citation of Andra Medea's work was posted to the web. Andra Media's work was indeed referenced and quoted in the creation of the pilot training materials.