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.