Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conflict Continuum

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict Continuum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

1. Notability WP:GNG - no secondary sources on the topic, my search for some failed - google hits were for book/theory WP:NRVE 2. so that leaves this article as WP:NOTTEXTBOOK Widefox (talk) 00:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, Google books give me 600 hits for the string "Conflict Continuum". Each of these articles talk about continuum of conflict in their abstracts:

Muro, D. The politics of war memory in radical Basque nationalism. Ethnic and Racial Studies v. 32 no. 4 (May 2009) p. 659-78

Furlong, K. Hidden theories, troubled waters: International relations, the ‘territorial trap’, and the Southern African Development Community's transboundary waters. Political Geography v. 25 no. 4 (May 2006) p. 438-58

Kanavou, A. A. How Peace Agreements Are Derailed: The Evolution of Values in Cyprus, 1959-74. Journal of Peace Research v. 43 no. 3 (May 2006) p. 279-96

Aydinli, E. Before Jihadists There Were Anarchists: A Failed Case of Transnational Violence. Studies in Conflict and Terrorism v. 31 no. 10 (October 2008) p. 903-23

Flanigan, S. T. Nonprofit Service Provision by Insurgent Organizations: The Cases of Hizballah and the Tamil Tigers. Studies in Conflict and Terrorism v. 31 no. 6 (June 2008) p. 499-519

Regards, Ariconte (talk) 04:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how strict you have searched? Google books ("Conflict Continuum" Medea) gives 32 hits, only 1 with all terms, which is by Andra Medea . I do not find a single secondary source. If they exist please add to the article, as required to establish notability. Currently it fails WP:GNG Widefox (talk) 19:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tried looking at those references to no avail. Please list which of these references actually refer to this theory by Andra Medea, rather than just being google hits for a couple of words. Widefox (talk) 20:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC) (typo fix) Widefox (talk) 20:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found the references given in the H. W. Wilson Databases: Social Sciences Index/Abstracts/Full Text, see http://www.hwwilson.com/Databases/socsci.cfm . I was looking for references for "conflict continuum" as a modelling method. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 01:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You did not actually say which reference refers to this theory by Medea. Despite several of us looking, no reference has been produced. Widefox (talk) 20:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to build an article talking about "conflict continuum". I do not have access to the book by Medea so can not comment on it. I have never claimed to have a reference to any 'theory by Medea'. Just trying to be positive.... I suppose it is a bit of an inclusionist/deletionist discussion. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 20:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ok, good. glad we are starting to agree. That other editor already told you that you're setting yourself up for an WP:OR article. Widefox (talk) 21:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not tell me "ok, good. glad we are starting to agree". It is very hard not to see this as a editor vs editor argument. I am trying to find secondary sources --- I am unwilling to work much harder at it. I perceive the two editors on the negative side have made little effort to be positive. I don't think Ms. Medea understands the problem. I will now delete all these discussions from my watchlist... and go out to a property here in NSW and do a bit of farm work. Goodby, Ariconte (talk) 22:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reaching consensus is exactly what the purpose of this page is for. Widefox (talk) 23:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, A Yahoo search finds 163 results for "Conflict Continuum Andra Media" all secondary sources which reference the book and theory including an interview on Chicago Public Radio. This definitely establishes notability. There is no justification for the call to delete this article.ProfGiles (talk) 04:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, when I search "Conflict Continuum Andra Medea" (not Media) on Yahoo I get 164 hits, of the first 5 pages that I looked at none were valid references. The best hit was Chicago Public Radio which is an interview with Andra Medea. I repeat, I have found no secondary sources, and none are listed above. Widefox (talk) 19:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC) (text updated due to typo x2) Widefox (talk) Widefox (talk) 20:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC) Note to closing admin: this person is the nominator.[reply]
• Delete. This Google Scholar search turns up nothing by Andra Medea on this subject, suggesting that it has not made it into peer reviewed venues. It certainly doesn't seem to have been discussed widely enough to be notable. The press with which Medea's book is published seems to publish just that book; I smell vanity publication. The article calls her a "University of Chicago educator," but this search for her name on the University of Chicago site returns only one hit, where it seems she was hired to teach one course in a certificate program affiliated with the school in 2003-2004 (i.e., not to the regular student population); there is no evidence that she was retained after that time. This article is WP:VANISPAMCRUFTISEMENT. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 01:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This Google Scholar search turns up lots of hits about 'conflict continuum models' which is what I took the page to be about. Please see the articles talk page for a suggested solution. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 01:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hit number 1: "A mutualism-parasitism continuum model and its application to plant-mycorrhizae interactions." Number 2: "… sexual selection in external fertilizers: variances in male and female fertilization success along the continuum from sperm limitation to sexual conflict in the sea urchin …" Number 3: "A continuum model for the dynamics of flow-induced crystallization." Those hits, which say nothing about conflict continuum models? Or how about this search, which puts the relevant phrase in quotation marks: it returns two hits, neither of which have anything to do with the subject.
As to your suggestion on the article's talk page, we have an article on conflict management. If this one were to be recast as something different from its current focus on a particular consultant's unnotable theory, it seems that editors would have to engage in original research. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 02:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep without prejudice to future discussions. It is clear that editors are attempting to create a different article with the same name the notability of which would not be attached to Medea's theory. I am doubtful that they will be able to succeed (we already have conflict management), but this deletion discussion is now largely moot. I would not object to raising another deletion discussion in a couple of months once it is clear where these efforts are going. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 19:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete.I’m the theorist behind the model in question, and I am also in favor of having this entry deleted.
  The author of the article was Frank Rawland. He may have been a Wikipedia enthusiast, but it’s doubtful he was an academic. If I understand the discussion correctly, Wikipedia guidelines are to hold articles to academic standards. It’s hardly surprising that a non-academic would have difficulty.
  It would take a good deal of work to update this article, and apparently I am precluded from doing it. For instance, I do not now work for the University of Chicago and am no longer in academia. These days I work with lawyers and judges; my latest project was released by the American Bar Association. Nonetheless, the fact in the article is inaccurate.
  This is a complicated model in a complicated field. Mr. Rawland did the best job he could with the materials he had.
  Now, I do object to an unsavory tone in the discussion. I appreciate your need to be vigilant against self-serving interests. You clearly are committed to high quality in Wikipedia, which is no small endeavor in an often anonymous, international project. Wikipedia is an accomplishment, and it’s due to adhering to high standards.
  However, all this can be done in a neutral manner without casting aspersions. If you expect contributors to adhere to high standards, then it’s equally fair that we can expect you to assess that work in a professional and fair-minded fashion. Amedea (talk) 20:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andre - Did you see my comment on the article's talk page??? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Conflict_Continuum Do you think we can expand the lead in my sandbox??? Regards, Ariconte (talk) 23:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amedea, off-topic discussion on editors continued on your talk page. Widefox (talk) 13:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC) Widefox (talk) 13:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ariconte, it's possible your approach could work. An expanded lead could cover other conflict continuum models, which would clear some confusion. This is my field, so I have the information. Perhaps I could submit material to a disinterested third party, rather than posting myself. That should preclude any question of conflict of interest.
That would take the issue back to notability, which may not be hard to clear up. Amedea (talk) 15:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. OK, I change my ' vote.' It’s easy to see where notability would be confusing. This may be an unfamiliar field, and it appears people are searching for verification through web sources. Material in this field is not always available online. Anyway, here is a case for notability.

1. Reviews for Conflict Unraveled were excellent. Reviews do not always stay posted to the web. Fair use guidelines forbids reprinting extended quotes, which is why reviews often look suspiciously choppy.
Because of the nature of this debate, I believe fair use will allow me to temporarily display a full, uncut review by Dr. E. James Lieberman, Clinical Psychology Professor at George Washington University, writing in Foreword Magazine. You can read the full review here.
I believe Dr. Lieberman at the time was chair of his department. In any case he is now retired, so if you search their current directory he may not be there. However, there should be some way to verify his emeritus status.
Please note that while this is an academic source, I do not wish to get into questions of academic standards. These days I’m more comfortable with legal standards of proof. You might say that I present Dr. Lieberman as an expert witness.

2. Due to other strong reviews, Conflict Unraveled is widely available in public and university libraries. A WorldCat search reveals that it’s currently held in 207 libraries. It’s out and being used by the public.

3. Conflict Unraveled is used as a textbook in conflict-related courses ranging from ad hoc groups in homeless shelters to graduate courses in international studies. The material is studied and discussed. Now, college courses do not normally list textbooks in course catalogs, so this information would not appear on the web. I am open to suggestions as to how this might be verified.

4. The model serves a larger purpose by furthering the work of others in the field. One of the uses of the continuum is that it allows fresh ways to use old material.

From my perspective, some of the great conflict tacticians were two of the strategists behind some of Dr. Martin Luther King’s non-violent campaigns, Diane Nash and the Rev. James Bevel. Dr. King’s non-violent movement is today seen more as a historic event, rather than a source of practical problem-solving. This model offers a new way of looking at such tactics, so they can be applied in everyday settings. Conflict Unraveled fits the tactics of Bevel and Nash into the continuum to illuminate those tactics. It presents new, practical ways that everyday people can make use of brilliant tactics of the past. This element can be verified by Dr. Lieberman's review. Amedea (talk) 19:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No reference to establish notability has been found above by any of us. Article fails notability as per nomination. Widefox (talk) 20:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since past reviews aren't available on the magazine's website, isn't it a simple matter to ask them to verify? Amedea (talk) 17:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article now has been changed so that my name is in a subhead, with a spam tag directly below. This gives an impression that I made the change, and that for disreputable reasons.

Widefox, there was an earlier comment that you were using tags in a punitive manner. This is starting to cross into cyber-bullying. Perhaps it's best that you recuse yourself from this discussion.

Whether the article stays or goes, the issues can't be that difficult to sort out. Amedea (talk) 17:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article was (and largely still is) about a theory in a self-published book WP:ARTSPAM , so the guideline says it can be speedy deleted. It may help to checkout WP:VERIFY, and WP:OWN about who is allowed to edit. Please refrain from Ad hominem attacks on me, this may help WP:NPA. Widefox (talk) 18:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Widefox, your behavior here is really beginning to cross the line. Have you been telling Amedea that she cannot edit particular articles? Are you continuing to do so? Your grasp of policy is questionable. Blatant advertising qualifies for speedy deletion, like "BUY EXTENZENOW YOU BE BIGGER WE PROMISE NO SCAM." Anything questionable has to go through the deletion process. WP:V and WP:OWN have no bearing on your dispute with Amedea. WP:COI advises caution when editing; it is not a prohibition. The article is under discussion for deletion. Seeing as you think it should be deleted, it is difficult to assume good faith when you edit the article while the discussion is going on. Other editors are trying to improve the article such that it no longer warrants deletion. I think they have a snowball's chance in hell, but that doesn't mean that you are empowered to speak for the community and disrupt their efforts. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 19:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RJC - I agree speedy deletion is not warranted - my comment above is incorrect. I stand by everything else... My mention of WP:OWN is actually in reply to me being asked to "recuse yourself from this discussion". Reading my comment the way I intended is the exact opposite of preventing anyone from editing. OK, now show me where I've said Amedea should not edit particular articles! I have correctly stated COI all along. I would appreciate you correct those assertion above with your findings. Pointing out that sources are the solution is not disruption but crucial for notability, pertinent to nomination. As for WP:AGF, my imprecise language has drawn your comment, no need to question my grasp thank you. Widefox (talk) 04:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have no idea if Mr. Rawland’s article has the proverbial snowball’s chance. I’m still murky on Wikipedia protocols, although I do have a different approach I'd like to try.

But apart from all that, this essentially became a real life experiment on dealing with cyber-bullying.

There’s a real concern about the ability of an anonymous user to impugn a professional reputation, even in an international setting. Some of my colleague’s are involved in the fight over cyber-bullying, and were following as this played out. After all, clean outcomes are scarce. As tags were flying, this became a chance to test technique.

So my colleagues have been watching as I was painted increasingly as a self-serving climber. Not the most comfortable feeling. Perhaps the single weirdest move was when the discussion history was altered on the article page, removing my requests for guidance. Now, I have no idea what’s allowable in the Wikipedia world, but for an outsider that was pretty unsettling.

Some of the private advice was for me to tuck and run, but that didn’t seem quite decent. Basically I tried textbook technique in the cyber-world. Instead of an exhausting mess, the whole thing deflated pretty quickly. Now we can get back to the boring work of seeing if Mr. Rawland’s article fits.

RJC, as soon as it was clear that a line had been crossed, you asserted yourself promptly. That was clean and clear, very well handled.

Ariconte, thank you for stepping forward. You were experimenting and problem-solving in an unpleasant atmosphere. That takes nerve, and few people would have done it. Perhaps we’ll sort out that article yet.

Meanwhile it's been a terrific learning experience. Thank you. Let’s see about getting some good from all this. Amedea (talk) 18:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations from Amedea noted at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard . No advancement of secondary sources to establish notability WP:DEADHORSE. Widefox (talk) 01:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, back to secondary sources.

Please to to Amazon.com and find Going Home without Going Crazy, from New Harbinger Publications. Use the Look inside feature to bring up pages 32 & 33. There's the conflict continuum. At the bottom of page 33 it's sourced to Conflict Unraveled.

Looking over the guidelines, I believe this meets the definition of a secondary source from an established publisher. The guidelines don't mention different authors, but specify sequential use.

Since New Harbinger saw fit to bring this model to their audience as well, I believe this meets the standard for notability. On page 2 you can see that an editor approached me with the commission.

I believe this covers the deletion concerns. Please let me know if this works. Amedea (talk) 00:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not enough for a book to have been cited somewhere. The relevant guidelines for Conflict Unraveled are WP:BOOK and WP:GNG. Citations count as trivial or incidental coverage. It was my impression that the article was moving in a different direction. The specific theory of conflict continuum in Conflict Unraveled fails our notability criteria. An article on conflict continuum theories is unlikely to be notable, but has a higher chance. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 00:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I thought we'd agreed that the article would involve other models. A termination point was that Mr. Rawland's existing article had no source that met Wikipedia guidelines. Elise Boulding has a conflict continuum, and she has a biographical Wikipedia article. J. W. Keltner has a continuum, briefly described here: http://www.cios.org/encyclopedia/conflict/BKeyelements2_interdependence.htm . Christopher Moore also has a continuum. Boudling's work is used in peace studies, both Keltner & Moore's models are focused on mediation. Amedea (talk) 23:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the same. That's why I was surprised to see a remark that Conflict Unraveled had been cited somewhere. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 02:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The difficulty of online communication. Let's try it again; still not sure if the plan meets Wiki guidelines.

The article would be about several continuum models. Bound to find online sources for at least Boudling and Keltner.

However, the sections from Mr. Rawland's original article need an online source. Conflict Unraveled is out. However, the same full continuum is laid out in Going Home w/o Going Crazy, pages 32 & 33. Page 33 shows the source as Conflict Unraveled, which makes the Going Home book a secondary source. I think that meets the guidelines, but even the guidelines say it gets confusing.

Going Home is from New Harbinger, an established press, and the pages are viewable on Amazon.

Meanwhile, is there some other completely separate topic that would disqualify the article? BTW, I have no intention of making direct changes, and would only write under the supervision of an editor. I want to stay far away from any question of conflict of interest. Amedea (talk) 20:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.