Talk:Conflict escalation

Untitled

The link to Herman Kahn's escalation ladder does not work properly. 84.190.67.114 (talk) 18:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC)Sebastian84.190.67.114 (talk) 18:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Destiel552.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

This article is short on cites and long on point of view. Most of the content is not about escalation at all, and is about topics such as peacemaking and nonviolence which have their own articles. -- The Anome 07:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand most of the article. How is most of the article actually connected to conflict escalation, whatever that is? Rintrah 12:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems what is present on the page could be divided into the following areas: 1)within a military, by definition violent context; 2) not necessarily militarized setting; historically by people (citizens, whatever) politically (not that military is not by definition political, because it's very existance is political in that it helps to maintain a specific political order, i.e. particular countries/governments) Since "conflict escalation" has more than one context, I would recommend that "conflict escalation" not become a military category within wikipedia, for ex Category: Military terminology. Unless it were also labeled as non-military categories as well, such as peacemaking or nonviolence like an above person accurately describes some of the content currently there. "Conflict escalation" is not only, nor primarily a military term. Further conflict could arise labeling "conflict escalation" as merely a tactic, giving it a neutral sound. This would leave out historic examples of conflicts of the overall morality of "conflict escalation" be they in a military or non-military setting, which would be further down in a "Conflict escalation" article. 67.53.78.15 13:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Taking up arms ?

stages is perfectly normal and taught in security and police courses. there is nothing inherantly wrong in this peace

By engaging in conflict escalation only of this kind, and in particular avoiding all technological escalation, it was possible to demonstrate to those who held power that: [...]

• the group was effectively an unarmed militia that waited only for proof that violence was inevitable before taking up arms

This is totally wrong. Concepts like "taking up arms" or "violence was inevitable" have no place in practice of non-violent revolutions.

Non-violent revolutions are highly violence-proof because the government has really no power without some level of consent of the people. Its control over violent means like policy and army is constrainted in similar way, and if it tries to push them way too far, like ordering attacks on nonviolent protesters, it can lose control in the same way.

The basic theory can be found in From Dictatorship to Democracy. Documentation of this effect in practice can be found in individual Wikipedia articles.

I don't think there was a single case where "non-violent" revolution actually threatened to use violence. Taw 11:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Marine corps Manual

Escalation is a tactic, but the sxcerpt from the marine corps manual doesn't seem to be an example of this. A better example might be the U.S. strategy against japan in WWII. U.S. escelated the conflict before the war broke out and after. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Puddytang (talk • contribs) 02:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

WOW... This Article Apparently Sucks...

Put it up for merger and I don't think there would be another flag that could be put up — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.110.44.237 (talk • contribs) 09:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Preventing conflict escalation

This section is faulty and secondary. I will strive to make it less text and more links to proper pages. Rotten Venetic 18:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

More types of conflict escalation

...is how this article should be lengthened, as already suggested. Any theories and scales that fit the bill should be mentioned or referenced. Rotten Venetic 18:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Relaxed Conflict escalation, climbing up the hierarchy

I am not a native speaker, please be gentle if I don't find the matching words. I think "Conflict escalation" can be happen in a really relaxed way, too. If I speak to someone on a service hotline and I don't agree with him, then I can ask if I can talk to his boss. This can be done in a friendly and relaxed way. If I read the current wikipedia article, I get the impression that "Conflict escalation" is always combined with anger, hate and violence. Maybe there is a different word for "problem can't be solved on this hierarchy level. The problems goes up one hierarchy level", which I don't know yet?

If there is no other word for this, then you need to think about it again: About "Preventing conflict escalation": Why should it prevented? If the thing is important then the problem needs to be solved by the upper hierarchy level. This happens daily in politics. This should not be prevented. Otherwise the leaders don't know what's going on. In most companies there is a workflow for this. The problem is, that a lot of people don't know about it. They get up-set and angry, but this won't help. I think (of course non-voilent) conflict escalation is great.

The chapters of the current article:

Continuum of Force: military. Does not help in daily live.

Preventing conflict escalation: Again, non violent escalation does not need to be prevented.

Conflict Escalation Curve: Dehumanization .... again does not help in daily live.

Systems view: ... I don't get the meaning of this chapter.

Please provide some information how average people can handle conflict escalation in a relaxed non-voilent way. It already happens daily.

Related: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#Can.27t_edit_text_of_Reference_Desk_-_non-violent_conflict_escalation Guettli (talk) 07:42, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'm afraid you misunderstand the normal English usage. When you are talking to a person at a Call Desk and ask to speak to a manager, that is "escalation" (because you are asking to address the conflict at a higher level) but it is not "conflict escalation". The term "conflict escalation" is used for actions that cause a conflict to become more intense. Looie496 (talk) 14:13, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

@Loosie496 you say what I say is "escalation", not "conflict escalation". OK. I looked at the page of "escalation": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escalation I can't find a reference to my example (nonviolent escalation). Thank you for you interest in what I wrote. The page for "conflict escalation" contains information about nonviolent ways. But the heading is misleading in my eyes. The heading is "Preventing conflict escalation". I think that going the nonviolent way is just an other way of "conflict escalation". But it is still "conflict escalation". The question is "Is conflict escalation always combined with violence?". I just know the laws in Germany. If a court can't find a solution, things climb up and get handled in "higher" courts. But still no violence. But for me it is "conflict escalation".

As you said, you are not a native English speaker. I am. So you should accept what I told you unless you have evidence that it is wrong. Looie496 (talk) 12:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Catalytic escalation: Needs to be covered; would be a new section

The term "catalytic escalation" is appearing in the literature. Here are examples from the National Defense University website and the Carnegie Endowment website. An article on "conflict escalation" ought to have a section on catalytic escalation. Oaklandguy (talk) 18:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

English

The time bomb tiks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.115.87.139 (talk) 20:09, 4 March 2023 (UTC)