|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Conflict theories article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
I have changed "founder fathers" to "founding fathers"
Also should it say societies and organizations instead of organization, organization as a whole or even specifically in human behavioral context doesn't equate to a function of society, it is much too broad of a term. I think the author meant organizations - P The D
Well, regarding the organization, I think it should disclude socities but organizations (A group of persons organized for a particular purpose; an association: a benevolent organization. ), because this word might be too broa of a term but it is the right term for this topic.
Why does Conflict Theory happen in our society?
This entire article is on conflict theory in sociology except for the first sentence. So I have removed biology from the sentence and removed the Evolutionary biology category. If you think this could be a problem, then perhaps it needs a disambiguation page which can redirect people to a biology related conflict theory article. I have also remvoed the criminology category because it does not belong there. JenLouise 05:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Cuts off abruptly, someone fix that shiz Avenged Evanfold 22:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Effect of CT on Law
In a law and society class, the text said that CT explained why the poor were more likely to fall afoul of the law. Since the poor cannot afford proper legal counsel, the poor are less likely to successfully navigate the legal process and run aground. These results are not based on deliberate intent but on failures of design of the legal process. Does anyone know if this is correct? Septagram 15:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Conflict Theory School Project
|This article is currently or was the subject of an educational assignment.|
Currently, some of my classmates and I are working on a project for college called the wiki project. We have the topic of Conflict Theory. We will be making edits to work towards our project, and maintaining the site and adding the best information as possible. We hope that no one is offended or gets mad that we are working on this. We are currently just trying to make the page better by adding more information. So thank you for not deleting any of our input, and I hope we aren't causing to much of a hassle.
Mattplumb2 21:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
You're off to a decent start here. Some improvements are needed however:
- Conflict theory was not forumlated with the intent of refuting functionalism. Functionalism developed later. However you are correct that conflict theory stands in marked contrast to functionalism. Change the article to reflect this. Your link between functionalism and conflict theory is interesting, but you might want to drop the value labels. Instead point out how the role of conflict could be seen as functional if the constant production of change is good for a society. But be aware that the classical functionalists would be prone to argue that a great deal of conflict in society (particularly the type of conflicts Marx conceived of).
- Your reference to the Iraq war is fairly unclear. The conection is valid for several reasons. You should elaborate and explain how conflict theory can explain the war in Iraq. Max Weber's thoughts on the role of warfare in a capitalist society is extremely relevant. I'll find the relevant material for you.
- In the section on class you should stress that in Marx's origional conception ownership of property was the most essential determinant of the class structure; and that Weber modified this to say that property ownership was only one factor determining class structure. Power, and status were also very important. You mentioned these things already, it would just be a good idea to make it more obvious how important these things are.
- You should put more headings in to make the article easier to navigate.
Keep up the good work. You have a solid start here. --Velvet Llama 01:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that this article has no categories, See Also list or citations. This may have been vandalisim, but if not, I think it needs to be changed. Any categories that fit the article, please add them. JoefromRML (talk) 11:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
This article is very politic, and politically oriented, particularly in the section "Education". As all scientific theories, this one must have some detractors and their critics should appear to make the article neutral.
- The article doesn't need a criticism section, because 'conflict theory' does not refer to a unified theory or belief. Structural functionalism is the general alternative perspective. What is needed is a complete rewrite of the article as it gives the wrong impression entirely. The education section is completely anomalous and should be removed.--Tomsega (talk) 23:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
hard to read
Can someone edit this so that it doesn't look like it was written by someone half-asleep? The technique of "<superscript> said" is particularly annoying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 01:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
the 5 line "Another orgainzes - " tell the writer to clarify what he means by 'Another" the sentence is not clear. 22 February 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarahstudiessoci (talk • contribs) 19:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I changed the opening paragraph to read "Conflict theories are..." rather than "Conflict theory is..." IE, conflict theory isn't Marxism, Marxists aren't necessarily feminists, but Marxism is a conflict theory, and feminism is a conflict theory. Previously this distinction was somewhat lost in translation. 'Conflict theory' isn't a unified school. --Tomsega (talk) 19:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
It might seem controversial of me to remove so much information, but then for anybody with any coherent knowledge of sociology it shouldn't be controversial to say that was was here was complete gibberish. 'Conflict theory' in the sociological context refers to a plurality of theories that generally conflict with the traditional/conventional/conservative. It does not refer to a specific 'conflict theory', like 'war theory' ie. a theory of conflict. If there is some specialist piece of information to be provided, it should be given after the fundamentals and in context. Immediately discussing SIT theory at depth has no real bearing on context. As noted above, the article was giving the impression that 'conflict theory' refers to a specific ideology or belief system! A complete rewrite is necessary. As for now, the concise opening paragraph is absolutely fine.--Tomsega (talk) 23:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- Again, returned to coherent form. Conflict theory does not refer to a unified perspective. I've added a small not on this to the second paragraph. If you'd like to salvage more information from the previous version, sure, but there really isn't very much, and as I again reiterate, conflict theory does not refer to a unified manifesto or political perspective. --Tomsega (talk) 18:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sociology#.28Social.29_conflict_.28theory.29 for a potential merge to/from candidates for this article. -- 19:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Critique of Conflict Theory
Conflict theory deserves a critical examination because it is in many sense controversial. Could somebody please review the following article of mine to see if it qualifies in an 'external links' section, and please insert it there. I'm not an "authority", but per WP:ELNO #11 one can make exception to the "recognized authority" criterion according to this: The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded. If this is the case, then it needn't be written by a recognized authority. I think my article has some good points: http://home7.swipnet.se/~w-73784/brenner.htm Matswin (talk) 08:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Gumplowicz given his due
I have studied the unsung hero of social theory, the Jewish genius Gumplowicz for years, and hardly a modern soul realizes how influential he was in the "genealogy" of our various ideologies of the moment. I am pleasantly surprised Gumplowicz receives mention in this article, if somewhat tersely and briefly, as the "founder" of the "conflict theory" paradigm (Karl Marx was an intellectual pygmy compared to Gumplowicz!) and "neo-Marxist consensocracy" does not despotically reign on Wikipedia. Very encouraging. My creation of a personal account is imminent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 05:57, 28 November 2013 (UTC)