From ConflictResolution:
:''NameTheConflict. If you identify what's going on, the situation quickly diffuses (sometimes). ''

Does this mean 
* ''naming the fact that '''there is a conflict''''', or
* ''identifying '''what kind of conflict''' which is obviously in progress''? 

AcknowledgeTheConflict would be the first, and even that alone is a good step towards resolution. Sometimes though there is no actual conflict, the participants being in Wiki:HeatedAgreement

Following on from that would be naming the conflict, 
* FlameWar
* BeProfessional
* MatterOfPrinciple,
* DifferenceOfOpinion 
* ReligiousWar
* LeadershipStruggle
* ForestFire
* WhatIsaTroll
* SnipingCriticism

and so on ... or even simply identifying which of the SourcesOfConflict is involved. 

:''Are these examples just SourcesOfConflict? Point being, is there a difference in definition between SourcesOfConflict and TypesOfConflict?'' -- EricScheid

At the same time there could also be ValidateTheConflict, wherein a realisation or understanding that it's "OK" for the conflict to occur -- ie. HealthyConflict. See also ValidateTheConflict

Much valuable discussion starts once participants AcknowledgeTheConflict and then ValidateTheConflict, avoiding the distraction of winning at all costs, or giving in at first resistance.

See also ConflictResolution, SourcesOfConflict

But don't NameTheFactions.


----
Contributors: EricScheid
----
[CategoryConflict]