Talk:Panarchism

ridiculous

My god what a ridiculous idea. -

(GPdB) : I think the article panarchy should stay and be improved with clearer references to the originator of the concept (De Puydt) and with some reference to other individuals (like John Zube) who have written extensively about panarchy. We should then clarify the uses of the term panarchy in social and in ecological thinking.

Is the idea ridiculous even for cooperative anarchies?

(122.56.120.102 07:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC))(not a user; I got here from User:Carolmooredc's edit to Nonviolence): I would have thought that ~~right to leave~~ would be one of the defining characteristics of a cooperative anarchy, because preventing people from leaving would be one of the first things a leader would have to do, in order to coerce them into doing anything else.

Merging Panarchism and Panarchy

If you look at the "panarchy" article, it seems to include the "panarchism" presented here (P. E. de Puydt) as the "original definition," while including two other "modern" definitions. I simply made this article more specific to the original definition, because the first paragraph was rather unclear about this distinction. I also removed one of the links because it applied to one of the other "modern" definitions presented in the "panarchy" article.

I reverted back to my changes, with a few modifications to make this more clear. Perhaps it's time to merge the article? -RedBlade7 19:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

First, I changed title of section above to something more relevant.

Second, I understood what you were saying the second time, though it needed a reference to panarchy article.

Third, I removed the merge notation because I thought it was from the earlier attempt to merge these articles which there was a strong reaction against by me and another person on Talk:panarchy and by one person here.

Finally, I think there is good reason to keep them separate, since panarchy is a word that has been used for various purposes and panarchism is a specific philosophy. If they are merged over time the panarchism section easily could be deleted by those who do NOT like the use of the word panarchism for an anti-government philosophy which actually is popular among a lot of libertarians and anarchists. Also merging them will cause problems with panarchists who come along and see what they consider statist interpretations of panarchy which they would thence delete. So let's avoid future edit wars and NOT merge them.

Carol Moore 00:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Non-WP:RS sources

http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/anarchy-and-panarchy and http://www.ainfos.ca/sup/ainfos00311.html are not really WP:RS sources, especially since one article has no author and the other is not by anyone notable. We can always go to WP:RSN for further comment. However Journal of Libertarian Studies, written by academic types, obviously is WP:RS. Books.google and scholar.google also have some new references I'll look into when get a chance.

Meanwhile, I was just in the middle of adding this further explanation: DePuydt wrote in his 1860 article that he demanded "the absolute right to choose the political surroundings in which to live" and proposed that people register for the form of government they desired, "monarchy, or democracy, or any other" and that "Thereafter you are in no way involved with anyone else's government—no more than a Prussian subject is with Belgian authorities.”RE "dePuydt" article already named. Though the JLStudies quote even better/more WP:RS, plus secondary source. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Hearing no dissent will change soon. Looking for Found JLStudies paper with good quotes from and explanations of De Puydt's ideas. Good for panarchy article too. Soon. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Discuss expanding or delete tag

Sure, more can be written, but someone's got to do the work. Don't tag and run :-) CarolMooreDC (talk)

I don't know too much on the subject. In fact, I came here looking for information, and I know there's a lot more on it that what's here. I'd honestly love to help, but I wouldn't know what I'm doing. Zazaban (talk) 05:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

External links

Who says the article "Why I Am a Panarchist" by Michael S. Rozeff is famous? >>"Why I Am a Panarchist" Michael S. Rozeff<< gets a mere 2,170 hits with Google, the second and third hits being the Wikipedia articles Panarchism and Panarchy. The article itself is best described as an amateurish, polemic rant against state power, it doesn't go into the mechanics of panarchism in the slightest. I think it should be taken out the external links, or at the very least "famous" should be deleted.Moismyname (talk) 16:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose Panarchism be merged with Panarchy. I think the reason is fairly obvious: these are two separate articles covering the same topic. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:12, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

As I wrote above in 2007:

I think there is good reason to keep them separate, since panarchy is a word that has been used for various purposes and panarchism is a specific philosophy. If they are merged over time the panarchism section easily could be deleted by those who do NOT like the use of the word panarchism for an anti-government philosophy which actually is popular among a lot of libertarians and anarchists. Also merging them will cause problems with panarchists who come along and see what they consider statist interpretations of panarchy which they would thence delete. So let's avoid future edit wars and NOT merge them.

I've watched the articles since and off hand don't remember any problematic changes, so I think the above still applies. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:26, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary; if the two articles cover the same topic (and they do), they ought to be merged. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:41, 30 June 2014 (UTC)