Talk:Panarchy (political philosophy)

message: I tried. :) Hope this helps.--Cuomo111 01:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  2006 discussions 

message: 1 - It avoids causing linking problems. Links to panarchy of either type from other articles will go straight to appropiate info.
2 - The article isn't really long enough to split.
3 - Naming the two variants seems very problematic. exolon 12:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasons to leave both concepts in the same article 

message: I have read and reread and rereread this article and I'm none the wiser. - ∅ (∅), 22:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What the hell is panarchy? 

message: The above poster is quite correct. The article also is self-contradictory. This is how I intend to change it soon:
**Make it clear that P. E. de Puydt originated a concept of free choice of governance/governments competing for members in the same geographical territory.  See his very clear article http://www.panarchy.org/depuydt/1860.eng.html  (I'll delete confusing verbiage.)
**Make it clear that some people have adopted this as an ISM - panarchism.
**Make it clear that other people, not being aware of de Puydt and "panarchism," then started using it as a means of describing whole systems theories.
There does not have to be a conflict between the two ideas, just an accurate, Non-POV description on how use of the word developed. Carol Moore 21:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Improving this article

message: *It is obvious there is a philosophical difference between different groups that use the phrase panarchy and that some use panarchISM as an actual philosophy.  Looking at talk above we can see they had some editing wars and may again.   
*Anarchy and anarchism are separated, even though there is a big overlap there, so that's a precedent.
*Panocracy should not be merged into either article. Frankly, considering that panocracy has NO references, for all we know this is original research by a couple of writers, something which is not supposed to be done on wikipedia.  So unless you can prove that it really is a philosophy known about in wider political circles, I agree it SHOULD be deleted.  And I don't think it should be referred to in either article if it's just one or two people's bright idea.  When and if it gets more popularity, sure.
Carol Moore 22:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Keep Panarchy and Panarchism Separate

message: Sorry I intruded on the panarchy and panarchism discussion, it seems to be a sore subject. I thought about it for a bit, and I think that there are too many embedded explanations and pointers between each. I disagree that it is obvious that there are differences between the two groups... if you could explain that here, maybe you could explain that in the article. While I understand that Anarchy and Anarchism are separated, I don't think that there is enough material here to make the distinction between a word's definition (wikipedia is not a dictionary) and a political philosophy. It comes to mind that Anarchy might be one of those articles where too many philosophers hang out and they tend to demand specific things. Interesting how their anarchy (or anarchism) works out.
On a number of other items:
*I think Pantarchy should be included as an alternate word for Panarchy, and have the Pantarchy article redirect. As it is, it says the same thing, doesn't it?
*Maybe you could rewrite the definition to read: "Panarchy", or "Pantarchy", is a specific form of governance (“archy”) that would encompass (“pan”) all others.[1]  Not to be confused with the political philosophy "Panarchism", "Panarchy" is a conceptual term which has taken several definitions since it was first coined by the Belgian political economist Paul Emile de Puydt in 1860. In the twentieth century, the term was re-coined separately (bearing some consistency with the original definition) by systems theorists to describe non-hierarchal organizing theories. However, scholars in international relations then used it to describe the notion of global governance, but this definition may be better more closely related to "Pantocracy".
*Because "De Puydt’s definition of panarchy was expanded into a political philosophy of panarchism" maybe you could clearly resolve the differences this way: 
**Make an article called "Panarchy (systems theory)" which takes that portion of the article
**Make an article called "Panarchy (international relations)" which takes that portion of the article
**Take the De Puydt portion and integrate it into the Panarchism article
**Make the Panarchy article into a redirect to Panarchism
As far as Pantocracy or Panocracy‎ go, I have come to agree that neither are fitting for Panarchy or Panarchism except as far as International relations go. I find them related instead to Direct democracy‎ (pure democracy), sociocracy, and Collectivist anarchism. I did find scholars talking about Pantocracy instead of Panocracy‎, and that is my reason for changing the verbage. ‎Jwiley80 23:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Resolving the differences between Panarchy and Panarchism

message: It looks like both Pantocracy and Panocracy will be deleted. All you changes are imposing a POV from a NON-sourced page (evidently original research) on FACTS on a Sourced page.  I have a big problem with that and intend to undo your changes, unless you or someone else can convince me these changes are NOT against the WIKI spirit.  Also note that time wise the international relations coining came BEFORE the systems theory coining as far as the references went.  If you can find sources saying it's in opposite order, do tell.
It's fun being an anarchist and creating you own reality, but not on wikipedia!!
Carol Moore 02:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV Changes from NON-sourced article must be changed

message: I added the Panarchy Etymology for multiple reasons:
1. It clarifies and reinforces the idea of multiple but similar lines of thinking about panarchy.
2. It uses quotes from academic material which (for some) upgrades the status of the conversation.
The actual quotes could be improved with citations.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulBHartzog (talk • contribs) 19:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also the second and third uses were just the ones that others had put up there, not necessarily the most important or most use ones besides the original.  Without reading or studying them, do you think that perhaps those two sections should be merged into yours listing and shortened? And/or any other important uses lengthened.  Once get your opinion will look at more closely. Carol Moore 20:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Great job! Will check out WP:V of your note soon. Carol Moore 16:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Panarchy Etymology 

message: I saw some problems with Heterarchy which just noted on web page. Collaborative innovation network and
ISO and The Cathedral and the Bazaar didn't even mention panarchy. Please feel free to fix up first article to wiki standards and specify in other two articles their relevance to panarchy. Carol Moore 15:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleted questionable See Alsos

message: Panarchy Mansion should be removed. Reading the 'about' page, this fraternity has nothing to do with panarchist theory.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.221.24 (talk) 03:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: The links to other languages are in the redirection and not in the main article. Can someone change this in WikiData? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Panarchism&redirect=no I don't know how. --Belandra (talk) 17:14, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other Languages 

message: I find the current article a bit confusing. On the one hand, there is panarchy in the sense of Holling and Gunderson, i.e., a social-ecological theory to describe how systems change across levels and scales. On the other hand, there is panarchism in the sense of Puydt, i.e., a political philosophy. Besides the name, both ideas have not much in common. My suggestion would be to use "panarchy" for the former and "panarchism" for the latter. That would mean we would need to create two separate articles. 194.62.169.86 (talk) 16:01, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Get it, but probably we should then use a disambiguity page, move this on to Panarchy (de Puydt) and make room for Panarchy (social ecology). Both terms emerged independently and have different meanings. 194.62.169.86 (talk) 15:02, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shouldn't we split this into two articles? 

message: This talk page documents years of confusion about the scope of this article. Based on the sourcing, we don't appear to have more to say about this than a dictionary definition. Does anyone have additional sources to propose to build out an article, or should it be split/redirected along the lines of what was discussed above? czar 04:05, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope