Talk:Synarchism

Etymology

The term synarchism derives from the [...] meaning "rule together", from the prefix [...](syn, "together, with") + ἄρχή (archê, "sovereignty, realm, magistracy") + -ισμός (-ismos, from a stem -ιζειν, -izein).

Can someone help with the Etymology section? --Loremaster (talk) 03:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems quite complete relative to other articles, which usually don't have any etymology at all. What more needs to be added?   Will Beback  talk  06:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The Greek words are missing as the two specify tags indicate. Read the last paragrah of the lead section of the Anarchism article for an example of what are aiming for. --Loremaster (talk) 16:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The emphasis on Greek words seems to me misplaced. As I understand it "synarchism" is not Greek but rather a compound word (formed in French and adopted into English) from the commonly used Greek-derived elements "syn" together, "arch" rule, and "ism" system. These elements are really part of a specialised French/English vocabulary for creating compound words, and their spelling and meaning is removed from their Greek origin, as ordinary English words are more their Germanic derivation. To include Greek script in this context seems unnecessary, pedantic, and misleading.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Well Jack, if you know better, why don't you improve the Etymology section? ;) --Loremaster (talk) 20:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, sure, I could delete everyone's work, but they would just restore it...--Jack Upland (talk) 10:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

If you make uncontroversial changes that are supported with reliable sources these changes would not be deleted. --Loremaster (talk) 17:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, perhaps. But my point is that you're barking up the wrong tree. "Synarchism" is not a Greek word. It's an obvious fact but I'm sure it's "controversial".--Jack Upland (talk) 10:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Jack, you seem confused. No one ever suggested that "synarchism" is a Greek word. The article simply use to state that the word was derived from Greek words. However, since no one was providing reliable sources for claims made in the section, I chose to delete content that seem speculative. Regardless, my point was simply that no one would delete your edits to the etymology section or any other section if they are based on reliable sources and they aren't controversial because of some political bias (such as the Lyndon LaRouche controversy). So, if you can better explain the etymology of the word "synarchism", feel free to do so. No one will stop you. --Loremaster (talk) 23:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, no, I think you're confused. The issue is simple. "Synarchy" is formed by two Greek-derived elements "syn" meaning "with" or "together" and "archy" meaning rule. It could be translated as "joint rule". That's it.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

*sigh* Fine. Jack, stop arguing with me if I am hopelessly confused and make yourself useful by editing the article, making sure to supply full citations when adding information. --Loremaster (talk) 10:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

We should indicate the context in which Thomas Morehouse first used "synarchy." As stated, the article merely states that Morehouse used "synarchy," but does no attempt at explaining. Its a bit unuseful. Joshuajohnson555 (talk) 01:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Saint-Yves

This article casts doubt on Saint-Yves' occultism but the article accept it as fact.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. --Loremaster (talk) 21:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant the article on Saint-Yves accepts it as fact.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

So what do you propose we do about it? --Loremaster (talk) 22:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

You should make add in somewhere that it is some form on controversy on the subject.MilkStraw532 (talk) 04:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Confusion

There seems to be a confusion in the article between "synarchism" meaning "joint rule" (basically a dictionary definition) and specific uses of the term (particularly by La Rouche and other conspiracy theorists). I think this should be made clearer.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:40, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. So work on it. ;) --Loremaster (talk) 18:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

IT would be a big improvement to the article, coming from someone not all that familiar with the topic.MilkStraw532 (talk) 04:46, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Occultism

I have restored the Occultism section that was recently removed as unsourced. There was a source for it. In addition, as discussed previously, Saint-Yves' article does describe him as an occultist. A lot of the claims about synarchism are strange and far-fetched, but we have to accept they are out there.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:08, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Very well; I'll edit the section to reflect the claim made in the cited source then. Winter's Tulpa (talk) 12:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!--Jack Upland (talk) 12:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Have done this now; I should note, I don't really think the book is a reliable source - it's fringe scholarship from a non-academic press. But in any case, it's the only source given. I should also note, the article on Saint-Yves himself does not source any of its occultism claims to anything besides Godwin's book. So I continue to have major reservations about this entire aspect of the topic, at least as sourced. Would have no problem if someone pulled together decent sourcing; it's interesting stuff. To my eye, the most interesting thing I found looking the topic up on Wikipedia. But it's not reliably sourced, and that's really important with fringe theories like occultism. Winter's Tulpa (talk) 12:18, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Given the nature of the "topic", many of the sources are not particularly reliable.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:52, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

That fact does not override policy on sourcing. Winter's Tulpa (talk) 23:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

The more I think about this, the more I think Godwin's book is not a reliable source and that this section should be omitted entirely. Winter's Tulpa (talk) 21:30, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Removing the section, given the lack of objection over the past week. Happy to entertain arguments for why it is a WP:RS. Winter's Tulpa (talk) 20:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC)