Talk:Gynarchy

further research and new direction

As more sources are found, this article may well change direction, as gynarchy may have a narrower or wider definition in the view of another scholar and maybe article merger in Wikipedia may become a good idea (it isn't yet). I did not go deeply into Google; another editor (I forgot who) said they didn't find much there. A database search in Academic Search Premier (EbscoHost) turned up only two articles and neither was on point. I searched July 7, 2012. Other databases, such as JStor, can be searched; I didn't try. Feel free. Nick Levinson (talk) 15:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IP's proposal to merge with Matriarchy

(A user at IP 71.160.93.144 has proposed that this article be merged with the matriarchy article, but has not stated a reason or linked to a discussion. I plan to link the Merge template to here. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Agree. This article is short, hasn't grown or grown much and there's no sign that it's likely to anytime soon, and topically fits. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC) (Corrected "into" to "with" in the topic/section title and the opening post: 17:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)) (The link from the article's template to here is now present. 17:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Agree. The dictionary definition is identical to "matriarchy". The usage by one anthropologist, if notable, could be mentioned either in "matriarchy" or perhaps in "matrifocality" (which it would seem to be closer to). Itsmejudith (talk) 17:50, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion: How about if we merge this into matrifocal family (which covers matrifocality)? That's consistent with the view of user Itsmejudith and solves a weight problem that I now think would arise if we merged it into matriarchy. I'll wait a week for any response; if there isn't one, that's probably what I'll do. Nick Levinson (talk) 17:51, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Nick Levinson (talk) 17:38, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

reopening

(An editor has reopened discussion. The following post is copied from my user talk page. Please reply here, not there. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Why was "Gynarchy" merged with "Matrifocal family‎" when we discussed Matrifocality in a reasonably detailed manner earlier, and everybody seemed to conclude that it was not the same as matriarchy?? -- AnonMoos (talk) 03:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The merger is not with matriarchy but with this article. It was proposed (originally with matriarchy) and discussed here and kept open for a week-plus; then, as discussed, I merged it into the matrifocal family article, not the matriarchy article. The definition of gynsarchy by Paul J. Smith is an outlier for gynarchy when compared with dictionaries but close to that of matrifocality, so the merger made sense, because it brings closely-related material into one article that's nonetheless not very long. But to put it into the matriarchy article would have caused a weight problem or a problem of irrelevance for the reason you give. And the matriarchy talk page and its archives have no discussion of matrifocality.

We can unmerge if that's how consensus goes, so please let us know what you think.

Nick Levinson (talk) 16:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC) (Corrected my link and decapitalized the title : 16:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC))[reply]

(The following two posts are copied from my talk page (ellipsis or suspension points so in original) and replied to here: Nick Levinson (talk) 17:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC))[reply]

I'm not too sure whether I understand all that, or whether it's worth trying to understand, but what I do know very clearly is that "gynarchy" is not a valid synonym for "matrifocality", and that you seem to have gone back on what you said in the previous discussion, when it was agreed that matrifocality is not the same thing as matriarchy... AnonMoos (talk) 17:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have to go now but I should be back online tomorrow or Friday. Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 17:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone is sayng that matrifocality and matriarchy are the same or nearly so. I'm not. They have different articles (matrifocal family and matriarchy). What was merged was mainly Paul Smith's definition of gynarchy, which is not the usual dictionary defintion of gynarchy. Paul Smith's definition is very close to the definition of matrifocality, as in matrifocal family. So, the content based on Paul Smith's definition was merged. Some other things were also merged, but not the dictionary definitions of gynarchy. Since the dictionary definitions were not merged, I have not gone back on a previous consensus about matriarchy or gynarchy.

I have newly clarified the matrifocal family article, to make clearer that gynarchy is not matrifocality except in how Paul J. Smith defines gynarchy. I have no idea why Paul Smith, facing the meaning for which he wanted a word, chose that word, but, since he did, we're more or less stuck with it for the meaning and history he describes. This happens every now and then with various words: someone authoritative adds a definition that others of us wish had been assigned elsewhere but wasn't. In this case, Paul Smith's meaning for gynarchy and the main meaning for matrifocality are close enough to be in the same article. If the clarification needs further development, try your hand at it or let me know so I might try again.

Nick Levinson (talk) 17:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

discussion on past merger

A discussion about the merging nearly a year ago of this article into the matrifocal family article has been newly begun as part of another discussion at Talk:Matriarchy#main definitions besides feminist. Nick Levinson (talk) 20:54, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]