Talk:Autarchy

This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Disambiguation This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

This statement is wrong:

Autarchy should not be confused with "autarky", which is a closed economic system centered on self-sufficiency.

Autarchy is Autarky, I believe the difference in spelling is a contrast between Britsh English and American English. Here's a British website that agrees... --JDnCoke 17:46, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, I believe the original statement was correct. The OED gives no suggestion that the term "autarky" is confined to the US, it has been in use in the UK over 3 centuries. However, confusingly, "autarchy" is listed as an alternative spelling for "autarky". Unless there are any objections I will remove all mention of the UK/US distinction from this pair of pages. Bosmon 23:33, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I listed a source to the contrary, personally I have never come across the word Autarky until recently, I'll have to fish out a British Dictionary sometime but I'm very sure that the words are different. --JDnCoke 16:29, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. For me too this is the first time I have encountered 'autarky'. Matthew 13:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a well-respected British source, The Economist, defining "Autarky" in economic terms: [1]. Here is another well-respected source defining "Autarchy" in political terms: [2]. <nowiki></nowiki>&mdash;[[User:Thames|thames]] 15:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not too convinced that The Economist should be held up as an example of typical British usage, given that about half of its readership is in the US. A good example of why not to would be The Economist's use of double inverted commas for speech - conventional British use is to use single inverted commas. I'll consult Fowler's Guide to Modern English Usage when I get chance to and see what that says on the matter of 'autarchy'/'autarky'. Matthew 13:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]