Talk:Neo-medievalism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Renovation
I renovated the entire article. In the process I dropped some good material, noted here:
- According to those who use this phrase, the forces of globalization and the emergence of international institutions lend weight to this interpretation. Though a conspicuously 'medieval' order does not exist, certain political trends point toward future power fragmentations that are reminiscent of arrangements prior to the rise of the nation state. The European Union for example, has eroded the traditional concept of state sovereignty amongst its member states, which do not have exclusive, sovereign authority within their countries or over their citizens. European law, for example, regulates certain activities of national governments and individuals, but it is not ascendant over the laws of national governments. Power is dispersed between local, national and international institutions, none of which are the sole arbiter of political authority. In a neo-medieval structure the state remains strong, but it is just one of several tiers of governance. It is therefore not the sole arbiter of political authority and no single authority commands the exclusive loyalty of the individual.
The reason is there is no attribution to these views. Since the term is so "slippery" and changes so radically depending on who uses it, the only rational way to approach it is provide a name and work on whose views these are. -- Stbalbach 21:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Shaneland source
Regarding this text:
- Some theorists see the forces of globalization and the emergence of international institutions acting to restore a more "medieval" system of overlapping political authority systems. Though a conspicuously 'medieval' order does not exist, certain political trends point toward future power fragmentations that are reminiscent of arrangements prior to the rise of the nation state. The European Union, for example, has eroded the traditional concept of state sovereignty amongst its member states, which do not have exclusive, sovereign authority within their countries or over their citizens. European law regulates certain activities of national governments and individuals, but it is not ascendant over the laws of national governments. Power is dispersed between local, national and international institutions, none of which are the sole arbiter of political authority. In a neo-medieval structure the state remains strong, but it is just one of several tiers of governance. It is therefore not the sole arbiter of political authority and no single authority commands the exclusive loyalty of the individual.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.shaneland.co.uk/academic/ma/globalisationessay1.pdf|title=Globalisation and Governance, Essay One|publisher=Shaneland.co.uk|accessdate=2006-12-17}}</ref>
Couple problems:
- The source provided isn't really a source about neomedievialsm, more a general source on globalization that mentions neomedievalism.
- The source has no information on who wrote it. It's difficult to tell if this is an academic paper, a anti-globalization paper, etc.. who wrote this, what is their affiliation? When was it written? Where? Why is this paper notable, is it cited by other people? I couldn't find many references to it as being an important paper in the discourse of neomedievalism.
Basically what is written above sounds like a general description of what neomedievalism is - but its not attributed to anyone. Since neomedievalism is such a "slipper" topic with so many POV's on how to define it, we really need to cite who said it and what their POV and affiliation is, like the other authors and papers mentioned, preferably by well known and notable authors on the subject. -- Stbalbach 14:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
---
Ok thanks for citing the name Shane Martin Coughlan, as grad student. Although it is still unclear why a grad student is a notable source - indeed, the source looks self-published - where has it been published? Also, what is his point, how and why is what he says notable? He doesn't really seem to be saying anything different. The other commentators take a new tract on it, which is why they are mentioned. -- Stbalbach 16:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- Why can't we cite a masters student in international studies? His essay strikes me as better written, better organized, better argued and better sourced than a lot of the stuff produced by tenured professors. I don't see how the other commentators offer any deeper or more interesting insights. For instance, Holsinger only seems interested in taking a politically motivated swipe at neoconservatives, which is at best tangentially related to the subject of the article. If anybody should get the heave-ho from the article, it would be him. Just because Holsinger has more impressive credentials doesn't make his politicking any more interesting than Coughlan's much more neutral analysis of possible trends towards a more "medieval" system of overlapping authority systems. Casey Abell 17:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
