Talk:Polycentric law

message: "Restitution Transfer and Recoupment" sounds a lot like revival of weregild though I don't know how to mention that seamlessly into the article. Nagelfar (talk) 02:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Weregild means treating murder as a tort; it is an instance of the general idea of preferring restitution (which benefits the plaintiff) to punishment (which is costly to almost everyone).  RTR is a business model built on that background.  It could function with respect to other compensable crimes even if murder were excluded.  —Tamfang (talk) 22:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  RTR 

message: Carol Moore disappoints me by deleting an entire discussion on the grounds that her opponent has been banned.
Carol argues that if a source such as those cited by the banned user (The Rise and Decline of the State; The Enterprise of Law; The Market for Liberty; ) does not use the exact words polycentric law then it cannot be cited in support of a contribution to polycentric law, under the rules WP:No original research and WP:Avoid neologisms.  I wrote, "if NOR forbids otherwise relevant material that doesn't use the exact keywords, quite a lot of articles could need pruning."  If an otherwise reliable source on hypercubes does not use the word tesseract, must it be excluded from Tesseract?
Some Wikipedia articles concern concepts for which no label is universally accepted; this appears to be one.  Does The Market for Liberty (it's probably ten years since I read it) even give a name to the system it describes?
Carol wrote: "If Tamfang wants to come back and make all those arguments from scratch, he may feel free to do so."  (I also feel free to simply undo Carol's deletion, but that seems futile.)  Alas that I have not read more of the relevant literature.
I've just read WP:Avoid neologisms which is a stronger argument for deleting this article as it now stands (WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary) than for keeping related material out of it. —Tamfang (talk) 20:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly oppose the deletion of this article. This is a relatively new term that describes a long-established concept. It's not so difficult to discern whether a source is discussing polycentric law that we need precise terminological matches; if a source is talking about competing or overlapping legal systems/providers, then it is relevant to this article. the skomorokh 21:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: First, I invited people to reinitialize this if it was something really relevant. When you've seen a persistent sockpuppet keep putting up dubious things, one just stops paying attention to what whether what they have has merit unless others opine at length it does.  Wikipedia:Neologism#Articles_on_neologisms clearly states that it's ok to have an article on neologisms as long as there are reliable secondary sources, which this article has. Carol Moore 03:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The church 

message: "[The University of Helsinki (Finland) funded a "Polycentric Law" research project from 1992 to 1995, led by professor Lars D. Eriksson. Its goal was to demonstrate "the inadequacy of current legal paradigms by mapping the indeterminacies of both the modern law and the modern legal theory. It also addressed the possibility of legal and ethical alternativies to the modern legal theories" and "provided openings to polycentric legal theories both by deconstructing the idea of unity in law and re-constructing legal and ethical differences." The project hosted two international conferences. In 1998 the book Polycentricity: The Multiple Scenes of Law, edited by Ari Hirvonen, collected essays written by scholars involved with the project.]"
I find the reference to the Finnish project problematic. The project is related to the Nordic concept of "legal polycentricity" developed by the Danish professor of law Henrik Zahle years before Mr. Bell even started at law school and not to the concept of "polycentric law" as described in this article.
It is stated very clearly in the foreword of "Polycentricity: The Multiple Scenes of Law", and reading it also lead to the conclusion that the overall theme of the book is "legal polycentricity" and not "polycentric law".
On the projects "website" (reference no. 4 in the wiki-article) is also stated that "The key issues covered by the project were the ways in which legal interpretation should be understood..." - that's also the primary point of intereste in the concept of legal polycentricity.
Reading the wiki-article including the very selective and cut quoting from the Finnish project gives the impression that the project was related to or based on the ideas of libertarianism incorporated in the concept of "polycentric law", which is all wrong simply because that's not an issue in "legal polycentricity" and was not in the Finnish project.
The only English online sourch of Professor Zahle and legal polycentricity I could find was this from the University of Copenhagen upon Zahles death: http://www.ku.dk/Satsning/religion/indhold/Nyheder/henrik_zahle_tribute.htm  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.243.126.136 (talk) 13:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps it would be good to rewrite that as a last, shorter, paragraph pointing out what the Finnish project DOES do so those who may end up here will know the difference, if they actually are looking for Finnish project, or for future ref. or general encyclopedic knowledge. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Finnish Research Project 

message: : He outlines traditional customary law (also known as consuetudinary law) before the creation of states, ....
"before the creation of" is linked to State of nature, and "states" to Social rights.  But surely the point here is to deny the identification of the social contract with the state, and thus the dichotomy implied by those links! —Tamfang (talk) 21:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I deleted another questionable link other day and now this one. Article probably could be updated with new material since most written before Books.google research done. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  state of nature 

message: http://gonzagalawreview.org/2003/03/01/no-state-required-a-critical-review-of-the-polycentric-legal-order/ domain is "parked" by hover, not in use by Gonzaga. This link probably never was correct, it does not show up in the internet archive. Currently google shows a link to a PDF at one of the authors' blog, I will edit the page to link there.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.171.156.23 (talk) 21:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  dead/wrong link 

message: The majority of this page cites arguments in favor, lending proponents undue weight. Further, this is a marginal theory with little mainstream support and the most appropriate balance is to use opponents for a majority of citations. The current situation gives a false equivalence by portraying this theory as having something like 80% support, when in reality reliable sources would dispute or criticize it around 80% of the time. 173.2.236.247 (talk) 01:53, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV