Talk:Landed property

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Economics  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

I challenge this article. It shows a strong left wing bias that makes reliance on the content frought with danger!

Neutrality of Landed Property Article[edit]

The neutrality of this article has been anonymously disputed. I have read the article and aside from the statement (without supporting references) to the Romanov led Aristocracy as being corrupt and venal I do not see an inherent leftist leaning. I would ask that those who see such a leaning please delineate the points of their objection. What may be obvious to you may not be obvious to others.

Furthermore, I would encourage anyone entering into this dialogue to register with Wikipedia so that the statements they enter are not anonymous posts thus better facilitating the dialogue. I also point out that posts can still be anonymous regarding the actual identity of the poster, while having a Wiki Identity for purposes of attribution and discussion facilitation. Thank you for participating in this dialogue. Also, you must sign the post to identify your self as the writer by including --~~~~ after your statement on the editing screen.

--Ma'ath'a'yü (aka: Proofing) 08:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)...huh?

I really miss contents in this article: traditional, communal, customary landownership in the western world or third-world-countries should be covered, too. (sorry, I only have a username in the German language wikipedia) -- 12:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the comments about missing content and bias, tho I don't know I would characterise it as left-wing. It feels more like part of an essay trying to answer a title question, a style which almost always conflicts with Wikipedia's NPOV requirement. Needs work, but from someone who knows more than I, alas. JackyR | Talk 10:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Dodgy §[edit]

By 1800, a landed aristocracy became obsolete in most places, and the separation between land ownership and public service became a reality. Capitalist enterprise increasingly created more income (and hence potential tax base) than did traditional agriculture, and professional officers in military service who had no responsibility for securing their own funds but selected through military academies that weeded out gross incompetents, and civil service that earned regular salaries proved generally more competent than those who attained such appointments in the past through family connections, and at lesser cost to the State.
Such traditional aristocracies that survived became targets for revolutionary and radical opposition as class privilege often survived without any assumption of social responsibility.

These paragraphs are certainly untrue for the UK. The decline of the landed gentry happened after WWI, although wealth in the form of stocks and shares continued for some even after the 1930s. The discharge of social responsibilities always varied with the individual, but was basically superceded by the state at various points - education in 1830s, 1870s, 1930s, hospitals at different times locally but certainly with the post-WWII NHS, and poverty relief with the welfare state. Military academies selected on basis of background, not necess competence, until well into WWI. Positions with good salaries attached were enthusiastically jobbed by people with family connections (parishes, army/navy commissions, civil service - including Samuel Pepys' entry into naval administration).

This may be an accurate description of a particular country, but in that case could someone state the country? JackyR | Talk 11:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Outside the Western world[edit]

Land ownership in some parts of the world is distinct from European land ownership traditions. For instance, in Oceania, land was generally owned by a community, not by individuals (although there are a few exceptions; there is a traditional concept of individual land ownership in parts of Vanuatu, for example). Today, native land is recognised to some extent in Australia and New Zealand, and communal land is considered inalienable in most Pacific Island countries (Fiji, Vanuatu, Niue, the Cook Islands...). When I have time to dig up some sources, I'll add a paragraph or two on these topics. Aridd (talk) 16:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Web sites of interest[edit]

I'm involved in a project documenting Irish Landed Estates. It's presented in the form of an online-database at [1]. It might be worth linking to on the main article page. It's an academic, non-commercial project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdesbonnet (talkcontribs) 18:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)