Talk:Common ownership/Archive 1

Archive 1

Merge

Common ownership and community ownership seem to be discussing the same topic and thus should be merged. Skomorokh ^incite 07:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Common ownership has a particular meaning, in particular connected with the owership of a business enterprise by its workers, as formalised in UK legislation, which distinguish it from the broader notion of community ownership. I believe it should remain a separate article.TobyJ (talk) 16:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems an odd suggestion. Community ownership covers a multitude of things, but it's not the same as common ownership. 86.53.37.59 (talk) 15:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Common ownership and community ownership Both cover different topics, including where they originated. Community ownership can go from anything from roads to a park. Common Ownership is more socialist in connotation and meaning. Cbwcjw (talk) 17:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Removing merge tags since it's been over three years.--Banana (talk) 00:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems like the distinction between Common, Community and Public Ownership isn't clear enough in the article. Khaled Khalil (talk) 11:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

LeFevre on common ownership in ancient Egypt

The article states that "Robert LeFevre argued that collective ownership of land started to wither since the start of farming in Egypt and the Middle East."; while in fact the reference only citing Egypt on the emergence of private ownership:
p. 48 of The Philosophy of Ownership: "There is considerable evidence that when cities were first developed, and possibly before, land was privately claimed for farming purposes in Egypt and the Middle East.", and p. 51 :"In both ancient Egypt and Assyria, as well as India, Greece, and the Roman provinces, private holdings of land were respected and held safe and sacred long before governments of any kind ever pretended to defend the ownership of land.". Khaled Khalil (talk) 11:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Common ownership. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060518074013/http://www.co-opandcommunityfinance.coop/ to http://www.co-opandcommunityfinance.coop/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:58, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Making this page more general

This page should reflect a more general overview of common ownership. Currently, a significant amount of the article only has examples about the UK. Ideally, we should have further historical examples. Rosguill (talk) 08:07, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Scope

As indicated a decade ago, this article's scope is very confused. It's about common/communal/shared property and governance/ownership. It's mostly examples rather than a systematic understanding (if such a source/sociology exists?) and most of those examples are either unsourced or citing primary sources. Anything systematic that needs to be said about this concept can be done in the parent article and expand summary style. czar 18:36, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Further, I've sourced Ownership#Ownership_models from a survey of dictionaries and encyclopedias and "common ownership" isn't discussed as a singular topic in sources. If anything, it's simply used interchangeably or confused with nuances of communal/shared ownership. It would be sufficient either way to cover the topic summary style within that parent section and the existing articles. It can split out when warranted by sourcing specific to "common ownership". czar 17:09, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

• [1] @TobyJ, what reliable, secondary sources do you propose using to expand this article? czar 21:50, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I hope I have improved sourcing by citing inter alia the UK Industrial Common Ownership Act, Hansard and the Labour Party's Clause IV. However I do agree the article would benefit from a clearer structure. TobyJ (talk) 06:21, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

@TobyJ, the problem is that the UK law you added is unrelated to the existing scope of the article. That content would better fit in an article about how ownership works in the UK. This article's scope problems do not appear structural—it's more a matter of having multiple, mostly unrelated ideas each called "common ownership" but otherwise bearing no semblance. The most common use of the term, though, relates to some form of communal ownership (see the sources I linked in Ownership#Ownership_models). czar 22:08, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

@Czar:, this article is probably in need of a complete rewrite after we figure out this subject's appropriate scope. I see the the concept of "Common ownership" cited to mean various different things, ranging from communism, the concept of the commons to employee/collective ownership or even state ownership. Many secondary sources on socialism referencing "common ownership" use it as an umbrella term for non-private social ownership of the means of production. These are all distinct concepts, so it might be appropriate to change this article into a disambiguation page linking to all the common meanings for "common ownership". -Battlecry 10:12, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

@Battlecry, sounds reasonable, but what would be the dab's targets? Want to take a stab at it? From what I read (and linked), the term is most often defined as a form of communal ownership, hence why I advocated for a redirect to Ownership#Ownership_models, where the terms are already disambiguated. czar 14:30, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

@Czar: The content under the "Common ownership in capitalist economies" should be migrated to the article on cooperatives, the content under "Marxist theory" can be migrated to the Communism article. We already have a Commons (disambiguation) page, maybe we can redirect the Common ownership article to this page and expand it appropriately? -Battlecry 05:39, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

The unsourced content doesn't qualify for merge. I'm not sure where Toby's new UK law content would go, but I'd consider that his prerogative to decide where best to merge it. But the content mergers can happen independent of where the page ultimately redirects. I still think Ownership#Ownership_models makes a better (sourced) case for the different types of common ownership than we'd be able to cover at commons (disambiguation). czar 03:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Upon closer inspection, I think your suggestion might be better. We can update the Ownership#Ownership_models subsection to include common property / the commons.-Battlecry 08:37, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

As suggested, I migrated (almost all of) the UK ICO Act section to a new section on "Worker cooperative". The broader philosophical meaning of the concept should be articulated somewhere.TobyJ (talk) 22:52, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Common property (definition)

The following statement, in the second paragraph, is erroneous: "common property ... refers to assets that are completely open for access, such as a public park freely available to everyone". The statement conflates (confuses) open-access and common property. Rights in property can be held in common, e.g. by a village or cooperative, even when access to that property is exclusive to those holding the rights. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 13:54, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Government property vs. common property

In the lede section of the article a distinction is made between "collective ownership and common property", but then at the end of the paragraph a public park is cited as an example. Public parks, which are government property, are much more representative of collective ownership than they are common property. New York's Central Park, for example, cannot be an example of common property since it is collectively owned by New York City - specifically the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation. This park is not common property. I suspect many other parks are also disqualified from being considered common property either.

Additionally, the phrase "such as a public park freely available to everyone" presents a very deep predicament. Is this article about ownership or is it about availability? The title says ownership. I understand the relationship between the two, but strictly speaking the fact that a public park is "freely available" is wholly irrelevant in an article about ownership.

So that I can be constructive moreso than just criticism, two examples I can think of which are actually common property that isn't collectively owned by any government, how about a book (for example) such as Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.(many public domain books are common property) Open source software is also likely much closer to the meaning of common property than most parks. Progressingamerica (talk) 18:15, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Update: During the outbreak of COVID-19, National Parks, which are state owned property have been closed. [2] As such, parks should be listed on the State ownership page.