Talk:Enclosure/Archive 3

"Your Majesty must put a stop to inclosures"
Following on from the above remarks about Orwell, the next block of text caught my eye. I don't like to tag 'failed verification' when maybe it is I who is at fault, but I can't find any of the quoted text in the source given. Would someone else check, please? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:28, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * But I did find it word for word at "11 April.Admiralty, pcl. 164, No. 26.	1219. Forestalling and Engrossing." in https://www.british-history.ac.uk/home-office-geo3/1770-2/pp473-494 (not exactly a copyvio but it should still be marked clearly as a copy. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:32, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * In a bit of simultaneous editing, I added a failed verification tag not too many lines above. Without getting completely forensic on the matter, this is (at best) evidence of some poor editing. I add that thought to previous comment from me that there is a shortage of recent works used as sources in this article - on a subject in which there has been significant (a) shifting of opinion and (b) research since these old references were written. A big rewrite, based on some recent quality sources is needed. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I note the edit turning this into a quote. However, a large quote of a primary source has a questionable place in an article. It should, at the very least, be accompanied by a properly referenced interpretation and/or context from an academic historian.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:02, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. It was a 'first aid' solution. Google search came up with a few hits on "His Majesty must put a stop to Inclosures", I'll have a look tomorrow if you don't do it first? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * some poor editing deserves applause for its impressive understatement. In my view, the article is a shitshow, and the need for a big rewrite a fair assessment. Large sections are unsourced and other parts read like they were drafted by the Cato Institute. There is one particularly glaring lacuna: Bob Allen, whom many scholars defer to or consider the leading authority. What's worse is that Mark Overton appears to be far away the most cited source, whose work (to "revive the pre-60s consensus") has been discredited, most acutely by Allen (one of the most egregious errors he draws attention to is Overton's assumption of an absolutely uniform dietary consumption per head over a period of some 300 years). Cambial foliage❧ 20:58, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Traditional English understatement. Thanks for the pointer to Bob Allen (which I had missed) - do you (or any other editors) know any other works missing from the list of useful RSs? ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 08:12, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I have spent a bit of time tidying up some of the references in this article. The article and the lede in particular, concentrate on the social consequences, rather than looking at the bigger picture and the financial reasons to support enclosure. At worst the lede could be described as a biased rant rather than a true summary. I think   a POV template should be attached?
 * I think if the article is to be improved I would suggest that the lede would be a good place to start and should include the following points:
 * A clear statement to say what the purpose of Enclosure was, other than to infer that it made lots of money for the land owners. Surely, the primary purpose of enclosure was to make more efficient use of the land stock and produce more tax revenue? This point is sort of made in the article if you look for it.
 * There is no description of how Parliamentary enclosures were regulated and managed. There is nothing about Enclosure Commissioners in the whole article for example.
 * It has been pointed out that some landowners made money out of the scheme but there is nothing about the costs of Parliamentary Enclosure to landowners. Wilfridselsey (talk) 11:29, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Not really sure of the utility of pov template here. With regard to improvement, I think we should refrain from citing half-century and 75-year-old articles when there is a large body of more recent literature on the same issues (e.g. ), that draws from a more comprehensive evidence base. This applies particularly given the general reversal of scholarly opinion in the last ~40 years. We should also be careful to distinguish between ostensible justification, actual motive, and factual effect. Cambial foliage❧ 12:06, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I rather think that you missed the point. The article concentrates on the social consequences of Enclosure to the virtual exclusion of everything else. There needs to be agreement on any structure of a rewrite. If we are just going to argue about references when the article has virtually none, seems like time to go. Wilfridselsey (talk) 14:04, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The article (as written) seems to have little understanding of agriculture. There is, for instance, no mention that enclosure of grazing land allows the occupier to improve their stock with selective breeding. This is impossible with common grazing. Agricultural reformers spent a lot of time talking about turnips - and this was a common crop in newly enclosed fields. The word "turnip" does not appear in the article. By contrast, "turnip" has 31 pages mentioned in the index of The Transformation of Rural England (Tom Williamson). The article's subject if not just social history, it is also agricultural history and landscape history. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 15:40, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The content and structure of the article should be informed by the references, as should any agreement towards those ends. I have not “argued about” references, but given my view on the relevant policy and the literature, as you did. Cambial foliage❧ 20:44, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * RE Agriculture – you are right to point out that it should be referred to in the article. Its relationship to enclosure (and whether it is of much significance) should be covered carefully. <i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i><b style="color:#218000">foliage❧</b> 22:51, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Turnip stats - just checked Overton's Agricultural Revolution in England - umpteen (too many to count easily) mentions of turnips in the index to this RS, to compare to zero in article. What else is missing? ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 08:06, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * We should also be mindful of the fact that the term is often used in the general economics & geography literature to denote privatisation of other types of assets held in common, including such things as water and the sky (yep). Parallels are drawn between the historical and current manifestations of the concept. We should also include historial enclosure in other contexts, for example Commons and Enclosure in the Colonization of North America. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i><b style="color:#218000">foliage❧</b> 08:15, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Re-write
We should also be careful to distinguish between ostensible justification, actual motive, and factual effect. Strikes me as an eminent outline for a rewrite. WP:nuke away! (I shall leave it in your capable hands as I am just a bystander who happens to have an interest because of a nearby deserted village.) --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:23, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

OK well I have made a start, based on suggestions here. I have simplified the lede. Created a definition section and also what the purpose was. With a few citations!! Wilfridselsey (talk) 12:46, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I have have updated the history section Essentially tried to give a fairly vanilla explanation of what Enclosure is about. Will start looking at the other sections now. Wilfridselsey (talk) 12:17, 3 May 2021 (UTC)


 * A thought on content: In trying to understand the subject, it would help to have a separate section explaining how the system worked before enclosure - all the various rights to land are a complex subject. Amidst all that detail, may be worth including the "fuzziness" of the pre-enclosure system: "....Many of the poor had enjoyed the commons without having any strictly legal right to do so." The Transformation of Rural England, Williamson, 2002 pg 49. From a limited reading of the subject, I feel it should be clear in the article that access to land (pre-enclosure) was (a) as a tenant of the owner or some other person who had access, (b) by virtue of owning a particular property (e.g. cottage) in the village/manor/parish. This would therefore assist in understanding the social changes and the associated protest. At present there is some (apparently) unreferenced coverage of this embedded in the the Parliamentary enclosures section, which seems an unhelpful positioning.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 13:21, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your feedback. My intention was to give the article some structure. I think that the reorganising the social consequences section will be a bit of a challenge as it is the area that has been debated by historians the most! However, I think that your suggestion to describe what it was like pre-enclosure would be useful. Thanks for the reference I will check it out.  Wilfridselsey (talk) 13:58, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Well I haven't quite wp:nuke'd it but I have tried to organise it in a more logical fashion. I have created an Social unrest section to try and separate out the opposition to Enclosure vs. what it was about. Wilfridselsey (talk) 08:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * OK. I think that the structure is more logical now. We are pretty much there on what Enclosure was?  Certainly talked a bit about Turnips and Commissioners!! Will move onto the social/ economic and unrest shortly! Wilfridselsey (talk) 12:52, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The social/ economic section was a bit of a challenge! I have tried to maintain some balance. Problem is the pro-enclosure stuff is generally written by academics and says the same thing, so pretty dry. There is a huge amount of anti-enclosure material, part of it by academics but there is a wealth of material by poets and authors, for example John Clare's "The Mores" and George Orwell. I guess one of the advantages of enclosure that is not mentioned that often, is that people who were made unemployed and homeless by enclosure ended ended up as the labour for the industrial revolution? Wilfridselsey (talk) 15:42, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

physics enclosure
isn't the physics article about the enclosures of loudspeakers more important than this one? Its certainly longer. Maybe Enclosure should redirect there instead of here?
 * This subject has been debated before - the conclusion was that this should be the main article because of the historical importance of the enclosures. Robina Fox (talk) 00:14, 26 July 2022 (UTC)