Talk:Inclosure Acts/Archive 1

spelling
Since this was an act enabled in the UK, I do think it makes much more sense to have the spelling in the English (uk) format rather than the US. At the moment Enclosure_Act redirects to here. Should be the other way round imo. --  RND    T    C   16:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Inclosure act is the proper name in all languages -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.50.20 (talk • contribs)

I agree that enclosure is the appropriate spelling. Inclosure is archaic. Moreover, the Oxford English dictionary does not have an entry for inclosure - rather it has an entry for enclosure in which it references the the word inclosure. If it is good enough for the OED, one would think that it is good enough for Wikipedia.


 * Follow the links at the bottom - e.g. http://www.ukat.org.uk/thesaurus/term.php?i=18335 - it seems both spellings were used in the UK, but the older references, i.e. from the relevant period, seem to be spelt Inclosure. --Chriswaterguy talk 01:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't Wikipedia have a policy that current versions of words should be used? We're supposed to be writing in today's English, not the english of a few 100 years ago... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquamari (talk • contribs) 20:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * If we are writing about an enclosure, we perhaps ought to spell it enc... (since this is the most common spelling), although inc... is a perfectly good alternative spelling according to the OED (much like ...ize and ...ise). However, if we are talking about specifically named acts of parliament, surely we shouldn't change the spelling. CS46 23:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. The concept of enclosure is indeed now normally spelt with an "e", and has its own article: Enclosure.  This article is not about that, it's about the Acts, which were spelt with an "I": it's a formal title.  We still talk about Magna Carta; we don't translate it into modern language and call it "Great Paper".  Richard New Forest (talk) 11:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Plural vs. Singular

 * The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The text strongly implies that there were multiple acts (repeatedly using plural etc), but the title is singular. Is there a reason for this discrepancy? -- Thin boy  00  @134, i.e. 02:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, this is right. The term is often incorrectly used in the singular, but there were many Acts, and so the subject of the article is plural.  Any other views?  Richard New Forest (talk) 11:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Requested move
Following the above points, I suggest the article title is changed from Inclosure Act to Inclosure Acts. I've entered this on WP:Requested moves. Richard New Forest (talk) 00:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Marxist interpretation
I have never understood Marxist terminology, but did Marx not consider the rural working class to be part of the proletariat?  D b f i r s   22:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If you read the text, they're talking about rural dwellers being forced into wage work within urban areas as a result of Enclosurement; thus they became *part* of the Proletariat as a result. 86.151.70.15 (talk) 11:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, they were proletariazed. The accumulation of capital from the part of the owners of the enclosured land provoked that the rest of minor land owners had to work for them. Thus the minor owners became wage-workers, separated from the means of production. --Betomg88 (talk) 12:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Neutral point of view
If there is a Marxist interpretation section, shouldn't there for the sake of neutrality also be other political perspectives included? Having the section as it is suggest that the enclosure process was entirely a bad thing, which I would suggest is just one point of view. Jules (talk) 08:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think that section does violate NPOV. There is a Marxist interpretation, and the section describes it – just as we might describe the beliefs of (let us say) cannibals, Nazis or homeopathists.  There is no reason why we can't explain an un-balanced view in a balanced way, and I think the section does that perfectly well.  Its statements are either non-controversial (eg "rural dwellers moved to cities") or are clearly labelled as what Marxists believe, without any indication of whether those beliefs are valid.


 * There are of course other political interpretations of Inclosure, and we ought to have sections for those – but for reasons of completeness, not to "counteract" this one. Richard New Forest (talk) 10:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Spelling
The full OED DOES contain an entry for "inclosure" stating it is a variant on "enclosure". However, 20th century history books in England referred to practice as "enclosure". Searching databases using "enclosure" as key seems more productive than using "inclosure". Michael P. Barnett (talk) 02:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, the name of the activity is now commonly spelt with an "E" and in fact both spellings of that are covered in the article Enclosure. This article is about the Acts, which, like most other formal and historical uses of the word, are normally spelt with an "I".  Richard New Forest (talk) 23:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Merge proposal
Just ran Google search to see if "Enclosure" brings up more references. It does. Including WP article. Why have anything here other than redirect? Michael P. Barnett (talk) 02:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Seconded. Wizzy&hellip; &#9742; 07:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Not quite clear what merge is proposed, but I presume Inclosure Acts and Enclosure.  This article (Inclosure Acts) is about the Acts passed in English law, mainly in the 18th and 19th centuries.  The other one is much broader, and is about the activity of enclosure, anywhere, at any time.  They are separate subjects, and quite correctly they have separate articles.


 * However, on consideration the material in the "Marxist interpretation" section belongs in the other article and is already dealt with there, so I have removed it from here (it is about the activity, not the Acts as such). Richard New Forest (talk) 23:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * If this stays, should there be a reference to it from Enclosure, in case someone puts in some content. From the standpoint of practical literature searching, it is a nuisance to have to go from one site to another. Keeping this "article" unmerged boosts some statistics, but a general principle in hard copy design is to maintain an optimal length for all articles, and split when needed. Michael P. Barnett (talk) 22:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * In fact there is indeed already a link from Enclosure.


 * Shouldn't we assume good faith and assume that no-one is keeping this article separate simply to "boost statistics"? (What statistics, anyway...? Why bother?)


 * As I said above, they are different subjects and belong in different articles. This one may be little more than a stub now, but I'm sure there is a great deal of material which could be included (for example, details about the various different Acts, how these were consolidated, how they stand in modern law etc).  The list of Acts (which is no doubt incomplete) is I think already too long to include in Enclosure.   Richard New Forest (talk) 00:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry. The last thing I meant to imply was bad faith. The provision of a complete list of Acts is unrealistic. There were several thousand over the years, almost all dealing with very local issues. The interpretation and comparison of the consolidating acts is quite technical and so specialized I cannot construct a scenario in which a research worker would go to WP for this instead of a specialized information source. In general, I think it better for almost empty articles to be subsumed into larger articles for the benefit of people who are searching, and who find it burdensome and confusing to yo-yo up and down trees of hyperlinks. I raised this question in connection with The Fylde. I see the counter argument -- that the provision of a heading will prompt readers to put add data. But how often does that happen. Are there statistics about number of articles that are empty or almost empty? Michael P. Barnett (talk) 00:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Effects?
It would be good to expand on the effects, if these are documented. A friend tells me that "the enclosure acts were pretty nasty but in the long run they stopped a lot of people starving." --Chriswaterguy talk 01:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

you need to add the motives for this act - was it to force people to leave the land and lose their autonomy in order to go and work in the mills for a wage — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.28.58.192 (talk) 21:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced text
Re:. Ok. But please find a source. Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:17, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Done better - added a further link to where it's described, no need to repeat it here, so I've taken it out. Actually there are whole chapters in Hoskins and in Pryor on how it all proceeded, but this isn't the place, you're right. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Inclosure Acts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20040622045916/http://www.surreycc.gov.uk:80/sccwebsite/sccwspages.nsf/LookupWebPagesByTITLE_RTF/Parliamentary+enclosure?opendocument to http://www.surreycc.gov.uk/sccwebsite/sccwspages.nsf/LookupWebPagesByTITLE_RTF/Parliamentary+enclosure?opendocument

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 09:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

NPOV 2 - The Benefits Of Dispossession
"The tenants displaced by the process often left the countryside to work in the towns. This contributed to the industrial revolution – at the very moment new technological advances required large numbers of workers, a concentration of large numbers of people in need of work had emerged; the former country tenants and their descendants became workers in industrial factories within cities.[6]" This is all a very happy clappy spin on the massive disenfranchisement of land, which led to massively overcrowded cities. An 18th century pattern that was about to be repeated in Ireland in the 19th century and Africa in the 20th century (South Africa, (Southern) Rhodesia, Kenya and more). I don't see how it is neutral point of view, to take away from this dispossession that it spurred the industrial revolution - presumably because of the large numbers of impoverished workers. Those urban masses were also an explicit argument used to justify colonialism and empire - see Cecil Rhodes as cited by Lenin.

Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism.

"   I was in the East End of London yesterday and attended a meeting of the unemployed. I listened to the wild speeches, which were just a cry for ‘bread,’ ‘bread,’ ‘bread,’ and on my way home I pondered over the scene and I became more than ever convinced of the importance of imperialism … My cherished idea is a solution for the social problem, i.e., in order to save the 40,000,000 inhabitants of the United Kingdom from a bloody civil war, we colonial statesmen must acquire new lands to settle the surplus population, to provide new markets for the goods produced by them in factories and mines. The Empire, as I have always said, is a bread and butter question. If you want to avoid civil war, you must become imperialists. (3)  " http://gowans.wordpress.com/2011/09/24/us-ambassador-echoes-cecil-rhodes/ You can easily argue that the Inclosure Acts of the 18th century led to the Apartheid era land acts which did the same thing. 83.84.100.133 (talk) 10:05, 28 October 2019 (UTC)