Talk:What Is Property?

Criticism section
Removed from Criticism section:
 * (please write more on "Property is Theft" and the nature of private property)

I added a paragraph about criticisms of "What is Property." Hogeye 18:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

=Merge proposal= Property is theft is a theory/statement from the book, but there are no references to a substantial following outside of the book. Therefore, it doesn't seem as if a standalone article is needed, and a "property is theft" section in this article would be sufficient --Thanatosil 14:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It's a widely known slogan. But I would agree with a merge, definitely! Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 22:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

As long as the search term "what is property" is still active, yes, merge. Exitr 18:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with this merger. I am reviving the proposal. --EmbraceParadox (talk) 14:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Right now, a google search for "property is theft" will show property is theft as the top hit, explaining the origin of the phrase. I think that's good.  A lot of people have heard "property is theft" and don't know who Proudhon is or about the existence of his book.  These probably outnumber those who know Proudhon.  These seem to me to be good reasons to keep the existing page.  Moreover, a merged version would have to give a very small place to "property is theft", probably not even a section.  Realistically, "property is theft!" is the more popular topic than What is Property?.  I'm not sure that in itself means there should be a separate article, but I think it does mean that there should be a very specific and obvious place where the slogan itself is addressed -- which might be awkward with a merge.  So -- I disagree with the merger. —Jemmytc 21:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * But the division is artificial, and contributors already were not respecting it [] []. Maybe you could give a hint as to how you would expand an article which is only about the phrase? Because as it stands, it looks like there just isn't much to say about the phrase itself. (Assuming the "criticism" section is going to be removed or significantly reduced, what's left will be really short.) --EmbraceParadox (talk) 15:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see why you assume the article needs to be expanded. There's not much to say.  Property is Theft seems to be about the same length as some other articles in Category:Political slogans. —Jemmytc 20:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

To be honest I had not read this page (What is Property?) until just now (at least in a long time). This article is the one in need of major expansion. Proudhon talks about a lot in that book. What exists is nothing like a summary of it. —Jemmytc 20:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)