Talk:Land

The controversial nature of land in economics seems to be palyed down nowadays by profession economists. I am not sure what is the exact citizendium policy in this regard. I started this stub because hiding land "under the skirt of capital" partly explains, I believe, why Western culture lost the effective awareness of the importance of environment during most of the twentieth century. -- Janos Abel 14:03, 17 June 2007 (CDT)

Property

Interesting topic. But it seems to me that "land" per se is meaningless without the notion of private property. After all, all kinds of cultures have lived on, moved through, and gained food from "land," but the notion of private property is comparatively a recent one in most areas of the world (particularly I am thinking of the Americas, Australia, and much of Africa and the Pacific). Seems as though some discussion of this is in order. Also, the article would read better if organized into longer, developed paragraphs, I feel. Good luck with this! Russell Potter 09:13, 18 June 2007 (CDT)

Thank you for this positive comment. You are absolutely right that the subject of property is a crucial adjunct to any discussion of land in the context of economics. But there is a need to distinguish property in man-made products from property claimed in nature-given resources -- i. e. between private property and public property. I suggest that among the best guides in this respect are the writings of John Locke and Thomas Paine.

I am hoping to secure some help with the further elaboration of the article.

PS. Is creating relevant "red links" encouraged or not? -- Janos Abel 09:23, 19 June 2007 (CDT)

Honestly, when I first saw this article, I thought it would be about bodies of land mass, not "property". I think the aim of this article is going in the wrong direction, and if you're going to talk about ownership and private property, it should be under "Land property" or something. There's much that can be said about the context of "Land" that is much more general than it's relation to owning it.--Robert W King 09:22, 19 June 2007 (CDT)

Good to see the reply, and comment; I'll try to answer both your questions.

There are several ways to manage this -- if you think that "Land" would benefit from having other accompanyting entries, of which it would be the "parent" (the other entries on subtopics, linked with a See Also) or a child (a main entry on Property, with "Land" or "Land property" as See Alsos) you can do that. You needn't create all the entries right away; just having them in mind, and linking to them (even if they do not exist yet) will help you, and other readers, see the overall plan and contribute most effectively. In this sense, yes, if it's part of a larger scheme or plan, consistent red-links are fine; they will become blue when the entries are written. It's also a good thing to include links to major figures or schools of thought, such as John Locke, we will surely have a page on him eventually. The only thing to bear in mind is to check and see where the name has been redlinked elsewhere, and keep the form consistent (sometimes, one finds that an article does already exist with another form of the name).

If we have "Land (property)" and "Land (geography)" that might be a sensible division -- or perhaps "Landmass" for the Geography entry?

Russell Potter 09:32, 19 June 2007 (CDT)

I can agree to a Land (property) entry and a Land (geography) entry. I think that solution is amicable. Then make Land the disambiguation page. --Robert W King 09:42, 19 June 2007 (CDT)

I agree there is a problem but would not like loose from the title the connection with economics. So how about Land (factor of production)? On a lighter note, I find here an illustration of the fact that a craftsman sees the world through his tools. Being interested in economics, I would have never thought of land meaning "land mass" :-). -- Janos Abel 11:25, 19 June 2007 (CDT)

Chicago School Reference

That reference to the Chicago school approach in the third paragraph should be explained and expanded. it actually sounds much more provocative than it really may be.

Roger Lohmann 19:25, 27 June 2008 (CDT)

Revision

I consider the original version of this article to have been logically incomplete and incoherent, and I have replaced it. I recognise that this might cause controversy, and I should be most willing to defer to a rational rebuttal Nick Gardner 21:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)