Talk:Nationalization

message: *1982. "The Paris business of M&A advisory firm Rothschild was nationalized and renamed by the socialist government." was changed to "1982. The Paris business of M&A advisory firm Rothschild was nationalized and renamed."--Jerryseinfeld 01:41, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: François Mitterrand's Parti Socialiste was      social democratic; social democracy is quite far removed from the popular view of "socialism". -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 01:46, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But by their name they don't claim to be social democratic, but rather socialist, n'est-ce pas?   Rlquall 12:02, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: The two links point to the same article. I removed the redundant link. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 01:46, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: POV removals

message: Privatization has a section of Arguments For and Against so its only natural that this article should too.
I second that notion.  Otherwise the site will appear biased.
I support this notion.
IceDragon64 (talk) 21:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at public ownership. G-Man ? 23:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Arguments For and Against

message: The article on Socialization is disambiguating to this article: "[..]socialization can refer to nationalization in political science". This is not entirely true. Some people may think that they are synonyms, but many others do not. Please see Talk:Socialization. It should be fixed in some way. Kricke 02:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Socialization vs. Nationalization

message: I'm no expert, but I was always under the impression that Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Sally Mae (sp?) were originally nationalised and still are under some sort of government guarantee.  Maybe a more learned person could add these if I'm right?BaseTurnComplete 19:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: US: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

message: i cant add it on because i am not in the know so would somebody add the nationalization of canada's central bank by william lyon mackenzie king former prime minister (1938)
thanks, mister befuddled  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dellaim (talk • contribs) 11:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:   Talk: please add nationalization of canadas cental bank 

message: The British company Anglo-Indonesia was nationalised by the Indonesian government in the (60's?) as part of a government take-over of foreign companies in Indonesia.  Don't know any more than that.
IceDragon64 (talk) 21:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Anglo- Indonesia

message: Please ADD
In the early 1960s the government nationalized much of the industrial, financial, and commercial sectors of the economy.
(Anthony Kamel (talk) 15:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Egypt 

message: It is a very long run-on sentence that I can't understand. Can it be straightened out? 209.181.58.51 (talk) 13:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Attempted to clean it up a bit. 68.79.115.106 (talk) 02:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russia 1998 

message: Qantas wasn't nationalised. In 1947 the government, a minor shareholder already, bought out the others at an agreed price. Grassynoel (talk) 06:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  2.1 Australia 

message: Is the socialism side bar necesary?  The New Labour government (who dropped clause 4 in 1994, thus sort of renouncing socialism) have nationalised British Energy, Northern Rock and part of Bradford & Bingley.  Even the ultra right wing US government are nationalising financial institutions left, right and centre.
Also note, the spelling of Nationalisation is with an 'S'.  I have even checked a concise Oxford English Dictionary and can find no mention of any alternative spelling.Mtaylor848 (talk) 19:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Socialism and Nationalization are not interchangeable terms, and as such, the sidebar is misleading, and does not represent a neutral POV. It ought to be up for consideration as to whether Nationalization belongs in the 'Related Topics' section of the sidebar. Considering the other topics in that section, putting Nationalization there seems a little out of place. Note that the sidebar is not placed in the pages of the other related topics. On an semi-related note, the inclusion of Left-wing politics in that section also does not represent a neutral POV.--Kronak (talk) 15:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Re the spelling: words such as nationalise, organise, realise etc are generally spelt with a Z in the US and with an S in the UK.  Collins Concise Dictionary says both are acceptable but lists the Z spelling first in each case.  MFlet1 (talk) 20:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Socialism? 

message: The US government taking control of airport security doesn't seem like nationalization. It is more like that they just kicked the companies performing security operations out of the airports. They didn't really take any ownership in those companies. --Melab±1 ☎ 21:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Nationalization" of airport security doesn't fit 

message: Nationalisation is simply the British spelling. Oddly enough, "mispelt" (sic) is a misspelling! 203.13.3.92 (talk) 21:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Mispelt the title - Nationalisation 

message: The list for the United Kingdom has "1933 London Transport"; I believe that whilst London Transport was formed in 1933 (London Passenger Transport Act 1933), it was not nationalised until 1948; if it had already been state owned, it would not have been mentioned in either the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act 1939 as an organisation to be placed under Government control. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  London Transport 

message: Can anybody help? I heard that at one point a cartel of landlords bumped up rents in Singapore until the government stepped in and nationalised their flats. Out-of-character for a country where a large portion of the economy was privately owned. Anybody got info on this? Zagubov (talk) 15:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Singapore 

message: Some of the Cold War soviet satellites and aligned states are missing. :File:Sino-Soviet split 1980.svg. Espicially the european ones. Alinor (talk) 14:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  missing nationalizations - communist states in 20th century 

message: This statement does not look true to me. As far as I know from the history of this country, one was not allowed to own "means of production", but, surely, there was private ownership for food, clothes, houses, apartments (cooperative apartments) and any other kinds of personal things, as well as money. The state, on the other hand, owned plants, factories, hospitals, educational institutions, etc. 178.176.48.255 (talk) 02:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The Soviets distinguished between "private property" (i.e. the means of production) and "personal property". Also, personal property was limited to some extent - for instance, land was never technically bought or sold, at most the state would issue leases for a piece of property.108.3.147.98 (talk) 00:47, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soviet Union, no private ownership was allowed 

message: Spanish telecommunication company Telefonica was nationalized from American ITT in 1945. This is reference--http://www.fundacion.telefonica.com/es/arteytecnologia/museo/nave/nave/sup/20/hechos/43.htm  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.47.192.163 (talk) 19:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  TELEFONICA 

message: Emminent Domain is the American form of expropriation. The suggestion that expropriation involves nationalization without compensation would appear to be inaccurate. If this  article is within the scope of socialism, as stated, then expropriation is not appropriately discussed, as capitalism can lead to rationales for expropriation as well. At the outside, one might wonder if nationalization is more term of substance or rhetorical polemic. Emminent Domain article lists other countries providing for similar legal actions.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.100.28.63 (talk) 05:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Where are you from? You are obviously ignorant of the US constitution and Bill of Rights, Amendment 5 of which states "... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Thus, eminent domain, for which just compensation is given, is not "the American form of expropriation." The eminent domain article conflates at least three or four different international concepts, and should be split out, not merged. And your snarky reference to capitalism is out of line; such decisions are made by government bodies (after public due process), not by business interests. JustinTime55 (talk) 19:28, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion of Expropriation is Inappropriate from US Perspective 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Nationalization. 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/20100825184852/http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl2525/stories/20081219252504800.htm to http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl2525/stories/20081219252504800.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:05, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I think it might be undue to include China's claim about their SOEs. This article isn't even about China in particular, and that just happened to be an example. Benjamin (talk) 04:32, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  undue 

message: — Assignment last updated by Rt2510 (talk) 20:12, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - FA22 - Sect 200 - Thu