Talk:Ownership

message: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onnojan de jong (talk • contribs) 16:22, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why are there no comments here? 

message: The article begins with "Ownership is the state or fact of exclusive possession ..". This is still uninformative.
The state of affairs where b has twenty cents in his hand (or pocket) establishes the truth of the sentence "b has twenty cents in his hand (or pocket)". The state of affairs doesn't establish the truth of the sentence "b owns twenty cents". The relation of ownership is not observable in the state of affairs. The only observable relation in this example is that of holding.
Likewise, the state of affairs where b paid $200k and thereafter resided in the house at address establishes the truth of the sentence "b paid $200k and thereafter resided in the house at address". The state of affairs doesn't establish the truth of the sentence "b owns the house at address". The only observable relations in this example are those of paying and residing.
In the absence of a state(of affairs) or fact, I would suggest that an appropriate definition for 'ownership' is as follows: "Ownership is an ascribed or fictional relation between person(s) and object(s)".
Ash--58.84.77.227 16:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think to say that the relationship is "ascribed or fictional" is too much existentialist, even social constructionist in nature. You're describing the state of affairs of ownership too philosophically that you forget that ownership exists in  certain social arrangements. For example, ownership can mean ownership in a capitalist society where it would be defined by the law that exists in that society. The relationship then, is not ascribed or fictional but rather, legal. In other societies with different modes of production, ownership's definition will change according to social definitions. The definition is not "fictional" if people consider the relationship to be real. If we are trying to be objective, then we must try to encompass all definitions as possible and not jump to conclusions as to the definition of a term. Moonwalkerwiz 07:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Circular definition 

message: Anyone think we should do an article about ownership in computer science? For example, in C++, where memory is manually managed, you can transfer ownership of a pointer when you pass that pointer to a function or something. The constructor of std::auto_ptr transfers ownership of the pointer to the auto_ptr, which deletes the pointer when the auto_ptr goes out of scope. I don't feel confident enough about the subject material to write the article myself, though. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MisterPhyrePhox (talk • contribs) 01:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ownership in computer science 

message: It has been some years, since Honoré published his paper (1961). The effects are felt in serveral cases in the British as well as the American legal system. It has been revived by Joseph L. Sax' (Playing Darts with a Rembrandt) concerning the "right to destroy", yet it is missing from here - I am not exactly fit to write about legal intricacies in a foreign laguage, but I would appreciate, if one of you better suited to the task would endeavour in it. Yotwen (talk) 07:55, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ownership as a bundle of Rights ([[Tony Honoré]] ) 

message: I have made some structural edits that hopefully (with others' imput) will help lead to ongoing improvements/development.  The changes that I have made are:
1. Introduction of a History section.  This will enable the concept of Ownership to be contextualized.  The section contains that part of the introduction which referred to it.  Hopefully that will seed its development.
2. Moved the paragraph on philosophy from the introduction to form the introduction to the section concerning the philosophical ideas surrounding ownership.
I have also made a minor edit to allow for the inclusion of concepts of property that inculde people as this has been, and still is, a significant aspect of the development of the concept of ownership over time.  Although I have done this using aa link to Slavery, this eems inadequate, as it seems to me there is a concept of property of the other in matrimony and in "primitive" and other societies.  As I am researching this at the moment I am not in a position to extend the edit further.
I have made these edits on the understanding that wiki is not a proselytizing political document but one of record.  However I not that the Property Law refers to the development of European concepts of property alone.  If this article refers solely to the modern Western concept of property then it should be retitled to reflect this fact.
LookingGlass (talk) 15:11, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  History and Culture 

message: "Who has ownership of process?" this question gets asked in my work environment often.
If I look at the current wikipedia page, then this kind of ownership is not mentioned up to now.
(or I am blind and/or stupid).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guettli (talk • contribs) 12:19, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ownership of a process in a coperation 

message: The section on slavery currently states:
:The living human body is, in modern societies, considered something which cannot be the property of anyone but the person whose body it is.
Is the last part of this sentence actually true? I know that you cannot legally own anyone else, but do you actually, legally, own your own body?  I know a lot of people argue philosophically that you do (or should) (and derive various moral or political arguments from that axiom), but is it actually true in law?  I was under the impression that some or all legal systems don't consider you to own your body, on the grounds either that no-one can own anyone's body, and/or you are your body, rather than a separate entity that owns it. Iapetus (talk) 17:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ownership of ones own body 

message: Comprar vivienda y auto 172.58.245.152 (talk) 05:01, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ileana Ramos Mendez 

message: The redirect Ownership of articles has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.   Jay 💬 06:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Ownership of articles]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: The meaning of this word is changing in English, as companies tell employees to take "ownership" (whatever they mean by that, they tell it to me all the time), without of course implying a transfer of property. Should we reflect this in the article? 67.83.101.225 (talk) 18:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative meaning