Talk:Feudalism/Archive 1

message: Maybe I've got this wrong, but this says feudalism has more to do with military benefit than power.. this seems wrong..
: (the feudal system by with a person was born into ruling families and came to power as part of their family inheritance) (source) --Cyberman 22:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Feudalism vs. Primogeniture vs. Handing down of power

message: "Although some of her contemporaries questioned Reynolds' methodology, her thesis has received widespread support, in particular with women historians, baby boomer historians and historians not from the elite institutions, all of whom gain advantage by shaking up the status quo traditional views of feudalism." Posturing like this doesn't tell the reader what the essence of this revision actually is. "Baby-boomers" are most unexpected in an entry on Feudalism.  Wetman 07:40, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent recasting of the article, Stbalbach. Try not merely to revert other people's edits, but to improve them if you can. I shall drop this from my watchlist. Wetman 13:59, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: "Rejection" of the Term in Historiography

message: The article comes out and says "Many definitions of the term exist. In order to understand what feudalism is, a working definition is desirable. The definition described in the section What is Feudalism? is based on a narrowly-defined legal relationship... ".   This cleary implies that there are other conflicting definitions in use elsewhere.  It would be good if the article gave some mention of those other definitions. 
For example, according to the article's external link  
 http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/sbook1i.html#Feudalism
Feudalism "has had two quite distinct meanings in recent usage".  The first "refers to a social system... in which slavery is non-existent or marginal but peasants are tied to the land in some way..." and which is "probably the most important meaning in modern popular usuage [sic]."    It then gives a second definition: "[f]or most of the 20th-century, professional medievalists have given the term a quite different meaning... a system of reciprocal personal relations...".  
The current Wiki article concentrates entirely on the second meaning and does an admirable and thorough job explaining it.  But it totally ignores the first meaning, the one which "is probably the most important meaning in modern popular usage" and which I've elsewhere seen described in terms of economic systems.
I'd expect that lots of readers looking at a "Feudalism" article are more interested in "the most important meaning in modern popular usage" than they are in the meaning of interest to "professional medievalists".  I know that the first meaning is what I was hoping to find more information about.
So I'd like to ask that the article give some coverage to the first definition as well as the second one.  Certainly, it's not in the Wikipedia spirit to try to revise the first definition out of existence.  Could someone who knows more than I do about this stuff add something?
:The article in fact does provide refrences to other definitions, including the one you mention. It says:
::"A broader social definition of feudalism which includes the peasantry bonds of Manorialism is described in Feudal society.
:This is a highly contentious issue among medievalists, one of the most hotly debated issues.. it was my desire to set forth a strong and clear signal from the start of the article, that this particular article deals with one particular definition. Otherwise, as has happened in the past, the article quickly becomes a battleground and incomprehensible to the lay person, as has happened in the past. So, the two different definitions are seperated into seperate articles. The defintion provided here is the original, classic definition, it is the one most well known, and which has been around the longest, and is the most conservative and least contentious. That the most people will agree that this an acceptable definition of "Feudalism". The broader social definition of feudalism which happened in the mid-20th century with Marc Bloch is defined under the "Fedual society" article. Also please read carefully the "Historians on feudalism" section for more information. Stbalbach 05:42, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  re: definition 

message: This information looked as though it should fit under Feudal land tenure, but that redirects to Manorialism and it doesn't seem to fit: it's going under History of Scotland and expanded under Scots law, think a version belongs here? (IANAL).. 
The feudal system lingered on in Scots law on land ownership, so that a landowner still had obligations to a feudal superior including payment of feu duty. In 1974 legislation began a process of redeeming feuduties  so that most of these payments were ended, but it was only with the attention of the Scottish Parliament that a series of acts were passed, the first in 2000, for The Abolition of Feudal Tenure on November 28 2004.....dave souza 19:05, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It could be added to feudalism (examples) where other modern feudalism remnents are discussed. If the trend continues and there is enough material we could make a new page feudalism (modern) with sub-headings by country to discuss the various modern vestiges. Stbalbach 04:34, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Scottish feudal law

message: I think first solution is better because two things are not that different that we need a ‘Wikipedia:Disambiguation’ both can be mentioned here. with non-western concept headings etc.
Zain 13:36, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Better Solution?

message: Here is the copy from the section Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial under the section heading Word ownership
"A common source of obstinacy in NPOV disputes is the belief that one group "owns" a word and has sole authority to define it:
"The word sun is from the science of astronomy. Astronomers are the experts on the sun, and not one of them alive today believes the sun is Helios and his chariot."
In fact, many words have multiple meanings. And it's not just that one person sometimes uses "sun" to refer to the bright ball in the sky and sometimes the yellow circle in a child's drawing. Sometimes it means that different people mean different things when they say the same word.
Ancient Greek ideas about the sun aren't covered by any senses of the word provided in the dictionary. Neither are the traditional ideas of contemporary indigenous people. But in an encyclopedia, ideas that a lot of people believe or once believed deserve not only mention but respectful treatment. Many of these problems can be solved through what we call disambiguation."
I hope above paragraph from 'wikipedia guide' line will help a lot.
Zain 21:44, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Word default Meaning problem from wikipedia guideline

message: Revised the decline of feudalism bit, since it was about the decline of manorialism.  Someone should probably edit the discussion to smaller talk pages, but I can't remember how. JHK 19:03, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New Edits in Line with original intent of Article

message: Disambiguation is best way to deal with it. Disambiguation tells that some other people also use the same word but that usage is not accepted/ used in this article. If we don't use disambiguation all that has to incorporated in this article too!
Either that usage should be in this article Or this usage should be in any other article with disambiguation on top.
Zain 00:21, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Zain, you have been told you are incorrect by multiple people including the previous editor who has a PhD in Medieval history with a specialty in Feudalism, yet, you continue to use up our time and energy with your repeated threats to change the structure of the article to fit your POV about Pakistan and its current political climate. You have failed to support your case with authoritative sources. I have no personal interest in "debating". You are just simply wrong. Either make changes to the article and we will start the process that will be required to resolve disputes in front an arbitration committee, or please stop posturing and using up our time and move on. --Stbalbach 03:44, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To be fair, my specialty is in Carolingian political and social history -- but since we see some of the earliest examples of feudal relationships in that period ...  Thanks! JHK 05:43, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: How many times we have to go through it?

message: I reverted to avoid an edit war. Any major edits to the article, in particular ones that change the fundamental definition of Feudalism, must be discussed before they are put into the article. Id urge you to read the discussion page and the history of this article, it is a minefield and a warzone. Are you prepared? In short, this is a very complex topic, one that involves POV and a very complex subject. Please discuss your proposed changes and reasons and justifications. Thanks. Stbalbach 03:41, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I likewise "reverted to avoid an edit war." -SV|t 08:12, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stevevirtigo 

message: In casual conversation with friends and on forums, I see the term, "feudal Japan" used alot, refering to a period when a system similar to what is commonly defined as feudalism in Europe was in place. I know that this was the period when samurai were most prevalent. Before I add something to this article about this, can someone at least provide some input about this? Thanks
Blueaster 18:11, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Japan is talked about in Feudalism (examples). There is also discussion about it in this talk page. Stbalbach 18:14, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about the term, "Feudal Japan"? 

message: Anon user believes there is a "debate" between a "small minority" of Medievalists and the vast majority of scholars that the term Feudalism is applicable outside a European context. Would anon user please substantiate this claim by providing the names of scholars and books and articles or other sources that can be verified that such a debate exists. I might suggest to anon user that scholars use the term in a rhetorical sense, as a comparison to the European system, but systems outside Europe have their own names and are not called Feudalism (Japan excepted, see comments above). Indeed Feudalism is not a single thing, it is a concept made up of many sub-terms (see the Feudalism category for some of the elements that make up this "system"). None of these subarticles which make up Feudalism, such as manorialism, condemation ceremony, etc.. exist outside of a European context. The specialists in this field, who define the mainstream view, who have written about Fedualism in the past 300 years or so, do so in a European context. 
Finally I would please ask anon user to refrain from personal attack and slander and address the issue, not the person.Stbalbach 16:07, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: the vast majority of scholars use the term in the more expansive meaning and not in the limited format -- Most scholars ignore the mainstream academic historian view? Can you provide some examples? It's unclear what position your coming from—other than a very feudish one! Stbalbach 00:05, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Debate 

message: I just came upon this article and saw "Defining feudalism is difficult because there is no generally accepted agreement on what it means." This is a copout that comes across as saying "we amateur wikipedia editors aren't sure what it means yet." That's no way to start out an encyclopedia article and is embarrassing to Wikipedia. Take a stand. Go through all the sourced popular definitions and synthesize all the salient aspects into one or more (preferably one) definition(s). RJII 14:11, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a misinterpretation. It is the actual state of affairs. There is no "stand". Many academic articles start out that way when the topic requires it. Stbalbach 16:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: a copout

message: A very large number of Marxian theorists have used the term feudalism to define a distinct society based on a particular mode of surplus labor appropriation.  This use of the term is far less ambiguous than the usual "let's just define feudalism as whatever was going on in Western Europe, or particular areas of Western Europe, over a particular historical period."  This latter approach has no social scientific use.  However, the much used Marxian definition of feudalism based on a feudal class process, where direct producers are bound to the service of a specific employer (qua feudal lord), who holds a monopoly over the use of means of production in a particular sphere of work (usually a specific geographic area), is used to distinguish feudal economic structures from capitalist, communist, ancient (or petty commodity or self-employment), and slave economic structures.  There are  countless articles and texts making use of this particular definition and it would be valuable to make the definition available to students and others who use Wikipedia.  Indeed, this economic (class-based) use of the term feudalism goes back more than 150 years and continues to be used (and further developed) by post structuralist and post modernist Marxian theorists.  Indeed, I've been asked to write an article on this topic for a new encyclopedia of social sciences, yet the person who has taken ownership over this Wiki article seems to violate the spirit of this open source encyclopedia by not allowing any additions.  I made no effort to delete anything, just add to the article to make it more complete and less narrowly focused on how a subset of historians think about this term.  I'm fairly disgusted with this authoritarian approach to this article.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sgabriel (talk • contribs) .
:Have you read the article? If you had, you would have noticed that there are many many definitions of feudalism, and that Marxism is already in the article as one of those definitions - instead you added a lengthy detailed treatment of Marxism in the opening sections of the article in an attempt to make it more important than other definitions. This article has a structure and a layout. Also if you have a lengthy treatment on Marxism and feudalism I would suggest creating a new article and link to it from here with a summary. -- Stbalbach 03:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This article is more than a copout, leans toward propaganda

message: How did the tennents live? I mean there is nothing on how they live or what they did.
:This article is not about feudal society or manorialism. --Stbalbach 03:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about the tennents? 

message: I came across "What is feudalism?". To me it sounds like the amateur Wikipedia editors are saying,"We don't know anything about it either.-Yungun (Logan Samuel Fyffe)
:theres a lot of BS in it, several information that has no real purpose (such as "feudalism in history"), the text expands a rather vague, dictonary definition of feudalism, and it even gives the same explanation at least 2 times (in the beginning and then it gives it again). The examples, wich the page is supposed to give... well, they never really come, just a few "trivia" on what feudalism is. Its just sloppy.
::Since you have apparently figured out how to use the "edit this page" button, congratulations, you too are now amateur Wikipedia editors. Perhaps you would enjoy fixing the article? Or would you prefer to complain? Adam Bishop 00:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I strengthened the lead without removing any information.  --216.237.179.238 20:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What!!!!? 

message: Regarding this addition to the lead section of the article:
:Among other properties of feudalism can be counted relatively weak state power with clue role of religion and chirch in all political and private spheres.
Im not sure what is meant by "clue role", but if you would like to discuss this aspect than I suggest it be done properly in the body of the article, and not a 1-sentence in the lead section that leaves more questions than answers what it is your trying to say. There are allready a number of articles that discuss the nature of the relationship between Church and State in Medieval Europe, including Separation of church and state (medieval). This sentence also seems to imply that secular=feudal and church=non-feudal, and thats simply not the case, the Church operated with systems that were feudal-like as well. --Stbalbach 15:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems you misundestood. I agree church operated within the feudal system and itself was a massive landowner. I do not state church was non-feudal, just the opposite. Medieval Europe was devided in many small feudal entities and church (within the system) was a glue that united the system. European monarchs and kings were vassals of the Pope. Monasteries, convents etc were essential in Feudal Europe.--Nixer 15:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I found the original phrasing strange too - so much so that I deleted it because it just read like Nixer wanted to blame the church for everything.  Now that he explains, I agree that he does have a good question.  It is certainly true that the church was a major land-owner in the medieval period - indeed was still one in Italy until the late 19th C.  But I don't think it had the same "pyramid" that was characteristic of civil fudalism - other than its hierarchy.  It doesn't belong in the intro para, but I can see a case for a specific section.  --Red King 23:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also it should be mention crusades and fight against heresy along with religious orders. Because the medieval states were weak and there was no continual law even within a territory of a given state, church performed some functions of state such as helping poor people, invalides, education etc. Resigned monarchs often ended up in monasteries. All people had to  give 1/10 of their wealth to church etc....--Nixer 05:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which might all be true or at least arguable - but has it got to do with feudalism?  I think you completely overestimate the power of the church.  --Red King 20:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this all is essential for feudalism.--Nixer 18:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Church and state

message: I looked over the 27 page PDF Scottish legal document and had a hard time finding anything that talks about the origin of the word "Feudalism". It is an interesting document I will add this link to the Feudalism (examples) article. -- Stbalbach 18:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scottish legal document