Talk:Villein

Sociology Low‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Middle Ages Low‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Agriculture Low‑importance

	Agriculture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Agriculture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of agriculture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AgricultureWikipedia:WikiProject AgricultureTemplate:WikiProject AgricultureAgriculture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Classical Greece and Rome Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Discrimination Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Linguistics Low‑importance

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Psychology Low‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Economics Low‑importance

	Business and economics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

European history Low‑importance

	Europe portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Occupations (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occupations, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.OccupationsWikipedia:WikiProject OccupationsTemplate:WikiProject OccupationsOccupations articles

History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Serf[edit]

Reading Villein and Serfdom is confusing. Are they the same or different? Was a villein a step up from being a serf, or not? --Henrygb 23:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that they are different. They were certainly abolished under different statutes in England, which would presumably not have been necessary if they were the same thing. --Legis (talk - contributions) 12:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so can the difference be clarified?--Henrygb 00:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested improvement[edit]

Suggesting the following improvement to the discussion of villein as a derogatory term. I think the enclosures/class conflict needs to be acknowledged:

This linguistic association may have been exacerbated by the repeated episodes of tension or physical clashes between the villeins and landlords in Europe due to various factors including land enclosure (in England), abuse of manorial privileges,^[1] or the fluctuating costs of commuted (ie, paid-for instead of offered in person) labour in place of the labour dues commonly owed to the landlord^[2].

references </references>

Hope this is ok. If noone objects I'll go ahead. 80.229.90.65 (talk) 15:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Caliban and the Witch Women, the Body, and Primitive Accumulation (Federici). (2006). Autonomedia. pp69-72
^ English Social History A Survey of Six Centuries, Chaucer to Queen Victoria (Trevelyan). (1967). Pelican Books. pp21-24

peasant[edit]

I again object to the inclusion of the term 'peasant' in this article which is misleading because it is now regarded as perjorative and furthermore, and more importantly because there has never been a class of person (at least in England) called 'peasant'. The social strata of persons in Mediaeval England was complex and not simply a two-tier us-and-them Lord and Peasant culture. That is a gross oversimplification.

In settlements there were freemen/sokemen, villeins, bordars, cottars, slaves, and lords and other classifications of person. Their relationship was complex and not a matter of a division into two. The bordar did not belong to the same class as the slave or the lord. "Bordar" was his social class. There was never a social class termed 'peasant'. The villein was inferior to the lord and the lord was inferior to the king. Each had his own class. The term 'peasant' is not used in Domesday to refer to persons or in any other contemporary Mediaeval document that I have seen. There was clearly no need for such a term and it would carry no meaning for that culture.

It seems to me that the use of the term 'peasant' dates back only to the Victorian period in England. A time when the social stratum of society had become very polarised and so this oversimplfied and patronising way of referring to Mediaeval men and women seemed appropriate to those in the educated elite.

It should also be said that these very same Victorians were very fond of referring to black Africans as 'savages'. I think most people would agree that this is also a perjorative and patronising term, though I daresay that the average Victorian would also deny that any offence was ever intended.

I am not going to engage in a war over this term with the person who reversed my changes. If you - whoever you are - would like to do some original research, rather than quoting from books you might find that you will learn a lot more about the men and women - yes the MEN and WOMEN that you insult with the term. John2o2o2o (talk) 09:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@John2o2o2o: You are incorrect on a number of things.

Firstly, "peasant" is widely used in the socio-economic historigraphy of medieval England. Here's an example of it being used by a reliable source in the context of "villein": J. Raftis (18 November 1996). Peasant Economic Development within the English Manorial System. McGill-Queen's Press - MQUP. p. 126. ISBN 978-0-7735-6599-9.. As explained, below, we follow usage in reliable sources.

Secondly, your personal subjective objection to "peasant" as pejorative is irrelevant to Wikipedia. We only follow usage in reliable sources, whether we like them or not. See WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. As illustrated by the link to Raftis' book, it is used in reliable sources. In any case, your personal objection to the word is... personal. You seem to assume that everyone sees it the same way as you do. They don't. I, for instance, don't find it the least bit pejorative. One of the reasons why we don't follow those sort of personal preferences is that everyone perceives things differently.

Thirdly, "If you - whoever you are - would like to do some original research, rather than quoting from books...". No, sorry, that is not how Wikipedia works. We are specifically prohibited from conducting original research. Articles should be based on published reliable sources. This is explained here: WP:No original research.

I hope this clarifies how Wikipedia operates. If you are still unclear, please let me know. DeCausa (talk) 10:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Look. Leave me alone. I do not need a lecture from you or from anyone else. It was once a widely held view that the earth was flat. We know better now. If preconceived ideas and 'sacred cows' are not challenged then we do not progress. I am a very experienced historical researcher. I find the term 'peasant' very offensive. You disagree. We must therefore agree to differ on this point. I think Wikipedia should be about open discussion. That is what the discussion page is for. It should not be about shutting people up who you disagree with. If the debate becomes heated sometimes so be it. John2o2o2o (talk) 09:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who's shutting who up? You raised a point; I answered it based on Wikipedia policy. That is "open discussion" and "that is what the discussion page is for." It's not my fault you don't like Wikipedia policies. DeCausa (talk) 10:12, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I do not need a lecture from you or from anyone else.

I have raised what I believe very strongly to be a legitimate objection to a term, which I, despite spending probably thousands of hours researching individuals and families in England, have never once, NEVER EVEN ONCE seen applied to any individual of any social class, in any context, in ANY contemporary (ie, made at the time) document in England.

Indeed, I have never seen the term ever applied even in contemporary historical publications. From this I assert once again that it is a creation primarily - in England at least - of Victorian and post Victorian scholars who seem to regard farmworkers as little more than dumb impotent animals. There are people. PEOPLE. A freeman is a free man in the context of his time. There is no other word that is apporopriate. And I find the application of this false term to these people, my ancestors and probably also yours as an insult.

If you would like to give me a time at when in England this term was actually used and when it's use was legally discontinued I would be interested to hear it. Farmworkers (to use a modern term) were referred to as far back as the 16th century as labourers or agricultural labourers. They were never never referred to as 'peasants' and I very much doubt that even they were ever referred to (in England at least) with any other term than labourer!

I hope that I have made my feelings plain on this matter. I do not want to discuss it further. Sir! John2o2o2o (talk) 15:41, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Caliban and the Witch Women, the Body, and Primitive Accumulation (Federici). (2006). Autonomedia. pp69-72

[2] English Social History A Survey of Six Centuries, Chaucer to Queen Victoria (Trevelyan). (1967). Pelican Books. pp21-24

[1]

[2]