Talk:Labor

[untitled]
Argh, How many Wikipedia entries are there out there which call economic ideas they disagree with the "old-fashioned, outdated" ideas or whatever and call the economic ideas they agree with the "modern" ideas? Believe it or not, there are a lot of people nowadays who think "human capital" is a load of BS, including myself. This drives me crazy, calling your groups ideas "modern" and the oppositions the old-fogey, outdated ideas is a very sly way to slip in a POV without making it seem so -- Lancemurdoch 02:18, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[untitled]
Where is the place to discuss more fully theories relating to this, including Calvinist theology, Marxist theory and the surrealist (and other) opposition to work? --Daniel C. Boyer 21:16, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * I am not familiar with the religion or fine arts sections of WP, but if you look at Marxism you will find several related links. mydogategodshat 22:51, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Once again I am going to have to reiterate (and that surrealism could have any beliefs pertaining to work should show this) that surrealism is not a style of fine art or an artistic movement. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:28, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * I know nothing about the subject but presumably dictionary writers do
 * I think I presumably know something about it as I've been a participant in The Surrealist Movement in the United States since 1992, and have also collaborated with the Portland Surrealist Group, the GPMS, and so forth. Your definition is an attempt to redefine surrealism as it has nothing in common with the entire history of the movement from Breton's first Manifesto to the present day.  --Daniel C. Boyer 19:10, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * and the definitions that I find when I look it up go something like:
 * A 20th-century literary and artistic movement that attempts to express the workings of the subconscious and is characterized by fantastic imagery and incongruous juxtaposition of subject matter.
 * However you wish to define or re-define it, I'm sure you will find articles about it where you can explain it's attitude towards various topics. mydogategodshat 18:46, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Based on my very cursory look at the subject, it appears that we are taking about two different phenomina. Surrealist art is a style of artistic expression, while the Surrealist movement is a collective of artists with a more-or-less common political and ideological perspective. I assumed you were using the term in the former sense rather than the latter. mydogategodshat 19:34, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * But there is no "style of artistic expression" associated with surrealism; the output which can be loosely called "artistic" exhibits the greatest diversity of "style", from the paintings of Dali in his surrealist period to the surautomatism of the Romanian surrealists with their cubomanias, movement of liquid down a vertical surface works and entoptic graphomanias. When it began it was even argued that there could be no such thing as surrealist painting, and if you read the first Manifesto I would challenge you to get any impression it is an artistic movement.  Surrealism was never conceived as an artistic movement, has never functioned as an artistic movement, and has nothing in common with an artistic movement, and describing it as "a collective of artists" is inaccurate as many of those who have been active in it have not been artists at all.  --Daniel C. Boyer 19:45, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * I am no art critic, but I do have a couple of books on my shelves entitled "Surrealism" and when I look though the pics It seems to me there is a similarity between them all. I have difficulty believing that the pictures in these books were included because of the political views of the artists involved and that the artistic similarity that I think I see is just a delussion or coincidence. mydogategodshat 20:06, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Your response shows a miscomprehension of surrealism (look at this Wikipedia article) so profound it is difficult to know where to begin. As surrealism is not an artistic movement in any way whether or not you are an art critic could have no bearing on your judgment here.  (I would also be interested in knowing which books they are, to know which artists and artworks they feature.)  If you read any primary source (a good example is Breton's Manifesto of Surrealism, if you follow this link) you will be disabused of the prevalent though false notion that surrealism has something to do with art; Breton's definitions in the Manifesto do not leave any room for this.  However, neither is surrealism a political movement, or (merely) a philosophy.  --Daniel C. Boyer 15:55, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * I will defer to your expertise on this matter because this is way outside my rather limited area of expertise. mydogategodshat 03:24, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I am confused
Why was this article moved from Labour without using the move button, thus preserving its long history? This seems to make Wikipedia more American-centric without reason. D-Rock (Yell at D-Rock) 19:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to revert Labour to an older disambiguation version and redirect Labor there as existed in mid-December, if either no one objects or a consensus develops. Please comment on Talk:Labour so discussion can be centralized. D-Rock (Yell at D-Rock) 06:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * the redirection is inappropriate for the usages such as the personal name or Spanish unit of area. The two spellings have to be kept separate for this reason. Colonel Warden 05:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)