Talk:Precarity

Regarding Merge Proposal
My vote, for what it's worth, is NOT to merge Precariat with Precarity.

They are clearly related terms. However there is significant difference in the contexts in which these terms are most often used. The differences are not merely a matter of their parts of speech nor of nuance. One refers to a social stratum, caste or situation while the other refers to a condition (possibly transient). To say that members of a trade or profession have been driven into the precariat is vastly different than to say that they are recently experiencing precarity. JimD (talk) 22:21, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Requesting the removal of the Social Christianity Box
The existence of the Social Christianity Box on such a prominent position is extremly misleading. It suggests that - whatever Precarity might be - is a part of the Christian religion, but not in a way that it is practiced but created by it. I think to use such a box an article specifically dealing with the christion aspects of precarity would be needed. You cant add that box to the Prayer entry either as every other religion would have to have their overview present too. --Larzan (talk) 18:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Precarity
Precarity is a term used to refer to either intermittent work or, more generally, a confluence of intermittent work and precarious existence. In this latter sense, precarity is a condition of existence without predictability or security, affecting material or psychological welfare. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.136.11 (talk) 23:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Origins of the term "precarity"
The article states that the term "precarity" was first used in the year 2000, but in fact it goes back much further than that. For example, see the widely circulated article by the famous American Catholic social activist Dorothy Day, "Poverty and Precarity," published in The Catholic Worker newspaper in May 1952. The following year she wrote, "Last May I wrote an article on Poverty and Precarity, using the latter word of Fr. Crenier who spoke of the need of religious orders to embrace precarity." You can link to the original article at http://www.catholicworker.org/dorothyday/daytext.cfm?TextID=633&SearchTerm=luke,%20St.

I agree that it is useful to direct attention to Dorothy Day, but to subsume precarity discourse under "Christianity" is pretty outrageous. When Mike Davis discusses informalization or Naomi Klein discusses disaster capitalism does anybody seriously imagine that this is exclusively or primarily a "Christian topic"? None of this is to deny, obviously, that Christians with democratic-left politics are surely involved in precarity discourse or activism, but to suggest that the current formatting looks like an effort to commandeer a complex planetary social struggle under the heading of one religious viewpoint. Again, this isn't to deny the relevance of Dorothy Day, which this atheist democratic socialist found useful and was glad to find included in the entry. But the Precariat is now a term in the global struggle against neoliberalism, and to emphasize the faith of one of its sources in this way is quite misleading.


 * I think you may have had a point,w ere it not for the fact that the promotion of San Precario has very much reinforced this roviding a reference for this article. Christian aspect, whereas many other writers have preferred to use the term precarousness precisely because it is not lnked to a specific political agenda. (See Mute: The Precarious Issue).Harrypotter 13:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, I recognize the contribution you have made in pointing out the role of Dorothy Day and other Christians in the formation of this movement, but to subsume Precarity under "Christianity" is rather extraordinary. The promotion of San Precario is pretty obviously parodic, easily owing as much to prankster Situationism as to pious Catholicism.  The centrality of May Day should surely at least complicate the assurance with which you are making your claim here?  Follow the links in this entry to the actual political organizing inspired by the idea of a Revolutionary Precariat and it takes no time at all to realize that this is not a movement defined by Christianity (once again, I do not mean to suggest by this that it is anti-Christian nor that the contribution of Christianity to Precarity discourse should not be affirmed), but by the global struggle for democracy and against neoliberalism, a struggle that is not remotely subsumable under Christianity, given the role of non-Christian people of faith, the role of secular multiculture, the role of materialist socialism, and so on in these struggles.  In the past I have recommended this wikipedia entry to my students as a jumping off point for their research into Precarity, but I cannot continue to do so in good conscience so long as this entry is in its present form.  That's a real shame. -- Dale Carrico, PhD., UC Berkeley

Merger removal
This was done after a month.Harrypotter 22:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

horribly biased
this page needs a total rewrite or deletion. Benwing 06:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * howso? --Vsthesquares 16:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Commentators who offer complaints without explanations or constructive criticisms do not contribute much that is worthwhile. Precarity is an important issue, and the idea that deletion should be considered suggests to me that the complaints are probably based in someone's ideology. Richard Myers 20:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I made some edits today, covering the catholic aspects of it and generally tidying up the text a bit.Harrypotter 02:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I have also worked on it a bit, but haven't dealt much with content or substantial issues. I appreciate all who have added content. I do think there is a style issue with this article, in that (my impression) some of the original content may have been translated, or written by an ESL person, and meanings are sometimes a little difficult to ascertain with certainty. Also, many of the sentences are overly complex and much too long. But i believe this is an important article on a very important subject.


 * best wishes, Richard Myers 02:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Horribly unclear
I'm not sure whether this article is biased or not, primarily because the definition (where you can find it) is so unclear that the reader can't make heads or tails of what "precarity" is. A short sentence up front defining what precarity is, absent any post-modern jargon (i.e., "contingent," "postindustrial" or completely fabricated words such as "flexploitation"), would be a very very good start. Frankly, who cares how the term got its start if we don't know what the term means. To paraphrase Denzel Washington in Philadelphia, explain it to me like I'm an intelligent 12 year-old. Epstein&#39;s Mother 23:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Material
An anonymous editor removed a whole load of materialabout Catholicism etc.although there was auseful reference added. I am not sure if this is deliberate vandalism by some sort of orangeman or what. Substantial changes sjould be discussed on the talk page.Harrypotter 05:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Precarity is not about Christianity
The anonymous editor is me, Alex Foti, who has written extensively about precarity, most recently for the forthcoming encyclopedia on global protest. I did those changes, explicitly instructed by the euromayday mailing list, a cross-european network linking twenty cities in Europe that since 2004-5 has connected thousands of activists against precarity, in mayday demonstrations and labor actions. The information removed is not useful, in the sense that is a travesty of how Europeans understand and react against precarity. Most of all, it's completely surreal to make precarity part of the series on "Christianity", when, if anything, should be part of the "Organized Labor" series (just as IWW is). We're talking about working bodies in the postindustrial age, not tortured souls or caring nuns. If you want to add a section on precarity in the entry devoted to the catholic social doctrine entry, you're welcome to do so, but it's deceiving for english-speaking readers to tell them that précarité is about catholics and christianity, when everybody in Europe knows it's a left-wing issue: it's about social equality! Facts are facts, and the French rebellion against precarity in the spring of 2006 cannot be ascribed to anything remotely catholic or christian. And mayday and San Precario even less. I happen to know who invented the icon, and they are all professed atheists. Sincerely, and best to all wikipedia wizards, lx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.205.23.1 (talk) 10:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

hi, i agree with alex because the discussion on the phenomenon that precarity describes started in the 1970ies as it was discovered that insecure work conditions tend to rise. So arbitrary references of earlier times do not really relate to the phenomenon discussed with precarity. There was also the idea to insert Marx and Engels who talk about precarious works conditions in the Communist Manifesto, but I argued also against that because this reference is arbitrary too, and does not connect to the historical process precarity aims to describe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.177.13.177 (talk) 11:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, i forgot my name, mobbdeep, also from the euromayday network. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.177.13.177 (talk) 11:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I also think drawing a connection between catholicism and precarity is really fake and misleading. There is no such connection. It should be clear to anyone. Stop adding that fake stuff to the entry, thank you. 89.97.35.70 22:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Alex and mobbdeep, great to have your help on this page. It might be an idea if you sorted out an account to log-in with and checkout a bit more of wikipedia is about, before charging in like a bull in a china shop, albeit a bull fully instructed by some politically orientated mailing list, which has been openly chriticised for being €urocentric. You will soon learn that you will find that amongst the diversity of wikipedia editors, there are those who do not share all, or perhaps even might not share many of your political viewpoints. Mobdeeps contribution about "Marx and Engels" seems to refer to a discussion which has taken place outside of the wikipedia pages, and were this a webpage managed by those involved in that discussion, might bear some weight. However, although that is not the case, they should not be dismissed out of hand. However their suggestion that "the discussion on the phenomenon that precarity describes started in the 1970ies" removes any sense of agency, in that it is human beings who use (or more frequently don't use) the term to describe things, rather than the term having any essential meaning. We can more clearly understand this process when we consider Foti's claim that he "has written extensively about precarity, most recently for the forthcoming encyclopedia on global protest". Primarily, all this indicates not so much that he is an expert on precarity, but rather that he is skilled at using the term in a particular political context. At this stage I can't help thinking that the removal of the material which refers to Dorothy Day, herself a member of the IWW, is an attempt to reduce the page to the narrow outlook of a political sect, rather than place the term precarity in a broader context. The English term precariousness gets far more hits than precarity, but the phenomenon which cadres from €uromayday might feel they have discovered, perhaps reflects their class background rather than an objective feature of society. Rather than mounting a political campaign of vandalism, reducing the wikipedia page for precarity to a mouthpiece of €uromayday, I would suggest that Foti and co. look for ways they can make a positive contibution to wikipedia, or devote their activities to organs which can be openly seen to be their mouthpieces.


 * As regards the last comment, perhaps the contributor would prefer to explain what they mean, rather than simply issuing somewhat abrupt orders.!Harrypotter 22:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, with the definition of precarity as a historically specific phenomenon starting in the mid 197oies I do not refer to the discussion of the euromayday context, but to a sociological and politcial discussion that started a long time ago. I am more familiar with the sociological discussion and it was in the early 1980ies that insecure work conditions started to be called "precarious" (befroe there were other terms like  marginal employment etc.). This is what I am refering to as the historical context of the term, and this is a pretty broad and international one. And this is also the reason why I do not consider it useful to put either Day or Marx/Engels at the top as the inventors of the term. In fact I do not know who were the pioneers of the use of that term, but the start was somehow in the early 1980ies. But I am also not keen on moving things in and out all the time (in fact i did not change anything yet in that site), but if people here in the discussion consider it useful i could add some of the 1980ies sources. Besides that, it is always easy to charge someone else´s position as ideological or having a certain perspective...i think this will be true for all of our contributions and we should rather sort out what makes sense to be in here and what not than to blame the social or economic backgrounds of contributors, best wishes, mobb deep —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.177.26.19 (talk) 12:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be good if you could add material on how the use of the term was developed in the 1980's, but this should not mean the exclusion of positions put forward previously. Of course there is a big jump from describing working conditions a precarious, and using the notion of precarity, as distinct from precariousness. I amnot aware that Marx, or even Engels ever used the term, but it is clear that the labour activist and IWW militant Dorothy Day did use the term in the fifties,and that your suggestion that we had to wait another 30 years before the term was in use is misguided. Of course your comments about suggesting someone else is being ideological are reasonable. However when peole like Alex step in, wilfully remove material without discussion on the talk page, and explain that they are acting on behalf of a political organisation which already has a dubious reputation, then I feel clarification about how wikipedia works can be helpful. Of course, in other circumstances, unconstrained by the wikipedia commitment to civility, people might feelable to give fuller vent to they're feelings about €urocentric groups like €uromayday, but that is not something we have to dwell on here.Harrypotter 20:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to say that I am happy to see that others were baffled to find the entry for precarity to be about Christianity. I am from the United States and yet when I think of precarity I think it is the reason those French students protested a year or two ago. I thought it was about corporations taking control and keeping people desperate so that they would capitulate to any kind of control. Maybe what needs to happen is for the article to be split up. I wanted to learn more about the concept here on the wiki but found instead a bunch of Catholic stuff. Thanks. Sauda d e 7  23:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S. I don't see the problem with the Eurocentric viewpoint here. After all they are the people who have actually fought against precarity and I think that, on average, Europeans are better educated and informed than people in the U.S. (like me). I say this too because the use of the Euro sign in spelling seems to be Harrypotter's way of making some snide remark or anti-European statement, which is just sad and immature in regards to the conversation we are supposed to be having here. Sauda d e 7  23:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand thisdesire to split the material up. Check the page on Negri, which recalls his involvement with Gioventú Italiana di Azione Cattolica (GIAC) and the influence of the Catholic Worker Movement on him. And there he is, used as a source for the Precarity in Europe section. And if you read further about Mr Negri, the wikipedia page discusses the influence of the Catholic Worker Movement on him. So clearly the stuff about Dorothy Day is most relevant. Perhaps this relationship needs to be developed.
 * P.S. the use of the €uro sign in spelling is not so much a snide remark, but a reminder that this particular form of Eurocentrism is rooted in Western Europe, as evinced as much by the article on Pan-European identity as the preponderance of western Europeans invoved in €uromayday. To interpret a rejection of such pan-Europeanism as anti-European is as ill-founded as regarding anti-fascism as anti-Italian. However having personally been on the receiving end of violence used by elements of €uromayday activism against those of us of a non-european background living in Europe who dare criticise their eurocentrism, I feel that some sort of expression of concern is necessary when dealing with their political architect, Mr Foti. Yes, I find their political evolution more than sad.Harrypotter 14:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess there's this page Precarious work. Sauda d e 7  16:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you're so singleminded in your effort to offer a distorted view on precarity that i don't know what else to say. You say an entry should be unbiased, but you clearly are biased. It's not that i find offensive the supposed catholic origins of the word in English (and in English only, when here we're talking about a european concept being "imported" in the anglo-saxon world), but the fact that it should be comprised under "Christianity": come on, this is non-sense! not even the rerum novarum is under christianity!! I think Mr Potter you are going against the spirit of wikipedia of supplying grossly inaccurate information on stuff. I gather you don't like euromayday, but why should people believe that the people participating in it are devout christians? I don't get it. Of course changes should be made by anybody including maydayers if sentences are found mistaken, too enfatic, not written in proper english, incomplete and so on. But precarity is a sociological term about labor and social life embraced by the radical left in Europe today, nothing more, nothing less. If I say that euromayday people have asked me to do something about it is because they felt it was grossly misrepresented. It was left in the absurd christian form for months. But come on, you're doing a one-man battle against semantic reality. Please stop. ciao, lx 19:00, September 30, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.211.213.66 (talk) 17:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It is not a matter of being single minded, but of restoring relevant material (which has been sourced), which some people for their own reasons wish to remove. And neither is it an issue whether this or that editor has firmly held political views, but that pages should not be reduced to becoming the mouth piece of any particular view. As regards the rerum novarum, adding the Christianity template would be superfluous, as it has the Christian Democracy template. Also, we are not discussing putting the christianity template on the Euromayday page, but on this page. As for whether militants should be devout Christians, Toni Negri, one of the theorists of this concept cited in the article, has put his position very clearly:
 * There is an ancient legend that might serve to illuminate the future life of communist militancy: that of Saint Francis of Assisi. Consider his work. To denounce the poverty of the multitude he adopted that common condition and discovered there the ontological power of a new society. The communist militant does the same, identifying in the common condition of the multitude its enormous wealth.
 * As for "doing a one-man battle against semantic reality", whilst I might be the only person who has concerned themselves about ensuring that this wiki page covers the topic properly, this is by no means a one-man battle. Writers like John Holloway(Going in the Wrong Direction or Mephistopheles: Not Saint Francis of Assisi) are likewise taking a critical stance as regards this sort of politicking. And as for semantic reality, I see this more as case of resisting an attempt to impose hegemony. Harrypotter 21:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Precarity is about Labor (the initial reference to the supposed first usage of the word in English by Catholic social organizers has been preserved)
I hope unbiased observers will agree this is the best possible compromise, given the above contributor's stubborness in distorting the nature of the entry. I urge the person using the pseudonym of Harry Potter not to use wikipedia to wage her/his ideological battles, and use discussion lists and journals instead. Especially, the Christianity box was seriously misleading users about the content of the entry and has been substituted with the Labour box, whose applicability I don't think can be disputed by any reasonable observer. ciao, lx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.205.23.1 (talk) 09:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi there! Well done Harry Potter for keeping up with this lot!!! 50 points to Gryffyndor! (although i think they expelled us a few years back didn't they?)., anyway, i've reverted the unsigned vandalism and added a bit about San Precario which i will improve when i have time but i'm very busy as i only just got back from the consecration of the 3rd Bishop of Hanuato'o on Sunday!!! Paki.tv 23:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposal of a new template for leftist Christianity
Having seen the Christian Democrat template, perhaps the way forward here is to create a new template for use on such pages liberation theology, Christian communism, Christian anarchism, Christian socialism, Catholic Worker Movement, Social Gospel, Christians Against Poverty, Settlement movement, Christian Socialist Movement and Religious left along with individuals lke Dorothy Day, Toni Negri, Jane Addams etc. I feel this might help the person/people who don't know how to use the four tildes to sign there name. Christian Left redirects to the religious left and would be too closely associate with that conception. What would be a better name for such a template?Harrypotter 12:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You're out of your mind. And you won't prevail with your continuous vandalism (by the way, it is "their" and not "there"). Go ahead and try to alter Antonio Negri's entry and put it under left catholicism and see what happens... The info added on San Precario is inaccurate and clearly based on hearsay. February 29 is the day of the patron saint of precarious workers (and not of Santa Graziella's) and San Precario did not undergo a sex change with Serpica Naro, rather ChainWorkers did a hoax in 2005 during the Milano Fashion Week, by using a fictive stylist who was in fact an anagram for San Precario (the Saint's first pubblic appearance was at a Sunday supermarket opening on Feb 29, 2004). All this is however too detailed for being useful in an encyclopedic context such as this. ciao, lx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.205.23.1 (talk) 08:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * (Please learn to use the tildes) I think it is more a case that I am "out of your mind", i.e. I exist outside of the realm of the social political and moral precepts which constitute domain of the furniture of your mind. I would be grateful if you would clarify your reference to continuous vandalism. In the first place, edit contibutions constitute sporadic quanta of information, and so are better described as continual". I feel you have misread the above. Iwas suggesting we find someterm for left Christianity, which avoids the more narrow definition wqhich has emerged in north America. Whilst it is obviously necessary to locate Negri's thought within catholoicism, the phenomena of left Christianity is as rife amongst proestamts as catholics, and I am sorry if I have given the impression that that was what I had in mind.As I wandered about today I was thinking perhaps the termSocial Christianity might be more acceptable. The information about San Precario perhaps deserves it own page. Clearly it is very catholic response to the Luther Blissett, whose critical relation to catholicism I would hope is apparent.Harrypotter 21:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I have started the template. I have used the term Social Christianity for want of a better expression. Of course the templat needs more work this is just a start. San Preacio is the idle image for it imho.Harrypotter 13:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

unbelievable
The way that Harry Potter insists in manipulating this entrance in Wikipedia, "Precarity", against every single prove, argument, and data he's been given, is not only a total lack or respect against all those (several people in fact) have contributed their work and knowledge to the entrance. It constitutes, in my opinion, a very serious attempt to accomplish exactly that what he's been accusing everybody around: ideological manipulation and dangerous sectarianism.

The fact that you, Harry Potter, seem to be a full-time watchman of Wikipedia doesn't give you any right to impose your opinion against the majority of those who have contributed and/or given their opinion about how this entrance should be edited. Your insistence, based on a much bigger control of the editorial mechanisms of this site, and on a much longer dedication to guard those pages, is close to authoritarism.

Your discusion is based in a mere coincidence: the use of a word in an old christian text. The origin is respectable, of course. But every person with a clear mind could realise that the use of the term is so much different from its contemporary meaning within european movements, and wider. You accuse the rest of the contributors to want to give a "political" character to the description of the term "precarity": could i accuse you of sectarisnism and ideological reductiveness if you gave a christian approach to a Wikipedia definition of Jesus Christ or Holy Host, or whatever you call those things? Would you accept that i insisted in giving a description of the Holy Host as a nice cookie, with a technical and scientific description of its ingredients, overdetermining the entrance under the label "kitchen, cooking, and breakfast", because i wouldn't like you to imposse a too restricted, politized, chrsitian focus on the subject?

Those people, groups, collectives, movements, which have been implicated in the "invention" and developement of the concept "precarity", share as many things as they are different: grassroots unionism, anarchism, communism, anarchocomunism, tactical frivolity tactics, pinkness... frances, spain, italy, belgium, austria, united kingdom, finland... are involved in this process. Much more than that, the word "precarity" is starting to be of normal use for lots of individuals, groups, collectives, and movements, not connected at all with the EuroMayDay network. Against all that energy put into an heterogeneous, complex, political practice and discourse, in order to find a term that could make everybody share a common word beyond all differences, against all that, you, in your house, spend hours by yourself with a totally artificial, useless discussion, only good for your ego, in order to imposse what *you* think against all evidence and a lot of people`s needs. I was so sad to read smbody from the States saying he will never recommend this entrance to his students, as he used to do in the past. I felt sad and furious.

You call some of your critics "sectarians" and "ideologized". You dont know a word about consensus, you don't know how much words are important social and politically, and how useful they can or can't be. It's totally fruitless to discuss with you any more. I only wish somebody could find a solution for a situation like this. Seriously, if the entrance has to remain the way you are manipulating it, I would totally prefer that it'd be erased at all.

Good luck. Renau. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.6.171.168 (talk) 12:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Leaving aside your sotto voce insult, I find Renau's breaking of the Three reverts rule much more problematic. I am sorry if they have become upset about how this page is developing, but I would suggest that they devote a few moments to inward reflection before responding again. Renau, and maybe others (I am not sure that Renau grasps enough of how wikipedia works to create a sockpuppet, but perhaps they can forgive me if I underestimate them).


 * Firstly, I would like to sift out those elements in the abovewhich have no bearing on the issue at hand and therefore warrant no response:
 * a) I am not a "full-time watchman of Wikipedia"
 * b) I have made no contribution to the wikipedia pages on Host (Holy Communion), where there is a discussion of how different Christian sects prepare this with all manner of technical details
 * c) I do understand "how much words are important social and politically", and indeed I have already referred to the hegemonic practice as exemplified by your goal "to find a term that could make everybody share a common word beyond all differences" emphasis added.
 * Secondly to return to your more relevant albeit misguided points:
 * (i) I have not been removing material from the page, but restoring referenced material which has been removed by others. They have produced no evidence, proofs, data, nor even reasonable arguments as to why this material should be removed.
 * (ii) As I have effectively argued, citing sources, this is no mere coincidence. Alsoin the context of two thousand years of christian textual production, I would not call material produced 50 odd years ago especially old. The Catholic Worker Movement is still in existence. And evidence has been provided to show that this organisation has influenced Toni Negri. I have also furnished a quote from Negri where he advocates the imitation of Francis of Assisi. Of course, this departs from the concept of Imitatio dei promoted by the Church of Rome, but actually is more in keeping with the Lutheran concept of "Nachfolge" rather than "Nachahmung" (imitation), but holding up the non-divine character of St Francis for emulation.
 * (iii) While it is true that there is healthy ongoing discussion of precarious work eg: the Mute Precarious Reader], they precisely (and in my opinion with good reason) avoid centring their discussion on precarity, but rather state:
 * ''This Reader collects together texts on Precariousness that first appeared in Mute magazine issues 29 (January 2005) and 28 (August 2004) with writing on the politics of precarity from a number of other sources.

The intention is to present in one small volume a selection of texts which address the problems and potentials of the concept of precarious labour. This Reader reflects something of the current discussion and debate around social precariousness, precarious work, precarious life, and the struggles against this condition.''
 * As regards somebody from the states not wishing to endorse this page, I am not sure what is meant by this. S<font color="#ff001f">a<font color="#ff1000">u<font color="#ff4000">d<font color="#ff6000">a d e 7 , someone from the states who did reark on this page, said he was able to find what he wanted on precarious work which has no been put as a useful link at the top.
 * In fact, in response to unhappiness people expressed with the christianity banner, I have worked on the Social Christianity template. This is how consensus should work, find something which is an improvement, rather than simply repeating oneself. In fact it works out so that that template appears with the discussion of Crenier and Day, and the more recent developments are accompanied by Organised Labour. This seems to me to be an admirable solution.Harrypotter 23:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This is all very interesting from an intellectual point of view, and I realize that "precarity" is what the corporate interests hope to achieve and perfect to keep workers in line... But... it would be far easier to simply say that "precarity" is not a word and use real English words to describe the problem of precarious employment, living hand to mouth (idiom), being under-employed, being not gainfully employed, being (figuratively) a serf or a slave, and so forth, since "precarity" seems to overlap all of these very different things. 72.182.33.219 (talk) 19:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)Eric

your christian bottom
Harrypotter: the authoritarism with which you have impossed your manipulative distortion of the work that so many people has made to build up this page, and all the real, factual work behind it, has one simple description: you are a social christian fascist.

The simplemindness of your knickname is more than just a game: it is a proper name for a childish, whimsical, fanciful, fussy attitude which consists in imposing one's own caprices over anything else. Even when your contribution on the use of "precarity" term in social-christian movements could be of course seriously taken in count, to use that historical, nearly anecdotal fact to *impose* an overdetermination onto the *whole* page under the label "christiany" shows the enormity of your ego, and the authoritarianism and sectarianism which lies behind your pathetic false social middle-class christian commitment.

End of the discussion. Use this page to rub your bu**hole; i'm sorry, i mean your holy christian bottom.

Satanás. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.16.204.234 (talk) 07:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If you do find it necessary to place such bizarre comments on wikipedia, they should be placed upon the talk page of the person you are targetting with abuse rater than on a talk page for a specific topic.Harrypotter 20:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm interesting. First Harrypotter makes his assault on this entry including in it information that most people think it is, if not irrelevant, at least not comparable to the guidelines of the main topic. He imposes his view on the WHOLE entry. When people complaints, he invents a solution himself and he imposes himself a solution which he himself calls "exemplary". Then he asks somebody to block this page so that no other changes can be introduced "while it is under dispute". Nice behavour. Finally he asks to be respected. Well.... 161.67.177.33 16:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)Williamson161.67.177.33 16:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC).


 * Sometimes I feel like Virgil escorting Dante through the nether regions. The page has not been blocked, but semi-protected, i.e. preventing people who don't use logins, from editing the page. Anyone can choose to create an identity and manifest themselves in that region of cyberspace that go by the name of wikipedia. This is very different from blocking a page "so that no other changes can be introduced" . . . I am doing best to try and encourage the recent spate of editors from Spain, to spend a little time trying to grasp the intrecacies of wikipedia, before engaging in heated discussions. I think they might find an understanding of Charles Peirce useful as they seem to be going between Peirce's firstness, focussing on ideas, chance and possibility - tied to the pure abstraction of a quality - to secondness where brute reality creates a resistance which entails a dyadic stasis before th eruption of thirdness, the manifestation of the General Intellect as neither through themonotheistt/Monarchia of the White Guelphs nor the negritude of the multitude, but morea continuity which never comes to rest. I hope this chart is helpful:

Harrypotter 23:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh my poor know-all martyr. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.44.253.84 (talk) 00:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

200px|thumb|right|Wikiality featured in "The Wørd" section of [[The Colbert Report episode 128 on July 31, 2006.]] In a July 2006 episode of the satirical comedy The Colbert Report, Stephen Colbert announced the neologism wikiality, a portmanteau of the words Wikipedia and reality, for his segment "The Wørd." Colbert defined wikiality as "truth by consensus" (rather than fact), modeled after the approval-by-consensus format of Wikipedia. He ironically praised Wikipedia for following his philosophy of truthiness, in which intuition and consensus is a better reflection of reality than fact:

You see, any user can change any entry, and if enough other users agree with them, it becomes true. ... If only the entire body of human knowledge worked this way. And it can, thanks to tonight's word: Wikiality. Now, folks, I'm no fan of reality, and I'm no fan of encyclopedias. I've said it before. Who is Britannica to tell me that George Washington had slaves? If I want to say he didn't, that's my right. And now, thanks to Wikipedia, it's also a fact.

We should apply these principles to all information. All we need to do is convince a majority of people that some factoid is true. ... What we're doing is bringing democracy to knowledge.

According to Colbert, together "we can all create a reality that we all can agree on; the reality that we just agreed on." During the segment, he joked "I love Wikipedia... any site that's got a longer entry on truthiness than on Lutherans has its priorities straight." Colbert also used the segment to satirize the more general issue of whether the repetition of statements in the media leads people to believe they are true. The piece was introduced with the tagline, "The Revolution Will Not Be Verified," referencing the lack of objective verification seen in some articles.

Colbert suggested that viewers change the elephant page to state that the number of African elephants has tripled in the last six months. The suggestion resulted in numerous incorrect changes to Wikipedia articles related to elephants and Africa. Wikipedia administrators subsequently restricted edits to the pages by anonymous and newly created users.

Colbert went on to type on a laptop facing away from the camera, claiming to be making the edits to the pages himself. In addition, initial edits to Wikipedia corresponding to these claimed "facts" were made by a user named Stephencolbert. Thus, many believe Colbert himself vandalized several Wikipedia pages at the time he was encouraging other users to do the same. The account, whether it was Stephen Colbert himself or someone posing as him, has been blocked from Wikipedia indefinitely. The account was blocked for violating Wikipedia's username policies, which state that using the names of celebrities as login names is inappropriate. The account will be reopened if and when Colbert or Comedy Central confirm its identity. 

Harrypotter 14:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

__can tell me why??___

what the hell has to do the box about cristianity, with this entry?

why isn't it present also in tha http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_work page and many others that could be patched in the same way if HP's lisergic interpretation

I think the -fact- that HP is struggling in such a despicable way demonstrates the disruptivness of his behaviour beyond any reasonable doubt, so I ask the whole box to be removed asap

otherwise, given different streams inside each religion, we could have half of wikipedia references reclaimed by the a whole bunch of cults, let alone the mess I think this is something unbearable and disruptive for the whole project

m***

2 precarities
so each group can have their own article referring to their own precarity. please be nice to each other in your own places. --Buridan (talk) 14:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I am afriad this goes against Ownership of articles policy. Nevertheless there are merits in having separate articles for the Christians and the Eurocentrics, even if they are two cheeks of the same pair of buttocks.Harrypotter (talk) 22:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It is not xtian and euros, it is general concept and special uses. it is not about ownership, it is about getting precarity to be encyclopedic and getting the xtian concept in the encyclopedia too. --Buridan (talk) 23:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Eurocentrist confusions
Editor Buridan aka Jeremy Hunsinger has been participating in a discussion with Alex Foti here ina discussion about this page. Of course, Alex Foti can entertain whatever delusions he likes, but when Jerry comes on Wikipedia he should be guided by the principles of wikipedia rather than simply folowing the guidelines of his mentor. In particular, Assume good faith.

As Foti is an unremitting Eurocentrist coming out with such positions as "il nostro spazio politico è l’Europa" - Our Political Space is Europe L'altra verona - it is hard to see why Editor Buridan would find the term eurocentric ideology problematic. However rather than discuss the matter on the talk page, he has embarked on a series of inappropriate edits. Bearing in mind the somewhat bizarre edits which have been preserved at Talk:Precarity (Social Christianity), to which his recently added comment is hardly helpful.

In the face of an immoderate response to develop the two pages, I have taken the trouble to develop the Precarity (Euromayday) page. As Editor Buridan is concerned about too many pages, maybe this should be moved to a sub-section of Euromayday?Harrypotter (talk) 23:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I assume good faith, you have not developed any page. you have copied a page and assigned a defacing title, twice. you should leave the main page to get worked out and finish your own wikipedia work, give it a year, then come back and see. but at the rate you are going, it very much looks like your sole purpose is to deface and creating your own pov. Let things alone, they will develop, just takes patience.--Buridan (talk) 23:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

You and I may find the Precarity (Euromayday) tag distasteful, but as the people who dreampt up this meaning of Precarity are so transfigured by Eurocentrism, that they have coined this title themselves, it is hard to understand what you mean by "defacing title". Bearing in mind that I was treading in your footsteps following the setting up of the Precarity (Social Christianity), please rest assured I did not think that this was a "defacing title". If such was its intent, please come clean, otherwise stop berating me for that most sincere form of flattery. I think I'll take your advice and step back from editing the page, but just for a day should be sufficient. As or finishing wikipedia work, well it's a bit like painting the Forth Bridge.Harrypotter (talk) 20:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal
I have proposed that Precarity (Euromayday) and Precarity (Social Christianity) be merged back into one article under this title. It seems to me that those two articles are on the same subject, and are in fact POV forks of one another. We should not have separate articles on the same subject for 'Group A's view of X' and 'Group B's view of X' (except where these views are extremely notable in their own right) - generally speaking, they should be merged into a single article on X. That is, in fact, what used to be the case here - there used to be only a single article on Precarity, until the others were split out in early 2009. They still contain some of the same content (e.g. the 'San Precario' section is the same in both these articles). That is a good sign that there should, in fact, be only one article here, not two or more. Please comment on this proposal below. Robofish (talk) 00:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. Let's do it! Paki.tv (talk) 20:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * support Performing as no oppostion and noone else seems to want to. Lycurgus (talk) 14:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

www.soko.ge
es saiti aris mxolod yleebistvis da ar shecavs virusebs da magis dedas sheveci vinc am saitze shemova —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.43.77.7 (talk) 15:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

horribly biased, again
the reason i said a few years ago that the page is biased is that it's clearly written from a strongly left-wing perspective. it makes assertions like "precarity is caused by neoliberal deregulation" which is certainly an article of faith among left-wing socialists but would be vigorously contested by right-wing capitalists. right-wingers would likely say that excessive regulation *increases* precarity by making it impossible to fire regular full-time workers, encouraging employers to hire lots of temporary workers. you see this exact problem in India, where it has traditionally been nearly impossible to lay off workers in a company with over 600 employees, with the result that most companies have an army of "temporary" workers who are in fact full-time permanent employees but have no benefits. i am not a right-winger but i can clearly see that this page needs serious rewriting for it to remove the left-wing bias. in some parts it appears to privilege the views of the radical left by containing viewpoints from "syndicalists" and "Trotskyists" and such with no countervening more-mainstream viewpoints. overall there is little or no criticism of the left-wing concept of precarity -- the right wing would probably criticize the entire concept as described in this article as a left-wing invention, and have a radically different explanation for the observed phenomena described here. in other words, there is the observed phenomenon of a class of people who are underpaid and lack job security, and the left-wing theories about why this is happening, and the two are completely mixed up in this article. Benwing (talk) 00:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Catholic origin
The sub-article approaches from a premise that Christian prescriptions about poverty and the comtemporary employment phenomena do not only share the same nature, despite being in their exclusive fields (normative and descriptive, respectively), but also share a same lineage. Such premises do not hold any ground and are, frankly, nonsensical. --Vmp4523 (talk) 07:21, 27 October 2014 (UTC)