Talk:Labour movement
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
As my edits have been reverted once, I will justify them here. (Indedented is text I removed.)
- (like trade unions)
They are mentioned in the next sentence, no need to mention them here.
- "in response to the employers
vs. "vis-a-vis employers". "In response to" means that the labor movement is only reactionary, and never stakes out positions of its own. This is incorrect.
- "socialist"
Not all supporters of the labor movement are socialists.
At least according to our Wikipedia article, the green revolution refers specifically to a period starting in 1944.
- The continuing effort, throughout failures and successes, of the global labour movement, to support, through activism, a fair and equal workplace for everyone in the world community benefits society as a whole.
Without prejudice as to the accuracy of this, many people would disagree and it cannot be proven, so we can't include it as is.
[edit] Labour and labor
Wondering if we cant just agree to Labour as a Wikipedia standard when referring to any Labour movement topics. Labor can perhaps still be an optional spelling for non-political usage. -Ste|vertigo 00:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
- Don't think it makes a difference. People can spell it however they like, since both are intelligible to both Commonwealth and American speakers. BTW, I added the American spelling in parentheses at the top, since it seemed silly to me to have it as a footnote. Most other articles put alternate spellings in the first paragraph. 208.61.5.123 01:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- I think this speaks to the larger issue of whether to use European English spellings or American spellings. While most sources have a bit easier job of it (being published on one side of the pond or the other) wikipedia recieves contributions from many countries and faces a bit of a challenge from that. I'd say someone higher up should probably make one dialect the standard for international issues at least. --72.93.180.55 23:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)