Talk:São Paulo Forum

message: the socialist party in chile is no longer in government.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.135.0.206 (talk) 03:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

message: So is the United Socialist Party of Venezuela now a member? Should the MVR be replaced on the list by the PSUV?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.239.105.238 (talk) 04:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: PSUV

message: How come the site's link is down? Is the Sao Paulo Forum still in operation?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.239.105.238 (talk) 18:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Internet link

message: I added a new topic, corrected some grammar errors of the previous text, and renamed the "Noteworthy participants" section to "Partial list of participants", because the word "noteworthy" involves a judgement by the editor of what is worthy of note and this obviously varies. Either we offer a complete list or we should just say that it's a partial list. Selecting which participants to highlight (and worse, claiming that they are noteworthy) is not impartial. The text which I expanded means to show that the FSP is made up of several organizations which have different points of view, and that the unifying positions are stated in the final declarations of the meetings. If anyone has objections to the content and would like to make suggestions of changes, I'll be avaliable. The contents here are, however, a summary of what is offered in the Portuguese version. I had to translate parts of the first declaration, which I'm not sure if it's standard here at Wikipedia. I'd appreciate if others offer links to the final documents and references of the text. Thanks. abueno 18:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New content and changes

message: Hello, I removed the link for forum as there isn't currently an article for that usage of forum (and, imo, it would only be a dictionary definition if such a page were created). Politepunk 23:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed link (forum)

message: There is absolutely no base to the claim that Foro de São Paulo is a transnational political party. This is solely an analysis of some groups critical of FSP, who claim that it attempts to coordinate the action of left-wing parties throughout Latin America, much the same way the Communist Third International did. Even if this allegation were true, this would not make a single transnational party out of the several groups and political parties that participate in the FSP. Each group and party continues to have an independent identity. It is ludicrous to claim, for example, that the Workers Party (PT), in Brazil, and the Communist Party of Cuba are a single organization, even while they may have converging points of interest and action. abueno 16:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed reference to Transnational political parties

message: I have explained the reason why the removal of the Transnational Political Parties link was necessary and correct. Whomever put this reference back to the site should have at least argued why it should continue. Once again, I will remove this reference and I must alert that any attempt to restore the link without prior discussion here will be considered vandalism and taken to Wikipedia's administration for analysis and the necessary action. abueno 16:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism: removal of reference to Transnational political parties undone

message: I disputed the neutrality and factual accuracy of this article due to its claims that the FSP was created by Fidel Castro; its lack of reference to the fact that there are more than 100 organizations involved in the FSP, many of which are not socialist but nationalist; for the inclusion of the "criticism" section without providing an oposing view; and the general lack of relevant information which shows the FSP's support to democratic governance, among other points. I will atempt to offer a more reliable version of this article in the future, based on the version that was written in Portuguese. abueno 16:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality and factual accuracy disputed; more changes to come

message: I disputed the neutrality and factual accuracy of this article and someone removed the banner showing that this content had been disputed. Whomever did this probably knows it is against the rules of Wikipedia. I'll quote the site's page on the topic
Improper use of dispute tags 
Dispute tags are an important way for people to show that there are problems with the article. Do not remove them unless you are sure that all stated reasons for the dispute are settled. As a general rule, do not remove other people's dispute tags twice during a 24 hour period. Do not place dispute tags improperly, as in when there is no dispute, and the reason for placing the dispute tag is because a suggested edit has failed to meet consensus. Instead, follow WP:CON and accept that some edits will not meet consensus. Please note that placing or removal of dispute tags does not count as simple vandalism, and therefore the reverting of such edits is not exempt from the three-revert rule. 
If this problem continues, I will take the issue over to the administration of Wikipedia with a complaint about vandalism, which may result in the user's banning. abueno 16:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism: removal of the "Neutrality and factual accuracy disputed" banner

message: I'm finding it difficult to come up with some kind of unbiased description of what this organisation is.  Clearly it's an organisation which has taken it upon itself to criticise the FSP, and clearly it is some kind of conservative.  The fact that only left-wing organisations and news sources seem to be the ones charging UnoAmérica with being extreme Right or neo-fascist, I don't know whether that's been verified sufficiently for Wikipedia that it is an extremist Right group.  On the other hand, judging from the UnoAmérica website's own lack of clarity about who these "NGOs" are that support it, I suspect this may be a marginal organisation in terms of support, and thus possibly not notable enough to either link to or talk about in the article.  Is there some source I'm missing?
The most I can find about this Peña Esclusa person who runs UnoAmérica is that he was a decidedly out of the mainstream presidential candidate in Venezuela, which again would point to the notability issue - why is this organisation he runs important enough or representative enough of opinion in Latin America to be included on this page?  Again, a lack of reputable sources is the problem here.  We don't have any sources that aren't other right-wing organisations or news sources making any case that this is a notable group.  Is there some source I'm missing here?
At this point, I'm leaning towards a solution of eliminating any refs to UnoAmérica from the page.  What do people think?  Zachary Klaas (talk) 22:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  UnoAmérica 

message: Article currently reads: " a declaration that prompted a comment from the Rede Globo site to the effect that the hallmark of FSP's activities had been its "very moderate" character". NOT TRUE. The link actualy points to an AFP story, merely re-published at Globo's website G1.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.20.206.190 (talk) 12:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFP is not Rede Globo 

message: User:MarcosPassos believes that that political parties in Martinique and Puerto Rico should not be included in Foro de Sao Paulo, because they are sub-national entities of France and US and thus no different than a Brazilian state. User:Soman and myself say that that the exact status of Martinique and Puerto Rico is irrelevant because the political parties are local parties, and listed under "Martinica" and "Puerto Rico" on the FSP website.  Quintucket (talk) 20:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  It appears that the new argument is no longer over inclusion, but rather over whether they should be listed as under France and the US, or under Martinique and Puerto Rico.  Any comments on this question? —Quintucket (talk) 03:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a weird one. The FSP website lists them under their territorial names (Puerto Rico and Martinique). And the countries section on the website doesn't help out one way or the other.  I think I'm going to have to take the "don't sweat the small stuff" exit. The informational value of the page seems equal if they are listed under US/France or under Puerto Rico/Martinique.  If it helps, Socialist International article lists the PIP under Puerto Rico, so I'd probably go with that very weak norm if I were the sole editor of the page. But it seems equally as reasonable to do it the other way. AbstractIllusions (talk) 03:53, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Comment 

message: The title says it all.
Specially because there are all evidences that the Foro de São Paulo is a criminal organization.
177.148.142.0 (talk) 00:32, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section required 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Foro de São Paulo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160309183357/http://www.analitica.com/va/internacionales/noticias/7026753.asp to http://www.analitica.com/va/internacionales/noticias/7026753.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:50, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Foro de São Paulo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071120052110/http://www2.fpa.org.br/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=1727 to http://www2.fpa.org.br/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=1727
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071120052110/http://www2.fpa.org.br/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=1727 to http://www2.fpa.org.br/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=1727
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120229033758/http://ultimosegundo.ig.com.br/mundo/2008/05/23/esquerda_latino_americana_incorpora_novas_bandeiras_a_sua_luta_1324289.html to http://ultimosegundo.ig.com.br/mundo/2008/05/23/esquerda_latino_americana_incorpora_novas_bandeiras_a_sua_luta_1324289.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101202084400/http://www.latribuna.hn/web2.0/?p=31600 to http://www.latribuna.hn/web2.0/?p=31600
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110613195611/http://www.european-left.org/english/home/news_archive/news_archive/zurueck/news-archive/artikel/european-left-convenes-third-congress-in-paris/ to http://www.european-left.org/english/home/news_archive/news_archive/zurueck/news-archive/artikel/european-left-convenes-third-congress-in-paris/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:49, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This will need updates over the coming weeks in light of the Chilean general election.  I know the "equality party" is part of the coalition that just won the presidency for example.  I think the changes are probably most appropriate to come no now, but when the current president elect forms a government.  (My knowledge of the Chilean electoral system etc. isn't that great so I'm not sure exactly, but I thought it'd be best to flag this up at least even if nothing needs to be done yet).
--Tomatoswoop (talk) 02:36, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updates re Chile