Talk:Foro de São Paulo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Socialism (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Politics (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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


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 (talk) 04:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Internet link[edit]

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

Yes, it is. There is a new meeting this year in Uruguay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The Forum is in operation, the site is still being paid by PT. The site is left purposefully down because the PT wants now to hide the Forum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

New content and changes[edit]

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)

Removed link (forum)[edit]

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)

Removed reference to Transnational political parties[edit]

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)

Vandalism: removal of reference to Transnational political parties undone[edit]

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) (talk) 16:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)-- there's no proof of the objective of FSP to create a transnational Party, but some of it members talk about a South American Republics Union (great variety of names are used), as Hugo Chávez or Marco Aurélio Garcia (special adviser of president Lula), an eufemism that could be taken as a great party for a great union of countries. I thought this could not be ignored -- (talk) 16:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality and factual accuracy disputed; more changes to come[edit]

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)

Vandalism: removal of the "Neutrality and factual accuracy disputed" banner[edit]

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)


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)

If you are saying that Unoamerica seems to be lunatic fringe politics and does not in itself deserves a reference, you are right. The problem, however, is not the relevance of such organizations per se, but the fact that they seem to be regarded as authorities by people in far more relevant positions. If you follow link [10] to the 2002 speech by Kenneth Maxwell in the Council of Foreign Relations, you will see what I mean, in that American policy-makers were ready to believe in affirmations made by such organizations as reliable. Therefore, drop the reference to Unoamerica and keep the K.Maxwell link, why not? Cerme (talk) 20:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

AFP is not Rede Globo[edit]

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 (talk) 12:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


There been an odd content dispute in the past days, which initially evolved around the deletion of parties of Puerto Rico, Martinique and Dominica. The argument expressed has been that solely parties from fully independent states could be included. Later the Dominica issue was settled after having established that Dominica, in fact, is an independent state. 1) Let's make one thing clear: The relevant factor here is whether these parties are members of FSP, not the constitutional status of the territories in which they operate. The notion that political movements in not-fully-sovereign entities would have to be obscured from the Wikipedia reader is somewhat bizarre. 2) Is this a WP:MOSFLAG issue? It's not clearly expressed in the edit summaries, and if that was the case then the flags (not the parties) ought to have been removed. 3) For what it's worth, Puerto Rico is not part of the United States. It's a Free State, association with the US (with which it has a very complex relationship). Listing Puerto Rican parties as 'American' would be factually incorrect. Martinique is a department of France, but does have a flag of its own and is represented with this flag in various Caribbean forums. Listing the Martinican parties as 'France' would not be very helpful in this context. --Soman (talk) 13:29, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense. If you were correct, people would be able to insert their cities, provinces, states etc in this article. But they are not. For 8 long years no one has done that. I live in a city that is ruled by FSP party, but since the city belongs to the Brazilian Federation, I can't insert my city there. Puerto Rico is not a sovereign country, it's American territory, Martinique is territory of France. Can I insert Brazilian states ruled by FSP in that table?, because a state like Sao Paulo is as sovereign from Brazil as Martinique is from France or Puerto Rico is from the US. MarcosPassos (talk) 20:05, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
You are completely missing the point. We are not listing countries, we are listing parties. FSP is an alliance of political parties, not an alliance of independent states. If there was a local party from São Paulo that would obtain membership in FSP, it should have been listed. What flag to be used would be a different, but entirely secondary, matter. --Soman (talk) 22:59, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I guess it will make more sense if we change the flags. I will fix them now, tell me what you think. MarcosPassos (talk) 01:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
While I'm glad that you're ultimately amenable to discussion, I still don't think that it makes sense to call the Martinican and Boricua parties French or American. While an argument can be made for France, given that Martinique is an integral part of France, the fact that the party is a local party and listed under "Martinica" by the FSP would seem to argue against treating it as a French political party. The argument for Puerto Rico is even stronger, since as long as Puerto Rico remains a US territory, its government and politics are substantially different from that of the United States proper. —Quintucket (talk) 03:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
In regards to Curaçao, the island is a constituent country of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, which is not the same as the Netherlands. --Soman (talk) 03:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Like I said before, there is a city in Brazil that is ruled by a FSP party (São Paulo) and this party called "Workers Party" is based in Sao Paulo. Should I insert São Paulo in that table as if it were a sovereign entitity detached from Brazil? I think that this is a terrible mistake. And Kingdom of the Netherlands and Netherlands are synonyms, interchangeable terms and mean exactly the same thing. I think we can solve the dispute if you 2 accept that inserting cities, states and provinces while hiding the fact that they are not sovereign entities will disrupt and overall lower the quality of the article. MarcosPassos (talk) 14:12, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
World politics, constitutional law and international relations is far more complex. The Netherlands is one of the constituent countries of the homonymous Kingdom of the Netherlands. The other constituent countries of the Kingdom of the Netherlands are the Country of Curaçao, Sint Maarten and Aruba. These four constituent countries share the same citizenship (Dutch), but there are also clear differences. Sint Maarten, Curaçao and Aruba are not part of the European Union, whilst the Netherlands is an EU member. However, the people of Curaçao, Sint Maarten and Aruba are European Union citizens. Here there is a difference between France and the Netherlands. The island of Saint Martin is divided in a French and a Dutch part. The French part is an integral part of France and thus part of the European Union, the Dutch part is a constituent country and not part of the European Union. Where does all this end? Well, that centre-periphery relations vary from context to context and that not all states are structured on the same lines as Brazil.
In brief, in regards to Puerto Rico, Aruba and Curaçao these are separate countries albeit not fully independent. And even in regards to Martinique, its worth notion that the island is listed separately in the ISO 3166-1 alpha-3. Albeit Martinique is clearly constitutionally a part of the French Republic, some common sense can be applied to state that the said parties don't represent 'France' in the FSP. --Soman (talk) 23:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
You've said that "Sint Maarten, Curaçao and Aruba are not part of the European Union". But you are wrong because they are. Any European Union citizen can enter these places without holding a valid passport, they only need an EU id, and any enemy military attack on those islands would prompt an immediate NATO (meaning all EU countries) retaliation. And they are not structured on the same lines as Brazil because a Brazilian state is even more independent from the federal government than those islands, since those islands can't do many things on their own. I insist that if we start pretending that those provinces, states and overseas territories are sovereign autonomous regions, we would be allowing editors to include many more non-autonomous regions. The table will become chaotic and useless. MarcosPassos (talk) 15:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
"Aruba is designated as a member of the Overseas Countries and Territories (OCT) and is thus officially not a part of the European Union, though Aruba can and does receive support from the European Development Fund.[9][10]" --Soman (talk) 23:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Exactly! Geographically, they are not part of the European Union, but politically, they are. MarcosPassos (talk) 23:57, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Eh, no. It means they are not part of the European Union. Have you seen an official EU map? It includes various non-European areas (Martinique, Guadeloupe, French Guiana, Ceuta, etc.), but clearly leaves out the Dutch colonies in the Caribbean and all British dependencies (except Gibraltar). --Soman (talk) 02:25, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
They are part of the European Union! Please take a look at this map! People who are born in the Dutch colonies in the Caribbean or in all British dependencies are automatically granted EU citizenship! An EU overseas country and territory is still an EU overseas country and territory!!! Any European citizen can move to Aruba tomorrow and live there until they die. They only have to show their EU identity card! Not even a passport is needed! The same applies for Puerto Rico regarding Americans. Isn't that proof enough? MarcosPassos (talk) 12:53, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
I said 'official map'. See Geography of the European Union (my emphasis), "Several overseas territories and dependencies of various member states are also formally part of the EU (for Spain: the Canary Islands, Ceuta and Melilla; for Portugal: the Azores, Madeira; for UK: Gibraltar and British sovereign bases in Cyprus; for France: La Réunion, French Guiana, Martinique, Guadeloupe, Saint-Martin and Saint-Barthélemy) while in other cases territories associated with member states are not part of the EU (e.g. Greenland, the Faroe Islands, most territories associated to the United Kingdom, Aruba, the Netherlands Antilles, Mayotte, French Polynesia, Wallis and Futuna, or New Caledonia)." Please read the article from which the map you mentioned is taken, Special member state territories and the European Union. --Soman (talk) 13:48, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
I did! But are you aware that this extract that you like so much to copy and paste is not sourced? Besides, I guess we are going off topic now, because the point is not if those islands belong to the European Union or not, the point that we should be discussing is if they belong to the USA, France and the Netherlands. And I think it's pretty clear by now that they do belong to these countries and are not sovereign at all. And this argument is hilarious: "Listing Puerto Rican parties as 'American' would be factually incorrect. Martinique is a department of France, but does have a flag of its own". Well, São Paulo also has got a flag of its own, so I guess São Paulo is a sovereign country inside Brazil! haha! MarcosPassos (talk) 14:50, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
You seem obsessed with the notion that a territory is either a fully sovereign state or nothing. In reality, there are a number of more complex relations between colonial metropoles and dependent territories. Puerto Rico is not a US state, but a Free State linked to the US. But for you it seems to be either full sovereignty or nothing. In short, the term 'country' is not a synonym for 'sovereign state'. You might want to read the lede of that article, btw. Listing the Martinican parties as French is unhelpful (Martinican would help the reader in understanding easier from where they came), listing parties from Puerto Rico or Curacao as US or Netherlands is factually incorrect. --Soman (talk) 15:41, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
And you seem obsessed with the notion that Puerto Rico or Martinique can't be part of the US and France, respectively, just because they happen to be in the Caribbean. I understand that you may not like to see these places as part of Europe or the US, but the point is that facts are facts, and saying that Martinicans or political parties from there "can't be French because it's unhelpful" just reveals an enormous amount of prejudice from your side. If the French government itself states that Martinique is French territory and Martinicans are French citizens, who are you to deny it? MarcosPassos (talk) 16:16, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but you aren't reading my comments properly. I have (at several points in this debate) stated that Martinique is an integral part of France. Just like I have stated, repeatedly, that Puerto Rico isn't part of the United States. The notion that PR would be an integral part of the US is clearly historical revisionism. You clearly base your opinions of preconceived notions, rather than engaging in an discussion. I think that the discussion cannot move forward under these premises. --~~
Your words: "Listing the Martinican parties as French is unhelpful". And yeah, I'm done with this discussion. Please don't change the article again. MarcosPassos (talk) 00:59, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Request for Comment[edit]

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)

  • Came via RFC, so uninvolved. Shouldn't it just include the official list of the Parties on the FSP website? In which case, both Puerto Rico's and Martinique's political parties are included on the article. Right? AbstractIllusions (talk) 03:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)

Criticism section required[edit]

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

External links modified[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:50, 24 May 2017 (UTC)