Talk:European Social Forum

[Untitled][edit]

The rainy last day picture was rather depressing! So I put in this one I took of a meeting. I don't really think this page is nuetral. It presents a particular picture of the ESF that whether true or not is only held my a minority. It needs improvement.--JK the unwise 22:53, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

4th ESF a "Success"[edit]

I would like to know what the criteria for 'success' is. Saying an event is a success says nothing when the aims and objectives are not mentioned. The entire process that is the ESF is contentious in many respects. Saying something glib like "the event was a success for the momevent" doesn't say anything about a success in what way, for whom, and where this might lead. Can anyone who was present give some analysis on this?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.96.191.120 (talk • contribs) 01:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

changed[edit]

I have edited the text slightly for 2004 to read a bit more neutrally. To be honest, I think that only sections of the British left view the event as a success; statements from across Europe denounced the proceedings as verticalised and not in the spirit of the World Social Forum principles. Furthermore, the Autonomous Spaces saw thousands participate in debates and cultural events without having the money of the GLA and the Unions to promote them; I don't think they can be labelled as 'marginal'.

new edit[edit]

edited to take out POV in third ESF article and to create a more realistic balance between the main event and the fringe ones

further new edit[edit]

changed POV, autonomists may feel that they think that the ESF is a 'process' and not an 'event' but that's your POV, people like Globalise Resistance see it as a process too just differently to the autonomists, with the key thing being that they were involved in the 'process' from the beginning in 2002 unlike the London Social Forum et al.

Taken out POV in last paragraph, as the arrested people at Kings Cross were able to get on the stage and speak, I saw them! The final rally being organised by the UK movement was agreed by the european process so again this is POV.

Yes, this is much better. Despite what you may think, I'm no autonomist, just keen to see an NPOV article! Warofdreams talk 23:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, autonomist or not we just need it to reflect the actual situation glad we've got to that stage! Shame the French ESF entry is weak... ND

This article is rather POV. - SEAN

Annual?[edit]

The first three were annual but the forth one is more then year after 3rd.--JK the unwise 17:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:ESF EN1.JPG[edit]

Image:ESF EN1.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have, on the discussion page of the image, documented why this image has a creative commons licence. Now this image just has been deleted (and together with it, my comment has been deleted as well). Is this "fair behaviour" of a bot? --Tillmo (talk) 15:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of section on Sydsvenskan's criticism of anti-capitalism[edit]

I suggest to delete section on Sydsvenskan's criticism of anti-capitalism because, at least with the specific arguments mentioned, it seems irrelevant to the ESF as an event. Perhaps the paragraph can be moved to the entry on anti-capitalism. Furthermore, mentioning only this particular criticism is misleading since the ESF has also been criticised for being reformist, i.e. for not being anti-capitalist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tophee1 (talk • contribs) 13:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on European Social Forum. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:09, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]