Talk:European Science Foundation

This article needs to be rewritten

This article is in an extreme failed-state condition with almost all of the information published here being outdated. I would like to work with the previous editors to help rewrite the article to reflect the facts about the ESF. Disclosure: I work for the European Science Foundation.QuaiLesayMarnésia (talk) 12:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The European Science Foundation has evolved very considerably since this page was first created. The information on the current page is almost totally inaccurate. Over the coming weeks, I propose to update the information as objectively as possible to ensure accuracy and correctness. Assistance from other users is also welcome. DISCLOSURE I am a communications adviser to ESF. The Archway (talk) 15:07, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Substantial factual changes were made to this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Science_Foundation Cluebot reversed these and I reverted back to the changes originally made. These changes are legitimate and in good faith. Please help to keep this page updated. The Archway (talk) 16:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC) The Archway The Archway (talk) 16:58, 26 April 2017 (UTC) The Archway

Funny, I came to this talk page to suggest that the article needs to be completely rewritten as well, but for the opposite reason. Currently it reads as PR material from the organization itself, which is not what Wikipedia is for. Essin (talk) 14:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

See proposal in new thread! BaselineFindings (talk) 08:06, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on European Science Foundation. 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/20120222022733/http://www.esf.org/ext-ceo-news-singleview/article/eurohorcs-esf-commit-to-play-key-role-in-shaping-a-competitive-era-456/news-browse/8.html to http://www.esf.org/ext-ceo-news-singleview/article/eurohorcs-esf-commit-to-play-key-role-in-shaping-a-competitive-era-456/news-browse/8.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080509085800/http://www.esf.org/ext-ceo-news-singleview/article/european-science-foundation-kicks-off-new-year-with-professor-marja-makarow-as-new-ceo-389.html to http://www.esf.org/ext-ceo-news-singleview/article/european-science-foundation-kicks-off-new-year-with-professor-marja-makarow-as-new-ceo-389.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 00:19, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to replace the full article (COI disclosure; neutral, RS-backed draft in sandbox)

Hello all,

COI disclosure: I work for the European Science Foundation (ESF). Per WP:COI, I will not edit the article directly. I am proposing a complete, neutral rewrite in my sandbox for community review and, if there is consensus, for an uninvolved editor to implement.

Rationale. The current article has long-standing issues with neutrality and sourcing (mixing of primary and secondary sources, incomplete history, and limited coverage of current activities). I have prepared a draft that:

• summarises ESF’s history with independent sources
• describes present-day activities using ESF pages only where appropriate (per WP:PRIMARY), and
• aligns with WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:SUMMARYSTYLE.

Sandbox draft: User:BaselineFindings/sandbox ready for comments and edits by uninvolved editors.

Request. Unless there are objections, could an uninvolved editor please:

1. Review the sandbox draft for compliance with WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:RS; and
2. If acceptable, replace the current article with the sandbox draft (or merge in substantial parts)?

Happy to adjust the draft based on feedback from other editors. BaselineFindings (talk) 20:28, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi! I've looked over the drafts and from just a cursory look it seems like there are instances of (a) assertions in the article not backed up by cited sources at all and (b) misrepresentations of sources to paint the ESF in a more positive light. This, coupled with the style of the talk page comment I am responding to and nonstandard(ized) formatting in the original draft, leads me to suspect WP:LLM-generated writing. Besides that suspicion though, the concerns identified in (a) and (b) still make the draft unsuitable for inclusion in mainspace.

Instance of (a):

• Between 2000 and 2009, as its membership grew - up to 77 member organisations across 30 countries - Wholly unsupported by the linked 2006-2010 strategic plan, afaict

Instance of (b):

• In October 2011, the majority of ESF’s member organisations established Science Europe and announced a "responsible wind down" of ESF’s former coordination functions over the subsequent years. - Source describes the foundation as "to-be-dissolved" and the mentioned "wind down" is referring to the entire organization, not just the coordination functions.

Additionally, a large number of sources come directly from the ESF's website (some paragraphs have zero non-esf sources). This is thus not a truly "RS-backed draft". It appears that the ESF has poured a not-insignificant amount of staff resources into improving this page over the years, but unless a truly neutral draft can be written by a human (employed there or not), these efforts will be in vain. AviationFreak💬 19:11, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to look through the draft! The talk page comment was written with support from AI - precisely with the aim to comply with wikipedia policy (!) and to be clear as possible. However the original draft was written by a human (me), I used WP:LLM-generated writing used to format the references - I now realise I wasn't necessary. Back to the contents:

- Instances of (a), assertions not backed up by sources: I've edited the draft, replacing citations

- Instances of (b) misrepresentations of sources: I've corrected the text, which indeed led to understand that the association was to be dissolved: in 2011 it was indeed thought to be dissolved, but it turned out that in 2014 members voted a change in statutes instead.

- Regarding the sources, sources from ESF website mainly describe the organisation's current activities. Additional external sources have been added.

Thanks again for your constructive comments; the aim is to indeed to provide the community with a neutral and accurate description of the organisation's history and activities. BaselineFindings (talk) 16:13, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi all, I have edited the page accordingly taking into account community's feedback, and keeping existing neutral content backed with references and related to the page:

- edited the summary for conciseness, keeping a neutral tone

- structured existing contents withing "Activities" and "History" sections

- completed the "Activities" section with up-to-date information and "History" section with additional contents

- deleted paragraphs that were not backed up by external relevant sources or related to other existing Wikipedia pages (ie: sections describing in depth Science Europe and European Cooperation in Science and Technology)

Feedback from community is welcome! BaselineFindings (talk) 16:26, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

The changes were reversed by user @ReverseHarbour for bad reasons (WP:ROWN, WP:BADREVERT), and explanations did not stand (revoked sourcing included Reddit citations and others not supported by Wikipedia; the need for the page to be rewritten had been addressed since). This user appears to be non-neutral: their first contribution to Wikipedia was a substantial non-neutral revision to this page, and their main contributions are related to this page. I have reverted back to the changes originally made, inviting the user to make edits to specific sections and discuss here.

To all, please help to keep this page factual, neutral, and up to date. BaselineFindings (talk) 10:06, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

This message does not offer substantive justification for your reversion. It's true that Reddit is not a reliable source and that ReferenceHarbour has some previous connection with the article, but your reversion was wholesale and did not focus on specific sourcing issues. I will note again that Large Language Models like ChatGPT are not terribly useful for talk page discussions and do not serve as a substitute for actual knowledge of Wikipedia policy: competence is required. As a COI editor employed by the subject of the article, you should avoid editing the article directly, especially when your work is being undone by the community. I have not reverted your reversion as I do not feel sufficiently informed as to the full context in which the ESF exists, but I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Science on the issue in search of an editor who is more informed. AviationFreak💬 19:13, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Review of promotional content banner

Hi, it's been 2 years since the warning banner has been placed and the article has been improved significantly. Would an independent editor please review the article to see if the banner is still appropriate? If not, would someone please remove the banner? Thank you! BaselineFindings (talk) 16:16, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Reply 16-JUN-2026

   Examining the article's text  

• Let's take a look at some of the prose in the article to see whether or not the template can be removed.
• From the History section:

1. Today: ESF's new strategy for 2023–2028 focuses on four main lines of action: research assessment and grant evaluation, programme management, hosting of scientific networks, and EU project management. The association has since been operating under "ESF" and celebrated its 50th anniversary in 2024.
2. Translation: ESF is laser focused on solving challenging problems which could effect the maintenance of good and prosperous business relationships, with an eye for dynamic problem solving and excellent program management.
3. Main takeaway for readers of the text, aka the bottom line: This text tells you briefly what this business is, and does, but the main focus is to imply how well they do their business, and that well-ness shows.

• From the Member partnerships section:

1. Beyond its formal membership, ESF maintains long‑term relationships with a broad range of scientific organisations through its role in hosting and supporting scientific structures and networks. As a result, over 88 national funding organisations, research-performing institutions, universities, research institutes, and space agencies from 49 European and non-European countries actively contribute to ESF activities.
2. Translation: Not only does being a good business partner bring income, it also brings business partners who like what they see, and can be depended on to maintain good friendly relations with other businesses.
3. Main takeaway for readers of the text, aka the bottom line: Not only do we learn that this company maintains business relationships with other local businesses, but more importantly, they nurture and maintain excellent relationships with those businesses effortlessly, which makes a business relationship with this company much sought after.

In conclusion: The article remains promotional, so the template should not be removed. Regards,  Spintendo  21:30, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

AI

Flagged for AI, details: various expansions throughout 2025, note WP:AISIGNS e.g. AIATTR, superficial analyses, vocab distro typical of LLM text, also markdown in this edit, from which much text remains

The initial comment above is also most likely AI, a fairly textbook example of it; see WP:AIREVIEW. The AI usage is most likely a factor in it being promotional. Gnomingstuff (talk) 04:00, 17 July 2026 (UTC)