Talk:Legislative Assembly of Costa Rica

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Evolution section[edit]

it is wise to have such section with an entire gallery? it gives no context on what the colors means and if I'm not wrong galleries are suppose to be avoided. It could be better to make a separated article about the subject matter as in Spanish. --TV Guy (talk) 21:41, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and no other article about parliaments have one. Yet the idea is not bad if it's use in its own article or list. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 02:02, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have mixed feelings. It is a nice visual representation, so I believe there is a place for the "gallery." However, like TV Guy and Dereck Camacho suggest, it needs some context. I like the idea of a separate page for the Legislative Assembly's history, but until that page gets created, perhaps a collapsible gallery would be best. Mvblair (talk) 13:52, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, it looks like that Spanish page is almost orphaned. Each legislative assembly has its own page in Spanish ([[1]]) where those graphics make sense. That would be nice for English Wikipedia, but it's not a high-priority. So, I think that gallery belongs somewhere as a placeholder at least!! Mvblair (talk) 14:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A collapsible gallery may work for now, good idea. On the other hand, I do think a separate article or list is better but, do we have any example from other country? to take some ideas. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 17:09, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, but it will be a good idea if the collapsible is done, to add some context to the colors, like explaining what party is represented by each color. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 17:17, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, Dereck. I think this article could benefit from a "history" subsection. I will start working on that later this week. Then we can add it to this article along with a collapsible box. I'll try to add an explanation of the colors and the parties if I can find that information on the Spanish pages. Mvblair (talk) 18:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I know the colors by heart, I'm to one who made the diagrams :)
  • ForestGreen = PLN
  • Gold = PAC
  • Yellow = FA
  • Blue = PUSC
  • Crimson or Firebrick = ML
  • Darkblue = PUN
  • Royalblue = PRN
  • Several allies of PLN like PD, UCR and PI are in lightgreen
  • PADA = Darkorange
  • Democratic Force = Orange
  • People's Vangard = Red
  • PALA = brown
  • PUAC = Orchid
  • PNI = purple
  • PRC = Navy
  • PASE = SteelBlue or disability blue
  • PIN = lightblue. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 20:02, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for that color directory, Dereck. It was very helpful! Those diagrams are very nice, professional, and practical, so I think they should stay. I created a "hidden" history section. I think this might be the answer. I wrote a very brief history (we can add more beef to it later) and edited the tables that you originally made on the Spanish Wikipedia. A fun project for the future will be creating pages for all the old, defunct parties that are now linked in red. If nobody does it before then, I'll try to do it later in the year. So, Dereck, could you please make sure check the translations for those red-link parties? If you think the section can be used for now, we can make it public whenever. Mvblair (talk) 12:20, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it's actually quite entertaining to do those diagrams. I think we almost have it to make it visible, but I will suggest to have the history section on the bottom near Premises. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 18:21, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Entertaining to do those diagrams? Uh, I don't think so!! I made everything visible. I'll work next week on translating the Spanish history section since this English history narrative is not where it should be (at some point, it might be nice to have a separate page for the legislative history). Later in the year, I'll make pages for all the old parties. I'm kind of energized now that I see the work you've been doing on the English and Spanish pages! Let's keep this going! Mvblair (talk) 23:53, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Great job. I also plan to translate some articles about old parties, but mostly from the 19th century era. Good luck! --Dereck Camacho (talk) 01:57, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Without taking credit from Mvblair's excellent labor, I still think it should have its own article, but it works for now. --TV Guy (talk) 11:44, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree! Mvblair (talk) 13:33, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Government[edit]

Hi. In the infobox I saw that in the government are included PLN, PREN, one independent and one of the PRSC. Yet, in Costa Rica the system is presidential, so the government and opposition are not so defined. In each case, every of those parties sometimes vote with the officialism, sometimes don't, and in the elections they were not with the PAC. In fact, only FA and PUSC supported PAC in the second round, with PUSC divided, but both parties vote sometimes with the officialism and sometimes don't. For example, in the case of the Ley de fortalecimiento de las finanzas públicas, mostly known as Plan fiscal (an officialist law), FA and some PLN legislators voted against it while some PLN legislators and PUSC voted for it. PREN should be considered as opposition too, since it was the party that was against PAC in the second round. It too opposes to a lot of the politics of the officialism, like the Plan fiscal, homosexual marriage, only to mention some things. They should be considered opposition (PREN) or external support to the government (PLN, PUSC, one independent and one of the PRSC). The government of Costa Rica includes ministers of FA (INAMU), PUSC, PLN, but the politics of those parties are not pro-government. Thanks for your attention. Blessings, --España de Cerca (talk) 22:42, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the idea is not so much in reference that they are government (as in the Executive Branch) but that they are government in the Legislative Directorate. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 00:27, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is no official source that states accurately the fine line between government and opposition in Costa Rica, I think this is a misrepresentation of a concept that applies to other countries (particularly two party systems), but as España de Cerca says, those parties have mingled, joined, and then distanced over many different laws. This distinction should be removed from the infobox, is mere perception/opinion/subjective bias. --Roqz (talk) 03:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Legislative assembly representation[edit]

As per official sources in the Asamblea Legislativa site itself, the current (2018-2022) and actual representation doesn't have any members of the New Republic Party (Costa Rica) (PNR) and New Generation Party (Costa Rica) (PNG), for starters, there was no popular election seats won by those parties, and PNR was created after the last election when their current members exited their original party, all legislators part of that bloc are recognized as independents individually, for example, their votes are cast as independents. References:

  • Listing of all legislators, clearly appearing as independent, and no mention of PNR or PNG at all: "Histórico de diputadas y diputados por fracción" (in Spanish). Asamblea Legislativa República de Costa Rica. Retrieved 11 January 2021.
  • Specific situation of independent legislator Erick Rodríguez Steller:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Roqz (talk • contribs)

I'm going to respond here in the hopes is attended globally. As I mentioned in Roqz't alk page: the custome is that parliamentary articles actually present the actual representation of parties disregarding electoral results. When a Republican congressman became Libertarian this was updated to be showed in the article of the Congress of the United States, same in the Bundestag when several AfD members quit or move to another party, same in the Turkish Grand National Assembly. It will be unprecedented to not do the same with Costa Rica.
Election articles do show the actual election results, but parliamentary articles show the actual representation. Might be a matter of translation as in English is the parties that are represented which is a key word with a very particular meaning. Also at least in English an Independent politician has a whole different meaning as literally means someone partyless.
Is probably the difference between parties represented and elected. In English at least for example New Republic certainly has no deputies elected but it does have deputies representing it, is by far not an unrepresented party.
Also, in any case, I think the most accurate translate for the independent caucus would be more in the line of non-inscrits like in the French and European parliament groups than independents. As I said, in English independent normally means both a candidate than run without party and a politician who has no party which is not the case here, is closer to the non-inscrits in those parliaments who have a party but aren't legally a bench or caucus for some reason.
However I'll like to see the opinions of user @Mvblair:, @Maho713:, @Number 57:, @Alektor89: and @Aréat: who often work in related articles. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 12:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dereck is correct to say that when MPs change parties, legislature articles are updated to show the current distribution of seats rather continue to show the results of the election. Number 57 12:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, however in Costa Rica it is not possible for a legislator to change to a party that wasn't elected, by rule those seats should be labeled as "independent", as of today, this article states that two parties, which didn't won any seats in the last election, have popular representation (that is, by electoral votes), which is incorrect as per the official sources referenced above. Those legislators are affiliated with those parties, true, but not chosen by the people. The distribution should then by updated to state that those seats are independent with notes regarding their political affiliation. --Roqz (talk) 13:47, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no expert on how parties are represented on these legislative assembly pages, but obviously everything should be up-to-date when possible. Are we asking the question "how should politicians be shown on this page (by the party they were elected with, or the party they currently align with)?" In that case, Wikipedia should probably change the parties on the legislative assembly page. A written explanation of the change might be helpful, but that will quickly go out of date. (Because of that, we need to be sure to have the changes written on the politician's personal page). I think we update the page to show the current distribution. Mvblair (talk) 13:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is the question. But, by legislation and the sources I provided (directly from the Legislative Assembly no less), while the legislators are now aligned with non-elected parties and do represent the interests of those, they are still part of the independent bloc as per local regulations and law. My main worry here is that Wikipedia is stating and propagating a non-fact (in this case a misunderstanding but very popular opinion) and contradicting the official sources. If there is a citable reference either from Supreme Electoral Court of Costa Rica or Legislative Assembly that states that those independent legislators do represent those parties, then everything is fine, but that is not the case. So, from my point of view, why do Wikipedia should lightly assign a party while the country's rule of law itself doesn't? I'm fine with stating the fact that those legislators are independent but representing the interests of non-elected parties in a footnote in this article or in their personal pages, that is true and there are plenty of sources in the news, but stating that unelected parties have been awarded seats, is blatantly false and on the lines of original research without verifiability. --Roqz (talk) 13:47, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Roqz the article of 2018 Costa Rican general election do not says anywhere that this parties (NR and PNG) were awarded seats. This is a whole different animal. This article deals with the actual party membership and party make-up of the plenary which is certainly different in almost all cases of all parliaments. I think there's no parliamient in the world that doesn't has this kind of changes during their tenure, it will produce a very complicated precedent. Also this is an enciclopedia and its duty is with given the reader correct, updated information, not information that was correct 3 years ago. It should be updated in real time. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 14:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there are changes, at no point I'm proposing sticking with the 2018 election results, but one thing is to wrongly show the personal affiliation of the legislators as awarded seats (as in the article), and another the official and legal representation as it is acknowledged within the Legislative Assembly itself (my position that this should be the scope of the article). Here is a table with the three scenarios.
2018 election results. Deprecated and obsolete. Current distribution by official sources. As stated and recognized by law and the Legislative Assembly. Displays only elected parties and independents. Citations provided. Current distribution by political affiliation of each legislator, but incorrect assignment of seats. Including three non-elected parties (one in the process of creation). Common misconception of the seats, no official source backs this arrangement. Similar to the one in the article, which doesn't include the party in process of creation.
I completely agree that the article should give the reader correct, and updated information, but also from official sources, not vox populi. --Roqz (talk) 14:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What is exactly for you an "official source", because I see plenty of news media, official party websites and other reliable sources that confirm that this deputies now belong to other parties. The Legislative Assembly website is not a source on party affiliation as far as I know. The only "official" source that might say that someone is not from the party they say they are might be indeed the TSE if, for example, Jonathan Prendas claim to be member of New Republic but in the TSE website he still appears as a party member in the National Restoration lists/structure.
The Legislative Assembly as an organ has no authority to say who can or can't be a member of any political party in Costa Rica, that makes no sense. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 14:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, there are plenty of media stating the true fact that those legislators are now individually affiliated to other parties, that doesn't mean those parties were elected, and if you check the Legislative Assembly (AL) directory, they are labeled as independent and perform their duties as such. This can't be contradicted. If somebody wants to corroborate the distribution as stated on Wikipedia, with the official AL site there will be a mismatch, simple as that. The article as it stands allows Wikipedia to be a vehicle for the propagation of an incorrect fact. I agree that the AL doesn't have a say in the personal affiliations of the people, but they and TSE have the final say on the representation as elected officials by the people, and by the (again…) sources, they are now listed as independent, is very simple, there is a (very) official source for the AL distribution, let's use that, why Wikipedia should state an alternative narrative contrary to the subject of the article itself?. There is a big difference between personal affiliation and the representation of elected parties in the AL. This article should focus on the popularly elected representation, not personal affiliation, and updated to show that they are now independents. I seriously think that by omitting the official law and regulation on how those legislators are officially recognized, Wikipedia is doing a very serious disservice to the readership. --Roqz (talk) 15:32, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think that is the main problem here; party membership ≠ caucus membership. The AL can say who's who on caucus membership, not on party membership. I think the average reader can understand the difference. The issue then comes to whether we want to reflect the former or the latter, me personally prefering the former. But that's my opinion, I'll agree to what the majority decides. Greetings. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 16:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly! The article is about the AL, not about personal affiliations or membership. My position is that it should reflect the AL composition as updated and stated in their site at all times, and it can be corroborated in the AL legislative directory. As I said before, is perfectly reasonable and necessary to add notes that some of the independents are affiliated with other party in their own personal capacity.--Roqz (talk) 17:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need to figure out the difference between party membership and caucus membership. But a brief explanation in the caption, as you both suggest, would easily solve the question. Mvblair (talk) 18:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed but also remember that Roqz is also suggesting the same for Template:Costa Rican political parties, New Generation Party (Costa Rica), New Republic Party (Costa Rica) and List of political parties in Costa Rica. I mean, I started the discussion here out of economics but certainly if we go for the route that party membership doesn't and only caucus membership is valid as he suggest all this articles would have to be greatly altered, including a template which would be very weird to organized as it literally says "represented" and unrepresented" parties. Placing PNG and PNR in "unrepresented" in the current time would be disingenuous to say the least. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 18:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by those changes (but will not proceed to an edit war), by the principle that the legislative assembly is a organ whose members are elected by party in popular elections, and their representation is officially reflected today in the legislative directory. As simple as changing the wording in those articles from "represented" to "elected", which is how the assembly is populated. Those articles reflect the wrong and popular misconception that we have discussed here (affiliation ≠ seats) and need to be corrected too. Again, is not my "suggestion", I direct anybody interested to the (again…) legislators listing where there is no mention at all of PNR or PNG as having representation. PNR and PNG are officially unrepresented, but they have affiliated members participating as independents, that's it, that doesn't translate automatically as a party having official and recognized representation, much less parties that have not been awarded seats by suffrage or created in the middle of the period. It might be disingenuous, but is the official stance of the AL itself, that is a fact, and the current content in all these articles can't be backed up by the AL or TSE, the maximum authorities of the subject, but the content stands by opinion and bias, which is dangerous and disinformative. My changes can be reviewed in the history of those articles, they were not greatly altered, the edits are minimal, and I recommend those, to adhere to the current AL composition. --Roqz (talk) 19:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide the TSE source you mention?
Also, I will dispute that your source of the AL is valid. The AL is not saying what party the deputies are members of, is saying the caucus they are members of. Is not denying at any time that they belong to other parties in their our-out-legislative work if you prefer.
What would be a valid source is if the TSE says that indeed the deputies can't militate in other parties during their tenure and they can't, for example, become New Republic members as far as they are deputies but I will be surprise if the TSE ever said that. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 20:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, enough, so I provided sources of the AL, from the official site of the subject of the article itself, and now you say that the source is not valid? Why would I provide sources from the TSE if I expect the same opinion? Are those official stances inadmissible? And again, and again, personal party affiliation is not the same as recognized party representation as they appear in the (again…) AL directory, I have already agreed that they can be members of any party they like, but that is not what the AL composition is made of.
Just to note that this topic was introduced in Spanish Wikipedia (I know, a different project, but the language of the country and were most native collaborators are from, including a legislative assembly journalist since 10 years ago), by an user sponsoring this incorrect view of "personal affiliation is the same as party representation", after discussion, it was agreed by the community to stand by the official representation and sources from the AL, and everything was updated. After that pronunciation, I came here to synchronize both languages, which was reverted, so now English Wikipedia will continue to present the unofficial, from original research and opinionated composition. I will not pursue the issue further, I presented references, did the changes, and they were declared as invalid and reverted, I'm satisfied I did the right thing, backed by official sources, and contributed the correct version and facts as they stand, hopefully that will prevail in the future. Have a nice one everyone.--Roqz (talk) 20:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why you're taking it personal. Your source deals with caucuces not with party affiliation that's the problem all along. The difference was already explainned I'm not going to repeat myself. Will see what the consensus is at the end. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 21:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we are making much progress. I think we should wait a few days and see if anyone else has opinions. You're both acting in good faith; we just have a difficult semantics disagreement. Mvblair (talk) 16:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, everyone. Today I entered this article and I found this discussion about the formation of the Legislative Assembly and that apparently has not been finalized. I think that in Wikipedia we must embrace what is officially established since the encyclopedia is not a primary source, and the Assembly's regulations establish solely and exclusively that the deputies cannot represent a party through which they were not elected. In fact, the Legislative Assembly establishes on its website (and on its regulation) that the deputies affiliated with the PNR, for example, are organized in an independent block with a coordinator, who is analogous to the fraction chief, but they remain independent. Deputies can resign from one party, but no matter how much they join another, they will remain independent deputies, since they were not elected by it. In the Wikipedia in Spanish, different Costa Rican Wikipedians reached an agreement to continue with what is indicated only in official sources. Therefore I suggest that you continue with what the Legislative Assembly of Costa Rica establishes and with what Roqz is proposing. I am also surprised to see some people refuting official sources, which is quite concerning. Kind regards. --Csavil (talk) 21:15, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also forgot to mention that this article deals with the integration of the Assembly, not about the political affiliation of the deputies, so it must be followed with what is indicated in the legislative regulations. If you want to add the party affiliation of the deputies, you could add it in their own articles or by means of a note, but not reflecting it in the parliamentary integration because it would be incorrect. Thanks. --Csavil (talk) 21:25, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that the issue here is that whilst the infobox talks about political groups the table talks about parties represented. I see the point that the Legislative Assembly can not forbid a deputy to be part of another party if he/she wants even if inside the plenary is by all effect independent. Both positions are correct, deputies are members of parties even if is not the one that elected them and also members of fractions which in the plenary are only the ones that elected officially and independents. The solution is pretty simple and salominic; keep the table as it is and change the infobox as it says political groups (not parties). Everybody is happy. --Elector Factor (talk) 21:26, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re-alignment with Spanish Wikipedia[edit]

As the previous attempt to achieve consensus was futile as it was done deceitfully and in bad faith by the blocked sockpuppet accounts of Dereck Camacho and Elector Factor (who seems to be the only user/account(s) that support the view regarding personal party affiliations) I went ahead with the changes to re-align the parliamentary fractions numbers with spanish Wikipedia. @Csavil: thanks six-months-later for your support on this article and regarding official sources. --Roqz (talk) 01:14, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Roqz: Hi there. Thanks to you for finally making this much-needed change, which was the fairest as per Wikipedia's guidelines. It seems very harmful to me that a person, in order to impose his opinion, uses false accounts, and it is not in fact the first time that this happens with this same user. So again, thank you. Kind regards, --Csavil (talk) 05:09, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Legislative_Assembly_of_Costa_Rica&oldid=1202143028"