Talk:Social Democratic Progress Party

Social democracy is the official ideology of the party

User @BastianMAT: has constantly removed under different excuses the references that mention that the party's official ideology is social democracy including the Supreme Electoral Court (Tribunal Supremo de Elecciones) official website. The statute of the party as can be checked here https://www.tse.go.cr/pdf/normativa/estatutos/progresosocialdemocratico.pdf outright says:

ARTICULO NUEVE: PRINCIPIOS RECTORES DEL PENSAMIENTO DEL PARTIDO. Compartimos en general la propuesta ideológica de la socialdemocracia moderna, en la cual el concurso del sistema capitalista y las demandas de sociedades más justas conducen la forma de organización y el modo en que se toman las decisiones.

Translation:

ARTICLE NINE: GUIDING PRINCIPLES OF THE THOUGHT OF THE PARTY. We generally share the ideological proposal of social democracy modern, in which the concurrence of the capitalist system and the demands of fairer societies drive the form of organization and the way in which they make the decisions.

If no consensus is reach I'll start a request for comment and if that doesn't solves it I'll try any of the many Wikipedia:Dispute resolution alternatives in existence. Thank you. --152.231.144.202 (talk) 10:22, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Interestingly checking the sources given by BastianMAT and the arguments used by him to discard "social democracy" something weird happens here. He argues that and I quote: "the other two sources are WP:OR as they are not WP:RSP, they only mention the candidate and not the party". However if we check this source https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/costa-ricans-head-polls-largely-undecided-runoff-expected-2022-02-06/ the party is not mentioned at any point. This source is used twice. The source does mentions the candidate and describes him as economically liberal and socially conservative, does not mentions the party at any moment. This source seems to be the same as the other one just in the archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20220206074437/https://www.reuters.com/article/us-costa-rica-election-idUSKBN2KB054

This source does not mentions the party's ideology either, it does describes Chaves as conservative, again the same argument use by BastianMAT to discard the sources provided by me. https://www.npr.org/2022/04/04/1090747573/ex-finance-minister-wins-runoff-to-be-costa-ricas-president

This source does not mentions the party at any moment, and does not describes Chaves in any way ideologically, the words liberal or conservative does not appear in any moment. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-04/ex-world-bank-economist-wins-costa-rica-presidential-election This source is by far missleading as it does not support what BastianMAT assures it support.

Interestingly BastianMAT accused me of original research even when the sources I added explicitly mention Chaves a socialdemocrat.

In any case in all the examples given all sources refer to the candidate not the party with one exeption, the one I gave of the Electoral Court official website. --152.231.144.202 (talk) 10:34, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

RfC on official ideology

Should "social democracy" be included in the party's infobox in the ideology section as the official statute of the party says? --152.231.144.202 (talk) 00:02, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

A dispute surged about the official ideology of the party as presented on the Infobox as the statute of the party describes it as social democratic while other sources used do not describe the party but describe the party's latest candidate as liberal and conservative.

User @BastianMAT: opposes the inclusion social democracy as part of the party's official ideology in the infobox, this despite being correctly referenced and he also includes Liberalism, Social conservativism and Economic liberalism as the party's ideologies in the infobox.

• The source to considered the party's ideology as social democracy was added by me and is the actual statute of the party as placed in the Electoral Court's official website where the party describes itself as having "modern social democracy" as ideology. https://www.tse.go.cr/pdf/normativa/estatutos/progresosocialdemocratico.pdf

ARTICULO NUEVE: PRINCIPIOS RECTORES DEL PENSAMIENTO DEL PARTIDO. Compartimos en general la propuesta ideológica de la socialdemocracia moderna, en la cual el concurso del sistema capitalista y las demandas de sociedades más justas conducen la forma de organización y el modo en que se toman las decisiones.

Translation:

ARTICLE NINE: GUIDING PRINCIPLES OF THE THOUGHT OF THE PARTY. We generally share the ideological proposal of modern social democracy, in which the concurrence of the capitalist system and the demands of fairer societies drive the form of organization and the way in which they make the decisions.

This source that I added and he removed, describes the party as modern social democratic. https://gaceta.es/actualidad/el-socialdemocrata-rodrigo-chaves-da-la-sorpresa-y-gana-las-elecciones-en-costa-rica-20220404-1737/

El PSD que lidera Chaves se define con una propuesta ideológica de “socialdemocracia moderna, en la cual el concurso del sistema capitalista y las demandas de sociedades más justas conducen la forma de organización y el modo en que se toman las decisiones”.

Translation:

The PSD led by Chaves defines itself with an ideological proposal of "modern social democracy, in which the competition of the capitalist system and the demands for fairer societies drive the form of organization and the way in which decisions are made."

• His sources to label the party as Liberalism, Social conservativism and Economic liberalism are the following:

1. this source https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/costa-ricans-head-polls-largely-undecided-runoff-expected-2022-02-06/ the party is not mentioned at any point.
2. This source is used twice. The source does mentions the candidate and describes him as economically liberal and socially conservative, does not mentions the party at any moment. This source seems to be the same as the other one just in the archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20220206074437/https://www.reuters.com/article/us-costa-rica-election-idUSKBN2KB054
3. This source does not mentions the party's ideology either, it does describes Chaves as conservative. https://www.npr.org/2022/04/04/1090747573/ex-finance-minister-wins-runoff-to-be-costa-ricas-president
4. This source does not mentions the party at any moment, and does not describes Chaves in any way ideologically, the words liberal or conservative does not appear in any moment. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-04/ex-world-bank-economist-wins-costa-rica-presidential-election This source is by far missleading as it does not support what BastianMAT assures it support.

I think social democracy should be included as the party's ideology as there's a very reliable sources for that while the other ideologies presented should be reviewed.

Thank you. --152.231.144.202 (talk) 14:01, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

What is your brief and neutral statement? At over 3,600 bytes, the statement above (from the {{rfc}} tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for Legobot (talk · contribs) to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law. The RfC may also not be publicised through WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:37, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the warning I'll tried to fix it. --152.231.144.202 (talk) 23:56, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

No idea how to fix it @Redrose64:, I added one but it didn't changed in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law. --152.231.144.202 (talk) 00:01, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

You add (or fix) your statement, and when Legobot next runs, it updates the RFC listing page, like this. The subheading is unnecessary. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:20, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. --152.231.144.202 (talk) 20:02, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Let's break this down, one by one. Per WP:NOT, "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought". We do not use the official party statues on Wikipedia per WP:PRIMARY, with secondary sources before primary, which immediately disqualifies your first argument. With the official statue also falling into the "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation", where none of it is provided.

Number two, your second source falls under WP:OR where no WP:RS source backs it up and the source itself cannot be found on WP:RSP, "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist."

Let's now break down WP:RS sources describing the party leader and incumbent president Chaves.

WP:RSP#Bloomberg, "Pro-Market Economist Wins Costa Rica Presidential Election", seems to fall well under Economic liberalism, "is a political and economic ideology based on strong support for a market economy based on individual lines and private property in the means of production." [1]

Number two, WP:RSP#NPR, "With nearly all polling stations reporting late Sunday, conservative economist Rodrigo Chaves had 53% of the vote, compared to 47% for former President José Figueres Ferrer, the Supreme Electoral Tribunal said."[2]

Per Radio France Internationale, "Right-wing conservative Rodrigo Chaves entered politics like a racing car."[3]]

Per France 24, Ese fue el porcentaje que le otorgó la victoria electoral en Costa Rica al economista liberal Rodrigo Chaves, líder del Partido Progreso Social Democrático; Por su parte, el economista de derecha Rodrigo Chaves, de 60 años, del Progreso Social Democrático, sorprendió tras haber estado atrás en las encuestas, y anotó un 16,7%. Fue ministro de Hacienda del gobierno saliente por medio año. Translation: That was the percentage that gave the electoral victory in Costa Rica to the liberal economist Rodrigo Chaves, leader of the Social Democratic Progress Party. For his part, the right-wing economist Rodrigo Chaves, 60, of the Democratic Social Progress, surprised after being behind in the polls, and scored 16.7%. He was Finance Minister of the outgoing government for half a year.[4]

Per WP:RSP#Al_Jazeera, The right-wing former finance minister defeated centrist former President Jose Maria Figueres amid low turnout.[5]

Per The Tico Times with a WP:RSP#AFP text, "Right-Wing Chaves wins Costa Rica presidency as Figueres concedes."[6]

Per WP:RSP#AP, "The conservative economist, who was briefly finance minister under Alvarado, had cast himself as the outsider in the race, noting that his Social Democratic Progress Party had never won at any level before this year."[7]

Per OpenDemocracy, "The election of conservative Chaves, a member of the Social Democratic Progress Party, marks a step change from the progressive rhetoric of the last two presidents of this Central American country. Chaves is seen as a maverick in political circles, with similarities to other populist right-wing leaders in the Americas such as Donald Trump and Jair Bolsonaro."[8]

Academic sources describing the leader, Chaves:

Per WP:RSP#Reuters (from academic Rotsay Rosales, a political scientist and head of the National Policy Observatory of the University of Costa Rica), "Chaves has a liberal economic position, is socially conservative, pro-law and order and against the political class."[9]

Per Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (from academic Oliver Stuenkel, an associate professor at the School of International Relations at Fundação Getulio Vargas (FGV) in São Paulo Brazil), "the conservative Chaves, a former finance minister and World Bank economist, defeated former president José María Figueres with 53 percent of the vote in the April 3 runoff."

Let's break down the WP:RSP sources describing the party itself.

Per The Heritage Foundation, "Chaves, representing the recently formed center-right Social Democratic Progress Party, narrowly bested former President Jose Maria Figueres of the traditional center-left National Liberation Party by less than 5 percentage points."[10]

Per EFE and []The Rio Times]], Chaves, del joven Partido Progreso Social Democrático (centro derecha)/"Chaves, of the young Social Democratic Progressive Party (center right)."

Per WP:RSP#Deutsche_Welle, "Chaves is from the right-wing Social Democratic Progress Party and at one point had been minister of finance."[11]

Per El Faro (digital newspaper), "Chaves, whose conservative party, Social Democratic Progress, was founded in 2018."[12]

Per an analysis from North American Congress on Latin America (author Andrés León Araya - an associate professor of political science and anthropology at the University of Costa Rica) taking account the new congress composition, "Second, differences are hard to come by when there is a general agreement regarding the diagnosis, as well as the cure, for the country’s social and economic ailments. Apart from the Frente Amplio (Broad Front, FA), which recognizes itself as socialist democratic party, all the parties that received at least 150 thousand votes and elected members to congress stand clearly on the right of the political spectrum. As such, all of them share the view that the national economy’s biggest problem is fiscal and that the solution is to reduce the public sector and promote macroeconomic austerity, not to tax the rich or bet on the domestic market. Socially—except again for the FA—they all follow a very conservative line in terms of women’s and LGBTQI+."[13]

There seems to be a strong consesus among the WP:RS sources, both WP:RSP and academics that the party and the leader are not social democratic but conservative with a center-right to right-wing position while Social democracy falls under the left-wing spectrum and the only source being the official declaration.BastianMAT (talk) 16:42, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not questioning whether Chaves himself is right-wing populist/conservative and the rest. In fact I myself am convince of it and I included him in the Conservative Wave and other such classifications. I'm questioning the description of the party's ideology as non of the sources you provide say that the party is conservative or liberal. They say Chaves is. Some sources do describe the party as right-wing however describing social democratic parties as right-wing is very common at least in Latin America, PLN itself is generally considered center-right and is officially a social democratic party. Of the many sources you add, is there anyone that mentions the party's actual ideology? (not spectrum position mind you). --152.231.144.202 (talk) 15:53, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, per El Faro (digital newspaper), "Chaves, whose conservative party, Social Democratic Progress, was founded in 2018." [14] BastianMAT (talk) 19:25, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

And how is El Faro different from the two sources that describe it as social democratic? Notice that I'm requesting the inclusion of social democracy in the infobox not the exclusion of the others e.i. that social democracy be added alongside the rest. Why one source that describe as conservative is more valid than two that describe it as social democratic? --152.231.144.202 (talk) 01:41, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

• RfC is too unclear. Somebody should mention what is the actual question that is being asked. Jhy.rjwk (talk) 18:35, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

• @BastianMAT: I created an account because I think it will help the discussion specially because I'm planning to use some of the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution alternatives at hand to solve the issue. You said there's one source, El Faro, that describe the party as conservative. Perfect. I added two sources that describes it as social democratic. No source to this point describes it as liberal or economically liberal. Thus, by using logic the Infobox should say that is conservative (you provided one sources describing it like this), social democratic (I provided two) and that's it. No source given to this date describes it as anything else. Do you disagree? and if yo don't, could you give a reason for it? --HourZerox (talk) 04:46, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Problem with the source you presented, per WP:NOT, "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought". We do not use the official party statues on Wikipedia per WP:PRIMARY, with secondary sources before primary. The official statue falls into the "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation", which is the problem here. BastianMAT (talk) 23:09, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

@BastianMAT: at no point I mentioned the party's statute. The two sources I mentioned clearly are both news outlets. I said it several times already. So again, I ask, considering that there are two secondary sources made out of news reports from reliable news outlets describing the party as social democratic, do you have any objection? And yet again to emphasizes, at no point am I suggesting using the party's statute as source, once again just to be clear, the two news outlets that describe the party as social democratic use as sources. Do you agree? And if not, why? --HourZerox (talk) 03:42, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

@BastianMAT: I don't see your answer. Before I request a dispute resolution, I would like to give one more chance. Considering that once again two news outlets who are clearly both reliable sources and secondary sources describe the party as social democratic would you agree to its inclusion in the Infobox. And once again just to be clear at no point am I suggesting use the party's statute as source. --HourZerox (talk) 04:58, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

So far this is not convincing. You say there are two news outlets, and both are reliable and secondary sources. So let's take a look at the sources you have used in this discussion: 1) PARTIDO PROGRESO SOCIAL DEMOCRÁTICO ESTATUTO: translated to DEMOCRATIC SOCIAL PROGRESS PARTY STATUTE, and now the second source 2) El PSD que lidera Chaves se define con una propuesta ideológica de “socialdemocracia moderna, en la cual el concurso del sistema capitalista y las demandas de sociedades más justas conducen la forma de organización y el modo en que se toman las decisiones”. translated to: The PSD led by Chaves defines itself with an ideological proposal of "modern social democracy, in which the competition of the capitalist system and the demands for fairer societies drive the form of organization and the way in which decisions are made." Both sources attached here only mention the self descriptions of the party, unless there is another source that you haven't attached in this discussion. If any of these used secondary information, there would be no problem, but this falls under self-description, which should be excluded per WP:NOT. TSE mentions the self-declared points of the party and Gaceta says the party defines "itself". These two sources are what you attached above. Is there any actual source with secondary information to back this up? If there is, we can soon conclude this discussion. So far what we can agree upon is that Conservatism should be in the infobox as well as the current position, but the dispute is social democracy, and to fix this you need to find a secondary source which does not mention the "self-declaration". That is the issue. BastianMAT (talk) 23:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

@BastianMAT::

• " El socialdemócrata Rodrigo Chaves, logró un 16.78% de votos en la primera vuelta electoral, celebrada el pasado 6 de febrero" El Capital Financiero https://elcapitalfinanciero.com/rodrigo-chaves-gana-las-elecciones-presidenciales-de-costa-rica/
• En el caso de Rodrigo Chaves, un líder que combina dosis de progresismo y conservadurismo. Bloomberg. https://www.bloomberglinea.com/2022/04/04/como-se-posiciona-politicamente-latam-tras-el-triunfo-de-chaves-en-costa-rica/
• En su programa para Costa Rica, Chaves combina planteamientos considerados tanto conservadores, (...) como progresistas, CIDOB https://www.cidob.org/en/biografias_lideres_politicos_only_in_spanish/america_central_y_caribe/costa_rica/rodrigo_chaves_robles

--HourZerox (talk) 04:55, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

This only describes Chaves. But I do understand where you are coming from, as this party declared itself as social-democratic. While those sources are secondary, it only describes Chaves, one for the party would be needed, and if found/provided, I'm okay with the inclusion of it in the infobox. I think we can conclude the discussion if that is met. BastianMAT (talk) 15:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Alright, thanks BastianMAT, I'll added in a few hours with the correct template. Cheers. --HourZerox (talk) 07:16, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

@BastianMAT: now there's another issue. As of right now no source describes the party as "liberal", socially conservative or economically liberal. All sources provided only describe Chaves as such. In practice the only source that describe the party itself is the one that describes it as conservative (El Faro). Based on your previous statement that a one for the party would be needed then only "conservative" should remain, unless sources for the party itself describing it as liberal are provided. That or allow for sources that describe Chaves to be use. --HourZerox (talk) 18:47, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Speaking of which I have here finally a source that describes the party as socialdemocrat. I proceed to add it as agreed upon. "Antes de su postulación, yo consideraba a doña Pilar como una liberal progresista, por lo que su decisión de contender por un partido socialdemócrata me parece llamativa." https://delfino.cr/2021/08/adios-pilar-cisneros --HourZerox (talk) 18:56, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

PD: In order to reach some middle ground I may agree to keep the ideologies of economic liberalism and social conservativism (despite such sources only referring to the candidate not the party) if a tag is added with the "better source needed" that way in the future sources for the party in specific can be add. --HourZerox (talk) 23:48, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Sure, that sounds like a good proposal. Then we can consider this dispute resolved. Cheers. BastianMAT (talk) 20:34, 26 June 2022 (UTC)