Talk:José Rizo Castellón/Archive 1

Archive 1

WRONG POLL

The poll placed Rizo in second place in Matagalpa and Jinotega. Not in the whole of Nicaragua. Therefore, it is not importasnt and the entry was worded quite misleadingly. Brusegadi 03:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing misleading about my post, the Poll was conducted in the N.of NIcaragua, by UCA, which is a prestiguous university. I am sorry if the truth bothers you. But there is nothing subjective about this.

It is misleading beause you dont clarify for non-english speakers, and this is an English article. You have quite a dilemma. If you do not clarify that the poll was done only in two departments of the central region, then you are misleading the public. If you do, your poll does not have enough significance to be posted. Please, stop Vandalazing. Brusegadi 01:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, if you place that I could easily place a more recent study published by LA Prensa:

http://www.laprensa.com.ni/archivo/2006/agosto/21/noticias/politica/138550.shtml

In this study, Jose Rizo is placed in fourth behind Jarquin, Ortega, and Montealegre. Brusegadi 08:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Fine then, no polls. Yes indeed. No polls! You see, the poll I provided was good. It gathered a sample from the whole of the country and it has a small margin or error. When you faced this fact, you decided that no polls was the right thing. No Sir, we will not do that. The poll you provided should be excluded because it only deals with TWO departments. You placed it as if it dealt with people from all over Nicaragua; thus, you are being misleading. The poll I provided deals with most of the country. The reason why you did not like it is because it places your candidate in third place. There is nothing wrong with prefering a candidate. Just try to keep it NPOV.

Does anyone know if we can site Spanish sources in the English wikipedia? If so, I'd like to add the above poll from La Prensa onto this article. Let me know guys. I'll wait fo your response, if it takes too long I'll just ask more experienced editors and make the changes since it is a pretty new poll. Thanks, Brusegadi 18:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone know when and where Riso was born? I have tried to find this information on Google and have not been able to. Is there a good reason why this information is so obscure? Academic Challenger 21:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Rizo was born in Jinotega. Nicagringo, why is La Prensa a questionable source?

Rally

Concerning the rally, it is a difficult decision to judge wether it should stay or be removed. I persoanlly try to look at English sources since they are less prone to cause confusion. Yet, I have asked very experienced posters and they tell me that if it is difficult to find information on a particular topic in some language, then using another language is fine. It is obviously not a trivial task to find sources in English, so I do not know if removing the paragraph on the 250,000 rally is valid. To sum it up, I would try not to add sources in Spanish. Yet, it is true that the party structure of the PLC is a strong one; perhaps only second to that of the FSLN. A good way to add that would be, "despite the fact that Rizo is oscillating between third and fourth place on the polls, he enjoys a strong party structure as can be shown by the amount of people attending the inauguration of his camplaign, a total of 250,000" It does not have to be that way, but something along those lines. I feel that the reader should know that the PLC has the second strongest structure. Particularly stong in the rural areas. Come on, everyone try to keep personal bias outside and remember to comment before making changes.

Rizo and the PLC concentration in Sebaco

The reasons I removed the sentence on the PLC concentration of 250,000 supporters are two-fold: (1) the reference is to an article in La Prensa in Spanish, not in English; and (2) the article says that there was a gathering of 250,000 supporters ("segun sus organizadores", which means "according to its organizers"). Furthermore, people in Nicaragua have questioned the veracity of this count, and in fact, there were articles in the local press (including La Prensa and El Nuevo Diario) that accused the PLC of digitally altering pictures they released for the press of this concentration in order to present a larger crowd. The digital alterations were so obvious (repeating crowd patterns), however, that complaints surfaced immediately. NicaGringo 13:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing biased about the statement as is. It says the date, there is nothing biased about that I hope. And then it says an ESTIMATED amount of people congregated at a certain place. Nicagringo, you say that La Prensa, owned by the Chamorro family, including Pedro Joaquin who is standing to win a seat in the National Assembly with Montealegre, has questioned the picture. But he has presented no valid argument, the fact that a lot of poor people look the same and weared tatered clothes is not a valid argument. Regarding digital alterations, present some legitimate proof . Many people question the polls as they decide the outcome of the Nicaraguan election from selections of less than 1,500 people asking a variety of questions, none of which is "Who will you vote for in the Nov. 5th elections". Right now in Mexico, there is a civil war stirring because of the amount of faith people put in these stupid polls.

"José Rizo reunió según los organizadores a más de 250 mil simpatizantes" Well, I guess its true. It does say according to its organizers (I cant believe I did not notice that 'segun' .) Therefore, the article as it stands is not correct. I have not read about the alegations of photoshopping, although I would not be surprised if they are true. So, for the meantime I will add an "according to" to the sentence in the article. Lets discuss some more and if we reach some agreement it should be deleted. I vote for deletion. I also, however, would like to mention the relative strength of the PLC; if anyone can find a good source that is. Thanks for being careful Nicagringo. Brusegadi 16:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

If you read the front page of www.estrelladenicaragua.com for September 3rd, you will see that the organizers of the PLC event in Sebaco quote 300,000 people. I suggest Brusegadi & Nicagringo, both strong supporters of Mr. Montealegre read an article in today's Nuevo Diario about how if Montealegre wins, the FSLN will strip his immunity & put him in jail, leaving a former Sandinista, Fabricio Cajina, president.

Thats the problem, the organizer quote and not some independent source. I suggest we discuss these changes before going ahead and putting whatever we want. I will check the validity of estrella as a source because I have a feeling that it is not reliable. For now, I think it would be prudent to revert changes. Brusegadi 19:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be prudent for you to stop deciding to revert my changes. The polling companies that you so gleefully quote are FOR profit companies and are NOT independent. Estrella is a newspaper published in Miami & Nicaragua it is a valid media source. The changes will stay as the organizers quote 300,000 not 250,000 as La Prensa would like.

Government Plan

Should we include the fact (he admitted) that his government plan was plagiarized? Let me know what you think. Brusegadi 15:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

He didnt admitt to such a thing. His Economic Plan was written by Roger Cerda & Haroldo Montealegre. His energy plan by Ramiro Sacasa. He EMULATED his plan on encouraging sports from a Peruvian plan. I see that Brown doesnt teach much on applying thought to facts. Pancho

I dont know man, what I read was pretty funny... If it does not receive international attention lets not place it there, but me and my friends had a blast reading about it! I will also see how interested the other editors are on this. If there is some interest I will look for the citations of Rizo's explanation. Brusegadi 22:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

http://www-ni.laprensa.com.ni/archivo/2006/septiembre/12/noticias/politica/ I love the sensational title, but they have a point...

No they dont have a point,as usual, you change the subject for lack of an argument. Rizo's plan was written by persons on his team almost in its entirety. I cite Roger Cerda & Haroldo Montealegre as the authors of the economic part of his plan, & Ramiro Sacasa as the author of the energy-related portion of his plan. He says that its true, he did borrow portions of his plan regarding encouraging sports from another plan. That is very far from plagarizing. Lest you would belive the same of the Constitution of the United States, who borrows ideas from Roman and Greek law.

Not true. His plan stated that "sports for Peruvians..." Unless he was referring to the Peruvian population in Nicaragua, it meant that someone was dumb enough (or lazy enough) to copy a portion of a plan WORD for WORD. Then someone read it and did not detect it (or maybe they did not even read it.) That, my friend, is plagiarism because he did not give proper credit to the original author. Try doing that in any respectable academic institution and you will be home before you know it. As for the argument, you seem to be looking at the reflection of yourself in the lake... Dont be too indulged with what you have to say. Original research is not part of wikipedia. Here, we must CITE sources. So, I have found a source that says certain things. I know that you do not like it, now let me here what others think. You said, 'I cite Roger...' No, you do not cite, you SAY and there is a big difference. Finally, you seem to not like LA Prensa only when it says bad things about Rizo. Look at the first few lines on the talk page, someone asked Academic Challenger what was wrong with La Prensa as a source. Since you are the only anon, I am inclined to think it was you... Brusegadi 16:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

You see a National Plan is not a paper for school, you will be unable to find a national plan that cites sources. The reason for this is that a national plan is fundamentally a political document. That is why members of the US Congress do not cite ideas that they borrower from other countries, history, and other congressman. Regarding La Prensa, no one doubts its bias. Its owner is a member of the ALN-PC political party. Pedro Joaquin Chamorro is in line for a seat in the National Assembly with ALN-PC & he is one of the majority stockholders of La Prensa. Besides its obvious bias, it has the journalistic value of a high school news paper, constantly reaching press with blatant lies and un-verifiable information. La Prensa has always been a 3rd rate newspaper, I have never called it anything but. Also, I can CITE an example disproving you assertion that the whole plan was plagarized without providing a CITATION. Read a dictionary,You really arent that smart, are you sure you went to Brown? - Pancho

"You see a National Plan is not a paper for school, you will be unable to find a national plan that cites sources. The reason for this is that a national plan is fundamentally a political document. That is why members of the US Congress do not cite ideas that they borrower from other countries"

No, they do not cite ideas from other countries because they write their reports themselves! They may say, "How can Brazil have reduced their dependancy on oil while we..." Yet again, they did say, 'how can BRAZIL.' Every country has a unique situation in the world and the fact that they copied at least a portion of a report defenetly shows the level of commitment that they have to our country.

About La Prensa, it is the newspaper that sells the most. To sell is the objective of a newspaper, thus, they are doing a good job. Your words praising it are still above, you wrote them when they said something beneficial to your bias. Brusegadi 23:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I dont doubt you went to Brown, I doubt your intelligence. You fail to address the point that La Prensa is biased vis-a-vis its ownership and involvment in the ALN-PC. You are correct that many US Congressmen write their own reports, but they borrow ideas from other people, countries etc. And this is what they dont cite which I make ref. too. The objective of a newspaper may or may not be to sell, that is not what I question. Question, what am I wrong about? I have not made a single declaratory statement in our last conversations with the exception that La Prensa is biased and not a good newspaper.

Ok, lets just stick to the article then. Brusegadi 23:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

New Poll

Should we include it? http://www.laprensa.com.ni/archivo/2006/septiembre/29/noticias/politica/146806.shtml Brusegadi 05:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

No polls, if you put that poll, I will put the newer, Gamboa poll that puts Rizo in 2nd and Montealegre in 3rd. Nicagringo, what makes Estrella de NIcaragua a "PLC Rag" none of its owners are candidates for office in the PLC, the same cannot be said for the extremely biased La Prensa. Also, Nicagringo, you have no proof whatsoever that the photo of the rally in Sebaco was digitally altered. An encyclopeida is no place for allegations. When you get proof, you can debunk the photo, otherwise it stands.

We must be careful concerning the credibility of our sources. I will refrain from making any changes to the page; I first want to see if more people become interested in the articles concerning the Nicaraguan election. Concerning the polls, I believe that Gamboa does not have the credibility that the previous polling company has. Lets wait a little more, I am hoping that an important newpaper (NY times) publishes something on Nicaragua. Finally, try to sign your comments to make the discussion easier to follow. Thanks, Brusegadi 22:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

http://www.laprensa.com.ni/archivo/2006/septiembre/30/noticias/politica/147092.shtml takes you to some info page on the poll mentioned by anon. Brusegadi 06:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Brusegadi, the link you so proudly added says nothing whatsoever about the way the poll was conducted, the questions asked, the margin of error or anything else relevant to the poll. The article you post discusses the address of the polling firm. If you say that the Gamboa poll does not have the credibility of the MR & S poll or te Borges poll. you have to say WHY it is not as credible. Although people like you and other persons who support Montealegre & Ortega would like for things to simple "be" because they say so, things are not that way. You must support your statements with arguments that are relevant and have susbtance. Until you dont propose a reason why the Gamboa poll is not as credibe, I maintain that it is more credible, because every poll that Borges releases has been paid for by the ALN and that is not a secret, you can call Borges y Associados and asked them.

The fact that the polling company does not even have headquaters says much about their credibility, they have not much to lose if they lie. They are an 'institution' that was created 2 months before the elections; talk about coincidences! I can keep on going but this should be enough to convince the unbiased reader of our discussion page. As for the anon above, I know I will never convince him/her. Brusegadi 21:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The article said, if you have trouble reading, that a reporter couldnt find the headquarters. He didnt attempt to say that there is no headquarters as you do. Why is it a coincidence that a polling company was created 2 months before an election, that sounds perfectly logical for anyone who has any sense. But of course, you dont believe in economics, as you told me on your discussion page months ago. I am sure if the polling station's headquarters was in the Pellas building, you would think what is says is gold. But a polling stations credibility does not come from where it is located, it comes from the QUALITY of the polls it coducts. The questions it asks, the margin of error with which it works, the size of the poll, and questions such as these. The only thing an unbiased reader sees is that you are superficial and lack the ability to use arguments in discussion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

1) The reporter could not find the place, a bit strange I would say. 2) I dont believe in economics... I study economics... 3) A polling 'stations' credibility has much to do with its resources. Its called signaling. The fact that this company has the most obscure headquarter implies that they are not established. For all I know, some guy could have simply made up the poll. In other words, they are not serious. Would you give them a loan?? So, all the things that you correctly mention (margin of error, etc) become irrelevant if the poll is coming from a source that has no REPUTATION. Furthermore, that company was created two months before elections. You think it makes sense because, ohh, elections means an increase in the demand for polls, so more polling companies will be created. Well, I think that:

a) The increase in demand is not large enough if you consider the fact that poll companies are hired for many other things. b) No candidate in her right mind would allow a new company to run her polls (the ones made public) because it brings forth questions of credibility. Thus, even if you have 5 new companies, candidates should stick with the established ones in order to avoid arguments like this one.

Finally, we already know what you think, you do not want the poll. The poll has been included on all other articles on the elections so, for the sake of consistency, it should be included here. The only problem is that very few people come to this discussion page (since no one seems to care about Rizo) and most polls I find in English sources do not even mention Rizo, so we either have to put a poll from La Prensa or nothing at all. Brusegadi 18:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Polls dont mean anything. Poll-lovers like yourself were betting their lives on Lula's "almost guaranteed" quoting NYT re-election. Yet, he is going to a run-off election that he can very well lose, if one sees the VOTES cast in the election. Polls dont mean anything. Where it so, Lopez-Obrador would be president of Mexico, Hullanta in Peru, and Howard Dean in the USA. Just as the polls called a ALN victory in the Atlantic Coast, where they ended in dead last. Polls purchased by the ALN on the national level will prove to be fruitless, as the election is between the PLC and the FSLN. To give you a leg up, if you want to talk about polls, dont use ones purchased by the ALN such as Borges and MR Y S. The Zogby poll is relatively accurate http://www.zogby.com/search/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1171 And it does put Montealegre slightly ahead of Rizo. But the volatility of the polls merits that none of them be posted. People are scared that they will lose their US visas if they dont publicly support Montealgre, but when the time comes, they will vote for Rizo. By the way, happy day of Sn. Bruno.—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

You take this way too personal. "Poll-lovers like yourself..." I am just working on the article. People look at polls and, thus, we should include them. It is up to the reader to take them seriously or not. I recently read an article that discusses the historical bias in US polls that show the democratic party ahead. That does not mean that US election articles do not include polls. So, I am not disputing the validity of polls, I am saying that despite whatever problems they have people use polls and, it makes sense to include them in the articles. I also invite you to add a clause explaining why polls should not be taken so seriously in the context of the Nicaraguan elections. For example, the PLC is a well organized party. Write a neutral clause and introduce it in this article next to the poll result. This article is very small, expanding it would be good. Just make sure to remain NPOV. Also, expect some editing of what you say, it always happens. Brusegadi 22:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I added some NPOV for you, I hope you like it. pancho

Oliver North

Oliver North is just a commentary writer (he is retired for a reason...), to get opinions from a reporter in this article is not proper. Also, I think he confused Montealegre (happyhill) with Rizo. I sent the web editor of the Washington Post an email, perhaps this will be cleared up. Dont worry, if there was indeed a mistake, you can simply support my position that the article does not merit inclusion. Take care, Brusegadi 04:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Oliver North is smarter than you think, his involvement with Nicaragua is substantial. Also, if you read the article, he is very clear that emerging parties are worthless, and that only the PLC can defeat the FSLN.

Read Oliver North. He is not a policy maker. Also, look at the numbers in his polls, there is more then a good chance he confused them (I am not saying anything about his intelligence by the way. Anyone can get confused, the editor could have gotten confused...) He is not a policy maker, thus he stays off. Brusegadi 01:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no confussion, he is using the Gamboa poll, which you discredited with no factual base for doing so.

New Poll

Hello, I heard there will be a new poll which pretty much places things as they were before. Thus, we would have two polls that pretty much contradict each other. There have been contradictions like that before, but normally one of the polls was not credible. Since right now both polls seem to be fine (one will come from gallup, the other is the UCA poll) I think that we have to find a way to include both. Perhaps, even mention what has ocurred historically with these polls. The reason I do this is because, although the gallup poll will be more recent, I dont thin we should remove the UCA poll. Brusegadi 21:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

UCA did not release a POLL, rather a voting simulation. the wording is important.

They are both polls done differently. The difference is that one carried voting boxes and the other did not. Please see the discussion on Nicaraguan General Election, 2006. I will revert your change becuase my version had a link to Nicaraguan General Election, 2006 which includes all relevant information, like the fact the the UCA poll had 15000 participants and the GALLUP had less than 6,000. Brusegadi 01:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

As Brusegadi said; both polls are done differently. There is no reason to disqualify one or another. --Magicartpro 21:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

NEITHER one is being disqualified but it is MISLEADING to call a voting simulaiton a poll.

As I said in the main article, voting simulation is the methodology used in this survey. --Magicartpro 22:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

250,000

The article did not even have that number. Brusegadi 03:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I put the wrong page, now I put the right one.

Brusegadi, why are you reverting my addition? I didnt mention the number that everyone in Nicaragua, & La Prensa, quotes, which is 400,000 people in the largest plaza in Nicaragua. I quote 250,000 so you dont moan about it, so let it be.

I reverted because 'you put the worng page.' Brusegadi 00:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

THE CSE HAS NOT RELEASED FINAL RESULTS. PLC is 3% behind ALN, but 8.6% of votes have NOT been counted.

100% counted and PLC is still behind the ALN in the presidential race...Brusegadi 03:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Archive 1