Talk:José Rizo Castellón/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title: WRONG POLL

message: 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)
thread_title:  Rizo and the PLC concentration in Sebaco  

message: 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)
thread_title: Government Plan

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

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: New Poll

message: 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)
thread_title: Oliver North

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

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

message: The article did not even have that number.  Brusegadi 03:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 250,000