Talk:2006 Nicaraguan general election

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

Nicaragua Mid‑importance

	Nicaragua portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nicaragua, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Nicaragua on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NicaraguaWikipedia:WikiProject NicaraguaTemplate:WikiProject NicaraguaNicaragua articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Poll Sept

Any one thinks it should be included? http://www.laprensa.com.ni/archivo/2006/septiembre/29/noticias/politica/146806.shtml Brusegadi 05:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would support inclusion. It is certainly an interesting article. My spanish isn't great, but good enough to get the point. Are there any other published interpretations of the survey? I did some simple searching, but could not find any. Srice13 20:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Debate entry

That section was very subjective. I believe CNN did not call it a debate, I believe they called it a forum (foro Presidencial...) I think that the event was aimed at the international viewer so the questions asked could not have possibly being very specific. I have not been to Nicaragua in a couple of months, and I felt that the forum gave me a chance to get to know the candidates better. So, I disagree with you in many respects. Therefore, since you did not provide any credible references to corroborate your points, the section is at best subjective. It could be included, but it would require much talk in the talk page and the participation of other editors. Brusegadi 06:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a website for official results, so we can enter them on the day? IdiotSavant 06:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that cse.gob.ni will have some preliminary reports on the morning of Nov.6, otherwise you can check the updates on laprensa.com.ni or elnuevodiario.com.ni --Magicartpro 06:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

El Nuevo Diario is going to publish the official results by the CSE on Nov.5 here. --Magicartpro 22:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New poll

If it's OK I will include this; http://www.elnuevodiario.com.ni/2006/10/18/nacionales/31627 --Magicartpro 18:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be the latest poll. I do not have a problem with it. I have not heard of the makers of the poll being biased, so I currently think its fine. The catch is that for the sake of consistency you will have to include that poll in every relevant page, that is Eduardo Montealegre, Jose Rizo etc... I also know that some prefer not to have sources in Spanish. I have no problem, but just in case there is a majority that does have a problem I suggest you try to find an english source that uses the poll. Brusegadi 21:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another link tot he poll. English. http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/10/18/112630.shtml?s=os

Brusegadi 22:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link! BTW, it would be nice to have some photos in this article. --Magicartpro 23:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 pretyy 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. Brusegadi 21:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another poll; [1] - this time by CID-Gallup. If we compare it to the UCA-poll, Ortega is down 5 points (32.5% vs. 37.5%), but still in first place, Rizo and Montealegre switch places with similar percentages for the second (21.1% vs. 20.1%) and third (16.8% vs. 17.3%) place. Jarquín polls in fourth place with 1% difference (11.8% vs. 12.9%) --Magicartpro 22:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brusegadi: I agree with you, we should mention the question about the polls in the past elections. I want to include also something about Trivelli. What do you think? --Magicartpro 22:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I will make sure the changes are reflected on the relevant articles. It is not right if one article says one thing and another article says another. We already have something on Trivelli on the Eduardo Montealegre article. Also, La prensa released a note yesterday that stated that the UCA poll was also very controversial in the last election but it turned out to be mistaken. Laters, Brusegadi 03:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a credible source witht he new poll. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/21/AR2006102100013.html Brusegadi 18:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made the relevant changes. Now, looking at the tables, I see there is a colums that says 'last election. I think it should be removed because besides looking bad (it does not change from table to table) its confusing. It seems as if the candidate obtained that when Rizo has never ran for president (he was only running mate.) I think that info is better represented in the section where poll results are discussed.Brusegadi 19:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Magicartpro, I made the relevant changes. I also made some changes in the Rizo, Montealegre, and Jarquin Pages (I made no changes to Ortega since it did not need them.) Some PLC fan has been going crazy about the inclusion of both polls. Can you please give your opinions on the matters in the talk pages? The anon tends to use strange arguments. On another subject, I found an opinion piece that stated that the UCA poll placed Ortega in 1st place during the last presidential election by a large margin and the CID Gallup poll placed the current president one or two points over Ortega, thus, historically (although it is only one instance) Gallup has been better at it. I will find a better source for this and to include in the relevant discussion of the conflicting polls. Brusegadi 01:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good job guys. I will now include some stuff that may be missing (some of it mentioned on the talk page.) For example, what happened last presidential election and Atlantic coast election. It is important to adress the fact that polls are not very predictable in Nica elections...Brusegadi 00:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A few articles by Envío about the polls in past elections; 1990, 1996 and 2001. --Magicartpro 00:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly support the inclusion of additional information about the polls in the Nicaraguan elections, as it may be confusing for an outsider if they compare the past pre-electoral polls and the official results of these elections. --Magicartpro 00:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UCA Law Students?

We can remove this UCA po.... sorry, eh... voting simulation, if you guys agree. Law students are very dangerous people. I've heard they're communists. --Magicartpro 00:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that merely reaching an agreement amongst ourselves is not enough to remove something like that. I honeslty do not like Ortega, but I try very hard to be objective in my contributions to wikipedia and I really think that what I think of the UCA law students or the Ortega clan should not matter. I had no problem removing the Gamboa poll because it was obviously coming from Aleman's quinta. Yet, with the UCA there is nothing so obvious. The most we can say is that on the last presidential election they were way off in their predictions. If someone can provide a valid source to discredit the UCA poll that would be a different story... Brusegadi 04:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is an inconsistency between the header of the UCA polls. The one of the president gives the identety of co-sponors and the other one does not. Both should have it.Brusegadi 04:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody are entitled to have their own political opinions. But it's ridiculous to change UCA Poll to UCA Law Students Poll or change Poll to Voting Simulation in an attempt to discredit those sources or make them look insignificant compared to the others just because the editor is anti-Ortega or pro-Rizo, or whatever. Everybody are entitled to have their own political opinions, but it must not be reflected on the article. BTW, I'm Sandinista and anti-Ortega, and you will never see me posting political propaganda on wikipedia. There are plenty of places on the web to discuss politics. --Magicartpro 09:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you here. I feel like the wording has been changed too much. In essence, a voting simulation is a poll. Thus, its better to just say poll. Also, it was presented as a poll from UCA, so it means that the institution is claiming it as its own. To say "Law Students" gives the impression that it is only a small group. Why dont we just say Maria and Pedro's voting simulation while we are at it. I think the word poll should be restored and simply discuss the simulation thing on the part on methodology. Brusegadi 00:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the comments here I can't help but agree. If the poll is being presented as being conducted by the UCA, it doesn't really matter who particularly conducted it within the UCA. So I've been bold and changed it. BTW, Magic I assume from your second post you were being sarcastic in your first post? Nil Einne 19:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. --Magicartpro 00:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I missed the lively discussion above. Too bad, since I probably was the culprit for making the distinction between the UCA voting simulation and the polls. The reason for the distinction is that, after some discussions with people in Nicaragua, I felt pretty strong that a voting simulation conducted by a bunch of students could be subject to a lot of manipulation. I did not think, therefore, that university students could be given equal weight as professional pollsters with an established reputation. In addition, unlike a poll, where random interviews are conducted with a specific set of questions in order to obtain multi-dimensional results, a voting simulation is totally one-dimensional.NicaGringo 00:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have spoken to some friends who seem to trust it. The problem is that any skepticism cannot be backed with data. Thats why I proposed mentioning that in the past it was off. Brusegadi 00:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know very little about the polls and the issues but it seems to me if the poll was conducted for the university and the university is presenting the poll as their poll, then we have no reason to doubt the poll without strong evidence. Universities have reputations too and I think it's a bit unfair to assume students are untrustyworthy. Many students have a strong sense of ethics and when selected for and asked to do something of a serious nature, they will do their utmost to do it properly. 'Professional pollsters' can be untrustworthy too. Remember that in the end the people are humans. Indeed in some regards it's probably easier to manipulate professional pollsters because they tend to be a known force and they're also obviously financially motivated. Besides, it's not as if the results were extremely unusual Nil Einne 11:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abortion

Am I right that abortion is illegal but there is no actual penality for getting or carrying out an therapeutic abortions? This is what the article suggests to me Nil Einne 19:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Therapeutic abortion is illegal. --Magicartpro 01:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~I get that. But are the no actual penalities for carrying our or getting a therapeutic abortion even though it is illegal? Nil Einne 11:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)~~Ignore me, the section now links to an article which clarifies the situation Nil Einne 12:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soros (NEW POLL)

Hey, http://www.laprensa.com.ni/archivo/2006/noviembre/01/noticias/ultimahora/153554.shtml

George Soros ordered a poll by a company in the US that is associated with the Democratic party. It pretty much gives less advantage to Ortega. We should include it when it is made public. Brusegadi 19:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is another piece of news out that says that this never happened. This is getting crazy, I'll wait for the dust to settle. Brusegadi 00:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the edits that include this poll because, as stated, there is still controversy. Also, since the poll is not yet officially pubished, the percentages for 2 candidates (Rizo and Pastora) are unknown (La Prensa probably omitted them on purpose...) and we cannot place a poll whose probability space is not 100%. Lets wait until they are published. Sorry, I know making those tables takes time, but we have a duty to wikipedia. Take care, Brusegadi 05:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree --Magicartpro 16:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Description Ortega

No, Ortega just like any politician is not perfect. The only information given about him in his small section however is negative; this is unfair unbalanced unaccurate etc.

I don't think the Ortega section is inaccurate. --Magicartpro 19:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

parlament results

anybody got informations on the results of the parlamentary election i.e. the seats in the new parlament?

We have to wait for the official results by the CSE, but preliminary data shows that the FSLN will have 37 seats, ALN 27, PLC 22 and MRS 6. --Magicartpro 17:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Polls

I will delete all pre-election polls from the candidates' pages and add the results of the elections. Yet, we should leave the pre-election polls results here for historical reference. We should also add the election results here. Brusegadi 17:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ortega won, gaining less than 50%

Apparantly he won only because the centre-right parties couldn't find a common candidate. Whence such feuding (a possible left-wing victory was less important to those guys, than their own differences?)Constanz - Talk 19:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons for his victory are much more complex then finding a common candidate. The biggest political party of the right became very corrupt; it granted [him] a law that allows a candidate to win with over 35% (it used to be 45%, so Ortega should not have won.) In addition, the right was divided because half of it is controlled by Arnoldo Aleman and the other half is against Aleman (one side claims to be clean.) FInally, there as another left wing candidate, but he did not manage to divide Ortega's vote. Thus, the real reason for Ortega's winning is the ultimate corruption of the majority right wing party. Brusegadi 22:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted the sexual abuse acusations.

I deleted the sexual abuse accusations against Daniel Ortega. These are serious acusations which appear to have been dealt with some time ago. They are more appropriately discussed in his full biography where they can be (and are) discussed more fully. To add them here I think we would need to show these accusations were a significant issue in the campaign and the reference (as it was before I deleted it) didn't alledge this.Filceolaire 12:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Aln9logo.png

Image:Aln9logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 17:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Mrs14logo.png

Image:Mrs14logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Fsln02logo.jpg

Image:Fsln02logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Plc01logo.jpg

Image:Plc01logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Nicaraguan general election, 2006. 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:

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) 10:53, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]