Talk:Eduardo Montealegre/Archive 1

1

I have heard this guy talk on the television, he only talks about how he is going to stop corruption, without properly adressing allegations that he has been involved in corruption scandals in the many years he was suckling the government teat at the rate of five thousand dollars a month plus benefits.

I have heard talk as well, and I believe he mentioned something concerning Ethanol, thus, your allegation that he "only talks about...stop corruption" sound a bit POV. Also, does anyone know the year he was graduated by Brown and Harvard. Better yet, where did you get that information?? Brusegadi 03:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Pancho Pueblo, Montealegre is the candidate of the Nicaraguan Liberal Alliance, not just the conservative party. The Liberal Alliance now has its own article, by the way. Also, please provide sources for Montealegre saying that he is a self-described neoconservative. And saying that his campaign is focused on ruining the nation's poor, while it can be argued, is not NPOV without sources to determine whether the Riso or Ortega campaigns actually say this, which is the only way we can include it. Academic Challenger 21:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Academic Challenger. ALN is a party that was created exclusively for the purpose of giving Eduardo Montealegre a vehicle for reaching the elections. This is not the first, or last time this happens in Nicaragua. The only permanent political parties in Nicaragua are the Conservatives, Liberals, and Sandinistas. So the only relevant political group he represents is conservatives. Regarding his allegations of corruption, they are very real. Brusegadi, may have talked about ethanol, he can sing about it in the shower, but the real situation is that he is a majority stockholder of "tipitapa power" a petroleum power plant.

The Liberal Alliance may not be a permanent party, but it does exist now, so both parties should be mentioned in the article. You can add allegations of corruption, but you need to find news websites to source this information. I wil l be going away for a couple days, but NicaGringo and others will probably be back before then to remove your information if you don't do that. And don't remove good information from the article when you make changes. Academic Challenger 21:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Listen, it is against wikipedia policy to assert a POV in the articles. Please, keep them NPOV. "But the real situation is..." We are not interested in your perception of reality. Do cite your sources. Brusegadi 22:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

OK Brusegadi. That is fine by me, I have gone ahead and removed any subjective wording that you have no cite for. Anything regarding the word PACTO has no place in an encyclopedia as that is a propaganda term. The reason that the national assembly and Judicial system are full of PLC and FSLN members is that they were the only parties that ran in the last election. I am less interested in your perception of reality, and will remove the subjective word PACTO everytime it comes up.

Pancho Pueblo

I find some of the edits done by Pancho Pueblo to be rather strange. I will assume good faith, since it is wikipedia policy. I have reverted the changes made by him because:

1) They were POV

2) They were not previously discussed in the talk page so that we could find a way to make them less POV. Pancho, if you believe there is POV you must first discuss it here.

3) There was at least one spelling error. INstead of fixing it I decided to revert to an earlier version since the material was POV anyways.

Please do not take this personally and any comment that you have you should write it here and not on my talk page (or nicagringo's for that matter.) You have tried to label Montealegre "corrupt." There is a paragraph in the article discussing the accusations against him. Since we strive for NPOV that is all we can do. Labeling him corrupt in the sentence immediatly before that paragraph is not only redundant (since we discuss the allegations later in the article) and aesthetically poor, but also extremely POV. Brusegadi 18:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Brusegadi You say that Eduardo Montealegre is a succesful buisnessman, that is a point of view, not a fact. You say that the commission has brought charges for purely political reasons, only Mr. Montealegre and the ALN say this, so you must cite it as such. You say that he split from the PLC in an act of protest, that is subjective and you can only cite that to Mr. Montealegre's own words. That clearly does not belong in an encyclopedia. Regarding the alleged "pact" that is a loaded and subjective word that has no place in a dictionary. If you are going to lecture me and tell me that there is a way to do things, you would do well in listening to your own advice. Anything that you add to Mr. Montealegre's profile I will erase.

I removed the succesful businessman part. I also removed the "political reasons" part and if anyone finds a good source please site it and added back. Concerning the pact, I beg to disagree. You say yourself that you live in Nicaragua, so I am surprised that you have not heard about the pact. I will look for English sources covering it. If I cannot find them I will provide a Spanish source for the talk page. Brusegadi 20:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Pancho Pueblo, you forgot to login last time you made changes :) Now, getting back to business; take a look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution

I think we should try to reach this. I will begin by pointing out some things that I find POV:

"He split from the PLC when it became clear that he would not become the candidate of the party. Montealegre also objected to the understanding between Alemán and Daniel Ortega, which had been reached in order to ensure that necessary laws would be passed." You see where it says "when it became clear that..." That is very subjective. Who decides when something has become clear. I could equally say when it became clear that Arnoldo did not want him to be the candidate. So, we do not say either one because they are POV.

The following sentence: " Although strong allegations of corruption exist agaisnt him." It is not just anti-aesthetic, but it is also redundant. The paragraph imeediatly after it clearly states that there are allegations against him. There is no reason to make the entire article about this new allegations.

Then you say: "Mr. Montealegre accuses this commission of bringing this issue purely for political reasons, although Mr. Montealegre fails to answer any of the commissions questions." This is extremely POV. Where do you get this info from. I could as easily have written "Mr. Montealegre has answered all the questions..." You need to provide credible sources for what you are saying. Since this article is not very important in the world media, it will be very difficult to find credible sources, thus, we must try to make an agreement and reach a consensus.

Instead of saying "I will revert any changes that you make" lets try to discuss these changes before making them. Next time you want to make a change, talk about it on the talk page and then we will see if we can reach something. Lets try to stick to the guidelines given in the inital part of this post, which is becoming a bit too long. Good day,

Brusegadi 20:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so I think that the charges being brought upon Montealegre are for political reasons. I do not know if he is innocent. But, the charges, are greatly political. It is parallel to what happened to Aleman (who I happen to dislike.) He is guilty. It is clear that like other politicians, Aleman robbed money from the government. Yet, the charges were of a political nature, Ortega needed him in jail to gain more power. It was a smart politcal move. I only wish that Aleman was in prison because justice was done.

Now, the same is happening to Montealegre (although, I do not know if he is innocent or not.) Yet, as I said before, I believe that the accusations are political. Since, it is hard to find credible sources when you are dealing with the politics of a small country like Nicaragua (and to find them in English! challenging...) it will be difficult to find a credible source that states wether or not the whole thing is political or truth. What I suggest is the following:

Since most of us believe it was political and PanchoPueblo does not, we need to find a consensus. Thus, I suggest simply stating when the alleged crime occured and when the charges were made. This would be objective since they are dates. If he commited those crimes they were done during the Aleman era, ending in 2002. The allegations were brought upon him in the year 2006 (we are talking official allegations.) Thus, we mention this dates and let the reader decide. We do not mention anything about "political." We also mention the composition of the accusing body, since it is relevant and it is another fact. Thus it could read like this:

"Montealgre is accused of doing this in the year 2000. The accusations were first made in the year 2006 a few months before the elections. The accusing body is composed of ..."

This is the body, I suggest doing the wording together so that everyone is satisfied. What do you all think?

Brusegadi 20:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Brusegadi, The person who put together the pieces of the puzzle is Franciso Mayorga. He was in prison until 1 year and a half ago, He spent 2 years in jail under false charges, and he was released and declared innocent afterwards. He did not have the political clout upon comming out of prison to bring these allegations against Mr. Montealegre. In Nicaragua, unlike the USA, newspapers will not print something if it does not benefit them. Also, allegations are not being brought until now, in 2006. In January 2004, the Supreme Court declared the reclassification of the active accounts of BAMER and Bancafe, two of the four banks closed by the government, was illegal. This Supreme Court resolution is an important building block in the case against Mr. Montealegre. The clamour against the CENIS has been going on since 2002, they came out in 2001 not 2000. Mr. Montealegre emitted them as Minister of Public Finance, not as Minister of the Presidency. Some people do have political motivations for publicizing this case, but many people have been fighting this for half a decade now. For you to simply discredit this as a case brought agaisnt Mr. Montealegre's corruption as one brought for "purely political reasons" is a slap in the face to persons who lost their livelyhood due to the corruption of this bastard. Mr. Montealegre does not claim to have answered any of the questions brought before him. He simply discredits them by saying they are political. Thank you for removing the successful buisnessman, I will find a timeline for you, in English, showing that Mr. Montealegre did not leave the PLC until this year. More than two years after Aleman was imprisoned. So that demonstrates very clearly that Aleman's corruption was not the reason he left, as Aleman was long-since in jail.

Pancho, I think you are making the assumption that I do not live in Nicaragua. I am glad that we are able to perform some dialogue, and that is a good sign. In that tone, I would like to clear up somethings:

1) I still believe the case is being brought for political reasons. There may be people who feel passionate about this, but do not let your emotions get in the way of your reasoning. You know very well that in Nicaragua a wheel won't turn unless it benefits somebody. Also, please, notice that I do not clame guilt nor innocence for Montealegre. I simply believe that if Montealegre were not running for president he would not be charged of anything at the moment. The only reason he is being charged its because its better for both, the FSLN and the PLC, if Montealegre does not win. The FSLN benefits because they compete against the right. At first look it seems as if they want to keep him there to keep the right divided. Yet, that only works if the right is divided enough for the FSLN to win in the first round. The way things are right now, they will go to a second round which the FSLN loses because they face a unified right on the second round. So, Montealegre wins the second round and Ortega loses the influence he has had on the assambly through Arnoldo; this assumes of course that Montealegre will win a considerable number of sits in the Assambly. If Rizo wins, Ortega is happier then if Montealegre wins, because he would be able to exercise control not only through the Assambly but also through the presidency. Ortega must be happy that he has Arnoldo in his palm through the judicial system. The PLC benefits from eliminating Montealegre simply because they eliminate another right wing party. They win becuase they will be the only right wing party. As long as the FSLN cannot win on the first round, they will want to keep Montealegre out of the race.

2) I know when Montealegre left the PLC. I feel that providing the 'exact' date would be helpful. Yet, we cannot state any particular reason for why he left other then the official reasons given in the media by him. If he says that he left because of y, I feel that we have no choice but to say "He said he left because of y." Thus, since he claims to have left becuase of Arnoldo's tight control over the PLC, that is what he said and it is impossible to prove him worng. This is an article about him, and to speculate as to why he left would be expressing something that is not factual, it is merely someone's opinion. We may only do that when there is strong consensus in public opinion as to why he left. Currently, public opinion is too fragmented to speculate.

I think that it is hard to add things to the article becuase we are very close to elections. It is hard for eveyone to agree, but through some discussions like this one we may reach a good agreement. Also, you had be surprised at how bad the press in the USA is. Just think FAUX news... Brusegadi 17:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Brusegadi, If you do not claim innocence of guilt for Montealegre than you must present an objective description of the allegation. It is your personal opinion, and Mr. Montealegre's, that the case is brought for political reasons. If you do live in Nicaragua, go and see in the Banco Central's Library, the case of Haroldo Montealegre vs. Bancentro of january 2004. This clearly evidences that there was not only discussion, but legal action taken against the CENIS problem. Regardless, it is your personal opinion that the case is brought against Mr. Eduardo Montealegre for political reasons, the evidence I have presented to you here and in previous posts sufficiently evidences this.

WRONG POLL

Somebody placed a poll that placed Montealegre behind Rizo. This was wrong because the poll was not of NICARAGUA, it was only of Matagalpa and Jinotega. It is like running a poll on San Francisco and Boulder (liberal meccas in the US) and saying that Bush has an approval rating of 0% when in fact it is closer to 30%. Thus, I removed it. To whoever is vandalizing, please stop. Discuss any changes in the talk page as we have agreed. Brusegadi 03:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

BRUSEGADI, no poll has taken a distribution of citizen from the whole of Nicaragua, rural v. urban in all the 15 departments and 2 autonomous reasons. If do not wish to accept a poll that does not favor your candidate, that is fine. But I am going to remove all subjective material in your post, as well as irrelevant material. THe fact that the members of the commission trying Montealegre are PLC and FSLN is of no importance or significance. PLC and FSLN (80 out 92) 87% of the National Assembly. Also the fact that Donald Lacayo was the lawyer for Arnoldo Aleman is of no consequence whatsoever nor does it have a place in an article about EDUARDO MONTEALEGRE. References to the alleged PACT will be removed as well as it has subjective political connotations in Nicaragua. The reason that PLC & FSLN control the Judiciary is that there is NOT A SINGLE APRE, ALN or MRS JUDGE. Those political parties have no actual political ideology and therefore do not have any real followers, only persons who conveniently support them NOW. In MRS is Luis Carrion one of the 9 rulers of Nicaragua in the 1980's and Humberto Ortega, leader of the Sandinista army that started a civil war and placed mine fields in the whole of the North. Humberto Ortega also killed John Paul Genie, a 17 year old that cut him off in his car. In the ALN are Rafael Cordova, who has been a Somocista, Sandinista, Violetista, Alemanista, and Bolanista. HE has supported every single government as he is always seeking a position in government like Richard in A Man for All Seasons. The Vice-presidential Candidate for ALN is Cajina who has always been a Sandinista until 3 years ago. FSLN is no better, with the Vice-presidential candidate for them also being a Cameleon. But in the PLC the majority is now agaisnt Aleman and his control, and they all have Srong Liberal Values. For that reason, there are many Liberal Judges, and NO ALN, APRE, or MRS Judges. There is no PACTO, there is agreements to govern the country. Violeta Chamorro signed an agreement with the Sandinistas where she granted all of them Immunity for their actions in the 1980's, yet this was not called a Pacto. The term Pacto is remeniscint of the Chamorro-Bryant treaty which mortgaged Nicaragua to the USA, and for this reason it is a politically charged term which has no place in an article about Montealegre, or any modern politciain.

Pancho, why is it that you do not sign in? And no, the poll is not valid. Also, it is important to mention the Pacto since Montealegre claims to be against it and this is, afterall, an article about Montealegre. PLEASE stop vandalizing. And DISCUSS. Discuss means that you write something on the talk page and you wait for others opinions BEFORE you make any changes. It does not mean that you just tell us that you are going to revert anything that you find unatractive. Listen, I know you like Rizo. (I read your version of his article and how "his plan for growth..." is the best for Nicaragua. Wikipedia is against such things as propaganda. Please stop and dont for get to wait for the other editors before you make changes like that. I will try to revert some of what you changed. I will not imply revert to an earlier version because I do not want to start a war here. Thus, I will try to reach a version that makes us both happy. Finally, I suggest that you sign in. We all know it is you Pancho... Thanks,

Brusegadi 07:46, 19 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 08:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone know if we can place articles in Spanish as sources for the English wikipedia? If so, I'd like to place the poll above instead of the poll we have now on the article, since the one above was finished on the 10th of August and I think it was larger. Let me know. Brusegadi 18:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

New Version

I believe that the way the article stands is pretty good. Notice that everything is factual and directly related to Montealegre. I removed the "composition" of the investigating body and also the FACT that its president is Aleman's lawyer. Please, if you want to add anything, discuss it first.Brusegadi 08:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I am unable to log in as Pancho as I lost my email because of nonuse. I will try to fix that later. I have no problems at this moment with the article. PS. the fact that the president of the commission is aleman's lawyer is true, but it is as relevant as the fact that Mr. Montealegre's wife's brother is the owner of BANPRO, and he is first cousin of the Caudillo of the small but iconic Conservative party. These are true, but irrelevant.

BRUSEGADI "Because of his stand against corruption, Arnoldo Alemán, and Daniel Ortega's Sandinista National Liberation Front, he enjoys strong support from the United States. " Is POV, you have no evidence that supports this. I think the US supports him because he will lick the shoes of members of the State Department. Because this is a debatable assertion, remove it, or support it.

Pancho, I did not write that. However, I am sure I can find a souce in Spanish. If not, I am sure that as we approach November, some US newpaper is going to state just that. The US does not like Rizo because he is still in the 60s, doing everything Somaza style (like Arnoldo, well, when we speak of Rizo we really speak of Arnoldo...) Everyone knows why they dont like Ortega. So, they like Montealegre. I will find a source for "the reason" why they like him. If I dont find one, I will remove why they like him but I dont think that removing the fact that they like him will be NPOV. Also, I am not sure if we are allowed to place spanish sources. If we are, I will place a poll I found in La Prensa. The poll should be in Ortega's, Montealegre's, and Rizo's article given that it is relevant to all of them. I will look into all of this.Brusegadi 22:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The Houston Chronicle published an article making reference to a poll released on Monday (August 21, 2006) http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/world/4132100.html - we now have another English language version from a reputable U.S newspaper. In its Sunday issue, the Chronicle also had a very interesting description of the Nicaraguan elections. You will find extensive description here why the U.S. envoy supports Montealegre. Please take a look: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/world/4128625.html In my view, PanchoPueblo's objections are totally blown.NicaGringo 23:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Nicagringo, A poll or newspaper article is not Evidence unless it contains a quotation a member of the United States Executive saying that. Otherwise it is hearsay. Brusegadi, how will you defend you assertion that when you speak of Rizo you speak of Arnoldo? Where in the world did you get that? The people who make decisions in the PLC are called the CEN. It consists of 10 members and currently 8 of these members are new people who had nothing to do with the administration of Aleman. I see you keenly removed the fact that Eduardo Montealegre was Minister of the Presidency, and Arnoldo Aleman's right hand man during 2 years of his presidency. I will put this back on the article.

Pancho, I dont have a problem with (although I will double check your statements): "Montealegre served as minister to the presidency in 1998 to Arnoldo Alemán. He also served as foreign minister from 1999 to 2000 in the government of Arnoldo Alemán and as finance minister from 2002 to 2003 in the government of the current President Enrique Bolaños. Also serving as minister to the presidency of Enrique Bolaños." But the wording is not very good. It is confusing. I will look up a timeline and write it in a way that may be less confusing. Thanks, Brusegadi 00:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

BRUSEGADI, You claim that a poll was conducted between the 20th and the 26th, that is a Blatant Lie. There is no reference to either of these dates on the Miami Herald article.

Did you read the article. It says that the poll was conducted 'last week.' Since the article was published on the 27, the week before that is the week that I site. Read the article. It is not a lie and please be careful with you accusations. Brusegadi 23:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Anyways, I rewrote it for the sake of readability. Yet, the herald-published poll should stay since it is a more recent poll. Too bad if it does not agree with your views. Brusegadi 23:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

My views? Polls dont mean anything, in Nicaragua, or in the United States. If it were so, the president of the United States would be Howard Dean as he had the highest poll ratings of any candidate in the primaries. ON Sunday 30 thousand people showed up to Mr. Montealegre's rally where he claimed he would show his party is stronger than the Liberal party. He failed. 250 thousand showed up for Dr. Rizo's rally the week before. And, regarding my being careful with accusation, I have made no accusations. Your claim that an article mentioned dates which you mentioned is a lie. You didnt rewrite for readability, you rewrote because you had stated something untrue, something that was not stated in the article. You would like to assume that the article meant those dates, but that doesnt make it true. Since you give me so much BS about my references, be careful what you reference.

Polls mean something (only Pastora (<1%) and Rizo (<18%) seem not to believe in polls right now...) I trust them more than the number of people that show up at rallys. Specially in a poor country like Nicaragua. Free booze, and you have a couple thousand. The point is that polls matter, that is why they are there. Of course, if Rizo were winning then you had love the polls. As for the 250,000 I think those are all the voters that Rizo has. The only ones... Most of Montealegre's followers have better things to do then go to rallies. Back to polls, if a difference is small, say, less than 7 points, then, you cant really make any conclusions. Yet, if there is a high difference, like the one between Montealegre and Rizo, then it is pretty clear... Another thing, if you want to talk about US politics: Dean was up but not by much. And, in terms of presidential elections, the Democrats tend to always have advantage in the polls (not that Dean ran for president.) Right now for example, the Republicans are down, but no one is too certain about the Democrats being able to win the house back. There is a certain historical bias towards the dems, sort of like the bias for the FSLN. Brusegadi 20:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Daniel Ortega, who has been in first place in the polls since 1989 doesnt belive in the polls either. In the last poll a sample of 1,458 persons nationwide was taken. you can see this in the Cid-gallup website. What do Montealegre supporters have on Sunday that is more important than supporting their candidate? Try to back up the things you say with logic or facts, it makes for much more interesting arguments. Of course rallies mean more than polls. Rallies show muscle, polls ask candidates a number of questions about candidate, political parties, and the country in general, the company making the poll then decides who wins on the basis of those answers. On election day, people only see a piece of paper with parties names, and pictures of candidates. Obviously you have never been to Nicaragua, or been at a massive concentration. You cant give two-hundred fifty thousand people free booze, dont be naive. It is incredibly expensive & causes unruliness. PLC doesnt have the millions of dollars in campaign money that the ALN gets from the Nicaraguan national government and the IRI to pay for rallies. Anyone can answer whatever they feel like to a person asking general questions over the phone, it takes true political commitment to attend a 4 hour-long rally. I support Rizo, as well as many people I know in the US, Spain and other countries in Central America, and we were not at Rizo's rally. The 250,000 who were there is only a small demonstration of the political might of the PLC. Versus the 30,000 ALN has.

I wont bother to say more than the following: you say: "Obviously you have never been to Nicaragua." This is such a bad assumption. I was born there, and I live there. I am currently abroad because I wanted to study elsewhere. So, dont tell me I have never lived there! How can I take (and I will not) everything you say seriously when I know for a fact that you make such blatantly false assumptions! That is why we need credible sources. As for the poll, it says enough and it stays until someone finds a more recent one from a respectable source. Brusegadi 04:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, you were born there, so what? you dont address any of the points I made because you cant. Because you know that it is unreasonable to claim that Mr. Montealegre's supporters have something better to do on a Sunday Afternoon that go to a free music concert & political rally where your candidate has called for all his supporters to show up. The reason that there was 250,000 people at Rizo's rally is because he has more popular support. Period. The telemarketing schemes that pass for polls mean nothing but a few people answered some question over the phone, none of the questions being, Who will you vote for on November 5th. Regarding your allegations that every single one of Rizo's supporters was at his rally in Sebaco is ludicrous, as myself and many other true liberals who support Rizo were absent from the rally. Learn to back up your words with logic, or arguments, not emotions.

Sir, it is not wikipedia policy to have PERSONAL battles in the discussion pages. The discussion pages are solely to discuss the articles. That is why I dont waste my time arguing with you. Please familiarize yourself with the rules so that you dont get in trouble. If you want to have an argument get a user account so I can email you. Besides, it is really hard to have an intelligent discussion with people who blindly (or perhaps for extreme personal gain?) follow some political group or another. Brusegadi 16:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

New Poll September 29

Hey, new poll published. http://www.laprensa.com.ni/archivo/2006/septiembre/29/noticias/politica/146806.shtml

Anyone want to update? Brusegadi 05:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Oliver North is a policy maker. He has not confused Montealegre with Rizo, he is very clear that PLC is the only party that can defeat FSLN. He knows Nicaragua much better than you give him credit for, read about is involvement in Nicaragua. Also, you can no longer say that Montealegre has support of the USA because here, an influencial American is supporting Rizo. If you maintain that Montealegre enjoys support from the USA I will erase it as that is POV. Clearly there is divided support among Americans of influential status. The only way that you can say that he enjoys support from the USA is if President Bush says that he supports Montealegre. Also, the fact that he stands against corruption is not the reason that certain people support him, otherwise they would support everyone who is agaisnt corruption.

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)

Oliver North is using the Gamboa poll, which uses the numbers that Oliver North uses in his article. 2nd, you cannot say that the USA supports the candidacy of Montealegre. Only the President of the USA can bestow the "support of the United States". Until you get source quoting George Walker Bush saying that he support Montealegre, you cannot say the USA supports him. You can say some people in the United States support him. but that is probably not going to help your article, because "some" peopel in the United States [an arbitrary number] support Daniel Ortega, as well as any possible cause you can imagine.

U.S. Support of Eduardo Montealegre and Oliver North's Article

I have two issues with the recent edits on the Eduardo Montealegre page: (1) The removal of the fact that the U.S. Government favors Montealegre in the elections, at least as opposed to Rizo of the PLC; and (2) the weight of credibility given the Fox News article by Oliver North.

On the first point, the U.S. ambassador in Nicaragua (Paul Trivelli) has openly come out against the FSLN for obvious reasons, and against the PLC because it is still run by Arnoldo Alemán, an unquestionable crook serving a 20-year sentence. Trivelli's support for Montealegre is because he stands against the FSLN and the corruption of the FSLN-PLC (Ortega-Alemán) pact. In the local press (La Prensa and El Nuevo Diario) Alemán himself has been denounced correcting Rizo at times, and stating directly and through his wife and daughter that Arnoldo still controls decisions in the PLC. The U.S. ambassador is the official representative of the U.S. Government and of its foreign policy. I very much doubt that a career diplomat like Amb. Trivelli would still be in Managua if the U.S. Government did not agree with his actions and words. It is totally ludicrous to insist that you need a quote from President George W. Bush to make support for Montealegre official.

On the second point, as Brusegadi has also said, Ollie North is not a U.S. policy maker, and he does not represent an official view of the U.S. government. He is only a talking head of Fox News, with insignificant following by the extreme right. If O'Reilly came out with a similar statement, would it represent a view of the U.S. Government? Although North may claim to speak with authority on Nicaragua because of his dated involvement with Iran-Contra, he has been totally out of touch with Nicaragua in the recent past. In my opinion, his article was irresponsible because it exuded complete ignorance with respect to current poll results in Nicaragua, and gave a completely biased view fed to him by PLC supporters with their own agenda. I believe that his article on Nicaragua did a disservice to his reputation, which is already a questionable one as far as the American general public is concerned. Roger Noriega's response to North's article is further proof that the U.S. Government does not disagree with Amb. Trivelli's statements.

The PLC keeps quoting in their own media the results of a poll that place Rizo as second to Ortega. The unregistered editor refers to a poll by Gamboa, but those results have not appeared in any Nicaraguan media (at least not in La Prensa, El Nuevo Diario, Confidencial, etc.). Gamboa may be a pollster, but not a credible one. The recognized pollsters in Central America are Borge, CID-Gallop and M&R. The fact that North uses the results of this unknown poll removed the integrity of his article. To me it is proof enough that his article is influenced by PLC friends of his. NicaGringo 19:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

You are right and I cant believe I missed out on the fact that Paul Travelli has spoken against Rizo and Ortega. He is has the word of the US when it comes to Nicaragua (by defenition of his role.) Yet, it would be cool if we could find some article to cite from (travelli saying it...) I would also like to include this. I thought it was a good analysis. Brusegadi 23:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I had read Roger Noriega's piece. I thought that it was an excellent analysis. Considering his previous position in the U.S. government, he certainly speaks with authority. See also how he mentions that Trivelli has taken sides. I truly believe that you really do not need a citation to support that Montealegre is the U.S. favorite. Trivelli's support had been so widely published that as the delegations of foreign observers have been arriving in Nicaragua, they have accused both Venezuela as well as the U.S. of intervening. I believe that the latest one to comment was the OAS delegation a couple of weeks ago. Take a look at this link to NicaNet article in July of this year: [1] In this other link, you will find a fair and comprehensive analysis of the Nicaraguan elections, presented by the Counsel on Hemispheric Affairs (COHA) in August of this year. It clearly states the U.S. support for Montealegre through Trivelli. [2] In my opinion, however, Roger Noriega's is the best. NicaGringo 02:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I will try to find some place where it is stated. If someone who is not familiar reads it they may be skeptic. I honestly think it should not be so hard. I liked the analysis in the article too. I do not agree with everything he says, but when he talks about Arnoldo's preference (Ortega over Montealgre) he hits the point right on target. That is obviously what is going on. Take care, Brusegadi 04:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

This is the best I can find. In it, Trivelli says that Montealgre is the candidate against the 'el pacto' but it does not say, in an explicit manner, that he has the support of the US. I think that in international politics such a statement would be undiplomatic. Given that the US has been blamed of intervining, this may be enough. I'll keep looking anyways. Let me know what you think. I will not change anything yet. Brusegadi 01:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Rather than getting cought up with the word "support", which may have the wrong connotation, I tried to use "endorsement". Tell me what you think of my edit. In this manner, we are saying what a lot of sources have said without requiring a citation. NicaGringo 12:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Both of you need to brush up on your Constitutional Law. An ambassador of the United States cannot speak for the United States. The only person who can bestow political support is the president of the United States.Trivelli does not have the word on anything. He is an employee of the State Department that got shafted.

Here is a link that states who is Washington's favorite. There is also the new nuevodiario poll which Magicarpio wanted to include. It places Ortega, Rizo, Montealegre, Jarquin, Pastora in that order. http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/10/18/112630.shtml?s=os Brusegadi 22:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The article says that Montealegre is Washington's favorite, does he mean George Washington? I wasnt aware that Washington D.C. had a single voice. President Bush sure as hell hasnt supported Montealegre. Congress, who under Article 1 of the United States Constitution is in charge of foreign affairs hasnt come out supporting Montealegre. So where does this omnipotent article get that Washginton's favorite is montealegre?

"Don't interfere" in Nicaragua vote, OAS tells U.S. by Reuters. --Magicartpro 21:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

New Polls / Voting Simulation

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 think we should remove the UCA poll. More when the poll is out, but lets begin discussion so changes may follow swiftly. Brusegadi 21:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The Cid-Gallup is a Poll, they asked people a question, & we dont know exactly what that question was. The UCA results came from a voting simulation, where fifteen THOUSAND people went out a voted in voting boths for a mock-election. You decide what is more indicative of voters intentions.

In the elections page there was discussion on the topic and both polls were considered important. Also, in the last election the UCA exercise failed to predict the outcome whereas the Gallup poll managed to predict the outcome. I consider both exercies important (unlike the Gamboa poll which was at least suspicious and at worst fabricated) since the Gallup is in line with most other polls done and the UCA comes from institutions that seem to not have anything on the line.

One request: Whoever is making changes and comments without identifying themselves, please do so. It is difficult to see how many people are commenting without having to check on the "history" section of this page. If you are not registered, why not? It is extremely simple. NicaGringo 05:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

WRONG, the last election was in the Atlantic coast in 2006. Cid-Gallup predicted a ALN second place. IN reality ALN was dead last in fourth place. Cid-Gallup's recent ability to measure the outcome in Nicaraguan elections has failed miserably. The UCA SIMULATION was not a poll, people actually deposited votes in an urn, there is no better way to find out what people want then that. - pancho pueblo

Pancho: ALN came in fourth place out of seven parties in 2006. On the other hand, you cannot compare the Atlantic Coast elections and the General Elections. In the 2006 AC elections the abstention was record-high; more then 55%. That doesn't happens in national elections. I agree with you that Cid-Gallup failed in the last elections, but who didn't? The late swing phenomenon is always present in the Nicaraguan elections, or as it's called in Nicaragua; the güegüense factor. My personal opinion is that the polling organizations are trying to play safe. The overall percentages of the undecided voters is significant, 11% vs. almost 18% in the last two polls. Those votes can definitely decide the elections. --Magicartpro 22:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Brusegadi: The UCA results were from a voting simulation conducted by university students. It was SPONSORED by the likes of El Nuevo Diario, etc. Sponsorship implies, funding, coverage, etc. It does not mean that they conducted it or that they stand behind the results. Since it is not a professionally conducted poll, I do not believe that your edit is warranted. See how I changed it.NicaGringo 17:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Ortega's fifth election

Message by NicaGringo: 05:58, 22 October 2006 NicaGringo (Talk | contribs) m (Correction. Nobody recognizes Ortega's first presidency as a democratic election.)

In 1984, Nicaragua held elections recognized as valid by the international community, but discounted by the United States. [3] Please NicaGringo, stop reverting my edits. --Magicartpro 19:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I think wikipedia should be parallel to the international community. Thus, it will be his fifth time running. There is room to include the US failure to recognize the 80s election but it should be adressed in the article on Nicaragua, under history. Take care, Brusegadi 22:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record. Totally in agreement that it is the fifth election. The point is that it is the fourth consecutive election since his presidency. NicaGringo 17:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Shame or not

Somebody (the PLC anon who is always roaming these pages, making our lives difficult) changed the article to 'Montealegre "was" running for president.' I am happy the elections are on Sunday, that way that anon, who is only interested in political propaganda, will stop vandalizing wikipedia. Brusegadi 04:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

On el pacto (description) for all those who said it was only used by la prensa (it is on the middle of the article).... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/custom/2006/11/03/CU2006110300909.html 138.16.7.239 16:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Montealegre did NOT win second place. NOR did he recieve 29% of the vote. 8.6% of the votes have NOT been counted, and given the fact that PLC is 3% away from ALN, it is far from clear who will hold second place win the CSE pronounces the final results. Also, what is el pacto? that article doesnt say anything but repeat the hubris the La Prensa created. The PLC & FSLN shared all positions of power because they won 99% of votes cast in the 2001 election, not because of some evil pact like La Prensa has cried for the past few years.

Rizo got third and Montealegre got second. 100% of the votes have been counted! Brusegadi 03:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

EMR - Education

The Brown University article says that EMR graduated from Harvard Business School in 1978, but it also says that it obtained such information from the Vamos con Eduardo website. The website Bio, however, does not have this specific date. I have replaced the link to Brown with one to the Bio page on www.vamorconeduardo.org. I have checked with people that have access to Harvard's alumni website, and they have confirmed that he graduated in 1980, not 1978. EMR's bio, furthermore, says that he initiated his professional career in 1976. This makes sense because he worked for his father in Banco Nicaragüense for two years before going to Harvard. NicaGringo 19:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)