Talk:Opinion polling for the 2018 Pakistani general election

Dispute

Clearly we are in dispute about what to do for this page. A few points:

1) Should the facebook poll be included or not? 2) Should events be allowed to show whether these events influence the voting intentions of parties, such as the disqualification of NS? Masterpha (talk) 17:06, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Facebook is not a reliable source. Also, we should talk about Nawaz's disqualification.--Panam2014 (talk) 20:25, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok, but why was the GSP (Global Strategic Partners) poll removed? It was cited by many independent news agencies: here, here and here. I only used the google drive version of the poll because it contained all of the information for voting intention at both the provincial and national level. Masterpha (talk) 20:57, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

We should have reliable source. --Panam2014 (talk) 23:07, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok, but what do you deem to be reliable? Surely the GSP poll is reliable as it has been cited by many news agencies? Masterpha (talk) 07:29, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, all sources but no FB. --Panam2014 (talk) 11:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Facebook poll

Okay. So I understand that many of you might be hesitant to use the facebook poll. But may I ask you, why is this so? I will revert the poll that has been added by an anonymous user but can anyone explain to me what is so wrong with a poll which has a clear methodology explained and is by all means reliable, expect for the fact it is facebook? Regards, Masterpha (talk) 06:42, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

People are adamant on these polls being included, so unless there are any objections I will let them on the page Masterpha (talk) 12:48, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

To comment on the reliability of the poll, if the sample size is under 1,000 nationwide it will not be deemed reliable, or if the results are too extreme in relation to other polls, like the PakPolling one Masterpha (talk) 20:19, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Facebook news sources are unreliable, and this pollster in particular is a primary source. We should be particularly wary of this source which only exists on Facebook (can you find coverage of this operation's polling results in any other publication?), conducts its polls through Facebook and Survey Monkey, and does not publish its methodology or sampling error or any of the other critical information that professional poll operators publish along with their results to inform their accuracy. A reliable polling source looks like this: pages and pages of statistics, methodology, and discussion, not just a pretty pie chart with some stock art, and most importantly for our purposes it has secondary source coverage. The OOP polls are not WP:RS and should not be included. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

OOP just released a new poll, and I contacted them for information and had a chat with them. First of all, their polling is NOT done online, they have teams on the ground surveying people in person. Second of all, I asked their methodology and they sent it to me and even added it to their latest post, they have a margin of error of 3-4% at a 95% confidence interval with a sample size of 3355 respondants, their previous polls all had sample sizes above 1000. Thirdly, they are even providing polls to one of the three major political parties, who are using the polling data for their own decision making. In my opinion there is enough evidence to suggest that their polling is reliable enough to be included on Wikipedia. Have a look at their latest poll and feel free to contact them too https://www.facebook.com/PakistanOnlineOpinionPolling/posts/1968865646517233 --Hussain.r97 (talk) 12:48, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

@Hussain.r97:, Roshan Pakistan opinion polling should explain their polling methodology rather than just say ‘it is good’. Also, if they can, they should create a website where this into can be stored as it does not fulfill WP:RS if it is in Wiki Masterpha (talk) 16:55, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

It is also pertinent to mention that creating websites is cheap. Wordpress.com allows you to create a great website for cheap, and if they do provide surveys to political parties I would assume that they have sufficient money to create a custom domain. Masterpha (talk) 20:55, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

@Masterpha: I totally understand your concern on the fact that they don't have a website. However, when it comes to methodology, they have explained it: METHODOLOGY: Our coverage was national for the first time (all four provinces including FATA), and rural/urban, based on 3355. 56% of our respondents were male, the balance women. 33% were young (under 30), 49% middle aged (30-50), and 19% old (50+). 65% of our respondents were in rural areas and 35% of the respondents were in urban areas. Our mode of surveying was face to face, and the survey was conducted from June 8-13. You can expect a margin of error of 3-4% at a 95% confidence interval. I had a chat to them and they are actually relatively new, but they seem quite genuine. --Hussain.r97 (talk) 21:53, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

@Hussain.r97: the main point is that we will not use a facebook source. If they wish to create a website and put their polling results and methodology on this then we might allow this. Masterpha (talk) 06:35, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

@Masterpha: Roshan Pakistan Opinion Polling have created a website now, I think we can definitely add them to the page now? https://roshanpakistanopinionpolling.wordpress.com/ --Hussain.r97 (talk) 10:20, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

We are already discussing this, on a seperate discussion on the talk page. Masterpha (talk) 11:04, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

External Links

@Ivanvector: why are you removing external links? It is perfectly acceptable in opinion poll pages for there to be external links to the polls rather than references. I don’t even need to give you examples, they are in plain sight. I am returning the external links. Masterpha (talk) 07:53, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

@Ivanvector:Sorry, that might have seemed agressive. There might be a good reason to use references instead of external links, so I just want to understand why before I revert. Regards, Masterpha (talk) 10:17, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I didn't remove the links, I just converted to inline references, then linked the polling firms' names to our articles on those firms where I could find one. This preserves the citation in the reference, allows it to be reused throughout the article where it's used in different polling tables, and gives the reader a link to follow to additional content on the polling group itself, which is the usual expectation of bluelinks in a Wikipedia article. I haven't actually removed any links, they're just elsewhere on the page. There are not supposed to be external links in the body of an article at all, according to our guideline. If you can find many examples of external links in polling articles, you have found many errors that should be corrected. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 10:33, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Link to the latest nationwide poll

Masterpha, the source seems to be a WSJ article that is locked for non-subscribers. Is there a link for it that is on the domain of Gallup Pakistan, the pollster that conducted it? If so, please change it to that so the information remains verifiable for everyone.

Thanks, Wiki.0hlic ^(talk) 12:49, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Wiki.0hlic, thank you for reaching out to me in this regard. Whilst I have not found a non-wsj source for the poll, I have emailed one of the directors at gallup about this poll, for which I am still awaiting a response. Regards, Masterpha (talk) 19:04, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Masterpha, thank you for your response. I will watch this space for any updates on the issue. That said, if Gallup Pakistan doesn't respond to you on the matter within a reasonable timeframe, we would have to rollback on this edit until a proper reference source is available. Best, Wiki.0hlic ^(talk) 11:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Wiki.0hlic, I have just received an email from Gallup, saying that the poll was authentic and conducted in March 2018. They did not, however, elaborate further as to when in March this poll was conducted or what the minor parties position was in the poll. Best, Masterpha (talk) 15:30, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the update, Masterpha. Weird that WSJ has access to this poll before it is officially released by Gallup Pakistan. There is no mention of it on their website or any Pakistani news channel/website. Regardless, will watch for any updates on Gallup Pakistan's Twitter handle. Best, Wiki.0hlic ^(talk) 11:47, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-Protection Request

Due to increasing number of edits without proper and disputed sources and expecting an increasing in such cases as the elections near, I am proposing that the main page be semi-protected Jibran1998 (talk) 20:04, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

support There are far too many unregistered users insistent on adding the facebook poll without discussing it on the talk page. I hope this move will encourage them to put their ideas on the talk page Masterpha (talk) 20:22, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

support There seems to be over-reliance on weak Facebook data as source for some poll results. The source in question has no publications to their name. Their only claim to adding data on Wikipedia is a Facebook page, something which is inherently against the guidelines of Wikipedia's reference source policies.Wiki.0hlic ^(talk) 21:19, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

This needs to be implemented fast. We are still getting vandals. Masterpha (talk) 16:31, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Roshan Pakistan Opinion Polling

Here they have created their own website. I realise this may be classed as a ‘self published source’, but I believe it meets the criteria for being allowed. For example, it is neither making exceptional claims, nor is there any reasonable doubt to its authenticity. Masterpha (talk) 06:05, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

@Wiki.0hlic:, @Jibran1998: Masterpha (talk) 06:06, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

@Masterpha:, yes the website does not make exceptional claims and they even claim to have a "polling firm" in Islamabad, so support it to be posted- Jibran1998 (talk) 10:24, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

@Masterpha: I disagree. Take a look at Wikipedia's policy on this. I am not for the inclusion of their data unless they get some sort of credence - like a reliable source (newspaper, TV program) citing them. As of the present rationale, I can create a blogspot page and put up my own 'research data'. Will it be fit for citation on Wikipedia?

As for this: "Our polling firm, located in I-8 Markaz, Islamabad, provides quality opinion polling data to two major political parties in Pakistan at the moment, amongst other organizations." You can't get any more ambiguous than that. No address, no contact info, just ridiculous claims. Did these 'major' parties hire them off a Facebook page while passing on reputable local pollsters like Gallup and IPOR?

That said, I am not accusing these Roshan Pakistan pollsters of skimping on their research but I have some serious doubts regarding their veracity. - Wiki.0hlic ^(talk) 11:08, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

@Wiki.0hlic:, apologies, only read this after I completed the edit. I suppose they have given their address seeing as they have told us I-8 Islamabad? Masterpha (talk) 11:23, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

@Masterpha: That's a whole sector of Islamabad, not a pinpoint address. Sort of saying like having an office in DHA Lahore or Clifton.Wiki.0hlic ^(talk) 14:17, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

@Wiki.0hlic: I agree with you because of poor sourcing. At the same time Duniya / ARY news surveys are also not reliable sources. I have serious reservations on including them. For example a TV anchor visiting two or three locations in a Urban centre like Multan and drawing inferences about voting pattern of whole region South Punjab comprising of 46 constituencies. We must stick to professional survey organizations most preferably Gall up Pakistan. Such organization select strata based samples and use scientifically and statistically proven technics. If we want to keep this page as per quality standards then we have to be very particular about professionalism. Jawadmdr (talk) 14:32, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

@Jawadmdr: Dunya News is a reputable media house in the country and their surveys are being conducted throughout Pakistan. Based on your point of only Multan being surveyed out of South Punjab - the surveyor, Habib Akram, has visited several S. Punjab constituencies including the ones in Multan, D. G. Khan, Rajanpur, R. Y. Khan, Vehari, and Khanewal. Complete list is here. Furthermore, these surveys are backed by video evidence. I will take the Dunya News surveys over anything conducted by Roshan Pakistan or Poll Maker. @Masterpha:, please re-add the Dunya News surveys. No consensus was reached on their removal and yet @Jawadmdr: removed them based on his single message on the Talk page. Wiki.0hlic ^(talk) 15:36, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. So we will not have roshan. But. @Jawadmdr: what are you doing adding online polls and removing dunya polls? If anything dunya is much more reliable than any ‘election watch maker’ Masterpha (talk) 15:05, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

@Masterpha: I appreciate your good work on this page. Poll maker is backed by a election watch. You can visit election watch and see professional credentials reflected in Swing seat analysis. Incumbency analysis, Electable Vs Party analysis, Seat Hattrick analysis and so on. Thanks Jawadmdr (talk) 15:15, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

@Masterpha:, @Jawadmdr: I believe the Dunya News polls should be added to the article, on what basis can we assume that the poll might be biased? When it is being streamed on National Tv viewed by millions more than here so makes no difference if we add it here Jibran1998 (talk) 15:34, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

@Wiki.0hlic: Your answer is actually making my point more valid. You said Dunya News is a reputable media house. Yes it is but Is it reputable survey organization ? @Jibran1998: Who said they are biased ? They must not be But are they professional surveyors ? May be I have to involve a ADMIN for POV push by @Masterpha: by repeatedly adding Duniya news survey and removing ARY news survey, May be double standards ???? Jawadmdr (talk) 16:06, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

@Jawadmdr:, news organizations conduct public opinion surveys throughout the world. Here are some survey pages from USA, India, and United Kingdom. You can clearly see who is going for a PoV push.Wiki.0hlic ^(talk) 16:56, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

@Jawadmdr: There is consensus between 3 editors here, re edit the ARY News polls with proper reference. You are being warned for edit warring Jibran1998 (talk) 16:12, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

@Jibran1998: consensus is not majority. It is Consensus. Read the policy If you add any thing its burdened on you to get consensus otherwise we have to move to arbitration. Jawadmdr (talk) 16:16, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

@Jawadmdr: you are free to move to arbitration, but till then the edits stay with 3 editors majority Jibran1998 (talk) 16:21, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

@Saqib:, @SheriffIsInTown:, please input your opinion on this Dunya News source Jibran1998 (talk) 16:25, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Even 100 users can not put anything against the WP policy of reliable sourcing. Jawadmdr (talk) 16:28, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

@Jawadmdr: your interpretation of WP policy is against the majority of users. Masterpha (talk) 16:49, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

• A big no for Roshan Pakistan poll, Wordpress is a blog and not a reliable source, anyone can put anything on WordPress. ARY is known to be biased in favor of PTI and against PML (N). I am ok with Dunya poll, they are more neutral of the two although Pakistani media organizations are prone to making mistakes. If we can avoid then avoid them otherwise it does not hurt to include Dunya poll. Rely more on Gallup, PILDAT etc. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:52, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment There has been severe edit warring at this article, to the point where several of you were in danger of getting blocked for violating WP:3RR. I have fully protected the article for two days, so that you can continue to discuss this here on the talk page and hopefully reach some kind of consensus. --MelanieN (talk) 16:59, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

@MelanieN: most users are in consensus. It is just that one user in particular wants to implement his point of view regardless of what the talk page consensus is. None of this would have happened had it not been for him. Masterpha (talk) 17:02, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

• Furthermore, if the issue cannot be resolved with discussion here then one of you should take the questionable source especially the WordPress one to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:03, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

@Jibran1998: I second what Sheriff said above. --Saqib (talk) 17:16, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

@Saqib:, @SheriffIsInTown: THe Roshan Pakistan thing was over, we were talking about the Dunya News Poll which was being constantly removed by one user Jibran1998 (talk) 17:21, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

::I am fine with inclusion of Dunya News poll! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:53, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Dear ADMIN kindly reverse Duniya news link. In Pakistan Media houses take sides of political parties therefore their surveys are biased. Please see other Pakistani user is also confirming this fact [1] and [2] . Even the person who is adding Duniya link has confessed the fact in his previous edit summary [3]. I will further add, No editor has any objection on reputable survey organizations like Gallup Pakistan, Pulse consultants and GSP but Media houses such as Duniya and ARY are known for taking sides in favour of political parties. So during Talk page discussion period please remove controversial edits [4] . Jawadmdr (talk) 18:06, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Example of a reliable survey on Latest Pakistan election One example of an independent survey by SDPI, secondary sourced by Herald and thirdly sourced by DAWN [5]. This survey, financially and technically was supported by the Sustainable Development Policy Institute, an Islamabad-based independent think tank, was carried out in the first two weeks of April 2018 in 136 districts and regions across Pakistan. Chosen in accordance with the 2017 census data, the total number of respondents who participated in the survey was 1,497; 849 males and 648 females. They were further divided by locality: 652 respondents were from urban areas and 845 from rural areas. Respondents were also split on the basis of provinces and regions: 794 were from Punjab, 348 from Sindh, 219 from Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, 88 from Balochistan, 34 from the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (Fata) and 14 from Islamabad. The last parameter for division was mother language: 584 were Punjabi speakers, 266 were Pashto speakers, 231 were Urdu speakers, 216 were Sindhi speakers, 87 were Seraiki speakers, 61 were Balochi speakers, 20 were Hindko speakers, 8 were Gujarati speakers and 24 respondents spoke other languages.

This is how a professional survey organization works not like a media anchor with mike in hand. Jawadmdr (talk) 18:24, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

@Jawadmdr:You have to realise that the majority of respondents in Habib Akram surveys are not done in camera. Only significant responses are to show how people think. Also, he very clearly explains his methodology in tv shows. You also bring up that i reverted an ARY poll. This is because ARY has a pro-PTI tendency. I realise that my summary was incorrect, and I apologise if you think I am being hypocritical. But for now, consensus has been reached that they will be added, and you should ideally concede this. Masterpha (talk) 20:27, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Dunya News

Please use this section for the discourse on the issue of adding\removing Dunya News Polls. Add either support or oppose before continuing with the rationale so @MelanieN: can tally the final count. @Masterpha:, @Jibran1998:, @Saqib:, @SheriffIsInTown:, @Jawadmdr:. Thanks.

support Dunya News is a reputable media house in the country and their constituency-centric surveys are being conducted throughout Pakistan. Complete list by constituency is here. Furthermore, these surveys are backed by video evidence. Regarding @Jawadmdr:'s point of news organization not conducting surveys (or being biased), here are some survey pages from USA, India, and United Kingdom. All of these use TV channels/media houses as sources for certain surveys. Finally, a news organization can have inclinations towards a certain brand of politics. For example, it is conservatism for Fox News and liberalism for CNN and MSNBC but that doesn't merit the exclusion of their data in the aforementioned USA page. And Dunya News haven't had any history of journalistic favoritism unlike ARY News (pro PTI) and Geo News (pro PMLN). So, unless, evidence is brought to suggest that Dunya News has doctored the survey results or has an established history of overwhelming favoritism in their news reports, there is no cause for removing their survey data - which, I believe is some of the most comprehensive being conducted by any news organization in Pakistan.Wiki.0hlic ^(talk) 18:33, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support Second with @Wiki.0hlic: constructive explanation. - Jibran1998 (talk) 18:43, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support Dunya is a fairly neutral source which is very comprehensive in it’s polling.Masterpha (talk) 21:31, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose/Don't include Duniya well, CNN collaborated with ORC international- a specialist, NBC with Survey monkey, Reuters with Ipsos. Others have a history. Duniya News neither have history of O poll nor collaboration with researchist. EXCLUSION will be good & stop inclusion of any future dummy surveys by Media houses. Using Media houses as 2ndry source will be fair not as primary source. StLouis2 (talk) 07:16, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per StLouis2. --Saqib (talk) 07:25, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

@Saqib: first you support, now you oppose? Masterpha (talk) 08:20, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

What? Where did I supported? I said I second what Sheriff said by which I meant that I would not cite Roshan Pakistan poll due to concerns Sherrif pointed and that we should avoid polls by news media organisations and rely on pollsters such as Gallup, PILDAT. --Saqib (talk) 09:43, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Apologies, misunderstood what you said. Sheriff said that he was ok with dunya polls because dunya is neutral so by seconding that i thought you were endorsing dunya polls. Masterpha (talk) 10:20, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: I was thinking about opposing since I read the last comment by Jawadmdr, I think they are right in their assessment of what the right way of polling is. You cannot do opinion polling the way Habib Akram did although I do not question his or Dunya's neutrality but why insist on including it when certain requirements of proper opinion polling are not met. I will also like to suggest to the folks who wants to include it to not make this as a matter of ego and let it go. The example of these channels reliability is that Geo News was showing this same Wikipedia page (while trying their best to not show the statistics from Dunya) to discuss election trend in one of their shows (Aapas Ki Baat) yesterday and this debate and edit warring might have started from there as someone working on that project might have wanted to object Dunya's inclusion (infighting of channels coming to Wikipedia). It looks like while we are relying on them, they are relying on us. On the other side of the debate, the question is whether we should succumb to infighting and jealousy of these channels towards each other and not include something on Wikipedia just because they don't like each other. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 11:25, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose: Addendum to my above comment, not enough details in source regarding the methodology to warrant an inclusion! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:19, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per my above comments. I also swear to God that I have no link to Geo, Duniya, ARY or any media channel. Neither I am member of any political party. In fact I have never voted in my life due to logistics issues. I simply want Fair elections and Fair Wikipedia. I also request that no survey must be updated before discussion on talk page. This will help us evaluate and make a fair call on inclusion. I have seen pathetic Duniya link and Habib akram episodes. EXAMPLE: Shangla which is PMLN's Ameer Maqam winning constituency, when someone said I will vote PTI he smiled and when someone answered PMLN he started arguing Nawaz is corrupt, Ameer maqam is failure. I mean how pathetic was this interview cum so called Opinion polling. I was laughing on his biasness and non professional approach. He was influencing and humiliating a person who was answering PMLN as his party. All these programmes are in Urdu language. May be Foreign WP users wont understand and judge this biased poll. Jawadmdr (talk) 18:00, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Final Tally at the end of the protection date is 3 supporters and 4 dissenters. Hence, as most users do not support the motion, the dunya polls shall NOT be allowed on the page Masterpha (talk) 21:01, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

@Masterpha: Great, nice resolution to the issue. I think this is a good method for the addition/removal of potential contentious surveys before things get ugly with edit warring.Wiki.0hlic ^(talk) 16:46, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

GSP/IPOR poll

@Jibran1998: @Wiki.0hlic: Ok, so I realise that we were calling the pollster from the survey dated 24 Oct 2017 as ‘GSP’. Upon further inspection of the poll, it is actually collected by IPOR consulting. Here on the last page it says that the survey was collected by IPOR. Should we change the pollster name from GSP to IPOR? Masterpha (talk) 21:02, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@Masterpha:, please follow the format here. Where there is more than one party involved in the publication/data collection of a survey, the format is 'Publisher'/'Data Collector'. For example, CNN/ORC, NBC/Survey Monkey. So, in this scenario we should signify the pollsters as 'GSP/IPOR'. - Wiki.0hlic ^(talk) 22:03, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Aggregate polls

Just out of interest, what is your source for the aggregate polls? I mean, i see no sourcing for this. If you just calculated these percentages by yourself that is not good enough Aggregators are fine, but the aggregation here is self calculated. In us elections, like your example, aggregations are not calculated by an individual. Additionally, the aggregations are by pollsters not by all polls. NEXT TIME, actually respond to me on the TALK PAGE rather than proceeding to revert my edit. I had already engaged in a discussion with you. Follow WP. Additionally, do not engage in edit wars. Talk about controversial changes like this before proceeding with them. You also claim that aggregators are used in all pages. You gave one example. My examples of pages which do not use aggregate: United Kingdom, France, Turkey, Denmark, Belgium, Germany, Italy, Ireland, Spain, I can keep listing. Now tell me a page other than US and one which uses self calculated aggregate polls. My final point is that the US page is of a presidential election while this page is of parliamentary elections. Masterpha (talk) 18:38, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Masterpha in statistics aggregation is used to beat 2 sampling errors, One Random error, Two System error (Biasness), On wikipedia we have a summary on every article in the lead that sums up all sourced data. I am doing the same. So stop edit war. Dont try to own this page.StLouis2 (talk) 18:42, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@StLouis2: your points are entirely incorrect. We do not have such a consensus on all opinion poll pages. I am not trying to own the page at all, just pointing out that your points are invalid on many accounts. Firstly, even the aggregations on the US page are 1. Not self calculated, calculated by seperate pollsters and 2. Are not based on such large time periods as 365 days and 5 years. In no opinion polling page will you find self calculated aggregations with no reliable secondary source. Finally, barely any polls for PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (which are the kind of elections in pakistan) hold aggregations. You said in an edit summary that all opinion poll pages have aggregations, but only those with presidential elections do, and those are never self calculated. Masterpha (talk) 18:57, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@Saqib:, @SheriffIsInTown:,@Wiki.0hlic:, @Jawadmdr: @Jibran1998: please input whether self calculated aggregate polls without proper sourcing are allowed on the page.Masterpha (talk) 19:01, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose deletion by Proposer: and move them to Lead of the article per this style guide [6] It says The lead, or introduction, is the most important text in any article. Summarize the most important points of the article.Use discretion when putting citations in the lead means citation not mandatory but discretionary. Don't include information that is not covered later on. Here individual surveys are covered later on.Jawadmdr (talk) 18:27, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

@Jawadmdr: so you are ok with self calculated percentages with poor sourcing being included in the article? Masterpha (talk) 05:13, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support deletion by Proposer inclusion of self aggregated polls. Base them on reliable sources. I might have been okay if it was a shorter time period but not for such long period as StLouis2 is proposing. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:41, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose deletion by Proposer: calculations are not original research. Masterpha you have to proof that average was wrongly calculated, Otherwise policy is very very clear. In any case have to discuss deletion you proposed. You as a proposer can not vote and have to get consensus for deletion in 7 days. Simply have to proof that calculation was wrong. secondly [7] You did this, in edit summary : there is not a poll for this, it is just an average. Create another section for this if you would wish to include it StLouis2 (talk) 06:16, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@StLouis2: provided thay they are meaningful and agreed to by users. These aggregates are not meaningful as there is a large time period on them. Also I would advise you to stop editing what people write on the talk page and removing entire statements because of your likes and dislikes. Masterpha (talk) 06:59, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@Masterpha: don't confuse the reader by deleting proper vote tagging. Who support/oppose the proposer's view should be clear. You had already given your consent for adding aggregates. Now you want to delete or change period then propose and get concensus. StLouis2 (talk) 07:55, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Page full-protected, 4 July 2018

I have upgraded the page protection here to full protection due to the ongoing edit war. @Masterpha and StLouis2: discuss your issues with the proposed content here, and if you cannot come to a resolution, please try dispute resolution, request a third opinion, or start a request for comments to seek input from uninvolved editors. If I have to come back here because of an edit war again I will start blocking editors instead. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:58, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: I request that once the full protection has been lifted for semi protection to be reinstated. We have discussed this on a previous talk page section and every time the page’s full protection expires it seems that all of it’s protection expires. Masterpha (talk) 05:23, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

That's correct, full protection replaces semi-protection, and when a protection level expires it resets to no protection. I'll come back to check on this in a few days (or ping me) and will reset MelanieN's semi-protection when the dispute resolves, but I expect to see some discussion of the issues or I may just decide to protect the page for a longer period of time. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:29, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: Thank you for handling this. I'm sorry to see that the edit warring resumed, and I agree that some blocks may be necessary if it happens again. I will be away from the computer for the next week or so, so please continue to monitor this article and act accordingly. --MelanieN (talk) 13:17, 5 July 2018 (UTC)