Jump to content

Talk:Opinion polling for the 2017 United Kingdom general election

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by IMarc89 (talk | contribs) at 05:23, 30 May 2017 (→‎Surveymonkey - keep or delete?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconElections and Referendums Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis 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
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
WikiProject iconPolitics of the United Kingdom Unassessed Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom 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.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Can we include don't knows in the polling table?

Please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meznaric (talk • contribs) 23:51, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

British polls are not reported with Don't Knows and we take our lead from how pollsters and sources report them. The only polls that include don't knows are questions like Best PM/best leader on a certain issue. FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 22:34, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Add vertical gridlines to plot?

92.7.53.114 (talk) 11:18, 23 May 2017 (UTC)I realise this is a style-guide issue that affects more than just this page. Vertical gridlines to show where each new month starts makes plots like this considerably easier to read, especially when shifts after particular events are of interest, as they are here. In general, I'd argue that horizontal and vertical gridlines should be the default unless there is a good reason for omitting one or both.[reply]

Shorter period graph

Any chance of having a graph showing just 6 months to June 2017 as its getting very cluttered on the existing graph on the right hand side. - Ânes-pur-sàng (talk) 08:24, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the changes over time are fascinating and we'd lose a lot by doing this. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not thinking of instead, but also..... - Ânes-pur-sàng (talk) 17:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
An additional graph could be a useful thing. Anyone want to mock one up and see how it looks? To avoid POV, we probably ought to start it from a concrete point in time, maybe when May called the election, or when Parliament voted for it. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's a great idea. At the moment, all the action is happening in a postage stamp sized area.Boscaswell talk 07:24, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, I will mock one up now starting from 18 April. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 08:43, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A second graph for the election period would be excellent. - Galloglass 09:24, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not very good at creating graphs, but Just looking at data for May, without making averages, I got the following. I find the top one is the most interesting of the pair. - Ânes-pur-sàng (talk) 09:46, 26 May 2017 (UTC) File:Election test 101.pdf[reply]

I think all parties need to be in the same graph really, otherwise there are going to get a lot of objections. - Galloglass 10:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quite true, unless it is being used just to highlight the closing gap between the top two parties. - Ânes-pur-sàng (talk) 11:01, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the full graph with shortened axes. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:37, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Polling for the short campaign of the 2017 UK General Election (from 18 April 2017 onwards)
Much easier to read. Is it still using 10 poll averages ? If so, any chance of a 5 poll average as sharp changes tend to lag behind recent polling ? - Ânes-pur-sàng (talk) 11:01, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, here is a 5 poll average version. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 13:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Polling for the 2017 UK General Election from 18th April onwards.
That looks great, clear and concise, well done. - Ânes-pur-sàng (talk) 13:11, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2017 - Suggested correction on the recent ICM poll 19-21 May

Shouldn't the Tories have 48% not 47% and UKIP 3% not 4% in the ICM poll (see page 11 of the report for the 19-21st May)? Markroknight (talk) 15:58, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure which report you are looking at, page 9 has the voting intention figures which match those in this article. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 16:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester Bombing

Hi there - I included the 2017 Manchester Bombing not because it is simply another event in UK current events, but because it has affected the election directly, with campaigning suspended. The murder of Jo Cox is similar in the sense that it affected the contemporary election campaign. VelvetCommuter (talk) 11:19, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the fact that campaigning is suspended means that this directly affects the election. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 11:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of things affect the election, but consensus has been that we restrict such additional lines on the polling table, as discussed previously. This is a table of polling results: it is not a timeline of events. And it would be original research to presume any such event directly impacts on polling.
Look at the following articles and look how they use additional lines on their polling tables: French_legislative_election,_2017#Opinion_polls, European_Parliament_election,_2009_(United_Kingdom)#Opinion_polls, Opinion polling for the Spanish general election, 2016, Opinion polling for the Dutch general election, 2017. I could list two dozen more. Why should we do things differently here? Bondegezou (talk) 12:37, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be included, as well major television debates and "Major parties publish their manifestos". I think a few of these major events are helpful to understanding in such a large table - larger than most of the other examples you highlight. Could you link to any previous discussion of this topic? Rwendland (talk) 12:46, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - we should include the major TV debates, the publication of manifestos, and the suspension of campaigning following the bombing. This is broadly in line with the Opinion polling for the United Kingdom general election, 2015 page, which includes a note for each TV debate. And, as Dhawk790 points out, the Opinion polling for the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum page includes the suspension of campaigning following the Jo Cox murder. — Zcbeaton (talk) 13:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it should be included. There is at least a precedent in how polls are shown for EU referundem, which included the Jo Cox murder: Opinion polling for the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum. Dhawk790 (talk) 13:00, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree that this event should be included. If it's significant enough to appear on the front page, it should be good enough for this page as well. I'm also not convinced that there's a consensus to exclude such events; Though it has been discussed before, the prior discussions I've found have cannot be said to have established a clear consensus. Has there been an RFC on the issue? Rami R 13:51, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We haven't had an RFC. We have discussed the matter several times and, while discussion has gone back and forth somewhat, we've generally reached a consensus on a limited list of things to include. Happy to see an RFC.
All non-UK opinion polling articles I've seen list very few extra rows: normally none whatsoever, occasionally other elections (e.g. local elections). Why are we doing something different? I can't recall anyone answering that question. Most UK opinion polling articles have ended up with a limited list of events (other elections, party leader changes), although there are some exceptions. I see no precedent for including the publication of manifestos. Jo Cox's murder does provide some precedent for including the Manchester bombing, although that event was more explicitly linked to the election at hand.
Just because something is a significant event doesn't mean it should be included in a list of polling. I'm all for a timeline article, but a timeline article should be a separate thing. Inserting events into a table of polling is editorialising. It implies the events have had an impact on polls. We cannot make those judgements: that would fall foul of WP:OR. Bondegezou (talk) 14:10, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that manifestos shouldn't be included. However, while this bombing was not to do with the election (as far as we know), it did result in the suspension of campaigning, so for that reason I think it should be included. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think I understand the crux of the dispute is whether the events are indisputably linked to the election, or whether it would be editorialising to link them. In the absence of a page listing the events during this period, however, I think it is necessary to give some context in the election. Manifestos maybe less important, as one can assume policy announcements in the build up to the GE, likewise with public debates (though I think they have featured before?). Directly linked to polling seems to be the suspension of campaigning. The reason for suspension is less important, but the fact campaigns are halted seems necessary? VelvetCommuter (talk) 16:04, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some editors want the polling table to become a timeline of all sorts of events. I can see that would be interesting, but that becomes WP:SYNTHy and interpretative. That's something for a blog or an analysis article, not a Wikipedia table of data. Personally, I'd rather we did what nearly all the other opinion polling articles on Wikipedia (en. or otherwise) do: which is nothing but polls data.
If there is some useful interpretation of the ups and downs, in RSs, then I'd love to see that summarised in text separate to the poll table. Bondegezou (talk) 16:24, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want it to be a timeline of all sorts of events, but the pendulum has swung ridiculously far in the virtually no events at all direction. To include the Manchester bombing and not the manifestos is astonishing. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this General Election is supposed to be about policies, right? Please don't get all "I know a Wikipedia rule that agrees with me" ...with me. As it is now, it's just plain silly. Common sense are good bywords, don't you think? Boscaswell talk 07:25, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reintroduce line for release of manifestos?

A crucial time point, or collection of time points, rather. Blurred I know by the Labour 'leak', but crucial nevertheless. And yes, I know that it's discussed above. But there hasn't been a consensus. Boscaswell talk 07:13, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in favour of this. It was done for the 2010 election polling. It seems fairly clear that (unusually for recent UK elections) the manifesto releases have actually been crucial moments in this campaign that have affected the polling significantly. Jw2036 (talk) 14:12, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also in favour, by the same logic. JMaxchill (talk) 16:53, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, this has been discussed several times over many years with unanimous consensus against. There are already excessive notes in table. Consensus can change, but it hasn't...users arriving to 'vote' on this issue is not how consensus works. 79.74.27.100 (talk) 22:33, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But it is how democracy works. I'm sorry, but is glaringly obvious to anyone following the election, to all pundits, that the release of the manifestos has been pivotal to voting intentions. And yet there is still resistance to release of manifestos being noted? Excuse me? Boscaswell talk 06:13, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus on this article amongst registered editors seems to be to include them. Frankly it's utterly illogical not to. Jw2036 (talk) 09:51, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to discuss how polling has shifted through the campaign and its events, I think that would be a great thing to do. Prepare some text, citing reliable sources, and stick it in the main article. This is a table of polling numbers. It's not meant to be interpretative.
Look at any of these articles:
All these elections involved a variety of significant events that impacted on voting intentions. Nearly all of them have zero annotations. The Greek and Polish ones list other national elections and the Greek one has a nice shading to differentiate exit polls, but neither has, say, changes of party leader. The Australian one has lines for changes of party leader and the beginning of the election campaign, so about the same as what we're currently doing here. None of those include manifesto launches.
Why should we do something so different from all the other opinion polling articles or sections? Yes, let's have text to discuss the polling ups and downs. No, let's not mix a table of numbers with presumptions about what were significant events. Bondegezou (talk) 14:23, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In the interests of fairness, I note that the .fr page for the Presidential election polling does use more event lines: debates and the start of the campaign, but also some other events (kinda akin to party leader change?). But still no manifesto launches covered. Bondegezou (talk) 14:27, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bondegezou "...presumptions about...significant events" Do you disagree with the contention that the manifesto launches were significant? Particularly in view of the fact that Theresa May had to make a major announcement about the so-called dementia tax, and the unprecedented in my memory change in poll numbers over the course of the election, and the astonishing turnaround in voting intentions of older voters, which is being 'blamed' in the media on the manifestos. How about some common sense here, eh?  :-) Boscaswell talk 18:49, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Boscaswell: I think the main election article should cover the matter in the text. It seems common sense to me to copy standard practice on other Wikipedia articles with the table of data here. Bondegezou (talk) 10:13, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Bondegezou: would you care to answer my question? Which was "Do you disagree with the contention that the manifesto launches were significant?" I'd contend that they were highly significant, btw. As have most pundits. Boscaswell talk 13:35, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Boscaswell: I have sought to answer your question. My aim is to improve the article through a workable consensus, not to have a battle of rhetoric.
I don't think the LibDem, UKIP or SNP manifestos had any particular impact on the polls, and nor do any pundits as far as I've seen. I think the Labour manifesto probably did, but it's hard to put a date to that because it leaked. The row over the 'dementia tax' was significant: there's more to say on that than merely the date of the Tory manifesto launch. Those are all things I think should be discussed in the campaign section of the election article. Prose gives one the flexibility to discuss such matters rather than reducing them to a single date. TL;DR: They were significant, so they should be covered, but they should be covered in prose in the election article, not in a table of poll results.
When James Comey announced he was examining a new set of Clinton emails, it had a huge impact on the US Presidential race. Pundits galore said that. Many have said it was the one event that won it for Trump. What do you think? Was it significant? Because I note it's not mentioned, as nor is any other event, in the polling article for the US Presidential election. Bondegezou (talk) 22:13, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of the SurveyMonkey poll.

First of all, please don't delete a poll without a discussion on the talk page. There is no good reason not to include the SurveyMonkey poll. SurveyMonkey is a known pollster. SurveyMonkey polls are included for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_United_States_presidential_election,_2016 There is no doubt, that this is a scientific poll. The poll results are cited in a newspaper, so we have a source. That the comments about the results in the newspaper may be biased doesn't matter, because that doesn't change that the poll results are facts. Only these facts are included in the table. -Ich bin es einfach (talk) 14:34, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The SurveyMonkey poll doesn't appear to come with any published data or methodology beyond what is in the Sun article. Unless this can be linked to, it shouldn't be included in the article. SurveyMonkey doesn't appear to be a polling company at all, but a company that sells market research technology. Formerip (talk) 14:57, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Sun says SurveyMonkey conducted the poll. Crundgezhnebv (talk) 15:40, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
'Surveymonkey' is simply not acceptable. No methodology given, no link to the survey data, no data on who it asked (6000 Sun readers would be clearly biased), not a member of any polling organisation, only source is a clearly biased article in a newspaper. It fails on every account. Jw2036 (talk) 09:38, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SurveyMonkey are noted for not publishing their data, so are not an acceptable source. For this reason we don't normally include polls such as these. If people wish to include them, then they need to establish a new consensus here as the current one is not to include. - Galloglass 15:49, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Are noted"? Who by? "So" they're not acceptable? What's the logic? And who says, other than you? Many SurveyMonkey polls are included in the article for the 2016 US presidential election. There's no consensus that they shouldn't be included in articles here. Crundgezhnebv (talk) 16:19, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth I wouldn't have included it except SurveyMonkey did a 2015 poll that made it into the 2015 polling article for a while. Having just checked the 2015 article I see it has been removed by user Jw2036 at 2pm today (who also removed them from this article), so until today there was a precedent for including them. I have restored their presence in the 2015 and 2017 articles and invited the editor to discuss it here. FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 16:26, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FriendlyDataNerdV2 when was the 2015 survey reinserted originally back onto the 2015 poll page? regards - Galloglass 18:24, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an article about the SurveyMonkey poll for the 2015 UK election: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/surveymonkey-was-the-other-winner-of-the-u-k-election/ -Ich bin es einfach (talk) 17:46, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Galloglass - it was there right up until today when the editor removed it. Before that, as far as I can see by looking through older versions of the page, it wasn't removed once after being added. I noticed the removal today and put it back on. FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 19:34, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Odd. I believe it was discussed 2 years ago and removed then. - Galloglass 19:37, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, it was removed and has crept back in since Jw2036 (talk) 09:43, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The fact remains that they generally do not release their tables/methodology. At the very least I think there should be a footnote or link to the methodology section making this clear so readers can decide for themselves if they want to trust it. ChiZeroOne (talk) 20:18, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, you can put a note in the article, there is nothing wrong with that. -Ich bin es einfach (talk) 16:32, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Galloglass - ah ok, I couldn't find a point where it had been removed. Could just be me.
ChiZeroOne - To be fair they did release the 2015 tables, and I'm happy to remove this one until they release the tables, but I feel it's worth pointing out that's not a standard we apply to other pollsters with a record of previous polling, which SurveyMonkey does have. This isn't a big issue for me so I'm happy to go with the majority opinion FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 21:17, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FriendlyDataNerdV2 - It may well have been a seperate poll by SurveyMonkey. I do remember it being extensively discussed and found wanting against the BPC polling firms that publish their data sets within a few days. - Galloglass 21:37, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is like a Groundhog Day debate. See the 'Quriosly' version of it last year on the EU referendum, or similar going back to 2015/Scots indyref. These are market research companies who don't release their methodology or data and who could well have serious biases in the sample they select. They fail on every account as a reliable source. It's amazing to keep coming back to this at every vote! Jw2036 (talk) 10:00, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Surveymonkey - keep or delete?

No methodology given. No data given. No information on how it selected it's sample (given it's a market research company, this may be 6000 readers of this newspaper, which would be a major bias). Not a member of any recognised polling body. Only source is a single, newspaper article in a publication with a clear political bias. In the past similar polls have been removed from these tables (see Qriously on the 2016 EU referendum polling table and the talk page discussion). I push for a swift Delete with a similar comment as per the EU ref page as to the reliability of other non-BPC polls. Jw2036 (talk) 09:48, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • For a bit of a laugh on your bias comment which I believe shows more of your bias than SurveyMonkey, the company is commissioned by liberal bastion NBC News in the US. I'm worried a Trumpette is gonna set up a thread there in the talk page denouncing them now. I would still say Keep obviously. 88.98.211.79 (talk) 01:27, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Same reasons as above-noted. Boscaswell talk 10:26, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As well as the new SurveyMonkey poll for Scotland, this is clearly a scientific poll. SurveyMonkey is a known pollster which conducts scientific polls. In other articles on Wikipedia, SurveyMonkey polls are included. See here: Opinion_polling_on_the_Donald_Trump_administration and here: Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_United_States_presidential_election,_2016 There shouldn't be higher standards for UK elections. It shouldn't be necessary to be a member of the BPC. A note at polls from pollsters which are not members of the BPC can be added and is sufficient. One source is enough. That The Sun is biased is irrelevant, because that has nothing to do with the numbers of the poll. The numbers are facts. Only the interpretation of these numbers are not. Same as for Fox News polls in the US. The poll exists and should be mentioned on the polls page on Wikipedia to get the complete picture. -Ich bin es einfach (talk) 16:53, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ich bin es einfach. Also I don't really see how does the bias claim work here: Survey Monkey's numbers are almost the same as the average of the other polls. Rami R 16:58, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non BPC poll. - Galloglass 17:45, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ich bin... "There shouldn't be higher standards for UK elections." There should be high standards, period. We shouldn't be restricted here by what has been done in another land on a comparable page, if we consider that to take another tack would raise our own standards or if otherwise we would not be presenting a page of an acceptably high standard. Shouldn't our policy be one of continuous improvement? Boscaswell talk 19:02, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We do not claim that all listed polls follow BPC rules. --Wavehunter (talk) 20:09, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • What we do require is that a poll meets the requirement for WP:Reliable Wavehunter, Surveymonkey does not, as they don't publish their data sets. - Galloglass 08:03, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think Wikipedia:Verifiability is the thing here. The results are published in the Sun so can be verified. On this page we publish the results, not the data sets. If SurveyMonkey did publish its tables and methodology, we could then be into a new debate about whether the methodology was sound. Few of us would have the expertise to do this and excluding polls because we disagree with the methodology would probably breach Wikipedia:No original research. --Wavehunter (talk) 10:53, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wavehunter I think you are missing the point regarding Surveymonkey, you do know they are not a polling company? Also that this particular survey is not a properly conducted poll, simply an online questionnaire? - Galloglass 11:28, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Without the normal published tables and methodology, there is no way of assessing the status of the poll. Basic things are unknown, like whether appropriate weightings were used or even whether there were steps taken to ensure that all respondents were eligible to vote in the election. Formerip (talk) 20:47, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per previous reasonings, plus several additional facts: First, that in many other countries pollsters are not even members of any polling organisation, any such strict requirements as here laid out or anything and that doesn't make their polls invalid; second, that the article lead section clearly states that "Most of the polling companies listed are members of the British Polling Council (BPC) and abide by its disclosure rules", yet it itself leaves the way open for "other" [minoritary amount of] pollsters to not necessarily be members of BPC (and this is a wording which has been maintained throughtout several UK polling articles for years, so it looks clear that these article's essence itself is not have such a strict requirement as a limit for poll inclusion). Impru20 (talk) 20:59, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Data collection method too unclear for it to be considered as a reliable source. This is Paul (talk) 21:04, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • In countries like in Spain, for example, most polls don't even make their data collection methods clear and that doesn't make the polls invalid. "The Sun" does seem a reliable source, and there weren't any issues with it when it was the one that provided the daily trackings for YouGov back in 2010-2015. Poll results don't seem to be off those other pollsters show, and the fact that a primary source is not available doesn't make the secondary one invalid (in fact, according to Wikipedia policies it'd be the other way around, actually). One of the claims that has been made for deletion is that the publication has a political bias; well, of course it has, just show a single newspaper that shows absolutely no political bias. Yet no one seems to point that if The Sun really wanted to present a biased poll, it would show a somewhere between 10 to 20-lead for the Tories, not a lead within the single-digits that is in line with other pollsters. Yeah, The Sun publication itself may just pretend to show a big win for the Tories when their lead is clearly shrinking compared to previous weeks, but while the publication itself may be somewhat biased, we don't have anything that leads us to think that the poll numbers are. I think it's all of you who should provide sources for your actual claims and worries, actually. Impru20 (talk) 21:26, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • But since the general rule in the UK is that pollsters do make their data clear we should use that as a benchmark for including UK polls in this article. This is Paul (talk) 23:40, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Keep The fact that a national paper with arguably the highest readership in the land uses them is enough to support the underlying methodology and their status as reputable. There are other media outlets who use them as secondary sources also which solidifies the reputation. The survey has been used widely this weekend as part of the discussion on whether the Tory lead is shrinking or whether Labour are picking up non-voters together with other polls. Let's not be blinkered here by The Sun if you don't like them. Wikipedia is not a peer-reviewed journal and as such SurveyMonkey don't need to send you an email with the raw data to analyse. The only thresholds are Reputability and not Original Research. SurveyMonkey as commissioned and published in The Sun or other papers it was in other elections is completely fine on both counts. 88.98.211.79 (talk) 01:21, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry, but that's not a requisite for info addition in Wikipedia. Further, using different criteria for poll inclusion depending on the country they're published would consiste bias in itself... The Sun is a notable seconday source and SurveyMonkey has been credited in other countries as a valid pollster. There isn't anything in the poll numbers suggesting that the poll is biased or that it uses a biased methodology, as has been pointed above, and such claims would require sourcing themselves once everything else is shown as sourced. The poll requirements I've read here (that, for polls to be included, their pollsters must have their data sheets published) is also entirely new for me, and ones that no Wikipedia policy or guideline I can read about do establish. Impru20 (talk) 18:04, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, I made a similar point just now below without having read this. No Wiki Politics project has ever had criteria for poll and polling company inclusion. Now they may do in the future and by all means anyone interested can go to the relevant portals and set up a discussion to get consensus but as it stands on current criteria, SurveyMonkey has to be included. 88.98.211.79 (talk) 18:25, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For reason given at the top of this discussion.-- BOD -- 23:58, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above JMaxchill (talk) 12:02, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot believe what I am reading here Editors, some of which have a clear bias towards certain publications as is evident by their comments, are arguing that if SurveyMonkey do not release the raw data and what I'm assuming patented regression model, presumably to these editors personally, they will delete a reputable source. This is absolutely crazy for the simple reason that Wikipedia is NOT a peer-reviewed journal. The only thresholds that matter is how REPUTABLE a source is and whether it includes ORIGINAL RESEARCH or is simply stating/analysing facts and/or data.

Once upon a time, I used to write Featured Articles and Featured Lists here and after having my sources reviewed I started doing my own reviews on others' nomination and I shall do the same here so that people buck up their ideas and stop peddling their personal agendas. Firstly, SurveyMonkey do NOT have to release anything to you or me to prove their reputation. Secondly, the only threshold that matters is how reputable the firm is, clearly it is the number 1 survey site in the world for both individuals and businesses, and how trusted it is by reputable media in its analysis and results. The fact that the following sources prove this beyond reasonable doubt would have led me and my fellow FA/FL reviewers to pass the SurveyMonkey source with flying colours. I repeat, Wikipedia is NOT a peer-reviewed journal.

Really, some people need throw their blinkers away. I am not partisan in any way but an OP post clearly denouncing The Sun as biased and by extension SurveyMonkey plus other editors saying Delete as per OP is frankly shocking for Wikipedia. A lot seems to have changed since I was here and active. 88.98.211.79 (talk) 15:04, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I can't believe that we even have this discussion. -Ich bin es einfach (talk) 16:46, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"The only thresholds that matter is how REPUTABLE a source is and whether it includes ORIGINAL RESEARCH or is simply stating/analysing facts and/or data." This is completely wrong. The issue isn't the reputation of the source, but what the criteria for inclusion in the article should be. Clearly, there should be some criteria, or we would have to include everything that calls itself a poll. The only question is whether this particular poll passes muster. Formerip (talk) 18:06, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It clearly does. And then some. As I mentioned, the source would pass the criteria for WP:FL if this was ever nominated. If it can pass the stringest review for an encyclopedic-level article then it clearly merits inclusion in a stub list. But don't take my word for it, go over to WP:FA and ask the first editor you see who is reviewing sources in a nomination and ping them for a third party comment. I am sure they would agree with me. 88.98.211.79 (talk) 18:12, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, as far as I'm aware, there are no criteria by say Wiki Politics on polls and polling company thresholds, say in the same way Wiki Music has criteria on what should be included in Album infoboxes. If you want to start that discussion on the relevant page and portal then please feel free and hopefully we can get a consensus for the future, but as it stands on current criteria, Survey Monkey passes and passed well. 88.98.211.79 (talk) 18:16, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - please note that, of course, I did not check this talk page before making my edit because I didn't even think it would be possible that rational Wikipedians could be considering keeping this survey in.

Right at the head of the article, readers are told that most polls are conducted by members of the BPC and that information is released for scrutiny.

Here we have the description of a poll - and not the poll itself - which allegedly took place - though we cannot see the actual questions asked. It was of 6,000 people - which is a very strange number, by the way, given the reasons for the average sample size and reeks of the Sun quitting while they were ahead. Even if we ignore the title of the source article and pretend that the source isn't biased, where are the secondary sources which lend credibility to the original source. This poll has not been widely reported - indeed, after a thorough search, it only appears to have been reported by The Sun itself.

I will make absolutely no bones about my political affiliations. If you wish to cast aspersions about whether or not I am biased, feel free. However, there is no reason to include a poll which does not meet the standards of the rest of the polls in the table. Equal weighting should not be given to a straw poll conducted by a media outlet to sell papers to its target audience.

iMarc89 (talk) 05:23, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Debates/Interviews

Hi all, just wondering what the rationale is behind mentioning the non-debate with Corbyn and May on Channel 4 and Sky News but not the debates of various other party leaders? VelvetCommuter (talk) 23:42, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Opinion_polling_for_the_2017_United_Kingdom_general_election&oldid=782946578"