![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
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)
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)
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)
@ 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@ 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)
@ Saqib:, @ SheriffIsInTown:, please input your opinion on this Dunya News source Jibran1998 ( talk) 16:25, 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)
::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)
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)
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)
@ 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)
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)
@ 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)
I have summed up this disarrayed conversation. Jawadmdr ( talk) 12:44, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Objection | By | Answer | Answered by | Recommendation |
---|---|---|---|---|
Self calculated OR | Masterpha, Sheriff | Routine calculations are not original research] | StLouis2 | who don’t agree must read policy |
Aggregates unsourced | Masterpha, Wiki.0hlic, Sheriff | citations not necessary , | JawadMdr | who don’t agree must read policy |
Add few days b4 elections | Jibran1998 | 18 days 2 election | StLouis2 | Agreed by Jibran1998 |
No precedent | Wiki.0hlic | USA aggregates | JawadMdr | who don’t agree must visit page |
Situation is volitile | Wiki.0hlic | WP has nothing to do with this | JawadMdr | We ll keep updating |
Agree but Period is long | Masterpha, Wiki.0hlic, Sheriff | Context 2013 election, 1 year already used | StLouis2 | New section added 4 views on period |
Edit war | Masterpha | On dis page U r warring most | JawadMdr | Stop everyone |
Changing comments StLouis2 | Masterpha | Stop it | Ivanvector | StLouis2 must stop |
I Agreed 1st , Mind changed | Masterpha | Keep it up | JawadMdr | Change it Again (LOL) |
@ Jawadmdr: - stop shaping the discussion. I didn't say Agree but Period is long. I am not supporting the inclusion of the aggregate polls. I have disagreed on the basis of unsourced content (the WP you have linked to is for the lead section, not the body - there is difference between the two), no precedent (parliamentary election pages, not a presidential one as you have linked above) and a flawed approach to aggregation (poll aggregators aggregate polls from different pollsters that are within a few days from one another to give a general trendline - they don't aggregate across months and years as is the case here). Wiki.0hlic (talk) 15:17, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
@ Jawadmdr: Questions were answered but answers were rejected. As far as me, Jibran1998, Wiki.0hlic and SheriffIsInTown are concerned, there is no consensus to keep the polls. Only two editors, you and StLouis2, are in favour of keeping them. Don’t act like an expert on WP. Simple fact is that you are not willing to let go on your argument. @ Ivanvector: @ MelanieN: please close this discussion seeing as there is no consensus for these ‘aggregates’ to be added. Or, at least in the views of StLouis2 and Jawadmdr, for them to be kept. Masterpha ( talk) 17:37, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
@ Jawadmdr: - act professionally. Look at the consensus on the Dunya Polls voting and how it resulted in their amicable removal from the page. This time the consensus is against the Aggregate Polls so I second @ Masterpha:'s motion of closing the voting with their removal from the Wiki article. Wiki.0hlic (talk) 18:13, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
@ Jawadmdr: Jawad bhai the SPI was merely to check whether you were abusing multiple accounts, please do not take it personally. I just saw something fishy with the way the two accounts were being handled. I am more than happy if you are not sockpuppeteering Masterpha ( talk) 11:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
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)
@ MelanieN: @ Ivanvector: the protection has expired. Masterpha ( talk) 06:56, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
@ MelanieN: @ Ivanvector: please implement this, vandalism is already happening Masterpha ( talk) 17:58, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
I added this
@
Jawadmdr: - its you who are edit warring. 3 separate editors have reverted your edits to the intro in the past day. What you have written is not a lead, this is basically the whole page. Do you even know how to write a lead? Take a look at other opinion polling pages to see how it is written:
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6, and
7.
@ Ivanvector: - please take note of this user's perpetual disruptive behavior on this page. - Wiki.0hlic (talk) 19:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
@ StLouis2, Wiki.0hlic, SheriffIsInTown, Masterpha, and Jawadmdr: I accept the criticism that the lead I wrote falls into original research territory: it is my own summary of the recent polls. It shouldn't be there unless there's a source to support that opinion, notwithstanding the brief discussion above about confidence intervals. Adding what I wrote without a source is no different than Jawadmdr adding their own apparently pro-PML(N) lead with inadequate sourcing. We should find a reliable source or else not add anything at all.
Times Now News published an article summarizing recent poll results just yesterday. Is this publisher reliable for this purpose? It doesn't set off the typical red flags for me but I'm not really familiar with Pakistani news sources. It does contain a subheading "Overall mood of the voter: PML-N, PTI are neck and neck", which seems like it would support what I had written. What do you think? Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 13:59, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
What I am saying is that there are not a lot of polls conductsd in pakistan but the most recent ones have shown a close competition. Hence, why do polls from before mean anything now? Sure, pmln may have had a large lead THEN, but now they has clearly been a swing against PMLN/for PTI detected in the polls. Saying that pmln is ahead and pti is behind is lying. So in this instance I support @ SheriffIsInTown: with his summary about pti being in close second... Masterpha ( talk) 00:13, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Additionally, provincial polls vary by pollster. The most recent ones have shown varying results, even in punjab: the geo/jang polls show 9 to 14 point leads, while the IPOR polls show 19-21 point leads. Sindh is quite complicated too: we know that ppp is ahead but who is second? KPK shows PTI ahead but by how large of a margin? Polling in Balochistan is just a mess, full stop. Are we meant to summarise all of this in the lead? If we wish to summarise, we should do them in the respective sub sections of the article. Masterpha ( talk) 00:16, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Comment - Opinion polling pages across Wikipedia have a concise lead that don't even summarize results: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. I don't think there is need to summarize content which isn't hidden in a wall of text but is easily visible in graphs and tables. StLouis2/Jawadmdr have been writing the same lead over and over again focusing on the Punjab province and using a single source regional breakdown (IPOR) - no other surveyor has given a regional breakdown of Punjab province. It is clear from their edits that they want to paint the lead as biased towards a particular party. - Wiki.0hlic (talk) 05:35, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
@ Ivanvector: @ Enigmaman: @ MelanieN: there is a new survey. However, seeing as the page is full protected once again (despite there no longer being any content dispute) I cannot add it. I request that either semi-protection be reinstated in the place of full protection, or one of you administrators manually add the poll into the tables. This is the poll. маsтегрна таLк 10:49, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose I oppose removing the full protection due to un stoppable edit wars . Jawadmdr ( talk) 19:01, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Opinion polling for the Pakistani general election, 2018 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add the data of the the following survey to the article. Wiki.0hlic (talk) 19:37, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
I second this. At first I was asking for semi protection to be reinstated but now with jawadmdr continuing his disruptive editing, I appeal to the administrators to add this new survey into the article, keeping full protection. маsтегрна таLк 01:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC) @ Enigmaman: I am no longer asking for unprotection, just for the new poll to be added in. маsтегрна таLк 02:36, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
@ Enigmaman: this is a controversial survey. Similarly these twin wiki users have added one blog and another Non neutral media based survey. Now this survey which is already controversial nationwide. We all previously concluded that we will not add any controversial survey and first discuss on Talk page. Please see new Talk page section above. Jawadmdr ( talk) 08:44, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Serious calculation errors in this survey. It says PMLN has 25% support. But if we multiply all 4 provinces survey %age with each province number of seats then we end up 26.3 %. I am adding a table to show this blunder in the reported nationwide numbers.
@ Ivanvector: @ Enigmaman: @ MelanieN: please delete this new controvertial survey which has self contradictory errors and also controversial on Pakistani media and social media. Jawadmdr ( talk) 10:59, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
My argument is about election 2018 which is going to be conducted on election constituencies 2018 based on 2017 population census. If I accept your logic of 6 extra FATA seats more than population then that will further increase PMLN representation to 27%. Jawadmdr ( talk) 13:27, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Also justice siddiqui’s remarks should not be blindly believed. I would like to reiterate that there is no absolute evidence that there is military and judicial interference in favour of pmln and against pti: something which was rightly called out by BBC hardtalk’s stephen sackur against hameed haroon in this interview. We can’t prove these allegations just because political commentators are saying that they are true. маsтегрна таLк 05:04, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
I would also like to point out that PMLN, PTI, JI and PMLQ are all in fact clients of IPOR. PPP is not. Should we remove their survey’s because of this, due to a possible ‘anti-PPP’ bias? No. of course not. SDPI and IPOR both gain nothing by publishing fake surveys. маsтегрна таLк 05:12, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
@ Enigmaman: @ MelanieN: Three users are against inclusion of survey. Please immediately delete the survey until consensus develops Already slow decision making is making our discussions un necessary dragging with foolish arguments. Jawadmdr ( talk) 17:18, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
I hate to be dragged in here where I know nothing about the subject, but I will try to evaluate the discussion here since somebody has to. From this discussion I conclude there is consensus to include the SDPI/Herald poll. (I am puzzled by Jawadmdr’s request to delete it; it isn’t actually in the article, is it?) I will add it, if someone will lay out for me, on this talk page, exactly what should be added, where, and in what format. In the meantime the full protection is clearly still needed. -- MelanieN ( talk) 18:27, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
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)
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)
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)
@ 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@ 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)
@ Saqib:, @ SheriffIsInTown:, please input your opinion on this Dunya News source Jibran1998 ( talk) 16:25, 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)
::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)
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)
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)
@ 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)
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)
@ 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)
I have summed up this disarrayed conversation. Jawadmdr ( talk) 12:44, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Objection | By | Answer | Answered by | Recommendation |
---|---|---|---|---|
Self calculated OR | Masterpha, Sheriff | Routine calculations are not original research] | StLouis2 | who don’t agree must read policy |
Aggregates unsourced | Masterpha, Wiki.0hlic, Sheriff | citations not necessary , | JawadMdr | who don’t agree must read policy |
Add few days b4 elections | Jibran1998 | 18 days 2 election | StLouis2 | Agreed by Jibran1998 |
No precedent | Wiki.0hlic | USA aggregates | JawadMdr | who don’t agree must visit page |
Situation is volitile | Wiki.0hlic | WP has nothing to do with this | JawadMdr | We ll keep updating |
Agree but Period is long | Masterpha, Wiki.0hlic, Sheriff | Context 2013 election, 1 year already used | StLouis2 | New section added 4 views on period |
Edit war | Masterpha | On dis page U r warring most | JawadMdr | Stop everyone |
Changing comments StLouis2 | Masterpha | Stop it | Ivanvector | StLouis2 must stop |
I Agreed 1st , Mind changed | Masterpha | Keep it up | JawadMdr | Change it Again (LOL) |
@ Jawadmdr: - stop shaping the discussion. I didn't say Agree but Period is long. I am not supporting the inclusion of the aggregate polls. I have disagreed on the basis of unsourced content (the WP you have linked to is for the lead section, not the body - there is difference between the two), no precedent (parliamentary election pages, not a presidential one as you have linked above) and a flawed approach to aggregation (poll aggregators aggregate polls from different pollsters that are within a few days from one another to give a general trendline - they don't aggregate across months and years as is the case here). Wiki.0hlic (talk) 15:17, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
@ Jawadmdr: Questions were answered but answers were rejected. As far as me, Jibran1998, Wiki.0hlic and SheriffIsInTown are concerned, there is no consensus to keep the polls. Only two editors, you and StLouis2, are in favour of keeping them. Don’t act like an expert on WP. Simple fact is that you are not willing to let go on your argument. @ Ivanvector: @ MelanieN: please close this discussion seeing as there is no consensus for these ‘aggregates’ to be added. Or, at least in the views of StLouis2 and Jawadmdr, for them to be kept. Masterpha ( talk) 17:37, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
@ Jawadmdr: - act professionally. Look at the consensus on the Dunya Polls voting and how it resulted in their amicable removal from the page. This time the consensus is against the Aggregate Polls so I second @ Masterpha:'s motion of closing the voting with their removal from the Wiki article. Wiki.0hlic (talk) 18:13, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
@ Jawadmdr: Jawad bhai the SPI was merely to check whether you were abusing multiple accounts, please do not take it personally. I just saw something fishy with the way the two accounts were being handled. I am more than happy if you are not sockpuppeteering Masterpha ( talk) 11:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
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)
@ MelanieN: @ Ivanvector: the protection has expired. Masterpha ( talk) 06:56, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
@ MelanieN: @ Ivanvector: please implement this, vandalism is already happening Masterpha ( talk) 17:58, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
I added this
@
Jawadmdr: - its you who are edit warring. 3 separate editors have reverted your edits to the intro in the past day. What you have written is not a lead, this is basically the whole page. Do you even know how to write a lead? Take a look at other opinion polling pages to see how it is written:
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6, and
7.
@ Ivanvector: - please take note of this user's perpetual disruptive behavior on this page. - Wiki.0hlic (talk) 19:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
@ StLouis2, Wiki.0hlic, SheriffIsInTown, Masterpha, and Jawadmdr: I accept the criticism that the lead I wrote falls into original research territory: it is my own summary of the recent polls. It shouldn't be there unless there's a source to support that opinion, notwithstanding the brief discussion above about confidence intervals. Adding what I wrote without a source is no different than Jawadmdr adding their own apparently pro-PML(N) lead with inadequate sourcing. We should find a reliable source or else not add anything at all.
Times Now News published an article summarizing recent poll results just yesterday. Is this publisher reliable for this purpose? It doesn't set off the typical red flags for me but I'm not really familiar with Pakistani news sources. It does contain a subheading "Overall mood of the voter: PML-N, PTI are neck and neck", which seems like it would support what I had written. What do you think? Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 13:59, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
What I am saying is that there are not a lot of polls conductsd in pakistan but the most recent ones have shown a close competition. Hence, why do polls from before mean anything now? Sure, pmln may have had a large lead THEN, but now they has clearly been a swing against PMLN/for PTI detected in the polls. Saying that pmln is ahead and pti is behind is lying. So in this instance I support @ SheriffIsInTown: with his summary about pti being in close second... Masterpha ( talk) 00:13, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Additionally, provincial polls vary by pollster. The most recent ones have shown varying results, even in punjab: the geo/jang polls show 9 to 14 point leads, while the IPOR polls show 19-21 point leads. Sindh is quite complicated too: we know that ppp is ahead but who is second? KPK shows PTI ahead but by how large of a margin? Polling in Balochistan is just a mess, full stop. Are we meant to summarise all of this in the lead? If we wish to summarise, we should do them in the respective sub sections of the article. Masterpha ( talk) 00:16, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Comment - Opinion polling pages across Wikipedia have a concise lead that don't even summarize results: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. I don't think there is need to summarize content which isn't hidden in a wall of text but is easily visible in graphs and tables. StLouis2/Jawadmdr have been writing the same lead over and over again focusing on the Punjab province and using a single source regional breakdown (IPOR) - no other surveyor has given a regional breakdown of Punjab province. It is clear from their edits that they want to paint the lead as biased towards a particular party. - Wiki.0hlic (talk) 05:35, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
@ Ivanvector: @ Enigmaman: @ MelanieN: there is a new survey. However, seeing as the page is full protected once again (despite there no longer being any content dispute) I cannot add it. I request that either semi-protection be reinstated in the place of full protection, or one of you administrators manually add the poll into the tables. This is the poll. маsтегрна таLк 10:49, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose I oppose removing the full protection due to un stoppable edit wars . Jawadmdr ( talk) 19:01, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Opinion polling for the Pakistani general election, 2018 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add the data of the the following survey to the article. Wiki.0hlic (talk) 19:37, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
I second this. At first I was asking for semi protection to be reinstated but now with jawadmdr continuing his disruptive editing, I appeal to the administrators to add this new survey into the article, keeping full protection. маsтегрна таLк 01:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC) @ Enigmaman: I am no longer asking for unprotection, just for the new poll to be added in. маsтегрна таLк 02:36, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
@ Enigmaman: this is a controversial survey. Similarly these twin wiki users have added one blog and another Non neutral media based survey. Now this survey which is already controversial nationwide. We all previously concluded that we will not add any controversial survey and first discuss on Talk page. Please see new Talk page section above. Jawadmdr ( talk) 08:44, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Serious calculation errors in this survey. It says PMLN has 25% support. But if we multiply all 4 provinces survey %age with each province number of seats then we end up 26.3 %. I am adding a table to show this blunder in the reported nationwide numbers.
@ Ivanvector: @ Enigmaman: @ MelanieN: please delete this new controvertial survey which has self contradictory errors and also controversial on Pakistani media and social media. Jawadmdr ( talk) 10:59, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
My argument is about election 2018 which is going to be conducted on election constituencies 2018 based on 2017 population census. If I accept your logic of 6 extra FATA seats more than population then that will further increase PMLN representation to 27%. Jawadmdr ( talk) 13:27, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Also justice siddiqui’s remarks should not be blindly believed. I would like to reiterate that there is no absolute evidence that there is military and judicial interference in favour of pmln and against pti: something which was rightly called out by BBC hardtalk’s stephen sackur against hameed haroon in this interview. We can’t prove these allegations just because political commentators are saying that they are true. маsтегрна таLк 05:04, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
I would also like to point out that PMLN, PTI, JI and PMLQ are all in fact clients of IPOR. PPP is not. Should we remove their survey’s because of this, due to a possible ‘anti-PPP’ bias? No. of course not. SDPI and IPOR both gain nothing by publishing fake surveys. маsтегрна таLк 05:12, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
@ Enigmaman: @ MelanieN: Three users are against inclusion of survey. Please immediately delete the survey until consensus develops Already slow decision making is making our discussions un necessary dragging with foolish arguments. Jawadmdr ( talk) 17:18, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
I hate to be dragged in here where I know nothing about the subject, but I will try to evaluate the discussion here since somebody has to. From this discussion I conclude there is consensus to include the SDPI/Herald poll. (I am puzzled by Jawadmdr’s request to delete it; it isn’t actually in the article, is it?) I will add it, if someone will lay out for me, on this talk page, exactly what should be added, where, and in what format. In the meantime the full protection is clearly still needed. -- MelanieN ( talk) 18:27, 23 July 2018 (UTC)