Talk:2013 Eastleigh by-election

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

Infobox/summary[edit]

If we are to have an infobox/summary box, can I remind editors on all sides that we, by consensus as much as convention, include only those candidates who achieved 5% or more at the preceding general election (beforehand), and then those who received 5% of the vote at the by-election (afterwards). Can't get fairer than that. doktorb wordsdeeds 12:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Labour Candidate?[edit]

John O'Farrell

79.79.100.61 (talk) 16:45, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

UKIP Involvement[edit]

I am aware that none of the candidates have been chosen for this election yet. However, before the candidates are selected I believe it would be wise to add UKIP to the info box. This would ensure impartiality and accuracy. I realise UKIP came forth at the last election in Eastleigh, but what is clear is that UKIP are likely to have a vigorous campaign in Eastleigh. UKIP in national opinion polls are frequently overtaking the Lib Dems. I have some sources to highlight the attention on UKIP in this By-election UKIP Eastleigh Telegraph, UKIP Eastleigh Kent News, UKIP Eastleigh Scotsman News and UKIP Eastleigh Huffington Post (CatCalledJim (talk) 12:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC))[reply]

The article doesn't have an infobox, so that point is rather moot for now. I agree that the article should very much cover UKIP and Farage's possible candidacy and those are useful citations. Should the article get an infobox, however, standard practice has been to include those parties that saved their deposit at the previous election, so LibDem, Con and Labour in this case, but not UKIP. I think one would need a stronger argument than that UKIP are going to campaign hard (as surely are other parties) or national polling figures (why are they relevant? -- as a counter-argument, one might point to the 2012 local elections in Eastleigh where UKIP won no seats on 11%, clearly behind Labour on 15%, Con on 27% and LD on 45%) to change that practice. For example, a reliable local poll or sustained reliable source coverage describing UKIP as having a significant chance of winning would be a start. Bondegezou (talk) 13:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article should cover actual candidates not speculation as to who could be one. That typed UKIP should of course be in the infobox. Rsloch (talk) 16:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article should cover key issues in the by-election and a key way of determining what those are is to look to reliable sources. So far, those seem to consider Farage's choice not to be the UKIP candidate to be worthy of reporting. This avoids your concern of "might..." and "could stand" lists.
When we have infoboxes for forthcoming elections, these often list the main candidates only. In the case of UK by-elections, practice has been to base who are the main candidates on who got at least 5% last time as a simple, unbiased rule, and one that reflects reporting guidelines (BBC) and practices. For now, I've added a reduced infobox to this article, as for the Mid Ulster by-election, 2013 article, given we don't know who's standing and to avoid the argument. Bondegezou (talk) 16:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For reference, the section removed by Rsloch goes like this...

Nigel Farage, leader of the UK Independence Party, previously contested the seat at a 1994 by-election and said on the day of Huhne's guilty plea that he will consider doing so again.[1][2] However, he subsequently announced that while UKIP will stand, he will not be the candidate; he intends to concentrate on his post as an MEP and fighting the 2013 council elections.[3] He said that 12 people had applied to be the UKIP candidate.[4]

It should cover issues not speculation. Are we to cover things like Paul Staines' speculation, now denied, that Olly Grender was standing? Rsloch (talk) 17:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is not speculation that Farage was considering standing; he said so himself. Standard Wikipedia policy explains why we didn't cover Staines' speculation -- his blog isn't a reliable source. That's my key point: we follow reliable sources. All I'm saying is we follow these policies: WP:V, WP:RS, WP:DUE. Bondegezou (talk) 17:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Farage is not a candidate so please can you stop adding him to the section on candidates. Rsloch (talk) 11:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain, with reference to Wikipedia policy, why it is inappropriate to reflect reliable source coverage of issues in this by-election. Bondegezou (talk) 11:47, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, if you have a section on candidates then it is rather odd to include material on people who have said they won't be one. I have suggested a compromise which you don't accept so there we are. Rsloch (talk) 15:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I said on my Talk page, I don't understand your compromise.
Lots of articles cover possible candidates who never stood (e.g Manchester Central by-election, 2012, Leicester South by-election, 2011).
If your objection is to the section header, let's pick a different section header. "Candidates and the campaign"?
Given another editor has since independently added the same material I proposed and given your argument doesn't have reference to Wikipedia policy or common practice, I suggest we include reference to Farage not standing. Bondegezou (talk) 16:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your examples show candidates who said they were going to stand and then withdrew. It is not 'common practice' to include someone who has never said that they would stand in a by election in that article. If you include Farage you are giving unique and undue weight to the comments of one politician. So if you want to add the material please provide an example of similar material in other by election articles and not limit it to one party.Rsloch (talk) 16:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PS I'm leaving the material of the other editor up as they have not contributed to this discussion Rsloch (talk) 16:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Farage did say he was considering standing; reliable sources considered it notable. I feel you are splitting straws at this point! We shouldn't give undue weight to Farage's comments, I agree, but I'm taking my lead here from those reliable sources. As the campaign develops, we'll get more material about the other parties. I've already added the sentence about the (probable) Tory candidate.

I do not understand at all your reasoning about the material added by Waggers. Is it that you would be happy with a shorter piece of text on the matter? If I wasn't participating in this Talk page discussion, would you leave my edits alone? He's added the same material I'm proposing, but with fewer citations or internal links. You are keeping an article written by Farage and removing reliable source citations not written by Farage. That's giving undue weight to the comments of one politician.

Again, can I also ask you put forth some reasoning based on Wikipedia policy? I refer you again to WP:V, WP:RS and WP:DUE. With respect to what those say, why do you think this material should be excluded? Bondegezou (talk) 17:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I already have more than once. Here's a suggestion we only put those who say they are going to stand, even if they later withdraw, in the candidates section. Rsloch (talk) 17:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I didn't realise this debate was raging on the talk page when I made my edit. Bondegezou's position is the correct one as far as Wikipedia policy is concerned. Our mission here is to reflect what reliable sources say about the subject matter; at present most of those sources either report the reason for the election itself or on Farage's decision - it's therefore clearly relevant to the subject and should be included in the article. If you want to include it under a different heading then fine, but there's no excuse for completely removing relevant, reliably sourced and cited, content from an article (aside from a WP:WEIGHT issue, which isn't the case here). WaggersTALK 19:18, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide an example of similar material in other by election articles For the sake of peace and harmony let's leave the article as it is, though ponder why if it is correct as far Wikipedia policy is concerned similar material does not appear in other by election articles. Rsloch (talk) 21:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's rarely a widely reported story that someone is not standing at a by-election, but where it is, it's included (at least for the articles above stub level): see Middlesbrough by-election, 2012, and the text in Mid Ulster by-election, 2013 on whether or not Frazer will stand. Warofdreams talk 15:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ [1]
  2. ^ [2]
  3. ^ [3]
  4. ^ [4]

Polling[edit]

Should we include the poll from Lord Ashcroft on this page Guyb123321 (talk) 17:43, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should include all reliable polls, as we do for general election articles etc., including appropriate details on sample size (as this is often smaller for constituency-specific polls). Bondegezou (talk) 11:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, added a table showing the two polls conducted so far as the text took up a lot of room and was sort of difficult to read and looked a little "messy" Guyb123321 (talk) 15:21, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All 3/4 leaders to visit Eastleigh[edit]

I think it might be worth noting somewhere that all 3 party leaders are due to visit Eastleigh at some point during the campaign which is unusual [5]. Also both Tim Farron (Lib Dem president) and Grant Shapps (Con party chair) and others will follow, but as yet no mention of anyone going to bolster their campaign. I'm not going to edit myself due to WP:COI. --wintonian talk 04:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC are reporting it as all 4leaders, when they speak of leaders visits they always mention: Clegg and Cameron in the same breath followed by Farage and Miliband! Surely if we mention the 3 leaders we must mention the 4th!86.161.219.51 (talk) 11:38, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Equal marriage[edit]

Are candidates' views on equal marriage really that important? It would be just as relevant to say what their views are on the govt's economic strategy or the situation in Mali. We can't provide a list of everything each candidate is "for" and "against".

It's perhaps appropriate for the Independent if that really is his one big policy platform, otherwise I suggest we delete them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frinton100 (talk • contribs) 01:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we are guided by what reliable sources say, and it's an issue that RS are reporting.
In other news, I don't know whether this deserves mention, but Wikipedians will be interested, I suspect: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/eastleigh-by-election-conservative-candidate-maria-1704516 , the Con candidate cuts'n'pastes from Wikipedia. Bondegezou (talk) 09:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You may be interested in looking at Talk:Eastleigh for more info on that. On the "equal marriage" front, I agree, we should be guided by the emphasis given in reliable sources. WaggersTALK 10:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Given RS coverage of some of the other candidates' views on gay marriage, I added the line "James also opposes gay marriage." to the UKIP candidate's description, giving this citation: [6], from which I quote, "James is understood to have told party activists that she did not support gay marriage – last week Maria Hutchings also announced that to be her position." This does not seem surprising to me given that UKIP policy is opposed to gay marriage. An IP editor, 86.161.219.51, has objected to this citation, arguing it constitutes "speculation" or "hearsay" and we've been going back and forth on this a few times (see edit comments), so it seemed sensible to come to the Talk page to discuss it. (The line is currently removed from the article.)
It seems to me that the phrasing of the quote is standard journalistic jargon to mean that the journalist wasn't at the meeting, but is reporting what he was told by those at the meeting. Thus, it appears to me to be a reliable report. It hasn't been withdrawn. It is clearly not speculation. It might constitute "hearsay" in a Court of Law, but this isn't a Court of Law. This is standard journalistic practice.
I haven't found an alternative citation that is conclusive either way.
So, I feel that the citation is from a reliable source and reports James's view using standard journalistic practice, ergo the line should be included. But the IP editor clearly feels differently.
Anyone else wish to chime in? Bondegezou (talk) 15:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, my view is that we can't include every policy stance of every candidate. However if a candidate has campaigned on an issue then it is clearly note worthy, the independent candidate seems to base his whole campaign on this issue, the Conservative candidate said in front of TV cameras that she would have voted against the bill. Other candidates have publicly supported gay marriage as part of their campaign (e.g. Mike Thornton) so that is also note worthy! On the subject of UKIP's Dianne James, I can not see any grounds for inclusion, she has not campaigned on the issue, she has not said anything to the press or in front of a TV camera about the matter. All that Bondegezou has managed to find is a source that says "James is understood to have told party activists that she did not support gay marriage" (incredibly non-committal and far too vague) and then Bondegezou used that to say "Dianne James opposes Gay Marriage" (a very definite and clear claim). I'm sorry but that is not what the source says. Activists could have just assumed that's her view when asked about it because that happened to be their view! Here's a hypothetical for you: What if me and a group of my friends successfully posed as Lib Dem activists and told the local paper that we were told by Mike Thornton that he supported the legalization of sex with animals, should we include that? NO, because this is not properly verified, horses mouth is the way forward. The candidate is not campaigning on the issue, nor can you find a concrete source to say that this is actually her view. This is too speculative to be in an encyclopedia article. Find a concrete source or it stays out!86.161.219.51 (talk) 11:54, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is not our job to do the verification of the sources. If the source is considered reliable then what it says goes in. We do not need a primary source to verify. (primary sources are actively discouraged) Each source needs looking at in it's own merit. GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 13:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, the publisher of the source is indeed considered a reliable source and is not a primary source. What we are also not meant to do is state things that a source does not say. Bondegezou is unquestionably wrong to use the phrase "James opposes gay marriage" because that is not what the source says, the source openly admits that what it is reporting is possible here say by being told by admitting this was told to them by activists, they have not even mentioned whether they have sought to verify this claim. Interestingly the BBC have mentioned a number of candidates views on gay marriage, including the independent, the conservative and the lib dem candidates. However, they do not say anything about Dianne James's position on this because she has not put her opinion out into the public domain! All we have is heresay, might not amount to anything more then a throw away comment from a leafleter! By all means if you can find a reliable source that states that "Dianne James opposes gay marriage!" then fair enough it can go in but for now at least Bondegezou is misquoting the source!86.181.25.153 (talk) 14:58, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Polling - Recent Edits[edit]

To avoid this continued edit war surrounding the populus poll of 21-22 Feb, the logical thing to do seems to be to publish both sets of figures. This is the first time I have seen anything other than actual voting intention published on wikipedia but since it is a headline poll I can see why we should make this one exception. Having said that, this should not mean that we should publish it instead of the actual figures published by populus. This is why I have published both and edited the table to include a notes section so that the reader knows exactly what they're looking at! This provides more information and importantly more accurate information for the reader, just as an encyclopedia should!86.181.25.153 (talk) 10:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a source to further justify this action:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/support-grows-for-eastleigh-ukip-candidate-8508254.html I will also put a link to this in the article for the benefit of readers86.181.25.153 (talk) 11:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the figure given in the article is the top line voting intention figure given by Populus. I don't see the issue. Bondegezou (talk) 11:35, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that for other opinion polling articles we report actual voting intention! When we have to scroll through tables to get the figures for individual parties that are not represented in the headline poll, we always always use actual voting intention! These polls are by-election polls, (a bit of a new concept in the UK) and so the pollsters are trying different methodologies. In this case both sets of figures for this poll have been published. You argue that I'm over complicating things, well you are over simplifying things in order to omit certain facts! If you disapprove of having a notes table then I am happy to leave it (maybe use a footnote instead?). You can't get away from the fact that both sets of figures have been published and are being used in the public domain e.g:The Independent Article! On Wikipedia, we publish every poll released by a pollster that is registered with the British polling council! This poll has 2 sets of figures and both sets of figures must be published, to simply publish the headline poll when all the newspapers and everyone else are using both sets of figures frankly makes Wikipedia (and possibly it's editors) look biased! I will reverse your edit, if you want to discuss the layout/formatting of the table, then fine but both sets of numbers must be included!86.181.25.153 (talk) 11:50, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a list of sources to further justify this action:
86.181.25.153 (talk) 11:12, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Independent article reports the topline figures and then describes the methodology of the poll and also gives the alternate figures. All polls make methodological choices and most polls have more than one set of figures available. We could give two sets of figures (or more) for every poll. Practice on other articles is to give the topline figures + a citation to the full details so readers can sift through them if they wish.
To comment on some of the things you say: this is not the only poll with more than one set of figures published; by-election polls are not new in the UK and the methods being tried are comparable to the methods tried and tested in normal political polling; the topline figure is of "actual voting intention" as assessed by the pollster's methodology.
The precise methodology of a poll has an impact on the results. Sometimes this is a point of discussion. In this case, you have two reliable source citations discussing that detail. (Is UKPR a RS?) These citations still respect the topline figures as the main figures worth reporting. If we're providing a link to the poll details, it seems to me more detail than necessary for an article like this to get into reporting debate over the appropriate polling methodology.
Ergo, I feel we should give just the topline figures for this poll + provide link to details. An alternative I could live with would be a footnote that uses The Independent and Spectator citations do note discussion of the polling methodology. I think your suggestion of giving this poll (and this one alone) two rows for each set of figures is inappropriate and misrepresentative.
It also seems to me that interest in the alternate figures is largely driven by the desire for a narrative that supports UKIP. Bondegezou (talk) 11:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can we have a second opinion on here (that is not Emeraude), I have made every effort to be reasonable and accommodating with formatting here! The fact of the matter is, that a number of reliable sources are publishing both sets of figures, this is not a usual thing to occur, it is this which makes this situation different! I am all to aware of how polling works, there are indeed many tables of different figures in each and every poll but never before have we seen both sets of figures used in a number of reliable sources! This makes the situation different! Reliable sources talk about the second set of polling figures more. Furthermore we are not suppose to discuss/criticize methodology but since your on the subject: It is not normal for a polling company to assume a voter will vote the same way that they did at the previous election! They ask who your going to vote for at this election and then asses the likelihood, these 2 situations are not the same. You are therefore wrong to say that this is the same as a normal national poll, normal polls do not assume undecideds vote as they did previously, they discount them. In national polling they collect previous votes to asses swings, not for the purpose of projecting voting intention! It is this which makes a by-election poll different.

Even if we assume that our methodology discussion is irrelevant, the fact remains that both sets of figures have been published by reliable sources, which means that we should also do the same (with a footnote). For now I will reverse the edit so that both sets of figures are displayed until we can get another editor to look at this (excluding Emeraude)86.181.25.153 (talk) 12:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is misleading to say "both sets of figures have been published by reliable sources". The topline figures have been reported more widely. All citations give priority to the topline figures and those you list above only offer the alternate figures as a supplement. Thus I feel any mention of the alternate figures should reflect that and clear priority should be given to the topline numbers. I have edited the article with a compromise that notes the alternate figures, but just has one row in the table. See what you think.
Your understanding of standard polling practice is mistaken. Bondegezou (talk) 14:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to work with you on this reasonably and offered 2 solutions, as far as I am concerned I can not see any reason why both sets of numbers can not be in the table! My understanding of the methodologies is indeed correct: I am right to say that previous voting intention is not used to allocate undecided voters in voting intention surveys! That's kind of a key difference between a normal poll and these by-election polls! There are very few polls in this table, surely readers will benefit from seeing as much information as possible. May I also point out that the Independent and the UKpollingreport source spend most of their time talking about the second set of numbers, they put more emphasis on the second set of numbers, despite the first set being the headline poll! We need to include both, if you can think of a different format that demonstrates this better than my 3rd attempt, then please by all means share it with me! Please try and be pragmatic, stubborn rigidity is not helping.213.120.148.60 (talk) 16:50, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted the edit back in good faith. I did what I said as put on this page and gave you a 3rd format, you didn't like my wording and so reverted my whole edit without comment. I have reverted your edit but taken on board what you said about the footnotes, could you please propose an alternative footnote to go with the current version of the table. Please do not simply revert an edit without comment!81.149.185.174 (talk) 17:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you could give me a moment or two to finish writing my comment!
Previous voting intention is regularly used for those who say "don't know" in general election polls: see [7]. This is entirely standard; Populus are doing what they normally do for all their polls. Your arguments above about this being different to normal are incorrect. Pragmatism can follow once we've got the facts straight.
We should first and foremost report what Populus, the newspaper who commissioned Populus and most of the reliable source citations say, the topline numbers. These clearly should have primacy. Any description of alternate numbers must acknowledge that they are supplemental. It must also acknowledge that they are a deviation from the polling company's preferred and standard method. Anything else is misleading. Bondegezou (talk) 17:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not my ideal solution, given the footnotes and their clarity, I no longer see a need to have the polling numbers in small. That said they should be in italic to distinguish, so that the different font indicates that this poll is different to the other headline voting intention figures. I shall see to that now.213.120.148.60 (talk) 18:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I hope that's an end to the matter. Thankyou for working with me to come to a compromise.213.120.148.60 (talk) 18:08, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is not the end to the matter. I am not happy with the current wording, but I am trying to find a reasonable path forwards. I hope others chime in on this matter.
Dear IP editor, most of what you base your arguments on, as written above, is wrong.
You said, "This is the first time I have seen anything other than actual voting intention published on wikipedia". No, we regularly report the pollster's topline figures including whatever adjustments they make.
You said, "the pollsters are trying different methodologies." No, this is Populus's standard methodology.
You said, "to simply publish the headline poll when all the newspapers and everyone else are using both sets of figures frankly makes Wikipedia (and possibly it's editors) look biased!" No, one newspaper article and one magazine comment piece give both sets of figures. Most sources just give the topline figures.
You said, "Reliable sources talk about the second set of polling figures more." No, they talk about the topline figures more.
You said, "normal polls do not assume undecideds vote as they did previously". No, many pollsters, including Populus, do this (with a weighting) regularly.
Given this, I am unclear what is left of your argument. I say we reflect what most sources say, the topline figures. Bondegezou (talk) 18:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, all polls make adjustments but not of this kind, the most common adjustment involves likelihood of voting e.g. a person with 4/10 likelihood to vote or less might not be included in the headline poll and people with 5/10 likelihood and above are. Examples of this vary widely.
  • I accept your point that it is common for this to happen and that actual voting intention is very rarely the headline poll (I accepted that from square one) but there is a massive difference between including people who are unlikely to vote but have said "I might vote for them" and simply saying, "oh well this undecided person voted this way, so they will definitely vote the same this time round". Massive difference and to reiterate, that is not what polls do normally, check your methodologies. I have explained 2 very different scenarios with big implications that you intend to make out to be one and the same thing!
  • Correction, it is not standard for Populus to allocate all undecided voters as a vote for the party they voted for last time regardless of anything else, they use likelihood to vote and if need be rule people out to make a smaller sample, notice how sigma changes. What you claim here simply is not true!
  • We have 2Newspapers, a magazine and ukpollingreport, all of which are reliable sources. Despite it not being the headline poll UK polling report do indeed talk more about the second set of numbers, there is visually more text and a lot of emphasis put on these figures, so your wrong on that score. The independent article also picks up on what UKPollingReport say and bases most of it's article on those figures, talk of a 3horse race and the such like. The spectator hardly even gives reference to the headline figures and uses the second set of figures to talk about a "surge". So no there is no way in hell that you can argue that the headline figures are what dominate these sources, these sources are written around the 2nd set of figures, I dare say the articles wouldn't have even be written otherwise!
  • On the next point you kinda fell over your own argument there by admitting that the headline poll figures are not weighted and therefore does not follow any normal methodology!
My argument is flawed? Mine is clear, mine is based on the sources that you have clearly not read thoroughly enough, you even managed to create an argument against one of your own points.
I want to also welcome others to comment (excluding User:Emeraude:Emeraude), I'd like to hear what Arsenalfan24 has to say on the matter because he/she seems to be a key editor in this article. Lets stop discussing this and wait till we get Arsenalfan24's opinion. Thankyou213.120.148.60 (talk) 14:10, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, IP editor, you are factually wrong. You continue to claim the same falsehoods. Read [8], it's at ukpollingreport, which you yourself say is a reliable source. I quote, "ICM’s solution is to take their don’t knows and reallocate them on the assumption that 50% of them will vote for the party they claim they voted for at the previous election (in practice this is done by weighting they all down by 0.50 and reallocating them all). The proportion is based on their previous panel studies. [...] Populus now also use a similar method".
The core of your argument is factually wrong, ergo I do not see support for your position here. Bondegezou (talk) 14:23, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NO, I will directly quote from your source: "Populus now also use a similar method, the only difference being that they re-allocate 50% of former Labour and Conservative voters, but only 30% of former Lib Dems and no former “others” at all. Again, this is based on their own callback surveys after the last election." that is not what they are doing here, they are not weighting as they have prescribed to their normal methodology they are simply saying that ALL (yes ALL) undecideds will vote as they did previously! There is nothing scientific about that, which is why great emphasis has been placed on the second set of figures! populus do not ever ever use this method in national polls, they do it in a weighted fashion! Stop edit warring and wait till we get the second opinion from Arsenalfan24. I have already messaged this editor, I am sure they will respond, please feel free to also message them! I know you are a very active editor on Wikipedia in the politics section but please do not think you are the boss of it, we wait for the second opinion!213.120.148.60 (talk) 18:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are still wrong. Populus used their standard adjustments for don't knows in the Eastleigh poll. I see nothing that says to the contrary. Your facts are wrong. Bondegezou (talk) 10:38, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not wanting to complicate matters still further, but it is worth noting that both the Survation polls also use a past-vote adjustment in their topline figures (see here Table 5 → Table 6: http://survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Final-Eastleigh-Report.pdf) like Populus, as do the Ashcroft Polls (Tables 3 → 4 here http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Eastleigh-25thFeb-30Realloc-BPC1-copy.pdf). Seems a bit odd to present alternative Populus figures but only the topline from all other pollsters when they are using the same methodologies. Pbrione (talk) 13:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I get what your saying but what makes this particular Populus poll is the way they have changed their methodology and the fact that this has been picked upon by reliable sources and reported with equal if not greater emphasis by other reliable sources. I accepted from the outset that polling companies make a weighted adjustment, they always have always will but the Populus one simply isn't weighted, it's a complete reallocation. Thankyou for your input but non of these other tables have been picked up as being unique and note worthy by reliable sources.81.149.185.174 (talk) 15:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect to the IP editor, the above is simply nonsense. Populus have not changed their method. What they do is the same as Survation. The cites given do not support IP editor's arguments that there is something special about the Populus poll. Bondegezou (talk) 09:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BBC article[edit]

Useful stuff here. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:26, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Echo Poll[edit]

This poll should stay, Bondegezou keeps removing it. I have replaced it as have at least 2 other editors, Bondegezou seems to be edit warring. Bondegezou claims that this is not a scientific poll and this is the reason given for wanting to remove it. May I remind everyone that it is not for us to scrutinise methodology, we are to use reliable sources, Bondegezou's critiscism counts as analysis! The Daily Echo is regarded as a reliable source, it has indeed been used to source much of the material on this page! With specific regard to the claim of the poll not being scientific, I dispute this claim! The poll does not simply ask anyone and everyone that walks past a street corner, it takes representative proportions of the local population from different demographics as any other poll would. What it does not do, that the other polls do is allocate the undecided, it literally only gives actual voting intention of that sample, therefore the figures in the table add up to 78% because 22% of the random sample are undecided. The other polls allocate the undecideds as voting in some way shape or form or they ignore them completely. This is what makes this poll particularly useful for this article because puts an emphasis on the number of undecided voters! And does not make any spurious assumptions as to what might happen based on previous trends! The poll stays.213.120.148.60 (talk) 21:47, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To quote from the article itself: "Meanwhile our non-scientific poll". If the Daily Echo themselves says this is a "non-scientific" poll, then clearly it is not scientific. The other comments above are entirely speculative. Bondegezou (talk) 09:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
no way in hell should a newspaper 'survey' be in that table. Daily Echo is NOT a RS for opinion polling, their self-described poll is NOT an opinion poll, it is not endorsed by the BPC (or whatever they're calling themselves now)...if there's any policy on wikipedia that says that "poll" should be included, that policy is wrong. 92.15.56.51 (talk) 19:52, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly not of professional standard. William Avery (talk) 22:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Echo survey absolutely CAN NOT be used, it is standard practice, in journalism, in the world of opinion polling, and on wikipedia, to ignore all such newspaper surveys, it is NOT accurate to describe it as an opinion poll. I do not care to get into arguments between Cons&Libdems, but this is a complete no brainer. The Daily Echo survey is NOT a professional opinion poll, it is absolutely inarguably NOT a reliable source on this issue, all opinion polling RSs say to ignore such surveys. In the vast majority of cases, an organisation not on this list http://www.britishpollingcouncil.org/officers.html is not a RS for opinion polling within the UK. This is not an exception, the daily echo has not suddenly become an opinion pollster. 92.15.56.51 (talk) 20:18, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beer Baccy and Crumpet Party should be considered notable.[edit]

WP:RS will need to confirm it, but 256 voters can't be wrong. UKIP better listen if they really want to become to get an MP! Normsdale (talk) 03:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. Just no doktorb wordsdeeds 06:59, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are there multiple independent sources which discuss the party in depth, not just as a run-through of parties which stood at the by-election? If so, probably. Otherwise, it's not yet notable by Wikipedia standards. Warofdreams talk 10:47, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Having had a cursory search [9] it would appear not, which is quite possibly to the delight of my sanity. --wintonian talk 23:10, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Typical doktorbuk, slamming arguments down like that without so much as a reason. I happen to agree with the decision but fortunately other editors are prepared to consider things without closing arguments down in such an intolerant manner! 213.120.148.60 (talk) 01:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please remain civil, avoiding personal attacks, or you will be reported. doktorb wordsdeeds 06:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source for results?[edit]

I've just fixed some silly vandalism (notional extra candidate), then spotted that one of the genuine candidates didn't seem to be listed in the results. No source given for the results. Found the council website, was going to reinstate him ... then on looking into the table found he was listed but invisible as the first of two "candidate8"s, so reinstated him by fixing the numbering. But it still seems that there should be a clear link to an authoritative source for the results. Couldn't work out where to put a reference around that table, so have listed the council site as an External Link. There may be a better way to do it, but I hope editors will agree there should be a link somewhere to an off-wiki source for the full results list. PamD 22:35, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eastleigh by-election, 2013. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:25, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2013_Eastleigh_by-election&oldid=1204390237"