Talk:2011 Ontario general election

Is Wikipedia's portrayal here biased?
According to CBC http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/10/05/ontario-election-key-races.html: “it is expected to be one of the closest races in decades, as several recent polls suggested the Liberals and PCs are in a statistical dead heat, with the NDP not far behind” But if I look at the Opinion polls here: Ontario_general_election,_2011 it looks like the Liberals are way in front. So who is biased? The CBC? Wikipedia? Ottawahitech (talk) 16:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In short, no one. The section in question lists the poll numbers directly from the poll sources in chronological order, that is least possibly biased thing that could be done. It means the only bias possible is from the pollsters themselves. CBC's piece is an editorial, and while I firmly believe that it is the most authoritative of the news outlets in Canada. That their editorial piece disagrees with the poll numbers listed here does not mean Wikipedia is in any way biased. If you've been watching the news also, there has been a lot of debate over the accuracy/validity of polling results, so multiple predictions from different sources are to be expected. Vietminh (talk) 17:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As long as the Wiki table portrays all legitimate polls in the right order. However, I just re-reverted a table entry that was earlier reverted by another wikipedian. I am not sure if there was justification for the earlier reversion - so would appreciate it if someone more knowlegeable would look into this Ottawahitech (talk) 17:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Your edits were reverted again by Mr. No Funny Nickname, he provided the rationale that the poll that was edited into place was not conducted on the date listed in the table. I double checked this, the person who inserted the poll into the table put the date as Oct 4th, when the Poll was actually conducted on Sept 24th. Looks like it was a weasel edit to me. Next time, if you're unsure of why an edit was made you should leave a msg on the talk page of the person who made it and ask them why they did what they did. That is a better option than simply reverting an edit. Vietminh (talk) 18:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, the “weasel edit” was done by the third most prolific wikipedian working on this page since 2009 (see: http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Contributors.php?wikilang=en&wikifam=.wikipedia.org&grouped=on&page=Ontario_general_election,_2011 ). I doubt this edit was malicious. Ottawahitech (talk) 19:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Something about this page, everyone gets really offended easily. I never said it was a weasel edit, I said it looked like a weasel edit. Also you and others seem to have something about this "past matters" thing, it doesn't matter if the person is the third most active editor, it doesn't mean they aren't capable of making a mistake and/or possessing a bias that they ought to be informed about. Neither they nor you WP:OWN the page. Also, you're putting a lot of faith in someone you've never even met, including reverting good faith edits by other active editors without checking to see that the 3rd most active person on this page inserted an erroneous and misplaced edit. If you place blind trust in them because they're active you're likely to overlook mistakes they'll inevitably make, I suggest you consider that. Either way, I commented on their talk page and indicated that I assumed it was good faith, but they need to be more careful. That said, I don't think its unreasonable to assume a glaring error from a regular contributor is worth inquiry, and the bottom line is you need to start talking to people and finding out what's going on before you blindly revert edits. Talking=understanding, Reverting=frustration and confusion. Vietminh (talk) 20:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As it turns out the edit in question was neither a “weasel edit” nor a “glaring error”. It has been put right by someone who, unlike the two of us, is too busy actually contributing to Wikipedia, rather than engaging in backseat driving. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ontario_general_election%2C_2011&action=historysubmit&diff=454282670&oldid=454261823 Ottawahitech (talk) 22:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Vietminh, this page has created too much needless conflict, because many people here accuse every other editor of conflict of interest or having a political agenda. If their party isn't trumpeted enough in the page, then it is obvious that someone has it out for the party and it is up to the white knights to expose the 'bias' inherent in a non-partisan encyclopedia. Hence the edit wars, reverts, and talk page shenanigans. Hopefully, now that the election is over, we can all calm down and get back to doing more important things with our time. Bkissin (talk) 22:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Something to keep in mind is that poll numbers don't equal direct votes. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Media Endorsements
Removed the Hamilton Spectator from the NDP as the article listed cites both the NDP and Liberals as being best for Hamilton interests. Furthermore, two days later the Hamilton Spectator endorsed the Liberals outright. Mr. No Funny Nickname (talk) 12:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect Percentage Given for Voter Turnout
The percentage of the voter turnout for the 2011 election was 48.2% NOT 49.2% that is listed in the article. The source given for the incorrect percentage is Yet, if you go to Elections Ontario website, the percentage given is 48.2%. Scroll down the PDF to the very bottom to see the Elections total.19chalk64 (talk) 23:59, 27 February 2018 (UTC)19chalk64