Talk:2022 Hungarian LGBT in education referendum

Századvég poll
Pinging recent page editors (any other editors are welcome to also take part):

What evidence do we have of the reliability of Századvég as a pollster? Do they fairly poll respondents across a broad range of all ages and demographics, weight age and sex of respondents etc and ask questions in a neutral manner? For example, if the questions were worded exactly how they are set to be in the proposed changes set out in the referendum, then there could be accusations levelled against their neutrality and wording. Do they have any links to the Hungarian government? I think it is also important that we note how the questions in the poll were worded, the number of people polled and the demographics of those who were polled. Preferably we should also include polls from more than one pollster/polling organisation. Helper201 (talk) 21:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)


 * anyone? Helper201 (talk) 21:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I know nothing about this pollster. Perhaps may have a view as they are one of the main contributors to Opinion polling for the 2022 Hungarian parliamentary election.  Number   5  7  21:56, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Most pollsters in Hungary are very biased either in the one way or the other, so it would be the best if we just list every data we have Braganza (talk) 22:00, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * If "most pollsters in Hungary are very biased" as you claim I think it would be better not to include the information at all. Helper201 (talk) 22:05, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * We list the pollster on the polling page, so it should be uniformly and irrc a poll from the same pollster was actually commissioned by the opposition not by Fidesz and was leaked after, so it should be relatively accurate Braganza (talk) 22:09, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I have no idea. —AFreshStart (talk) 23:18, 14 February 2022 (UTC)


 * The best place to ask this is WP:RSN. But as a general rule, we should avoid citing pollsters directly in the first place unless they are extremely well-known, since they tend to provide no context or interpretation. And there's a bigger problem here - the proximate site, About Hungary, is just the official blog of the Prime Minister (it may look like a news source, but it specifically is not and is not attempting to be; there's no indication of editorial controls or fact-checking.)  It's not a WP:RS and can only be really cited for the Prime Minister's attributed statements.  We would need WP:RS to include this. EDIT:  I've removed it for now because it's a recent addition and the concerns with the source are so glaring - we definitely cannot cite a blog post by a politician involved in the matter, titled Survey: Majority reject promotion of sexual propaganda among children, without attribution! And I'm not convinced this is the sort of thing that makes sense to cite via attribution, since whether the poll is meaningful or not isn't really a matter of opinion.  If we're going to include it we would need a non-blog source mentioning it. --Aquillion (talk) 06:11, 5 March 2022 (UTC)