Talk:Opinion polling for the 2015 United Kingdom general election/Archives/2014/July

Update tag
So why the update tag 137.205.170.123? A hint would be nice. Saxmund (talk) 18:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * As the editor doesn't seem to want to engage, and as far as I can see the article is up to date, I have removed the tag.Saxmund (talk) 10:01, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposed Changes to Inclusive System and Aesthetic Design
As I mentioned in the above subsection, I propose a more inclusive, equal and objective system which every other European country is using to remove the restrictive way in which the page is currently operating and to honour Wikipedia's principles on neutrality and inclusion. I also proposed a more sleek design to harmonise with other European countries' pages.

This is only a prototype, so were we to go forward with this, some changes could be made, such as slightly larger columns.

81.99.59.56 (talk) 16:24, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I like this idea. Its sleek, informative, and useful. Byzantium Purple (talk) 16:30, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why you have gone to 1 decimal place for Populus, like most pollsters it publishes to 0 decimal places only Saxmund (talk) 20:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks Byzantium, still waiting for more feedback to validate publishing. Saxmund, while Populus publishes to 0 decimal places, if you open the tables they have taken their results from, you can calculate the percentages with more accuracy and therefore present a more accurate results table.81.99.59.56 (talk) 20:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to this, by the way, but I am not sure about showing PC and SNP in this way if sometimes they are shown separately and sometimes lumped in together. In terms of the decimal places, I think there is a reason for this. With a sample size of 1,000 the accuracy of a poll is supposed to be ±3%. Pollsters therefore show the figures to 0dp because to give more decimal places is effectively to claim greater accuracy than you know you can demonstrate. An opinion poll is not supposed to show how the sample said they would vote, it is a projection of how the whole population would vote. In addition, this is an encyclopaedia and we should content ourselves with republishing the pollsters' published VI figures and not pulling them from the depths of the detailed tables. Saxmund (talk) 10:15, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You might want to add a note to SNP/PC about them only running in scotland/wales, and a note about the green columnd including the greens of both scotland, and england&wwales, as the two are separate parties.Øln (talk) 09:57, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * NO, this is not an acceptable change. We have had UK general election polling articles for many years now and never have we included a column for the SNP or indeed Plaid, they are not polling significantly more then they have been previously and more crucially they have not become UK national parties, which is why it is wholly appropriate to include them in others. We have a very very clear precedent here, if we were to add them to this article we would have to add them to all the previous articles too for consistency and there simply is not a case for changing that and that would not be a reflection of our reliable sources and how they cover things. The current table reflects how the overwhelming majority of polls are reported in headline figures and therefore by our reliable sources. By the way it simply is not a credible argument to say "but the data tables show the Greens, SNP and Plaid"....errr duuuuh of course they do, its a data table, on that basis we'd be including the BNP and other smaller parties as well. If we get to a point whereby the Greens are consistently and across the board being reported in headline figures for a significant period of time this is when we look again at their inclusion, as this would represent a change in coverage by a majority of reliable sources. As things stand the overwhelming majority of reliable sources do not include the Greens in their headline figures and therefore nor should we. Owl In The House (talk) 10:42, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it depends on who you recognise as "the source". The mainstream media, who commission polls, might not publicise a Green score, even though the poller includes it in the final table. With YouGov and Populus, for example, there are final tables from which the "headline" figures are clearly taken. With others not - for example Lord Ashcroft's published VI often differs by a point or two from the final detailed table (although he has subsequently started itemising the Greens in that). In any case, this is an online encyclopedia, surely we can report what is the case, even if other reporters don't consider it worth mentioning? I agree there is a problem with consistency of pollers itemising the Greens, and making sure that the figures come from the "final VI" table.Saxmund (talk) 12:49, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

May be okay to use this design, but it should be modified in order to accomodate the UK's special case. Almost any UK poll actually uses decimals (despite them being able to be calculated from the polls' numbers), so these can be removed (it would be senseless to have all polls showing results with a .0 decimal). Just posting my take on this since the design is basically crafted from table designs engineered by myself, so I know why I did those tables the way I did them. Maybe something like this?

Otherwise, you can show decimals, but then you would have to calculate them for all polls. This could look better in the end, but would definitely be a lot more of work.

Cheers. Impru20 (talk) 19:05, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


 * You really should include the margins of error - if known - with the data (eg the introduction to the Survation/MoS survey says it could +/- 3.1 % with 95% confidence) GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:57, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I used to place the margins of error in the tables of other opinion polling articles a long while back, but have since removed them from there because they usually cluttered the table (messing up with party polling data) and because for some countries margins of error are not always disclosed. The current table design in this article doesn't show margins of error either. But this can maybe be discussed. Impru20 (talk) 21:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't see why we are even entertaining such a change, if we were to make such a change we would have to retrospectively add the SNP and Plaid to every single poll for not just this article but also to Opinion polling for the United Kingdom general election, 2010, Opinion polling for the United Kingdom general election, 2005, Opinion polling for the United Kingdom general election, 2001 and Opinion polling for the United Kingdom general election, 1997. We need to be consistent, yes lets add and remove parties when need be but the status and coverage by reliable sources of the SNP and Plaid simply hasn't changed. If they are to be included in this article they should be in the other articles to. May I also point out that this table is not what our reliable sources reflect. We are not in the business of inclusion for the sake of inclusion, we are here to reflect reliable sources. Owl In The House (talk) 20:14, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


 * We are talking about the table design here, mostly, so that is why I left my opinion here. I had the SNP and Plaid in the table because the previous editor had them in his table. I personally care little whether if the SNP and Plaid are left in or out, though I am not really against removing them as long as there is enough space in the table and they don't mess up the data. Cheers. Impru20 (talk) 21:04, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the constructive feedback Impru20. Like you, I'm against the margins of error. The decimals I thought looked good and gave the table more accuracy, but as one user suggested, with the margins of error, more decimal places doesn't necessarily equate to more accuracy. Owl In The House, there is absolutely no reason why we would need to add SNP and Plaid Cymru to opinion poll pages dating back over 17 years - that's a ludicrous statement and you know it. Also, it is not 'inclusion for the sake of inclusion'. As I, and others, have stated multiple times, it is to obey Wikipedia's policies that state all majority and minority views must be represented. Every other country's opinion polling page, regardless of voting system, is following this policy and this design, so does that mean they are all wrong? Just because the current UK system has been used for so long does not make it inherently right. 81.99.59.56 (talk) 22:52, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * From a design point of view, I think the tables suggested above work well.
 * From a statistical point of view, I am against giving the results to the nearest 0.1%. When margins of error are around 3%, it is pointless giving numbers to 0.1% and they are nearly always reported merely to the nearest 1%.
 * GraemeLeggett makes an important point about margins of error. These are important. That said, the inclusion of the sample size in the table, as we currently do, deals with the issue well. I would certainly not want that column lost.
 * For me, what we put in the article should reflect what reliable sources report. But does that mean what newspaper articles report (which is usually 4 parties, but sometimes includes the Greens and/or SNP/PC)? Or what the polling organisations' detailed tables report (which usually includes the SNP/PC, Greens and BNP)? A reading of WP:RS might support the latter interpretation, but I think a reading of WP:NPOV would support the former.
 * So, what do reliable sources currently do? The BBC gives the 4 main parties only. Here's a typical recent newspaper article: 4 main parties only. That said, I have seen the Greens mentioned a few times recently.
 * On that basis, I currently feel we should leave the table as it is (although I think the case for the European elections is different and the Greens should be included there). If we get more articles routinely listing the Greens (or whoever), then include them by all means. Bondegezou (talk) 14:56, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I feel I have to mention this because I come from a scientific background (and working to ISO/IEC 17025) - but if there is a margin of error, it should be stated. And sample size is not as important as making sure it is a proper sample. I'm not saying you have to cram the +/- margin on every figure, it could be in the form of a quote at the end of the cite. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:56, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that we can follow with WP:RS and WP:NPOV and stick with the status quo. I personally do not think we are going against NPOV by selecting the four highest polling parties and showing them as reliable sources do, including the BBC and other 'neutral' sources. CH7i5 (talk) 18:18, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to voice my support for the inclusion of the Greens, PC and SNP in the tables, in the spirit of neutrality. The Greens defeated the Lib Dems in the EU elections, PC are locally larger than the Lib Dems in Wales, and the SNP are larger than the Tories in Scotland. JJARichardson (talk) 18:38, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Good for you but the place for you to voice your support for the Green party is at the ballot box or via other democratic avenues (rallies etc). This is a discussion about whether it is compliant with wikipedia policy or not, Wikipedia is not a democracy, please see WP:DEM. May I also suggest you read other Wikipedia policies that have been quoted that relate to this issue. In particular WP:OR Owl In The House (talk) 19:11, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I had not seen this. You don't have to be so rude with other people. As per WP:DEM and WP:CON, Wikipedia's primary means of decision making and conflict resolution is editing and discussion leading to consensus. So, while this may not be a democracy, this is not a totalitarian state either. He has not stated his support for the Greens, but that he supports that the Greens, SNP and PC are included in the table, which is different. In the end, it will be consensus who decides, but in the meantime he can voice his opinion either in favour or against adding the Greens. It is not necessary to disregard his stance in such a manner. Btw, if you know Wikipedia's policies so thoroughly, then you'd know that as per WP:BURO, you should not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies. "Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, not by tightly sticking to rules and procedures. Policies and guidelines themselves may be changed to reflect evolving consensus." So, stop sticking so much to Wikipedia policy because it is quite flexible and not as restrictive as you are putting it here. Cheers. Impru20 (talk) 00:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That last comment was deliberately provocative to see if you or any other regular editor on here who have chosen to stay mute on the way the IP editor has conducted themselves, to see if you would comment on my conduct if I pushed the boundaries a bit. I half thought I'd made it too obvious but apparently not. Sure enough you did as I would have expected and jumped on the comment when you saw it. All I can say is that it is a bit odd/inconsistent. The conduct of the IP editor was far worse and yet you pick on this. Yes, I am aware of WP:BURO but in this case it certainly does not trump the importance of consistency between articles, it is possible to be both necessarily flexible and indeed consistent, it is not a choice between the two. Indeed I have repeated several times now that I am not flatly against including any parties, what I'm saying is their inclusion should only ever take place as a result of an evidence (reliable sources) and policy based approach. Owl In The House (talk) 18:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "That last comment was deliberately provocative to see if (...)" Wait, what? You are being provocative in purpose? So, you do recognise to be violating Wikipedia's policy by acting as such; still, you accuse others of violating Wikipedia's policies even if they do not do so? What is the need for it? You accuse others of provoking and insulting you and then you do it to others just to see if someone replies? Oh, God. There is no justification to do that. Things can (and should) be discussed calmy here. You are taking this matter just too personally, and your conduct is being too aggressive to people who suggest something you don't like.
 * "should only ever take place as a result of an evidence (reliable sources) and policy based approach." And what I'm saying is that yes, I respect that and partly agree with you, but I'm also saying that consensus must also be taken into account. You, however, have ignored that and have taken actions saying that "consensus was against adding the Greens" when there is not even such final consensus yet. And then you are coming saying that suggesting to introduce new parties to the opinion polling table is a violation of Wikipedia policies. And finally, you are provocative to others just to see if someone picks on on it. I don't know if you are even realizing that what you are doing DOES indeed violate Wikipedia's policy, be being uncivil (WP:CIVIL), by not assuming good faith (saying that you expected others to reply to your provocative comment and that it was the reason to put it in here; WP:FAITH) and by having a conduct that could be considered disruptive (WP:DISRUPT), since you are basically not allowing consensus to be formed on the grounds that, supposedly, discussing this matter is a violation of Wiki's policies. So please, I ask you to be calm. Probably, from experience I'll say that what will be done here is to wait some time to see how the Greens before adding them, since that is the most cautious approach. However, consensus on another direction can still be formed. And if you could participate in a more calmly and respecteful mood, the better. Cheers. Impru20 (talk) 20:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposal violates Wiki Policy

 * I really feel like we are going round in circles here.
 * One thing we must absolutely be is consistent and it would be completely inconsistent to include the SNP and Plaid columns in this article and not the preceding 4 articles because their status/level of support/treatment by reliable sources etc etc has not changed. If they get added to this article, they should be added to the previous articles, that is very simple and clear. Personally, I would question how logistically possible that is but also is it what our reliable sources reflect? No, reliable sources give a headline figure and a link to a data series, this is what Wikipedia tables also do. You have your headline figure and then a link to the full data.
 * Since people seem to be having trouble understanding this, lets just go through an example: Yougov (rightly or wrongly) is the pollster of which most of the data series is based upon. Lets take a recent example. When looking up polls published by YouGov, you go to their politicis section, then click on a recent poll this most recent one for example. Oh look, it give a headline figure of: " Con 33%, Lab 37%, LD 8%, UKIP 14%" and then gives a link to the full tables below. The process is pretty similar with other pollsters as well, so it is not just Newspapers that publish headline figures but also the pollsters themselves.
 * We are here to reflect reliable sources properly, no matter which way you look at it. The only time it would be appropriate to include "other" parties is in full data series, this is not what this article does. This article is a table of headline polling figures, therefore that is what should be published. The proposed changes are a clear breach, there is no reliable source that has consistently and regularly produced headline polling figures for the Green Party, SNP and Plaid, nevermind this having been done for any significant period of time. The proposal is in fact a clear demonstration of WP:OR, not only does it rely on editors ignoring how pollsters (and indeed Newspapers) actually publish their polls but it relies on editors being selective about who they include; the BNP and Respect are prompted as other parties and included in the data tables, why have you not included them in your proposal? We are here to reflect reliable sources, not to conduct original research.
 * The proposal should be disregarded as it it a violation of WP:No Original Research, WP:Consistency, does not reflect reliable sources. Also may I point out the proposer has still to apologize for making false accusations and defamatory remarks about myself, this is yet another violation of Wikipedia policy and for these various reasons I really do not know why we are entertaining this proposal. Fortunately, most editors seem to be against the proposal. Owl In The House (talk) 19:04, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "You have your headline figure and then a link to the full data." The problem here is that you seem to be assuming the "headlines" are the main source while the data tables are just attached to it, when it is actually the other way around: the headlines are obtained from the full data. So the full data .pdf are the primary sources, while headlines are secondary sources made out of them. They can be taken into consideration, of course, but in any case they can be regarded as a more reliable source than the full data, if we are set to choose between one of them. Moreover, considering "headlines" as the main reliable source can be controversial; in other countries headlines may focuse on just the two or three most voted parties, even if the full data then show other parties with strong vote shares. Canada may be the best example for this, having a similar electoral system to that of UK. And considering that "headlines" may not be always neutral, I believe the most neutral, realiable sources we can look at are the data .pdf themselves.
 * I don't know how this can be a violation of WP:OR; what this policy means is that "all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves." That is, you can not invent data, but if the poll says that a party will obtain 5% of the vote, I don't know how having that data in Wikipedia could be a breach of WP:OR. It is not a new analysis, made out of thin air, that serves to reach a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources. I think you are going a bit too far with your view about what WP:OR really is.
 * "Also may I point out the proposer has still to apologize for making false accusations and defamatory remarks about myself" Oh, please, can you both stop arguing about this here? I don't know what has happened, but from what I've read here I don't think what he said is of so much trascendence so as to keep bringing the issue up here. Discuss it between yourself in private, please. I'm sure Wikipedia policy doesn't support turning talk pages into a battleground between two users. Furthermore, even if there was the case that he explicitly insulted you, that would not be a reason to stop discussing the matter about adding other parties to the table.
 * "Fortunately, most editors seem to be against the proposal." Well, given that this discussion has recently started, that there have been opinions in favor and against the idea, and that consensus has not even been reached I really don't know where are you getting this from. Btw, keep calm, pal. You seem to be taking this too personally, when it is just a matter that can be solved with discussion. That's the way it was done for UKIP here, and I'm sure that will be the way it is done here. Cheers. Impru20 (talk) 19:42, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * One issue about using the headlines as sources: Now, most headlines do not include the greens, but in the cases where they do, would lumping them into the "others" box constitute original research?Øln (talk) 07:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No it wouldn't, we have to have a standard table layout. The table should reflect what most reliable sources do most of the time and that is exactly what the table does. I am not saying that in time, the Greens absolutely wont be included more often in the headline polls. Indeed I have accepted this possibility and discussed the hypotheticals. Lets keep half an eye on this and if things change and a clear trend develops that warrants grounds of inclusion, lets discuss it. For now atleast no such case exists and the overwhelming majority of the time the Greens are not included in the headline poll. Owl In The House (talk) 18:34, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 1. What I have said in no way suggests that the headline figure is the main source. Indeed I have very consistently been one of the editors that makes sure that the main data tables are the linked source. The difficulty is that, the only way we know which figure from the data table source to publish is is due to the headline figure. The polling data contains various different figures and different polling companies have different methodologie. Within a data file there are numerous figures for different parties eg including don't knows, excluding them, excluding refused, 50% likelihood to vote, 50% likelihood to vote, blah blah blah. Do we publish all of them? No we don't. The only way we know with certainty which figures to publish are via the pollsters own headline figures and this is why they are crucial. It simply can not be denied that this article is a table of headline figures...there really is no two ways about that. I agree that the data is the primary source and that this should be the clickable link. But lets not forget it is a list of multiple forms of data and it simply is not for us to pick and choose which data we do or do not use, we go off the headline figure just as we always have done.
 * 2. I notice the fact that the proposed table is overtly selective has been completely ignored. I am not for a minute suggesting that this is the right approach as it does not reflect things properly but if you are arguing the position of "include all "other" parties mentioned in the data" (seems to be the position), they why exclude Respect and the BNP in the proposal. The argument is wrong to begin with but to add insult to injury it isn't even consistent with the proposal. This is a key point and it has been ignored. By the way, I have yet to see a pollster publish headline figures for only 2 parties.
 * 3. Polling companies are classifiable as neutral (whether one thinks they are or not is another matter) and they fall under the BPC. On a side note, I have no idea why Lord Ashcroft's polls have been added to the table without discussion as we do not include non-BPC member polls. I am unaware of him recently joining the BPC.
 * I am not sure where the issue about Ashcroft comes in, you almost seem to have a problem with it because he is currently showing Greens higher than the others. His polls have been included since May 2013. impru20 recalls that he was included by consensus (I was not around then) but you have had plenty of opportunity to raise it on the talk page - and have not. As far as I can see this article does not exlude non-BPC pollsters. Paragraph 1 states "Most of the polling companies listed are members of the British Polling Council (BPC) and abide by its disclosure rules." which explicitly allows for non-BPC pollsters to be included. Also BPIX polls have been included, back in 2010. If we were to have a discussion about whether Ashcroft polls should be included I would introduce such evidence as he discloses his data tables, is treated as a reputable pollster by Mike Smithson and Anthony Wells, and appears to use a reputable polling company to source his data, thought to be Populus. Saxmund (talk) 17:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 4. This is original research as it is an example of Wikipedia editors selecting what gets included from a data set. It is dishonest to suggest that there is any suggestion of "inventing data", the offence here is clear, it is editors being selective of what data we publish. We should not do this, we have always consistently published the headline figures (usually using the data as a source but not always), we shouldn't change this approach. I don't even know how we would when different polls use different parts of their data sets for their headline figures. We've got to be consistent here, not selective. Indeed this is the reason pollsters bother to publish headline figures, not everyone is psephologist, so they always provide a summary...the headline figure. Since this article is a summary of each poll (with links to the poll itself), we should reflect the summary offered to us by the reliable source, not delve into the data and do our own original research as to what that summary should be.
 * 5. I am not suggesting we should stop discussing the matter between ourselves but the IP editor is showing a flagrant disregard for Wikipedia policy and indeed other editors. I do not want to make a bigger thing of this then need be. I am happy for that to be the end of it if the IP editor withdraws the accusation. May I point out that it was the IP editor who took this to another page. Amusingly it was the wrong page. I am incensed with the fact that such an IP editor's proposals are getting such air time when they can not even follow wikipedia policy and that my arguments which I am actually backing up with wikipedia policy are being ignored and disregarded. So, forgive me for taking it personally but regular editors are normally meant to provide a bit of mediation and point out Wiki policy and no one has backed me in saying that the IP editor has shown bad faith when it's written in black and white. They have accused me of being something I am not and accused me of politically partisan edits, this is not on. The IP editor in question thinks they can say what they like and when they like, regardless of policy. Sorry but that's not on, we should stop taking notice of them until they withdraw their remarks and conduct themselves properly. All I want is for the IP editor to withdraw the accusation and defamatory comments in compliance with Wiki policy, it is not a lot to ask.
 * 6. People keep quoting the figure "5% of the vote" as if such arbitrary levels have any significance to the discussion...they simply do not.
 * 7. The point about WP:Consistency has also been ignored. It is abundantly clear that if we added Plaid and SNP to this table we would have to do so retrospectively for the preceding 4 polling articles. There has been no change in the poll standing/coverage/reporting of Plaid or the SNP; Scotland and Wales have been 4 party systems for a very long time now. This is a UK wide article though and Plaid and the SNP are not UK wide parties but more importantly than anything else our reliable sources report their figures as part of "others" in their headline figure.

Owl In The House (talk) 21:05, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi. First of all, and with all due respect, but I don't find it normal that you have just outrightly decided that the inclusion of other parties violates Wiki policy (so as to title this section as "Proposal violates Wiki Policy"). How so? Other countries add many other parties and they are clearly NOT a violation of Wiki policy. In some cases there hasn't even any discussion about them being adding, because it is clearly NOT a violation of Wiki policy. You are going just too far in this respect. Now, about you just responded:
 * 1. You have been consistently relating the headlines with the idea of "reliable sources". It I missunderstood you then I'm sorry, but that is what I interpreted from your remarks. About this >> "the only way we know which figure from the data table source to publish is is due to the headline figure (...)". Well, you are actually bringing this to the extreme. If the table is done in order to have party results in, then it is obvious that only party results will be put there, disregarding "abstentions", "don't knows", etc (everything not being a political party. I don't think we need the headlines to figure out each party's vote share given by the pollster. The doubt here is not what we add to the table; we already have the answer: party % figures. The real question here is which parties do we include and which ones we doesn't. And that's what is being discussed here.
 * 2. So, you are defending a "include all or none" position. That by itself would not be OR? You are using your own criteria to define which parties deserve to be added and which not (there is definitely not a consensus on this, and this is definitely not a violation of Wiki policy). Btw, no one said SNP and Plaid were going to be added, it was only a suggestion to be discussed; the main issue was if the Greens, as a national party in clear growth, were to be added. Again, I don't care what happens with the SNP and Plaid, being regional parties with a limited growth limit. "I have yet to see a pollster publish headline figures for only 2 parties." In Spain it is frequent (or was until before the EP election) to have pollsters publishing headline figures just for PP and PSOE. That's why I usually don't trust headlines, and instead take the data from the pollster's raw data itself.
 * 3. Well, the issue of Lord Ashcroft I believe was discussed here (at least it was attempted; I did not participate but I did read it). Not sure it is the issue at hand, though.
 * 4. So, by your own statement, having just Con, Lab, LD and UKIP results and not those for other parties would be original research, if we abide by the definition you have just said, because all these four have been selected to be put in the table for some reason.
 * 5. Well, if you want to take it personally, then ok, but not here. Remember that this is also part of Wikipedia policy (WP:POINT), so let's not discuss here anymore about that IP user, because it's not the matter at hand.
 * 6. I did not quote that statement, and have never used that statement, so I really don't care about that (with all due respect). I don't like % levels of inclusion because 1. they can be arbitrary and 2. they not always take into consideration the possible relevance of a party. I usually use another, more general and neutral criteria (based on the direct relevance of a party on the political stage of a country). However, in this article, consensus is also key. So if consensus finally decides that a party must be added, then it should be added whether we like it or not. But since nothing definitive has been said yet...
 * 7. I believe I have answered this point above, so I'm not saying anything more about it.
 * I can't comprehend your aggressive reaction when it comes to talk about adding other parties to the table. There was no consensus to keep the Greens on the table (so it was okay to remove them from there until consensus was formed), but there wasn't any consensus stating that they should not be there, but an open discussion with many opinions and no definitive solution. This is solved by consensus, not by accusations of violation of Wiki policy because nowhere else this is seen as such (and no one else sees this as such, btw). "Reliable sources" also put UKIP in the "Others" group some times (i.e. in YouGov they are put in the "Others" section in the data sheet despite polling 14% in the last poll), but it was (correctly, seeing their current polling numbers) decided to add them to the table. When it comes to party polling tables we must be more flexible and less strict than this: the political situation is not a fixed science that keeps the same all along. It evolves. And in that evolution, we may find that a party that we did not consider relevant 1 year ago has grown to considerable polling numbers today. If that happens, then its inclusion should be discussed indeed. Precedent is not useful here: it was seen a while back when UKIP was voted out of the table because no one expected that the UK three-way party system would break. Today we found that a party which had polled 3% in the last election is now polling between 15-20%, and that a party that was barely 1% is now consistently reaching 5% in opinion polls. So, what used to be reasonable 2 years ago today may not be useful. And I told you as one of the opponents of adding UKIP at the time (time proved me wrong). Cheers. Impru20 (talk) 23:24, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, look lets be clear, my "aggressive reaction" is for 2 reasons.
 * 1. I am fed up of cyber-Greens thinking they have a God given right to change Wikipedia to how they want it, to edit war, to be abusive, for the same individual to use multiple IPs. It was bad when it was pro-UKIP editors that were doing it and it is bad now. I have spent a lot of time over the last few months undoing edits that violate consensus on talk pages, what's more those editors have been proven wrong in recent election results on said pages.
 * 2. I don't take kindly to having false accusations being levelled against me and that is why I am wound up by this. This IP editor should not be aloud to say these things in impunity. I am disappointed that other regular editors are tacitly supporting this individual by ignoring their wrong doing, whilst entertaining their proposals. I am not guilty of bad faith here, the IP is. I have merely pointed out Wiki policy, the IPs claims are unsubstantiated and provably false.
 * May I make this clear once again; I am not against having the discussion (I don't know how many times I have to say this), I am against that IP editor being involved until they withdraw their allegations and comments about me. Am I against the Greens ever gaining a column in the table? No, I am not and I have said this in various places before but Wikipedia's layout should not be dictated by a barrage of cyber-Greens. You also seem to be making an assumption that I am pro-UKIP...may I remind you that I was part of the consensus that kept UKIP out of the United Kingdom local elections, 2014 info box throughout most of the discussion, it wasn't until very late on that I changed my view. As for UKIPs inclusion in this table...it was a very long time before that decision was made. May I also point out that UKIP are always included in Headline figures nowadays. I'm not saying the Greens should wait as long as UKIP but they should be admitted on the same basis. What is clear is that the Greens are not consistently out polling or tieing with the LibDems, our reliable sources don't seem to think their figure is worth including in the headline figure and that this hasn't gone on long enough to pass the "flash in the pan test". May I also point out that pro-Green editors seem to be heavily relying on Lord Ashcroft's polls, he isn't even BPC registered, I have no idea how those polls ended up in the table without discussion because we have had a habit of removing non BPC polls from the table, indeed the article states that this is a table of BPC polls, I have no idea why we are suddenly including Ashcroft...it all seems too convenient to this particular argument.
 * One thing we should be absolutely clear on is that Plaid and SNP should not be added to the table, without retrospectively changing all the other articles and all their data. That doesn't seem to be the issue at hand though. It seems that their inclusion is only being discussed in order to make it more likely that the Greens can gain a column too. Again, we ignore the fact that the BNP and Respect are listed under others in the data...this is called being selective. By all means if the Green Party's polling results grow further still and they hold a more favourable position for a significant period of time then we should look again. The obvious solution is to look again after party conference season and see if the Greens have polled at and above the LibDems for a prolonged period of time and also gained more recognition by pollsters etc in the way they report their figures. Pollsters are not being biased in leaving Greens off of their headline figure, they are reflecting trends as opposed to short termism. Wikipedia is not news, we a re not short termists, we should follow the lead of that approach. If the Greens haven't got to a position of tieing with and regularly exceeding the LibDems by September, I am happy for us to look again just before Christmas as this allows them time to establish that trend. To even consider adding them now is somewhat jumping the gun, to say the least. I am not being rigid here, I have once again acknowledged a possible scenario whereby the Greens could gain a column. We should take an evidence based approach, lead by reliable sources and Wikipedia policy, not the whims of a wave of cyber-Greens. May I hasten to add that non of the policy based objections have even been taken notice of. I don't want to be uppity about this but my reaction is 100% a result of/ reaction to the approach of other editors on this issue. Owl In The House (talk) 06:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "I am fed up of cyber-Greens thinking they have a God given right to change Wikipedia to how they want it, to edit war, to be abusive, for the same individual to use multiple IPs. It was bad when it was pro-UKIP editors that were doing it and it is bad now." The problem is that you seem to be assuming that people who want to include the Greens to the table are "cyber-Greens" or are pursing their own pro-Green agenda. While this could be the case sometimes, it is wrong to always assume such, mostly because it should not even be assumed unless strong evidence on the contrary (WP:GOODFAITH). What logic says is that if one states that he/she wants to add a party to a polling table, it could be for the interest of Wikipedia so as to show more information, not because they are cyber-Greens. That there are people that do it? Sure, as we have seen it in the past both for the Greens, UKIP and other parties. But those should be regarded as the exception, not the rule.
 * "You also seem to be making an assumption that I am pro-UKIP" I'm not making any assumption that you are pro-UKIP, please state where I've said that. I mentioned the UKIP's case because I did participate in the past in the discussion about whether UKIP should be added to the table or not. I always try to assume good faith, so I do not accuse anyone of being pro-[party] unless strong evidence to the contrary is shown, and then, if such evidence is demonstrated, I would state it clearly.
 * "As for UKIPs inclusion in this table...it was a very long time before that decision was made. May I also point out that UKIP are always included in Headline figures nowadays." I know it was a very long time before that, since I did participate in it. But I should remind you that UKIP was added more because of the fact that it had overtaken the LibDems in terms of polling than by the fact that they where in the headline figures (which back then I believe they weren't for many polls). That said, I'm in favour of waiting some months if needed to see if the Greens popularity persists or if this is just a short-lived boom, but I don't think we should put so many impediments for a party to be added to a table.
 * "may I remind you that I was part of the consensus that kept UKIP out of the United Kingdom local elections, 2014 info box throughout most of the discussion, it wasn't until very late on that I changed my view." Well, first of all, I have not talked about this issue (it was the IP user who brought the issue here). However, out of curiosity, I have checked the talk page of that article, and I found nowhere where are you supposedly against adding UKIP to that table. In fact, I have seen you were in favour of adding them to the infobox as early as November 2013. However, since consensus seemed to be against that, you accepted that, but always saying something in the sense of "I believe UKIP should be added" (which, btw, is not wrong to do, but goes against what you are saying because someone reading you could understand that you were against adding UKIP when you weren't). In any case, in that discussion you weren't even close to the aggressivity you are showing here against the inclusion of other parties to a polling table which, however, should be more inclusive than an election infobox (the election infobox being just a summary, while the polling table is more than that). And this has nothing to do with the IP user issue, because you are showing that aggressivity both to me and other people here as well. In any case, I don't know why are we even talking about this, because these are not the issues at hand.
 * "I don't want to be uppity about this but my reaction is 100% a result of/ reaction to the approach of other editors on this issue." This is not justification. Apply WP:CIVIL here. If others are uncivil, do not respond in kind.
 * So, to conclude, you have clearly stated your opposition to include the Greens (for now), SNP and/or Plaid to the table, which is ok. I also agree with you that maybe we should wait some more time to check if the Greens' trend continues of if their recent popularity is just a result of their results in the European elections. However, I'm not a stauch opposer of having the Greens in, and if finally consensus decides to include them, then so it would be. Now let others opine and see what the consensus is. Cheers. Impru20 (talk) 10:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Impru20, to pick up on something you said earlier, if we have both primary and secondary sources, then policy is to favour secondary sources: see WP:PRIMARY. Bondegezou (talk) 13:21, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No, from what I read there, that applies to sources that are "original materials that are close to an event, often accounts written by people who are directly involved". It refers to sources that "offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on". None of those descriptions fit opinion polls, since they are the result of scientific calculations and procedures and not "the point of view of an insider or a person close to an event". This is, that is talking about subjective primary sources, while here we are talking about an objective primary source. See also WP:IS. Impru20 (talk) 14:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Let me make one thing absolutely clear before you (Impru20) take my comments out of context again. I do not believe that and I am not referring to everyone who some how supports greater coverage of the Green Party on wikipedia to be a "cyber-Green", indeed I was very specific as to who and what I was calling "cyber-Greens". So if you think I am calling you or any of the other regular editors on here a "cyber-Green" you are completely mistaken and wrong. The majority of these cyber-Greens are; surprise surprise, IP editors, most recently they kept changing the UK EP elections article over and over again, in the end the page received protection as a result. I don't want to get into that example on here but that is my main experience of cyber-Greens on wikipedia. Cyber-Greens only seem to have one interest in political articles on Wikipedia as can be seen by their edit history, so they are very easily identifiable. It is very difficult to assume good faith of someone when they present bad faith to you and engage in bad faith editing as was the case on the other article. On this article the IP editor has resorted to personal defamatory remarks and provably false accusations against myself, bad faith of the highest order but such bad faith is something you have stated an intention to ignore. By the way I don't think it is fair to say that I have "responded in kind",I haven't hit the level of the IP editor by a long chalk.
 * The matter in hand: Any consensus should be reached on an evidence based approach backed by policy and reliable sources, not by X many people saying I agree with so and so etc. I have acknowledged the vague possibility in which circumstances might occur whereby the Greens should be included but we are clearly a long way away from that. Also I am concerned about the inclusion of Lord Ashcrofts polls...he isn't BPC registered and their inclusion does seem to be strangely coincidental with this whole discussion and they do form the basis of some editors arguments. Previously non-BPC polls have been removed from this article, this seems a tad inconsistent and an example of trying to change precedent/rules/practice to fit an argument.
 * Once again, I notice no one has touched on any of the substantive policy based points I have raised. Owl In The House (talk) 19:06, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "indeed I was very specific as to who and what I was calling "cyber-Greens". No, you weren't. When you responded me you weren't specific at all. You told me that you were being aggressive (a conduct which affects us all) because you were "fed up of cyber-Greens thinking they have a God given right to change Wikipedia to how they want it, to edit war, to be abusive, for the same individual to use multiple IPs. It was bad when it was pro-UKIP editors that were doing it and it is bad now." That's not being specific, and since you did say that you were being aggressive because you were fed up of cyber-greens, and because you were being aggressive with many people here (even recognizing to post provocative comments in purpose), I had to assume that you were being ramdomly aggressive. You can be more specific next time. In any case, even if you're "fed up of cyber-greens", and even if they were massively posting here, there is no justification, absolutely no justification, to be aggressive or provocative to others, because what you do is to bring conflict in here.
 * I ignore the IP editor because the dispute between he and yourself is a dispute between he and yourself. I commented on it because you keep commenting on it, but sincerely, what happens between he and yourself is a problem that affects only you both. I have not seen him say something as offensive as to force you to keep disrupting this page by requiring him to retract in several ocasions but, in the case he did say something that, in your opinion, was an insult, maybe what YOU should have done (if you consider that the IP editor insulted you) was to report him to the administrators and that they solve the problem, instead of writting long paragraphs here about why do you think he should apologize. I saw that the IP editor at least tried to use one of wikipedia's dispute resolution noticeboards, even if it was the wrong one. You could try to do that in the correct one and bring your issue with him there. Wikipedia has the mechanisms to solve that problem if you wish to use them. So use them.
 * "Any consensus should be reached on an evidence based approach backed by policy and reliable sources, not by X many people saying I agree with so and so etc" What I have seen is that people has indeed said that they agree with so and so and etc, but they usually post an explanation about why they opine that way (which is what forms consensus in the end; not the number of agreements or disagreements, but the force of arguments).
 * "Also I am concerned about the inclusion of Lord Ashcrofts polls...he isn't BPC registered and their inclusion does seem to be strangely coincidental with this whole discussion and they do form the basis of some editors arguments." 1. Lord Ashcroft's issue has been already discussed here, and I believe consensus was for inclusion. 2. Lord Ashcroft's polls have been in the polling table since much before the Greens' rise (and I think he has not published Green scores until very recently). So I believe the fact you want to point out is unsupported.
 * "Once again, I notice no one has touched on any of the substantive policy based points I have raised." I myself have done it by, for example, explaining why your argument that doing this or the other is a breach of Wikipedia's policies is wrong. You have even responded me at this point, so I'm curious as to how you can say that no one has touched on any of the substantive policy based points (you) have raised.
 * Cheers. Impru20 (talk) 20:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that this discussion has gone as far as it can go and I believe the time is now right to vote to try and reach a consensus, that way this argument/disagreement can be over for the time being. If people still object to the consensus then they can take it higher. But it seems as if no side is budging in this. CH7i5 (talk) 04:06, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Consensus Vote
This consensus vote is on whether the Greens and other parties such as the SNP and Plaid Cymru should be added with their own column, rather than being together in an 'others' column.

Against A clear precedent was set in the past on this article that a party needs to have been polling for a considerable length of time in order to be added as a party with its own column. I believe that this is the right thing to do as it presents the information in the best way possible. Other sources that we use also do the same as what is currently used, quoting the 4 main parties (Cons, Lab, Lib Dem and UKIP) as their headline figure. Major sources such as the The BBC, major UK newspapers, 'the UK polling report' and several polling websites (electoralcalculus.co.uk, ukpolitical.info for example) all only list the 4 parties and not any others. We would be following what the majority of reliable sources do by sticking to our current way. CH7i5 (talk) 04:06, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Against WP:NPOV, WP:DUE and WP:RS lead me to the conclusion that this table should follow the usual reporting of opinion polling in Great Britain, i.e. Con, Lab, LD, UKIP and an aggregated "others". Polling in specific regions or constituencies (e.g. Scotland, Brighton) or for other elections (e.g. European Parliament elections) may differ. Bondegezou (talk) 12:32, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Against for the time being. The Greens have touched on the Lib Dem score after the EP elections, but only as far as I am aware in one pollster (Lord Ashcroft) and only briefly. If the criterion is to be level with or ahead of one of the main parties currently shown for a significant period of time then they have not reached this point. However I disagree that the criterion should be that we do not include them if the dead-tree press do not report them. As long as it is clear from the published data tables which table the published VI comes from, I do not see why we can't use that, as it is published data (and the other "sources" merely copy it)Saxmund (talk) 17:29, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

For There is no space issues here, as opposed to e.g infoboxes, so I would see it as more neutral as opposed to undue weight to include all parties listed in the tables. 2 of the currently excluded parties often polled have seats in the parliament and other notable bodies. This also seems to be common practice for elections in other countries. Øln (talk) 20:55, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

For Applying WP:NPOV here. Other countries' usually include most other parties (as long as space allows for it), so discussion about if a party should be in or not is not raised unless there are problems of space. It is not the case here, and it is not that the sources don't give the data for those parties. Also, the precedent that "a party needs to have been polling for a considerable length of time in order to be added as a party with its own column", which has been mentioned several times in this discussion, was set for UKIP because they had no parliamentary representation (this was one of the key points in that discussion; should they had had seats in the Commons at the time it would probably have been added earlier to the table). I also agree with Saxmund that as long as the published data tables show the data, we can use it since it is published data that others' just copy. Impru20 (talk) 22:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

For The Greens are significant in polling now and I would argue that they warrant inclusion. SNP and Plaid, I would say no. Byzantium Purple (talk) 14:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Against I don't see any need for change, the proposal seems politically motivated to me. I can't see why the SNP or Plaid should be included in this article when they weren't included in the other articles, besides its a UK article not a regional/home nation article. That said I'm not against including Scotland and Wales only polls (in a similar way we have done with recent EU election article) and in such an instance I of course support the inclusion of the SNP and Plaid but not for the UK wide polls. As for the Greens, well, 5% wasn't nationally significant for UKIP, why is it for the Greens? Greens would need to gain more support and to hold it for a longer period of time before we should consider this. It would make Wikipedia the only place that shows polls in this way; hardly a reflection of reliable sources. 2.222.77.89 (talk) 11:14, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Against Sorry for my absence from this discussion but my mother died suddenly in the early hours of Wednesday and obviously other things have taken priority over Wikipedia editing. That aside, I agree with the points put across by CH7i5, Bondegezou and the IP:2.222.77.89. There are clearly several policy violations at play here (WP:NPOV, WP:DUE, WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:Consistency. Yes, based on the current circumstances and evidence I am against the Green Party of England and Wales having their own column (for now). I accept that there is a possibility (fairly remote) that at some point in the not too distant future the Greens may earn their own column but for now at least they clearly have not. As for Plaid and the SNP, no they should not have their own columns for reasons previously stated. This whole argument that we should base how we cover UK politics and UK polling on the basis of how we cover politics and polling of other countries is deeply flawed for so many reasons. The status of Plaid and the SNP simply has not changed, so neither should our coverage of them. The entire proposal seems to be completely based on editorial selectivity, I mean even now, no one has even addressed my mentioning of Respect and the BNP and yet the pollsters largely cover them in exactly the same way they cover the Greens, the SNP and Plaid but this point has been repeatedly ignored.
 * Not that I think these things should be decided by majority voting (most votes etc - that violates WP) but I'm pleased to see that more editors are against this than in favour of it. But of course, number of votes do not matter, substance does and the substance of the arguments for inclusion was very shaky at best. I'm not saying lets never look at this again but something should change before this discussion is revisited. Owl In The House (talk) 17:21, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It has now been a week since voting opened and I think that is enough time. The result of the vote is 3 For the inclusion of the Green's (with some against other parties), 5 Against inclusion of the Greens and other parties.
 * While WP:Consensus does say consensus does not come from a vote and that "Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines." we can look at the vote to see how the appropriate way to act would be. It is clear that the majority of people think that the policies and guidelines are against the inclusion of the Green's, however some for inclusion read them as being for inclusion. Therefore, I will be putting in a request for comment on this issue. CH7i5 (talk) 06:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Can I just say that Byzantium Purple does not refer to policy at all in their response, they merely give a non-policy based opinion. Øln touches upon a policy based point just about; However, space isn't something that has been raised as an issue or a cause for objection so that point isn't one of contention and therefore is not relevant. Øln then touches on neutrality but ignores the point that it is far from neutral to be selectively include parties in a way that reliable sources don't, whilst choosing to disclude others that our reliable sources cover the same way as the Greens; namely Respect and the BNP. They might cast their opinions but they barely touch upon policy and when they do they give no rebuttal to the policy based points made against their opinions.
 * Given that Impru20 made a similar argument only a few paragraphs up, to the one he has made in this section and come to a different conclusion speaks for its self. His whole argument seems to be based on how polling in other countries (with different political cultures and systems) are covered in Wikipedia...apparently this is meant to trump what our reliable sources tell us, the principle of consistency between articles (previous UK polling articles), WP:DUE, WP:RS, WP:OR and ignores the fact that it is not portraying a Neutral Point of argue for the inclusion of some of these other parties and not others...according to our reliable sources, in polling terms, the Greens are of equal status to the BNP and Respect...this point has been repeatedly ignored and never once referred to.
 * I'm not really sure why this has been opened up further at this stage due to the lack of substance based argument...we only have one in favour who has attempted to quote a point of policy and a few paragraphs before that he used the same argument to portray a "not for now view" (just to remind people - nothing has changed). That said I do not object to it being opened up to others, I'm just sick of these recurring arguments that come about as a result of the mood of angry IPs (lets not forget who's proposal this is), they waste time and are proving to be non-policy based. Owl In The House (talk) 22:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC)