Talk:Public opinion of same-sex marriage in the United States/Archive 1

Misuse of HRC number
An editor has repeatedly tried to add material to the effect of As of January 2010, 12 others have state statutes "restricting marriage to one man and one woman." However, the source that editor is using does not develop their "other" in comparison to the same thing being noted in the prior sentence - the HRC source is 12 other than 29 which have constitutional amendments, not 31 which have had referenda. While those groups obviously overlap, they are also clearly not identical. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Please replace & update the graph
With a better and more up to date one, such as the gallup poll graph found here:

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/vqf79nrpfewws7ibh-1u-q.gif

http://www.gallup.com/poll/128291/Americans-Opposition-Gay-Marriage-Eases-Slightly.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.89.254.15 (talk) 22:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, the Pew Research Center has simple to understand polling charts of % supporting civil marriage and charts breaking it down by age, party, and black/white.

Deseret News/Gary Lawrence
Material sourced to Gary Lawrence's polling firm and reported by Deseret News was recently added; the latter owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, of which the former is a member, but neither is a WP:RS on the issue of same-sex marriage. AV3000 (talk) 16:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Undue weight
I have added an "undue weight" tag. This is due to the fact that it gives undue weight to the "support" side, while only talking very briefly about the "against" side. I know some of you may not be very happy about this, but please keep the tag there until someone either fixes the problem or can point out why the problem doesn't exist. Thank you. Math321 (talk) 23:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Please be specific what your issues are. I see you are anti-civil marriage. The trend of public opinion is clear and has been noted by WP:RS. The best wind vanes of public opinion are politicians, who read it as a matter of survival. Look at Republican politicians needing non-Republican support of reactions to Bush's call for a constitutional amendment in 2004. Now compare that with their quiet when asked to comment on the judge Walker prop 8 decision. You don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to think the dog that hardly barks is a clue how things are going.  On the Democratic side, Pres. Obama describes his views "evolving". Lets discuss your concerns here. So far I have not seen sufficient evidence for "undue weight" tagging. It is the tagger's job to produce a convincing case for the tag.
 * --Javaweb (talk) 00:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)Javaweb
 * As we're talking about a situation which is more or less binary; it would seem redundant to be constantly saying "Support for same-sex marriage grew; meanwhile, opposition to same-sex marriage waned". And "support" is where more is going on, both conceptually (opposition is a maintainance of status quo) and in terms of degree of change over the period discussed (since 1996, support has double, while opposition has merely decrease by a third), so it seems reasonable to talk about it from the angle of where the more major activity occurs.
 * Having said that, are there specific places or items which you think should be addressed, and wording you'd suggest? --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * For the reasons Nat Gertler explained, the presentation is reasonable. Also, most recent WP:RS show that support is the majority view.  The WP:Undue tag should be removed.TVC 15 (talk) 02:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've removed the tag from last month, based on the discussion above.TVC 15 (talk) 00:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Polls in 2012
There have been two polls in 2012, one was made by NBC/Wall Street Journal and can be seen here I dont remember the other one but it shouldnt be difficult to finf it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.66.51.205 (talk) 01:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Up-to-date line graph
I wish there was an up-to-date graph of the polling data in the article. A picture can highlight patterns. The current scatter-graph is good but does not go to the present. Does wikimedia have any tools to line-graph data? --Javaweb (talk) 14:47, 23 June 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

Chronological order
Is there any particular reason the polls are put in the article starting with the ones from 2012 to the ones in 2010?  I  help dןǝɥ   I  05:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Because that is what readers want to know. In fact, most readers would like to know what current opinion is and a historical graph showing the trends. Readers want salient information, not stale data. -- Javaweb (talk) 10:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)Javaweb

Assistant Professor's 2010 study
RE:

Reading the body of this wikipedia article, mid-2010 was the beginning of a different trend that continues through when I write this. Asst. Prof. Eagan did not forsee the turnaround in black support since Obama's 2012 support, nor the doubling of the number of states that allow same-sex marriage and the rejection of all but one of the anti-marriage state amendments. Who can demonstrate that even Eagan would see this study as an up-to-date picture of public opinion?

Eagen does not even have a wiki article so his title identifies his qualifications better than his name. Calling something "recent" does not age well and is a matter of opinion. 2010 is always true. Wikipedia only uses secondary sources and is an academic paper. We need to find a good secondary source such as the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times that covered this to keep this in the article. "Traditional Marriage" is a term used by one side of a controversial issue. Wikipedia chooses the term used by reliable sources. It is also not as specific as saying "banning same-sex marriage" since it has been used in the past to refer to banning interracial marriage, arranged versus love marriages, marriage only for procreation, etc. Also, the lede paragraph is supposed to encapsulate what appears in the article, not to introduce new material. I'm also wondering why this introduction section has not been updated with current references since things have changed since 2010. --Javaweb (talk) 19:08, 5 May 2013 (UTC)Javaweb

Gay marriage: The first amendment broken?
Of course, President Barack Obama wants an anti-gay marriage law passed. As we all know, also, is that the first amendment says we all have the freedom of religion. Sure, in Christianity it is a sin to have gay marriage. But not all bibles say so. And all men/women are supposed to be equal. I think it is a huge judgment to make up even such a law. What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.219.146.110 (talk) 06:36, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

First, thank you for your interest in wikipedia. As it says at the top, this page is not for discussing the issue but for improving the article. To keep factual errors from creeping into the article, -- Javaweb (talk) 19:53, 5 May 2013 (UTC)Javaweb
 * The statement about Obama is false. Please read the article on Obama, section on "Domestic policy".
 * Episcopalian and liberal Christian denominations support extending marriage to gays so different denominations have different positions.

Public support by state
If anyone is interested, there is an online study by the UCLA School of Law's Williams Institute that states that it was generated by applying statistical techniques to the data from multiple national surveys in order to generate reliable estimates of state-level public opinion. Unlike the majority of polls and what is currently in the article, it covers all of the states and the federal district. It may be a good supplement to the existing data. The article is here and the full document from April 2013 is here. Altairisfar (talk) 22:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

New Mexico's New Poll
A poll released by Anzalone Liszt Grove Research shows a support of gay marriage at 51% with opposition at 42% and 7% did not respond. This should bring a more accurate opinion of New Mexicans over this matter and their portrayal of the recent rulings in the state allowing gay marriages. The State ought to be changed in the map from deep red to deep blue after this poll. To look at the article go here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.67.212.190 (talk) 18:05, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

New Mexico
Kinda going off the above comment. I created a Wikipedia account today just to change New Mexico's color on the map, but I'm kinda having trouble figuring things out. (Things here are more complicated than I thought) TheSethLink (talk) 23:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Issues with the way we handle polls
As I noted over at File talk:Public opinion of same-sex marriage in USA by state.svg, there are at least three problems with the way the map works. These problems also apply to the way we're handling the page, though the solutions I'd suggest are different.

Problems:
 * 1) We include polls which ask about a choice between marriage, civil unions, or nothing, and those which ask if people are for or against marriage equality. As someone somewhere noted (I think it was Nate Silver), about 10-15% of the population has preferences that go CUs-marriage-nothing, rather than any of the more expected combinations.
 * 2) We only include the most recent poll.
 * 3) We ignore the margin of error.

Solutions:
 * 1) Either have two sets of tables for three-way and two-way polls (my preference), or have four columns for "support," "civil unions," "no recognition," and "undecided," with a dash for columns the poll doesn't use.  The latter is what we do in polls for political races, but since those generally include minor or third-party candidates, whereas there's only two sets of options here, I'd say that two sets of tables is reasonable.
 * 2) Include the five most recent polls, or all polls within the last year, whichever is fewer, together with an average.
 * 3) Have a column stating the margin of error.

So for example, Illinois, using the last two polls we used for the state (noting that I'm not very good with wikitables).

Note that I had to find another source for the margin or error (the media is rarely keen on scientific rigour of any sort), and also that I just used the two polls we used, without determining if there were any more in the past twelve months or what. —Quintucket (talk) 00:37, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Wisconsin New poll link
I think if this counts then Wisconsin should be dark blue but idk. http://wtaq.com/news/articles/2013/oct/30/poll-53-of-wisconsinites-support-same-sex-marriage/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bleach143 (talk • contribs) 17:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. But see my comments in the next section. —Quintucket (talk) 00:43, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

North Carolina
North Carolina should be updated http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/11/collins-favored-for-re-election-opposition-to-gay-marriage-declines.html#more 97.71.50.252 (talk) 02:12, 23 November 2013 (UTC) Ignore this I accidentally mistook this as North Carolina when it is actually Maine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.71.50.252 (talk) 04:25, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

South Carolina
I found a much more recent poll for South Carolina (yes I checked this time to make sure it is the right state.) http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/gay-marriage-poll-south-carolina/2013/11/04/id/534689 They oppose it. 52-39 97.71.50.252 (talk) 00:41, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Newsmax is a partisan website and not a Wikipedia Reliable Source. Can you point us to a reliable source that references it? How samples are taken and questions are couched influence poll results. --Javaweb (talk) 02:25, 28 November 2013 (UTC)Javaweb

I found many other websites say the same number http://www.thestate.com/2013/11/03/3074150/exclusive-majority-oppose-but.html http://touch.towleroad.com/tlrd/#!/entry/south-carolina-sees-major-shift-toward-acceptance-of-gay-marriage,52790cede56d0bb85335b852 http://www.scnewsfeed.com/columbia/winthrop-poll-majority-oppose-but-more-in-south-carolina-tolerant-of-same/  and http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/nowhere-left-to-hide 97.71.50.252 (talk) 00:03, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for getting the updated information. I have made the edit, giving you the credit for finding the poll. I've given October 2013 Winthrop Poll, question T45 as the source. --Javaweb (talk) 00:49, 30 November 2013 (UTC)Javaweb

Colorado
Newer poll released by PPP; the number on the main article will remain unchanged but this should be used as a more recent reference. http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/12/colorado-miscellany.html#more 97.71.50.252 (talk) 10:30, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Relation between same sex marriage and level of education
I submit this because I edit the part of the text that says that the level of education has influence in the opinion of same sex "marriage" because without a dude, It´s falacious. There are no relation between them and I also think that in many degrees of science or medicine, the mayority of students are against this marriages because in order of science they can´t procreate or even until 1990 It was a disease recognised by very influent experts. I don´t imagine who posted it, probably a militant of gay lobby, who believe that everybody with formation agrees with same sex "marriage" but I am a student who graduates in maths this year and I can say that in my class, the majority are good at mind and understand the meaning of equality: to treat everybody equally with the same conditions, but although some people here don´t think so, two men or two woman are one thing and one men and one woman are other different thing, and in law two differents things should be treated different in order to distinguish them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.6.123.183 (talk) 11:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

While the referenced poll is outdated and mentions nothing of a correlation between the two, other polls referenced on the page have shown this correlation. You should respect that and undo your edit; you are personalising the issue by going off your experience as a college student. 97.71.50.252 (talk) 12:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Florida and Ohio
I found this poll in the talk section of the map article http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/decision2012/poll-support-grows-for-same-sex-marriage-in-florida-ohio-and-virginia/2012/10/09/969bea0e-1220-11e2-be82-c3411b7680a9_story.html 97.71.50.252 (talk) 00:22, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Utah
I found a new poll for Utah http://m.sltrib.com/sltrib/mobile3/57391605-219/marriage-sex-percent-state.html.csp 97.71.50.252 (talk) 00:36, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

New Utah Poll
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865594458/Poll-Majority-of-Utahns-against-same-sex-marriage-and-say-states-have-the-right-to-decide.html jj (talk) 05:20, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Support for same-sex marriage in the U.S. coloring
There has been some dispute about this and would like to clear things up, the colors are presently arranged in a way so that there is a 3% margin between those that support and oppose Same-sex marriage. Within this 3% margin are states that are split when it comes to opinion polling. So the colors would look something like this:

Dark Blue: 60%+ Support for SSM Light Blue: 52% - 59% Support for SSM Gray: 49% - 51% poll results (Considered to be Split) Light Red: 30% - 48% Support SSM Dark Red: 30% and Below Support SSM

If you do not like the colors then don't blame the layout, the facts are as it stands that the states are about equal when it comes to public support for SSM, this is backed up by the reliable sources providing the polling data. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I feel like a more thorough and all around superior way of doing this would be to scrap this weird table we have and follow Quintucket's plan. That way we don't fuss about colors and just worry about the data, with more of it to boot. It would be a lot of work but the quality of this section would greatly increase. Bigdaddybrabantio (talk) 00:38, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I have removed the table, seeing states have already been removed anyways and the sources shown do not represent an average of all the polls conducted recently. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I have reinstated the state polls since they provide a general understanding of the public opinion in the states polled; until someone averages out the polls please refrain from removing them. Thank you. 97.71.50.252 (talk) 01:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

png -> svg
I don't know why the 'by state' support graph keeps getting turned into a png file. Can someone please revert it back to a png? It is much easier to edit and higher quality that way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigdaddybrabantio (talk • contribs) 22:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it wasn't turned into a png file. There were already two files both png and svg, but since nobody was updating the svg file I made updates to the png map and replaced it because it was more up to date than the svg one. You can still make edits to the svg file if you wish.. As long as the svg map is up to date, it can stay. --Prcc27 (talk) 23:01, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Right, probably should have realized that. I will update the svg map. Bigdaddybrabantio (talk) 01:49, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Protect Page
If 71.230.71.243 keeps replacing new polls with older polls I think we should either
 * a) request for them to be blocked
 * b) request for the page to be protected
 * or c) all of the above.

--Prcc27 (talk) 04:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Take it to WP:ANI - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me, none of what the OP of this topic is stating is true. If anything, the user (PRCC27) is verbally harassing me (you could see if you view history on the page). I added 2 polls (New York and New Jersey) from earlier this month and without any discussion, he removed them and claimed they were out of date when that is clearly not true. They are both cited so it can be checked. If anything, PRCC27 should be blocked.- 71.230.71.243

71.230.71.243, you didn't just add 2 polls, you added 3 polls. The California poll you added was out of date; so I reverted you. --Prcc27 (talk) 05:56, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * 71.230.71.243, why don't you make an account? Bigdaddybrabantio (talk) 21:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Michigan overlapping poll
December 23, 2013 (or sometime in late December) - February 10, 2014 (54%); January 29 - February 1, 2014  (56%) Which one is the "newest" poll? Do we base it on the first day the polls were conducted, the last day the polls were conducted, or otherwise? Would we have to use both polls? --Prcc27 (talk) 08:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC) Also, there are possibly more polls that overlap in the same way! :o


 * I think we should base it on the last day the poll was conducted, for now. I still wish to implement some sort of averaging system for this stuff where we use the last 3 conducted, etc as seen a bit farther up on this talk page. Bigdaddybrabantio (talk) 21:48, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

IMO, either both polls should be used or neither of them should be used. In a way, they're both the "newest" polls. I'll make an edit and see what people think about it.. --Prcc27 (talk) 22:18, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * What if this scenario happens, but one poll says something like 53% support and the other says 48%? I feel like we should get this established before it actually happens, which is a real possibility for those currently light blue 'battleground' states methinks. Do we simply average them out and apply a color according to that? Bigdaddybrabantio (talk) 21:14, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Averaging out polls is a little misleading and possibly goes against WP:OR. If the polls overlap like the scenario below then it might be fine (though that's debatable). But if it is nearly impossible to determine which poll qualifies as the "newest", then it should probably be listed more than once on the table and striped on the map. --Prcc27 (talk) 04:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Scenario
Is it sometimes okay to have polls overlap each other? For example: March 23 to March 27/March 25 to March 28. (The second one would be considered the "newest" poll because its start date and end date are later then the other poll). --Prcc27 (talk) 09:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Older polls are consistently being added
For the record, even though this poll was released 26 February 2014, if you scroll down to page 53, you will see that it was "conducted between November 12, 2013 and December 18, 2013." From now on, please, please please please please please please, only add polls from this source if and only if there were no other polls conducted after November 12, 2013. Thank you, Prcc27 (talk) 08:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Could you revert the edit by 24.165.101.206? It goes against what's stated above. I'd do it myself, but I don't want to break WP:3RR. --Prcc27 (talk) 23:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


 * You should place someplace in the polls the margin of error as that can make a difference. Polls that have a high margin of error generally are not reliable. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah, maybe. but we definitely shouldn't be using old polls! That last edit needs to be undone immediately!!! I already reported the user. Also, we should probably have this page protected... --Prcc27 (talk) 00:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Did you leave any message on the ip's talkpage linking him/her to the discussion here? Of all the things adding older polls seems like something that can be talked out. The IP user did not seem to be hostile in any way. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:10, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I didn't even know IP users had talk pages... but I did say "see talk" and then they came on here and reverted me by removing the section below this one. So I undid the edit. Here's the comment that they made: --Prcc27 (talk) 00:17, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, I lost all patience. I don't care anymore, I'm just gonna remove the crap every time it gets added. --Prcc27 (talk) 01:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * please remember that you should also follow WP:3RR. 24.165.101.206 appears to be genuinely unaware of the situation here and has not expressed disagreement so much as misunderstanding. It would be appropriate to notify the editor on their talk page of where they can view this discussion and give their own input. ~ Boomur &#91;☎&#93; 03:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Well actually, the WP:3RR doesn't apply to either of us since an administrator found that the IP didn't violate the rule. --Prcc27 (talk) 03:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC) Also, they have been on this talk page and I reverted what they said because they deleted some of the stuff on the talk page. --Prcc27 (talk) 03:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * i saw the case you opened on the administrators' noticeboard; however, just because the rule wasn't violated by 24.165.101.206 earlier doesn't mean that it can't be violated—by either of you—now. also, your removal of 24.165.101.206's comments isn't any better than their removal of other folks' comments. the appropriate thing to do there is to leave their comments and re-add those that they deleted. ~ Boomur &#91;☎&#93; 03:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Look, I didn't even mean to remove their comment. I got a notification saying they reverted something of mine; I saw their explanation and so when I reverted them I thought I was reverting an edit he made on the article. And what do you mean "of other folks' comments"? It was my comments, they were mine! --Prcc27 (talk) 03:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * it's all right if you made a mistake by reverting 24.165.101.206's talk page comments, but in the future, that sort of problem should be corrected as soon as you realize a mistake was made. also, it doesn't matter whose comments they removed, that doesn't mean theirs should be removed as well. by deleting their comment and failing to re-add it, you barred them from the discussion and as a result it doesn't seem that anyone took their comment into account here. ~ Boomur &#91;☎&#93; 04:04, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, will do. But when someone reverts me without a valid reason, my first instinct was to revert them back. Plus, since it saves a lot of time, that's the reason I did it. --Prcc27 (talk) 04:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Texas
(Edit) The new Texas poll concerns me because it might be about support for same-sex marriage recognition rather then performance.. --Prcc27 (talk) 02:26, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Same percentage states
States with the same percentage of support for ssm should either be organized (from top to bottom) by their opposition or be put in alphabetical order rather then be put in a random order. --Prcc27 (talk) 02:37, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's not comparable. Added a note.  But then, many of the polls are not directly comparable.  — kwami (talk) 03:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Dead links
Could you please explain to me what a "dead link" is. A lot of the "dead links" actually work on this computer... --Prcc27 (talk) 03:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, nevermind.. --Prcc27 (talk) 04:00, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Need to use poll results
We need to use the actual poll results. The Wisconsin poll, for example, does not show majority support, so it's incorrect for us to show majority support, even if some summaries have inaccurately read the poll as showing majority support. Etc. I changed a couple states to grey, since my corrections were reverted. — kwami (talk) 21:27, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree, if people are reverting you then you should just direct them to the talkpage here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:05, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, rather than edit war, here's what I did:
 * Since the errors of polls are typically 3–5% (if reliable, which many of these probably are not, or they'd publish that information), I attempted to verify any majorities of less than 4%. If the source was inaccessible (domain name not recognized by Google), then I greyed it out; if the reported difference between yeah and nay was < 4%, I greyed it out.  So Montana is still light blue, and Missouri light pin k, because I'm *guessing* that a diff > 4% is significant.  I haven't bothered with the top and bottom of the chart.
 * Texas is equal to within the published error. How about lavender for that, an average of the light blue and pink?
 * Wisconsin is clearly a plurality pro. How about light blue for that? — kwami (talk) 22:17, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I was just whole-scale reverted, without discussion, with the claim that this page needs to follow the map. No, this page is referenced, the map is not, so the map needs to follow this page.  — kwami (talk) 22:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Put Wisconsin and Texas back, then? — kwami (talk) 23:52, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Wisconsin is majority not plurality.. Also why wasn't ohio made gray..? This table has been made more confusing than it needs to be. The readers are smart enough to take the margin of error into account when presented with the percentages. I genuinely don't understand why some states are colored how they are. Wisconsin is within both the margin of error for plurality and majority; so why is it light blue..? Can we please make the table less complicated. Prcc27 (talk) 03:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Just look at the table, now that I fixed it: We don't know that Wisconsin is a majority.  We do know that it's a plurality.  We can't make claims we can't confirm, so we can only say it's a plurality.
 * Ohio isn't grey because it's a majority, which is dark blue. (Well, there's about an 80% chance that it's a majority, which isn't very good.  Maybe it should be light blue like Wisconsin?)  — kwami (talk) 03:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Without a margin of error what you see is not really the results so no we cant just go by a false number in hopes readers will look up the margin of error as it cherry picks what the source says. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:13, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not the margin of error numbers I have a problem with, it's all these confusing colors. Wisconsin is an either or case, and since the poll says 51% (give or take) Wisconsin should be dark blue. Also, Ohio should say 50%; but an IP keeps reverting me so.... Prcc27 (talk) 03:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Wisconsin is on the borderline, which means we can't conclude that it's a majority.
 * Ohio is 53% according to the ref being used. — kwami (talk) 03:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe a solution would be to have no colors in the article then, or have everything the same color as this has been a target for edit wars. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:40, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * It won't matter, because we have the same problem with the map, and we can't remove the colors from that.
 * Here's what I propose: If the poll is 95% (two-sigma) confident that a state is majority pro or con, then we color it red or blue.  If not, but the poll is 95% confident that pro or con is greater than the other, we color it azure or pink.  If neither, we call it a tie, and color it lavender (or whatever – lavender works with the idea of 'purple states').  A two-sigma threshold is fairly standard in stats.
 * I also redid all the other tables. They were all screwed up, with, say, 57% being 2 pts below the average of 53%. — kwami (talk) 03:44, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * So what you are proposing is a third color for polls in the middle? I can be on board with that, just hope it does not cause much confusion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:46, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It was already decided on the talk page of the map that when there is a tie we aren't gonna use a purplish color because of accessibility issues. --Prcc27 (talk) 03:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That's what we use in other US political maps; it's both conventional and intuitive. — kwami (talk) 06:10, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, why are some of the state links red..? --Prcc27 (talk) 03:57, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There can always be a new consensus discussion, as for the links some are red where SSM articles are not present. (Red link) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:59, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * We have an overlinking problem in this article. I relinked to more useful articles rather than simply delinking.  — kwami (talk) 06:10, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Alright. Ohio needs to be changed back again... I can't do it on this stupid computer! :/ --Prcc27 (talk) 04:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't know what your sources are, so I won't comment on that, but the current figure does agree with our sources. — kwami (talk) 06:10, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

This color coating on state results should be reverted to what it originally was. It should match the map of the states (which it correlates with directly). Blue=majority for, light blue= plurality for, light red= plurality against, red=majority against.71.230.71.243 (talk) 07:51, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * No, the map needs to match the article, since it's the article that is referenced. The colors you list are correct, but the statistics don't support what is a majority or plurality.


 * Imagine this: You go to lunch with four friends. One of you takes a poll of support for SSM.  Three of you support it, two oppose.  You report that 60% of people polled in your state support SSM. A news organization picks up on this, and reports that the majority of the state supports SSM.  Your report is correct, but the news summary is wrong.  Imagine an alternative history where one of your friends was out sick, so you invited someone new along to lunch.  That one person changed the vote from 3:2 to 2:3.  You therefore report 40% support, and the news organization reports that a majority in your state opposes SSM.  Again, your report is correct, but the news summary is wrong:  Nothing has changed in the opinion of the state, so obviously the difference between the supposed majority and minority is spurious.  That is, 60% could be minority support, and 40% could be majority support – you can't tell without more data.


 * Responses in an opinion poll need to be separated by 2σ to be considered significant. (A difference of 2σ gives a 97.7% probability, whereas 95% and 99% are the two common standards for significance, so we might have a little leeway; a difference of 1.65σ is 95% probable.)
 * For establishing 95% significance above a fixed point, such as the 50% line defining a majority, we only need p = 0.1, or 1.28σ. So, if the poll has an error of ±4%, a result of 55% gives us 95% confidence that the opinion is that of the majority.  Easier numbers to remember are 1½ σ for one value and 2 σ for two; those both give about a 97% confidence. — kwami (talk) 21:13, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with the current format of the "state results" the "Kwami" has listed and I wanted to share a few thoughts. First of all, it is out of format with the rest of the page. For example, support by age and region do not include margin of error. Including margin of error in results is unnecessary and just adds confusion to what the articles and polls state. If anything, adding the percentage of people who DO NOT support same sex marriage would be something that could add value to the chart. The biggest concern I have is with the all of the states that Kwami left as gray and simply put a question mark for the margin of error. This makes the chart look very befuddled. I'm in favor of excluding the margin of error from the results.71.230.71.243 (talk) 03:01, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe the colors could be reduced, but the margin of errors are useful in my opinion. --Prcc27 (talk) 03:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, IP, you're saying you don't care whether our claims are verifiable. Any data without a margin of error either needs to have that specified, or be deleted altogether.  Otherwise we're just posting bullshit.  — kwami (talk) 04:06, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Assuming all our polling data is set to p=0.05 (some polls say the sampling error is to 95% confidence, though most say nothing), then the errors given are 1.96σ, since that's the range for 95%. That would mean, for 1.28σ and 1.65σ, we'd want 0.65z above average and a separation of 0.84z, where z is the 95%-confidence sampling error of the poll.

I've redone the table and map with those narrower criteria. — kwami (talk) 00:28, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Change Ohio on the Map Please
Ohio has 53% support and should be dark blue on the map.
 * Hell no, Ohio has 50% support. At least according to the only poll conducted in 2014. The poll you're referring to was conducted in 2013. Please stop using old polls... It's getting fucking tedious! --Prcc27 (talk) 00:00, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Not only is the Shifting Landscape (53%) poll more recent, it also has a smaller margin of error. The margin of error on Quinnipiac's (50%) poll is 3% +/-, so Quinnipiac encompasses the 53% poll. However the smaller margin of error on Shifting Landscape doesn't encompass Quinnipiac, so 53% is more consistent in addition to recent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.165.101.206 (talk) 18:17, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

"For the record, even though this poll was released 26 February 2014, if you scroll down to page 53, you will see that it was "conducted between November 12, 2013 and December 18, 2013." From now on, please, please please please please please please, only add polls from this source if and only if there were no other polls conducted after November 12, 2013. "  And guess what,  the   ohio poll  that you keep removing was conducted after November 2013. It was conducted in 2014. Prcc27 (talk) 19:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Also, the margin of error of the Shifting poll is ±8.9%, far far worse than the other Ohio poll, and that means that it did not find majority support. We don't use any other state poll even close to being that bad.  — kwami (talk) 21:59, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Estimated errors
Where an sampling error is not provided, one can be calculated as 1/√$\overline{n}$, where n is the number of people polled, times a factor of 0.98 for 95% confidence. That's what I did for example for one of the Hawaii polls. If you compare this to the Wisconsin poll, which polled 700 people and reported a sampling error of ±3.7% with 95% confidence, you'll see that's how they did it (98%/√$\overline{700}$ = 3.7%). However, this does not replicate the errors of all our polls, which means that they're not all using a 95% confidence level. Thus we can't compare one poll to another without recalculated the errors at 95% confidence (or 99%, or whatever we decide to use – 95% and 99% are the two common criteria in the lit). — kwami (talk) 22:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay, most of the variation seems to be in longer polls, where not everyone answered all the questions, so the n for SSM is not the n of the poll as a whole. Georgia appears to be the only one to use a 99% confidence interval.  (There were only two questions on the questionnaire, both on SSM, so it wouldn't have the per-question variability of longer polls.)  — kwami (talk) 00:51, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

polls to repeal ban are not polls to recognize SSM
At least one of these polls is to repeal a constitutional ban. That doesn't mean they're for SSM. Consider,
 * [A] new poll released today by Marquette University... found 59 percent favor repealing the 2006 constitutional amendment, while 36 percent would continue the ban against marriage equality. Overall, 48 percent backed marriage equality, while 24 percent supported civil unions and another 24 percent said there should be no legal status for gay and lesbian couples.

— kwami (talk) 22:33, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Coloring

 * I currently have the coloring for the tables as
 * 90%+ dark blue
 * 80-89% blue
 * 70-79% light blue
 * 60-69% purple
 * 50-59% fuchsia
 * 40-49% gray
 * 30-39% pink
 * 20-29% red
 * 0-19% dark red
 * Any suggestions? I'm thinking maybe switching the gray and the pink.. --Prcc27 (talk) 02:08, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't the purples come after the blues? i.e. a rainbow. Bigdaddybrabantio (talk) 05:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well Purple is usually seen as a mixture of blue and red so... Idk. --Prcc27 (talk) 06:11, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ohh. This makes much more sense now, haha. But I put the colors through a color mixer and the fuchsia is really causing problems with color consistency and such. Fuchsia + pink doesn't make gray, gray + purple doesn't make fuchsia, and fuchsia + light blue doesn't equal that deep of purple we are using. I'm not sure if this is even a valid concern, but it does bug me. Bigdaddybrabantio (talk) 07:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Good point. We have too many colors anyways. The top 20 percent should be represented as one color and the bottom 20 percent should be represented as another.
 * 80%+ dark blue
 * 70-79% blue
 * 60-79% light blue
 * 50-59% purple
 * 40-49% gray
 * 30-39% pink
 * 20-29% red
 * 0-19% dark red
 * This will probably be better. --Prcc27 (talk) 08:12, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Im against the color purple as it is a mixture of red and blue, how about these colors?
 * What bothers me is that 50% is being included with 59%, at most it should be 51 - 59%, 50% means half as in not a majority or a minority. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:12, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Wait, what happened to regular blue and regular red..? --Prcc27 (talk) 19:10, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * What about...
 * Dark Blue: 80% - 100%
 * Blue: 70% - 79%
 * Light Blue: 52% - 69%
 * Gray: 49% - 51%
 * Light Red: 30% - 48%
 * Red: 20% - 29%
 * Dark Red: 0-19%
 * Equal distribution of color on both sides of the gray, etc. Bigdaddybrabantio (talk) 19:36, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, that will work! --Prcc27 (talk) 19:52, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Im in favor of Bigdaddy's idea, also regarding the page please stop edit warring over colors WP:DEW. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:29, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually, it wasn't edit warring. 57% was marked as light blue on one table and fuchsia on another. Check for yourself... --Prcc27 (talk) 02:51, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I hadn't seen this. I changed the colors to match the state section & the map. Change them back if you like. — kwami (talk) 05:56, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Majority of Americans oppose same-sex marriage
Should we add this poll to the by state chart? We could always state in the sample size how and why the poll is a little inaccurate but at least it will show the different results of different polls. I've already been discussing this with Kwami on my talk page. --Prcc27 (talk) 03:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * All I see is a blank page.
 * We have enough national polls that IMO we should include just the most recent one that is credible given all the others. I wonder if our 59%-poll isn't also an outlier; if it is, it should be removed.  We don't have that luxury with the individual states; without the ability to distinguish plausible from outlier, we're often stuck w whatever we get.  I suspect that WV is implausibly low, for example, but we have no other WV poll to go on. — kwami (talk) 05:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Here's the most recent poll on ssm support in the U.S. 55% --Prcc27 (talk) 23:22, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay, 59% just doesn't seem plausible. Removed that poll.  — kwami (talk) 01:16, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Washington and Maryland
Washington should be dark blue because the MoE is within a majority range; 50.6% constitutes a majority. Maryland should also be dark blue because 52.4% of voters or more support SSM because they voted in favour of it in 2012. 97.71.50.252 (talk) 14:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * WA: I took that to be the standard deviation, but it's probably the confidence interval for p=0.05, in which case you're right.


 * I was thinking of making the same point about MD. An election is in effect a poll. Prcc27, what do you think?  — kwami (talk) 20:42, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

If the wording is adjusted a little then yes, it should be included. I actually think the wording used to include ballot measures if I remember correctly.. Prcc27 (talk) 19:36, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, let us know. It would also be nice if you could find anything on ID, ND, or OK.  — kwami (talk) 22:35, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like we can add election ballot measures. The wording used to include recent ballot measures. Of course, for the states that haven't voted on same-sex marriage in a while they would have to be question marks. --Prcc27 (talk) 03:30, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Those states could be added with their same-sex marriage ballot measure bans under the "Support for same-sex marriage in states not polled in the past two years" section. --Prcc27 (talk) 02:18, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Conflicting polls should be removed and corrected
I believe that it serves no purpose to have conflicting polls on here; we should remove the one with a higher margin of error. This gives a more accurate and easier to understand estimation on the mood of the states. 97.71.50.252 (talk) 05:46, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Just the opposite. If there is no consensus among the polls, we would be dishonest to suggest there is.  — kwami (talk) 05:50, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the OP, the conflicting polls overcrowd the table and there should only be one. Either remove the older one and in case of polls being conducted at the same time, show the poll with the lower margin of error.71.230.71.243 (talk) 04:32, 9 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Absolutely not. If we were publishing, that would be considered fraud.  — kwami (talk) 06:09, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

It would certainly not be fraud.174.54.244.138 (talk) 06:16, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I think the polls should stay to show how even polls conducted around the same time can have different results. I'm not sure how it's fraud though... --Prcc27 (talk) 03:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Reporting one poll and ignoring another would be at best dishonest. — kwami (talk) 18:19, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Wisconsin
Wisconsin now has 2 polls showing majority support compared to 1 poll showing a statistical tie. Is it safe to shade Wisconsin solid blue..? Prcc27 (talk) 05:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * What do you think ..? Prcc27 (talk) 19:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I support making it solid blue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.42.112.42 (talk) 00:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, haven't been following. Personally I'd limit us to polls within the last 6 mos. if there are enough polls we can afford to.  — kwami (talk) 06:17, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Georgia
There are some states with conflicting polls that have an error calculated. Since Georgia has an error calculated on their plurality support poll and there aren't any polls saying the same thing, I colored Georgia solid red but left the plurality support poll on the article. Is everyone alright with this..? Prcc★27 (talk) 04:39, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Since you reverted my Georgia edit what is your opinion on the matter..? Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 09:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Oct 2014 CBS/NYT poll
Here are the poll results for all 50 states from a month ago. — kwami (talk) 05:06, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

https://today.yougov.com/news/2014/09/07/battleground-tracker-2014-national-attitudes/


 * CBS News/New York Times Upshot
 * Battleground Tracker
 * Wave III, Sep20–Oct01, 2014, poll of likely voters


 * Do you favor or oppose allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally?

Updated table and map. Someone deleted all polls but this one, and changed some of the colors so they no longer matched the poll, so I reverted. — kwami (talk) 08:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Oct 2014 poll all 50 states
Finally a poll of all 50 states.

Summary results mapped here: http://today.yougov.com/news/2014/10/06/voters-31-states-favor-same-sex-marriage/

Raw data here: https://today.yougov.com/news/2014/09/07/battleground-tracker-2014-national-attitudes/

Looks like the only statistically significant majorities where it's still illegal are AL (especially - 60% con), TN, MS, and maybe AR. — kwami (talk) 18:44, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Hm... should we replace all of the information here with it? Bigdaddybrabantio (talk) 06:22, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Good question. Starting a new thread below.  — kwami (talk) 18:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Stick to consistent state-by-state results?
For the first time, we have all 50 polled with the same methodology. For most, the sample is larger than earlier polls too. But the methodology is different. This raises a question: Do we want to limit ourselves to a single poll, or keep the current mish-mash of polls? IMO, there are disadvantages to both.

Most polls only allow the responses 'yes' or 'no'. 'Other' is limited to people who refuse to answer, and many polls don't even report that number. The CBS/NYT poll has a third option for 'not sure'. This means it has lower results for both pro and con. That is, other polls look more polarized, but that doesn't mean public opinion is any different.

Also, polls sample voters, registered voters, or likely voters. They aren't necessarily congruent. What we really want are a representative sampling of the population, but it's simply not possible to get that for more than a few states, and most of those polls are over a year old. The CBS/NYT poll is 'likely voters'; since we're now at the midterms, that probably means a more conservative result than what we'd get before a presidential election.

So, do we want to mix polls with different methodologies, so it looks like some states are schizophrenic? Should we maybe have a map dedicated to the CBS/NYT poll, and a second map for other polls from the past 6 mos? — kwami (talk) 18:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Getting into an edit war without discussion. (1) 6 mos. is not 2 yrs. (2) the poll results are not the 95% confidence, the margin is. (3) when polls allow different answers, we can't compare them directly. — kwami (talk) 21:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Organization
I prefer my way of organization, that way- all of the states are organized by color not percentage of support. The blue states (dark and light) and the gray states should be organized by majority support. The red/pink states should be organized by majority oppose. Also, my way seems to follow WP:NPOV better than the current set-up. Prcc27 (talk) 02:14, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

North Dakota
North Dakota's poll with a margin of error of 9% is way too high. I say we remove that particular poll and only use the ND poll with a margin of error of 5%. Prcc27 (talk) 10:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I will be bold and remove it now. Prcc27 (talk) 10:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

New Comprehensive State-by-State PRRI Poll
Would everyone be okay with me updating all the polls according to this? The margin of error for the total sample is +/- .5% at the 95% confidence level so it seems like it is very accurate. Bigdaddybrabantio (talk) 21:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure. Prcc27 (talk) 22:01, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Started with checking a few of the most supportive states and found that some of them have unacceptably high margins of error. Also saw that someone has edited some states (per this PRRI poll) and erroneously included the .5% total MoE for every state they've edited. I'll try to get this more sorted through tomorrow. I guess it wasn't as accurate overall as I thought it'd be. Bigdaddybrabantio (talk) 04:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Age group opinions by state
I have spent quite a bit of time searching, but I can't seem to find any polls / other indications of public opinion by age and state. What I want to see is public opinion of exclusively young people by state, but that doesn't seem to be an option. Dustin ( talk ) 17:25, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Public opinion of same-sex marriage in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090429233219/http://cbs5.com:80/national/gay.marriage.poll.2.996134.html to http://cbs5.com/national/gay.marriage.poll.2.996134.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:50, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Margins of error should be per number, not per poll
Some poll results have margins of error listed, but they're just replicated across each of the 3 numbers. The margin of error for each number is independent, though, particularly for very widely divergent numbers. For instance, one poll says the "don't know/refused" number is 3% +/- 5.3%. The margin of error for that number however would be 1.6% (sqrt(0.03 * 0.97 / 452) * 1.96) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:140:8000:A739:D481:14F7:BAE:A4E6 (talk) 18:04, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Public opinion of same-sex marriage in the United States. 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:
 * Replaced archive link http://www.webcitation.org/68Do37LGv?url=http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/majority-americans-support-legalizing-same-sex-marriage-poll-101314711.html with https://web.archive.org/web/20120607002133/http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/majority-americans-support-legalizing-same-sex-marriage-poll-101314711.html on http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/majority-americans-support-legalizing-same-sex-marriage-poll-101314711.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/general_current_events/traditional_views_of_marriage_tops_in_voters_minds

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

"Support Same Sex Marriage" vs "support same sex marriage being legal"
Hey I altered the part that talks about the states and how much they supported same sex marriage into how much they support the legality of same sex marriage, since that is what the pole asked and that is actually what this issue is all about. I highly recommend that this article get a name change to "Public Opinion on the Legality of same-sex marriage...", unless of course the unthoughtful masses are still interested in verbally supporting homosexuality itself in our nation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowledge spouse (talk • contribs) 18:33, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Recent rollback
This was blatant vandalism. What was the point of that? --Justthefacts9 (talk) 10:06, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Several of your recent actions were not in good faith either, such as this revert with the needlessly offensive edit summary, "Are you just guessing here, or doing whatever you feel like?", which verges on a personal attack. Ironically, as it turns out, the article for Equal Protection Clause itself capitalizes the word "Clause". --Justthefacts9 (talk) 10:45, 22 September 2018 (UTC)