Talk:Opinion polling for the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum/Archive 1

Colours

As there is no Yes/No Vote the colours green and red should not appear in the lists. Otherwise it would not be neutral ("green" usually means positive which is on "remain" that would mean that remaining would be positive which is not neutral (and wrong)). One should take neutral colours such as blue and yellow. --212.186.0.108 (talk) 20:03, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Colours have party political associations in the UK. The existing pale green and pink do not have such associations and are conventionally used for referendums in Wikipedia: the table should be left as it is. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:45, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

So you mean that green is always on the left and red on the right? --212.186.0.108 (talk) 20:01, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

In respect of ordering, the question is remain or leave, not leave or remain. So it makes sense to have remain on the left and leave on the right. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:30, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I've asked about the colours, but alright. --212.186.0.108 (talk) 21:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the idea of not using green and red. While most referendums are a Yes/No vote, this one is not and so the statistics should reflect the neutrality of the question. On a slightly different note, the pale green and pink is only a reflection of the headers which are red and green. Yellow and blue, or orange and purple, would work better. (As an aside, pale green is usually used for the SDLP; not well known across the entire UK, but it does have an association.) --FoxMünchen (talk) 01:16, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Referendums all over Wikipedia use this red/green convention consistently. This nitpicking proposal is most unlikely to find a consensus for change. Put it to the wp:RFC procedure if you really feel it is so important. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_psychology . First line - Colour influences perceptions. Red and Green are the primary negative and positive colours, think traffic lights or money applications which commonly show negative balances red and positive green. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.125.80.22 (talk) 15:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

It's worth noting that it is the proposed change that is listed in green in other polls on Wikipedia. For example Scotland independence polling and the AV vote polling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.125.18.9 (talk) 14:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• Does it really matter? It sounds like desperation.. "Red puts people off". Surely voters will make their decision based upon weightier matters and not the colour which Wikipedia uses??? 213.114.6.75 (talk) 20:50, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Ashcroft poll

WRONG to include latest Lord Ashcroft poll because referendum question not asked.

I think this is correct. The poll asked people to place themselves on a scale from 0-100 on their view of the EU (0 = definitely remain, 100 = definitely leave). The "results" of 38% remain and 47% leave is based on an interpretation of the actual results, i.e. by totalling up the results and saying that anyone who says >50 is in favour of leave, and anyone who says <50 is in favour of remain. I think this is dubious. It is a legitimate poll and should be included within "other polling", but it is not strictly comparable with polls that ask a binary question. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:21, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Opinium poll

I don't know where to write that, but there is definitely a mistake. The last polling "Opinium" was done prior they announced the date for the referendum and not between the 11th and 20th of March. Just check it: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/mar/20/britons-on-europe-survey-results-opinium-poll-referendum

The graph needs to be updated, I really don't know how to do that (the green and red balls of the 20 March). I just put the two days before the conclusion as estimated dates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.19.121.218 (talk) 19:06, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Colour vandalism

Someone switched the colours around for "leave" and "remain" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pcauchy (talk • contribs) 20:18, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Here's an idea, if both colours are neutral as some claim why not simply leave them switched. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.125.80.22 (talk) 15:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The typical consensus for all opinion polls and elections worldwide is generally "For/Yes" green, "Against/No" red on Wikipedia. In this case, the referendum asks "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?". "For/Yes" is this thus "Remain" and "Against/No" is thus "Leave". Your edits are inconsistent with the Wikipedia standard. Besides, this is vandalism as you're not even showing your real name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pcauchy (talk • contribs) 16:34, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Just because some past polling on Wikipedia have used these bias colours it doesn't mean they should be used indefinately. But even if I accepted this ridiculous reasoning it cleary doesn't apply here. You said For/Yes should be green but it's not that type of question. "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?" Yes? (yes what?) For? (for leaving?. The proposed change (in this case leaving as opposed to the status quo) are always in green colour on Wikipedia, some consistency is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.205.121.98 (talk) 18:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Then explain why this isn't the case for the 1975 EEC referendum for example. Besides, if your're so insistent on swapping those around then you should also swap the columns around, green always comes before red on Wikipedia, FYI. I don't think you want to as if you were serious about editing you would show your name, which is a typical trait of vandalism, incidentally.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pcauchy (talk • contribs) 23:39, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

It was the case in the 1975 referendum which was a slightly post-legislative referendum. The UK had only been a member of the EEC for less than 2 years before this referendum, So the 'change' option was 'yes' to being a member of the EEC. Regarding the left/right columns, this is nitpicking and it should surely be listed in the order the options appear in the question. You seem more concerned about this referendum polling falling in line with other polling on Wikipedia (for example left/green, right/red) than you're about the article actually being fair and neutral. Would you be happy with Green/Yellow? or are you an avid EU supporter and that will keep trying to force through the current bias? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.123.135.207 (talk) 12:29, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Irrespective of your rhethoric which is highly subjective, what you are doing is basically against the standards of wikipedia, especially by swapping colours around as you see fit, regardless of the wikipedia consensus on referendums, and furthermore making the page itself inconsistent. Finally, changing the colours to ones that make text unreafable (e.g. yellow background) is just making matters worse. This is known as vandalism. FYI the 1975 referendum shows "Yes" (remain) in green, and "No" in red, so your argument is wrong. My political opinion doesn't count here (believe it or not I would actually like to see Britain leave but for different reasons) and yours shouldn't either, what is important is that this page is consistent within itself, with other referendums, and is readable (the white on yellow isn't). Finally, and you still haven't answered that, if you were really willing to make a real contribution to this page as opposed to vandalising it, you would show your registered user name if you have one. A constructive start would be to flip the columns around if you're really serious about this, it's not nitpicking, it's just how wikipedia is, with everyone trying to make it consistent. It's a free world (mostly) but you have to respect how millions of people made wikipedia, once you've written tens of articles and made significant contributions then you will understand. Now, I will revert the colours once more and request this page to be locked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pcauchy (talk • contribs) 17:34, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

What I'm doing is not against the standards of Wikipedia, it is in support of Wikipedia's policy of neutral articles. You're making misleading statements as below under the 'lock this page topic' where you only post half of the referendum question and then state that the 'YES/For' option should apply to 'Remain' based on half the question. I'm not the only one that has made comments regarding the bias colours so no consensus exists. You've not read my argument regarding the 1975 referendum, that was a post legislative referendum where the 'change' option was yes even though the legislation had passed. I've already made clear that it would be confusing if the 'remain' and 'leave' columns were switched as that is the order they appear in the question.It's clear you're not willing to come to any consensus on what should be a simple issue to resolve, or accept any proposals that differ from the current bias. Your reference to 'eurosceptic vandalism' in the page history suggests you consider the current setup as biased against 'leave'.

You seem to be assuming a lot and you are blatantly mistaken. Again, my political opinion does not count and neither does yours, but you should know that I actually do favour a UK exit because I really believe the EU would be better off without the UK, so, in other words, no I am not biased against "leave". I am simply following Wikipedia's conventions. Your logic with regards to the 1975 referendum is highly questionable, this can be treated as a post-legislation too, only 40 years on. It has simply to do with the fact that the remain option there was the "Yes" in the referendum, period. Out of consistency with this particular referendum and others, just not to confuse millions of people with a decision that is solely yours and does not respect the hundreds of contributions that were already made to this page (you are not alone in case you haven't noticed). And again, I see that you've altered the colours to non standard ones, they will be reverted to wikipedia's standard green and red, I have requested for this page to be semi-locked, you have been warned. While the page is locked, we can all have a discussion and vote with wikipedia administrators, but I think anyone would only accept the colour swap if the columns were swapped. I would also support other colours but only if there is a general consensus. This is how things are done on wikipedia, and you seem to be highly unaware of it and are changing it just because of what YOU think, this is not how it works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pcauchy (talk • contribs) 11:55, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Irrespective of whether the colour swap is useful, your edit is making the article inconsistent. Here's a tip if you want it to stick: change all of the tables on the page to be consistent with your proposed colours, rather than just the first two. Adding another point in the page at which the colour meanings invert just gives everyone a very good reason to keep reverting the change. Timsheridan (talk) 22:57, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Guys, this isn't vandalism. This is an editorial dispute and thus, an edit war, so WP:3RR and WP:CIVIL do still apply. Ribbet32 (talk) 00:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I see your point regarding inconsistent colours, however 'all' tables on the page have been changed to the normal Wikipedia standard colours (Status quo: Red and Proposed change:Green) but they still get changed back. Someone is determined to have 'Leave' listed in the 'danger/warning' red colour and 'Remain' in the positive and safe green colour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.205.121.98 (talk) 18:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Regional Polling Colours swapped

For some reason the colours representing remain and Leave swap when you get to regional polling, I think it ought to be uniform throughout the page and if possible across articles on this subject, Green ought to represent one position and Red another, at the very least it shouldn't change in one article, I'm not entirely sure of how to do this or I'd do so myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamnotacylon (talk • contribs) 13:14, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Request page to be locked for registered users only

Due to the colour vandalism that this page is prone to, this page should be locked. Note that standards for Wikipedia are "For/Yes" green, "Against/No" red. The referendum question asks whether the UK should remain in the EU, "For/Yes" is thus the positive "Remain" answer to the question, and "Against/No" is this the negative "Remain" answer to the question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pcauchy (talk • contribs) 17:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

support – clearly it is possible to create arguments for either colour scheme (possibly any colour scheme), particularly when the form of words in the question is unusual. However, we need to find a solution to this edit war and keep the discussion on the talk page until we can find consensus. So I would support a lock as way of trying to achieve this. Polly Tunnel (talk) 18:44, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Edit request for page to be locked

This page is being vandalised by unregistered members on a daily basis. To admins: requesting a lock for the time being to solve dispute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pcauchy (talk • contribs) 17:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

^^^ What he means is lock in the current colour bias as he will not accept other options. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.123.135.207 (talk) 18:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

You don't seem to get it, the lock request is to resolve the issue and stop vandalism while in progress, this is how wikipedia works, and have admins think about it rather than single-handedly choosing arbitrary (unreadable) colours. There are several arguments there, namely that swapping colours would make this poll at odds with the 1975 referendum whereby "remain" was green. If colours are to be swapped around then columns should also be swapped around to be consistent with wikipedia. Or we all need to come up with neutral colours. What this page lock means is that it's not up to you, it's not up to me, and doing things against the wikipedia consensus is called vandalism. All we're all doing by reverting your edits is to keep the page in line with wikipedia standards for now while the lock is being put in place.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pcauchy (talk • contribs) 12:07, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

You're correct in your hints that I don't fully know how Wikipedia works, but I know I have gained a lot of knowledge over the years because of Wikipedia and I have supported it (donated) to date because of this. What little I do know is that Wikipedia has a policy of posting neutral articles. It is clear it isn't nuetral at present because of the colours being used, you yourself seem to acknowledge this colour bias by refferring to 'eurosceptic vandalism' when the colours have been swapped, implying that after the colours have been swapped they favour 'leave'. I personally couldn't see the problem with the header's of 'leave' being changed from the current colour to #C21E56, which is a different shade of red which isn't used or associated with warning signs, the pink in the rest of the column would remain. Lastly it seems that it is you that is deciding this and the only one with a problem with it, your past comments about 'euro-hating brits' shows you have predujiced positions despite what you may say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.121.124.4 (talk) 13:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Look, we're not here to talk about ourselves, I too have been donating to wikipedia for years and have written several articles on the French wiki. As for the colours it's just a matter of consistency. As for my comment you yourself are lecturing about distorting the truth whereas you are doing just that, I wrote "anti-euro brit" by the way - nothing bad there - there are actually many. Which is fine, it's still a free country as far as I know, everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion, however when it comes to modifying wikipedia articles just as one sees fit - disregarding conventions and contributions of countless others, by means of IP editing and refusing a lock to talk, this is where the buck stops . Finally, with regards to those colours, again, it's just a matter of consistency with other pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pcauchy (talk • contribs) 14:30, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Colour discussion

Thank you Peacemaker67 for putting the lock in place and ending the edit war and vandalism, that's a good place to start. Now we can all talk calmly and come up with some ideas.

1) Somone did try and put more neutral colours to reflect the neutrality of the referendum question, this could be a solution, however the chosen colours were unreadble (one was white text over yellow). Does anyone have a better idea?

2) Further, if colours are to be swapped around, so should the columns for consistency with wikipedia, right?

3) Consistency with other referendums should also be taken into account. In many ways, this referendum is a re-run of the 1975 one whereby the decision is obviously to choose whether to stay or not in the EU, with renegociations involved. For this referendum, the wikipedia article shows "yes/remain" in green and "no/leave" in red, incidentally. Any opinions?

4) Someone has proposed that change should be represented in green ("leave") and the status quo in in red "remain". This was indeed the case for e.g. the scottish referendum, however for this referendum "yes" was "leave" and thus in green and vice-verca, in line with wikipedia standards. What do you think?

5) It would be good to get the opinion of the page creator, I'm just the messenger here.

Ideas and opinions welcome, this is how wikipedia works! Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pcauchy (talk • contribs) 12:42, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

My answer to your points;

1) I agree more neutral colours would be the simplest resolution but even small changes such as the headers of leave changing from the current colour to a different shade of red (#C21E56)have been rejected and switched back.

2) I think it would be confusing if 'remain' and 'leave' appeared in a different order than they appear in the question.

3) Consistency with other referendums should be taken into account but not if other referendums had the same colour bias (which they did). This referendum isn't a re-run of the 1975 referendum as the the EEC and now EU as well as the questions themselves are entirely different, as well as the 1975 referendum article being post written not a 'live update'.

4) There are lots of different ways to ask a question and questions get manipulated to favour the answer the questioner prefers. To avoid confusion awkward questions pose it could be brought down to its simplest form of 'status quo' or 'change'. The 'change' option is usually listed in green on Wikipedia, i.e Scottish independence, AV vote system, so there is precedent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.121.124.4 (talk) 13:46, February 7, 2016‎ (UTC)

1) This is an idea to genuinely explore. Can anyone, including yourself, propose alternative, and esthetically pleasant colours? As for the minor changes for the headers it's just a matter of consistency with other pages for now.

2) It's a valid point, which is imho why it should stay as it is

3) The 1975 referendum doesn't have any "bias", it's simply described as all other referendums are, i.e. "yes" in green and "red" in red. This holds true for many other referendums, e.g. the Maastricht treaty referendums, the Irish referendums on the Treaty of Nice, etc.

4) You have to admit that this referendum has much more in common with the 1975 referendum than the AV vote system ref or the Scottish Indyref, it's basically about staying in the EU - even a reformed one, as was promised by Heath back then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pcauchy (talk • contribs) 14:17, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

1) I think Gold & Blue go well together, my problem with the current colours is green is perhaps the most positive colour out there and red the most negative, so any alternative system which looked good would be an improvement. Before anyone mentions party political colours it should be noted that the current colours are used by political parties.

3) I believe the 1975 referendum does have bias (and all other referendums that use green/red). I'm not suggesting this is intentional bias but that the colours green/red do create bias and can influence perceptions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.121.124.4 (talk) 15:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

1) Gold and blue does sound like a good idea (it's anyway fairer for colour-blind people), text over a gold background could be changed to black. It would have to be a standard blue though (e.g. 0000FF). Both seem fair. Green and blue might work too (and would also work for colour-blind people), although I must say gold and blue does sound good. As for red and green, well, I see your point, however it's highly subjective and depends in which context they are used. In molecular biology for example, red is used for positive and green for negative, although now for fairness towards colour blind people (and b&w prints) we do indeed use yellow/gold over blue. Any other opinions here apart from 2.121.124.4?

3) Unfortunately this is the current convention on wikipedia. Off the top of my head I can't think of many neutral referendums that don't use a straight "yes" and "no" or synonymous terms. If you can find another example that would actually help. However, the bias that you are describing is also used outside of wikipedia (e.g. on the BBC, e.g. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/events/scotland-decides/results), and all over wikipedia, wouldn't be easy to change them all (it would first require massive demand then a lot of work), that said, fairness towards colour-blind people could make a compelling argument. It would however be a long shot, as these colours are also used for parties in the UK, e.g. Labour, the Green Party, and also worldwide, e.g. the Republican Party etc. without any intended and resulting bias (Labour and the Republican Party are for example diametrically opposed when it comes to their respective policies) and neither is viewed negatively imho. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pcauchy (talk • contribs) 18:29, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

One last thought though, the green for "yes" in the Scottish Indyref didn't make nationalists win in the end although it was a relatively close one! Shows you how bias is highly subjective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pcauchy (talk • contribs) 18:37, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Reminder: Would both participants in this discussion please remember to sign their posts by typing ~~~~? Thank you. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:11, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

There's a quote above about red-green colour bias: "green" usually means positive which is on "remain" that would mean that remaining would be positive which is not neutral (and wrong). This seems to imply the traffic-light theory – that people will chose green over red. Does anyone know of any psychological research that supports this? There's an alternative interpretation of the colours: green can be seen as passive and red as active. Red is the highlighting colour for action which must be taken. So we could conclude that colouring something red will bias people into both choosing and avoiding that option. The same for green. If colour bias works in both directions simultaneously, might these not cancel out and remove the bias? Polly Tunnel (talk) 13:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Some research a few years back found that football teams in red strips have (on average!) a higher victory rate than those in other colours. Allegedly, red means 'go' for traffic lights in China. So what?

The idea that anybody will be influenced in their vote by Wikipedia's colour choices is totally laughable. The idea that WP convention will be changed because someone thinks so is even more laughable. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:01, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Re: Colours

The three campaigns vying to represent the two options on the ballot are: Stonger In (red white and blue colours), Grassroots Out (Green) and Vote Leave (red and white).82.1.16.12 (talk) 14:42, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I changed the colours now to violet and orange, these are neutral colours so please leave it like it is. --212.186.14.29 (talk) 17:57, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Dark shade for overall majority

During the Independence referendum in Scotland, the polling page highlighted polls according to the largest support as this one does, however it also highlighted any support above 50% in a darker shade, it was useful especially for telling at a glance the strength of campaigning etc, I tried to implement this here but the colours look a bit off if someone wouldn't mind fixing it that'd b great.

Inaccurate axis labels

The graph showing a scatter graph of the polls + a trend line has incorrect axis

It is listed as "0.4%" when it either means "0.4" or "40%", for example.

This is my first time contributing, so I'm sorry if this is in the wrong place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.156.222 (talk) 00:39, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done the descriptions are now right again. -- T.seppelt (talk) 07:59, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Polling samples "TBC"

There are 3 polls that appeared in quick succession by YouGov that all have "TBC" for their sample size.

Should they be in the results at all and how are they weighted in the graph? Would it not be more appropriate to wait for their sample size - I see no other poll for which the sample is not listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.156.222 (talk) 19:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I think ideally we should wait until the full result are available before posting. However, there's no reason to remove it just because it doesn't. YouGov polls are widely reported by reliable sources and that is the driving factor for Wikipedia. Jolly Ω Janner 20:10, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Inconsistency in poll notes

Hi

I've noticed that some of the earlier polls have the note "Northern Ireland not sampled", yet later ones say "Includes Northern Ireland".

This is inconsistent as the notes should really have one of two formats: 1) Polls note the inclusion of Northern Ireland and have no note when it isn't sampled. 2) Polls note the absence of Northern Ireland and have no note when it is sampled.

What are your thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.93.9 (talk) 19:22, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I haven't dug too deep into the matter, but it looks like the default is not to sample Northern Ireland, so we should mention only those that do sample NI. I don't know whether they take this into consideration when weighting averages. So long as we are clear is the use of the word sampled, it should be clear. Jolly Ω Janner 19:47, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

ORB

Has anyone else noticed that ORB's polling seems out of step with the others, with a significant and consistent lean towards "leave". Have any RS commented on this/explained it? Wonder who is right! --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:56, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

"ORB is the only EU polling company not to account for undecided voters in their polls." I would expect this makes them less accurate. Jolly Ω Janner 13:06, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

There's actually another segment in the above-linked article about telephone vs online surverying. Most polls used online survey methods, which were shown to have 15 point preference in comparison to telephone interviews for leaving the EU. Betting agencies, who interpret these polls, suggest there is only a 25% probability that the UK will vote to leave. Jolly Ω Janner 13:13, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Betting agencies set their odds based on the bets they receive, not political polling.82.1.16.12 (talk) 10:37, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

It seems I'm wrong on that. Betting agencies are not setting their odds according to bets placed on the EU Referendum.82.1.16.12 (talk) 06:31, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

At the 2015 General Election there was no significant accuracy difference in the predictions of online/telephone polls.

"Looking at the final polls there was no difference at all between telephone and online surveys. The average Labour lead in the final polls was 0.2% in phone polls, and 0.2% in online polls. The average error compared to the final result was 1.6% for phone polls and 1.6% for online polls."82.1.16.12 (talk) 10:46, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

References

ComRes

Well, ComRes seems out of step too, with a significant and consistent lean towards "remain". --212.186.14.29 (talk) 19:11, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it uses telephone polls. Jolly Ω Janner 00:09, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

ICM's Martin Boon offers a possible explanation for the phone/online difference.

"It’s hard not to agree that the ‘real’ answer lies somewhere between these two scores. I have long argued that phone polls contain too many Labour voters in their raw samples, and the demographically weighted base sample on this poll underlines that. Given that Labour voters split in the general ratio of 2:1 in favour of Remain, the view here is that the phone poll slightly overstate its share. Conversely, online polls over-stated UKIP before and during 2015, and (at least this one) continues to do so. If we accept that online polls probably contain too many UKIP supporters (even after quota controlling for them, as well as for supporters of all other parties) this will fairly obviously translate into help for Leave.

So the answer does probably lie somewhere between the two."

https://www.icmunlimited.com/polls/ 82.1.16.12 (talk) 14:04, 20 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.1.16.12 (talk) 13:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Bug

If you sort the table by sample size, this happens. Firebrace (talk) 15:25, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Y Fixed Keith Death (talk) 20:38, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit request: New ComRes poll

The article seems to be locked now.

ComRes/Sun have published a new (8-10 April!) EU Referendum poll.

http://www.comres.co.uk/polls/the-sun-eu-referendum-poll/82.1.16.12 (talk) 10:25, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done It's up (and the more recent one from 16-19 April). Keith Death (talk) 20:20, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Graph date

Can the caption for the graph please include the date of the last update? DrArsenal (talk) 23:26, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Y Done. Firebrace (talk) 17:16, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks DrArsenal (talk) 22:28, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Obama Comments on EU Referendum

"President of the United States Barack Obama intervenes in the referendum debate in support of the United Kingdom remaining in the European Union" <- 'Intervenes' seems like a strong word; all he did was state his opinion and what trade agreements are likely if the UK leaves the EU. Wight1984 (talk) 14:40, 25 April 2016 (GMT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.78.182.153 (talk)

Thanks for your feedback, Wight1984! I have to confess I did worry a bit over "intervenes". I wanted to keep it concise and couldn't think of a better fit. Any better ideas for more neutral terms welcome. Keith Death (talk) 20:30, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Mr Obama wasn't just 'stating his opinion'. He was attempting to swing support behind the Remain campaign. I assume at the invitation of the UK Government.

'intervenes' is appropriate.82.1.16.12 (talk) 18:57, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

User:82.1.16.12 where is the EVIDENCE that Obama was invited to 'attempting to swing support behind the Remain campaign'? I would suggest, Keith Death that "comments" would be a better neutral term. DrArsenal (talk) 22:27, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks DrArsenal! Keith Death (talk) 13:33, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Initial capitals and full stops in 'notes' column.

As it is so easy for the uninitiated to read successive lines as a single run-on phrase, I felt we needed to have the words in the notes column begin with a capital letter and finish with a full stop. Call me Mr Pedantic but to me it makes the material easier to follow. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:35, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

ICM polling database

The ICM polling database is located here: https://www.icmunlimited.com/polls/ -- viewers may need to scroll down to see the actual entries. JDBushby (talk) 10:04, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

UK Polling Report mention an ICM poll for the Sun which doesn't seem to appear on the ICM website.82.1.16.12 (talk) 10:48, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I have found the poll on The Sun's website, here, but the sample size is not recorded. JDBushby (talk) 12:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I think ICM recently updated their Website and moved a bunch of stuff around, with the result that a lot of the PDF links died and had to be restored. I did restore some of them some days ago, but some remain dead and I never got around to checking any of the ones outside the 2016 section. Keith Death (talk) 13:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Creation of a "Lead" column

I'd like to add a "Lead" column to the tables on this page to make them consistent with the tables on Opinion polling for the Scottish independence referendum, 2014. I've coded and tested a program which edits the page for me, and I'm satisfied by the result. However, the change is significant and I would like the input of others before I pull the trigger. You can view how the 2016 results will look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JDBushby/sandbox . JDBushby (talk) 18:35, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

The colours are a bit stark and hard on the eye; would the pastel ones be better? Keith Death (talk) 12:26, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I changed to the pastels, which do look better. JDBushby (talk) 16:22, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I noticed one funny: clicking on the 'shrink' box [why have one? here?] only shrinks recent polls rather than all polls. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:50, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Another thing to look at is that if you order by "Lead", it groups together all the 1%s, 2%s etc. It might be better to use a data-sort-value attribute with negative values for either Leave or Remain leads so that the lead order makes sense. Otherwise, looks good! Keith Death (talk) 18:06, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm in agreement that this should be used. Is there any reason it hasn't yet been implemented?86.0.123.122 (talk) 23:03, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I think the table is cluttered enough already and a lead column would not add much to our understanding of the polls. Firebrace (talk) 23:19, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

It would give a clearer view of which side was pulling ahead. It's eminently doable. We do it for all the other polling.86.0.123.122 (talk) 16:14, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

We now have an average-of-last-eight-polls section which I think is more informative than a lead column would be. Firebrace (talk) 17:11, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I think the average of the last eight polls is WP:Original Research and should be deleted. It fails the test in WP:CALC because it is not obvious. Why the last eight polls, not seven or nine or any other number? Is a simple arithmetic mean appropriate, or should it be weighted by sample size or recency? There is no objective answer to these questions. --Wavehunter (talk) 18:10, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't sure about that either. I have changed it to the last six polls and added a reliable source. Firebrace (talk) 18:49, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Much better! Thank you. --Wavehunter (talk) 18:55, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

It's always possible to ask questions such as "why this, rather than that?" Why refer to polls going back to 2010 rather than 2009 or 2000? Eight is a power of two. If we use a number such as three or four, the average will be too heavily influenced by difference between the most recent poll and the one that drops out. Ten or twenty would make it not sensitive enough. We have to draw the line somewhere. We don't need a "reliable source" for what is a straightforward calculation from the data included in the article, and NatCen's idea of what the "last six polls" actually are may well diverge from ours. An average of the last eight polls on our list (to which I will change the section back) does not contravene either WP:Original Research or WP:CALC. The latter states that "The recursive use of routine calculations, such as summation, products of sequences, or the calculation of averages, also do not count as original research, when interpreted by the article's reader as a summary of numerical data — i.e. when used for well-known (and consensual) forms of 'numerical synthesis'. In this context, the synthesis of numerical data is not original research by synthesis." Yes, it's an arithmetic mean.Elephantwood (talk) 23:17, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

There is no consensus that we use an arithmetic mean of the last eight polls (see discussion below). Therefore, it fails WP:CALC. --Wavehunter (talk) 18:47, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

As the polling average has been removed, may I refer everyone back to the OP and resuggest the lead column be implemented. As is done for all other polling on wikipedia 82.46.156.222 (talk) 02:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

While I don't think "we've always done it this way" is a good enough reason to do anything, I would be in favour of a lead column at this stage. I'm sure a lot of people would find it very helpful. Firebrace (talk) 09:25, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

FT article

Re [1], please could you (without quoting enough to break copyright laws) quote the extract from the FT article that is being relied on in support of the statement for which it is being used as a source. Thanks.

I also intend to readd the Guardian source that was deleted in that edit, but without knowing the actual content of the FT article it is difficult to know how to phrase things cohesively.

(I will leave it to others to judge whether "Improve awkward phrasing" is a fair edit summary when removing a source...)

--Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 20:17, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

"With less than six weeks to go until the vote, polls suggest the result is still close — although phone polling, which tends to be more reliable than internet surveys, points to a lead for Remain." I added the original source... Firebrace (talk) 20:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. --Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 20:40, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Poll table formatting broken

There seems to have been an edit that broke the formatting on the poll table. The last 'good' copy I found in the 'view history' was 22:47 6 June 2016 by Firebrace. Is it possible to revert to that?82.1.16.12 (talk) 08:47, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Trendline

Does anyone know how the trendline in the chart is calculated ? It doesn't seem to reflect the data to me, and at least two of the polls have "remain"+"leave" percentages without a "don't know" figure. I can't work out what trendline method it is using Marlarkey (talk) 18:05, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@Marlarkey: the trendline is calculated using the geom_smooth R function with standard parameters. The grey shadow represents a 95 % confidence interval. The fitting is calculated by the loess function. The same procedure was used for File:Referendum über die Unabhängigkeit Schottlands Entwicklung der Umfrageergebnisse.svg. You can have a look at File:UK EU referendum polling.svg#Summary for more details. Regards, -- T.seppelt (talk) 18:44, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

If the 95% confidence interval is so small, then there is something very questionable about your parameters. The interval seems at the moment to be about +/- 1.25%. No bookmaker would offer 19\1 against the Remain percentage, say, being outside such a narrow band. Perhaps the standard parameters to which you refer apply to the measurement of a fixed item?Elephantwood (talk) 23:28, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Does the trendline take into account the relative sizes of the polls? Couldn't the sizes of the dots be relative to the size of the poll? Caspar (talk) 09:52, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@Nonc: yes, of course. This should be possible. I'm not really an expert in R but I'll have a look at it, --T.seppelt (talk) 06:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I think we should not have a trend line at all. It is obviously possible for the line to convey different impressions depending what algorithm is used. and the implied assertion that a particular algorithm is appropriate seems to count as an "unpublished idea or argument" within the meaning of this site policy. So we should show only the scatter of points, and if the reader wants to make conclusions about trends then that is their private decision. Unless, that is, we can cite a published analysis that uses some particular algorithm, in which case it is okay for us to generate a similar image if their version is copyrighted. --Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 11:43, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

It seems sensible to me to keep it. Unless the reader is very used to scatter plots, it is very hard to discern a pattern for a moving trend with many outliers. I do agree though that the algortithm [and especially its provenance] should be explicit in the article and not expect the reader to go and look at the metadata for the svg. Is there an external reference for 'geom-smooth'? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:32, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I think it is possible for a trend line to fall within wp:calc - provided that "the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources" - an average (mean) of the last X polls certainly would seem to fall in that criterion for me. DrArsenal (talk) 22:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I would also like to keep the trendline. The documentation is available here. No special parameters are used. What you can see is a 95 % confidence interval. Regards, -- T.seppelt (talk) 06:42, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to keep the trendline too, but not the 95% confidence interval. I also think the graph should show only percentages for Remain and Leave, as percentages of people sampled who said they would vote one way or the other. Just look at the spread for the figures for "Undecided" since the beginning of 2016. Is it sensible even to talk of a "trend" in those figures?Elephantwood (talk) 23:40, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Over the past six months the Leave and Undecided lines have diverged in perfect symmetry, while Remain has dipped slightly. There is an obvious trend: Undecided voters are backing Leave, confounding expectations they would vote Remain (the "safe option"). Firebrace (talk) 01:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

That's a good point! Elephantwood (talk) 01:22, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Well nobody has said how the trendline is calculated, but since the graph was updated yesterday and isn't showing Leave as in the lead, the way it's calculated seems to be unrealistic.Elephantwood (talk) 16:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Business leaders, scientists, lawyers in lead

It is not cherry-picking to include these in the lead, as these are the only specific groups that are mentioned in the main body of the article. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 12:03, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

The lede should be free from this sort of thing - smacks of expressing POV. Sumorsǣte (talk) 19:02, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

See WP:LEAD. The lead summarises the article. The polls are close, and professionals think the UK's membership of the EU is beneficial. That covers two of the three main sections of the article, which are standard polling, polling within professional groups, and other opinion polling. I guess we should also mention that the majority of non-British EU citizens would prefer it if the UK remained... Firebrace (talk) 20:06, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Business leaders talk for the business sector; lawyers talk for their clients or possible clients; scientists do science. They are not "professionals" at talking for the country. The people who are, much as they are held in contempt by many, are the elected politicians, who are of course divided. The article should not convey the message that "professionals at talking about what's best for the country are overwhelmingly agreed that EU membership is good for the country", because that isn't true. And as for non-British EU citizens, the only polls I've read about asked whether they think Britain "should" stay in the EU. Are you sure that question meant would they prefer it?Elephantwood (talk) 23:55, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

• Polls of business leaders, economists, etc. have been all over the news for weeks; if reliable sources are covering it, then we should too.
• Ashcroft question: Would you prefer to see the UK remain a member of the EU, or would you prefer the UK to leave, or does it not matter to you either way? [2]
• The Guardian article on the ICM poll uses the words favour and prefer. [3]
• This article is averaging 15,000 views per day – nothing compared to the tens of millions watching the news and reading biased newspapers. If the article is biased, and I don't believe it is, then it will make no difference to the outcome of the referendum... Firebrace (talk) 00:19, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what words the University of Edinburgh survey used in all the different languages, but in English translation they use the word "should".Elephantwood (talk) 01:37, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Even if so, it should still not be biased. I don't think it is especially biased. But when an organisation such as the Confederation of British Industry, the body of industrial employers, gets involved in politics, we should surely take what they say as being on behalf of their members, who are a minority interest group and who are not and do not claim to be representative of the country as a whole. They are not qualified to express a view on what's good for the country any more than, say, lorry drivers or unemployed people are. Some of those 15000 views are going to be by journalists. Many of the lazier ones use Wikipedia as their main "research" source, and given that Remain and Leave are running more or less equally well in the polls, the article could have an appreciable effect. But anyway, it's quite good as it stands, and it's good that there are some sensible people contributing to it.Elephantwood (talk) 01:35, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Two points. Including the mention of the 3 "professional" groups in the lead section is fine, but there is no mention of pro-brexit groups. This is surely biased, as the general opinion polls at the moment put leave/remain at level pegging. Where are the other professions? Cherry-picking these three groups to represent professionals is wrong; they all go for remain. Firebrace, wikipedia articles should be neutral whether they are popular or not. By your logic, rarely accessed articles could have bias, whereas popular articles would have to be stricter. Besides, where would you define the cut-off point for such twisted logic? ArticulateSlug99 (talk) 01:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Of course Wikipedia should be neutral, but there is no objective way of measuring bias, so we can never really be sure if the article is biased or not. All we have to go on are people's feelings. Some people think it is biased, and some don't. I'm saying that if the article actually is biased then at least it will have no effect on the outcome of the referendum. What are the pro-Brexit groups? If you can find some, add them... Firebrace (talk) 12:32, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

The third and fourth sentences make the claim that "There is a contrast between opinion polls of voters in general, which tend to be close, and polls of business leaders, lawyers, and scientists. In all three groups, clear majorities see membership of the EU as beneficial to the UK." This rather oddly privileges three particular professions over a great many others. Why not include the views of say, economists, medical professionals and entrepreneurs? -or law enforcement professionals, farmers and retailers? Bricology (talk) 02:50, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

3 June Opinium Poll

There appear to be two versions of the 3 June Opinium poll. One Remain 43% vs Leave 41%, currently used in this Wiki page, and supported by tables published by Opinium, and another Remain 40% vs Leave 43% published by the Observer/Guardian. The explanation seems to be a change in weighting used by Opinium, with the newspaper choosing to use the old methodology for their article, and the pollster using the new one for their tables. 82.1.16.12 (talk) 13:42, 5 June 2016 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.1.16.12 (talk) 07:41, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Indeed you are correct. I would say it is up to the pollster to choose what methodology should be used for their headline percentages. In this case Opinium were trying to point out that the new methodology (not alternative as it currently says in the article) masks a larger swing towards Leave by calculating the headline numbers on the old methodology. Presumibly had this methodology been used in the previous poll, the comparison in this one wouldn't have been required. I think the numbers using the old methodology should be removed, and the note changed to say there were methodological changes. Andymmu^talk 19:52, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Headline percentages are not data; they are similar to predictions based on the data. The pollster can, and in this case did, issue a document containing headline percentages based on a new weighting methodology, but I don't think we should give that more weight than we give to the poll commissioner's headline percentages, which were based on the existing methodology. The "new" methodology here is an "alternative" one. That does not mean it is less valid. But it is not more valid either. To posit a difference in validity would be to adopt a non-neutral point of view, so I support reporting both sets of percentages as we are doing at the moment. Elephantwood (talk) 14:08, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Red-green color blind accessibility

There is an accessibility issue with using red and green in the shades currently used. Is there any way to link to a patterned version of the chart rather than depending on color as the distinguishing trait? I am familiar with r graphing techniques and given access to the data could generate the above myself, and provide a version to link. Specifically I would change the shape of each of the respective variables; see ggplot documentation for geom point. This sets by color (as argued previously), size (as suggested previously), and shape. Jitter is another fix for the cases where data is subject to overplotting. Militärwissenschaften (talk) 10:57, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the chart in Photoshop using the red/green color blindness simulator, 'Remain' appears yellow and 'Leave' appears brown. There does not seem to be any issue for people with protanopia or deuteranopia... Firebrace (talk) 14:31, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

8 Poll Average

I would argue that a simple average of polls is a violation of the Valid Routine Calculations rule.

While the calculation method is simple the data being averaged is not directly comparable thus making any simple calculation either meaningless, misleading, or both.

I can illustrates as follows (at time of writing averages are 49.0/51.0 remain/leave;

1) Publishing date: Is a poll conducted on 24th May more or less recent than a poll conducted between 20-25 May? The alternative is to go by publishing date but as some polls (such as TNS) take longer to publish than others the data will be out of date before it is included.

2) Sample size: If we are performing a simple average then polls that sample more people should be given more weight. If we do this the simple average becomes 48.8/51.2.

3) Decimal Places: If we go into each poll and extract the real numbers rather than the published figure which is usually rounded to the nearest whole number the simple average becomes 49.6/50.4

4) Methodologies: This week we have a great example of a polling company that has recently changed methodology. They only published one official figure but the newspaper that commissioned the report published a different figure based on their previous methodology. If we just include the published methodology the simple average becomes 49.2/50.8, if we go by the original methodology then it is 48.9/51.1.

5) Don't knows/Undecideds: Each polling company published figures with different approaches to people not giving an answer. For example Yougov exclude those certain not to vote. ICM includes people certain to vote, ORB only includes those very likely to vote. As a result if you are undecided about whether you will vote or not then you are an Yougov undecided but not an ICM undecided. Apologies if I have misinterpreted the polling approaches, but this is just one of many methodological differences between the polling houses. This is reflected in the fact that Yougov figures do not add to 100% whereas others do. This means that we cannot make a simple average without making a judgment call.

As an alternative I would either recommend publishing poll averages from other sources such as Poll-of-Polls or similar. The difficulty there is that each one is different for all the reasons outlined above.

Another alternative would be to use something similar to what was on the UK General Election page leading up to the vote last year where there was a table of forecasts, predictions and poll averages.

In any case, while I see the benefit of providing some measure of current opinion that evens out the kinks of several different polls I think that a supposedly simple measure that could give Remain a figure of 49.0, 48.8, 49.6, 49.2, 48.9 (or indeed many others), is ambiguous, and neither obvious, or a meaningful reflection of the sources. For that reason I think it does not constitute a routine calculation and should be removed.

What do you think?

Mykums (talk) 15:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. There are simply too many differences in the methodology for us to do this in any objective way. It is simpler to simply remove it and let people see the individual polls themselves. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 15:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I also have to agree. We don't know which of several possible methods User:Elephantwood is using to calculate the averages; it therefore fails WP:V because the data cannot be verified, and given that reliable sources are all using different methods, using one method in particular is WP:UNDUE... Firebrace (talk) 16:27, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

As I have argued above, I think it should be removed. --Wavehunter (talk) 18:47, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Even more relevantly, we have a reliable third party source (* EU referendum poll of polls  – What UK Thinks: EU) that does it for us, so we have no excuse for inventing our own. Per wp:nor and the discussion above, I am deleting that section. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:50, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

John Maynard Friedman's argument doesn't stand up. Of course percentages are comparable, and of course the average is not "meaningless". Date: order by the time the last data point was collected. Sample size and methodologies: ignore. The point that the percentages are comparable overwhelms these points which could be used to undermine many averages. The point of an average here is precisely to smooth over the different influences on each of the data points. That's usually what an average is for. Did you realise that the trend line shown on the graph at the top of the article expresses an average? Why don't you argue against that? Your argument doesn't support your proposition, and you've failed to argue it from the Valid Routine Calculations "rule". Perhaps if you didn't insist in such an absolutist way on uncomparability and meaninglessness you might be able to construct a case, but you haven't presented a robust one so far. But since you have removed the section without even waiting to hear any oppositional response to what you wrote, even after I specifically invited people to discuss the issue here on the talk page, I am not going to add it back and take part in an edit war. This is only Wikipedia, and it's only a referendum on British EU membership. Elephantwood (talk) 21:29, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOR doesn't apply to images. Also, two reliable sources, The Telegraph and What UK Thinks: EU, are both showing Remain at 51% and Leave at 49%, while your table was showing them at 49.8% and 50.2% respectively... Firebrace (talk) 22:03, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Of course WP:NOR applies to images. I have no idea why you refer to "reliable sources", as if there's a question about what sources are or are not reliable for a statement. My preference is for an arithmetic mean of the percentages - of those who expressed an intention to vote - that are included in the most recent eight entries in the table in this article. There is no reliability issue. @Firebrace, so the average of the last eight polls thought worthy of inclusion here is different from some average of polls calculated some different way by someone else - so what? What I want is a summary of what's here, to give people a good handle on it. It would be well within WP policy and practice. But if the speciousness problem is raising its head, as it often does on WP, then...well it's only Wikipedia. The current "Polls of polls" section is ridiculous, in the way that in a single column it lists figures for Leave and Remain that are percentages of those who have said they will vote, together with figures that are percentages of those people plus don't knows, won't votes, won't says, or whatever. Columnisation suggests a comparability that isn't present. This is a shame, because data that is comparable is included below in this very article. But that's all from me. WP has low standards - what else is new? So now you get four "averages" showing Remain ahead, and one showing Leave ahead, whereas the data below in this very article suggests that Leave is ahead. But it's required here to assume good faith, yes?

As for WP:NOR and images, would you be OK with a graph showing the average of the last eight polls in the list, as percentages of those who expressed an intention to vote? Just not text, right. And you're only saying what's in the rules, right? ROFLElephantwood (talk) 16:59, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I think Elephantwood (talk) does make a valid point about the purpose of averages to reduce the significance of individual house effects. I am not comprehensively opposed to the idea of averaging polls. However, as I'm sure we all appreciate, it is such an emotive subject that we should try and remove any possibility of bias, and without an agreed methodology there will always be that possibility. In a campaign that has seen so many people desire "hard facts" clear of political rhetoric, it is perhaps an "absolutist" view of factual representation that should win through. Finally to the point raised about the excellent trend graph provided by T.seppelt (talk). I think that so long as the actual data points are included and the trendline is gradual then what it shows is the long term movement. This longer term view will achieve the smoothing out of different house effects that an average should achieve. It also addresses another point (one I forgot in my earlier post), i.e. why 8? Obviously the fewer you take the more up-to-date the figure is, the more you take the less susceptible it is to anomalies. However with eight you may have, for example, 0, 1, 2 or 3 polls from Yougov. This means that an 8 poll average would be influenced by the timings of polling houses releases as much as by the actual shifting of public opinion. With the long term trend line this further house effect is mitigated. Mykums (talk) 07:50, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

"so long as the actual data points are included and the trendline is gradual then what it shows is the long term movement. This longer term view will achieve the smoothing out of different house effects that an average should achieve." May I suggest that you find out the meaning of the term "moving average". The graph shows a moving average, as does the section that has now been removed. The one used in the graph may perhaps be an exponential one. Whatever kind of moving average it is, one or more constants will have been chosen that could have been chosen differently, so your argument simply doesn't work. If you do not accept that point, then you are misunderstanding averaging. The graph also shows an extremely tight 95% confidence interval which is completely ridiculous, given the spread of poll data, given recent polling history, and given that we are not dealing with measurements of a (fixed or even changing) physical quantity. That said, I would agree that the graph looks nice.Elephantwood (talk) 18:36, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Look at the table and go down it, writing down the leads for Leave or Remain and ignoring the poor comparability (easily surmountable) that comes from the inclusion of DK/WV/WS in some rows but not others:

10% Leave lead, 1% Remain lead, 5% Leave lead, 12% Remain lead, 4% Leave lead, 2% Remain lead, 3% Leave lead, level pegging, 2% Leave lead, 3% Leave lead

Thats 6-3 for Leave with one draw, and an average (arithmetic mean) of a 1% Leave lead. But the stupid section on "polls of polls" gives

2.6% Remain lead, level pegging, 1% Remain lead, 2% Remain lead, 1% Leave lead, 2% Remain lead

That's 4-1 for Remain with one draw, and an average of a 1.1% Remain lead.

The bias is obvious. Leave are clearly ahead in the polls, and this page is saying that Remain are ahead.Elephantwood (talk) 12:27, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

• I've added some polls of polls from reliable sources. These should be more trustable than a crude rolling average. Smurrayinchester 15:53, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

ORB polling

As is currently being discussed through edit summaries, there is some confusion over what is the headline result of the ORB polling. For example, in the last poll, the headline result was significantly different to what was reported in the Telegraph (which looked at only those certain to vote). As ORB seem to have previously published the latter, this makes for an easier comparison with other ORB polls, but difficult to compare with other polls. Thoughts? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 13:02, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:WPNOTRS, we should use the results published by secondary sources... Firebrace (talk) 14:30, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Also note that, per WP:V, material does not have to be attributed to a secondary source, just "attributable"... Firebrace (talk) 15:20, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

If "we should use the results published by secondary sources" should we then reference the secondary source (e.g. The Telegraph) rather than the primary source (e.g. ORB Polling). Even leaving aside the question of whether any UK newspaper in this regard meets the WP:WPNOTRS criterion of "reliable secondary source", this hardly seems desirable in this context. Pseudoneiros (talk) 15:32, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

No, see above. Firebrace (talk) 15:38, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Number Cruncher Politics says that ORB has clarified that the "all voters" poll is their headline, although I agree that it's a bit of a problem to simply change methodologies halfway through the table. Perhaps it would be best to split them, like we did for the Observer poll (like the Telegraph, the Observer only used the numbers from the old methodology). Smurrayinchester 15:57, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Article title

Can the year 2016 please be added to the title of the article please has the referendum is taking place on June 23 2016. 46.65.75.27 (talk) 13:04, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Why? There has only been one referendum on the UK's membership of the EU. The 1975 referendum concerned the UK's membership of the Common Market. If there had been two referendums, I would agree to changing the title, but there is no reason to disambiguate. Firebrace (talk) 14:13, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Andrew Neil Interviews

You state TV interviews on Sky, ITV but what about the Andrew Neil 1-1 interviews on BBC 1 - this is peak viewing time and would get far higher audiences than Sky. (Coachtripfan (talk) 11:20, 9 June 2016 (UTC))

ORB Weighting

Is it worth noting that the latest ORB poll giving Leave a ten point lead gives them only a 6 point lead (53% to 47%) when weighting on likelihood to vote is not applied? 82.46.156.222 (talk) 19:44, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, yet again the ORB figures have been entered incorrectly on the basis of a newspaper report rather than the poll itself (see TALK above). ORB is clear that its headline figure in 47/53 (not turnout-adjusted 45/55). In comparison to previous ORB polls listed, the table is currently not comparing like with like.Pseudoneiros (talk) 09:56, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Did it ever compare like with like? To be serious, it would show predicted percentages for Remain and Leave expressed as percentages of those who who say they will vote - because the actual percentages on the day will be such percentages, and it's those percentages that these figures are predicting. They should be weighted more finely according to expressed likelihood of voting, or other tweaking, if that's what's being widely reported. But there's no way the bad faith people here will stand for that.Elephantwood (talk) 11:37, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

That's fine – thanks. Previously an anonymous user had simply reversed the 45–55 figures, which was the reason for my change. Ondewelle (talk) 11:14, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

There is so much speciousness and bad faith here that it's hard to want to take part. ORB don't do "headlines". They are a polling company. They report to who commissioned the poll. The headlines all give the weighted figure: Reuters, the Daily Mail, the Independent, etc. Weighting the results is actually similar to weighting the sample. So why not go and unweight all the samples, or just delete the page because that would be "unobjective"? There is no objective probability of what the result will be. The referendum is not a race. Percentages based on polls are predictions, even if they are totally unweighted. Obviously the weighted figures, giving a 10% lead for Leave, should be reported here. Making your own prediction based on de-weighting the samples is about as subjective as subjective can be. There are those who argue otherwise because they are biased; there may possibly be some who argue otherwise because they do not understand. This page is getting to be a joke. But still, it's only Wikipedia, so no problem; let it.Elephantwood (talk) 11:24, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Pseudoneiros, could you possibly link to where ORB say that? Thanks Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 11:44, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

The "headline figure" (pollsters' terminology) in ORB polls is used by all professional pollsters (e.g. http://www.ncpolitics.uk/uk-eu-referendum/). Also Kellner, Curtice etc. For ORB clarification of its poll figures see also the comment above by Smurrayinchester under ORB Polling. What newspapers choose to report is irrelevant. If, however, the consensus here is to use the predicted-turnout-weighted figure on ORB polls, then that's perfectly fine with me. But, in that case, all the ORB polls must be be presented as so weighted, not just some of them. Without consistency, the table compares apples with oranges.Pseudoneiros (talk) 12:05, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

"Life experience"

Someone keeps adding a sentence that older people are more likely to vote for Brexit due to their life experience. This is just an opinion so please leave it out. Otherwise, I can add my own opinions, e.g. that older people are also more likely to be senile, or that less educated people (who are more likely to vote for Brexit) are likely to be less intelligent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zurich gnome (talk • contribs) 14:10, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, it has no place here. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

10 June Opinium Poll

Someone has just added the latest Opinium poll. I see a few problems with it. Poll was published on 10.06 but was actually conducted earlier so it should further down the table based on when it was conducted. Now I am going to the Opinium page to find the correct dates, and they are all over the place:

1. On the web page (http://ourinsight.opinium.co.uk/survey-results/political-polling-7th-june-2016) it says Opinium Research carried out an online survey of 2,009 UK adults aged 18+ from 7th to 10th June 2016 to 3rd June. What does this 3rd June mean?
2. On the PDF with the detail results it states: FIELD DATES | 9 to 12 January 2016 Huh??

I think Opinium has really messed this up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zurich gnome (talk • contribs) 18:11, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Average of last eight polls listed in this article

As a yardstick against which interested editors and potential editors can measure the bias present in the current "Polls of polls" section, here are the current average percentages that Remain and Leave have attained in the eight most recent polls listed in the table, expressed as proportions of those who intend to vote (obviously the most reasonable basis for comparison):

Dates conducted	Remain	Leave
5–13 June	47.7%	52.3%

Elephantwood (talk) 16:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

What is your statistical background? You have a vague reference to standard deviation but neglect the impact of sample size on its estimation among the grouped polls, insist on an average being the best measure, and use only the most basic placeholder for normal distribution CDF. I think you have a bias you are favoring rather than making an argument from statistical reasoning. This unfortunately is such a charged issue even basic visualization issues are ignored, but your points are hand waving with poorly constructed "equations" that are extremely (overly) simplified. First issue is that sampling methods are in fact crucial to combining the data, each poll you've averaged has it's own independent standard deviation, and combining them requires use of significantly more complex equations for pooled variance. Militärwissenschaften (talk) 10:58, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

What I did is avoid false accuracy. It's called good engineering. Take sample size into account and use a sensible attitude to accuracy as I have done, and you will reject the "one side is more likely to win" hypothesis, as I have done, and you will come up with a 95% confidence interval for the winning margin of somewhere around 0%-10% as I have done. Why don't you actually do it and find out? One thing you don't mention is that I assumed normality. That too is to avoid false accuracy. There are no "visualisation" issues; I don't know who you are quoting when you put the word "equations" in inverted commas; "its" as a possessive does not have an apostrophe; and there is a big issue with your thinking that each poll has its own standard deviation, which comes from your ignoring that polls do not measure a physical entity, whether fixed or even variable, despite the impression that they do that's given in the media. I'd examine your use of the word "requires" in your final sentence if I were you. Ascription of "over-simplification" is not sensible here. Please use the higher level of accuracy and complexity that you clearly think is "required", and consider what accuracy is reasonable to use when stating your prediction and your 95% confidence interval, and post your own results for comparison. Thanks. PS If you end up thinking that the 95% confidence interval is only about 2.5% wide, as is implied by the shadow band on the graph at the top of the article, perhaps we can each stand by our analyses and have a wager? I would be happy to place a bet at 19\1 or even 15\1 against the result being in any confidence interval you care to mention that is only 2.5% wide: in other words, I win 15 units if it's outside such an interval, and you win 1 unit if it's inside. If you really believe that the probability is 95% that it will be inside such a narrow interval, then of course you should also believe that your expected gain from the bet would be positive. To summarise: I'm saying the polls at the moment don't suggest that either side is more likely to win than the other, and I'm saying they suggest there's 95% probability that the winning margin will be less than 10% and 5% probability that it will be more than 10%. Let's have your figures please, based on what you clearly think is the requirement to apply a more complex analysis than the one I have applied.Elephantwood (talk) 12:15, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Last point: the sizes of the polls listed in the table conducted this month and in May range from 800 to 3405. The median size is 1703. You assume the correlation between poll size and the accuracy of predictions made on the basis of poll results is sufficiently significant to "require" to be taken into account if one is to make sensible predictions on the basis of a sizeable collection of polls. Do you seriously think that a hypothesis such as that "sample sizes between 800 and 1703 yield more accurate predictions for referendum results than sizes between 1704 and 3405" should be accepted? With how much confidence? Please consider the concept of false accuracy. Bear in mind that polling companies that have carried out polls for this referendum are currently concentrating their public relations spending far more on extolling sampling methodology and post-poll weighting methodology than on stressing how big a sample size they can supply. Why? I am trying to encourage you to allow a broader understanding of context to inform your statistical understanding.Elephantwood (talk) 12:15, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

No, what you did is fail to quantify the real error, or even model things properly. You have no training in research. That much is obvious. Stop using a firehose of terms you don't understand - I know you're hoping people will give in from the length. You can't combine polls estimating a parameter without tracking the error and correlation over time. Your model is wrong, your approach is wrong. There is no single standard deviation, no matter the declarative statements you make. Try mathematical statistics, measure theory and sigma algebra - hopefully you'll see the problems in your assumptions and go study it all for a few years. Militärwissenschaften (talk) 13:46, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

No support for the statement that most lawyers believe EU membership would be good for the country

At the moment the article says that "In all three groups [business leaders, lawyers and scientists], clear majorities see membership of the EU as beneficial to the UK." But the source cited . only suggests that a single poll has indicated that a majority of lawyers think EU membership would be beneficial for their own firms and for the City of London's position in financial markets. That is not at all the same as them saying they think membership would be good for the country. I will change the second paragraph to make this clear. I also wonder why a solicitor in Newcastle whose work is mostly conveyancing, together with some remortgaging, advice on making wills, and defending or prosecuting alleged shoplifters, would be likely to have more basis for his opinion on the importance of EU membership to the position of the City of London in global financial markets than a member of the British population chosen at random.Elephantwood (talk) 12:29, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Elections etc.

Look at this from Elections Etc. They give a "historical referendums and poll based forecast" as follows: Remain 53%, Leave 47%, margin of error ±12%, probability of Remain win 68%. On the standard assumption of a normal distribution, those figures simply don't add up. If we assume that the figures before rounding were as far as possible in the direction of raising the probability of a Remain win - Remain 53.5%, margin of error ±11.5% - then a tie in the referendum would have a z-score of 3.5/11.5=0.304 and a Remain win would have a probability of 62%. If we push them in the other direction, we get a z-score of 3.5/12.5 and a Remain win would have a probability of 58%. I suggest we remove these "experts'" "poll of polls" from our list.Elephantwood (talk) 19:30, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The z-score is presumably (53.5-46.5)/(11.5/2) (as the 11.5 represents 2 standard deviations) or about 1.2.----Ehrenkater (talk) 19:36, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

You're right: they are using 2 standard deviations, or more likely 1.96. In that case the z-score at 50% with the biggest possible absolute value would be -(53.5-50)/(11.5/1.96)=-0.59, with a probability of 28% that Remain is in the tail below 50%, in other words that Remain loses, or 72% that it wins, so I stand corrected. Many thanks! But I don't quite get why you are subtracting 46.5% rather than 50%.Elephantwood (talk) 23:24, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

ComRes poll for the Sun

When was the data gathered? The results were announced today.Elephantwood (talk) 21:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

TNS 14 June poll gives Leave 7-point lead

It says at the bottom of the Sun article linked from today's ComRes poll (https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1283672/brexiteers-swiftly-closing-in-on-remain-as-eu-referendum-poll-reveals-theres-just-one-point-between-the-two-sides/) "A second poll by TNS today gave Leave a seven point lead over Remain by 47% versus 40%, and 13% still undecided." The TNS data is at http://www.tns-bmrb.co.uk/press-release/leave-campaign-ahead-latest-tns-poll. Needs adding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.68.193 (talk) 22:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Opinium poll 13 June gives Leave 19-point lead

This big news from yesterday's Opinium poll result seems to be missing from the article. We note that Opinium tweeted that they were commissioned to do it by another party and it doesn't have their "usual" political and social weighting, hence it is "not endorsed" by Opinium. Nevertheless, as a poll result it should be included here. (Opinium's remarks need to be stated in the comments column).

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/679104/End-EU-rule-FINALLY-Leave-camp-take-19-POINT-lead-Britons-flock-Brexit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.68.193 (talk) 22:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Removed biased and untrue statements from second paragraph

The second paragraph was horribly biased. It said "In all three groups, clear majorities see the UK's membership of the EU as beneficial for themselves and for the country." "All" and "clear" are unnecessary intensifiers: polls have only been conducted among samples, not throughout these entire groups. In the case of lawyers it is not true that even a majority of those sampled have stated that they think that remaining in the EU would be good for "the country". It is only true that the results from one sample have indicated that most lawyers think it would be beneficial for their own firms and for the global position of the City of London in financial markets. This is clear from the source referenced in the section on lawyers. (Moreover, I am not aware of any analysts who have suggested that the benefits, drawbacks, problems or opportunities that may result either from leaving the EU or from remaining in it will be principally legal, so most lawyers have no expertise whatsoever in the matter of which result would be best for the country, so perhaps we should stop referring altogether to what lawyers think.)Elephantwood (talk) 14:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I fully support your stance. Keep up the good work. :) Sumorsǣte (talk) 10:52, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

New poll, IPSOS-mori - 11-14 June

Evening Standard are reporting a New Ipsos poll. 11-14 June, Remain 47% vs Leave 53%, 1,257 sample size.82.1.16.12 (talk) 09:03, 16 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.1.16.12 (talk) 08:58, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, this has been added now by Elephantwood Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:57, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

New poll, Survation, 15 June

Survation poll, Fieldwork 15th June, Remain 48%, Leave 52%, 13% undecided, 1,104 Sample size.82.1.16.12 (talk) 11:19, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

They say they did the fieldwork today, 16 June. "Survation interviewed 1,104 adults aged 18+ across the UK including Northern Ireland on behalf of IG by telephone on 16th June."Elephantwood (talk) 11:45, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I can't see where they did that - the pdf says it was done yesterday, which would make more sense. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 11:52, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Demographics section no source/evidence

According to two out of three pollsters, managerial, professional and administrative workers are most likely to favour staying in the EU, while semi-skilled and unskilled workers, plus those reliant on benefits, are the largest demographic supporting leave.

The source cited shows small business's and skilled workers (C2s) support Leave. The source is also from 2015, more recent polls 'show skilled manual workers (C2s) are plumping for leave by an emphatic 67% to 29% margin' - http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/13/eu-referendum-leave-campaign-takes-six-point-lead-in-guardianicm-polls. Why is there no mention of this demographic and where is the evidence that semi-skilled, unskilled and those reliant on benefits are bigger supporters of leave than the (C2) skilled workers demographic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:1220:9700:CD8A:4085:6FA4:9C93 (talk) 14:04, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2016

UK EU referendum edit/update request

Number Cruncher Politics have updated their poll of polls

REMAIN 45.4 LEAVE 46.0 DON’T KNOW 8.6

Date 14th June 2016

I used to edit this myself but as semi-protection is now necessary due to other peoples vandalism I can't.

Many thanks Daniel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danpi3141 (talk • contribs) 15:14, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

MP attacked. Both campaigns reported to be suspended.

Yahoo News report82.1.16.12 (talk) 16:16, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

A report on past attacks of MPs said they were most at risk from "fixated loners".82.1.16.12 (talk) 17:05, 16 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.1.16.12 (talk) 16:53, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

The attacker is reported to have a history of mental health problems 82.1.16.12 (talk) 17:22, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Jo Cox note in polling table

The wiki article says she was killed 'while campaigning for Britain Stronger in europe campaign.' That's not correct. She was holding a weekly MP's surgery at the local library to meet constituents, and discuss their problems.82.1.16.12 (talk) 18:38, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2016

The line 'Labour Party politician MP Jo Cox murdered while campaigning for Britain Stronger in Europe.[22]' is wrong and misleading. Please change it immediately. The MP was not campaigning at the time she was shot, and there is no evidence that her murder is connected to her campaigning for Britain Stronger in Europe.

Pukcplzb (talk) 18:55, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Already done Thanks for this but it seems that it's already been amended. st170e^talk 19:29, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

"Murder"

@Calvin999: Re [4], the word murder is a legal term that should be avoided until the attacker is found guilty of murder. He could end up being convicted of manslaughter on grounds of diminished responsibility, in which case our describing the killing as murder would be defamatory and there could be legal implications for the editor who added "murder" to the article. Best to use "killed" or "fatally shot". Thanks. Firebrace (talk) 20:22, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

@Firebrace: Suggestion: Can't the phrase "shot dead" be used, or is that too blunt and unencyclopedic? w.carter-Talk 20:41, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, all the news and media agencies are saying murder, which it is. Why else do you think it's called 'unsolved murder case' for when an attacker isn't present or found? It's still murder regardless of conviction. I'd say go with 'shot dead' then.  — Calvin999 20:47, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Do what you like. I'm tired of engaging with "old guard" Wikipedians who think they have nothing to learn... Firebrace (talk) 21:01, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Excuse me? Who the hell do you think you're talking to. I'm just trying to help resolve an issue which was unclear and you're getting all "I'm too superior for this". Seriously, talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Could tell you was clearly perturbed that I even dare to post on your talk to ask a question by the fact that you've removed the thread. You've shown yourself up because it now says "Murder of Jo Cox", which is probably why your are perturbed and decided that you are "tired" of it.  — Calvin999 07:59, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

It only says "Murder of Jo Cox" right now because the link is now the new article about her death and not to the main article about her. However, that title is proposed to be moved to "Death of Jo Cox" for the same legal reason that is mentioned here. w.carter-Talk 08:40, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm talking to someone who thinks you can be fatally shot and survive. [5] Firebrace (talk) 11:29, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Firebraceltalk regarding the usage of the word "murder". However please could he elaborate on "Old guard" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.102.13.178 (talk) 06:22, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Anyone else pissed off with Wikipedia?

Full of bias and miss-leading information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:1220:9700:F973:86CA:BC17:58D3 (talk) 15:53, 17 June 2016 (UTC)