Talk:Opinion polling for the next Czech parliamentary election

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Opinion polling for the next Czech parliamentary election article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Czech Republic Low‑importance

	Czech Republic portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Czech Republic, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Czech Republic on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Czech RepublicWikipedia:WikiProject Czech RepublicTemplate:WikiProject Czech RepublicCzech Republic articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Elections and Referendums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

Phoenix Polls[edit]

Hi all
I am looking at some of the polling data and I've got concerns that phoenix don't meet usual standards of transparency amongst pollsters. They don't seem to publish their results anywhere other than on a news site, and the information released by that news site is very limited. As an example, they bundled 'other' and 'don't know' votes together, which throws off the data as the don't know figure is necessary to recalculating the numbers. They also don't release a sample size or specific fieldwork dates some of the time, and the most recent poll the news site suggested the poll had 'over 1000' respondents. Hence, I would suggest that for the time being or until we can find a new source, Phoenix polls should be removed from the graph; I am going to remove them from the graph because the data cannot be properly recalculated or dated.
cc @Braganza @Bedivere.cs @Nadvšenec
Quinby (talk) 10:20, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am neutral and support anything you agree on Braganza (talk) 10:30, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I would agree with this. Phoenix doesn't release any documentation for the polling - in fact, for the April poll, they haven't released anything. Also, they are not member of SIMAR, unlike the other big pollsters.

Its ownership is also shady (https://zpravy.aktualne.cz/domaci/phoenix-research-predpovida-uspech-trikolore-patri-prodejci/r~7b72a3c8952e11eaa7deac1f6b220ee8/), and they're polling widely differently (and wrongly) from the other pollsters. I would remove them from the overview, and maybe consider doing the same with SANEP, which has similiar issues. Kroulacek (talk) 10:53, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, It is true that Phoenix (and also SANEP) is a problematic pollster but I wouldn't remove them from graph completely but rather suggest to move them to a newly made section which would include explanation. I'm not certain what ould be the name of the new section. Still if these polls are removed I don't have problem with it. Bedivere.cs (talk) 05:11, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My standpoint is similar, it is not unusual for opinion polling articles to include polls with unknown fieldwork dates, approximate numbers of respondents or unclear differentiation between others und don't know (I had to deal with such cases a lot here for the graph). Nevertheless, if all problems occur together, while all other pollsters don't have such issues, I would at least agree with omitting them from the graph. Gbuvn (talk) 08:34, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]