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

Page views for this article over the last 30 days
Detailed traffic statistics

Next due poll

Would it be possible to include a note as to when the next poll is due? Perhaps a timetable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.245.248.75 (talk) 13:40, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think there is any secondary source that provides this information. But I am sure that if one could be found, we'd include the timetable.

Jrc14 (talk) 06:20, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

The final polls are one tonight and one tomorrow morning, but that is from (reputable) people on Twitter, rather than any WP:RS. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 08:26, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Colour Bias

I would argue that green for remain and red for leave is somewhat biased and isn't very helpful with impartiality. Green usually represents positivity and red represents negativity. Should these be changed? (86.17.120.75 (talk) 02:03, 11 June 2016 (UTC))

Yes: green is soothing and easier to look at for longer periods (that's why they use it in hospitals); red represents anger and discordance and is harder to look at for long periods. I imagine the colours were chosen for precisely that reason: Remain bias. You won't be able to persuade people to want to change them, though. They will argue the hind legs off a donkey to keep them as they are, or if they change them, to keep them as bad or make them worse. I'd advise against wasting your time. I gave up when someone kept a straight face and said the average of the last eight polls here, which is very easy to work out, shouldn't be included, and then when I pointed out that an average (together with an utterly ridiculous version of a 95% confidence interval) is displayed on the graph at the top of the page, he said the rule against "original research" didn't apply to "images". Best not to argue with such people, my friend.Elephantwood (talk) 11:24, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I think they were just chosen by copying the tables and colour scheme used in the Scottish independence referendum article (where there was a yes/no answer - at the time this article was created, it was believed that it would also be a yes/no question, and it was only later changed to leave/remain) rather than a deliberate scheme to bias the election. I wouldn't object to changing it, although there's nothing especially obvious that presents itself. Smurrayinchester 13:22, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I just changed the 'Leave' colours to Blue, but all my edits were immediately reverted. Can we get an agreement to change the Red colouring here, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.97.245 (talk) 10:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

We wont get any agreement or change, various people have raised this issue and called for a change more or less since the article was created. There was even daily coulour edit wars when the article wasn't protected. Maybe after the referendum is over they will allow change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:1220:9700:F95A:B4BC:4B15:9B71 (talk) 21:02, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Red/Green colour blindness

As a minimum, could they possibly be changed to use colour-blind safe colours? I'd love to do it myself, but no idea how. Thanks! Rolypole (talk) 13:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree. The present colours contravene Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Color on red/green colour blindness, which affects one in ten to one in eight of the population. It may be possible to warp the colours a bit, as happens with traffic lights but that's as much as I know. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:40, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Question Time specials with Gove and Cameron.

Are they being added into the table? Like with the ITV and Sky debates?  — Calvin999 20:12, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

BMG Poll ( Herald)

The 'excludes don't knows' note against this poll could be misleading. The Herald article () says: 'The results include those who say that they will vote but have either yet to decide how or don’t want to say.' and later in the article that they 'will break 2:1 in favour of Remain, with 66 per cent voting to stay in the EU and 34 per cent to leave.' It also mentions a second BMG poll, this time an online one, done at the same time, which 'found Leave on 55.5 per cent, with Remain on 44.5 per cent, once so-called ‘don’t knows’ were excluded'. Perhaps that one should be added to the table too? Jrc14 (talk) 04:54, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Having had no answers to this one, I'll go and edit the tables to include the BGM online poll in addition to the telephone poll, and to rephrase the wording about how 'don't knows' are treated. Poll stats taken from BMG's published data at Jrc14 (talk) 09:41, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2016

Please remove polls conducted by Qriously. It's not an official polling agency, these polls differ by a large margin from official polls.

Kyle84UK (talk) 05:58, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  08:08, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Qriously Polls - Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2016

Qriously polls need to be removed as they are in violation of WP:NOTRELIABLE, WP:SPS, and WP:NOR. This company has not conducted election polls before, and these results have not been published in a secondary source.

|- | data-sort-value="2016-06-17" |17 June |32% |style="background: rgb(233, 107, 103);"| 52% |16% |style="background: rgb(220, 36, 31); color: white;"| 20% |1,002 |Qriously |Online |Measures only those "likely" to vote

|- | data-sort-value="2016-06-16" |13–16 June |40% |style="background: rgb(233, 107, 103);"| 52% |9% |style="background: rgb(220, 36, 31); color: white;"| 12% |1,992 |Qriously |Online |Measures only those "likely" to vote"

Zurich gnome (talk) 06:50, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it's our job to say who is, or is not, a 'proper' opinion polling organisation. What criteria should we be using to make that decision, and how would we describe those criteria in the article?

It is, as you say, the first time that Qriously have published a political poll, but they are after all a start-up, and they have some history of doing market and opinion surveys on other areas. The methodology, as published on the link you mention, does appear to be consistent with that used by the other survey firms.

And there is a secondary source, is there not, in USA Today: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/06/17/exclusive-poll-eu-support-falls-after-jo-cox-murder/86031038/

Jrc14 (talk) 07:02, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  08:08, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

To my knowledge the best measure of reliable polling in the UK is whether a company is a member of the British Polling Council. "Qriously", whom I hadn't even heard of before today, aren't. USA Today isn't a newspaper of record; granted, getting polls from them is not quite the same thing as getting weather news from the Daily Express but they're liable to publish sensationalist polling data. Those polls shouldn't be on here. CedarsHale (talk) 09:20, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I totally agree with above comments Qriously are not members of British Polling Council - so don't use them. I favour Brexit but don't believe those polls for a moment Coachtripfan (talk) 10:46, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I can see that the Qriously polls are also being reported by le Figaro at http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/2016/06/17/97001-20160617FILWWW00401-meurtre-de-jox-cox-le-brexit-toujours-en-tete-sondages.php I think they are a serious news source (albeit a French one). As for the general lack of UK news sources discussing this poll right now, maybe that just reflects the fact that the referendum campaign is officially on hold today. Perhaps we need to wait until we see what weight the news media will give these polls on Sunday, as campaigning resumes.

I was wondering whether 'membership of the British Polling Council' might be a good criterion for whether an opinion-surveying organisation was worthy of appearing in our tables here. But is it really for us to make that call? If we have secondary sources referring to this as a poll, I feel we should rely on that, rather than using our individual judgement.

Anyhow, if we do decide that 'membership of the BPC' is the defining characteristic of a serious polling organisation, we will have to weed some other polls out of the tables (for instance I don't think that 'Lord Ashcroft Polling' is a member of the BPC, though it is a respected source.

Jrc14 (talk) 10:12, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

The polls by Qriously should be included because they have been reported in USA Today. That is a secondary source and it makes them notable. There are various associations of pollsters, but there is no such thing as an "official" polling organisation. No licence is required to conduct a poll in Britain. To exclude these polls simply because some editors here hold the opinion that the company that conducted them is not "reliable" would go absolutely against encyclopaedic principles. This company's reliability has not been questioned in any serious and reputable source. It has been opined that the their results diverge greatly from other companies'. First, this is the only published poll based on fieldwork conducted wholly after the murder of Jo Cox and the subsequent suspension of the campaigns, and in that regard there is nothing to compare their results with. Perhaps the mood of the country has shifted a fair bit. These polls, reported in a secondary source, give objective data relating to that very issue. Certainly the murder is the first known murder of an MP for many years and has received enormous press coverage, and many commentators in reputable mainstream media have discussed it in connection with the referendum campaigns. Second, polling results from different companies often do diverge. Partly that is because their sampling methodologies differ; partly it is because they conduct their fieldwork at different times or because the content and context of their questions vary. It is completely irrelevant that some editors feel that this company's field methodology is not to their liking, on the basis of the reported results of the polling. The percentages that this poll reports for Leave and Remain should not form part of anyone's argument here.Elephantwood (talk) 10:25, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

To answer jrc14 Zurich Gnome's concerns: these poll results are not in violation of WP:NOTRELIABLE (that policy requires exclusion of sources that have a poor reputation, an apparent conflict of interest, etc.), they are not in violation of WP:SPS (USA Today is a secondary source, independent of Qriously); and as for WP:NOR, did jrc14 Zurich Gnome not click on the link to find out what the source was? Did he think a Wikipedia editor had calculated the poll percentages for himself?Elephantwood (talk) 10:35, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Not jrc14's concerns at all :-) I think the question was raised by Zurich gnome - and I agree with your view as to why we should consider the Qriously polls to be notable and reliable, on the strength of the information we have at present.

Jrc14 (talk) 10:47, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

My apologies. I looked for the attribution and the one to you was the first one I saw because the others had other text following them on the same line. I have corrected.Elephantwood (talk) 11:01, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Their "polls" are basically questions asked on mobile ads. It's an internet straw-poll. Since when are these included?! There are a million on them, by various companies. And they are all equally ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahershko (talk • contribs) 21:33, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Edits by Marko801 - vandalism?

Should we consider reverting the edits by Marko801? This user has just deleted a chunk of the table of polls, without any discussion in the talk pages (in spite of the fact that there is a discussion of that section of the table already happening in the talk pages). Jrc14 (talk) 07:58, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Having looked at the user's page, I have taken the liberty of reverting the edits myself. Can we discuss these two polls here, before making a decision whether to remove the Qriously polls, please. Jrc14 (talk) 08:06, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

BMG poll, 15 June

The BMG website has slightly different numbers to the Herald article currently used in the wiki article; Remain 52%, Leave 48%. They also mention an online poll: Remain 41%, Leave 51%.82.1.16.12 (talk) 08:43, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Qriously Polls

I see that two poll results have been added for an organisation called Qriously. Are there criteria for judging which polls are sufficiently serious for inclusion? I ask because (a) the poll results seem so out-of-whack with those of other polls, (b) when I visited qriously's website I couldn't see the underlying data (which I can for all of the other organisations), (c) their methodology (in so far as I understand it) seems to be based around injecting questions into web-pages.

In other words, are these serious polls or is this a marketing ploy?

Sorry, I now see that this duplicates one of the previous posts questioning the validity of Qriously. Please forgive this error of a neophyte. I would support the suggestion made in that post of removing these polls.

MrsGussieFinkNottle (talk) 08:51, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

No idea how this all works but I totally agree with this guys doubts... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oneoffedit (talk • contribs) 13:25, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Ditto here. This is not a reliable poll from an established and notable polling organisation Jw2036 (talk) 13:41, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Their "polls" are based on asking questions in mobile ads. It's just an internet straw-poll, basically. It's ridiculous that they are in this table. Should we start to include "polls" done on Twitter and newspaper pages as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahershko (talk • contribs) 21:30, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2016

Please delete polls by Qriously. This is not an established polling agency and polls vary by a large margin from official ones.

Kyle84UK (talk) 08:55, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

@Kyle84UK: Please join the discussion below... Firebrace (talk) 13:55, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

RfC on Qriously polls

Should the Qriously polls be included or not? Firebrace (talk) 13:35, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Survey

Speedy Delete. It's not been reported or verified by any other media source. 'Qriously' doesn't even have a page of it's own on Wikipedia. It has been only self-published on their website. Methodology is suspect - appears to at least in part be targeted marketing rather than an independent poll. Fails on notability and reliability, and possible NPOV issues. Jw2036 (talk) 13:38, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

 Comment: The polls should not be removed again while the RfC is active. Firebrace (talk) 13:48, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Reply. Why should what is obviously Original Research be included when its normal policy to remove it Firebrace? - Galloglass 15:00, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

@Galloglass: Aren't all polls original research? What makes this one different? I'm not sure who it was commissioned by... Firebrace (talk) 15:10, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Was it commissioned by anyone? We don't know. Who is this 'Qriously' Have you come across them before. I certainly have not and you might note they are not members or the British Polling Council either. Including this just makes the Encyclopaedia look foolish. - Galloglass 15:20, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Polls by non-BPC members had their own section at Opinion polling for the Scottish independence referendum, 2014... Firebrace (talk) 15:26, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

This seems like a good solution to me Firebrace, I'd support this table being set up in a subsection below the main one Jw2036 (talk) 15:35, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Keep it. This has been published by "USA Today" [1] 77.9.78.66 (talk) 14:09, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Keep: Not in violation of any Wikipedia policies or guidelines. Antiochus the Great (talk) 14:45, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Speedy Delete. Self published poll. 100% failure on notability and reliability. Including this alongside reputable polling organisations is simply unsustainable. - Galloglass 15:00, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Keep it Move to separate table (see below in discussion for my change of mind) In addition to the USA Today reference noted above, it's also been published by le Figaro [2]", so it evidently does appear in secondary sources. The company have not done political opinion polling before, but they've been in the polling business for some years, and I didn't find any secondary source that challenges their reliability. I don't think there is anything in Wikipedia policy to justify excluding their polls from the table. Jrc14 (talk) 15:05, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Do you have any source to support their reliablity? I certainly can't find any such source and they are not members of the British Polling Council. - Galloglass 15:14, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Speedy Delete Not an reputable organisation, this company has never made an opinion poll for an election/referendum before. Their report contains very little data compared to the other companies regarding samples. weightings etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zurich gnome (talk • contribs) 16:35, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Strong keep. All of the reasons given for deletion are opinion only. The results were not self-published, and it is simply not true that there is "100% failure on notability" when the polls have been reported in USA Today. Nor are there any reliable secondary sources for being sceptical about reliability any more than there are for polls conducted by other companies. (I have read the article by Anthony Wells of the rival company YouGov, in which he says "As far as I can tell the poll was conducted by embedding survey questions in adverts on smartphone apps". Well first, he is not independent. Second, he only says that the use of that methodology is "as far as (he) can tell" - in other words, he is guessing. Third, it is not for us to edit this article according to our own opinions on whether or not that is a good or bad methodology. Are we supposed to read criticisms that polling companies have made of each other's methodologies on the basis of guessing and then go through polling results deciding which ones deserve on the basis of what rivals have said about them to be excluded from mention?)

For this reason, I have deleted the notes to the table entries for the Qriously polls that were sourced to what Anthony King of YouGov guessed about their methodology.

Last, of course there is no "original research" issue here. Be serious.Elephantwood (talk) 18:32, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

• "All of the reasons given for deletion are opinion only" – Your reason for deleting the link to Anthony Wells's blog was "opinion only". And it was just YOUR opinion, not even consensus. Links to blogs written by established experts in their fields are allowed under Wikipedia policy.
• "It is not for us to edit this article according to our own opinions on whether or not that is a good or bad methodology" – What was this all about then? And this? Did you mean to end that sentence with "except when I don't agree with them"... Firebrace (talk) 18:45, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

What you say about my reason for deleting the link to Anthony Wells's piece would be no counter-argument to what I said about the supposed reasons for deletion, even if true. Wells was writing explicitly on behalf of one of Qriously's competitors, and he was explicitly guessing about their methodology. You are not being serious.Elephantwood (talk) 11:03, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Weak Delete - It seems quite reasonable to delete it due to lack of WP:WEIGHT in common use as far as I can see, nor does it seem to have an influential part in the topic that needs to be mentioned, and they seem borderline on cite concerns for WP:SCHOLARSHIP, WP:RELIABLE, and WP:QUESTIONABLE. Seems like if the article includes them it could include a whole lot of other fringe surveys as well. On the other hand, the article text does convey that they are using an unusual method outside the BPC norms so it is not represented in the article as the same level of scholarship or reliability nor given much WEIGHT presence. Overall, seems a minor nit, worth cutting but not a big mess if it isn't. Markbassett (talk) 19:25, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Urgent delete The poll data from qriously must be removed from the main table as it does not meet Wikipedia’s standards of notifiable and non original research. The link provided to the information expressly warns against the accuracy of this data. How can you cite a source when the source itself is telling you this data is highly suspect. No one could ever objectively do this without compromising completely on Wikipedia standards. The cited source editor explicitly warns on 18/6/16 that this data “is a poll from a company called qriously, whom I have never previously heard of.” Furthermore, “the question is to what degree, if at all, the sampling method is capable of producing a representative sample, which we cannot really tell.”. Finally “I would treat these Friday figures with a lot of caution, it’s a method that is unproven in political polling”. This information comes from the cited source itself. and it is almost underhand to use a citation to add veracity to an article when the very gist of the article is to treat the data “with a lot of caution”. Beebuzbar (talk) 20:06, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Urgent delete Should be removed from the main table as it does not meet Wikipedia’s standards of notifiable and non original research. The link provided to the information expressly warns against the accuracy of this data. It's an internet straw-poll, but a company that isn't on the British polling council. ahershko (talk) 22:51, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment The solution to this seems abundantly clear from the Scots indyref page and has been pointed out by Firebrace - I'm almost certain they've probably had this same debate on that page at some point, I don't fancy digging back through their talk page. A new table, in a subsection, listing polling from other sources: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_Scottish_independence_referendum,_2014#Two_option_polling_by_other_organisations So my vote is now Keep, but re-section Jw2036 (talk) 20:11, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment For the reasons already stated above, if it's not removed it should, at the very least, be in a separate section (for companies that aren't part of the British Polling Council). ahershko (talk) 22:51, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Remove completely If I understand correctly, they embed the polls as adverts on websites. That makes this a self-selecting survey and... well, there's a reason they're called "self-selected listener opinion polls" or "SLOP". While Pew and Ashcroft aren't in the British Polling Council, they do use robust selection methodology as far as I'm aware, so I don't have a problem with including them. Smurrayinchester 06:59, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Delete: Sourcing for this seems much weaker than the other surveys available. The only source is the USA Today article and the methodology given there is insufficient. How many voters were approached in total? What was the response rate? How did Qriously reach those voters? What criteria were used to select the sample? Without answers to these questions the results aren't reliable. I would delete this until key elements of the methodology is available. Banedon (talk) 06:14, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Abstain: -I apologise for sitting on the fence in a survey (put me in the D/K column)- I think this speaks to a wider argument about how do you decide what is worthy of inclusion and what is not. As many have said there is no absolute line between a poll being appropriate or spurious. I would support the idea of having a set of criteria to determine if a poll should be included or not but I accept that this would be impossible to agree on. On the other hand I think we can't just include everything. In light of this I like the idea of a separate non-BPC table, but again I think this would make the trends more difficult to see. Perhaps another column in the main table to indicate BPC membership so that the reader could filter it out. Ultimately it's difficult to not see this page through our own political filters. I think what is important though is to include as much information about the nature of these polls as possible, i.e. who commissioned them, who did they ask, how did they ask them etc. so that the reader is best informed without bias. Mykums (talk) 15:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Don't keep in the main table. I'm OK with it being listed on the page away from the main table, as RS have reported it, but I think the main table of these pages in the UK should reserved for polls conducted by pollsters who either are members of BPC, or who have been invited to join BPC (and have not had that invitation withdrawn). Ashcroft was invited, btw. DrArsenal (talk) 19:50, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

I have just started Qriously, including something from them about "methodology". Expanding that article might help us to answer this RfC. Edwardx (talk) 15:22, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

The fact it's described as an 'ad-tech company' rings serious alarm bells regarding it's neutrality and reliability! Jw2036 (talk) 15:33, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

If it's true Qriously "serves up questions instead of banner ads on mobile devices and then retargets users with relevant ads" and that was how the polls were conducted then I don't think we should be entertaining them at all. Firebrace (talk) 16:08, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

The poll has been removed pending the outcome of this discussion - Galloglass 15:24, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Support this. It should be removed until a decision is made, or else it could corrupt the reliability of the info given. IMHO this page should be restricted to pollsters who are members of the British Polling Council who are the body representing and regulating the industry. Jw2036 (talk) 15:31, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

But now people who are new to the RfC can't see what we're talking about... Firebrace (talk) 15:36, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Not sure I agree with the Poll being removed while the RfC is active. Unless the material blatantly violates policy (and in this case it does not), it would be considered best practice to keep the material in the live version of the article, so users are clear as to the content of the RfC. Antiochus the Great (talk) 15:48, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Antiochus, this is not a real poll. This has been put together by an Ad Agency with people clicking on adds that appear to be polls. There is no weighting, no structure, no click limit to what's been produced. To even call it a poll is stretching credulity to its limits. - Galloglass 15:59, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Galloglass, It is a real poll and on the referenced site they do describe their sampling and weighting methodology. There could be weaknesses (I am not myself an expert on opinion polling ... but I don't think you are either). Since we have secondary sources that do refer to it as a poll, I don't think we can simply assert that it isn't one. - Jrc14 (talk) 16:10, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Jrc14, for a polling experts view on this poll can I suggest you go read Anthony Wells comments at Ukpollingreport [3]. you might note that not even he has heard of them. - Galloglass 16:28, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I've read that piece by Anthony Wells, speaking on behalf of Qriously's rivals YouGov, Galloglass, and you're over-egging the pudding. Even this guesser from their rival company calls it a poll and discusses the weightings, and you can also find out about their weighting methodology elsewhere. What do you mean that "there is no weighting" and "no structure" and that it stretches credulity to call their poll a poll? You sound as though next you'll be saying that everyone connected with Qriously should be considered to be an inanimate object, taken out and shot, and their body parts distributed for transplant.Elephantwood (talk) 18:53, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Elephantwood. are you suggesting they don't use Ads on smart phones as their source? I think if you check their own web site you will see they do indeed poll people this way. - Galloglass 19:02, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

The BPC don't regulate the "industry". What gave you the idea that they did? Companies that don't belong to the BPC are allowed to conduct polls without BPC "regulation". They don't represent the "industry" either - they only represent their own members. The BPC is a private association that companies can apply for membership of and can also be thrown out of. It has no official role. Polling companies do not have to belong to it or have anything to do with it. How many times does this point have to be made?Elephantwood (talk) 18:40, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

If we're going to restrict the page to pollsters who are members of the British Polling Council, we must be consistent about it. That would mean also removing, for example, poll results from Lord Ashcroft Polls. That would feel wrong, as that is a well respected polling organisation, albeit not a member of the British Polling Council. Jrc14 (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I reckon Firebrace's solution above of a separate table in the style of the Scots indyref page is the solution. The Ashcroft polls are in another subsection so can remain Jw2036 (talk) 15:40, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but I am not aware of any consensus that only pollsters who are members of the British Polling Council should be used in British related articles. It feels like an arbitrary reason to bury the poll elsewhere in the article (out of sight out of mind) or just delete it entirely. Antiochus the Great (talk) 15:53, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

You are aware that this is not a polling organision but an Ad Agency Antiochus? - Galloglass 16:02, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

If you read the latest version of Qriously, they are not what I would call an ad agency, and they do cite some sort of methodology. Edwardx (talk) 16:10, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Edwardx, would you describe them as a polling company? - Galloglass 16:12, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Galloglass - no, I would not. Personally, I doubt whether their methodology is as robust as those of the British Polling Council members. And the poll may be somewhat self-serving. Those last two sentences are WP:OR, of course. Nonetheless, Qriously have at least stated in broad terms what their methodology is. I think Firebrace's proposed solution represents a good way forward on this. Edwardx (talk) 16:19, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

They state the nature of their business as "market research and public opinion polling". [4] Firebrace (talk) 16:32, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

They conducted two polls which are notable because they were reported in a reliable secondary source. Any organisation that conducts a poll is a polling organisation. Galloglass, your opinion as to the robustness of their methodology is irrelevant. Aren't most polls self-serving insofar as polling is usually a private business activity and the company wants to predict results accurately because that way it can stand more chance of getting further contracts? Perhaps some polls are conducted in a deliberately biased way too, but your opinion on whether this or that poll may be biased is not relevant to the editing of this article. What is relevant is the reliable secondary source, the USA Today article.Elephantwood (talk) 18:59, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

This (Sunday) morning it's pretty clear that the mainstream UK media are not reporting the Qriously poll, which leads me to conclude that they aren't considering it to have the same level of reliability as the polls done by other organisations. At the same time, it does seem to me that it's relevant information, and does belong somewhere in the article. So I would like to follow Firebrace's solution that it be put in a separate table below the main one. We can't just call that a 'table of polls that we're not really convinced about', and so I think that we need to use a neutral criterion for deciding which polls to put there. 'Membership of BPC' is a verifiable and not unreasonable criterion to use for that, in my view. Jrc14 (talk) 09:17, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Why has my edit been undone? Please discuss changes beore you wish to edit my comments. I noticed the undo command was not used to do this, it would be a more up front way of dealing with it and we can discuss if this is vandalism or not. I am adding the following information back whilst the above issue remains in discussion. "Poll conducted using a novel method. Replaces in app banner adds with questions[24] Measures only those responding and "likely" to vote. Source cautions the figures." Beebuzbar (talk) 23:03, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2016

Please add recent Ipsos Mori poll: 53% leave, 47% remain, from Thursday 16th June: http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/brexit-poll-most-brits-do-want-to-leave-one-week-to-go-before-eu-referendum-vote-a3273141.html

80.6.242.105 (talk) 14:41, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Poll already included in article. Antiochus the Great (talk) 14:49, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done: The poll was actually done on 11-14 June, it was just published on 16 June. You'll find this on the article. st170e^talk 14:50, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

BMG Poll

The phone poll which shows Remain in the lead assumes that Don't Knows split 2:1 in favour of Remain. How? Why? (####) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coachtripfan (talk • contribs) 17:26, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOTFORUM. Firebrace (talk) 18:11, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

If you read the details of the methodology (see the link next to the polling firm's name) you will see that this is exactly what they've done. They build a cunning population model whose purpose was to predict which way people would jump, who had said they were going to vote but had not yet made up their mind. That, simply put, means that this BMG poll assumes that people declaring themselves as 'don't know' were actually apportioned 2:1 in favour of Remain. That is a significant methodological difference from every other poll in the table, as they all leave the 'don't knows' out of the total sum (which is equivalent to saying they split 1:1 between the two camps). I don't know whether BMG's methodology is right or not, but it's different from all the other polls in the table, so it seemed worthwhile to mention it in a side-note. Jrc14 (talk) 09:26, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2016

Financial Times' poll of polls is actually 43 vs 47 at the moment.

Kyle84UK (talk) 19:23, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done. Firebrace (talk) 19:32, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2016 - Missing Polls

We are missing several polls. Need to edit table to add them.

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/06/17/eu-referendum-remain-lead-one And http://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-polls-idUSKCN0Z40SC?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahershko (talk • contribs) 21:55, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done. We need more detail on the Survation poll. Firebrace (talk) 22:14, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

The Mail on Sunday have written up the Survation poll. Fieldwork 17-18 June, Sample size 1,001, conducted on telephone82.1.16.12 (talk) 06:58, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Surveymonkey poll, 15 June

UK Polling Report mention an NBC News/Surveymonkey poll. Remain 48%, Leave 48%, No Answer 4%, fieldwork 8-15 june, 3,533 sample size, conducted online.82.1.16.12 (talk) 06:45, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

That should go in the new non-BPC table Jw2036 (talk) 16:57, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

A non-BPC table is a terrible idea. The point of collating the polls is to reveal patterns.82.1.16.12 (talk) 20:11, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2016

The Economist’s “Brexit” poll-tracker is 44 Remain vs 43 Leave: http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/06/britain-s-eu-referendum

87.105.187.246 (talk) 14:30, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

•  Done ~ Rob^Talk 17:52, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

NatCen Poll

What do people think about including the NatCen poll in the FT today?

They don't do the same volume of polling as some of the big polling houses but it seems to be a solid poll. They also have an interesting polling methodology based on re-contacting people from the British Social Attitudes Survey either by phone or online.

Unfortunately the polling fieldwork is not recent (May 16th to June 12th), but I think it should be added to the table at the appropriate point.

Mykums (talk) 08:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi protected edit request- 21 jun 2016- ORB poll sample size

The sample size of the latest ORB poll is 800, not N/A: http://www.opinion.co.uk/perch/resources/orb-international-daily-telegraph-14th-june-tables.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.73.41.8 (talk) 10:51, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Nat Cen poll, uses wrong fieldwork dates

The wiki article currently says fieldwork was 16-19 June. It should be 16 May - 12 June.82.1.16.12 (talk) 10:54, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Also it mentions that NatCen poll was conducted by phone. In fact it used a combination of online and phone, and the result is the average (online part was 50/50, phone part was 55/45 to remain, published result was 53/47 to remain). You can verify this in the link above. Can you please ammend? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.240.212.3 (talk) 11:57, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Latest ORB poll should be stricken due to lack of information about sample size.

Latest ORB poll should be stricken due to lack of information about sample size. Highly unreliable numbers considering the firm did not offer the sample size. They could've polled the employees at their firm for all we know. It is not statistically relevant, and the large margin for Remain could be misleading this late in the game. Understanding that other ORB polls have been included, this one should not qualify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.198.3 (talk) 12:59, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

20 June Survation poll

Wiki currently lacks some details. Survation have put up article, 1,003 sample size, 11% undecided82.1.16.12 (talk) 13:13, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2016

THe Telepraph poll of polls is 50 : 50 - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/20/eu-referendum-poll-tracker-and-odds1/

87.105.187.246 (talk) 15:00, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Done st170e^talk 15:09, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

(Second) Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2016

The Britain Elects: EU Polls of Polls should be green, not red. 82.32.37.98 (talk) 19:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Done Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 19:35, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Europe Elects, Poll of Polls:

47.8% 45.2%

https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/745982153918394368 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.75.161.115 (talk) 17:42, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

22 June TNS poll - clarification note.

Might want to add this clarification from TNS to the note column: "Since our previous poll, the weighting has been changed and no longer controls for past vote by age and region (see Method note). For the previous poll, the headline figure presented was for likely voters whereas for this poll it consists of all registered voters. The voting intention figure for those likely to vote (based on a turnout model from the general election) is 49% Leave and 42% Remain."82.1.16.12 (talk) 17:30, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2016

Financial Time's poll of polls is 44 : 44 at the moment: https://ig.ft.com/sites/brexit-polling/

HuffPost Pollster poll of polls is at 45.2 : 45.6 : 0.3 at the moment: http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/uk-european-union-referendum

There's a new poll by SurveyMonkey: http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/SMBrexitTopline_6_21.pdf Remain 50% - Leave 47% - Undecided 3%. Please insert.

188.122.20.104 (talk) 17:51, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Partly done: I've performed the first two edits. The SurveyMonkey polls were removed from the page so I haven't added this onto the article. If there is a case for those polls to be readded, this ought to be included. st170e^talk 19:01, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Problems with Polling and Combining Polls

I notice in the article a comment about telephone sampling from an online market research company, which has a vested interest in discrediting telephone polls in general. Does that truly meet the NPOV of wikipedia? Internet surveys and polls are inappropriately given equal weight in several entries, and equal weight to selective summaries of other polls despite those being subject to multiple additional issues. See [[5]] for some more detailed discussion.

A few issues applicable here are polls lacking response that is actually comprehensive (in this case national), with low response rates (omits votes from less interested voters who decline to comment), the false equivalence between polls of vastly different sample sizes and using vastly different techniques for selection, the failure to adequately point out inconsistent questionnaire design (loaded questions, etc.) and more false equivalency, failure to identify inconsistent selection of voters to sample, and vested interests in pollsters that influence responses that they receive (web polls embedded in an opinion site, etc).

Overall the data quality of the information on this page is horrible; it has no credibility and not only risks distorting presentation but risks distorting opinion itself through repetition by other media outlets. There needs to be a full dissection of all data from every poll as soon as possible. Militärwissenschaften (talk) 21:37, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't contravene WP:NPOV to have a comment from one side, as long as it is attributed correctly and not stated as fact. If you don't think it is balanced, then feel free to add in more comments from the other side. In terms of the data quality, could you clarify a bit more what you mean? What is it you think is missing? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 22:12, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

BBC Great Debate

Previously it was listed, now it is removed. It was certainly large and important as were the sky and itv ones, why is it no longer on here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.123.122 (talk) 00:21, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2016

Tha huff post's poll of polls is now 45.4% for Remain, 45.5% for Leave, 9.1% for DK :http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/uk-european-union-referendum Please update.

188.122.20.104 (talk) 04:04, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Already done st170e^talk 13:14, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2016

There is a new poll by Ipsos MORI: Remain 52% vs Leave 48% Sample: 1,592 http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/brexit-poll-remain-secure-narrow-lead-in-final-eu-referendum-poll-a3278996.html 87.105.187.246 (talk) 10:27, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Already done st170e^talk 18:36, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2016

Financial Times poll of polls is at 48 Remain - 46 Leave https://ig.ft.com/sites/brexit-polling/

87.105.187.246 (talk) 10:39, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Done st170e^talk 13:15, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2016

According to FT the latest YouGov poll is 51 Remain vs 49 Leave - https://ig.ft.com/sites/brexit-polling/. The independent reports the same results: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-poll-final-brexit-comres-yougov-opinium-tns-survey-remain-leave-live-result-a7096316.html

87.105.187.246 (talk) 10:43, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Already done Someone already entered the poll but they entered it incorrectly. I've now fixed it. st170e^talk 18:34, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2016

A new poll by Populus Remain 55% vs Leave 45% http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-poll-brexit-remain-vote-leave-live-latest-who-will-win-results-populus-a7097261.html

87.105.187.246 (talk) 11:14, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Already done st170e^talk 13:14, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2016

Huff post poll of polls has been updated. It's 45.8 Remain to 45.3 Leave at the moment http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/uk-european-union-referendum

188.146.67.80 (talk) 17:24, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Done st170e^talk 18:22, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Polling methods

I think it'd be of interest to insert the following link, where the HuffPo polling editor analyses poll performance by methodology, concluding that online polls this time did somewhat better than phone polls (online polls predicted LEAVE by ~1% whereas phone ones did REMAIN by around 3%): http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/brexit-polls-missed_us_576cb63fe4b017b379f58610?spq458lpjb6zdunmi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:7F7:DB80:E02A:0:0:0:2 (talk) 23:51, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Post referendum polls?

Is it appropriate to include post referendum polls in this article too? I would be interested (at least) in them... Tom W (talk) 17:08, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes I would say so. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 17:23, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I concur. Could anyone add them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.7.171.85 (talk) 02:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

If you can add a link to them on this talk page, then I will add them. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 13:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

One here [6] --2A00:23C4:D084:3E00:5966:110:21A4:5C17 (talk) 17:32, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I have added a few polls. There are more YouGov polls dating back closer to June, if someone else could add them, that would be helpful. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 18:15, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I arrived here looking for an authoritative list of post referendum polls to check discussions which to put it kindly would not meet Wiki editorial standards :) Do you have any feel for how complete this list is? I take it you have decided not to look at polls which ask related questions (e.g. how well is the government doing? Bob Wikicont (talk) 19:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

If you know of any other polls about whether people think Brexit was a good idea, then feel free to add them. I don't understand why you think we should look at polls about non-Brexit questions. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 21:25, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry ultra Wiki newbie - OK will do if I track down one not listed. My basic problem is with people who say things like "a recent poll said ...".

Didn't quite finish the sentence :( (e.g. how well is the government doing about implementing Brexit) some will use the answer as if it implied support (or not) for Brexit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob Wikicont (talk • contribs) 23:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

No problem, I think we have got them all but happy to be corrected. I think the problem with those other polls is that they tend to be worded differently, which often produces different results. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 07:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 05:31, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Remain/Leave Colours to Yellow/Blue?

I know we've had this debate before, about whether using green/red in tables is biased, but we couldn't come to a consensus - but it seemed to me, watching the results, that BBC and Sky, at least, agreed on Remain being Yellow and Leave being Blue, and that the main Wiki page for the referendum adopted this as well. Should this page adopt it too? Chuborno (talk) 03:18, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Remain is a Yes to the EU, and Leave is red, for no. Colours are fine.--143.159.32.60 (talk) 14:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Clearly the choice of colours are biased. For approval ratings of politicians, positive ratings are green (good) and red for negative (bad). It should be green and blue or blue and yellow. TheVagician (talk) 15:05, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Red/Green colour distinctions create an accessibility issue because a significant percentage of people suffer from Red/Green colour blindness. It's an issue that persistently gets overlooked, but for this reason alone the colours should be changed. There's already guidance on this at the following page: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Category:Articles_with_images_not_understandable_by_color_blind_users — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.239.63.81 (talk) 22:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I have already changed the colours for the post-referendum polls with a Remain option to yellow and blue. This is especially useful for the Remain/Deal/No deal table (where red and green can be associated with accepting or rejecting the deal). I would like to see the remaining tables with Leave and Remain options coloured yellow and blue, as well as this graph.--AlphaMikeOmega (talk) 17:33, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Bear in mind that yellow and blue are not politically neutral colours either. Both colours have long standing party associations in British culture. Blue is identified with the strongly pro leave Conservative government and yellow with the even more strongly pro remain LibDems, yellow is also identified with the pro remain Scottish Nationalists. Globbet (talk) 12:25, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Additions to 'On the possible withdrawal of other countries'

I have identified two potential additions for this section.

1: EenVandaag Opiniepanel (Netherlands)

http://opiniepanel.eenvandaag.nl/uitslagen/67763/meerderheid_voor_referendum_over_eu_lidmaatschap

A public television current affairs/politics program in the Netherlands (EenVandaag) has an in-house pollster (EenVandaag Opiniepanel) which is used to gauge people's party-political preference as well as their opinion on current affairs. It is one of the largest pollsters in the Netherlands.

Between June 10 and June 20, 2016, this pollster conducted a poll with a total of 27,000 respondents, weighted for age, sex, level of education, marital status, geographical spread and political preference (how they voted in the 2012 parliamentary election, not their current voting intentions). The poll was published on June 20, to coincide with a public television special on the upcoming Brexit referendum and its political implications (including for this country). The outcome of the poll was that a majority (54%) would like a referendum on European Union membership, and that if it was an in-out referendum like in the United Kingdom, 48% would favour leaving while 45% would favour remaining, with the rest being undecided.

2: Ipsos MORI (several European Union member states)

https://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Polls/ipsos-brexit-poll-2016-charts.pdf

This particular poll was published on May 9, 2016 and used existing Ipsos MORI online interviewing methods (with a sample size of between 500 and >1000 per country for nine European Union member states).

One question asked was: "how would you vote if your country held such a referendum now?" The results can be found on page 8 of the above pdf link. Support for leaving the European Union varies from 22% in Poland, to 26% in Spain, to 29% in Hungary and Belgium, to 34% in Germany, to 39% in Sweden, to 41% in France, to 48% in Italy (making Italy a joint first of continental European Union member states in terms of 'hard' euroscepticism).

Ipsos also asked respondents what they believed the long-term policy of their country should be. In the European Union member states surveyed, 39% wanted "more Europe", 18% wanted "[the] same", and 43% wanted "less Europe". Support for "more Europe" was highest in Belgium and Spain, while support for "less Europe" was highest in Sweden, Great Britain and France.

Should these be added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CatoMar (talk • contribs) 00:10, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

"Post–referendum polling" table and the one at Brexit § Post-referendum opinion polling

Recently User:Absolutelypuremilk replaced the table in this article with a copy of the one in Brexit. I think it might make the articles easier to maintain if the table was in a template, which could then be included in both articles. What do people think? --BurritoBazooka ^Talk Contribs 11:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes that would be brilliant if you could figure out how to do that! Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 11:30, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@Absolutelypuremilk: Okay, done :) The table is now transcluded from Brexit/Post-referendum opinion polling --BurritoBazooka ^Talk Contribs 20:37, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merge with United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016

There is overlap of these articles content. I therefore propose a merge as per WP:OVERLAP Oddbodz - (Talk) (Contribs) 10:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with this proposed change, I think there is enough content in this article to maintain it separately. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 13:06, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

(ec) What overlap? One has opinion polls, the other doesn't. Rami R 13:07, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

The other page makes mention of opinion polls. It would be more appropriate to include this information within that article (as is commonly done with other elections and referendums articles) rather than dedicating an entire article just to the opinion polling, despite the opinion polling in itself not being particularly notable. Oddbodz - (Talk) (Contribs) 23:47, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Having a dedicated page for opinion polls is standard practice:

• Opinion polling for the United Kingdom general election, 2017
• Opinion polling for the United Kingdom general election, 2015
• Opinion polling for the United Kingdom general election, 2010
• Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2016
• Statewide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2016
• Opinion polling for the French presidential election, 2017
• Opinion polling for the French presidential election, 2012
• Opinion polling for the Italian constitutional referendum, 2016

Just to name a few. Rami R 05:26, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Oppose as this page has its uses (2A02:C7F:5621:2A00:14B0:CB75:173F:79AD (talk) 19:15, 28 April 2017 (UTC))

Oppose: this is a classic example of suitability of a "Main article" link. The polls are highly notable: following them amounted to a national obsession (I was reading the British press). Wikiain (talk) 00:20, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Oppose per Wikiain. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:39, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Oppose: per above. Additionally due to length of polling article. Clyde1998 (talk) 16:49, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Oppose: As pointed above, pages on polls are a common practice, plus merging would produce a very long article. No overlapping as one page contains polls while the other doesn't. Sam10rc (talk) 15:04, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Oppose: Merge would destroy notable info. Main article link makes more sense.2600:8801:0:1530:45ED:CA1:98D9:FC93 (talk) 03:43, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Opinion polling for the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum. 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://webcache.googleusercontent.com/searchN/Aq=cache:0PZn8xa9J0IJ:www.icmunlimited.com/media-centre/media-center/eu-referendum-introducing-turnout-weighting+&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk with https://web.archive.org/web/20160405160055/http://www.icmunlimited.com/media-centre/media-center/eu-referendum-introducing-turnout-weighting on http://www.icmunlimited.com/media-centre/media-center/eu-referendum-introducing-turnout-weighting
• Replaced archive link http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/searchN/Aq=cache:H2yQ0WpDf9YJ:www.icmunlimited.com/media-centre/media-center/eu-referendum-tracker-18+&cd=9&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk with https://web.archive.org/web/20160324145755/http://www.icmunlimited.com/media-centre/media-center/eu-referendum-tracker-18 on http://www.icmunlimited.com/media-centre/media-center/eu-referendum-tracker-18

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:37, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Colour blindness accessibility issue

I see above that the discussion about the colours for Remain/Leave has been quite heated, but there really is a fundamental accessibility issue here with the colours that have been chosen to represent Remain and Leave in the tables. A significant percentage of people (myself included) suffer from Red/Green colour blindness and choosing these two particular colours makes the tables difficult to read. The debate about what colours are neutral politically is one thing, but it really is unacceptable to have Red/Green colour distinctions in articles. See https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Category:Articles_with_images_not_understandable_by_color_blind_users (talk) 22:06, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I've added this to the appropriate maintenance category so that it can hopefully be changed. I think this issue has been completely overlooked in the above discussion and there really needs to be a solution provided. The debate about political bias should not be used as a reason to keep this colour format as it's a real accessibility issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.239.63.81 (talk) 22:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I have started the progress of changing the colour formats from the current green/red format to the yellow/blue format that was used during the referendum itself but I am in significant need of assistance as there are some things which I do not know how to do but I am making a start. (2A02:C7F:5621:2A00:A183:8EE5:7691:E28D (talk) 14:22, 30 November 2017 (UTC))

New yellow/blue colours?

Could we change the colours used in this article from the current green/red colours to the yellow/blue colours that are used in all other EU referendum related articles as it seems to be somewhat out of step currently and needs a overhaul. (2A02:C7F:5621:2A00:955:C9E2:D4FD:4319 (talk) 11:10, 3 December 2017 (UTC))

I really like this idea, why hasn’t this even been discussed properly as cueerntly the article is out of step with other related articles when it comes to its colours. Please can someone do something about this? (2A02:C7F:5621:2A00:D907:1ACA:96E5:F3C4 (talk) 21:48, 8 December 2017 (UTC))

Are all polls included in the tables?

I've noticed quite a lot of polls over the past month and all aren't as favourable to Remain or a 2nd referendum. but these seem to be omitted, what criteria is used for inclusion here? For example, Kantar, whose latest poll puts support for Remain at 52%, down a point on last month, with Leave on 48%. Also ComRes who asked asked whether there should be a ‘referendum’ in which it was made clear that the choices would be remaining in the EU or leaving the EU, the 40% who said they were in favour were outnumbered by the 50% who were against. I think there are others such as Deltapoll, although it seems they were using a Condorcet method --Andromedean (talk) 11:49, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Suggest to delete page. Data too old to be useful.

Suggest to delete page. Data too old to be useful. Ocdcntx 21:12, 4 February 2019‎

Oppose because it indicates how opinion was moving preceding and during the campaign. And also the polling error because the pollsters missed the "never voters" that the leave campaign managed to reach through social media. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:41, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Oppose. Data does not cease to be useful because it's old. It will always be useful, if only to historians. Harumphy (talk) 10:56, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Oppose. As per above. Moreover, the article still gets 500 visits a day (182,000 a year). T8612 (talk) 11:25, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Oppose. Strawman time. That's like saying delete Alexander the Great because the data in it is too old to be useful. It's historic data. No-one is trying to use it to predict anything today. See History. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:44, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Oppose. ... But please, will someone update data and charts? Good info now, much better info once updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.190.132.77 (talk) 23:17, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Needs update

The near-three years since the data shown have shown a continued shift.

The article and especially the polls and charts, should be updated to reflect the new polling data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.190.132.77 (talk) 23:13, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Article is misleading and outdated in nature

Post-referendum polling questions have shifted into different political language and have become very intricate, with several scenarios and options all being asked. Market research/data firms are now asking the public questions with several outcomes that reflect the current ongoing political debate regarding what type of EU withdrawal/Brexit the UK should pursue. Deal, no-deal, managed no-deal, renegotiate, long extension, Article 50 withdrawal, confirmatory referendum - There are so many outcomes and this is now being reflected in new polls.

Simply listing Remain/Leave polls does not paint the full picture and is fundamentally misleading; obscuring the rest of the data. For example, a recent YouGov poll which favours the UK leaving the EU without a deal than withdrawing Article 50 and remaining by 44%-42% cannot be placed anywhere on this article because there is no section for such a poll. Instead visitors are made to believe that British public opinion is shifting away from leaving the EU when several polls I've witnessed are giving a different, more accurate view. The public also give different answers to scenarios depending on the complex outcomes of ongoing government negotiations, and recently, leaving the EU without a deal is the most popular option. This polling data is not represented here.

This article purely chooses to highlight highly generalized polling questions that do not give a complete, accurate view of post-referendum polling and the current political climate. It's structurally outdated in its design and political language, because the debate has shifted dramatically from a simple Remain/Leave question, and market research/data firms have acknowledged this.

To summarize, the generalized polls listed in this article give a biased view against Brexit, and withholds information which gives a more accurate, telling picture regarding the British public's opinions since the 2016 referendum. As such, I recommend a complete restructuring of this article or its deletion entirely, to combat its misleading content.Noah-x3 (talk) 01:47, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I second that. Zezen (talk) 08:34, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for making these points. The example poll you provide could be added to the Three-options table if its row is greyed out and the unrealised scenario is described in the notes and the NotAVote notetag is used. Alternatively, the "several polls [you've] witnessed" could be entered into their own new table if they ask more or less the same question as each other: tables like that on the United Kingdom rejoining the EU have already set this precedent of including short tables on hypothetical scenarios in this article, so it wouldn't be particularly bold to add them.

Of course, the biggest obstacle to our adding the "several polls [you've] witnessed" and polls suggesting that "leaving the EU without a deal is the most popular option" is that nobody has both (a) encountered these polls and (b) added them to the article. Please could you either add them to the refideas list at the start of this talk page or, even better, add them directly to the article? Thanks.—AlphaMikeOmega (talk) 16:22, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

References

Proposal to split post-referendum polling into a separate article

So this article has become very long and- as been mentioned in previous discussions above- the post-referendum polling does not reflect the breadth of research into public opinions. I propose that the post-referendum polling could be split into a new article Post-referendum opinion polling for United Kingdom membership of the European Union. All opinion polling on the subject after the referendum and during the negotiations could be on one article, perhaps some time in the future opinion polling on Europe after that could belong on another. Jonjonjohny (talk) 13:44, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm in favour. I just tried reading it and the first paragraph, analysis, said white voters were evenly split between remain/leave and all other ethnic groups leaned towards remain. I thought this obviously couldn't be true otherwise remain would have won. I then realised this was for the pre-referendum polls. If the analysis and perspective is up to but not including actual analysis of the referendum result, never mind post-referendum, the article shouldn't continue as is as it's misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.39.19 (talk) 22:45, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Support — This polling now takes up about half the article, and the amount of post-referendum content is only set to increase as well. Not much of it (or perhaps none of it) is strictly "Opinion polling for the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum", instead being polling more relevant to hypothetical referenda. Should a referendum on the Brexit withdrawal agreement become more than just a proposal, we can move the article to Opinion polling for the referendum on the Brexit withdrawal agreement (or equivalent).—AlphaMikeOmega (talk) 00:46, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for responding already. It doesn't seem to have gained a lot of response so I put a split template. if there is no further discussion then I will just do it. However I'm torn whether to split it into a Post-referendum opinion polling for United Kingdom membership of the European Union article or Opinion polling for United Kingdom's membership of the European Union Jonjonjohny (talk) 14:21, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I can't think of a very good title. The second you suggest doesn't make it clear that only polling from after the 2016 referendum will be featured there, and the first might still be a bit too vague considering the 1975 referendum. For now, I would copy the style of the articles that have ([year]–present) in their titles (e.g. List of United Kingdom by-elections (2010–present)) and go with something like Opinion polling on the United Kingdom's membership of the European Union (2016–present), which is long but fairly precise (if you put in the article's lead something like this:)

This article is about polling after the 2016 referendum. For polling done before the referendum, see Opinion polling for the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum.

—AlphaMikeOmega (talk) 18:52, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I like your title idea. I think we should do that. My idea with the second name, like with the article about opinion polling for Scottish independence is that it links to other relevant articles and acts as a hub point. It would include Euro polling prior to 2010 and after all of this (hopefully) stops being a massive discussion. I think we should move it to your idea for now. Will do it soon. Jonjonjohny (talk) 11:44, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Moving polls

I've created a new page Opinion polling on the United Kingdom's membership of the European Union which is a main page for any EU polling before and after this referendum. I was going to move all of the polls of EU membership from 2010-2014 across as they don‘t bare a direct relevance. Is this noncontroversial? Jonjonjohny (talk) 05:36, 26 May 2020 (UTC)