Cannabis Ruderalis

Template:BLP noticeboard



Polls

An editor objects to some of the poll content, so I'm opening this section to discuss it.- MrX 14:07, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There will be literally hundreds of polls in the next 18 months - and the question is what weight we give to the earliest "crystal ball polls" at this point where keeping up with all of them would result in 80% of this BLP being polls. I suggest that the current polls are not of significant biographical value, nor of any sufficient long-term encyclopedic value for Wikipedia, and that including them all becomes an exercise in making Wikipedia into a newspaper and not an encyclopedia whose articles will be read a century from now. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think including a current set of poll results is fine. We can add more later and then remove the ones that no longer matter. People looking for information on Rubio might well want to know about this issue, and the value of Wikipedia in this respect is that we can include it now without having it become a permanent element -- i.e., again, we can update and replace as necessary. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:02, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, we should only include a few of the more notable polls. This type of information is encyclopedic, at least leading up to the 2016 election. I would agree that in 100 years these polls would be trivia, but I don't view Wikipedia content as static, so the poll summaries serve our readers now. - MrX 15:08, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In short - use Wikipedia as a newspaper and not as an encyclopedia. I demur - I feel we should produce actual encyclopedia articles and not be People Magazine or the like. Clearly your mileage varies but I feel if we know the polls are crystal ball gazing exercises, and we include them, we should also include Sydney Omarr's forecasts about the future. Collect (talk) 15:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe survey results are typically included in BLP's for politicians. Otherwise who decides which polls should be included? There will be literally thousands of polls conducted prior to the 2016 elections. Also I'm not sure why polling in NH should be emphasized. I believe survey results would be more appropriate in an article on the 2016 presidential nomination process.CFredkin (talk) 00:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From late 2012 to mid-2013, Rubio came in first in eight consecutive national polls among potential 2016 candidates, from such sources as Public Policy Polling, Harper Polling, Quinnipiac University, and Farleigh Dickinson University.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] A poll from the WMUR/University, tracking New Hampshire Republican primary voters' sentiment, showed Rubio at the top alongside Kentucky senator Rand Paul later in 2013, but as of April 18, 2014 he had dropped to 10th place behind other Republican contenders. The poll, however, also suggests that Rubio is not disliked by the primary voters, which could be positive for him if other candidates choose not to run.[9][10] In statewide polls, he has performed most prominently in his home state of Florida, alongside Jeb Bush,[11][12][13][14][15] and has also performed fairly well in Suffolk University polls in such states as Colorado, Michigan, and Minnesota.[16][17][18]

Refs

Leave a Reply