Talk:Opinion polling for the 2024 Austrian legislative election/Archive 1

Archive 1

Gazette

Should we include them? Braganza (talk) 10:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Polling firm	Fieldwork date	Sample size	Method	ÖVP	SPÖ	FPÖ	Grüne	NEOS	Others	Lead
Gazette Oesterreich	27–30 Sep 2021	3,250	Online	28.74	22.42	18.89	8.13	11.82	MFG 4.52 KPÖ 2.51 Others 2.08	6.52
Gazette Oesterreich	20–23 Sep 2021	3,250	Online	28.95	22.87	22.60	7.22	12.24	6.12	6.08
Gazette Oesterreich	13–16 Sep 2021	2,890	Online	28.93	22.85	22.58	7.19	12.47	5.99	6.08
Gazette Oesterreich	6–9 Sep 2021	2,960	Online	28.26	22.40	22.18	7.25	12.28	7.64	5.86
Gazette Oesterreich	30 Aug–2 Sep 2021	2,950	Online	28.08	22.44	22.14	7.07	12.02	8.25	5.64
Gazette Oesterreich	23-26 Aug 2021	2,900	Online	28.08	22.44	22.14	7.07	12.02	8.25	5.64
Gazette Oesterreich	16–19 Aug 2021	2,950	Online	28.05	22.47	22.08	7.13	12.06	8.21	5.58
Gazette Oesterreich	9–12 Aug 2021	2,900	Online	28.13	22.48	22.00	7.07	12.11	8.07	5.65
Gazette Oesterreich	2–8 Aug 2021	2,950	Online	27.96	22.39	22.00	7.09	12.14	8.43	5.57
Gazette Oesterreich	25–29 Jul 2021	3,000	Online	27.92	22.39	21.95	7.00	12.23	8.51	5.53
Gazette Oesterreich	11–15 Jul 2021	2,950	Online	27.91	22.24	21.90	7.10	12.05	8.52	5.67
Gazette Oesterreich	4–8 Jul 2021	2,850	Online	28.03	23.02	21.85	6.99	12.05	8.06	5.01
Gazette Oesterreich	28 Jun–1 Jul 2021	2,650	Online	28.13	23.01	21.79	7.12	11.90	8.04	5.12
Gazette Oesterreich	21–24 Jun 2021	2,900	Online	27.89	22.38	21.31	7.07	11.85	9.51	5.61
Gazette Oesterreich	13–17 Jun 2021	2,900	Online	27.38	22.41	20.98	7.55	11.92	9.76	2.97
Gazette Oesterreich	7–10 Jun 2021	2,850	Online	27.09	22.35	21.08	7.51	12.11	9.86	4.74
Gazette Oesterreich	31 May–3 Jun 2021	2,800	Online	27.69	22.36	20.96	7.69	11.92	9.38	5.33
Gazette Oesterreich	25–27 May 2021	2,700	Online	28.16	22.49	21.14	7.61	11.89	8.71	5.57
Gazette Oesterreich	17–20 May 2021	3,000	Online	28.13	22.37	21.21	7.50	12.19	8.62	5.76
Gazette Oesterreich	10–15 May 2021	2,800	Online	26.93	23.47	22.22	7.91	12.26	7.56	3.36
Gazette Oesterreich	2–6 May 2021	3,000	Online	28.25	22.48	20.83	8.93	12.09	7.43	5.83
Gazette Oesterreich	26–29 April 2021	3,000	Online	28.89	22.40	20.40	8.84	12.18	7.69	6.49

It is an online poll with no statistical data on whether participants are weighted to reflect actual population. I think that hasn’t got the necessary quality. Great work though of putting that all together --FantinoFalco (talk) 10:21, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

No, not include. It is no opinion poll, it’s a poll aggregator. --The Pollster (talk) 04:11, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Corruption/faking investigations: Should "Research Affairs" polls for Ö24/Österreich newspaper be removed from the article ? Or remain there with a warning sign ?

Research Affairs polls for the tabloid newspaper "Österreich" or "Ö24" have been part of an ongoing criminal investigation here in Austria, because the state prosecution says they were bought by Kurz and some of his aides and manipulated in their favour to paint his predecessor Mitterlehner in a bad light so he would ressign (which he did, and Kurz succeeded him). Later, RA faked the numbers to make the new turquoise ÖVP under Kurz get higher polling numbers than other established pollsters showed at the time. Today, RA's founder Sabine Beinschab, was arrested by police after text messages showed her printing fake bills for her fake polls and she also deleted her computer hard disk and company server during the last week (https://www.politico.eu/article/austrian-pollster-linked-to-corruption-probe-was-arrested/). So, should all RA polls be deleted as a result or should they remain because of archive purposes ? Or should they be "hidden" with a collapsed section below the main polls ? For example, the updated poll section should only start after the text where it says on October 9 that Kurz resigned ? --The Pollster (talk) 15:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I would say keep them (for now at least) with a disclaimer noting these events. After all, the published information as of now pertains to a specific number of polls previous to Kurz's rise to power back in 2016/2017, and this does not automatically invalidate all and any opinion polls published by them (specially considering their results, at least since the 2019 election, are not dissimilar to those offered by other pollsters). Impru20^talk 15:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Maybe, but I think they should at least be removed from the main poll table and hidden in a collapsed new table somewhere at the bottom where nobody can find them quickly. After all, their boss got arrested for faking the numbers today. These polls have no place in visible charts. --The Pollster (talk) 16:10, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

But again, that would be assuming something that, as of yet, is not supported by sources; the criminal probe revolves on a number of polls from the 2016/2017 period, not those listed in this article. We should pursue a due balance between giving full credibility to a pollster that is currently under investigation (note this, since there is no judicial ruling as of yet that condemns it for any crime) and outrightly removing everything that has to do with such pollster. For now, I think a disclaimer on the pollster's current situation is enough. Depending on the situation's evolution, and if the probe extends into the polls shown in this article, we may decide how to act on them directly. Impru20^talk 16:33, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Horrible state of article

A few users unfortunately seem to misunderstand what WP is and have taken to adding personal opinions in the form of disclaimers as well as removing old polls. That is ediatoralising, and it's quite simply not allowed here. There was no consensus to remove older polls, and they neeed to reinstated. A sourced discussion of the problems with these older polls both could and should be included, but all users should realise WP is for reporting what sources say, not to make personal commentary. Jeppiz (talk) 23:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

This is true. There is simply no consensus for the edits conducted here. Impru20^talk 23:55, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I modernized the article because of a spam of old, corrupted Research Affairs polls. You guys have no clue of the current political situation in Austria and should be more concerned about your own countries. Impru, go back to editing your Spanish articles and leave this article alone ! This article will remain as I edited, because it is up to date and corrupt old RA results are still shown under collapsed old polls. --The Pollster (talk) 04:57, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Jeppiz, please go back to Sweden and mind your business there. Instead of this article. I have modernized the article to reflect current events and put old fake polls under the collapsed old poll section, because these polls are fake and shouldn’t even be there in the first place. But I was willing under a compromise not to delete them, but leave them in under a hidden scenario. So that readers are not impacted by these fake polls. The source you described is in the Kurz corruption investigation link in the quality criteria. It says that Research Affairs polls are fake. Why do you keep insisting these fake polls remain in there for everyone to see ? We are also not posting fake news in other articles ... So, once again impru and jeppiz, go back to your own countries and articles and mind your own business and let me do the job here. --The Pollster (talk) 05:07, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Besides, the article looked horrible BEFORE, but now it looks decent and modernized. Thanks to my edits and updates. --The Pollster (talk) 05:12, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, it's clear you don't have a consensus for your edits. Secondly, this response, coupled with your response to Jeppiz of "please go back to Sweden and mind your business there" is disruptive and tendentious and would probably warrant further inquiry in the appropiate venues should this behaviour persists. It's obvious that what you did to the article is a "modernization" only in your view, with others not having this opinion and thinking instead that what you did was horrible. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and you should be intended to work collaboratively when issues like these arise instead of pretending to impose your will in a WP:OWN-manner and then insult those who don't agree with you. I'm sincerely looking forward to a much calmer demeanor from your part in the next reply and to please stop implementing your edits until there is a consensus for these. Impru20^talk 09:40, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

There are not many people editing this page. It’s mostly me (who does the most in making this look modern, while a few others only added the fraudulent RA polls in the past. Then there are you 2 (impru and jeppiz) who only serve as querulants and who do nothing to contribute to this article and only come once a year to complain, without actually being from Austria or knowing anything about the corruption investigation or the political situation here. My version is correct and hopefully a few other members come here to say so. But there are not many because it is English Wikipedia. --The Pollster (talk) 12:25, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I have brought the issue to WP:ANI, where hopefully you will be able to explain the raised behavioural concerns. At this point, it is not possible to collaboratively work with you and I won't be engaging a person who is basically attempting to thwart one of Wikipedia's five pillars. Cheers. Impru20^talk 12:41, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Ok, so as the current state of things at ANI is, it's clear TP's behaviour was way over the top here. Further, considering that his version of the article is only supported by him, I am again restoring the version previous to his edits (albeit with the minor tweaks commented here) under WP:BRD: he was bold, got disagreed with, now the onus is on him to discuss and seek a consensus, which he is strongly encouraged to do with respect and civility. Impru20^talk 16:13, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Discussion about restoring my updated, modern version of this page

Take a look here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Opinion_polling_for_the_next_Austrian_legislative_election&oldid=1054006294

I think it should be restored, because it reflects the current political situation in Austria best and as a compromise also includes the faked Research Affairs polls, but hidden in the collapsed sections. The reverts of impru make no sense and legitimize corruption and fake polling, when it shouldn’t.

Also, imprus reverting also removed a chart I added, which shows the historical regular polling developments, not just the alternative polling with MFG (who is not represented in parliament yet).

Alone for this reason, the current version is bad and must be changed back to my version ...

Who agrees ?

Support

--The Pollster (talk) 17:43, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

The Pollster can you clarify the following:

1. There are two sources cited in the section where you want to refer to “fake” polls. (Btw, that language is nor encyclopedic - “falsified” would be more appropriate.) One makes no reference to them, the other refers to Sabine B., not Research Affairs, being accused of faking polls. What’s Sabine B.’s relationship to Research Affairs? You’ll need to provide a source that specifically references Research Affairs.
2. The source appears to me to be saying it’s an accusation only. Is that correct? The text you want to use implies greater certainty.
3. Are you saying that the Research Affairs polls that in the article are the ones falsified? Can you provide a source for that?

DeCausa (talk) 18:37, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

DerCausa: Sabine B(einschab) is the owner of Research Affairs, who was arrested by criminal police and questioned for hours and then confessed to faking the polls during her interrogation. She will serve as a crown witness in the trial later against ex-Chancellor Kurz. So far, these are accusations, but since she has confessed to wrongdoing and faking her polls for Kurz, it’s an almost certainty that this faking has been done by her to improve Kurzs position. The trial will start only in years to come though, as stuff like this takes very long here. Research Affairs polls have been manipulated from 2016 at the start of Kurzs political rise until his collapse as chancellor. --The Pollster (talk) 19:23, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Then on the “faking” it aspect you need to find a better source to support your edit that specifically refers to Research Affairs (not Sabine B) “faking” the polls and the source also needs to reference the polls used in this article. Otherwise, you will be infringing WP:SYNTH. Also, you need to change the language you want to use to make it both encyclopedic and also making it clear it’s not proven. That may not be good enough to make the allegation as there may be still be WP:BLPCRIME issues (Sabine B) which will need to be considered in light of the sources. I make no comment on the rest of your proposed edit. DeCausa (talk) 19:34, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

What are you talking about ? Research Affairs = Sabine Beinschab. It’s (or was) a one-woman company. She owns the company and made the polls herself (which in itself is pretty bizarre when you think of it in hindsight). --The Pollster (talk) 20:30, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I’m afraid you saying that isn’t good enough for Wikipedia - it amounts to original research. To consider what you want to say we need a reliable source specifically saying Research Affairs falsified the polls. Can you provide that? DeCausa (talk) 20:36, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Look here: "Vor Ermittlern der Wirtschafts- und Korruptionsstaatsanwaltschaft (WKStA) räumte Sabine Beinschab detailreich die mutmaßliche Manipulation von Umfragen bzw. ihre Tatbeteiligung daran ein." (Before investigators from the Economic and Corruption Prosecutor's Office (WKStA), Sabine Beinschab admitted in great detail the alleged manipulation of surveys or her involvement in them.") - https://www.krone.at/2549470 She has confessed to faking the polls. There is also the act from the prosecution which I posted on the admin discussion page, detailing her conviction for fraud and corruption. These 2 sources, the convict act and her confession during interrogation is enough to restore my version. --The Pollster (talk) 04:50, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

No, I don’t think so. Firstly, your version doesn’t contain those sources so you would need to revise it to include them. In the source you link to, it doesn’t refer to the Research Affair polls. It’s unclear which, if any of the polls in this article, are affected. Thirdly, even with that sorted out the changing of the format by collapsing the polls including Research Affairs polls, makes little sense. Either they should be in the article or not. What is collapsing them supposed to signify - that deosn’t seem to comply with MOS:COLLAPSE. DeCausa (talk) 08:19, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

From all I've seen, there is no concrete evidence that any specific poll in this article has been manipulated. The accusations refer to polls in 2017. Surely, if properly supported with reliable sources, this could be pointed out, but hiding all polls older than a few weeks just to half-heartedly censor the data doesn't make sense to me. --Gbuvn (talk) 08:53, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

She has confessed to faking the polls during interrogations and signed the confession. It involves polls from 2016 until early October, therefore all polls must be blanked out and collapsed. It is well-sourced and readable in my sources at the top and the Standard article saying that her faking continued well into 2021. Besides, why do you think that collapsing fake polls is a problem here, when for example on this page here, there are collapsed sections of even regular polls (Without any faked ones) ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_presidential_election#Primary_election_polling You are applying a double standard here to protect fake polls and corruption. Your arguments make zero sense. --The Pollster (talk) 04:55, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Again, there is no source directly pointing out that any specific poll in this article has been manipulated. What you are doing here is an exercise of WP:SYNTH, i.e. taking conclusions presented by several sources and combining them to reach your own conclusion not presented by any of the sources. That's still original research and is not allowed.

By the way, this is not the place to discuss the contents at 2024 United States presidential election, but it looks like the collapsing there was done recently (and yes, it still violates MOS:COLLAPSE). None of us editing in this article have been responsible for such collapsing there, so I don't khow what the "double standard" is. And again coming here to (now directly) accuse anyone of "protecting fake polls and corruption" is yet another aspersion that you must avoid. Impru20^talk 08:40, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. The Pollster, you haven’t addressed the issues raised. Until you do this is just WP:IDHT. DeCausa (talk) 09:06, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I have addressed everything in proper manner and it’s well sourced. I reverted it to my previous edition incl. the new poll because you guys are ignorant of the required changes of the modern design despite my sources and repeatedly act like cyber-bullies in reverting my version to the corruption-filled outdated version. --The Pollster (talk) 18:56, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I mean, seriously, at this point of time behaving like this will only mean you'll end up either topic banned from opinion polling articles or getting an outright indef block. You can disagree with others' opinions, but you must accept that, as of currently, your edits have no consensus. Instead, try to back up your claims (you have been told multiple times and by several users in this discussion how to do it!) and convince (not impose) others of the merits of your changes, instead of keeping on with this belligerent tone and language. It's your call to make. Impru20^talk 19:06, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Accusing myself of "legitimizing corruption and fake polling", considering what has trascended in the ANI discussion and after I myself gave a chance for you to avoid a block, is incompetence at the very best, bad faith at worst. I am sorry but I cannot take this seriously, specially when you are not bringing any other argument for the change than such aspersion on myself and in your pretended opinion that your version is "more modern" (without actually caring to explain the multiple content points raised in the discussion above). Good luck. Impru20^talk 18:43, 8 November 2021 (UTC)