Talk:2019 European Parliament election in the Czech Republic

EP projection

@Concus Cretus: My point is that it's a projection derived from parliamentary election polls, as there have been no polls available specifically on the subject of the European Parliament elections in Czechia – and what is more, a polling average is by nature not itself a poll. Mélencron (talk) 03:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I believe that both of your points may have some validity, but even if they are fully correct, they are not a reason for removal of these data, in my opinion. Whatever you personally dislike about a specific poll's methodology is not above the fact that the EP published it as poll aggregation for this election and that the EP finds these polls sufficient for use in this projection. And again, no WP policy says that "poll aggregations" can't be used for making a table in an article.--Concus Cretus (talk) 03:19, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't have any inherent objection to poll aggregation – it's what most opinion poll articles have (in the form of a graph). I do object to presenting this information without the context that the projection is not derived from any polling on the European Parliament elections, but only for parliamentary elections, which take place in a different context. Mélencron (talk) 03:28, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Please provide the evidence that clearly and directly states that the projections are based on polls made exclusively for a parliamentary election and at the same time are not meant to represent voter's preference for any election, such as the the European Election. If you fail to provide such evidence, we can assume that the European Parliament is not intentionally misinterpreting data for its election projections.--Concus Cretus (talk) 04:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

They're listed in the source. Median (11 Dec: http://www.median.eu/cs/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/MEDIAN_Snemovni_volebni_model_2018_11.pdf), STEM (5 Dec: https://www.stem.cz/stem-volebni-preference-listopad-2018/), Kantar (2 Dec: https://ct24.ceskatelevize.cz/domaci/2667110-hnuti-ano-neublizila-ozivena-kauza-kolem-babise-v-listopadu-naopak-vyrazne-posililo). The average of these polls is exactly the same as the numbers provided by the EP: https://i.imgur.com/8JbX4OK.png. Mélencron (talk) 05:36, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

You are conducting original research and synthesis of published material. The data is labelled in the source just as "Voting intention" in a projection for "European election" by the EP. You are basically accusing the European Parliament of plagiarism, which you are free to do, but I don't see any relevance for Wikipedia. I don't think that Wikipedians are supposed to selectively choose which parts of reliably published sources are correct or incorrect.--Concus Cretus (talk) 06:19, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're understanding my point? It's what the source document says – they're using parliamentary election polls for their European Parliament projections, as no actual polls for the European Parliament elections have been conducted, and I think that if you want to include it, you should at least make a note of that. (See page 5 of the report itself: "Priority is always given to surveys on European election voting intentions. When such surveys are not aailable, national voting intentions polls are used for the projections." This is one of the latter cases.) Mélencron (talk) 13:37, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

ok sure--Concus Cretus (talk) 05:26, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Threshold (especially TOP09)

If I understand this correctly, TOP09 and STAN (plus Greens) will run on the same list. But the seat projections seems to assume they're running separately (and each missing the threshold), while their combined votes would reach the threshold and so they would get seats. Is there some rule that demands each party has to reach the threshold independently even if they run on a combined list? Ambi Valent (talk) 18:40, 23 March 2019 (UTC)