Talk:Al-Jazeera poll shows many Pakistanis identify America as 'biggest' threat

{{editprotected}} The Category:Middle East should be removed and replaced with Category:Asia, as Pakistan does not come in Middle East. Ali Rana (talk) 09:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Done--Brian McNeil / ^talk 10:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Credibility

One: this comes from a network that already has a strong dislike of the US. Two: I don't understand how any poll in any country of only 2,600 people can even be considered a majority of Pakistanis let alone any decent sized portion of them. There are nearly 200 million people living in that country. Three: Opinion dynamic polls are a crock. They are as good as exit polls on presidential election days. Four: Since this was done by one entity, it is technically a single source. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 22:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I mean in reality the number is 11% of 2,600. So its even a lower number. When you put it into context, like the (EDIT: Al-Jazeera) article currently does, you can easily mistake this number for actually being legit. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 22:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a poll, does my article violate POV just because I report on the results of a poll taken by Gallup International? Oh and if anything your the one with POV thinking al jazeera has a "strong dislike" of the United States, where do you get that from? Soapy (talk) 00:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not saying your writing is POV...merely that the small amount of people polled cannot constitute a legit claim that the Pakistani people, the majority, feel this way. Al-Jazeera is with the US as PRESS-TV is with Gaza. They just don't hold that much of a neutral view when it comes to US policy. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 01:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'd have to side with Dragon on this. I do not believe we should be reporting this because of how skewed it is. I can poll a thousand people right now and get an 80%+ return that they are terrified of water and think it should be banned ( http://www.dhmo.org/ ). Should we run an article with the headline "Poll shows 80% of American's want to ban water"? No. Of course not. Polls always have been and always will be, a crock of shit. That being said Soapy, your writing is perfectly fine in terms of being NPOV. BUT the data you're based off of _isn't_. I could go find a poll by some KKK members about how black people are scum sucking inbreeds, doesn't mean that it is right. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 01:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Soapy. His reporting of this poll is not PoV. Soapy deciding to report on this subject is no more PoV than DragonFire deciding to report on a local Buffalo story. Does the fact that it is a Buffalo story make him bias? Certainly. But it doesn't mean that he can't write a NPoV story about things that happen in Buffalo:P.

As to the poll itself, whether or not the poll is NPoV or not isn't for us to judge, unless we want to do some research and write an article on the methodology used to conduct the poll. But if we do that, then we better go back through the archives and delete all of those "Obama ahead by 3 points!" articles. And we'd better ban CNN as a source, since half of their articles are based on these stupid, inaccurate polls.

BTW, that research into whether or not polls work has been done, and it's been found that gallop polls (and similar "carefully done" polls) are nearly meaningless due to the fact that even a tiny change in the question's exact phrasing has a huge impact on the poll results, even if the the question's meaning doesn't change.

The penultimate example of this is when you poll people about Continental drift. If you ask "Do you believe that Africa and America where once part of the same continent" you get a VERY different result than if you ask "Do you believe that Europe and America were once part of the same continent". Guess why the results are different:P? Gopher65_talk 01:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The wording of the questions in the Gallup poll was very clear, I don't think that's an issue whatsoever, also this is a strange double standard for banning reporting on this poll because it's controversial. Time to ban any poll anyone ever posts on wikinews guys!Soapy (talk) 02:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Let me be clear: I never once suggested the article be deleted. I never suggested it be banned. I merely stated that if you want to report on a poll, then fine. But report the facts. I am not questioning Soapy's writing or his ability to report, but the credibility of such low numbers of people polled. The title misleading. 59% of 2,600 (1,534 people) is not "Pakistanis identify". The title implies that all Pakistanis feel this way which is simply not true. This is also totally misleading: that Pakistanis largely believe... the rest also implies all Pakistanis. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 02:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok well i did some c/e, and if everyone else thinks it looks good, I no longer have an issue with the article and someone non-involved should review it. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 03:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: I agree with this move/rename by Brian McNeil (talk · contribs) [1]. I think that this sort of direct attribution in the article title to the source of the poll addresses the issue quite well. Cirt (talk) 21:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Polling Methodology

Dragonfire, the poll seems to have been conducted scientifically, if we take AlJazeera/Gallup's description of the methodology at face value. That is how polls are conducted worldwide. I do not see anything to be concerned with here, other than the usual issues about what questions were asked etc. But the sample size is perfectly valid. And so it is acceptable to state that, according to the poll, a majority of Pakistanis feel that the U.S. is the biggest threat. That is simply a fact revealed by the poll, within the stated margin of error. --Jcart1534 (talk) 04:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The poll says the majority of polled Pakistanis. The poll, like any other poll of this small portion, simply cannot speak for all Pakistanis, or a majority of them. That might be how Mainstream media does it, but it should not happen on Wikinews. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 04:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

That's the whole point of a poll, don't be dumb. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 10:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Its not about being dumb its about being accurate. If we are not going to report the facts, then there is no reason to publish this article. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 10:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

It most definitely is newsworthy. Your personal bias against this being publicised is POV. Whoever put "some" in the previous title should be taken out and shot; have you any idea how pathetic that looked on Facebook? --Brian McNeil / ^talk 10:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is newsworthy...but report it like it is. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 11:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey hey it's cool it got published, all water under the bridge, no need to flame dragonfire Soapy (talk) 16:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Review of revision 859211 [Passed]

Revision 859211 of this article has been reviewed by Cirt (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 05:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Could use a free-use image and a relevant infobox. I read through the talk page discussion - and the present wording seems alright. Of course, discussion on that can still continue and it is possible the wording could be improved upon a bit further. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 859211 of this article has been reviewed by Cirt (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 05:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Could use a free-use image and a relevant infobox. I read through the talk page discussion - and the present wording seems alright. Of course, discussion on that can still continue and it is possible the wording could be improved upon a bit further. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Edit

{{editprotected}} Category:Asif Ali Zardari - thanks. Ali Rana (talk) 05:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Done --Brian McNeil / ^talk 19:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)