Talk:2020 Polish presidential election

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Malgorzata Kidawa-Blonska[edit]

How on Earth does Małgorzata Kidawa-Błońska not have a page in Wikipedia? The monarchists get a page but the mainstream candidate not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.135.15.159 (talk) 20:02, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Małgorzata Kidawa-Błońska article was created on 3 July 2006. You could have volunteered to create it earlier, in late September 2005, for example. Boud (talk) 01:36, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

the Sejm makes (strange) changes[edit]

https://www.faz.net/aktuell/gesellschaft/gesundheit/coronavirus/pis-haelt-trotz-corona-noch-am-wahltermin-in-polen-fest-16702380.html --Neun-x (talk) 22:52, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: shift the 5 main candidates to a gallery format[edit]

The big "elephant in the room" that is missing from this article is the COVID-19 pandemic question. There is a lot of material - from all POVs - that should be in this article - and it's not going to disappear until/if the election is officially postponed or it happens (in which case the effects on the pandemic would tend to go more in the pandemic article than this one, or possibly a new separate article, if the effects are massive enough, causing the next big wave of infections and deaths). I don't promise to add any of that, but I would like at least to make it easier for other people to add material, and I might put a few sentences to open up the topic. The problem is that the huge photos and blank space for the five "main" candidates take a big amount of vertical space (for a desktop browser). I don't know enough about wikitables to know if it's easy to stop them from taking so much blank space; html hacks with div's might be possible, but not necessarily recommendable in terms of accessibility.

Proposal: reformat the first-five-candidates sections so that their photos are something like a gallery format, and don't take up too much space. I don't see any problem in putting them in the equivalent format to the "Other candidates" - without party support. Photos are nice but they shouldn't push prose out of the way too much: they don't provide any information except candidates' physical appearance - which has nothing to do with what policies they have promised or what their political track records are. This is not an article about a "Miss" competition...

Any objections? Boud (talk) 00:17, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose — The format that the candidates of parties appear in the article is consistent with articles about other elections, with one such major example being that of the 2020 United States presidential election. I believe it should stay the way it is with distinct sections for each party. If the candidates must appear together, it should be at the top of the article in the infobox section, which is currently empty. boldblazer (talk) 02:51, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose — I would have agreed with you for earlier Polish elections but not anymore. Polish politics has shifted from party leaders running for President to a system were parties go through nominating processes or at least tense media sweepstakes when picking a candidate. This format allows readers to see all the candidates who were speculated to have been nominated or who ran in primaries.
  • Oppose. Needs to be consistent with prior election articles. I could see dropping a candidate from the gallery if their support goes down, but so far they all have non-negligible polling.Nyx86 (talk) 14:41, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and withdraw. This proposal was meant before any info on the relation with the pandemic was in the article. Since the pandemic-election relationship was placed here in a position before the big sections with photos, the reader will see this info without having to scroll down through all the details of the candidates. So there's no need for my proposal. Sorry, I meant to withdraw this proposal earlier... Boud (talk) 22:12, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Election no longer on 10 May[edit]

Hey!,
about 30 min. ago we learn that there wouldn't be presidential election on 10 May, Agreement party got along with PiS, the supreme court will (its controlled by ruling party so it's obvious) declared invalid election - and after May 10 they will present a new date... 1, 2, 3, but there is still one problem - the constitution says that "Changing elections rules in a shorter period of time than 6 months before voting, as well as voting only by post is considered unconstitutional", so when we will officialy have new date - then we need to change this dates to a new one Natanieluz (talk) 21:31, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New election has been announced, not a new date[edit]

According to the agreement, election on May 10th will be held, but not organized. Chairman of the Sejm will announce after that new election, with possibly new candidates. Election silence on May 9th and 10th will be held as well. There should two distinct articles about may 2020 election and tbd 2020 election. -MikołajZ (talk) 11:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should just add an explanation paragraph at the start, and not make a completely new one as that will be confusing to many.T Magierowski (talk) 11:51, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@MikołajZ: but new elections meants - new date, and as of 10 May - complete mess, yesterday was a presidential debate, and 1h after we learn that there wouldn't be any elections on 10 May at all (presidential debate without presidential elections because new elections = new candidates), also that elections silence is unknown right now, still waiting for any explanation... So we should stay with "TBD" because of lack of specific day.Natanieluz (talk) 12:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I reworded and took out TBD. At the moment there is no schedule, so scheduled is incorrect. I think one article for 2020 presidential election good for now.Nyx86 (talk) 14:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see no sources seriously claiming that the "new" election is a completely separate topic to the "original" election. There are some legislative type statements (of unclear constitutional status) the describe the shifted election as a new one, but I think that that legal information (if someone wants to add that here) can be added within the overall Wikipedia topic of "2020 Polish presidential election". The 2019 Algerian presidential election article includes the first two attempts at holding an election in 2019 and the final third one which went ahead but was of doubtful political and constitutional validity, with the new formal president having a de facto illegitimate status according to much of the Algerian population. So I see no justification in splitting this into two (or three?) articles. Boud (talk) 00:21, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, agree that a split is not appropriate. We have numerous examples (like the Algerian one above) of articles covering attempts at holding an election. Number 57 10:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion polls from wPolityce.pl[edit]

@Ed88: Hey!,
I saw that you added polls from wPolityce.pl, first of all, this site is not a reliable source of information, articles there are clearly supporting the government camp and secondly this article were published 8 May 2020, that debate was only two days earlier (even to be clear 1 day earlier bc that debate took place late in the evening on 6 May). In my opinion, we should wait at least a week for a reliable survey, also we have a "political crisis" right now... --Natanieluz (talk) 11:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All opinion polls given by major news outlets should be considered legitimate, political preference should not play any role whatsoever as it is subjective. There are plenty of anti-government outlets in the opinion poll table as well. The only "true" poll is the election itself. T Magierowski (talk) 11:17, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@T Magierowski: Ok, good- but do you agree that "after debate" polls will be more accurate later, (after a while), not 2 days after the debate? --Natanieluz (talk) 18:28, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Natanieluz: Yet we have polls stretching back to 2016, and if there is a change post debate (which I personally doubt) than readers will be able to see the change. T Magierowski (talk) 18:36, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Higher quality opinion polls publish details of their methods. Unless people are willing to do a lot of extra work, I agree with T Magierowski - mainstream (non-tabloid) media or recognised polling institutes (some Polish, some international) cannot really be excluded unless there's agreement among editors that the polls of X or Y are of much lower quality than the other polls, based on uncontroversial agreement among reliable sources. In principle that can be done. But it requires work... Readers will judge which polls they wish to take seriously depending their own judgment of biases or polling accuracy. What would be good - if people were willing to add the data - would be to add columns for:
  • the number of people polled, and
  • maybe also a column for the claimed statistical error;
  • a few key words about the method (face-to-face interviews (pre-COVID); random mobile phone; random landline phone; internet survey)
  • it should be assumed by default that all the polls use demographic profiling to convert from the sample to the whole voting population; a comment for surveys that do not do demographic corrections could be aded.
I'm not volunteering for this, I'm just saying what would make the tables more useful to the reader (and to statisticians choosing to analyse further). Boud (talk) 22:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I agree that wPolityce.pl is supporting the government and this site alone may not be treated as a reliable source of information. But, to be honest, in Poland there is no media not engaged politically that can be treated as a reliable source of information. Some of them support government, some of them support opposition. Some time ago editors argued that M&P polls should not be included because they favour Hołownia. WPolityce.pl polls are very often cited by opposition media too. In my opinion, the only way to provide reliable data is to include all polls cited by any media with national coverage. Of course some additional data about methodology may be included in the table but I would strongly oppose judging the quality of polls and pollsters. Ed88 (talk) 08:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, you know what... As far as we have polls from different sites (not only from one or two), we can stay with this opinion polls, and btw. thx @Ed88: (and everone else) for updating and adding new polls every couple days :) --Natanieluz (talk) 10:09, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First round polls[edit]

Two distinct tables for the first round polls looks like a mess IMHO. Editor Natanieluz made it look this way after resignation of Kidawa-Błońska, without asking for this in the talk (however requires me to do so, so I do). My proposed version of this section is below. It shows political events and makes article look way better structured. Basically it is based on a universal pattern of articles like Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election. -MikołajZ (talk) 16:05, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Poll source Date(s) administered Don't know/
Abstain 		Others
Duda
IN 		Trzaskowski
PO 		Biedroń
LEFT 		Kosiniak-Kamysz
PSL 		Bosak
KWiN 		Hołownia
IN
Kidawa-Błońska
(formerly)
PO
Social Changes 11–18 May 2020 - 2% 41% 21% 5% 7% 6% 18%
Pollster 15–17 May 2020 - 2.13% 43.76% 16.54% 5.51% 9.73% 6.45% 15.88%
IBRiS 16 May 2020 7.7% - 43.2% 16.0% 6.8% 9.6% 6.8% 9.9%
United Survey 15 May 2020 7.1% - 43.7% 14.0% 5.2% 9.8% 6.9% 13.3%
Kantar Public 15 May 2020 6% 1% 51% 11% 3% 6% 5% 17%
Estymator 14–15 May 2020 - 1.3% 52.7% 10.2% 5.7% 11.8% 7.8% 10.5%
15 May 2020 Rafał Trzaskowski is declared as a new candidate of the Civic Coalition
Social Changes 12–14 May 2020 - 1% 49% 5% 4% 12% 7% 22%
IBRiS 8–9 May 2020 3.1% 0.0% 45.0% 4.5% 2.6% 16.6% 9.0% 19.2%
6 May 2020 Postal election are announced to be cancelled in May
Social Changes 6–7 May 2020 - 4% 54% 5% 5% 9% 8% 15%
6–7 May 2020 - 4% 64% 2% 3% 7% 7% 13%
Pollster 30 April-4 May 2020 - - 40.57% 10.49% 9.56% 14.39% 4.65% 20.34%
IPSOS 27–29 April 2020 11% - 42% 7% 6% 12% 6% 15%
IPSOS 27–29 April 2020 5% - 63% 2% 5% 7% 7% 11%
IBRiS 27 April 2020 8.9% - 49.7% 6.7% 6.4% 14.1% 5.0% 9.2%
Social Changes 24–27 April 2020 - 1% 54% 7% 6% 10% 8% 14%
Social Changes 24–27 April 2020 - 1% 64% 3% 3% 8% 7% 14%
CBOS 23–27 April 2020 10% 1% 52% 5% 5% 6% 7% 14%
Estymator 23–24 April 2020 - 0.4% 51.7% 8.4% 7.7% 16.6% 6.4% 8.8%
Social Changes 17–20 April 2020 - 1% 57% 11% 5% 11% 6% 9%
Social Changes 17–20 April 2020 - 2% 65% 5% 5% 6% 7% 10%
Kantar 16–17 April 2020 11% 3% 59% 4% 5% 7% 5% 7%
Social Changes 10–13 April 2020 - 1% 59% 9% 5% 10% 8% 8%
Estymator 8–9 April 2020 - 0.3% 53.1% 13.4% 9.4% 15.6% 3.3% 4.9%
IBRiS 7 April 2020 7.1% - 52.9% 11.4% 7.3% 12.6% 3.2% 5.5%
Pollster 6–7 April 2020 - - 44.53% 14.23% 6.70% 15.25% 6.21% 13.08%
Maison & Partners 3–7 April 2020 27.9% - 29.5% 10.5% 7.1% 10.6% 3.4% 11.2%
Social Changes 3–6 April 2020 - 2% 53% 11% 5% 13% 7% 9%
IBRiS 3–4 April 2020 9.9% - 47.6% 12.4% 6.7% 12.0% 5.4% 6.0%
IBSP 31 March-2 April 2020 - 0.29% 44.29% 15.77% 6.24% 15.87% 5.24% 12.30%
29 March 2020 Małgorzata Kidawa-Błońska called to boycott May postal election
Social Changes 27–30 March 2020 - 1% 55% 14% 6% 10% 5% 9%
IBRiS 27–28 March 2020 5.6% - 45.1% 17.2% 8.5% 12.1% 7.5% 3.9%
27–28 March 2020 5.3% - 54.6% 12.1% 8.7% 6.4% 9.2% 3.7%
Estymator 25–26 March 2020 - 0.9% 49.8% 17.1% 10.8% 15.4% 3.1% 2.9%
Kantar 23–24 March 2020 6% - 65% 10% 5% 4% 6% 4%
23–24 March 2020 10% - 44% 19% 7% 8% 5% 7%
Social Changes 20–23 March 2020 - - 47% 19% 10% 11% 6% 7%
United Survey 20 March 2020 16.7% - 42.7% 16.6% 5.7% 8.7% 6.6% 2.9%
Pollster 17–18 March 2020 - - 43.19% 21.13% 9.54% 12.96% 4.44% 8.74%
Social Changes 13–17 March 2020 - - 41% 23% 9% 13% 4% 10%
CBOS 5–15 March 2020 10% - 50% 15% 5% 9% 3% 6%
Estymator 12–13 March 2020 - 0.2% 46.4% 20.4% 11.4% 10.1% 4.6% 6.9%
IBSP 10–13 March 2020 - 0.15% 51.36% 19.79% 7.59% 8.98% 5.51% 6.62%
Kantar 6–11 March 2020 13% - 43% 22% 6% 9% 3% 4%
Social Changes 6–10 March 2020 - - 45% 22% 8% 9% 5% 11%
4 March 2020 First case of COVID-19 confirmed in Poland
IBRiS 2 March 2020 5.9% - 41.2% 23.1% 6.1% 11.4% 4.8% 7.6%
Social Changes 28 February-2 March 2020 - - 42% 24% 11% 9% 5% 9%
Estymator 27–28 February 2020 - 0.1% 44.8% 24.4% 9.7% 10.4% 4.9% 5.7%
Indicator 26–28 February 2020 4.3% 1.2% 42.9% 23.3% 9.3% 8.1% 3.7% 7.2%
Pollster 24–26 February 2020 - - 42.44% 22.14% 9.45% 11.71% 4.92% 9.34%
Social Changes 21–24 February 2020 - - 43% 24% 10% 7% 5% 11%
United Survey 22 February 2020 5.8% - 41.9% 22.2% 8.2% 10.4% 4.1% 7.4%
IPSOS 20–22 February 2020 6% - 41% 25% 9% 7% 5% 7%
IBSP 18–20 February 2020 - 0.58% 45.16% 26.42% 8.78% 6.56% 4.44% 8.06%
Social Changes 14–18 February 2020 - - 40% 25% 9% 9% 5% 12%
CBOS 6–16 February 2020 12% 3% 50% 20% 4% 5% 1% 5%
Dobra Opinia 10–14 February 2020 - - 41.34% 24.02% 11.21% 8.11% 5.31% 10.01%
Estymator 12–13 February 2020 - 0.2% 45.3% 26.4% 7.4% 10.1% 4.7% 5.9%
Kantar 7–12 February 2020 17% 1% 40% 21% 7% 5% 3% 6%
Social Changes 7–11 February 2020 - - 46% 24% 9% 7% 5% 9%
IBRiS 7–8 February 2020 4.3% - 43.7% 29.2% 6.9% 4.0% 3.8% 8.1%
IBRiS - 8.2% - 41.7% 26.3% 7.7% 5.2% 4.6% 6.3%
5 February 2020 Election are officially announced to be held on May 10th. The campaign starts
Social Changes 1–4 February 2020 - 2% 42% 25% 10% 6% 3% 12%
Kantar 29-30 January 2020 7% 1% 44% 24% 8% 4% 3% 9%
Maison & Partners 24–28 January 2020 10.0% - 38.3% 22.3% 9.0% 6.3% 3.2% 10.9%
Social Changes 24–27 January 2020 - 2% 43% 24% 10% 7% 4% 10%
Estymator 23–24 January 2020 - 0.4% 47.1% 24.1% 8.9% 9.3% 4.6% 5.6%
18 January 2020 Krzysztof Bosak is declared as a candidate of the Confederation
Social Changes 17–21 January 2020 - - 44% 24% 8% 9% 4% 11%
Kantar 9-15 January 2020 22% 2% 38% 20% 7% 4% 1% 6%
IBSP 14–16 January 2020 - - 43.73% 26.61% 7.26% 7.77% 5.07% 9.56%
Pollster 14–16 January 2020 - - 44.96% 23.11% 9.09% 7.86% 5.12% 9.86%
Social Changes 10–14 January 2020 - - 45% 22% 9% 8% 3% 13%
United Survey 10–11 January 2020 7.4% - 43.0% 23.3% 7.3% 7.0% 5.3% 6.7%
IBRiS 10-11 January 2020 8.2% - 44% 23.3% 6.6% 7.0% 5.1% 5.7%
Estymator 9–10 January - 47.7% 22.7% 8.8% 9% 4.3% 6.9%
5 January 2020 Robert Biedroń is declared as a candidate of the Left
Social Changes 3–7 January 2020 - 6% 42% 26% - 9% 4% 13%
Social Changes 27–31 December 2019 - 5% 43% 26% - 6% 4% 16%
Social Changes 20–24 December 2019 - 7% 43% 24% - 9% 4% 13%
Estymator 19–20 December 2019 - 8.3% 46.6% 22.4% - 9.2% 4.6% 7.9%
IBSP 17–20 December 2019 - 7.4% 43.9% 26.3% - 7.3% 5.4% 9.7%
Social Changes 13–17 December 2019 - 7% 46% 23% - 7% 4% 13%
Social Changes 28 November-3 December 2019 14% 11% 37% 22% - 8% - 8%
I have undo your changes and then you have made that changes again... So I think that the best way will be Talk page :) (what you did - thx), as of my changes "Editor Natanieluz made it look this way after resignation of Kidawa-Błońska, without asking for this in the talk" yea I have only make a new table for that- but you have completely reorganize - changed what we already have --Natanieluz (talk) 16:21, 20 May 2020 (UTC)~[reply]
Yeah, you made a compeletely new table instead of adding polls to an old one. Why? --MikołajZ (talk) 16:24, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Table pattern you used is from Polish Wikipedia, we are editing an English one here. There are rules like articles should be made in a similar pattern, while you did the opposite. -MikołajZ (talk) 16:26, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that I have already stated why I did that... Making new table is wayyyy easier that reorganize that "old" table every time when you candidate will occur.--Natanieluz (talk) 16:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why you are assuming that there will be new candidates? For now there aren't any, Wikipedia isn't a diviner. You are only speculating. Even IF there will be new ones - we will do the same. -MikołajZ (talk) 16:32, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
New elections could mean new candidates. But this isn't a big deal here right? :D--Natanieluz (talk) 16:35, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@MikołajZ: Hmmm I have a idea that could be good for us both, can we have Kidawa only on polls before change of candidate? Iam mean can we "leave" Kidawa after "Social Changes 12–14 May 2020" poll and then go only with Trzaskowski on that top table (were all candidates are) coz that will be new elections and Kidawa was candidate from that "prevous" one? Making for e.g. seperate line and then "new elections candidates"?--Natanieluz (talk) 16:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely sure what do you mean. However I like fact we are negotiating like politicians here :D -MikołajZ (talk) 16:45, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, I get it. I don't think it is a good idea. Actually you said that there can be new candidates. What if, for example, Duda will resign? -MikołajZ (talk) 16:46, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My proposal, as for today, is to wait for others to take the floor. Maybe till tommorow. Is that okay? -MikołajZ (talk) 16:48, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@MikołajZ: Hah that with politics - good one :DD, I was thinking about something like that "Example", but yea sure we can wait --Natanieluz (talk) 16:52, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@MikołajZ: And you know what, maybe you are even right with this changes, after all probably your way of changing that table is even better, so if no one will have any objections, we can make that changes tomorrow. And thx for cooperation :).--Natanieluz (talk) 16:55, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, thanks! Sorry for my passive-aggresive atattitude in the beginning. I appreciate your statement. Till tommorow! -MikołajZ (talk) 17:01, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, no problem - the best way of solving "dispute" is per discussing. :D see ya--Natanieluz (talk) 17:03, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@MikołajZ:  Done I reverted to yours version :) --Natanieluz (talk) 07:30, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Natanieluz: and @MikołajZ: Could the polls get their own page like Opinion polling for the 2020 Polish presidential election? Braganza (talk) 18:16, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Braganza: I personally don't see any problem, but what you @MikołajZ and Ed88: thinks? We already have Opinion polling for the next Polish parliamentary election so I think we can do this same with this 2020 elections.--Natanieluz (talk) 18:26, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
After all, the polls (of which there will be more) make up more than half of the entire article... Braganza (talk) 18:33, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, for example we can stay (here on this 2020 election) only with "recent", only with new candidates (Trzaskowski for e.g.), and to make something like "drop down list" for old polls?. What you thinks? Natanieluz (talk) 18:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Or we do it the same way as for German articles for Bundestagswahlen, that the table with Trzaskowski is taken over here with {{:Opinion polling for the 2020 Polish presidential election}} and <onlyinclude> </onlyinclude> Braganza (talk) 05:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would move all polls to the separate article Opinion polling for the 2020 Polish presidential election, leaving only a single chart in the main election's article, like in the article 2019 Polish parliamentary election. Ed88 (talk) 10:51, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, we can do this. --Natanieluz (talk) 11:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Natanieluz: I wouldn't run second-round surveys simply because it's still too hypothetical;
If at all, I would only take between the 2 most likely winners of the first round (e.g. 40% Duda and 25% Trzaskowski; probably also Hołownia c. 15%) Braganza (talk) 12:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Braganza: So II turn stay with Duda, Trzaskowski, Hołownia and Kosiniak-Kamysz (5-8 latest polls, 10 MAX) and as of I turn - like we have right now, only after Kidawa withdraw. Good?--Natanieluz (talk) 13:57, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And also we need a graph for second turn with Trzaskowski and Duda, coz we dont have that right now. Natanieluz (talk) 13:59, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok; @Rembix97: made the graphs Braganza (talk) 14:04, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Braganza: Ok, I have made that changes, is it good? --Natanieluz (talk) 14:22, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Braganza (talk) 17:31, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Braganza: Unfortunately, @Metro edition: have undo my changes... --Natanieluz (talk) 19:32, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Metro edition: like my change... 19:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maison and Partners poll[edit]

Maison and Partners poll is an internal one of Hołownia's campaign staff, ordered by them according to theirs requirements. It was released to the media, but not publicated as other in principle. I think we shouldn't include internal polls. -MikołajZ (talk) 13:28, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I know this poll is an internal one but for example here Opinion polling for the next Polish parliamentary election - we have an internal polls for KO (at least twice), we are adding every available poll to be as neutral as possible, but sure - of course we can do something about that :), but since I am not the only who is adding this polls - we need to know what others thought first. Natanieluz (talk) 18:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Internal polls' purpose isn't being published, so we should give an adnotation about it. However, as I've stated in an edit history, we cannot give our opinions on media or polling stations - otherwise we would have to mark most of surveys as "Favorable to..." -MikołajZ (talk) 17:29, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Annotation info[edit]
Hey! @MikołajZ: about that annotation: on mobile Wikipedia site, annotations isn't clearly visible, even on desktop you need to "move cursor to annotation to see what is written there", and also I think that some people not familiar with Wikipedia, can be a little confused why there are 2 candidates :D, so my proposal is: remove that adnotation and add a text "withdraw"?. --Natanieluz (talk) 10:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have added small to Kidawa, is this ok? --Natanieluz (talk) 12:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Basically that's the role of adnotations. I see the problem though, I think we could use Italics to mark it. Basically situation regarding to these election is extremely weird, so our problems are unique to this article I guess :D -MikołajZ (talk) 17:32, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You were right - to make it clear I moved information about her resignation outside an adnotation, as a small text. -MikołajZ (talk) 17:37, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Thx, --Natanieluz (talk) 17:42, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NET?[edit]

@Natanieluz: can you please explain what is "NET"? Braganza (talk) 18:06, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Braganza: shortcut from "not earlier than". --Natanieluz (talk) 18:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Braganza (talk) 18:08, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New election – Change the name[edit]

Marshal of the Polish Sejm just announced the new presidential elections (28 June 2020)[1]. I suggest moving this article to another name, either 2020 Polish presidential election (I) or 2020 Polish presidential election (May). Please let me know what do you think. Cheers! Nadzik (talk) 10:06, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is only going to be one presidential election this year, so the current title is appropriate. This idea was already rejected above. Number 57 10:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, we need to stay only with this one, and with this name "2020 Polish presidential election". For e.g. here ("first", and even "second" elections was cancelled, but everything was on the same page) - 2019 Algerian presidential election. --Natanieluz (talk) 10:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And like @Number 57: said that idea was already rejected earlier... --Natanieluz (talk) 10:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ source

New election[edit]

In a legal sense, June and May election are distinct one. May election legally took place. It is incorrect to keep both of them as one article. Why there isn't Kidawa-Błońska in the infobox? She was an official candidate in previous election. It is obvious there should be two distinct articles - otherwise it will remain misleading and confusing. -MikołajZ (talk) 21:44, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, this has been rejected twice in discussions above. Number 57 21:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is compeletely incorrect though. Wikipedia isn't supposed to mislead readers while this article is doing it. -MikołajZ (talk) 22:33, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No-one is being misled by having a single article. Number 57 11:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MikołajZ says "May election legally took place", the PKW disagrees. From their 7th May 2020 communique "W związku z powyższym Państwowa Komisja Wyborcza, informuje wyborców, komitety wyborcze, kandydatów, administrację wyborczą oraz jednostki samorządu terytorialnego, że głosowanie w dniu 10 maja 2020 r. nie może się odbyć."- As a result the PKW informs voters, committees, candidates and the administration, as well as local government units that voting on 10th May 2020 cannot take place. Clearly we should not split this article but remain with the current summary of what is quite a notable caveat to the election date.Mkwia (talk) 12:45, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly like @Number 57 and Mkwia: said..., that discussion was rejected at least twice above, and here - 2019 Algerian presidential election you have one site for 2019 presidential election in Algeria, which were moved twice. --Natanieluz (talk) 13:59, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not necessarily follow official guidelines for what are "official" topics - it should in principle follow what independent academics studying the topic have judged (or would judge, in the future) defines a "topic". Without the benefit of hindsight, we have to guess how more or less independent academics (or those from a mix of political biases - which is probably more realistic) would classify this/these election(s) in, say, 20 years' time. My guess is that they would consider the 28 June (and possibly 12 July 2nd round) as effectively the final phase of what is de facto a single overall election process, even if legally it could or should be split into the 10 May cancelled election versus the 28 June state-organised opinion poll. Given that there's unlikely to be political support for a constitutionally valid presidential election to follow the opinion poll, trying to follow legal divisions of the electoral calendar would be difficult anyway. So I don't see justification in splitting in terms of "is this a single topic?". (Much of the content of Wyrzykowski's analysis would be very useful to integrate into this article - and it's directly accessible to people who don't understand Polish...) Boud (talk) 13:49, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. What is important is the process of election, not phases inside the process or technicalities.--Nyx86 (talk) 15:48, 15 June 2020 (UTC) strike sock[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:52, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Opinion Poll Section Post-First Round[edit]

Because there is already a separate opinion polling article for this election, should the Second Round polling data for candidates that do not reach the Second Round be removed from this page once the results of the first round are known? This would reduce the length of this article to a more manageable size because there will need to be a Results section added soon for the First Round. boldblazer (talk) 05:51, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree. There's no point of having the full tables here when there's already a page dedicated to it.--Aréat (talk) 19:21, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Aréat:, please don't remove the opinion polling until the results of the first round are known. Mkwia (talk) 21:07, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly like @Mkwia: said. Natanieluz (talk) 21:34, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's standard practice to move opinion polls to a separate article once the section becomes quite large. I cannot see any justification for keeping them here when we already have a separate polling article. Number 57 21:54, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. It's the whole point in the first place to have a separate article for polls. There's no need for the reader to have the long table here when there is a diagram showing all of it very effectively on a quick glance. And a link for the whole table on the dedicated page as easy access. On the other hand, having the complete tables here take up a lot of place, forcing users to scroll down endlessly. And again, the diagram show it all anyways, so it's not like the poll results aren't seen when the tables are displaced. It's no wonder that's the way we do it in all such well developed election page in many countries. Check it up. --Aréat (talk) 22:30, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is a detriment to the current main article. Opinion polling for the 2020 Polish presidential election contains hypothetical polling for undeclared candidates, as well as polls for the May election, as well as polling from before the declaration of Trzaskowski. I think it doesn't hurt to have a summary of the currently relevant polling in the main article like it was before Areat's change. Users who are only here for the an overview of the current status of the election get their glance into the polling and other who want a more in-depth look have a link to the polling article. Mkwia (talk) 10:00, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The summary is the diagram. It show the reader how the candidates are polling right now, as well as in the past, and the trend of each of them. And there's a link just above it directly available leading to the detailled tables if he want more.--Aréat (talk) 14:26, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It gives absolutely no insight into second-round polling. Mkwia (talk) 14:57, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Could I add that, in other articles of elections, a small table of polling numbers still remain available. It's not the long long list as was previously on this page, but still a brief table for the first round so that those who do not need to look at more detail do not need to go to the article specifically for the polling. I think that having only a diagram available is not helpful for the scope of this article. With the diagram accompanying a table of numbers, it can be better suited for this page. The same goes for the second round. Once the candidates in the second round are known, there should at least be a small table of opinion polling for the second round for those two candidates. The long tables of opinion polling for the hypothetical second rounds can remain in the opinion polling article, as mentioned above. boldblazer (talk) 23:22, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For the second round let's have opinion polling conducted since the first round i.e. 28 June 2020 or later. Thoughts? Mkwia (talk) 11:05, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This should go in the opinion polling article. Number 57 11:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Results Section Table[edit]

In the Results section, should there be a column for the Alliances/Coalitions that each candidate is representing in this election? It seems that some users edited the names of the alliances/coalition mistakenly in the Parties column. If we come to a consensus to add that column, where should this column go in the Results table? Also, should we add the colours next to each candidates name? boldblazer (talk) 00:14, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This would be useful. I think the table should be Name|Party|Alliance Mkwia (talk) 08:50, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Colours yes, alliances no (as this will be duplication for some rows). Number 57 10:54, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see that colours have already been added, so that became a moot point now. However, for the case of the alliances, I feel as though we should add it, because in the Party column, we have both political affiliation and alliance affiliation in the same column. By adding the Alliances column, we don't need to use (XYZ) in the table, and we can make them longer using English names instead of Polish abbreviations. This would also not result in duplication. I think this will result in a table that is more informative, even for people who do not know that much about Polish politics. boldblazer (talk) 21:22, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It would result in duplication as in some cases there is no alliance, so either you would list the party twice, or have to combine the columns. Then it just looks like a mess. It's standard practice for results tables to have a single column that contains either the party or alliance (or both). Number 57 21:26, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For the candidates in parties but not in an alliance, and also independents, couldn't that particular row then just have a | – | in the alliance column to indicate there is no alliance for that particular candidate? boldblazer (talk) 21:32, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, better to not have the column and just convey the information in a single column as usual. Number 57 21:34, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The information would be better served in full in its own column without needing abbreviations. It's not immediately obvious that PiS conveys the same meaning as Law and Justice, and similarly for other abbreviations. For those who do not have the best knowledge of abbreviations of Polish politics, I still think its best for there to be the full names available in the table. boldblazer (talk) 21:45, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree; another column is cluttering the table. It needs to be kept as simple as possible and I don't think using abbreviations (which are commonly used in various elements, such as the infobox) is an issue. Number 57 21:56, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why would another column with info in a similar form as the parties column make the table cluttered? Perhaps that is a matter of subjectivity. Aside from that, as it stands now, the table has both parties and alliances, but with the colours added chosen from either the parties' colours or the alliances' colours, which seems inconsistent. There are a few options available but I find having both alliances and parties being the most consistent. The colours mainly used on this article are the alliance colours and not party colours, so adding alliances in the table would make the colour scheme consistent. Only going by party names would imply only using party colours in the table but based on the colour scheme throughout the article, that would appear inconsistent. Perhaps we should also wait for the other users' thoughts on this matter too. boldblazer (talk) 22:23, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless repetition of second round candidates[edit]

I removed the duplicate listing of Duda and Trzaskowski in a "Second Round Candidates" section, but this has been reverted because it is "standard" on this series of articles.

While it's correct that this section exists on others, it was only added in December 2019. Can we agree to remove it? It's not standard for wider election articles for other countries, and it's just pointless as far as I can see. Number 57 13:14, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we should be removing that section as it seems redundant and contains little info. However, it also appears that both the first round and second round candidate sections include info on the debates of those rounds. Perhaps that info should remain, thus needing its own section somewhere. boldblazer (talk) 21:30, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To add further, if some info needs to be separately displayed after the candidates of the first round, perhaps that info can just be in the general list of candidates? Also, if we decide that the small part about the debates of each round is necessary but we do not have a place for them, then the second round candidates section should just remain. I wouldn't see a problem with that. boldblazer (talk) 21:59, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it should be removed. Also, the Candidate list and boxes should make clear the results of the first round. At the moment, you read the results in the lead and at the end of the article, but are left in suspense if you read the article without the lead.Nyx86 (talk) 15:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC) strike sock[reply]
I disagree that it should be removed. The point of it being there is that the reader understands that the election changes once there's a second round. If anything, I think a good idea to replicate Polish wikipedia and also add which candidates and parties are supporting a certain candidate in the second round. Without it, it gives off the idea that it's just one election when it's not. Wroclaw2468 (talk) 20:49, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is made clear at several points in the article. Readers are not stupid enough to need to see the pictures of the second round candidates for a third time. Their omission does not give the idea that there is just one round. Number 57 21:03, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actual results: Duda leading by nearly 4 percentage points with 95 percent of the vote being counted[edit]

http://ewybory.eu/wybory-prezydenckie-2020/

That`s basically the victory for him. No way his opponent will turn these numbers arround.

62.226.88.220 (talk) 03:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Policies section WP:UNDUE[edit]

The policy section as of this edit has WP:UNDUE weight put on as it is the only policy of any candidate noted in the section. Additionally it should not be part of the COVID/election day change section. Removing for now. Mkwia (talk) 10:41, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

POV[edit]

The reaction section has some POV issues. I think that the polarised Polish media is not a reliable source to add observer's view in this election. The sources used to denounce Civic Platform lean PiS party . So we should take into account that it violates neutrality commitments of Wikipedia articles. Ppt2003 (talk) 16:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

The lead is not the place for the OSCE report, as the report isn't due to be put in the lead and because the section "Elections Challenged" gives the necessary context. The sentence in the lead is completely out of the blue (What public broadcaster?) (Why?). I fail to see why "this is a routine report by the OSCE https://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/poland/454699 a highly significant, independent agency. The OSCE does not challenge elections, it observes them" has anything to do with me taking it out of the lead. T Magierowski (talk) 19:00, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Media coverage was a major issue in the election, and it currently isn't mentioned at all in the lead. According to MOS:LEAD, "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies'." Currently, it does not accomplish that. (t · c) buidhe 08:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The OSCE report is important and touches on a central issue of the election process, it should be here.Nyx86 (talk) 15:48, 1 September 2020 (UTC) strike sock[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2020_Polish_presidential_election&oldid=1196862707"