Talk:June 2012 Greek legislative election

Extra 50 seats

Hi, forgive me if I'm wrong but I couldn't see any allusion on this page to the 50 seats awarded automatically to the biggest party, which is an important point that potentially could confuse any reader. Furthermore, I read somewhere that those 50 seats can only be awarded to a single political party (such as ND), not a coalition (such as Syriza). Can anyone with greater knowledge of Greek electoral systems confirm or deny this, as obviously it would be a game changer! Thanks. 90.176.142.201 (talk) 10:06, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

What you say is correct, i.e. the 50 seats go to the largest party, not a coalition. However, Syriza has a single parliamentary group, i.e. it is represented in Parliament as a single party (its MP's are Syriza's MPs, not of the constituent parties/movements), hence if it comes first, it will get the first 50 seats. Constantine ✍ 10:17, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

To be more exact, SYRIZA could actually not gain the extra 50 seats with their previous coalition structure. Hence they actually decided at May 22, to merge all their coalition parties into a new single independent party. They named the new party ["SYRIZA Unionist Social Front"], and they are hereby now quallified for the 50 seats bonus, if they can manage to become the party with most votes in the June 17 election. Danish Expert (talk) 21:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

June election

The move was reverted without reason. All sources like al jazeera and bloomberg as saying month. Heck if the election is on a disambiguation page then its clearly in 2012(Lihaas (talk) 19:42, 15 May 2012 (UTC)).

And Time, USA Today, CTV, CNN, the Press Association, the Boston Globe, ABC News (US), CNBC, Reuters, and many many others. It needs to be moved now. -Rrius (talk) 04:42, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Read the Constitution! There will only be a new election if the negotiations between the President and the parties fail. They have not yet done so, so any suggestion that there will be a June election is speculation. Just because media say something doesn't make it true. It would be true to say "there is widespread media speculation that the election will be in June," but that's all. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 05:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/05/15/world/europe/greece-politics/index.html --В и к и T 06:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, so now the announcement has been made. It hadn't been the last time I looked. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 07:01, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

If you'd bothered to have read the stories, you'd have seen that it wasn't speculation. It had been announced that the talks had failed even if a specific date had not yet been chosen. -Rrius (talk) 07:52, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Opinion polls - inconsistencies?

Figures for Rass survey of May 14 add to only 97.8% instead of 100%. Figures for Pulse RC survey of May 17 add to only 97%. Figures for Marc/Alpha survey of May 17 add to only 95.2%. And figures for Public Issue survey of May 20 add to only 94.5%. Am I missing something, or it is the table that is missing some figures? Ninguém (talk) 23:53, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

You will find most of polls detailed reports (pdf) on this greek site : http://www.eklogika.gr/gallops/show_all Generally, it makes it available to get estimated (not raw) percentages. Terfilo (talk) 05:52, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Yesterday I also took time to look through all 16 polls listed in the wikitable, and updated them so they now show all the measured percentage points (adding up for 100%). A few of the lines in the wikitable showing "unadjusted polls", had forgot to mention the percentage of "undecided" and "abstain", which now have been added. Danish Expert (talk) 11:03, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Ninguém (talk) 22:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Democratic Alliance - New Democracy

Democratic Alliance has confirmed it will team up with New Democracy for a "as wide as possible pro europe party" , details should be added to the page Guyb123321 (talk) 14:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Source? Also need why theyd do this? Their credibility will go the Laos way...(Lihaas (talk) 11:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)).

Polling methodology

Where did the info on this methodology for these polls come from? If there is nothing to indicae this its made up and OR , which is not the prereogative of WP to do. Kindly cite this.(Lihaas (talk) 13:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)).

Each poll is cited. The citation for each poll describes whether that poll lists undecided/don't know responses as a separate category, or whether the poll adjusts for those and gives percentages for the parties that add up to 100%. The explanatory text then explains the difference between these two approaches. This is a standard issue with voting opinion polls. It is not "made up and OR". Bondegezou (talk) 12:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

In that casea simple cite to that link from the source would help. Its not difficult if its exists. Not questioning the statement , it just needs cites.(Lihaas (talk) 07:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)).

No the "methodology note" doesnt need a link or reference. WP policy allow unreferenced notes for wikitables, as long as they are based on pure logic, and function as a helping note for the reader to understand/digest the info of the wikitable. The note basicly states that the figure A/X will always be relative higher compared to A/(X+Y+Z), given that X>0, Y>0 and Z>0. That is a mathematical fact and pure logic. And thus in no need to be cited. Each reference for each poll listead above in the wikitable, then further also serve the purpose as a reference for whether or not the poll was "adjusted" for "Undecided responses" and/or "Abstain/Blanks". And the "methodology note" beneath the wikitable has been formulated in such a general way, that it indeed apply for all the polls in the wikitable.

Please also note, that "adjusted opinion polls" are not always making the "adjustment of likely vote of undecided voters" in the same way. This mean it is difficult/impossible to list one of the used "method references" as a general "methodology note". Some opinion polls that are using the "adjusted method", are using a "neutral/cheep" method were they assume the "group of undecided" voters likely will vote with the same distribution of votes, as the "group of decided" voters. Some other polls adjust with a weight of "how undecided voters turned out to vote at the latest election". While a third method is to adjust with weights calculated by election researchers to map and include how individual/societal psycological facters, affect the likely vote of an undecided voters. In example it could be true for the Greek election in May 2012, that a higher percentage of "undecided voters" opted to cast a "protest vote" based on the general sentiments at that point of time in the Greek society. And perhaps the group of "undecided voters" will then at the second time of casting their vote 1 month later, have a higher tendency no longer to "vote in protest" (as they already psycologically vented their steam out for that in the previous election), and perhaps have a tendency the second time he shall vote, more to vote on "political parties actually representing the voters political opinion". To say it short, our wikitable note does not need a reference because it is only listing general and logical facts about the wikitable and "opinion polls" in general (while leaving the readers to visit the individual references listed for each poll in the table, if he ie. want to learn the details about how the "adjusted polls" actually calculated the "likely vote of undecided voters"). Danish Expert (talk) 12:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

What polict allows for not using references?

If its pure logic and common sense then you dont need to have it. People can draw their own conclusions, theyre not babies. "Let the fact seak for themselves" ANd if each reference for each poll ctes this and the note on abstaining then it should be quie easy to tag on the cite to the page instead of citing non-existing policies and arguing here. Of does venting steam not take precednce for WP as well?

And you dont remove tags without consensus. One comment is not consensus its part of a discussion. Further you removed the other content without explanation and that is not AGF. "award" was removed blindly.Lihaas (talk) 15:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia should make its articles easy to read and understand. That's WP:MOS. The note in question is explaining what is going on in the table. There cannot be a citation for the note (as a whole) because why should some external source be explaining how a table in a Wikipedia article is laid out? This is not about introducing new facts to the article; it is merely about explaining how the table works so the reader can understand what is going on. Each poll has a citation that shows what each poll is doing and explains the methodology of each poll. Thus, I agree with Danish Expert.

Lihaas, you are right that we should act with consensus. As far as I can see, and do correct me if I am wrong, you are the only person who has added an OR tag to this note, and the only person in this discussion who thinks there is a problem. As far as I can see from this discussion and the editing history, the consensus is that there is no OR issue here. Bondegezou (talk) 16:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

You said there was a policy that stated there is no need for a source. then it says that there is no need for a source. where did the content from that note come from? If its made up then its OR; if its from the soutrce that carried it out then cite the source. Consensus is not fdetermined by a discussion of 2 people wo say that there is NO need for a cite, then saying its seperate. Consensus is NOT vote counting

Let the reader note for himself, or CITE the raw method to the methodology from the source (it has to be there)...then cite the adjusted method from the soruce that uses it. otherwise there is nothing indicative of the CLAIM that it is as suggested, also cited the meaning of each method. "The raw data method, will by definition" is Or if not cited as such, not to mention its synthesis(Lihaas (talk) 04:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)).

drawing "logical" inferences from the sources is not the same thing as those sources making those connections. That's OR, if that's the case. We cannot get into the business of making conclusions that the sources do not explicitly make. If that's really what's at stake here, then either 1) you need to find a reputable source that makes those claims, or 2) remove the content. When we engage in saying what poll figures mean, we can't just claim that they're logical implications. The source needs to make them, or it's OR, even if it seems blatantly obvious to us. 204.65.34.171 (talk) 16:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

It is not OR, and there is certainly no need for a reference. The point is, that we are not dealing with "wikipedia article text" (in which case Lihaas would have a valid point that a reference would be needed), but instead we deal with a specific "wikitable note" (without need of a reference). The wikitable note is a "helping note" to the readers, to improve their ability to digest and understand the layout of the wikitable (and how to compare the figures). It is written by those wikipedia editors who created the wikitable, and there is no need for a reference as it only features logical explonatory info.

Finally, the reader can also visit each of the references provided at the poll lines above, in order to learn more details about each polling method. Please be aware, that our "wikitable note" DOES NOT provide any details about all the specific polling methods, but only explain the two main categories of "polling methods". Personally I took the time to visit all references, and learned the VPRC and Public Issue based their "adjusted method" upon a "Time Series Analysis" to predict the likely votes of undecided voters, while the other 10 out of 12 polling companies simply performed a 1:1 adjustment when converting their "raw data" into "adjusted data" (asuming that the group of "undecided voters" by the end of the day would vote in the exact same way as the "decided voters"). Adding my note above to the "wikitable note" would be inappropriate and OR (unless I added specific references for my findings). But as long as we limit the "wikitable note" to be an explonatory helping note based on logic (without going into any details), there is absolutely no need to add a reference for that. Danish Expert (talk) 15:38, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Presentation of polls

May I suggest that the polls (so far six) that are presented with two sets of data (both unadjusted and adjusted), are somehow merged in the table, to make it clearer that they are actually the same poll with different methodology. It could be done quite simply by not repeating the "Date conducted" and "Company" in the second line, but there may be a more elegant way to do it. Also, those "double-data" polls should be presented consistently with unadjusted before adjusted (or vice versa). Regards! 79.160.40.10 (talk) 11:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Missing Public Issue poll that gives Syriza 31.5%

The poll is dated to 25-30 May and the results are striking (Syr-Dimar would have clear majority of seats). I do not speak any Greek, so maybe someone better acquainted could adress this matter?

http://www.publicissue.gr/2026/varometro-3o-kyma-mai-2012/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.84.230.64 (talk) 07:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Well what can you make of that, given all the other polls.I don't know what to think.174.91.109.31 (talk) 17:27, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

FYI -the poll was never missing from the wikitable. As noted in the paragraph ahead of the wikitable, Public Issue and VPRC were the only 2 out of 12 polling companies which in the last week of May predicted a win for SYRIZA. At the same time Publis Issue and VPRC also were the only 2 out of 12 polling companies calculating their adjusted poll results based on Time Series Analysis, in order to predict the likely votes of the "undecided voters"; while the 10 other polling companies instead assumed that the group of "undecided voters" by the end of the day would vote the same way as the group of "decided voters". Unfortunately Public Issue and VPRC did not publish any of their raw data, but after knowing the election result, it looks obvious their prediction of vote behaviour of undecided voters (apparently believing 60-80% of them would vote for SYRIZA), was heavily flawed. And thus the polls from VPRC and Public Issue appear to have been less reliable compared to the other 10 polling companies (if we assume there was no big voter movements during the last two weeks of the electional campaign). Danish Expert (talk) 15:57, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

citation for preliminary results

Can someone please add a citation for the preliminary results? 69.225.87.252 (talk) 20:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

http://ekloges.ypes.gr/v2012b/public/index.html?lang=en --В и к и T 21:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

5% minimum

I read previously that a party needs to have at least 5% of the votes to get any seats in the parliament. So why is the communist party rewarded with seats when it won 4.5%? Chaldean (talk) 10:39, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

It is 3% Jack Bornholm (talk) 11:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Image : visualizing or not the +50 bonus

Two images are available. One show the balance of power. One allow visualization of the +50 bonus, and the real balance of legitimacy.

visualizing +50 bonus, visualizing the legitimacy

visualizing the balance of power

Use the one you want. Yug (talk) 19:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Edits expained

Per [1][2], there is no consensus, no wide discusession and its iblatantly inconsistent with the article title! Per BRD, BOLDTITLE, and even OSE, consensus first on such BOLD changes!(Lihaas (talk) 13:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)).

If you are insisting on using WP:BRD as a rationale, then perhaps you could explain why you are not adhering to it? The original title of the section in question was "Results", but you changed it to "Result" at a later point. How many more editors need to tell/show you that "Results" is the preferred heading title before this stops? We're up to four so far. Number 57 13:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

New article name proposed

I propose that we rename the article from Greek legislative election, June 2012 to:

1. Greek parliamentary election, June 2012

Main reason is, that the proposed phrase "parliamentary election" is identical with the direct English translation of what the election is being officially called in Greek (by the Interior Minestry in Greece):

1. Parliamentary Elections, June 2012 (Βουλευτικές Εκλογές Ιούνιος 2012)

For comparison, then if you check the used phrase for similar Wikipedia articles covering the elections in 26 other European states with only a one-house legislative, Wikipedia also preferred to use the phrase "parliamentary elections" for 19 (Albania, Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Iceland, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Norway, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Ukrain), while using the phrase "legislative election" in 4 articles (Cyprus, Greece, Portugal, Luxembourg) and with the last 3 using the phrase "general election" (Sweden, Malta, Turkey).

Based on all arguments above, I recommend we now rename the article to: Greek parliamentary election, June 2012

Please let me know if you agree/disagree. Danish Expert (talk) 08:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Propaganda

In the article Golden Dawn is mentioned as a neo-nazi party however they are self determined as ultranationalistis and have denied connections to hitler. So why are they refered as to what a third person believes they are and not as their official beliefs? In the same why someone could mention KKE as a stalinist party instead of communist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.228.45.2 (talk) 08:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Erase Link to Next Election

Build up a site for NEXT ELECTION (2016) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.15.104.212 (talk) 19:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Greek legislative election, June 2012. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150628235938/http://www.ypes.gr/UserFiles/f0ff9297-f516-40ff-a70e-eca84e2ec9b9/egk42_19062012.pdf to http://www1.ypes.gr/UserFiles/f0ff9297-f516-40ff-a70e-eca84e2ec9b9/egk42_19062012.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:33, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Greek legislative election, June 2012. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120527131003/http://www.ant1online.gr/Politics/Parties/Pages/20125/8e0d2def-7e35-4da0-b9a2-b01e615a308a.aspx to http://www.ant1online.gr/Politics/Parties/Pages/20125/8e0d2def-7e35-4da0-b9a2-b01e615a308a.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Greek legislative election, June 2012. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20130217164234/http://archive.enet.gr/online/online_text/c=112,dt=12.06.2004,id=20721500 to http://archive.enet.gr/online/online_text/c%3D112%2Cdt%3D12.06.2004%2Cid%3D20721500
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120608223230/http://www.ekathimerini.com/4dcgi/_w_articles_wsite1_1_07/06/2012_445749 to http://www.ekathimerini.com/4dcgi/_w_articles_wsite1_1_07/06/2012_445749

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:06, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

• Nikólas Michaloliákos.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:22, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

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

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

• Nikos Michaloliakos - Golden Dawn party leader.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:25, 23 May 2023 (UTC)