Talk:Opinion polling on the second Trump presidency: Difference between revisions

 

Line 123: Line 123:

== Post-July Polls? ==

== Post-July Polls? ==

No individual national approval polls since July have been listed in the article. Is there a reason for this? [[User:Nl4real|Nl4real]] ([[User talk:Nl4real|talk]]) 17:09, 22 October 2025 (UTC) Nl4real

No individual national approval polls since July have been listed in the article. Is there a reason for this? [[User:Nl4real|Nl4real]] ([[User talk:Nl4real|talk]]) 17:09, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

style=”line-height:20px;” is better. See comparisons here: User:Timeshifter/Sandbox283.

17px causes text in adjacent lines to touch in some instances in cell phones.

See also:

and related section:

Section titles may change. —Timeshifter (talk) 06:25, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since ABC is scrapping FiveThirtyEight should we keep the most recent aggregate poll numbers from them, or solely keep the RealClearPolitics numbers? Rcain1993 (talk) 16:52, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a move discussion in progress on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Presidents of the United States/Donald Trump task force which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:11, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://civiqs.com/results/approve_president_trump_2025?uncertainty=true&zoomIn=true&annotations=true&map=true Theofunny (talk) 19:11, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/article305495836.html

Also this poll on Latinos. The Civiqs statewide poll has been covered by Newsweek in a few articles. Theofunny (talk) 19:13, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.noblepredictiveinsights.com/post/trump-s-turbulent-start-nevada-voters-reject-tariffs-and-department-of-education-dissolution

Poll on Nevada voters Theofunny (talk) 18:06, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Poll on Tennessee voters.

https://www.vanderbilt.edu/csdi/vupoll-home.php Theofunny (talk) 07:17, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://cssh.northeastern.edu/donald-trumps-approval-rating-is-underwater-in-florida-and-texas/

https://texaspolitics.utexas.edu/blog/new-ut-texas-politics-project-poll-economic-uncertainty-hurts-trump-ratings-in-texas-looms-over-the-legislature

https://punchbowl.news/article/campaigns/cornyn-getting-beat-in-new-poll/

Three polls: one by Republican Senate Leadership PAC, other by Texas Politics Project at UT Austin and third by Northeastern University. 2405:201:9004:E1CD:6819:A3F3:57B8:F40 (talk) 21:11, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The original chart at the New York Times, is considered to be in the public domain:

Regardless of whatever copyright the NYT claims for that chart. This is the template to use:

See: c:Commons:Threshold of originality#Charts

The SVG chart above is good for non-English Wikipedias since it can be translated. But few people know how to update such SVG charts.

For English Wikipedia anybody can update the non-SVG chart as often as people want. By taking a screenshot of it at the NYT source, or the archive, and uploading it over the old non-SVG version.

By registering for a free account one can have free access to a limited number of NYT articles in a certain time period. So multiple people can update the chart more often.

Anybody can get (and upload) the latest archive chart without having access to the New York Times site. See the non-SVG chart:

Uploading the chart accessed directly from the NYT site is preferred because it has the latest poll numbers written out. —Timeshifter (talk) 15:27, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Timeshifter: The Times website says the data sets that power this project are available under a CC license (plus, data is almost always not subject to copyright protection). However the graphical chart is an expression of the data, and in general it is expressions of ideas (here, data) that are subject to copyright protection. Further, in this case, the .csv data file that is downloadable, only contains the raw numbers for the line trace, and it does not contain data for the differently-sized “dots” of individual polls that are included in the Times chart. The Wikimedia Foundation’s approach to copyright is to be conservative, which here implies it is not acceptable to reproduce the graphic chart. —RCraig09 (talk) 15:52, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe the chart with the dots is copyrightable. See:

c:Commons:Threshold of originality#Charts

c:Commons talk:Threshold of originality/Archive 2#Bobby Glushko communications and the previous section there.

See this very detailed breakdown overseen by Bobby Glushko:

https://web.archive.org/web/20120801211652/https://open.umich.edu/wiki/Casebook#Charts – see the scatterplot and other charts.

The chart without the dots is definitely not copyrightable. That is well established.

About the dots: New York Times has this below the chart: “Note: Individual poll results are shown as circles. Polls with greater weight in the average have larger circles.”

Scatterplots are made with judgement calls as to which datapoints to use or emphasize, or to show on the chart. But it is still data, and data can not be copyrighted. At least not for charts uploaded to the Commons from US news sites. Since it is US copyright law that would apply. Its presentation as a scatterplot is not copyrightable as far as I can tell from the Casebook link. Maybe one of us can try contacting Bobby Glushko, an expert in international copyright law:

https://open.clemson.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1585&context=nasig

https://www.linkedin.com/in/bobby-glushko-0808051

This might merit further discussion here also:

c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright

I went ahead and sent an email to Bobby Glushko. —Timeshifter (talk) 00:02, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Timeshifter: I’ll look through the links you’ve posted. I do repeat that there is a difference between the data itself versus a chart of the data. It’s the classic “idea versus expression” distinction that governs copyright law. Here, we’re only concerned with the chart, not the data. —RCraig09 (talk) 05:46, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please start with the deletion discussions linked from here:

All of those charts qualify as PD-chart public-domain charts. —Timeshifter (talk) 17:40, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A. I see some spot-on discussion over the years, but I’m surprised at how the “Casebook” entries seem so uniformly against extending copyright protection to some fairly complex and non-standard graphical expressions. People seem to see as warranting copyright protection—presumably for its representing six datasets in two dimensions—but where does one draw the line of representational creativity? As Glushko remarked, “The challenge with copyright is that as a court applied doctrine, there aren’t always hard and fast answers.”

B. In the present case, we have:

(a) two line traces (approve/disapprove) over time and vertically (each is quite ‘standard’),

(b) individual polls (dot placement) over time and vertically, and

(c) poll “weightings” (dot sizes).

C. As an engineer and amateur Graphics Dude, I think adding “(b)” and “(c)” on a common vertical scale with “(a)” is clever. Further, the NY Times “weightings” determination probably involves some creative judgment by the chartmaker that’s not mere representation of observed data. Further, the individual-poll data is not present in the csv file that the newspaper offers for free download. Separately, consider that the Wikimedia Foundation goes beyond the bare minimum required by copyright law.^{(I can’t remember where that’s stated)} It’s (always?) best, though not legally necessary, to create a new SVG chart (with readable-size text, etc.) directly from the raw data. However, I don’t feel so strongly that I would nominate this file for deletion. I hope Plushko considers what I’ve just written, before responding. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:02, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RCraig09: Please see the section: “Program Manager/Copyright Librarian. University of Michigan” here:

https://www.linkedin.com/in/bobby-glushko-0808051

He worked on a multi-state multi-institution Copyright Review Management System.

See also the “Charts, Tables, and Graphs” section (scroll down) here:

https://guides.lib.umich.edu/copyrightbasics/copyrightability

“Unless they possess a modicum of creativity, charts, graphs, and tables are not subject to copyright protection, because they are purely factual. Thus, they do not meet the originality requirement.”

I don’t think there is anything original or creative in the NYT chart. It’s standard stuff for graphs, scatterplots, and weightings. —Timeshifter (talk) 21:16, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The separate, individual elements of are “standard stuff” if considered in isolation from each other; the crux of the issue is their combination in a single graphic. The “modicum of creativity”^{(prob. should be “modicum of originality”)} is the combination joining the elements in a non-standard fashion, which seems clear in the Napoleon graphic but less so in the current chart. I’d be interested to hear comments from Plushko on this specific case after he reads the specifics here and in my 20:02 post. —RCraig09 (talk) 21:53, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Copyright Guide of the University Library (scroll down to “Fair use of Tables, Charts, & Graphs”) at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign links to Copyrightability of Tables, Charts, and Graphs (pdf) (archived here) by Bobby Glushko. That pdf links to his large Casebook that was previously mentioned.

Research Guides: Data Visualization: Copyright considerations. From the University Libraries of the University of Maryland, College Park: “Simply displaying the data in a simple table or chart generally does not constitute creative transformation, whereas unique design and display elements may meet the threshold for original work.” —Timeshifter (talk) 21:41, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From official Jimmy Kimmel Youtube channel:

There are many mainstream reliable sources for this:

For example, Oct 6, 2025, The Guardian:

“The survey, published by the Economist and YouGov, asked 1,656 adults in the US whether they viewed Kimmel and Trump favorably.”
—Timeshifter (talk) 09:51, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No individual national approval polls since July have been listed in the article. Is there a reason for this? Nl4real (talk) 17:09, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]