Talk:The Keys to the White House

Foreign Policy Keys

Hello, in his latest podcast, Litchman didn’t give an official take about those keys and will likely be determined after election day. Litchman with his son gave an official 8 true keys and 3 false keys official prediction, acknowledging his worst case could be 8 true keys and 5 false keys (given Ukraine is losing ground again in the war and ceasefire talks are dead in the waters) . So my suggestion is to live the keys blanks and let Allan Litchman give his official take on his next book. Jimrot45556 (talk) 14:03, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

This is already reflected by the "likely" qualifier for those keys. Lichtman has said that this is the way those keys currently lean multiple times. It would not make any sense for the keys to be determined after election day, since they are supposed to be predictors for the result of the election. TWM03 (talk) 21:19, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

He left a key blank in 2016. He will do it too this time, since Kamala has already 8 so those keys don’t matter that’s his thinking.

He could leave them blank to hedge should the 2024 winner outcome become unpredictable. Jimrot45556 (talk) 10:27, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Jimrot45556 earlier today engaged in vandalism in this article by changing the status of Key 11 to "Likely False" based on his own judgement rather than what Allan Lichtman has predicted. Keep a close eye on this guy. 192.12.184.6 (talk) 00:55, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I didn’t engage in vandalism, Litchman literally said those keys are shaky and could flip in his latest podcast. You just didn’t watch it till the end. Plus the prediction is already in so it don’t much difference. Jimrot45556 (talk) 21:49, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

And where did he say that the key was likely false? You changed the key based on your views/judgement in spite of what Lichtman has quite clearly has said about it and ofcourse the key could flip it would otherwise be fully defined. Without an overt indication that Lichtman has shifted his judgment on the key, your edit is going to be vandalism. 2A00:23C5:11E:F901:3883:EF80:6075:256D (talk) 19:31, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I might have made an error in the code, I wanted to put them both blank since Litchman gave a solid 8-3 prediction and a worst case 8-5 prediction. It was the last final call with his son in that podcast. He also said the fortunes of war could turn both false.

I get a feeling he will decide on them after the election, the recent fall of Vuhledar in Ukraine and Israeli troops going into Lebanon makes them both likely false (my opinion).

But until Litchman makes a final call on them, better put them « Undertermined » cause I know he will flip them, he usually does (refer to his official prediction in 2016 and 2008) Jimrot45556 (talk) 04:44, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Again editing the article on the keys based on your opinion rather than Lichtman's is vandalism. No doubt about it.

And it wasn't an error in the code. You did this intentionally, and frankly should be banned from wikipedia. 192.12.184.7 (talk) 19:04, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Why are you unhinged like this ? Take your pills geez Jimrot45556 (talk) 21:56, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I took a look at your edits. It's quite clear that you changed the page from "Likely 4" to "Likely 5" keys down. You also changed key 11 to "Likely False" and changed the explanation for key 11 to

"Cautious call Russian invasion of Ukraine allowed Ukraine to regain territory taken by Russian separatist forces and incursion into Kursk Oblast has stagnated and Russians are making gains again in Dombass and took Nyu York. Ceasefire talks between Israel and Hamas are not going well for now."

This doesn't look to me (and multiple other people here) that it was an honest mistake. You made three changes to make it seem that they keys were 8-5 instead of 9-4 or 8-3-2. It's pretty clear that you changed these keys based on your opinion and there no good reason for that. It's clear cut vandalism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Keys_to_the_White_House&diff=1245393883&oldid=1245300511

Also personally attacking another poster is really uncalled for. Take your pills? WTF. If this behavior continues, it will be reported. J12nom (talk) 00:04, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Unacceptable source

In this article and in Lichtman’s bio, there are citations to a post on the “Postrider” site. As best I can tell, this site is a blog, self-published by the two named authors. It comes exactly within the caution in the relevant section of the Verifiability policy:

Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book and claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published sources are largely not acceptable.

Another issue is that the blog is voicing the authors’ opinion, in violation of WP:NPOV. We don’t adopt opinions. We can report facts about an opinion, if the opinion is notable, but a couple of guys who threw together a self-published website are not notable.

The “Postrider” post about Lichtman includes many hyperlinks. Some are to reliable sources. If an assertion in the blog is supported by a reliable source, then we can cite to that source. If an assertion in the blog is not so supported, then it doesn’t belong in Wikipedia.

I believe these references should be deleted. If there’s serious disagreement about the point, we’ll have to do a formal RfC. JamesMLane t c 03:27, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I would push back against this. This source is cited in Newsweek and in a couple other places in reference to this and was the first source we could find that pointed out the October 2016 book and paper (which is also cited). It appears both authors also have been interviewed on this topic and worked as journalists. On additional research, one of them is a local news reporter and has articles in several other outlets. If there is something in the source which is quoted for that which is opinion (rather than noting and framing a timeline of Lichtman's predictions and inconsistencies) which appears in the article, I am game to address it. Caraturane (talk) 16:50, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

One of the authors is a local news reporter? If he writes something that's published in a newspaper, even a local paper, fine, that takes that piece out of the self-published category. It doesn’t mean that anything and everything that he writes on his own blog becomes acceptable. The blog isn’t subject to the editorial control of a newspaper, or of anyone other than the author. Under WP:SPS, that’s the key distinction: "Self-published material is characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of the content."

I note this part of your comment: "It appears both authors also have been interviewed on this topic and worked as journalists. On additional research, one of them is a local news reporter and has articles in several other outlets." That appears to be an attempt to qualify these guys as experts. Let’s turn again to the relevant Wikipedia policy:

Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources. Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.

The "credentials" you cite are thin to nonexistent. Lots of people get interviewed. That various media have occasionally paid attention to these bloggers doesn't make them established subject-matter experts. Second, even if they were experts, this is still a self-published source. As the policy notes, genuine experts can usually get their views picked up by other media outlets. Finally, the policy notes the especially stringent criteria that apply where, as here, the subject is a living person.

If, as you suggest, the bloggers are basing their comments on published sources, we can just cite those sources. The readers don’t benefit from having the information filtered through Postrider’s opinions. JamesMLane t c 01:42, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I may have misunderstood your request. I'm cautious about removing a source without actual opinion being shown, what is the "opinion" part you're focused on removing? I believe the only places where Postrider is cited is:

1. As complementary support in reference to Lichtman's 2016 prediction (the cite to the October 2016 paper may alone be sufficient but the story and timeline provided in the article is still useful context). I can see an argument for just using the paper there, if that's what you mean (though I do think having both is helpful, we could use Newsweek, or a few other sources I can try to look for too). I don't see opinion there though.

2. In the criticism section. Though the inclusion there is probably necessary at this point!

----

I admit I have not done a deep dive into the source and its publishing standards, ownership, and history, you may know more than I would. I'd make a case for keeping the Postrider citations instead based on the expertise and credibility of the authors, as well as the unique value their work contributes. I do think it is important to emphasize that both authors cited have professional backgrounds in journalism and the fact that both authors have been interviewed by reliable media outlets about the topic at hand, which demonstrates that their insights are respected and sought after by credible, independent organizations. These factors collectively strengthen the reliability of their content, which is one of (if not the) strongest sources available on this relatively uncovered subject going in depth on his record. Reddit posts have also commented on this topic, as have blogs and YouTubers, but I think any objective read suggestions this is the highest quality source to do so. A balancing test considering the quality of the source, the paucity of other sources, and whether the source has been cited suggests we should err towards inclusion to provide the most value.

Postrider has been cited by several outlets for breaking key details about the October 2016 book and paper relating to Lichtman (Lichtman also has referenced their work several times and published a response on their site. Brief aside, we should consider adding that in the Criticism section?). It’s true that Wikipedia’s Verifiability policy discourages reliance on self-published sources without independent editorial review (again I will not pretend that that is happening or not happening here, I genuinely do not know; we could try asking them). However, there are instances where self-published expert sources are deemed reliable, particularly when the authors have established credibility and the content is well-supported by other reliable sources. In this case, Postrider includes numerous hyperlinks to reliable primary sources, allowing readers to directly verify claims and follow the logic of the authors' arguments. This approach to transparency is similar to peer-reviewed scholarship where claims are backed by accessible references.

Regarding neutrality, the cited article from Postrider does not present an opinionated analysis but rather frames Lichtman’s predictions and timeline in an objective, factual manner. Instead of providing subjective interpretations, it uses verifiable facts and sources to track Lichtman’s claims, which adds value to the reader’s understanding of the subject in a manner not addressed elsewhere (see the balancing above). If specific phrases are identified as editorializing, those could be discussed and revised, though like I said in my point above I do not think any of that is cited in this Wikipedia article; however, removing all references dismisses a valuable source of detailed information.

It's crucial to realize that Wikipedia benefits from diverse types of sources, including those that synthesize and contextualize data from numerous outlets, especially on topics which are missing a lot of coverage.

Something worth considering that may be affecting my own cognitive bias here: I will be honest that I am also a little uncomfortable with the idea of removing one particular source which has been repeatedly singled out for criticism by the subject themselves, particularly when the subject's spouse has also attempted to have it removed on Wikipedia directly and left editing notes directly targeting it. This raises concerns about impartiality and the potential chilling effect on the inclusion of information that might be critical or inconvenient for those being covered. ~~~~ Caraturane (talk) 10:53, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

As I understand you, your position is that there's no WP:NPOV violation because nothing from Postrider is opinion. If Postrider is being cited solely for factual information, what factual information is there in the blog that is NOT available from reliable sources, such as the Newsweek article and any reliable source linked to by Postrider? And if there is any such assertion in the Postrider article, then quoting it runs right into the WP:SPS policy. An assertion that's found solely in a self-published source is not reliable.

Let me give a nonpolitical example. Suppose a husband-and-wife team of respected archaeologists, authors of a few books and numerous peer-reviewed journal articles, is on a dig in Egypt. They come upon an exciting new discovery of an ancient artefact that sheds new light on something or other. They immediately post a description on their self-published website. There hasn't yet been time for the full scholarly process of peer review. Could Wikipedia cite that post in our article on the Ptolemaic Kingdom? Yes -- the authors are established subject-matter experts, they're giving facts not opinions, the facts aren't available anywhere else, and the special considerations of WP:BLP don't apply, the Pharaohs all being dead. This is the exceptional case where WP:SPS allows the self-published source to be used. The purpose of this hypothetical is to show the sharp contrast with the Postrider site. A little bit of media attention can't turn a blogger into an established expert.

You also say this: "It's crucial to realize that Wikipedia benefits from diverse types of sources...." Wikipedia does NOT benefit from including unreliable sources. Yes, a self-published source like Postrider is different from our usual reliable sources, so, yes, including it would promote diversity. Wikipedia policy is to the contrary, however. That's why we have multiple policies about sourcing. In fact, you can find a long list of deprecated and blacklisted sources at WP:DEPRECATED. If this upsets you and you think that we should admit a wider range of sources, there are procedures for changing policy on a project-wide basis. (Current discussions are at WP:VPP. You can start a thread there proposing that the WP:SPS policy be modified or rescinded in the name of diversity. Until there's such a change, though, current policies must be followed.)

As for your concluding paragraph: I appreciate your admitting possible bias based on your discomfort with what some non-Wikipedians have done. I'll address that in my response to Apprentice57. JamesMLane t c 03:10, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate the reminder of WP:NPOV. While we're at it, a section therein is fairly vindicating:

"Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications."

The authors in question have conventional degrees in journalism, and have had their findings published by that newsweek interview which is a conventional independent publication. Their qualifications may not rise to the equivalent of the veteran archaeologist hypothetical here, but they're also not "thin to nonexistent" nor are they merely bloggers. They also don't seem to be cited on a level equivalent to that hypothetical either. The proportionality matters here: their article is cited in the section on Lichtman's 2016 prediction, where it provides helpful context and more depth than a wiki article can realistically provide. That seems extremely inoffensive. And in the criticism section, for which you can reduce it to be only based on the newsweek article and rely on its credentials, but then again removing the reference takes away the context into which the newsweek article was interviewing them.

I think the way you addressed the diversity bit is a weird reading of Caraturane's argument. The source adds diversity on its own merits, and that's a factor in its favor of inclusion. This is an area where while Lichtman has been interviewed extensively, there has been a deficiency of sources that look into his published history with a critical lens (nor ones that even read his books in the first place). It does so by, as Caractuane puts it, synthesizing Lichtman's own history in publications and interviews, and shining a light on the issues therein. Your argument is also a bit tautological, assuming it's decided that the source is unreliable and therefore it's unreliable.

And that we have the ability to argue for a different wikipedia standard overall is, to borrow a turn of phrase, a distraction. We're arguing over what current standards allow/encourage. Apprentice57 (talk) 22:29, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I believe this to be a redundant point. The SPS policy states "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." I think it is clear that the Postrider authors, even if they are self-published (again I do not know this to be the case) are clearly experts qualified to speak on the 13 keys, which is what they are doing on this page in the Criticism section and in providing context to his 2000 and 2016 predictions. This is demonstrated by their work, citation to their work, and their backgrounds. I cannot find any documentation that Postrider or either of the articles are unreliable, in fact it looks as though their outlet has backing from a former CEO and publisher of USA Today.

I am not even disagreeing that they don't necessarily need to be cited in some places (the October 2016 paper can be cited, for example), but I just genuinely think that their article serves as a strong complementary source to provide more information (they include the most comprehensive information on the school editing posts after the fact, on Lichtman's 2000 prediction, on the 13 keys generally and their statistical use, and on how Lichtman has changed his mind). Again, in the context of the actual 2000 v 2016 prediction they are relying on many papers and books and statements, many of which are also cited, it's just in the interest of adding additional context (I'd err towards providing 2+ sources for these, since they are often disputed). Regardless, I feel strongly their work should remain in the Criticism section, as it is plainly relevant there for the fact that many outlets cite to it.

I will also respond to add more in response to Apprentice57. Caraturane (talk) 01:33, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

The topic has now also been covered by the atlantic. I'm not sure it adds anything unique (the most interesting new details are that Lichtman formerly accused the authors of defamation), but it's yet another good source from a more conventional publication that may be of use as a citation: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/10/allan-lichtman-election-win/680258/ Apprentice57 (talk) 18:26, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for finding this @Apprentice57! I added some citations to where the Postrider article previously was cited to this article, as this surely complies. I do think there's a good case to be made given how much Emerson and Lovito are discussed in the Atlantic article, for the citation to their work critical of the 13 keys in the Criticism section (I stepped away for a while so I missed what may have recently happened if anyone heard from them about editorial standards or whatever) like we'd been talking about but I am trying to keep temperatures down. Tomcleontis (talk) 19:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I too do not believe the Postrider is an unacceptable source, albeit I'm new to wikipedia so I'll defer to other responses on the specific.

And I'm wary about requests like this made in bad faith. This is repeating rhetoric that Lichtman has been using himself against the Postrider (Lichtman is, as we've noted, aware of and frustrated by this wikipedia article and "I've been trying to correct [wikipedia] for months"). I'd be open to pointing out it's a new publication, but calling it a "blog" is intentionally demeaning language which you have repeatedly used and IIRC adopted from him. He has also repeatedly made false claims that the authors do not have journalist/academic credentials (on the "about" page the Editor in Chief claims to have a BA in Broudcast Journalism and a Masters in Magazine Journalism), and finally he claims the article itself does not have acceptable sourcing in and of itself when it extensively quotes his backlog including the 2016 paper that is a smoking gun against his claims in 2016.

They also platformed a response from Lichtman himself on the website, I find it hard to believe he'd do that if it was merely a blog run by unqualified writers: https://thepostrider.com/letter-allan-lichtmans-response/

Lichtman has a lot of fans sourced from his new social media presence and youtube page, I'm concerned opening up a RfC might be a bad faith way to allow his fans to astroturf. He has already explicitly asked for his fans to edit the page, causing the lock from admins above. Apprentice57 (talk) 19:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

You write: "I'd be open to pointing out it's a new publication, but calling it a 'blog' is intentionally demeaning language which you have repeatedly used and IIRC adopted from him." No, I didn't adopt it from him. I looked at the site and it comports with my understanding of what a blog is. It also comports with the discussion at our Blog article.

But that's a distraction. It doesn't matter whether this is a new publication and it doesn't matter whether it's a blog. What matters is that it's a self-published source. As I pointed out to Caraturane above, there's no independent review of the content. Wikipedia policy recognizes that, under those circumstances, anyone can say anything. That's why we don't cite such blogs/websites/new publications, call them what you will.

Another distraction is the criticisms from you and Caraturane about Lichtman's approach to the Postrider criticism. I've been citing WP:SPS. That policy doesn't contain an exception that says "We can use a self-published source to criticize a living person if the living person has done things we don't like." Lichtman's activities in response to Postrider are irrelevant here. This article is about the 13 Keys, not about whether somebody does or does not have a B.A. and a Master's. Suppose one author has those degrees and also suppose that Lichtman got upset at what someone said and responded to it. Those facts don't make the author an established subject-matter expert, even if you throw in some Reddit comments.

As for possible astroturfing of the RfC, of course it can happen. Do you think Wikipedia has existed all these years without confronting that issue? The purpose of an RfC is to bring in comments from editors who are not involved in this particular article but who have relevant experience with applying Wikipedia policy. Yes, it may also bring in a bunch of comments from people who are recruited to come to Wikipedia solely to comment on that one dispute. These are called single-purpose accounts. Because that can happen, the RfC isn't a tabulation of the number of comments on each side. (Some participants use the term "!vote" to make clear that a comment isn't a vote.)

A full RfC is most often done about article content. An alternative here would be to start a thread about Postrider on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. That might be more informative and less contentious. It would be confined to the question whether Postrider can be cited as a source. JamesMLane t c 03:50, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I mean, maybe you specifically came across all this independently. And happened to use the same demeaning language as Lichtman. And happened to do so the day after his spouse vandalized the article. I hope you can understand how the specifics of this raise my eyebrows, but I'll leave that there and note that the attacks overall on the source are not coming from a place of good faith.

It's not a "distraction" to note that Lichtman's approach to the Postrider criticism involves directly attacking this wikipedia page. As mentioned, including an account that seems to be his spouse vandalizing this page, that's just plainly in the edit logs, and making some of the claims I referenced above. That wasn't brought over to wikipedia by me nor anyone else de novo. We should anticipate that he'll try to influence anything with public comment in bad faith, and we shouldn't add additional opportunities to astroturf. If you've got a option that's more resilient then sure that's preferable, but this is still plainly making an issue out of an inoffensive citation.

There is a form of bias where you only scrutinize the sources that don't support the conclusion you'd like. Where perhaps any individual call is justified, but the technique overall omits the same criticism of sources you do like. I would feel better about inquiries like this if they came as part of a comprehensive overview of the article that questioned more than just the one source this decade that leads to criticism of Lichtman. Apprentice57 (talk) 19:26, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

You think a master’s degree and being interviewed in ONE general-interest publication makes the author an "established subject-matter expert"? Well, I disagree – not to mention the point that these supposed "experts" are being quoted in articles where WP:BLP applies. As for Lichtman’s activities, they’re a distraction because nothing he does can alter Wikipedia policies or trigger some new exception to WP:SPS.

And I still have yet to hear what actual INFORMATION is conveyed by the Postrider citations that can't be presented through reliable sources, including any of the ones cited by Postrider.

We’re obviously not going to reach consensus here, so I’ll go ahead with inviting other editors via the Noticeboard. Anyone who responds there will be subject to your scrutiny so that you can argue that they’re just astroturfing. JamesMLane t c 00:44, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Addendum: Here's the link to the discussion: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Seeking_opinions_on_thepostrider.com. You don't have to be a Noticeboard regular to offer your comments there. JamesMLane t c 01:07, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

In the terms of journalism? Sure. Masters degrees are advanced degrees in that field, it's not an overly academic one where lacking a doctorate is a red flag. Their work was rigorous enough to be covered by another article. Caractuane went over more of this.

As for the rest, old ground has been trodden. I'll simply mention that the actual INFORMATION (the random caps lock and quotes are unnecessary, BTW) is the goalpost you've set. The article is enhanced by the extra context. See also how we don't just cite factual issues that Nate Silver brought up in his criticism, but linked to his article on the subject as well (while we're at it, he only has a bachelor's degree!)

I agree we won't reach consensus. Apprentice57 (talk) 12:52, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I am genuinely curious: do we know there's not independent review of content? As it is, I cannot find any documentation that Postrider or either of the articles are unreliable, in fact it looks as though their outlet has backing from a former CEO and publisher of USA Today. We're making a lot of assertions with little knowledge about their structure, I can investigate though it will take some time if you don't mind giving me a couple of days to look into it (I work on weekends sorry for the delay).

The article is offered for its criticism and context (at this point it is clear they are a part of the story of the 13 keys and how they are handled in media), as well as its role in bringing to light the inconsistencies. I can understand if it does not need to be used to serve every point on the latter (Lichtman's own work does that plenty) but I believe it is relevant on the former.

From my standpoint, this is at least equal to or better than a Substack or a Twitter post, or a book by the subject, or a post by the employer, all of which are used but aren't necessarily independent (they are being offered for necessary reasons though). Yet this is singling out one specific source which has been continually attacked by both Lichtman, his wife, and his supporters because it is critical of him, to the point where he directly asked people on multiple occasions to go on Wikipedia and edit the page to remove it, in a clear conflict of interest violation. That makes me nervous. For example, the 13 keys article includes and relies on references to Lichtman's own self-published work, like his retroactive application of the keys, references and data reliant on his livestreams, and his own defenses of the method. Many of these are equally suspect under self-publication guidelines, but probably important in the context of this particular article, given it's parasocial nature; just like the Postrider article, which is being offered for its comment on the 13 keys (something it has been cited for several places as far as I can tell), not as a biography of Lichtman. Caraturane (talk) 01:42, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

And here you are again with criticizing Lichtman personally. Your argument takes this form:

1. Allan Lichtman has done some things that some Wikipedians dislike.

2. Therefore, we can set aside such trivia as WP:VERIFIABILITY, WP:RS, WP:SPS, and WP:BLP. Instead, we can admit negative comments about Lichtman that wouldn't otherwise be acceptable.

I disagree because I think that these ad hominem attacks don't relate to the actual issues. From now on I'm going to try to resist the temptation to respond to those irrelevancies.

Am I "singling out one specific source"? There's a Wikipedia axiom: You don't have to make the article perfect; you just have to make it better. Removing one unacceptable source will be an improvement. If you think there's other sludge in the article that should also be removed, feel free to start an appropriate thread here. JamesMLane t c 03:48, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we should assume bad faith by anyone here. As I understand it, Caraturane was raising the point that the article is useful in the "Criticism" section, if less useful except as context (I go either way on that) in terms of the actual facts, but that we should not be too quick to assume that the blog/website/whatever you want to call it is necessarily devoid of standards either. I do think it is helpful to know about the background of this situation in terms of edits, how Lichtman has acted, and not; as well as the background of how these particular authors have been cited. A compromise is probably along the lines of:

1. Use the sources found in The Postrider source for it's factual reporting.
2. Use The Postrider source in the criticism section. They are among the most prolific "critics" and are often referenced for that work.

I am game for that, itwoudl comply with guidelines and preserve the maximum available sourcing.

Tomcleontis (talk) 12:56, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

This makes sense to me. @JamesMLane @Apprentice57, this seems to clear up all the issues, are you okay with this? Caraturane (talk) 14:51, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

My objection is that the status quo uses a WP:SPS in an article subject to WP:BLP. The proposed "compromise" is to use a WP:SPS in an article subject to WP:BLP. So, no, this doesn't resolve the issue. I've posted a more detailed response on the Noticeboard thread. JamesMLane t c 16:21, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps I missed something, but how is this a biography of a living person? The related entry on Lichtman's own page is, of course, but this is for his model. Apprentice57 (talk) 18:08, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you did miss something. You missed reading the actual Wikipedia policy that I cited. If you go to Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Avoid_self-published_sources you'll find this:

This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.

WP:SPS would bar use of this source even in an article about the Grand Canyon, but WP:BLP applies when the article, although not the main bio article, relates directly to the point for which the living person is best known. That's especially true where, as here, the blog authors (or whatever you want to call them) are speaking negatively about the living person (charging that Lichtman "has not been completely honest").

In the Noticeboard thread, I referenced WP:BLP. If you think that policy doesn't apply to the Keys article, you would do better to state your position there rather than here. JamesMLane t c 20:07, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Not everything needs a lecture, thanks! Apprentice57 (talk) 22:45, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I think it's kind of a shame to lose the citation in the factual section, as it gives way more depth to a reader than could reasonably be included on the page. But certainly it isn't required in that section and yes, seems like it would resolve the contention in question (or, uh, should resolve it at least). So on the balance sure that'd be fine by me. Apprentice57 (talk) 18:12, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

They're motivating how this edit makes them nervous given the context. They also disagree on the merits of how wikipedia standards apply here. There's not a connection between the two like claimed.

In fact they begin their comment by pointing out that we don't know what The Postrider's standards for independent review are. We've been assuming they don't have independent review, but that very could end up being a false assumption. If you don't want to discuss the uh, irrelevant parts of this discussion, then whatever but this seems to be pretty narrowly tailored to the wikipedia standards for unreliability.

The issue is that singling out one source may actually make the article worse if it unbalances it. If you're conceding this point, the burden would be on you to do such an overview (not as in a wikipedia requirement, but an intellectual one). Perhaps not the whole article, but some of the other media coverage sections. Apprentice57 (talk) 13:06, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

The implication of your view is: Anyone can pay the fee to buy a domain name, post any crazy thing they please, and that material can then be cited on Wikipedia (including in a BLP) unless critics can somehow prove that the material is self-published? No, it doesn't work that way. The burden is on whoever wants to insert or restore the material.

Similarly, we don't seek a spurious "balance" in an article by including stuff that violates established policy. I have no problem with including properly sourced criticism, such as that from Nate Silver. He and Lichtman have often disagreed, and Silver is certainly not unbiased, but he is an established subject-matter expert. Therefore, the fact about his opinion is worth reporting. That doesn't mean that every opinion is worth reporting.

I thought that this article could be improved. The first step seemed to be to clear out the sludge. Given what I see as a pretty obvious violation of Wikipedia policy, I thought that would be a quick matter, after which there could be a discussion of possible improvements, including consideration of the popular vote versus the electoral vote. Instead, that first stage has been protracted. Once this issue is resolved, then, yes, I agree with your desire to pay attention to the whole article. JamesMLane t c 13:43, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

We've gone over multiple times how the postrider isn't merely a blog. Perhaps it doesn't rise to the level of acceptable source, perhaps not, but you do yourself a disservice when people write thoughtful comments and the reply given is overly reductive and unproductive. Apprentice57 (talk) 17:54, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

My reply included linking to the Wikipedia article about Blogs and giving my opinion that the Postrider site comes within the description there. I'm sorry you find that unproductive. Perhaps you should instead focus on the point that whether it's called a blog or not doesn't change the fact that it comes within WP:SPS. JamesMLane t c 20:00, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I explicitly mentioned that. ("perhaps... perhaps not"). My issue is your MO in running these conversations, it tends toward lecturing and against productive discussion and ignoring things others bring up. See the thing I explicitly mentioned that you ignored! Apprentice57 (talk) 22:46, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I've ignored multiple irrelevancies here. Beyond that, it's my opinion that the conversation on the Noticeboard, bringing in uninvolved editors, is likely to be more productive than for the same people to keep rehashing the same arguments here. JamesMLane t c 01:51, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

A blog is no less reliable than a book. It depends on the author. Kurzon (talk) 23:40, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy focuses on whether a source is self-published. The absence of independent review means that self-published books and self-published blogs come within WP:SPS. That policy addresses the circumstances under which such a source may be used. (As a practical matter, there are more self-published blogs. You're right, though, that even if someone goes to the effort and expense of self-publishing a book, that doesn't make it a reliable source. JamesMLane t c 14:26, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

The discussion here got nowhere. The next step in resolving the dispute was the thread on the Noticeboard for discussing whether Postrider was a reliable source for use here. Apprentice57 expressed the concern that Lichtman might recruit his fans to astroturf the comments. That didn't happen. Three uninvolved editors chimed in. They were obviously legitimate Wikipedians, having edited the encyclopedia on a wide variety of topics since 2021, 2013, and 2005, respectively.

All three uninvolved editors agreed that Postrider should not be cited. Accordingly, I'm removing those links from the Lichtman bio and from the Keys article.

As I've made clear, removing the Postrider criticism doesn't mean the removal of all criticism. The next step is to examine how the articles address any contentious issues concerning the Keys and to see whether the treatment might be improved. JamesMLane t c 16:33, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Would you consider waiting until the one user gets the editorial/independence standards from The Postrider? Also there were strong feelings the Postrider should remain in the criticism section, please leave it there. Tomcleontis (talk) 16:36, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Waiting would be wrong. Applicable standard is "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page...." If some user gets a communication from the Postrider authors and believes that there is enough evidence to prove that it's not within WP:SPS, the appropriate step would be to start a Noticeboard thread urging a reversal of the previous decision. (Posting in the original Noticeboard thread wouldn't be objectionable but that thread might be archived soon. Noticeboard gets a lot of activity and threads are frequently archived.) I'll point out, however, that if the Postrider authors send an email assuring us that there is some previously undisclosed independent review that takes their work out of WP:SPS, I for one will regard that assertion with skepticism.

What should have happened here is that the improper citations should have been removed days ago, after which we could begin consideration of how to address criticisms. The first step has, regrettably, been unduly protracted. As I said, we can now turn to the other issues. One such issue is whether the Postrider authors are important enough to be named as critics. Another is how to provide a comprehensive, informative, properly sourced, and NPOV discussion of the question of the popular vote versus the electoral vote. JamesMLane t c 17:03, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

There is no dispute about the sourcing of the work, or of what exists on the page as is, except by Lichtman, who has repeatedly demonstrated bad faith. I do not think the unliateral decision by you to remove material and designate what is appropriate sourcing, despite several good faith suggestions, is appropriate.

Time and time again you have set the rules of engagement and taken unilateral action without consensus. Regardless of any of the citations to The Postrider, Wikipedia has already gone through discussions of "comprehensive, informative, properly sourced, and NPOV" review of material on the popular versus the electoral vote. You can review previous talk page discussions both here and on Lichtman's biographical page, a member of the community even expended money to dig up the paper found by The Postrider, which we all felt was clear enough evidence (along with what we already have) to settle the matter. I was really hoping this could have been resolved in a way that made everyone happy and be supported by Wikipedia's rules (by using criticism in the Criticism section and using only the sources cited by THe Postrider that we already addressed here months ago). Tomcleontis (talk) 17:13, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Excuse me, "unilateral action"? Many editors in my position, recognizing that linking to Postrider violated Wikipedia policies, would have simply removed the links -- unilaterally. I didn't do that. I started a discussion here. When the discussion failed to produce agreement, I followed Wikipedia's dispute resolution procedures, by going to the appropriate Noticeboard to solicit the views of uninvolved editors. The uninvolved editors were unanimous in concluding that Postrider should not be linked. Only then did I remove the links.

If you think I should have followed some other procedure, I'd be interested in learning the details. Take note that "Put up with improper sourcing unless and until every single person who comments on the subject agrees with removal" is not an appropriate alternative. JamesMLane t c 18:01, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

There's some misleading language here, the editors were opposed 3:1 to the change, disagreement in a literal sense but not even disagreement.

Only 2 uninvolved editors chimed in specifically on the unacceptable source question the third chimed in on a different matter.

As far as details, how about waiting a reasonable amount of time before deciding. Give it a week, we're waiting on emails from busy people. Apprentice57 (talk) 23:40, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Among other things, arguing that the source should've been removed days ago is simply (to borrow a phrase) preposterous. You only initiated the discussion for outside sources two days ago and shortly after Caractuane said they contacted the authors on their review standards and wanted to wait for a response, that resets the timetable on any reasonable action. Before that, there was no consensus on this matter and no "tiebreakers" or so to speak.

I agree with Tomcleontis, you do not get to set the rules of engagement. Apprentice57 (talk) 23:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

From what I wrote in the other thread:

It's literally the definition of unilaterally to act on something that others haven't agreed to. That you initiated a discussion two days ago and *then* acted unilaterally does not change that it's unilateral. This opinion seeking thread literally gained the light agreement (on the unacceptable source) from two users and the three of us who have been editing that page for much longer still remain opposed to it.

You are not automatically correct here because you are familiar with wikipedia policies and can link to meta pages. I really object to the way you've handled yourself in this whole matter.

I recommend we revert the changes while we wait for others to weigh in on Tomcleontis' changes and/or for Caraturane to hear back. Perhaps JamesMLane will end up being right as per the wikipedia policies, but there's no rush here to make changes while we are working through this all.

Apprentice57 (talk) 23:28, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

About the Noticeboard thread

The current state of the Noticeboard thread is that every single one of the uninvolved editors who has weighed in has agreed that the citations should be removed. My action in conformity with that conclusion is obviously not unilateral.

As for your complaints about the time, it appears to me that no one else is likely to join the Noticeboard thread. (Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if other editors who take the time to review WP:RS questions thought that this one was so clear that they had nothing to add. Of course, you're free to dismiss my guess as biased.) If other uninvolved editors do join in and speak in favor of restoring the cites, the question can be revisited. That doesn't mean that improper sources can now be restored just because some of the editors involved in the dispute disagree with the Noticeboard comments. JamesMLane t c 23:58, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

All two of them, yes. What a great consensus!

You made that choice while another editor sent an email and is waiting for a response. You did so as you agreed it was possible that the email could contain information that would change your opinion.

The status quo is the article as it originally stood, not as you have changed it. You do not get to set the rules of engagement. Apprentice57 (talk) 21:40, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I am upset with this outcome as well but I think we should all take the temperature down. The Postrider authors did some good work and it still stands out for digging up some of these sources, and I am hopeful that they can either 1. show that they meet publishing standards, or 2. work to meet them in the near future. The quality of their work is there, and there work paid off in helping get to the bottom of some things here. This doesn't have to be the end of this story, but I do think it will do us all some good to take a step back for a while :) Tomcleontis (talk) 23:29, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Very well, but only at *your* urging and not that of the biased editor above. Thanks for being a reasonable voice through all this! Apprentice57 (talk) 12:49, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Popular vote and electoral vote

On the whole popular vote versus electoral vote question: It's discussed in the first section of the article, in a discussion that needs improvement. For example, I think Nate Silver's criticism on the point should appear there, subject coherence being more important than keeping all of Silver's comments in one place. A more important example of a needed edit is impeachment. When Lichtman made his prediction as to 2016, he also predicted that Trump would be impeached. That necessarily implies a prediction that Trump would be elected, which necessarily implies a prediction that Trump would win the electoral vote. The article should note the fact of his impeachment prediction, which it currently omits.

But the particular section that Tomcleontis most recently edited is about the various comments on the Keys. Tom, you edited to insert your comment "though he had previously clarified the 13 keys predicted only the popular vote, which Donald Trump lost." Those words are then followed by two footnotes. Neither of those cited sources supports your addition, although your wording inaccurately gives that impression. The footnotes are there because this particular sentence is reporting what those media outlets said.

Here's an analogy you may find more palatable. In this section on the reception given to the Keys, there's a later passage reporting Silver's criticism on the popular-vote issue. Would it be proper to edit that passage to add "though Silver didn't recognize that Lichtman also predicted that Trump would be impeached, and thus clearly predicted that Trump would win the electoral vote"? No, that would not be proper. The passage here isn't to examine all the evidence and make a judgment. Wikipedia doesn't do that. This section is about "Reception" and it's reporting what various sources have said about the Keys. It's not the occasion for interpolating editors' opinions about whether the sources thus reported did a good job of assessing the subject. That applies to the sources favorable to the Keys and to the sources critical of the Keys. That's why I'm reverting this edit. JamesMLane t c 18:44, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I was just trying to keep the page consistent as the line on this page is to keep the sizable asterisk next to his 2016 prediction, wasn't trying to really mess with the Nate Silver stuff, sorry if that was confusing. The 13 keys have nothing to do with impeachment so I do not feel it should be included, and the October 2016 paper, 2016 book, The Postrider reporting, Lichtman's own historical statements, and more (especially when read together) pretty clearly indicate that the keys model had not changed. To this day there is not any evidence that what the keys were predicting had changed, only Lichtman's own post-2016 statements (which are unreliable). Tomcleontis (talk) 19:04, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

You write, "To this day there is not any evidence that what the keys were predicting had changed, only Lichtman's own post-2016 statements (which are unreliable)." First, Lichtman's comments about his own prediction may be cited, because we report his opinion. (We don't adopt it, i.e., we don't state in Wikipedia's voice that something is true just because he said it, but we report it, just as we report Silver's contrary opinion.) Second, there is other evidence about what the Keys were predicting -- namely, the impeachment prediction. This is why impeachment belongs in the article. The impeachment prediction is a reason to believe that Lichtman was predicting a Trump presidency, not just a Trump popular-vote win. JamesMLane t c 20:01, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

In October 2016 (after he predicted "impeachment" without using the Keys), Lichtman wrote: "the Keys predict the popular vote, not the state-by-state tally of Electoral College votes.” Please refer back to the 2016 Election Confusion discussion for way more thorough research and explanation. I believe seven or eight neutral editors all investigated this, discussed this, and came to the same conclusion, this page doesn't need to go through all of this again. Whether you or @Apprentice57 or @Caraturane want to rely on it or not the Postrider article is a useful source to explain this, which is why many of us (along with that it was well researched, neutral, well sourced, and based on Lichtman's own words and interviews to tie the bow together) felt it helped provide context. I would be happy to pull the individual sources from that article to add to this article too, but I do think it would be really in the best interests of everyone to take a step back for a while, please. At least until the 2024 election is over, where I'm sure there will be much more to add to this page. Tomcleontis (talk) 20:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

You are reiterating the criticism of the Keys based on the popular vote-electoral vote distinction, and you are answering the argument that that criticism should be totally excised from the article. I have not made that argument. For example, I specifically said that Silver's criticism to that effect should be included. So you can save yourself the trouble of arguing against total exclusion. As for stepping back, no, this article is subject to WP:BLP and we do not allow improper material to remain in the hope that the passage of time will enable us to improve the article. We improve it now. Then we further improve it as more information becomes available. JamesMLane t c 21:21, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I echo @Tomcleontis 's request to step back. There will be additional data and a gentler atmosphere in which to edit the article after the election. We're not asking you to wait an indetermined amount or long time, just a month. Honestly I think the entire article could use an overhaul but that's just me.

If you want to fight us tooth and nail on everything, and do more bludgeoning, be my guest. But you're wasting all of our time.

You do not speak for all of Wikipedia, nor us, in what is best for the page. Please tone down the authoritative talk postings, this is getting out of hand. Apprentice57 (talk) 19:24, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Lichtman uses the impeachment argument often to justify his claim of predicting a Trump EV win, but those statements were made in comparatively informal settings. I don't believe he made any formal publication about thinking Trump would be impeached until The Case for Impeachment in 2017 when Trump was in office. Though I'd be interested if I've missed something.

We also need to be sure that he made that prediction in a specific setting, and not a conditional one ("if Trump is election then I think he'll be impeached" sort of deal). We shouldn't take his word for this...

By contrast, he published in a paper on election's even and in successive books before that that his model was predicting the popular vote. Those are stronger indications of his intent than any impeachment prediction. I don't think it's helpful enough for inclusion, it just muddies the water when his paper is crystal clear. Apprentice57 (talk) 19:40, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

There was consensus (in the "Election Confusion" section of this talk page) that we should not recognize Lichtman's prediction as correct for 2016. Tom's edit brought that part of the article into accord with that consensus and it should be restored. The line in the article you reverted it true is factually false.

The start of the prediction record section is also problematic, as he wasn't predicting the elected president but the popular vote until 2020. We should edit that to bring it in line with the consensus. Apprentice57 (talk) 19:52, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

You write that "we should not recognize Lichtman's prediction as correct for 2016." I agree. We also shouldn't recognize it as incorrect. Where there's a genuine dispute, the Wikipedia policy is to report the notable opinions on both sides, along with a fair summary of the arguments on which each side relies. It is not Wikipedia policy for the genius editors, having evaluated all of this, to add their official judgment in favor of one side or the other. That would violate Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, which is one of the core policies of Wikipedia.

Applying NPOV to this specific article, the question about the accuracy of the Keys has attracted significant attention on each side. We should report the assessments and their arguments. For the table, the footnote for 2016 should reflect the dispute, rather than adopting one side of it.

By the way, I hope you don't mind my citing actual Wikipedia policies. If that's what you mean when you decry "authoritative talk postings", well, I'm afraid you'll just have to live with it. Wikipedia is not a blog or a discussion forum. It's an encyclopedia, with established policies that must be followed. JamesMLane t c 18:51, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Neutral POV does not mean you can't take a position when the facts support it, and ignore pseudoscientifical (for example) positions. We would not, for instance, want a page on climate change to post the bogus arguments made by climate change deniers just because it has significant attention and assessment.

There isn't any good argument that he ever intended for the Keys to predict the electoral vote for instance, and Lichtman himself is an unreliable narrator. As far as I'm concerned. I'm open to arguments to the contrary but well, we had a whole talk page about it fairly recently with 7-8 people establishing consensus.

Citing wikipedia policies is fine, it's the Meta of how you do so is the issue and I think you know that. You'll have to live with me calling you out for it so long as you insist on the problematic way you talk to others (and potentially looking into what action can be taken if it manifests in more unilateral reverts and edits against consensus). Apprentice57 (talk) 20:05, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

You're absolutely right that I'll have to live with your repeated expressions of disapproval about me. I have not attempted to censor your comments. As for "potentially looking into what action can be taken", I presume you saw my comment to Tomcleontis with information about arbitration. There are links there where you could start your "looking into" process. JamesMLane t c 21:35, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Application to margin of victory

I'm working on improving the discussion of the popular vote versus electoral vote question. In the meantime, I note that the section on Silver's criticisms devotes much attention to Silver's and Lichtman's competing views on the question of using the keys to predict the margin of victory or defeat for the incumbent party (or, alternatively, the party's share of the vote). In the exchange between the two on Silver's page, Lichtman mentioned a formula he developed for that, but described it as just a by-product of the system. It's not the main focus of the 13 Keys method.

Accordingly, this whole section should be trimmed. What it should cover:

Silver's criticism: Number of keys doesn't correlate well with size of the margin. Lichtman's response: It's not supposed to (pregnancy test analogy), but here's a formula that is designed to do that; it has errors but not important ones. Silver's reply: There's still a discrepancy in how we calculate the margin of error.

Those are the points that need to be stated and briefly explained. Going into detail about what each of them says about each of several specific elections gives undue weight to this aspect. Furthermore, much of the current text seems to be original research. JamesMLane t c 03:54, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I continue to oppose any substantial changes to this article ahead of the election including this and the NPV vs. EV "question". Apprentice57 (talk) 06:20, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Because Lichtman has predicted a Harris win, the election will produce one more data point. Nothing that can possibly happen in the election, however, would call for a wholesale change in the article. In particular, nothing about 2024 will affect how we describe the controversy about 2016. As to the subject of this particular thread, the exchange between Silver and Lichtman on the fivethirtyeight page from 2011 is on the books and won't change. JamesMLane t c 15:02, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Major rewrite

The most significant change concerns the previous version’s treatment of 2016. There were multiple problems. Taking sides on the controversy, in Wikipedia’s voice instead of merely reporting the conflicting views, violated WP:NPOV. The imputation of dishonesty to Lichtman violated WP:BLP. Placing the attack so high in the article, before the reader had even been introduced to the specific keys, violated WP:UNDUE.

The better approach is to mention, in introducing the Keys system, that its record is either good or perfect. In the introductory section, that’s enough of a nod to the controversy. It’s then described in the section on the predictive record, with a full exposition in the relevant section under “Criticism” (a discussion cross-referenced so that the criticism isn’t overlooked).

As for that “Criticism” section, it should be balanced by some mention of the favorable reception of the Keys. In addition, the previous version was something of a mish-mash, so I’ve created more logical subsections, to make each criticism (and Lichtman’s response) more comprehensible. I’ve also eliminated the statistical discussion that, as I noted above, violated WP:NOR. JamesMLane t c 14:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I have reverted these edits so that we can discuss, because this is a unilateral major rewrite and it merits some point by point discussion. Please make your recommendations in the talk page. Tomcleontis (talk) 14:46, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I've already explained it. In this thread, in the one above, and in our extensive discussions of Postrider, I noted multiple violations of Wikipedia policy. If you want to discuss the version you reverted to, you can address any of those specific comments.

That discussion will be more productive if we bring in uninvolved editors. To that end, I'll begin preparing the RfC. JamesMLane t c 16:26, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you have not discussed your edits to the criticism section, the 2016 election, how the article is framed, etc. I would be much more helpful if you could prepare a list of your proposals, given you are the only one who feels this is contentious. I agree that uninvolved editors would be helpful. Tomcleontis (talk) 16:29, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

The "list" you want is obvious from my previous comments. If you need it spelled out, here are the highlights:

1. There is dispute about the accuracy of the 2016 prediction. The version to which you reverted ("Version 1") adopts one side of that dispute. This violates WP:NPOV. My rewrite ("Version 2") adheres to this core policy by presenting both sides but not endorsing either. I tried to follow the policy by being fair to both sides. If you have a specific complaint about the presentation in Version 2, you could suggest whatever change would, in your opinion, improve the neutrality.

2. A related point is that Version 1 introduces this dispute about one specific year in the third paragraph, before the reader has even been told what the 13 keys are. This violates WP:UNDUE.

3. Version 1 imputes dishonesty to Lichtman, for example with the phrase "Lichtman claims" (in the third graf). See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Synonyms_for_said for an explanation of why calling someone's credibility into question in this fashion is a bad idea. In particular, in this and other respects, Version 1 violates WP:BLP, which does apply to this article even though it's not a bio article.

4. Version 1 quotes the opinion of the two Postrider authors about 2016. They aren't notable and there's no reason to report their opinion. Nate Silver, while obviously not unbiased, is notable, and Version 2 presents the 2016-related criticism by sourcing it to Silver.

5. Version 1's presentation of Silver's criticism violates WP:NOR. Someone has looked at Silver's post and done further statistical analysis, yielding conclusions not endorsed by Silver. Silver's post doesn't include any of the discussion of R-squared and so on that are in Version 1. Version 2 instead quotes Silver verbatim.

6. In general, the presentation of criticisms in the "Criticism" section in Version 1 is something of a mish-mash. Version 2 has more logical subsections, to make each criticism (and Lichtman’s response) more comprehensible.

7. Version 2 is also more balanced. The "Reception" section in Version 2 includes a subsection for support as well as the subsection for criticism. JamesMLane t c 17:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Follow-up: I've created the RfC (see below). When it's published to the RfC list, I'll be adding my thoughts in support of Version 2. JamesMLane t c 20:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I think it makes sense to discuss these changes in specific, as I have written I think the "version 1/2" casting is a false dichtomy and both can always be improved. So whatever the result of the RfC, most of these will be productive to discuss.

1. Litigating over in the RfC, will not repeat here.

2. Disagree, the page's very first sentence is "the 13 Keys, is a prediction system for determining the outcome of presidential elections in the United States." Knowing they predict an election outcome is enough context for this.

3. Notably the MoS contains suggestions and not hard and fast rules. I think "claim" is not really to the level of "imputing dishonesty" and I think it's proportional to his questionable intellectually honesty here. With that said, I don't think it would change much to use more basic verbs and this is fairly small potatoes.

4. This gets into the last discussion, but by now the postrider authors have established notability on at least this topic. Since our last discussion the Atlantic has again cited them as prominent Lichtman critics (whose criticism was apparently notable enough for Lichtman to accuse them of defamation with his lawyer copied).

5. I'm fine abridging the section on silver's criticism to remove things he hasn't said - in abstract, though I'd have to look at the specifics you're claiming.

6. I'm fine with reformatting it into a Reception section with a part for Support, but as written in version 2 is poorly considered. The text under "Reception" reads mostly as support for Lichtman (when both support and criticism has been present, and neither should be really included ahead of their subsections) and should itself be more neutral. The support section should contain more substantive support on the merits, for instance calling him "Nostradamus" is really not notable.

7. See 6, as such disagree that as presented version 2 is more neutral.

I continue to request that major changes to the article be paused until the election result is known and things have calmed down. Apprentice57 (talk) 17:48, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Why do we need to always jump to outside perspective? We have not even begun to discuss these changes first.

Why are you only suggesting this *after* getting called out on it?

You are not doing much to allay fears about the nature of your edits. Apprentice57 (talk) 23:10, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Also this time, do *NOT* wait a mere two days after the first feedback to unilaterally make edits. Apprentice57 (talk) 23:12, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Request for Comment on competing versions of article

Should the article be substantially in the form of Version 1 or Version 2? The most salient difference is how the article should present disputes about the prediction for the 2016 presidential election, but there are several other issues as well. Here is a diff showing the edit by which Version 1 was replaced by Version 2, a change that has since been reverted. JamesMLane t c 20:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• Version 2. The article concerns a system for predicting U.S. presidential elections. The main issue is how to handle the dispute about 2016 -- was the call for Trump correct, because he became president, or incorrect, because he lost the popular vote? Version 1 adopts the latter position in violation of WP:NPOV; it puts that conclusion about one specific election up front, in the third paragraph, before the system has even been presented, in violation of WP:UNDUE; and it impugns the credibility of one of the co-authors of the system ("Lichtman claims"), in violation of WP:BLP. Version 2 notes that there is a dispute and summarizes each side without endorsing either. In the "Reception" section, Version 2 includes a subsection about support, to balance the criticisms, but also does a better job of presenting the criticisms, by breaking them out into subject-matter subsections and giving more information about Lichtman's responses. I'm trying to keep this comment short but I elaborated here. JamesMLane t c 22:46, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Support Version 2: The Keys to the White House is connected to the Allan Lichtman article, which is a Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons or BLP. Both articles must adhere to strict guidelines that reflect the Wikipedia's commitment to WP:NPOV. Version 1 of this article has a lead that takes a position which is in direct violation of WP:LEAD. Version 2 has a neutral lead and a very clear criticism section that offers multiple perspectives, which is how Wikipedia articles are written. I would suggest that this article move to Version 2.-Classicfilms (talk) 01:59, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Support Version 1: There is smoking gun evidence provided in the form of Lichtman's October 2016 paper and therefore no ambiguity about his prediction. The language "generically to a Trump win, without mentioning the popular vote" is particularly problematic, as that paper did say the keys call only the popular vote and establish what "win" later refers to in said paper. This is coming from the man himself and is dated after most of his cited media interviews. There is also no ambiguity that Trump lost that election. Therefore it is neutral to present this as fact that they keys called that election wrong. We can recognize that Lichtman disputes this argument and his reasons why, but it should not be elevated to being equivalent when he is on record on Election's eve saying otherwise. Version 2 presents a false balance, in other words.

This is also not to say that improvements on Version 1 could not be made by incorporating ideas from Version 2. In other words, Version 1/2 is a false dichotomy. This could have and should be pursued in the talk on specific changes first instead of jumping to a RfC on such a wide rewrite. Apprentice57 (talk) 23:36, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

You assume without proof that the article you reference was his last word. (1) It was published in a scholarly journal issue dated in October. He gave a newspaper interview in September, and given the relative lead times of each such publication, his interview came later. (2) In this article, The Washington Post reported his making the same prediction in a further interview "first published 11 days before Election Day".

You also incorrectly imply that Lichtman himself is the only one who says he got it right, and that his opinion can therefore be discounted. You ignore the multiple citations in Version 2; in presenting both sides of the dispute, the Version 2 section on the controversy cites The New York Times, The Washington Post, and USA Today as all crediting Lichtman with a correct prediction. If anything, the view you hold, that the prediction was incorrect, is the tiny minority view that doesn't deserve as much credit as Version 2 gives it. Either way, however, that view certainly doesn't deserve to be proclaimed correct, as Version 1 does. JamesMLane t c 01:52, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Lichtman is all over the media constantly, I'm sure he gave a bunch of similar vague "win" predictions close to the election. They do not override the paper, which also is a source of clarification of what "win" really means (popular vote).

Papers are also much more formalized publications where people dot their is and cross their ts. It included the text of the keys verbatim. This should not be ignored.

Finally. also have his reasoning for *why* the keys are a popular vote model: that they are based on national factors and don't treat the swing states explicitly. They cannot, as per his own arguments, be anything other than a popular vote model.

I'm fine with recognizing that other sources gave him credit, so long as this does not impede recognizing the fact that his model called the popular vote. A good example of why this is a false dichotomy. Nevertheless, Version 2 is the worst option of the two as it presents a false balance. Apprentice57 (talk) 12:41, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Support Version 1. I'm sorry I've missed much of this the last week, my own life got very busy. I am strongly in favor of something more like Version 1, as the October 2016 paper, all of his books before the 2016 election, and his own inconsistencies/personal biases now make only his pre-2016 election statements useful. I will have more thoughts in days to come once I dive more into this but want to make a few ones now:

1. This is the most recent article digging into this, it is in The Atlantic and notes the facts concisely:https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/10/allan-lichtman-election-win/680258/
2. This article in The Postrider is incredibly helpful in terms of providing sources, it has exhaustive links and research (there is a dispute as to whether the source may be used, I feel it complies with a news organization's standards having talked with the site's editor in chief, who I asked to make public their internal standards, but that is another argument irrelevant here and I feel strongly it should be used in the criticism section at a minimum in line with the compromise proposed several weeks ago), my point here is the sources are useful: https://thepostrider.com/allan-lichtman-is-famous-for-correctly-predicting-the-2016-election-the-problem-he-didnt/
3. Lichtman's statements recently reek of bad faith: including impuging journalists, threatening to withdraw from interviews when asked about inconsistencies by journalists, CCing an attorney on two journalists, (one of who is a student at his university), encouraging edits to his own Wikipedia pages to remove critical material, and his wife editing the Wikipedia page and invoking two journalists by name as sources of misinformation. This is relevant in the criticism section, but also in the broader view of what is going on here.
4. at the end of the day, unless someone can provide any evidence that Lichtman changed what he was predicting before the November 2016 United States federal election, the case seems closed. He said he only predicted the popular vote. Therefore, absence a communication to the contrary, that's what he predicted, and he was wrong in 2016 (and arguably correct in 2000, but obviously some asterisk belongs there too).

Caraturane (talk) 16:26, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Support Version 1. This page has been through this before. The most recent and most thorough sources already researched this. Can Version 1 be made better? Yes, probably, but that doesn't change the facts and your proposal completely changes the facts. Involved editors who know about the subject matter and edit the page already got to the bottom of these things and litigated these issues.

Having reviewed the wiki policies you are citing, I do not see any serious violations: for LEAD, the point of this article (in fact the only reason it's notable) is it's record. Mentioning the record upfront requires saying it has been right in nine of ten elections. To explain the record without the really notable errors is anything but NPOV. Frankly what @Caraturane raised, that most of the articles that explain his record are opinion pieces is reason enough to be careful. What independent sources there are Lichtman overtly attacks because they point out the factual basis of the reporting. I fail to see how we can really address this without acknowledging the elephant in the room: it sure seems like Lichtman has a lot to gain from making sure that independent sources stop fact checking him, and he and his relatives have engaged in a pattern of wiki policy violations to his own benefit.

Many of us have been editing the page fine for a while and have followed Allan Lichtman for years in an unbiased and passing interest way (reliant on independent sources), it was not until one editor showed up and began obsessively litigating every, single, tiny, issue, that we got to this point. Tomcleontis (talk) 16:05, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Support Version 1. My history of editing Wikipedia is relatively limited, and as such my view should presumably be accorded less weight than others. My main issue with version 2 is that it obfuscates what Lichtman actually predicted in 2016. It seems highly relevant that he released an academic paper a month before the 2016 election in which he made clear that he was predicting the outcome of the popular vote and not the electoral college yet version 2 doesn't seem to explain this. The article isn't accurately reflecting the facts and is misleading to readers if it doesn't explicitly cover this point.

For anyone who thinks that there is genuine doubt as to what Lichtman predicted in 2016, consider what would have happened if the election had produced the opposite result (i.e. Trump winning the popular vote but losing the electoral college). In these circumstances Lichtman would obviously have argued that his prediction was correct and would have cited his paper in support of this (and he would have been entirely justified in doing so). Anyone who thinks he might have done otherwise is delusional. There is no reason to muddy the waters regarding the 2016 prediction - we know what he predicted, we have a source showing the prediction and the only evidence that we have to the contrary is clearly a self-serving post hoc rationalisation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.101.10.150 (talk) 05:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! You should note that, where there's a controversy, some websites and publications analyze the evidence and reach a conclusion that one side or the other is correct. Wikipedia is different. We are governed by the policy of Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View, under which we are to approach a controversy by making a fair presentation of the evidence and arguments on each side. We don't take a position by saying one side is right and the other is wrong. This is an encyclopedia, not a blog or discussion forum.

In this instanced, there's a controversy over whether the 2016 prediction was correct. The key difference between Version 1 and Version 2 is that Version 1 endorses one side of the controversy. Version 2 is neutral by presenting both.

Turning to the journal article you mention, it's certainly a piece of evidence that's pointed to by one side of the controversy. Accordingly, it deserves inclusion. Note how it's treated in Version 2 (actually, in the updated version I posted, to take account of some subsequent edits by others). The "Criticism" section has a whole subsection on the popular vote versus electoral vote controversy. That section reports the criticism that the 2016 prediction ("Trump wins") was wrong because Trump lost the popular vote. It then states, "Lichtman had usually been referring to the popular vote." That sentence is followed by multiple citations, including one to this journal article. I agree with you that the Wikipedia article should be explicit about the criticism, but that seems pretty explicit to me. As I've mentioned, I'm certainly open to improving the wording if anyone thinks the criticism isn't being fairly presented.

The big difference is that, in that very subsection, Version 2 goes on to present Lichtman's response to the criticism, along with noting the independent sources (not just his own statements) that have agreed with him and credited him with a correct prediction. That's the kind of treatment required by the Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View policy. We present both sides and let the readers form their own opinions about the strength of each argument. JamesMLane t c 14:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I had hoped that we would hear from several experienced, uninvolved Wikipedia editors. Every such person who's responded has favored the substantial rewrite. In this case, "every" is just one (and I'm glad that Classicfilms agreed with the change). In addition, LittleJerry, without joining the RfC, agreed with the major point of the rewrite, namely removing the POV.

We obviously won't get any more comments on the RfC, so I'm making the change on the basis of what we have. The article can't be permitted to persist indefinitely in a form in which every experienced editor sees it as violating a core Wikipedia policy. JamesMLane t c 20:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm responding to the notification that I received re: this discussion. I stand by all of the points that I made above, as this article appears to fall under WP:BLP. You might consider getting the viewpoint of an admin re: WP:CONADMIN.-Classicfilms (talk) 16:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

The standard for this page is less than the standard for the Lichtman page. The 13 Keys are an academically-published and -reviewed system with plenty of books and commentary. A strict BLP application to the entire page seems unwarranted. Caraturane (talk) 16:59, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your personal opinion. The relevant Wikipedia policy at WP:BLP states:

Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page, including but not limited to articles, talk pages, project pages, and drafts. [emphasis in original]

In this thread, Classicfilms and I have cited BLP. In the Noticeboard thread about Postrider, ActivelyDisinterested agreed, stating that BLP applies to the Keys article. Thus, there's a consensus of three editors with a combined total of more than 40 years editing Wikipedia; that doesn't prove that we're infallible, but you might give some weight to our collective understanding of an important Wikipedia policy.

The wisdom of applying BLP even to non-bio articles is evident right here. The current version of the article repeatedly attacks Lichtman's credibility. In taking one side of the controversy, the current version states that Lichtman "claims that in 2016, he switched to predicting the outcome of the Electoral College,[43] but this claim is not supported by his books and papers...." There are several other such statements scattered throughout. Accusing a living person of making a false statement is precisely the kind of thing that raises BLP concerns. JamesMLane t c 17:49, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

For the record, Lichtman is not being accused of making false statements. He has reportedly, on multiple occasions, made false statements. Let's not lose the forest for the trees here. Caraturane (talk) 17:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry but no? The outright majority of editors said no. Tomcleontis (talk) 20:09, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

That is not how Wikipedia works. The "majority" is three editors with few or no edits before they decided to engage in heavy WP:NPOV violations about Allan Lichtman. At every step, every experienced editor has disagreed. Wikipedia is not going to be captive to your opinions, in violation of policy. JamesMLane t c 20:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Please take a step back and try to build some consensus. Your acts continue to be unilateral and accusing us of NPOV despite now several independent sources all reporting this (by the way, here's another), is completely inappropriate and assumes bad faith by all of us who have subject matter expertise on this. Tomcleontis (talk) 21:02, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I have tried multiple times to explain Wikipedia policy to you. There's a controversy about Lichtman's record. You now say, in effect, "Here's a source that supports one side of that controversy, therefore Wikipedia should assert that that side is correct." On some sites, that might be a good argument. On Wikipedia, it violates WP:NPOV. The revision I made, which you snap-reverted, presents both sides of the controversy without asserting that either is correct. That's how NPOV works. JamesMLane t c 01:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

James, please. The assertion "Though Lichtman claims that he correctly called the 2016 election by using the system, his 2016 book and paper stated that the Keys to the White House were designed to predict the outcome of the popular vote, which Donald Trump lost." is not controversial, it is true. Adding a comment by Chris Cillizza is actually funny but pretty much irrelevant. Removing essentially all of the reported critics is definitely not supported.

You have suggested some valid updates, like noting Lichtman doesn't feel his Keys are subjective or removing some more opinionated language, or dealing with over-stuffed parts about Nate Silver, for sure, and we can work on implementing those (and I have just done so in some places where there seems not to be dispute, will work on more because you just keep coming back to this despite repeated attempts to take a breather) but that is wholy different than a complete rewrite of every area you (and Lichtman) disagree with, despite either: controversy or consensus.

Time and time again your edits have served almost exclusively to inflate Lichtman's record, remove critical material, or provide favorable commentary. This is not NPOV. Caraturane (talk) 01:47, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

As per the wikipedia page on RfCs:

"All editors (including IP users) are welcome to respond to any RfC."

There is no distinction made between historical editors of the page and uninvolved editors. And of everyone who responded we're at best evenly split if you include the good faith IP editor below (actually majority in support of version 1 in terms of literal RfC responses). LittleJerry only supported removing one paragraph and wrote on my page that they explicitly decline to join the talk page here. Also even in the alternative, 4 users in support of a change (or 3 or 2) and 3 in opposition is not at all consensus.

What I suggest we do is wait the full general time for RfCs, 1 month, as I do not see any reason to end it early (and reason to continue it, in case someone like LittleJerry wants to weigh in). And if there's still no consensus then we find a good faith compromise.

To that effect, I have already given substantive pushback on the specific changes you have made in the previous thread above. I (and I suspect the others in support of version 1) am not married to how Version 1 is constructed now and it assuredly could be improved. I would like to note that you didn't respond to that pushback at all.

I will remind everyone of what the RfC page also says:

"Avoid making edits that others may view as unhelpful. Editing after others have raised objections may be viewed as disruptive editing or edit warring. Be patient; make your improvements in accord with consensus after the RfC is resolved." Apprentice57 (talk) 00:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Your understanding of "consensus" appears to be as follows: Three of you are bound and determined to have the article take a position on the question of the 2016 prediction. As long as the three of you continue to hold that view, there is no consensus, and therefore the article must be in the form you prefer.

Do I have that right?

You should also take note of this passage from WP:NPOV:

This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.

So, no, it is not Wikipedia policy that NPOV violations may remain in place as long as any editor wants them to remain in place. JamesMLane t c 01:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

There are not widespread NPOV "violations", at least not the degree you feel, and I think it is safe saying we could resolve them individually here like we did on the Allan Lichtman page.

To restate what I just said up there: time and time again your unilateral edits have served almost exclusively to inflate Lichtman's record, remove critical material, or provide favorable commentary. This is not NPOV. Caraturane (talk) 01:50, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

NPOV doesn't mean that every edit must be neutral. It means that the article must be neutral. My version doesn't remove properly sourced criticisms of Lichtman (note the multiple subsections devoted to Silver's criticisms, which are actually presented more effectively in my version). If you think one side of the controversy should be presented differently, you could suggest an improvement.

The problem is that you think one side of the controversy should be presented as being correct. The "critical material" that I've removed consists of passages that would assert a position in Wikipedia's voice. JamesMLane t c 02:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

James, you were making a pretty comprehensive revision of the article. You yourself termed it "version 2" versus the current "version 1". So when Caraturane is criticizing your edit, they were criticizing your overall vision of the article. Apprentice57 (talk) 02:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

We all recognize that NPOV is mandatory. But we do not agree (have a consensus) on whether this page violates NPOV. We have reasons on the merits as to why we believe so, as do you. You will not find an argument to the opposite so you're arguing against a strawman.

Listen to the advice from the RfC, be patient and wait. If nothing else, RfCs typically last 30 days. Apprentice57 (talk) 01:57, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I note that you do not dispute my paraphrase of your position. "Consensus" means you get your way unless and until you change your mind.

There's no point in waiting 30 days when (1) it's highly unlikely that anyone else will respond to the RfC, and (2) even if they did, you three would adhere to your position, therefore you would say there was no consensus, therefore the article must remain permanently in the form you like. JamesMLane t c 02:38, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

James, you yourself were skipping points I made in our past arguments that you didn't believe had merit. No, me ignoring something I view as similarly preposterous (also borrowing that phrase) is not conceding the point.

There was literally someone making an edit on POV that I asked to contribute to this talk discussion the other day, so claiming nothing could change is pretty baseless.

Yes, if we don't have more people weigh in on the RfC we'll have to find a compromise. Or do you want this to turn into an edit war? Apprentice57 (talk) 02:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Case in point, a new reply to the RfC was just added. Apprentice57 (talk) 08:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Lichtmann's rebuttal video and the popular vote statement

In Lichtmann's rebuttal video dated 17/10/24, he argues that a statement in his 2016 paper has been taken out of context and misunderstood as him claiming that the model predicts the popular vote rather than the electoral college tally. He claims that media articles have promoted this misunderstanding.

That statement from 2016 reads as follows: "As a national system, the Keys predict the popular vote, not the state-by-state tally of Electoral College votes. However, only once in the last 125 years has the electoral college vote diverged from the popular vote."

He claims that he was simply making the point that the model in no way looks at individual states. To be fair to him, this is a distinction between the 13 Keys model and polling that he seems to be in the habit of making in media interviews, often said in a similar fashion but with more clarity. Can we once and for all discuss whether this statement clearly merits him stating that his model only predicts the popular vote and put this to bed.

For my two cents it seems he should have no idea whether the model predicts the popular vote or electoral college since the split never occurred in his dataset-- the only thing he can logically derive from his dataset is that his model should predict election winners. This is a comment speculating on his thought process and not my own judgement.2A00:23C5:11E:F901:25AE:ADFB:9C0C:A589 (talk) 01:08, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Having re-read the statement, I'm conflicted due to the fact he starts the sentence with "As a national system" as well as using the otherwise defunct adjective "state-by-state". He could be saying: "The model predicts the popular vote (not exclusively) and does not conduct a state-by-state tally of the electoral college"

It is then confusing as to why he feels the need to say the electoral college rarely diverges from the popular vote as if he's arguing in favour of the value of his model in the face of a potential liability.

Perhaps I'm tying myself in knots, I'll let people tell me but a big part of why I'm raising this is his media interviews. 2A00:23C5:11E:F901:25AE:ADFB:9C0C:A589 (talk) 01:23, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I believe you are referring to this video clip:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Af3hKnrexs.

The job of the Wikipedia is to summarize key points, not to take sides re: WP:RS. If there is a point of controversy, then an article lists the various arguments in a controversy section. This video raises concerns about two areas: WP:UNDUE or undue weight and Wikipedia:Cherrypicking - both areas that should be avoided in WP:BLP. The subject article is not my area of expertise, I work on various WP:BLP (biography of living persons articles), so perhaps other editors who are familiar with the subject can weigh in.-Classicfilms (talk) 01:45, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Great thank you but surely Wikipedia must consider some things objective fact? I only say this because it is Apprentice57's argument in the RfC. 2A00:23C5:11E:F901:25AE:ADFB:9C0C:A589 (talk) 01:51, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, I'm not sure I understand your question entirely, feel free to rephrase it if you like- The Wikipedia is generally guided by WP:NPOV, which means looking at the wide scope of a topic- that is why I raised WP:UNDUE and Wikipedia:Cherrypicking. The goal is to avoid WP:OR, or original research, which can happen if a series of facts are strung together. I'm not saying that is happening here, I'm trying to respond to your overall questions. -Classicfilms (talk) 02:05, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

You ask a good question, and over the years Wikipedia has developed its answer. As Classicfilms said, the policy is set out in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Wikipedia generally does not take sides, but fringe viewpoints need not be given equal attention. One example given is that "the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct (and minuscule) minority; to do so would give undue weight to it." In that sense, the spherical Earth is treated as an objective fact.

That doesn't mean, however, that, for every dispute, Wikipedia editors consider the evidence, decide which opinion is correct, and present it as fact. Actually, the flat-Earth case is the exception. The general rule from WP:NPOV is:

Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.

Here, there are seriously contested assertions about the 2016 prediction. Apprentice57's argument in the RfC is that one side is correct and should therefore be presented as a direct statement. (Version 1 flatly asserts: "Lichtman's model incorrectly predicted the popular vote outcome.") That would violate the NPOV policy. JamesMLane t c 02:19, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Okay thank you both for clarifying and doing so accessibly. Should this specific controversy on the language and intended meaning of the statement be included in the article? It appears to be the main source of this dispute and the central premise behind several cited articles that have fuelled it. 2A00:23C5:11E:F901:25AE:ADFB:9C0C:A589 (talk) 02:51, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion, yes, this controversy is notable and should be included in the article. Version 2 presents both sides without adopting either. JamesMLane t c 03:05, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, agree with JamesMLane on all points above. You might want to also look at this article, WP:NOT or "What the Wikipedia is Not," which may further clarify your questions. -Classicfilms (talk) 03:20, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Remember, the reason why the October 2016 paper is so crucial, and a smoking gun as to the fact it's a popular vote model here: there was no dispute! Lichtman, and his critics (like Nate Silver) all agreed it was a popular vote mode. That is why the dispute is a based on lichtman taking a fringe position.

That it has come under dispute post facto is irrelevant to a prediction. Predictions are all about what is said and claimed beforehand, not after. And Lichtman would have a motive in being dishonest here, as it buoys his reputation to be correct. Apprentice57 (talk) 12:48, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

The only neutral point of view is what Lichtman said about his predictions before November 2016. Those statements where he said what his system predicted and what he predicted are very clear and they directly note that he was only predicting the popular vote and say it was not predicting the Electoral College. This is a neutral POV. Caraturane (talk) 17:03, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

It is an objective fact that Lichtman said his system only predicts the popular vote. There are years and years of him saying so. Tomcleontis (talk) 16:07, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

This isn't necessarily of importance to the RfC/his article, but I think reading one of his older intro chapters in his book (which he republishes every 4 years roughly) is helpful. I did so with his 1990 book on the internet archive (importantly, old enough to be before 2000), my conclusion is that he recognizes the keys are a popular vote model (it states so explicitly more than once), but that was seen as sufficient to also predict the winner: https://www.reddit.com/r/fivethirtyeight/comments/1dc7wiy/allan_lichtmans_the_thirteen_keys_were_incorrect/ Despite the age of the 1990 book, the text of the keys has not changed.

His October 2016 paper is of importance because it establishes that there was no dispute to the keys predicting the popular vote on election's eve, it repeats most of the language from his books but shorter owing to the format. Apprentice57 (talk) 12:54, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for this but I must say that these statements are never exclusive and it does seem possible he's making the point that the keys are a national system rather than working state-by-state. I certainly held your view once and I get it but this could a case of miscommunication and clumsy language. I think this is supported by it being simply not rational for him to make this distinction, there's no basis for it in his dataset and these statements as you and almost everyone have read them don't make sense. 2A00:23C5:11E:F901:25AE:ADFB:9C0C:A589 (talk) 14:55, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Strong disagree! But I appreciate the polite pushback. Apprentice57 (talk) 00:05, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

The split occurred in his dataset in 2000. He took credit for 2000 (like in this New York Times video) by saying he only predicted the popular vote. Caraturane (talk) 16:28, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

He was of the opinion that Al Gore won in 2000, you can see his submission to the federal commission cited in this article, it's also something he has restated a multitude of times in his YT videos and livestreams. It was the NYT narrator that told us about the 'split' not Lichtmann. All Lichtmann said was that he correctly predicted the popular vote which he did. Up until 2000, his model had correctly predicted the popular vote and electoral college. Because of his opinion on the 2000 election, in his view, he had also correctly predicted the electoral college.

We have to remain mindful of the context in which he made these statements-- to his beliefs, the popular vote had still not diverged from the electoral college until 2016. Given that, I don't think it's right to represent him as a liar because of this. 2A00:23C5:11E:F901:25AE:ADFB:9C0C:A589 (talk) 16:41, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

No one is representing him as a liar (though it's not for nothing he has been caught being inconsistent and not telling the truth about some things like saying he switched to only predicting the winner after 2000, this is provably not true). It's notable that even in 2012 he used the same "the Keys predict the popular vote, not the state-by-state tally of Electoral College votes" line and even put in plain English in 2008 that a Keys “Win indicates the popular vote outcome for the party in power.”

This article is helpful to provide sources, I have been using it as a reference to find links that explain.

Caraturane (talk) 17:01, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, the 2008 paper is far clearer although his subsequent assertion that the point he makes in that statement is to distinguish between his model and polling calls into question if not this interpretation then the way we treat the statements in my view. It still raises the confounding question of why he would decide that his model only predicts the popular vote, this categorically cannot be derived from his dataset of elections from 1860-1980 that formulated the model (later elections constitute an application of the model). Again his use of the adjective "state-by-state" in most of these statements potentially supports this.

I think to take the position we're currently taking in light of WP:NPOV, we need undeniable proof that his system does not predict the electoral college. The fact that he often links his model to the popular vote may not be exclusive. 2A00:23C5:11E:F901:25AE:ADFB:9C0C:A589 (talk) 17:21, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

The statement "the Keys predict the popular vote, not the state-by-state tally of Electoral College votes" is a direct assertion it does not predict the electoral college. He also wrote many times after 2016 that he made a change to his system to make it now just predict the Electoral college (though there is not documentation of this change before November 2016, only after the call was made "wrongly" in 2016, for example see this NPR article ). Caraturane (talk) 17:25, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

With all due respect, this NPR article does not evidence a 'revision'. You're of the view that the statement I highlighted in the original post is incontrovertible evidence of Lichtmann saying that the model does not predict the electoral college, I'm arguing that we should be less concrete in our interpretation. 2A00:23C5:11E:F901:25AE:ADFB:9C0C:A589 (talk) 17:33, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

He uses the word "not," I don't know how much clearer that could be.

And sorry, I should have been more clear: I was using the NPR article as an example of him not mentioning he changed the system. He has written he has many times after the 2016 election, for example: after saying in 2016 multiple times he only predicted the popular vote, Lichtman wrote in a post for the Harvard Data Science Review in 2020 which said:

"In 2016, I made the first modification of the Keys system since its inception in 1981. I did not change any of the keys themselves or the decision-rule that any six or more negative keys predicts the defeat of the party holding the White House. However, I have switched from predicting the popular vote winner to the Electoral College winner because of a major divergence in recent years between the two vote tallies."

Caraturane (talk) 17:36, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I understand but you must see my point in the original post and first comment-- I'm not arguing that this is a reasonable interpretation for most readers, only that there's a good chance that it reflects reality.

The language he uses in his prediction proclaimations is part of his Keys system. He may have been under the belief prior to 2016 that the popular vote and electoral college was extremely unlikely to split due to the reasoning I set out above and subsequently fixed his language to be more precise. He explicitly says that he had not revised the keys themselves. 2A00:23C5:11E:F901:25AE:ADFB:9C0C:A589 (talk) 17:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

At least a good enough chance to invoke WP:NPOV. 2A00:23C5:11E:F901:25AE:ADFB:9C0C:A589 (talk) 17:47, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. This would take an extraordinary leap in usage of language. He said over, and over, and over, that he did not predict the Electoral College, that he only predicted the popular vote, and even referenced past elections prior to his life to show the keys only predict the popular vote (he wrote in 2004, for example: "As a nationally-based system the Keys cannot diagnose the results in individual states and thus are more attuned to the popular vote than the Electoral College results. The 2000 election, however, was the first time since 1888 that the popular vote verdict diverged from the Electoral College results. And the Keys still got the popular vote right in 2000, just as they did in 1888 when Democrat Grover Cleveland won the national tally but lost in the Electoral College to Republican Benjamin Harrison and in 1876 when Democrat Samuel Tilden won the popular vote but lost the Electoral College vote to Republican Rutherford B. Hayes.").

The word "not" means they do not. If this is really what the matter of dispute comes down to then I think we have a very clear cut and dried result. Caraturane (talk) 17:49, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

But he's still making that statement potentially with the subtext that his model is a 'national system' rather than 'state-by-state'-- isn't it strange that in every statement we're considering, he uses this same language that would otherwise be irrelevant to the point you (and to be fair the vast majority of people) interpret him as making?

I'm not contesting the meaning of the word 'not' but the two clauses that come before it and the subtext of the statements. I sympathise with your viewpoint but I think it's best for other editors to weigh in, it seems we've made our arguments as best we can. 2A00:23C5:11E:F901:25AE:ADFB:9C0C:A589 (talk) 18:04, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Is this really how far we've come? "Not" means not. This cannot seriously be the argument, right? Tomcleontis (talk) 16:06, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

No it's absolutely not the argument I'm making and I've just explicitly stated that in the comment you're replying to. 2A00:23C5:11E:F901:C0EE:D9DA:EB5C:31AC (talk) 16:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Until someone can identify any area where Lichtman said he was changing what the keys predicted before the 2016 election, I believe this is a circular argument. There is only evidence that he switched to predicting the Electoral College for 2020 and now 2024, everything before November 8, 2016 cleanly puts that the keys predict the popular vote. Caraturane (talk) 17:17, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't disagree that it is a valid viewpoint and the one that's most reasonable but it is an interpretation of the facts. I've suggested that we present the core facts themselves.

I will actually step back from this page now, I recognise this is frustrating for longtime editors. 2A00:23C5:11E:F901:C0EE:D9DA:EB5C:31AC (talk) 17:56, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Suggestion for 2016 prediction rewrite

If we come to the conclusion that the article violates WP:NPOV, then this would be my suggestion for a rewrite in the 'Criticism' section.

2016 prediction and the popular vote

Lichtman has received notable criticism for allegedly getting his 2016 prediction wrong because of a number of statements he made prior that are widely interpreted to be him stating that the model only predicts the popular vote and not the electoral college. Donald Trump, the model's predicted winner, lost the popular vote but won the electoral college and assumed the presidency.

Lichtman has asserted post-2016 that in those statements he was making the point that the 13 Keys model is a 'national system' rather than it looking at individual states, with the misunderstanding arising from miscommunication and his prior-held belief that the popular vote and electoral college were extremely unlikely to split. This controversy is further compounded by the fact that he regularly extolled the model's record in predicting the popular vote in publications and interviews prior to 2016 and had presented his 2008 prediction in terms of the popular vote. Since the results of the 2016 election, he has insisted that the model has always predicted election winners and not the popular vote. 2A00:23C5:11E:F901:25AE:ADFB:9C0C:A589 (talk) 15:28, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

If this is the judgement, I would suggest that Lichtman's biographical page also be changed as it would be an even more egregious violation of the policy especially as it's one of the first things you read about him. The widely perceived fact that he got the 2016 prediction wrong and that he's been 'revising' his model to make up for it seems to me highly opinionated. 2A00:23C5:11E:F901:25AE:ADFB:9C0C:A589 (talk) 15:58, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Your suggestion says "extensive criticism". I don't know how extensive the criticism is. It would certainly be correct to state he's been "extensively" credited with a correct prediction. You're certainly correct that charging him with an error in 2016 is highly opinionated. It's a notable opinion (Nate Silver being a subject-matter expert and can be quoted to that effect), but there's also a notable opinion that he got 2016 right. I don't think we need to get into what's "extensive". Avoid the adjective to stay neutral.

Caraturane and Apprentice57 want the article to state, in Wikipedia's voice, that The New York Times and The Washington Post etc. are all wrong and that they and Nate Silver are right. The NPOV violation could not be clearer. JamesMLane t c 17:54, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

It isn't a NPOV violation just because you say it is. Apprentice57 (talk) 18:54, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

The New York Times is an opinion piece, not actual reporting. The Washington Post does not refer to the Electoral College and only refers to the popular vote in the article itself. I refer you to the most recent, high-qualtiy reporting on the subject, in The Atlantic: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/10/allan-lichtman-election-win/680258/ Caraturane (talk) 20:55, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not going to keep going around and around. It's beyond dispute that there are conflicting opinions on the question. WP:NPOV tells us how to handle such situations. Your constant arguing about why you think the weight of the evidence favors one side is utterly beside the point. If you want to fire off a few more comments in favor of your interpretation, you of course can do so. That won't change the poicy. JamesMLane t c 21:16, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

We're arguing that this fulfills NPOV *because* there was no dispute until after the 2016 election.

In other words, we both have arguments that are well pled, we have to debate them on the merits. Simply citing NPOV is not sufficient. Apprentice57 (talk) 00:08, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, there is no serious reputable source suggesting Lichtman got 10/10 elections correct. Many, many sources (especially recent, independent, non-opinion) sources all state he was correct in 9/10 (with an asterisk on 2000 and 2016). Editors who have provided extensive evidence of his own words, background, and resources, have all given meaningful information about his record. As far as I can tell, what policy violations there are (if there are any), do not require a substantial rewrite, or require removal or withdrawal from the concrete factual statements made on the page about the full record and criticism of the 13 keys system. I believe it would be substantially more productive to dive into those one on one, rather than argue for a comprehensive rewrite. It has also only been one weekend, and there are many other regular editors of this page, and experts on this issue who may have thoughts. A couple random IP addresses do not a consensus make. Caraturane (talk) 01:14, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree, that is why I've posted this to explore such changes and there is no assertion here that he has correctly predicted all elections, I'm not a Lichtman apologist.

I tried to compose this in a balanced and neutral fashion, how would you present this specific subject or what changes would you make? Given that he's the author, I think it's wrong to exclude his side of the matter as much as he's a dodgy source. 2A00:23C5:11E:F901:A877:C871:F8A7:98E9 (talk) 03:26, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I've edited the initial post since you've last read it. 2A00:23C5:11E:F901:A877:C871:F8A7:98E9 (talk) 04:57, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I believe as it is is largely servicable, as the key point here is there is no part of his record suggesting he changed his system until after 2016. I might add some other notes, because we should err towards more rather than less information (I've also removed some passive voice):

• In 2016, when there were six false keys against the incumbent Democrats, with Lichtman predicting the election of Republican nominee Donald Trump in September 2016. Trump lost the popular vote, but won the Electoral College and was therefore elected president.
  • Lichtman previously clarified that the keys only predicted the popular vote, not the Electoral College outcome. He claims that in 2016, he switched to predicting the outcome of the Electoral College, but this claim is not supported by his books and papers from 2016, nor any of his prior statements, which explicitly stated that the keys only predict the popular vote. There is no record of Lichtman changing what his system predicted before the 2016 election.
  • Lichtman has inconsistently claimed that he began predicting the outcome of the Electoral College rather than the popular vote after 2000 or in 2016, explaining that the discrepancies between the Electoral College and the popular vote had dramatically increased, with Democrats holding a significant advantage in winning the popular vote but having no such advantage in the Electoral College.

Caraturane (talk) 13:22, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Okay, we're still at the same point of disagreement. I'll step back from this article and wait for uninvolved editors to weigh in on the incontrovertibility of the popular vote revision question. In my view, it's a bit of a headstrong interpretation not to give Lichtman the slightest benefit of the doubt that he always intended the system to predict election winners especially when it would be irrational for him to do otherwise. In my reading, what's above balances the facts in favour of your interpretation yet still maintains a neutral POV. 2A00:23C5:11E:F901:A877:C871:F8A7:98E9 (talk) 13:34, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

It was flawed in a sense but not irrational I'd argue. I think Lichtman was still stuck in thinking the EC vote would still ratify the popular vote going forward.

I haven't gotten into this much because it involves independent analysis, but the Keys just don't really make much sense as an electoral vote system. All the factors are national factors, there isn't explicit treatment of swing states and swing regions. And swing states/regions shift over time, so even if you'd do so you'd have to change them from year to year. You need that in order to be an EC vote model, and his change to it at all is pretty intellectually questionable. I'm hoping an independent source like Silver etc. will cover this so we can include it in the criticism section but that's an aside.

Yes, 2000 happened but it was a much closer election in the EC than 2016 and most (including Lichtman and myself) believe it would've gone for Gore had the SCOTUS not stepped in in a partisan fashion. It was only 2016 that brought our modern agreement that the EC and NPV have diverged in a nontrivial fashion that can change election outcomes, after he made the prediction we're arguing over. The recent Atlantic article cited elsewhere in this page gets into this a little.

But even in the alternative, I don't think we should be in the business of putting ourselves in the state of mind of Lichtman. We should be textualist here: when Lichtman clarifies what "win" means what does he say he means? His book and 2016 paper are clear that it means popular vote.

I feel like a lot of this conversation is relitigating the consensus we came to in the summer. We shouldn't be revisiting that just because this wiki page has come under fire by the man himself (not why you're motivated in specific, but I think that has inspired the push here overall). Apprentice57 (talk) 15:50, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

From where I'm standing, I think you're reading to much into what they precisely predict, the keys have confounded people since their publication. The only thing we know for sure incontrovertibly is that the model is supposed to predict election winners, the fact that they in no way account for state-by-state characteristics rubs a lot of people the wrong way (it's the model's oldest criticism) and is potentially the point that Lichtman is making in these statements that have reasonably been taken as him dismissing the predictive power of the model in relation to the electoral college.

Lichtman has stated that he wrote this under the apprehension that the popular vote and electoral college wouldn't split, it's far from a solid defence but it should at least be included.

My point is not that your logic is flawed (it's not), just that it is not 100% watertight enough to meet the high threshold of incontrovertible fact. I understand that you want to avoid relitigating the matter but I'm not aware of how well this argument was pled over the summer. 2A00:23C5:11E:F901:C0EE:D9DA:EB5C:31AC (talk) 16:06, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I cannot believe this is actualy the argument being made. "Not" means not. He said the system predicts the popular vote and not the electoral college. This is as direct a statement we can ask for. There's no ifs, ands, or buts.

As far as I am concerned, Lichtman's words after the fact are meaningless: he is clearly biased to make sure he keeps his record. The only thing we can go on is what he said WAS being predicted before every prediction, which from 1984 to 2016 was the popular vote and not the electoral college; there's really no question here, he wrote it in every book he wrote, in all of his papers, and has said so publicly. Tomcleontis (talk) 16:10, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I respect the view that we shouldn't be textualist, if that's the majority opinion then I'll be satisfied as much as I think the page, as it is, is flawed in this regard. 2A00:23C5:11E:F901:C0EE:D9DA:EB5C:31AC (talk) 16:09, 21 October 2024 (UTC)