Talk:FiveThirtyEight

Why is 2012 highlighted but not 2016 or 2022?

He incorrectly predicted the winner in 2016 which I see no mention of in this article and he was off in multiple states in 2020... That's just at the presidential level. He's missed many times on gubernatorials, senate elections, congressionals, etc. This wiki page is laughably biased in favor of 538 and Nate Silver. His model has incorrectly predicted virtually every major sporting champion for the past several years. 2600:6C5E:107F:701:F8D9:8BAE:7F6:18C (talk) 17:53, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

So the short answer is: the article is not protected, you're free to make any changes you feel need to make to make the article adhere to our policies of Neutrality, which you seem to feel this article lacks. Keep in mind, however, that any criticisms you make of the mathematical legitimacy of FiveThirtyEights models and their succes and usefulness (or lack thereof) will need to be backed up by Reliable sources.

Personally, I suspect you are misunderstanding what their models purport to do. Let me ask you this, perhaps it will make you see how I believe their model is supposed to work: would you criticize the weather forecast if it predicts 90% chance of rain, for 2 hours, and instead it rains for 4 hours? What if they predict a temperature between 21 and 25 degrees, and instead the temperature is 19 degrees? But who knows, maybe I'm the one misunderstanding the model? I'd be happy to be convinced by a more mathematically thorough critique.

Regarding the structure of the article, I would agree that it is a bit of a mess, and has many elements of a Proseline. It could do with some cleanup to present a clearer story. Like I said, you are free to do so. David12345 (talk) 21:27, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

OR - no longer independent (also logo)

This is all OR, and needs a source, but bears saying.

www.fivethirtyeight.com no longer exists. It is now an archived site, and soft-redirects users to https://abcnews.go.com/538. This implies to me that the company is no longer independent and is now more of an arms-length analysis body of ABC.

This change has also come with a new logo, with the numbers 538 stylised. If someone can find a source, that'd be brilliant. Couruu (talk) 13:52, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

unbalanced

The current state of this article is deplorable. There is next to no coverage of Nate Silver's failures, only his successes. I'm not saying he's not successful or influential. I'm saying the lack of a downside makes our article *very* suspicious. The {{primary}} tag is a huge problem, since it basically turns the article into a spokesperson for 538's excellence. The emphasis on the 538 performance on past elections is very likely undue, exacerbated by the lack of 3rd party coverage. After a brief look over I rate this article "close to trainwreck" status.

It needs some serious attention, preferably by people that follow US polling, to introduce some semblance of neutral balanced reporting, and also WAY more reliable sources. Failing such attention, I propose we trim down the article to its bare bones, and then let people organically add things back again (this time using secondary sources).

CapnZapp (talk) 21:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

100% just had this reaction after reading the two paragraphs describing the 2016 elections that read like a PR statement written by someone at the organization. I went straight to the talk page without even noticing the neutrality banner just to see if anyone else had brought it up. Tmore3 (talk) 04:28, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

podcast

the 538 podcast isn't mentioned. it was originally Jody Avirgan, Clare Malone, Harry Enten, and Nate Silver, and now it is Galen Druke, Leah Askarinam, Nathaniel Rakich, and Geoffrey Skelley.

• Old website: https://fivethirtyeight.com/tag/politics-podcast/
• i don't think there is a special section on https://abcnews.go.com/538

would appreciate if someone would take the time to properly add it. cheers! --Lommes (talk) 06:04, 2 December 2023 (UTC)