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)

It is quite clear that you lost hack ! Jimrot45556 (talk) 07:56, 6 November 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 instance, 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)

Thank you for providing a detailed response. I don't want to get into a lengthy exchange about this as we would probably just be repeating arguments that you have already had with others. I will just explain that I disagree with the premise that there is an actual controversy here. I think it is extremely clear what Lichtman was predicting prior to the 2016 election. I understand that he made comments in interviews that implied that Trump would win the electoral college, however these comments surely need to be considered within the context of his academic paper, which does after all formally set out his prediction.

The paper makes clear that he is predicting the outcome of the popular vote and not the electoral college and implies that divergence between the popular vote and electoral college is unlikely as it is historically rare. As such the generic comments he made in interviews about Trump winning the election were clearly based on the premise that Trump would win the popular vote and that there wouldn't be a divergence between the popular vote and electoral college. Unless we have some genuinely compelling evidence that Lichtman changed what he was predicting between publishing his paper and the election then I just don't see a controversy.

If version 2 does end up being implemented (which I still do not favour) then I strongly suggest that the following early line be changed as it is both unclear and misleading - "Since the system was published in 1981, it has correctly predicted the winner in all or nearly all the elections from 1984 through 2020" 2.101.10.150 (talk) 19:48, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Would you explain what you think is unclear or misleading about it?

It's not misleading, because some sources credit him with 10/10, while others say 9/10 (with the latter group diverging as to whether he missed 2000 or 2016). That's why "all or nearly all" is accurate.

As for its being unclear, one reason is because it's accurately reporting on an unclear situation. The sources diverge.

Another aspect of lack of full clarity is that this sentence, occurring early on, merely alludes to the existence of divergent opinions, rather than presenting each in detail. The reason is that the sentence occurs early in the article, where it's not appropriate to get into detail. One of the many defects of the version that keeps getting reinstated is that it violates the WP:UNDUE aspect of the NPOV policy. Some editors are so keen to throw rocks at Allan Lichtman and the Keys that this one point of criticism, based on one particular election, is shoehorned into the introductory section, before the reader has even been presented with the actual subject of the article (i.e., the summary of the prediction method). The better version is to mention it in one sentence here and present it in full detail later. That version notes, in the section about the record, that there are unclear cases in 2000 and 2016, the years when the two outcomes diverged. It then gives a full presentation in a dedicated subsection under "Criticism" section -- a subsection that presents both sides of the argument fairly without endorsing either one. JamesMLane t c 00:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

It is actually misleading to say he has a perfect record. He does not, if I recall correctly even he has conceded that but premised it on him being wrong in 2000 (it is much more clear that he was incorrect in 2016, based on his own words). No source that has done any looking into it beyond quoting his own words says he has a 10/10 record; independent sources routinely either toss in a line or say it is an "almost" perfect record or explain which ones are in question.

You also make this point while proposing a heavy rewrite of the "Criticism" section that removes this commentary. Caraturane (talk) 03:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

My rewrite of the "Criticism" section includes a subsection that presents both sides. It "removes this commentary" if by that you mean the pronouncements, in Wikipedia's voice, that Silver is right and Lichtman is wrong. My rewrite follows policy in presenting both sides without endorsing either.

If you think that the presentation of one side or the other could be improved -- other than by our spoon-feeding the readers with a few editors' opinions stated as fact -- then suggest an appropriate edit. I tried to be fair but I've never said that my wording was carved in stone. The only thing that is non-negotiable is, of course, WP:NPOV, especially in a WP:BLP. JamesMLane t c 03:40, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Just a reminder, it's getting reinstated on a process rationale (your unilateral edits being reverted because they're unilateral). I'd stop complaining about the reinstatement given the fact pattern, personally speaking.

Just my two cents: "All or nearly all" is accurate in the sense that Lichtman's methods get scored from 8/10 to 10/10 with probably the most common at 9/10. But it's also a statement that qualifies his model positively, and the lower bound of that is already borderline unimpressive. The reason being that most elections are not hard to predict; of the elections in question only really 2000, 2016, and 2020 were extremely close elections that were challenging for even laymen to call. Reduce his record to those three and we're looking at 1-3/3, source depending. And a 1/3 or 2/3 is pretty similar to a coin toss.

The record of Lichtman's model is also the only reason it's as notable as it is. You can see that in the common headlines in articles about the model, they always cite his record in specific. For that reason it makes sense in the introduction. Apprentice57 (talk) 12:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

This is a good compromise, and reversion to polite engagement.

I do think Caraturane makes a valid point about the veracity and comprehensiveness of sources on the actual dispute itself matters here, and the point about a plain reading of the timeline. Some folks in the original request for comment on the Postrider source even said that the actual sources used by that source were "damning" and pretty conclusive. Tomcleontis (talk) 14:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

"Would you explain what you think is unclear or misleading about it?"

It's unclear because of the wording "all or nearly all". A reader who isn't familiar with the subject would be left wondering what exactly Lichtman's prediction record is after reading this sentence.

It's misleading for two reasons. Firstly it suggests that Lichtman's prediction record may be perfect, which we know isn't the case. Secondly the wording "correctly predicted the winner" implies that Lichtman's predictions have always pertained to the electoral college outcome (the average reader would presumably interpret "the winner" to be the candidate who wins the electoral college). But for a number of elections Lichtman was quite explicitly not predicting the electoral college winner. 2.101.10.150 (talk) 04:18, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

On that line at the end, we did settle on "with a high degree of accuracy" as a compromise on Lichtman's page instead of the line you mentioned at the end. We could adopt that when (hopefully) Version 2 is not adopted. Apprentice57 (talk) 19:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Support neither as better.

I definitely agree that Version 1's tone could be improved to better fulfil NPOV requirements. For example, statements like "Lichtman has inconsistently claimed" and "but this claim is not supported by" are unnecessarily pointed, and the lede is unnecessarily focused on criticism & defense of the keys far too early into the article.

I also like Version 2's rework that doesn't concentrate all of Silver's criticisms in one place, but organises them into relevant subject matter headings. On the other hand, Version 2 creates some unfortunate redundancy; "The system's prediction record (1984–present)" section summarises the popular vote vs electoral college prediction dispute, but we then have to get into this subject again under the new "Popular vote versus electoral vote" section. IMO it's more readable to bundle all this track record + PV vs EC content into a single section and just be done with it for the remainder of the article. Neither Version 1 nor Version 2 does this well.

More importantly, Version 2 is actively misleading. For example, Lichtman definitively wrote throughout 2016 (in his book and paper) that the Keys predict only the popular vote—including in years where the popular vote differs from the Electoral College result, as was the case in 2000 and 2016 and is thus of immense relevance. Given that the only possible adjudicant of what Lichtman actually predicted in 2016 is Lichtman's own words (from 2016 & prior), and given that Lichtman repeatedly clarified that the Keys themselves predict only the popular vote (regardless of whether he made a separate electoral college prediction)... the article should be very definitive here. Lichtman predicted that Trump would win the popular vote, and Trump did not win the popular vote.

The problem is... you wouldn't realise this from reading Version 2, at least not without carefully parsing the references & disclaimers!

• The first two instances where Version 1 points out that Lichtman wrote multiple times in 2016 that he was predicting the popular vote are either cut entirely or replaced only with "Lichtman originally described the system as predicting only the popular vote, not the Electoral College outcome. He has said that, in 2016, he switched to predicting the outcome of the Electoral College". This makes it sound like the system actually was switched to an only-EC prediction in 2016, which would be objectively incorrect.
• The prediction table now merely contains a pop-out that states that "This is variously counted as a correct or incorrect prediction"; it no longer mentions that Lichtman definitely made a popular vote prediction which was definitely incorrect.
• The new "popular vote versus electoral vote" section similarly frames Lichtman's predictions merely as "usually referring to the popular vote". This is imprecise; Lichtman's writings did not just refer to the popular vote but repeatedly stated that the Keys only predict the popular vote, including in clear enough context (as I noted above) to very definitively resolve PV vs EC discrepancy situations like 2000 & 2016. We can and should emphasise Lichtman's writings that state that he was making a popular vote prediction in 2000 & 2016 to help the reader decide their accuracy for themselves; and because these are Lichtman's own writings, we can absolutely do this without violating NPOV.

James has kindly placed a version of the article in his sandbox and I have made edits to help improve it — including some reorganisation of the "Popular vote versus Electoral vote section", and more clear prose around Lichtman's 2016 prediction (quoting directly from his book). However, I don't necessarily support that version of the article as the better 'template' going forward.

If I had to pick one version over the other, I'd pick Version 1, since I consider content accuracy to be the highest priority for an article. I've worked through some of the Talk history and I can see why the Version 1 proponents are frustrated that facts about Lichtman's record are being handwaved away a bit instead of just stated directly. But I can also see good reason why Version 2 exists and why its proponent is frustrated by the tone that Version 1 strikes. Hangways1 (talk) 05:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

You write above that "the article should be very definitive here. Lichtman predicted that Trump would win the popular vote, and Trump did not win the popular vote." I understand that position. It's the same one that the three SPAs are taking -- here's the evidence supporting one side of the dispute, we regard that evidence as conclusive, therefore Wikipedia must inform its readers that there really is no dispute and that our POV is correct.

What I don't understand is that, on the AN/I thread, you wrote this:

I don't think there is any need for the article to take a stance on whether the NYT, WaPo, Brandeis, etc. are correct or not. The article should provide as much of Lichtman's writings & statements as possible about contested predictions, AND it should mention that multiple media outlets and election personalities have variously supported/detracted from Lichtman's record. This way the reader can decide for themselves (a) what Lichtman's prediction was, and (b) whether the support/critique is reasonable.

So you're saying that the article "should be very definitive here" but should also let the readers decide for themselves? This is an important distinction because the SPAs' insistence on making the article definitive is precisely what makes it a violation of WP:NPOV. JamesMLane t c 13:54, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

The point was that we don't need to articulate uncertainty about whether Lichtman's system was predicting the popular vote or not in 2000 & 2016. We have repeated, clear statements from Lichtman that the keys do only predict the popular vote—including a passage from his book that even reaffirms this in cases of split Popular Vote / Electoral College.

This isn't the kind of claim to which NPOV applies. Providing Lichtman's own quotes that the keys predict the popular vote isn't unfair to him, or stating an opinion as fact, or inherently judgemental. You'd be literally just conveying the fact (according to Lichtman himself at the time) that the keys predicted the popular vote.

I'm sure we can agree that quoting what Lichtman wrote about his keys doesn't intrinsically violate NPOV. It just so happens that what Lichtman wrote about his keys was that they only predict the popular vote. The article shouldn't be vague about this. Hangways1 (talk) 14:27, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Hangways1 here. I am open to working off of JamesMLane's sandbox draft: my goal is actually to condense some material, but I will ask for some time as the US elections are this week. Caraturane (talk) 14:32, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I've never tried to censor the argument that Lichtman was wrong in 2016. I'm willing to convey the facts about what he said. My version does so, and we can certainly discuss how best to present that side of the argument (along with discussing how best to present the other side of the argument).

Where I disagree with you is your statement, "The point was that we don't need to articulate uncertainty about whether Lichtman's system was predicting the popular vote or not in 2000 & 2016." Yes, there is uncertainty. Lichtman has said that he switched in 2016. You think the stronger evidence supports the view that he's a liar? Fine, you're entitled to your opinion, but the article can't endorse that opinion.

As to the specifics of how we present it, we want to be fair to both sides, but we also have to exercise some editorial judgment. We don't generally scour the internet and quote everything that's verifiable. The standard is a fair presentation of each side. To take one obvious example, the current version quotes the nonnotable Postrider bloggers as if they were experts. That's purely promotional and doesn't improve the reader's understanding of the issues. To the extent that the bloggers said anything worthwhile, the substance of their comment would be picked up elsewhere. JamesMLane t c 15:41, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

We all agree some work can be done but when using Lichtman's own words I don't think we should beat around the bush.

The Postrider journalists are frequently cited as the most prominent investigators into Lichtman's record... are we really going to get into an issue this niche? We all gave it a rest regarding citing the site itself (something many of us felt was is useful given their role in all of this) but I understand on waiting for the publication of editorial standards (again, this is something I asked for directly of their editor). But it should be beyond dispute that they're notable for their criticism of Lichtman at this point, especially given how frequently they're quoted or cited on this dispute (or, honestly, how often Lichtman talks about them). Caraturane (talk) 15:46, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

LOL, no, a few media mentions don't make someone notable. You want to call them "journalists"? How about I won't carp about your calling them "journalists" if you won't carp about me calling them "bloggers"?

Anyway, most journalists aren't notable. We often quote what a nonnotable journalist writes because the material appears in a reliable source -- which Postrider isn't.

You write, "We all gave it a rest regarding citing the site itself (something many of us felt was is useful given their role in all of this) but I understand on waiting for the publication of editorial standards...." That "gave it a rest" phrase is, well, not how I would describe it. What happened was that I pointed out the clear violation of Wikipedia policy, specifically WP:SPS. You did not respond by giving it a rest. You three SPAs fought to include and promote the Postrider. You, personally, responded to the citation of Wikipedia policy by writing, "It's crucial to realize that Wikipedia benefits from diverse types of sources...." In other words, your personal opinion was that Wikipedia policy was wrong, therefore you wouldn't follow it. The only way the situation got corrected was through a huge waste of time (mainly my time) in doing a whole Noticeboard thread.

And on that thread, you still didn't give it a rest. You and your allies continued to fight to include this SPS. And even now you're trying to lay the groundwork to resume promoting Postrider, based on some hypothetical "publication of editorial standards". In my opinion, there is nothing these bloggers could tell you about their lofty "editorial standards" that would contradict the unanimous conclusion of the experienced editors who participated in the Noticeboard thread. Of course, you're always free to start a new Noticeboard thread, seeking to reverse the earlier decision. Tip: If you do that, you should notify everyone who participated in the original thread. JamesMLane t c 02:03, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

James, if you're complaining about the process we've gone through lets be clear here: us "allies" just happen to be random people with subject knowledge on the keys that agree with something on the merits. We're not an alliance working together to bludgeon the process or not letting things go.

Now, oppose the re-inclusion of a quote from the postrider on the merits, that's still fine. But the admin notice you posted had only one admin weigh in who wanted us to try to work this out. Are you going to continue to inflame discussions with the "LOL, no", calling us "SPA"s, continuing to promote your perspective as simply informing us rather than promoting a debatable argument? It's not helping anything. Apprentice57 (talk) 16:07, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

The Postrider authors are genuinely like the most quoted people in pretty much all of the Lichtman criticism... they're constantly quoted, and every source refers to them as "journalists" (they are also both, actual journalists, didn't we already go through that?). I would use them and keep them on the page.

At the time I proposed a compromise of using the Postrider source in criticism section but removing the link because of the reliable source issue (something Caraturane also volunteered to look into and did, but I understand we're waiting on them), I thought that was a good faith compromise but then you just went and deleted it everywhere. Fine, I disagree, but I get the argument for it (I just think it was obviously relevant in the criticism section as it is cited in like every Lichtman criticism I can find). But it is beyond doubt that Emerson and Lovito are relevant on this page as critics/journalists/commentators on Lichtman. They are literally the most cited critics/source on his record! Tomcleontis (talk) 23:05, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

"Yes, there is uncertainty. Lichtman has said that he switched in 2016. You think the stronger evidence supports the view that he's a liar? Fine, you're entitled to your opinion, but the article can't endorse that opinion."

Well, let's try and build some consensus on an improvement, then.

Lichtman definitively stated multiple times in 2016 (in his book and in his paper) that the keys "only predict the national popular vote". He also wrote that the keys predicted the popular vote in three years where it split from the Electoral College.

You're clearly okay with including clear summaries of Lichtman's post-2016 statements about his 2016 prediction — e.g. the one you just mentioned about his claim that he switched before the election.

So are you equally okay with including clear summaries of Lichtman's during-2016 statements about his 2016 prediction?

I ask because your Version 2 doesn't make those statements of Lichtman's very clear. You use phrasings like "Lichtman originally described the system as predicting only the popular vote" (but decline to note that he continued to support that design even in 2016), or "Lichtman had usually been referring to the popular vote" (which does not express that Lichtman often simultaneously stated that the keys only predict the popular vote; an important distinction!).

If we're all agreed that the body of evidence shows that Lichtman wrote on multiple occasions in 2016 that his keys only predict the popular vote, then are you okay with a sentence like "Lichtman wrote on multiple occasions in 2016 that his keys only predict the popular vote." ?

This seems to me completely NPOV, since it's a factual description of what he wrote and can be directly quoted. I strongly suspect that if your version was as willing to express forthrightly what Lichtman wrote during 2016 as what he wrote after 2016, a lot of this dispute would be resolved. Right now, Version 2 seems to tiptoe around ever stating directly that Lichtman repeatedly clarified in 2016 that the keys predict only the popular vote — which is probably the most relevant possible fact we can make clear to the reader! Hangways1 (talk) 16:05, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Hangways1, you've said that "we don't need to articulate uncertainty about whether Lichtman's system was predicting the popular vote or not in 2000 & 2016." That's consistent with the SPAs' reiterated view that there is no dispute. That's always been the sticking point. They revert any change that acknowledges uncertainty.

I'm open to discussion about how we present each side (subject to considerations of fairness and length), but the starting point must be a recognition that there are two sides. Every experienced editor who's weighed in has agreed with that point, and has considered my version more neutral, but we can't make any progress toward neutrality in the face of the SPAs' insistence on their position that there is no dispute. JamesMLane t c 16:27, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, James, so let's have that discussion!

There are multiple sources from Lichtman in 2016 that state that the keys only predict the popular vote. Your version doesn't make that clear — are you amenable with sentences such as "Lichtman wrote on multiple occasions in 2016 that his keys only predict the popular vote." being included to help show the facts of the matter? Hangways1 (talk) 20:58, 5 November 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)

Thank you for making the NPOV and BLP violation so explicit. JamesMLane t c 17:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

This is relying on several independent sources that have been cited throughout this process. When a statement is demonstrably inaccurate, Wikipedia says so. You are missing the forest for the trees.

https://www.imediaethics.org/did-professor-allan-lichtman-correctly-predict-the-winner-of-the-2016-presidential-election-his-own-book-says-no/

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/10/allan-lichtman-election-win/680258/

https://thepostrider.com/allan-lichtman-is-famous-for-correctly-predicting-the-2016-election-the-problem-he-didnt/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xnNIAhs3xk&ab_channel=80%2C000Hours ("lied in the past about whether he was trying to predict the Electoral College or popular vote")

Caraturane (talk) 18:01, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

There are also multiple independent sources stating that his prediction was correct. In such circumstances, Wikipedia does not state "This side of the controversy is right and the other side of the controversy is demonstrably inaccurate."

This is the problem with trying to find a compromise here. We could tinker with the wording but there are a few editors who insist that the article take a position in that manner. Any such outcome would violate Wikipedia policy. JamesMLane t c 18:19, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

For one, we should rely on more modern and comprehensive sources than out-of-date sources that may have just added a single line about it. All of these sources are much more thorough, whereas others are just referring to his system at large.

Hence why the statement as is "Using the system, Lichtman has correctly predicted the popular vote outcome of each presidential election from 1984 to 2012. 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 correct -- it notes Lichtman's claim and why many report it is inaccurate.'

It barely matters. At the end of the day we are arguing over something that is just really clear on the face:

1. Lichtman said his system predicts only the popular vote
2. Lichtman says his system predicts a Trump victory
3. Lichtman publishes a book and paper (before and after his official prediction) which both say they only predict the popular vote.
4. Trump wins the electoral college but loses the popular vote
5. There is no record, ever, anywhere, of him ever saying his system changed before the election. Yet there are plenty of instances where he said it only predicts the popular vote.

A media ethics watchdog called him out for being dishonest about this even before the October 2016 paper the Postrider found came to light. How is this not cut and dry? Caraturane (talk) 18:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

You write that "we should rely on more modern and comprehensive sources...." That's the problem right there. You're enunciating an approach for adjudicating the controversy. You want to compare all the different sources, decide which ones are more credible, and, in reliance on those sources, proclaim a conclusion. But that's precisely what WP:NPOV bars. JamesMLane t c 18:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I actually don't think NPOV bars considering independent sources that are more thorough and related to the dispute at hand as more useful than those that just mention it off hand. Nonetheless, it ignores the plain text of Lichtman's own words like I noted before, which are fair game.

I am suggesting that the way the page reads as is is suitable because it states Lichtman's claim and the refutation by independent sources. If you would like to litigate precisely why Lichtman's claim is false, we can get into that and just exclude it, because there's really no question that he missed the 2000 election and/or the 2016 election. Caraturane (talk) 18:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

What WP:NPOV bars is any such "considering" and weighing of sources. So, no, I don't want "to litigate precisely why Lichtman's claim is false...." We don't need to set ourselves up as the judges who will assess the evidence and tell the readers what to think.

On this Talk page we reach this point over and over. I keep seeing posts explaining why an editor thinks one particular point of view is better supported than the other -- and, crucially, that the editor therefore thinks Wikipedia should endorse one side of the controversy. I keep citing the policy against such editing. JamesMLane t c 00:59, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

This isn't a weighing, this is a using a source that is more comprehensive as to the actual dispute than one that is not. I don't think it is deniable that these three sources are explicitly about the 2000 and 2016 controversy and are thorough:

https://www.imediaethics.org/did-professor-allan-lichtman-correctly-predict-the-winner-of-the-2016-presidential-election-his-own-book-says-no/

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/10/allan-lichtman-election-win/680258/

https://thepostrider.com/allan-lichtman-is-famous-for-correctly-predicting-the-2016-election-the-problem-he-didnt/

Other sources which you seem to want to rely on do not talk about the record in depth and just talk about his current prediction, that's not good enough to actually resolve a controversy. We prefer precise and comprehensive independent reviews to ones that are generic and empty.

Almost everyone with a deep knowledge of this subject matter has been unified here, it is your badgering on these issues and Lichtman's own bad faith acting in terms of telling people to remove critical material from Wikipedia and disparaging journalists (like those in The Atlantic and The Postrider, and also the media ethics group apparently) who note these inconsistencies; that is what continues to churn the controversy. We bring you strong, independent sources, you insist controversy remains. We quote what is in these sources, which is unequivocal, and you insist controversy remains.

Until someone can find any place where Lichtman said he was no longer predicting the popular vote in 2016 before that election occurred, I am going to choose to trust a Media Ethics Organization, Nate Silver, The Postrider, and The Atlantic, over Lichtman's statements. He has an obvious interest, one for which he has been accused of "lying" about his record (by Nate Silver), and the reporting is undeniable. Caraturane (talk) 03:18, 30 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)

I concur that Lichtman's words through 2016 unambiguously point to him predicting only the popular vote.

For example, see this similar section from his book "Predicting the Next President: The Keys to the White House 2016":

""The keys to the White House focus on national concerns such as economic performance, policy initiatives, social unrest, presidential scandal, and successes and failures in foreign affairs. Thus, they predict only the national popular vote and not the vote within individual states. Indeed, no system could have predicted the 537 vote margin for George W. Bush in Florida that decided the 2000 election.

In three elections since 1860, where the popular vote diverged from the electoral college tally—1876 (when Democrat Samuel J. Tilden won the popular vote, but lost in the electoral college to Republican Rutherford B. Hayes), 1888, and 2000—the keys accurately predicted the popular vote winner. Based on the historical odds since 1860, the chances are better than twelve to one that the popular and electoral college vote will converge in any given election. However, these odds presume continuity over time in the relationship between popular and electoral college votes."

I actually don't know what more you could possibly add to make this clearer. Lichtman (1) states that the Keys ONLY predict the national popular vote, (2) indicates that he's fully aware that the EC & popular vote usually but don't always correlate, and (3) specifies that when the EC & popular vote are split, the Keys predict the popular vote winner.

This isn't remotely out of context, either - the very next paragraph reaffirms that the keys predict the popular vote results (no mention of EC), and indeed the entire book's methodology uses popular vote tables and reasons from them. Hangways1 (talk) 09:36, 1 November 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)

"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."

Just want to correct this; Lichtman was extremely specific about how to interpret the Keys in the instance of an EC/popular vote split, in his book "Predicting the Next President: The Keys to the White House 2016". See Introduction xi for:

"The keys to the White House focus on national concerns such as economic performance, policy initiatives, social unrest, presidential scandal, and successes and failures in foreign affairs. Thus, they predict only the national popular vote and not the vote within individual states.''

Indeed, no system could have predicted the 537 vote margin for George W. Bush in Florida that decided the 2000 election. In three elections since 1860, where the popular vote diverged from the electoral college tally—1876 (when Democrat Samuel J. Tilden won the popular vote, but lost in the electoral college to Republican Rutherford B. Hayes), 1888, and 2000—the keys accurately predicted the popular vote winner.

Based on the historical odds since 1860, the chances are better than twelve to one that the popular and electoral college vote will converge in any given election. However, these odds presume continuity over time in the relationship between popular and electoral college votes. "

This seems absolutely unambiguous to me. Lichtman is (1) aware of the slim possibility that the popular vote won't correlate with the EC, and (2) explicit that when this happens, the keys predict only the popular vote.

This is also perfectly congruent with Lichtman at times saying Trump would win Presidency; if the Keys predict he'll win the popular vote, and if the popular vote correlates very well with the EC result, then you'd expect Trump to be President. But this always came with the caveat that if they differ, the Keys would be interpreted to only refer to the popular vote.

I have not yet seen anyone provide a single source that contradicts the above or that explicitly states the Keys should be interpreted to mean EC instead of popular vote in the instance they differ. Hangways1 (talk) 09:26, 1 November 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)

How to reach consensus

I've repeatedly said that I have no problem with NEUTRAL reporting of both sides about 2016. I'm not trying to suppress the criticism. The reporting must be within the context of two key points mandated by WP:NPOV: (1) Both sides must be explained fairly, without editorial bias. (2) The article, while describing disputes, must not engage in them, and therefore must not endorse one side or the other.

My neutral version is a significant improvement over the current biased version. Nevertheless, I've never claimed that it's perfect. There are posts here fervently espousing the view that Lichtman got 2016 wrong. In my version, I reported that view and linked to the sources relied on by its proponents. If any of the proponents think the presentation of that position could be improved, we can certainly discuss that -- as long as we do it within the context that we are not not NOT going to say that Lichtman is wrong (just as we're not going to say that he's right).

I've copied the neutral version into my sandbox. You can see it here: User:JamesMLane/sandbox. Normally, users don't edit each other's sandboxes. In this instance, however, I invite anyone and everyone to edit that version, if you think it's unfair to the position you agree with. Perhaps we can reach consensus on how to present the dispute. JamesMLane t c 03:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)?

I appreciate the rollback to finding consensus. Unfortunately this is just a nonstarter. We don't agree with presenting this as having a dispute in the first place. Which means that we do score the keys as incorrect in this case. To change at least my mind on that (that it is at least in dispute) I would need to see a source that investigates Lichtman's history in a thorough sense and comes to the contrary opinion on this, or a source from Lichtman that is clear that it is an electoral vote prediction.

And I just want to say that... continuing to write in the style that you have previously (aggrandizing your own version, establishing yourself as an authority on how things must be written when we interpret NPOV and BLP differently) is just going to keep the temperature high. Apprentice57 (talk) 01:07, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean about "rollback". I've always been open to discussion and consensus. The obstacle is that you and others insist on presenting one side as fact -- not because there's no dispute, but because your opinion is that one side is better reasoned, and that The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Brandeis University can all be treated as if they were crackpot climate-change deniers. If you want to reduce the temperature, don't say "To change at least my mind on that" and set forth your demands. Just allow that opinion to be presented fairly, even though you disagree with it.

At this point it seems likely that neither the RfC nor the BLP Noticeboard thread will attract any more participants. Out of an abundance of caution, I'll wait a bit longer, to see if someone who has more free time over the weekend will weigh in. If your assessment of these dispute resolution mechanisms is that they are to be decided by majority vote, you are mistaken. JamesMLane t c 15:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

That is not my assessment no.

My assessment is the article as currently written fulfills wiki standards. Past consensus was that it did as well.

The RfC did not find the same consensus, but it did not find any consensus at all. That leaves the article be for the time being, in a state that matched prior consensus.

The only thing I think the majority of RfC comments should lead to is a bit more humility on your part. Apprentice57 (talk) 20:23, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Obviously, you and I disagree pretty fundamentally -- not just about this article but about Wikipedia process.

And, as for your concluding remark, I want you to know that I'm proud of my humility. JamesMLane t c 00:50, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

One last try at explaining neutrality

New editors are sometimes welcomed with a post that gives them the Five Pillars of Wikipedia. The relevant one here is WP:5P2 with its explanation of the NPOV policy:

Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view

We strive for articles with an impartial tone that document and explain major points of view, giving due weight for their prominence. We avoid advocacy, and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them. In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in others we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view". All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy with citations based on reliable sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is about a living person. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong on Wikipedia.

With regard to the Keys, it can't be denied that there are sources that satisfy WP:RS and that say Lichtman's 2016 prediction was incorrect. It also can't be denied that there are sources that satisfy WP:RS and that say Lichtman's 2016 prediction was correct. Under these circumstances, in writing the article, we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view".

In opposition to that standard, the argument being made here, over and over again, is that the sources on one side are more reliable, or have done a better job of analyzing the record, or whatever. Editors are entitled to hold those opinions but Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong on Wikipedia.

Instead, we are to present each side fairly. That doesn't require citing every single source, pro or con, that meets the WP:RS standard. On a subject that's received significant media attention, it's usually preferable to cite a reasonable selection from each side. My attempt at a neutral version cites the Atlantic article by Edelman, the Newsweek article, and Silver's tweet and FiveThirtyEight posts. Those seem to me to be the main sources relied on by one side. If the proponents of that view think the presentation of their preferred opinion is unfair, I again invite them to edit the current draft.

Every experienced editor who's looked at the question has concluded that the current version violates WP:NPOV. People whose primary interest is in editing Keys-related articles should give some weight to that fact. JamesMLane t c 15:35, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

How many times do we have to tell you James: you've failed to find consensus on the merits of the situation at hand. Not because the editors disregard or unaware of the requirements wikipedia has. We all agree NPOV applies.

Stop "explaining" things to us, start recognizing that your viewpoint is not incontrovertible. Stop opening new talk discussions, this is sealioning. Apprentice57 (talk) 20:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I want to point out for any onlookers that @JamesMLane has now unilaterally added a warning about the neutrality of the article, while the RfC is still ongoing. Apprentice57 (talk) 03:05, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

The POV tag is perfectly proper under the current circumstances. If you're asking me to remove it, the answer is No. JamesMLane t c 03:26, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Well it certainly is disputed by one person who can't let it go, I'll give you that. Apprentice57 (talk) 07:58, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Restoring neutrality

We've gone through dispute resolution processes. In the RfC and the thread on the BLP Noticeboard, every experienced editor (Classicfilms and notwally) has agreed with me that the more neutral version is better. In addition, LittleJerry twice edited, noting that he was removing obvious POV, though his changes were quickly reverted.

There is no requirement that dispute resolution be continued for 30 days, during which a violation of Wikipedia policies must remain. It's obvious that there'll be no further input on either thread. On that basis, I'm restoring the more neutral version.

Two observations going forward: (1) On the dispute about 2016, I've tried to present both sides, but we can certainly consider how to improve that discussion. The only non-negotiable point is that neither side will be endorsed in Wikipedia's voice. (2) If, in the next month, there's an unexpected influx of editors to either of the discussion threads, this decision can of course be revisited. That remote possibility is not a basis for inaction now. JamesMLane t c 18:07, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

RfCs encourage anyone to engage in the discussion. There is no distinction between experienced an unexperienced editors therein.

The noticeboard was an attempt to circumvent the ongoing RfC, I do not recognize it as legitimate. Despite that, you had a single additional editor weigh in.

The Rfc found the opposition of 4 for these changes. As you noted elsewhere, RfCs are not a majority rule sort of deal. But they most definitely are not a minority wins resolution process either. Overall you did not find consensus for the edit you just made unilaterally. We disagree that your version is the more neutral one. I am reverting your recent edit on these grounds.

I will begin a talk discussion on what actions we can find compromise on tomorrow when I have time (I outlined some initial thoughts when you first proposed the new version and I have some other ideas I've been mulling over in addition to that) as a way forward. If/when we get to what we cannot compromise on in that discussion, then I guess we will have to progress in dispute resolution (for example, to contact an admin). Do not revert these changes back, this is the status quo of the article based on consensus found in the summer. Apprentice57 (talk) 18:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@JamesMLane The article is the farthest thing from neutral. We should absolutely include the information on 2000 and 2016 Kalbome22 (talk) 19:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

The 1892 Election

In the 1892 election there is 7 True keys and 6 False keys. Then it says it would predict Glover Cleveland as the winner, but shouldn't it be Benjamin Harrison as the predicted winner? Therefore an annomality :) 93.161.47.87 (talk) 14:44, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Good eye, but not quite! From Lichtman's book: "The keys to the White House are stated as conditions that favor reelection of the incumbent party. When five or fewer statements are false, the incumbent party wins. When six or more are false, the incumbent party loses. " Since there were six false keys, the incumbent was predicted to lose.

You probably assumed that if a majority of keys favour the incumbent, that's sufficient to predict they win. But that's not the way the Keys are built. Lichtman's system builds on the principle that elections are primarily a referendum on the incumbent party — they need to do well ENOUGH to justify re-election, or voters will almost inevitably want a change regardless of the challenger. (Hence why there are only two keys about challengers!). His threshold for this "well enough" idea is that the incumbent needs 8 keys, not just 7. Hangways1 (talk) 11:15, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Ah okay. Thanks for clarifying. :) 93.161.47.87 (talk) 21:20, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Emphatic Prediction of Kamala Harris win in 2024

The article should be updated to describe just how emphatic Litchman was about Kamala Harris winning in 2024. Previously Lichtman got away with the claim of a good predictive streak with post-hoc modifications to his intentions in some instances. This election will finally put him on record that his analysis is not much better than looking at poll numbers in the summer as a rough educated guess and then rolling a dice if it's close. Fpbear (talk) 04:56, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Bit premature there EvergreenFir (talk) 05:55, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly when is the right time to update the article (probably when election raters all agree on a victor?) but when it does we will mention it in a neutral-POV way. If it leads to a lot of outside criticism we can include those with a citation as well in the respective section. Apprentice57 (talk) 06:08, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

We should wait for the dust to settle a little. Tomcleontis (talk) 23:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

It is clear this is a major sweep for Trump and the Republicans, with both the popular and electoral majority. In the article this should be contrast with how emphatic Litchman was. This wasn't just Litchman saying it's going to be a toss up either way; he appeared on numerous TV interviews 100% certain of a Kamala Harris win. Fpbear (talk) 04:18, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Just delete this

The whole topic is just a bunch of lies that adjusted parameters after he had the facts. He's never been able to predict what he claims the keys can predict, before it happens. 185.5.48.148 (talk) 07:56, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Exactly he retroactively applied the keys to fit the keys Jimrot45556 (talk) 07:58, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

• to fit the predicted winner

Jimrot45556 (talk) 07:58, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Just because he was (presumably) wrong one time doesn’t mean that this article should be deleted. It’s very very useful for a lot of people. Even if the success rate isn’t 100 percent. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 08:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

It’s a wrong model.

but I think he misjudged the contest key. Compare the contest key rating of 2024 to 1968 Jimrot45556 (talk) 09:10, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the model is deeply flawed highly subjective pseudoscience, for many of the same reasons that you discuss. But Wikipedia has lots of articles about stuff that's wrong, for example flat earth theory. Despite being a bogus theory, his keys have (like it or not) received extensive media coverage, so they're notable. And the article can be a good place to assemble and cite critiques of all of the flaws with his model. -2003:CA:8703:2BFC:9A80:4152:79B:982A (talk) 00:18, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

You have a good point in that this is an extensive article about a method that doesn't give any better results than making an educated guess based on polls. I agree this article and attention to the keys should fade away or be deleted as a pseudoscience. Fpbear (talk) 04:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

@Fpbear A theory does not need to be accurate in order to merit an article on Wikipedia. For example, flat earth & moon-landing hoax theories have articles — people want to know about them, and that's the purpose of an encyclopedia! Rather, an article needs to satisfy Notability requirements, and the 13 Keys certainly do so; there has been significant coverage of the Keys by major media outlets over an extended period of time and Lichtman himself is a public figure who regularly appears in interviews.

If people stop being interested in the Keys, the article will "fade away" naturally over time. Notability is not temporary, so the article would remain up, but certainly nobody here should be editing the article to try and force its relevance into the future — don't worry. Hangways1 (talk) 07:29, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree with what @Hangways1 said, the 13 Keys remain notable (there may be an argument down the line for consolidating this and the Allan Lichtman article if interest fades or the level of detail becomes superfluous); it does make it important that an accurate and effective presentation of the system's flaws, critics, and relative strengths is reported here. Caraturane (talk) 23:27, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Priorities for Updates after 2024 Election

I think everybody can agree that (1) the article requires updating to incorporate the 2024 election results, and (2) finding better consensus around NPOV of the article.

Firstly, I have made two edits that I hope will be acceptable:

1. I have reverted two changes made by @Jeffs1225 which unambiguously violate NPOV rules. Jeffs altered the article to lead by labelling the system 'discredited' multiple times in the first two paragraphs (particularly citing the 2024 result) without a source.
2. I have added a very brief summary of Lichtman's 2024 prediction to the "Lichtman's prediction record" bullet point list. I do not explicitly state whether the prediction was correct or not, and quote directly from Lichtman using a source that was already in the article. The last sentence claims (for now) that Harris lost the EC & popular vote, but obviously (a) this needs a source, and (b) could still change as votes are counted.

I want to emphasise above that these are edits that I hope will be acceptable to both sides of the POV debate that has been occurring on this Talk page and elsewhere.

I would like to open this topic to form some consensus around priorities for editing the page going forward.

In particular — can we find an agreeable transcript of Lichtman's 2024 prediction? My understanding is that the first 2024 prediction he made was in a video with NYT (which is paywalled and hard for readers to verify), and subsequent affirmations were often also in video format OR were media outlets reporting on what Lichtman had said elsewhere.

It would be great if anyone could find a good source where Lichtman has personally confirmed his 2024 prediction in text, especially if it clarifies the EC vs popular vote prediction matter definitively for 2024. I think it's important to use as much of Lichtman's wording directly as possible so the reader gets clarity.

Hangways1 (talk) 09:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

He retroactively fit the keys to make it seem it predicts the winner since 1860 to 1984.

i don’t know what to tell you, when he lies a first time, his credibility is severely destroyed.

since 1984, he is wrong 3 times now (2000, 2016 and 2024) Jimrot45556 (talk) 11:05, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Jimrot, our job as editors is not for us to insert our opinions about whether someone is credible or not. We can (and should) present the facts of what Lichtman has predicted and the outcomes. We can also provide the facts of what relevant media outlets etc. have stated about Lichtman's credibility (or lack of it). But the article itself should be written with neutral tone and perspective to comply with NPOV requirements.

My interest is primarily in helping reshape this article to lean more on Lichtman's own words and direct statements to help readers assess for themselves if he has been correct or not. If you are certain that Lichtman's own words prove definitively that he has been incorrect, or show obvious inconsistencies, then I don't see why you'd have any issue with this effort. Hangways1 (talk) 13:32, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I follow another guys model on twitter who predicted correctly with his model a Trump victory in 2024 and 2016. Also his model points to Biden 2020.

I’m thinking he deserve a Wikipedia page, he claims his model points the correct winner since 1916 including Bush in 2000 which Litchman got wrong.

4 points checklist to the White House

1- Incumbent president running

2- Incumbent president has average approval above 50%

3- No recession in last 2 years (here 2024 and 2023)

4- GDP growth in election year higher then first year of incumbent president term.

2 false points❌ = Incumbent party loses

3 correct points ✅= Incumbent party wins

his call for 2024 :

1 - Harris is not sitting president ❌

2- Biden approval average at 41% < 50% ❌

3- No recession in 2023 or 2024 ✅

4- GDP 2024 slower than Biden first year in office 2021 ❌

❌ = 3

incumbent democrats were predicted to lose

2020 election :

1- Trump is sitting President ✅

2- Trump was below 50% approval ❌

3- COVID Recession in 2020 ❌

4- GDP of 2020 slower than Trump first year 2017 ❌

❌= 3

Trump was predicted to lose 2020

2000 election

1- Gore was not sitting president ❌

2- Clinton approval above 50% ✅

3- No recession in 2000 or 1999 ✅

4- GDP growth in 2000 slower than Clinton first year in his second term 1997 ❌

❌ = 2

Gore predicted to lose Jimrot45556 (talk) 13:44, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Okay. This article is about Lichtman's model. If you'd like to write an article about someone else's model, go for it. Remember that the article will need to comply with Notability requirements. Hangways1 (talk) 14:01, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Alright.

in regards to Litchman, I think he misjudged the contest key.

Humphrey won 2/3 on first ballots in 1968 but he still marked it as false cause of I quote “vocal divisions with the democratic convention”.

he marked it true for 2024 however… see where I’m getting at ? Jimrot45556 (talk) 14:03, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

About my edits on 7 November 04:11 — These edits are both structural and substantive in nature. My hope is for at least the structural (readability) edits to be preserved regardless of how contested this article is right now.

------

The first structural edit is a slight re-organisation of the introduction. Before my edit, there were two separate paragraphs that began with a comment on the system's methodology, and then moved to discussing Lichtman's track record. I have shifted sentences here so that instead we have a clear "methodology" paragraph, followed by a clear "track record" paragraph.

The second structural edit is a slight re-organisation of the Lichtman's prediction record (1984–present) section. Previously, information about years of disputed accuracy was presented in a bullet point list, which was getting clunky due to the volume of information provided. I have split this out into a lede and two subheadings for 2000 and 2016. I have chosen not to include a subheading for 2024, simply because there is no disagreement about the keys' accuracy in 2024. A source is provided to indicate this.

------

The first "type" of substantive edit, meanwhile, is an effort to passivelyrestore NPOV and consistency in the article.

For example, the introduction made contradictory statements about Lichtman's accuracy — it claimed that Lichtman "failed to predict" the election of George W. Bush in 2000 (which implies that the keys made an EC prediction that year), but then claims that the keys "Lichtman has correctly predicted the popular vote outcome of each presidential election from 1984 to 2012". This is just messy and should be fixed regardless of your stance on whether those predictions were accurate/inaccurate. I have erred on a VERY generic summary in the introduction, leaving the dispute to the later section about Lichtman's track record. I am fully aware that this intro is going to be subject to disruptive edits for a while to come and we'll probably need to discuss wording.

The second "type" of substantive edit is adding greater emphasis on direct quotes from Lichtman about his predictions in 2000 & 2016. This is also an attempt to improve the article's NPOV compliance — my hope is that by rooting the article in what Lichtman actually stated himself, we can avoid some of the dispute about which external source to trust about what Lichtman stated. There are plenty of clear and temporally proximal (to the election) quotes from Lichtman that we can lean on, and I've included some.

The added quotes include both quotes from Lichtman that state the keys predict the popular vote, and quotes from Lichtman that people will no doubt read to imply that Gore & Trump would be elected, not just win the popular vote. Hopefully that 'feels' like balance, but more importantly, because they are all direct quotes from Lichtman himself, surely this is all unambiguously NPOV... right?

Thanks for any feedback you guys can provide.

------ Hangways1 (talk) 04:30, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

Now that the system has demostratably failed, it seems correct to label the system as subjective and pseduoscientfic. Kalbome22 (talk) 17:48, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I think the way Lichtman has marketed the keys does really hinge its credibility on calling all (or maybe with one miss) elections correctly so I understand the frustration.

But I don't think we should jump to presenting it that way on wikipedia. Models are simplification of real life, and can't reflect it perfectly, and will therefore have misses. I don't think we should portray it as pseudoscience upfront. Arguably would violate wikipedia's requirement on a neutral POV. Apprentice57 (talk) 19:48, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree with @Apprentice57 here that the article itself should remain neutral. There's also more than enough criticism out there of the model (and I'm sure there'll be more to come) that as editors there's absolutely no need for us to take any stance ourselves — we can simply present Lichtman's predictions and any notable support & criticism for them and let the reader decide for themselves. Hangways1 (talk) 02:09, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree, this article should be labeled as a failed pseudoscience. Fpbear (talk) 04:23, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

If we have reliable sources that called it a pseudoscience, it is reasonable to include. I deleted the earlier addition simply because it was uncited in any of the sources I had seen. Jjazz76 (talk) 04:38, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

https://www.thenationalnews.com/news/us/2024/10/21/allan-lichtman-prediction-kamala-harris-donald-trump-reaction/ Kalbome22 (talk) 15:18, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok that's one. I'm not familiar with that particular source and it isn't on Wikipedia's list where they discuss reliable/unreliable sources. Any other articles specifically calling it "pseudo-science"? Jjazz76 (talk) 00:06, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

If the system were pseudoscientific, then it would have been pseudoscientific regardless of whether it correctly predicted the outcome of this election. The fact that it was wrong this time is not a justification to label it as pseudoscience without reliable sources agreeing that this label is appropriate. I think WP:FRINGE/QS is the relevant policy here. TWM03 (talk) 16:12, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Agree with Apprentice57 and Hangways1. The neutral position is already pretty critical of Lichtman now and speaks as to the successes and failures on its own, there's no need to heap on unnecessarily. Tomcleontis (talk) 16:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I'd agree without a bunch of good reliable sources calling it pseudo-science we don't have enough to make that addition. Jjazz76 (talk) 00:06, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Why is this on wikipedia?

This is simply pseudoscience and a unimportant model which has failed catastrophically. Jjbomb (talk) 20:17, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

As I noted in my other reply, Wikipedia has articles for lots of other pseudoscience BS, including flat earth. The criteria for inclusion is notability, not whether it's right or wrong. His model/theory has been covered extensively by the media, so it's considered notable, despite its deep flaws. People coming here can read in detail about its flaws and criticisms that have been made. -2003:CA:8703:2BFC:9A80:4152:79B:982A (talk) 00:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I understand I was just puzzled that the article I made on the Kentucky highway shooting would be deemed for deletion but this random theory that was now destroyed stays. Jjbomb (talk) 01:14, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Did you follow the Notability requirements Jimrot45556 (talk) 22:50, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

It looks like the file you uploaded [1] was because "concern was: Copyvio. No source given, no indication the photo is in PD or CC-BY. No Fair use rationale given." not because of the topic itself. The actual article itself, Interstate 75 Kentucky shooting is still live and not deleted. As far as this article, it meets the criteria for inclusion, and I'm not sure what you mean by "catastrophically", in the sense that this theory could only either succeed or fail, there is hardly and need for hyperbole. TiggerJay (talk) 06:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah yeah I meant that when I made that article a serious discussion to delete it was formed Jjbomb (talk) 18:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2024

Aleksey20022 (talk) 02:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Alan Lichtman has said the primary contest key is False in 9 pm 11/7/2024 litchman live youtube stream for the democratic president in 2024 because the democrats trashed their incumbent president. Also in his final NYT prediction he has not predicted the foreign policy sucess key and in his litchman live key said he is not mike johnson and thinks its leaned true but cant call it.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Shadow311 (talk) 03:17, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Really ? I argued about this, you all doubled down on me about the foreign policy success key.

save it bro the gig is up Jimrot45556 (talk) 11:09, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Earthquakes

The reader deserves to know that Vladimir Keilis-Borok, the co-creator of the Keys, had worked on earthquake prediction and used some of those ideas in developing the Keys model. The merits of the earthquake system itself, however, gets too far afield. The article can do without the (nonpolitical!) pronouncements of the United States Geological Survey.

If, however, it were to be included, then like anything else it's subject to WP:NPOV. The linked USGS page was not unreservedly negative about Keilis-Borok's work. I've changed the reference to a verbatim quotation from the USGS.

My preference, though, is to delete the whole thing. JamesMLane t c 02:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

But the entire method of predicting earthquakes simply didn't work. Jjazz76 (talk) 23:58, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

1. Per the USGS site itself, there's no "simply" about it. You want to cherry-pick the USGS's negative comment. If you insist on addressing this subject here, what's wrong with a verbatim quotation of the full statement, including "a legitimate approach to earthquake prediction research"?

2. I still don't see why we need to address it here, though. There's a wikilink to Keilis-Borok's bio article. That article includes the "unproven" statement. Any reader who cares to know more about earthquake prediction can find it with one click. The validity or lack of validity of the Keys is not affected by earthquake records. By way of comparison, check out Benzene#Ring structure. The pioneer of a major scientific advance "said that he had discovered the ring shape of the benzene molecule after having a reverie or day-dream of a snake biting its own tail (a symbol in ancient cultures known as the ouroboros)." The theory of the benzene ring doesn't collapse just because it was arrived in part through nonscientific methods.

3. Merely reporting that Keilis-Borok used methods that he had developed for other purposes doesn't imply that his earthquake model was accurate. JamesMLane t c 03:03, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Which track record summary do we prefer?

@Kalbome22 and I have recently disagreed (via conflicting edits) on the best way to introduce the article. Additionally, @JamesMLane has his own preferred version which has been discussed on various talk pages. I'm collating three different versions here to solicit preferences.

---

Hangways' Preference: Lichtman has successfully predicted a large majority of the eleven presidential elections held since 1984 by using the keys. However, he incorrectly predicted that Kamala Harris would win the 2024 election, and the nature and accuracy of his predictions for Al Gore in 2000 and Donald Trump in 2016 have been disputed.

Kalbome's Preference: Lichtman has made predictions for all of the last 11 eleven presidential elections held since 1984 by using the keys. However, he incorrectly predicted that Kamala Harris would win the 2024 election, and the nature and accuracy of his predictions for Al Gore in 2000 and Donald Trump in 2016 have been disputed.

JamesMLane's Preference: Lichtman is credited with a high degree of accuracy in predicting the outcomes of the elections from 1984 through 2020 using the system. Assessments state variously that he got them all right, or that he was correct in all but 2000, or that he was correct in all but 2016. It is undisputed that his prediction of a win for Kamala Harris in 2024 was incorrect.

---

Note: "majority" is equally acceptable to me in place of "large majority", as would be the use of some other descriptor than "large". Indeed, my version initially read "majority" until I edited in "large" to try to reach compromise with James.

My primary objection to Kalbome's version is that it omits any direct mention that Lichtman has made any successful predictions:

• To my knowledge, every single reliable source in the article (including those directly after the sentence) agrees that a majority of Lichtman's predictions from 1984-2024 have been correct. There are really only 3 disputed years; other sources dispute the impressiveness of his predictions, but I don't think any source disputes that 8+ of 11 predictions were correct. At the very least, "majority" seems uncontroversial.
• The paragraph explicitly mentions years that Lichtman definitively got incorrect or which are controversial. I believe it is best to then also explicitly mention successes (somehow) to strike a neutral tone overall.

My primary objection to JamesMLane's preference is that it introduces the article with a higher emphasis on coverage of his track record until 2020 than of his track record overall (which now includes the 2024 election).

• The choice to summarise perceptions of a slightly truncated version of his record seems pretty arbitrary. Lichtman did not change the keys between 2020 & 2024, nor was 2024 the first prediction he is alleged to have gotten incorrect, nor did Lichtman have an undisputed streak of accuracy for a long period of time before that point. I can't see a good reason to particularly emphasise perceptions of Lichtman's track record as of four years ago in the prose.
• In comparison, summarising his track record from 1984-2024 inclusive is intuitive (we simply summarise his entire track record), agreeable (every reliable source now agrees he has gotten the majority but not all of his predictions correct), and easier to read (since we don't need to step readers through three conditional alternatives).

Of course, "high degree of accuracy" should probably also be discussed in comparison to my own "successfully predicted the majority" and Kalbome's "made predictions for". Which of these phrasings is most NPOV? Hangways1 (talk) 17:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Selecting out 1984-2020 isn't arbitrary. As a practical matter, we have many reliable sources that assess the system's performance over those years. My subjective impression is that the single most common view is "9 out of 10, with Gore wrong" and there are several in that camp. Presumably those commentators will at some point be saying "9 out of 11, with Gore and Harris wrong," but the election is too new and they haven't written those stories yet.

There's also a substantive reason. 2024 is the only election in which all sources, including Lichtman himself, agree that the prediction was wrong. NPOV doesn't require that we treat each year identically. 2024 is more important than any of the other years, so it's not POV for that failure to be highlighted in a sentence of its own.

The problem with "majority" is that it obscures important information. It's like saying that a majority of climate scientists believe in anthropogenic global warming. That statement is true. It would be very misleading to say it, however, because of the connotation of a close division. In the case of the Keys, "majority" could mean six out of 11, and not even Lichtman's most vehement critics allege that.

Another problem with both the Hangways1 version and the Kalbome2 version is that neither acquaints the reader with the undeniable fact that some sources assess Lichtman as having been correct in all the 1984-2020 elections. Editors who think that "balance of reliable sources" weighs against that view are not entitled, on that basis, to proclaim that view to be wrong, or to excise it from the discussion.

I'm not wedded to "high degree of accuracy" but the fact is that many independent media have hailed him as a predictor. Above I suggested mentioning the "Nostradamus" comparison, which has been very common. Even the McFall article in Newsweek, overall very critical of Lichtman, refers to that term in its title. What about including that as a neutral indication of his reputation, without asserting that the reputation is justified? As McFall notes, "Allan Lichtman's 'Keys to the White House' model has long been hailed as a reliable predictor of U.S. election outcomes." That's an accurate statement of the mass media's most common attitude toward the Keys. We could convey that fact with the "Nostradamus" language. Or we could convey it just by citing McFall:

Lichtman's "model has long been hailed as a reliable predictor of U.S. election outcomes." For the elections from 1984 through 2020, assessments state variously that he got them all right, or that he was correct in all but 2000, or that he was correct in all but 2016. It is undisputed that his prediction of a win for Kamala Harris in 2024 was incorrect.

That quickly puts the reader in the picture. Without getting into "majority" or "large majority", the reader can see the numbers, can see where the disputes are, and can see the system's single most notable failure. JamesMLane

I like Handway's way of wording it. Simply stating he made predictions and then listing the ones he may have got wrong doesnt sound neutral either. Wikiman5676 (talk) 02:33, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Also, why don't we just say "most" instead of large majority? Its a neutral and accurate term. nobody disputes he got most of the calls right. Wikiman5676 (talk) 05:10, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes I am also a supporter of 'most'. Also feel like Handway's does the best job of striking the balance of NPOV. @JamesMLane's comes off as too sympathetic towards Lichtman and @Kalbome's a bit too critical.I want to thank all three though for their hard work on this topic! Jjazz76 (talk) 00:02, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Having read this some more and watched the debate, Handways's proposal does a good job as well. I probably lean towards Kalbome's overall but both are fine. Caraturane (talk) 00:05, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok as of this point in time, I'm reading:

• Hangways, James, Kalbome presumably all support our own version
• Jazz & Wikiman & TWM03 support an amendment of Hangways' version to use "most"
• Caraturane supports Kalbome's version

All of these views have some level of overlap (e.g. it seems we are all at least partial to one of the other phrasings); I'm just summarising the primary preference.

For now, I'm going to make a small edit to restore "most" instead of "large majority".

--------

I continue to not think that summarising 1984-2020 is useful for the article, since this is an incomplete version of Lichtman's track record:

• 2024 being unanimously incorrect is important to note distinctly, but the very next sentence already accomplishes that goal. This therefore isn't an argument for also collating perspectives on 1984-2020 before 2024 occurred.
• Similarly, the presence of sources summarising 1984-2020 isn't by itself an argument for highlighting that portion of a track record any more than the abundance of sources summarising 1984-2016 would be. The assumption here appears to be that if we don't have a wide range of sources specifically summarising the whole of 1984-2024, then we should default to selecting & summarising views of the closest time period we can get wrap-ups for (1984-2020) — but I view the leap from "summarise Lichtman's entire track record" to "as editors, select a different timeframe and summarise that" is actually quite a large difference in principle. Omitting specific years/data points from a track record and conveying conclusions made for the rest of it is the quintessential means of "using statistics to lie", right? I stress that nobody here appears to be doing this, but I don't think the article should head in this direction. We can simply summarise the entire track record and point out individual years of note without having to do this.
• On an almost identical note, the failure to "acquaint the reader with the undeniable fact that some sources assess Lichtman as having been correct in all the 1984-2020 elections" just strikes me as arbitrary. Do we also need to acquaint the reader with the undeniable fact that some sources think he was right from 1984-2016? Or 1984-2000? The same implied assumption is made that if extensive views wrapping up 1984-2024 aren't available, we should default to those that wrap up 1984-2020.

--------

Where I *do* agree with James is that this sentence does not convey the general sentiment that Lichtman has broadly been regarded favourably.

I wonder if something like this is acceptable to all?

Lichtman has successfully predicted most of the eleven presidential elections held since 1984 by using the keys. The system has been frequently regarded as a reliable predictor of U.S. election outcomes. However, he incorrectly predicted that Kamala Harris would win the 2024 election, and the nature and accuracy of his predictions for Al Gore in 2000 and Donald Trump in 2016 have been disputed.

This is a modification of one of James' sentences, with the primary replacement of "hailed" with "regarded" to be a bit more NPOV. (I know that "hailed" is a direct quote, but removing it allows us to add more than 1 source to justify the sentence.)

I like this version for three reasons:

1. The combination of those 1st and 2nd sentences conveys (to my mind) what James feels is missing from my original version (the vibe that Lichtman isn't just thought to have gotten 6/11 right, even by his critics), but without the need to step into summarising outdated views on the 1984-2020 period.
2. It very cleanly separates the factual stance that everybody agrees on (Lichtman has gotten most correct) from the overall impression of the model's value (which is much more contentious).
3. Despite the introduction of another positive sentence for Lichtman, this still feels balanced overall to me — perhaps because the second, more critical sentence had two parts to it. This paragraph as a whole is basically 50-50 positive/negative in tone for Lichtman by wordcount, so I think it's still fine.

I haven't made this edit yet as it hasn't been discussed. Hangways1 (talk) 04:21, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I think this version is good, as it combines the unobjectionable parts of the two versions. However, I think we should be careful to avoid WP:RECENTISM when suggesting that the 1984-2020 record is "outdated" and not worth commenting on. Say if hypothetically the model gets the next three elections wrong, so that it becomes clearly worse than using the polls as a predictor based on all of its predictions. I still think it would be worth putting something in the article about how it was seen as reliable from 1984-2020, to explain why so many people cared about it, rather than just saying "it only got 9/14 right". I think it may be worth considering something similar here. TWM03 (talk) 09:40, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I support this. Caraturane (talk) 16:18, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I think Kalbome's version is a bit too harsh and kind of frontloads the 2024 election as more important than any other election/missed call from Lichtman. I don't know that I'd call it non neutral-POV but it's on the edge of that.

James' version I supported the earlier version of as a compromise before the 2024 result this week, but with that miss to the keys I think it just isn't apt anymore. Sources obviously disagreed on which elections to score in the key's favor but on the lowest end were at 8/10, and updating that to 8/11 (the miss here is undisputed, even by Lichtman so I think that's a safe update) I just don't think that reaches "high degree of accuracy". They adjusted this by separating out pre 2020 to post 2020 but like you I think that's an arbitrary choice.

On the balance, I like the version you've presented the most of the three hangways. I also prefer it with just the "majority" language, or with "most" as wikiman5676 just proposed.

Implicit and important here is that a lot of those 11 elections weren't really hard to call. Some we can debate that on (for instance 2008, which was not a close election but Lichtman made his call pretty early before that was obviously the case), but for others I hope that's not under dispute ('84 for instance). Some sources have definitely brought up this dynamic before if I need to argue against this being original research. In any event, I think leaving it at just "majority" is a way to neutrally reflect this dynamic in the intro. Apprentice57 (talk) 09:40, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Kalbome's suggestion strikes me as the most neutral and accurate description of what has actually happened and what is reality (especially as his track record is no longer highly accurate from a comparative standpoint). Caraturane (talk) 19:06, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm of the position that you have to highlight both his successes and failures, or not mention it at all to keep it neutral. Saying he made predictions and only pointing out the ones he got wrong is not NPOV. We should say something along the lines of "successfully predicted the outcome of most presidential elections. However, he missed...". Rather than just saying he made predictions, heres the ones he got wrong. Thats no better than saying, he successfully predicted most elections and completely ignoring the ones he got wrong in the lead. Wikiman5676 (talk) 22:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I would be in favour of Hangways' preference, but I would want "a large majority of" replaced by "most of" so that we are not making subjective judgements about what fraction would be a large majority. Kalbome's phrasing says nothing about what he got right and only focuses on what he got wrong, which is not an fair reflection of the sources (the media only cares about the system because it has been right so much, and most articles emphasise this).

Something like JamesMLane's preference would also be OK with me, but I think the first two sentences should be changed to the past tense if we go with this to make it clear that these assessments were not based on the most recent information, and the last sentence should be stated more directly (i.e. "he got it wrong", not "it is undisputed that he got it wrong"). TWM03 (talk) 01:16, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I think we should mention in the lead that Lichtman used the system to predict elections months, or sometimes years in advance. That's actually one of the things that makes his system noteworthy compared to other things like polling, which obviously can't predict much of anything until a few weeks before the election. Wikiman5676 (talk) 06:04, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

@Wikiman5676 Can you find a reliable source that expresses that? (ie that he generally makes these predictions early and that's notable)

One alternative if we can't is to note the year for certain individual predictions. eg I'm pretty sure his Obama prediction came at least 1 year out or maybe 2. We could add stuff like "In September 2007, Lichtman predicted that..." to help the reader decide which individual predictions were more/less impressive Hangways1 (talk) 06:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Well. its literally stated in the body. The body discusses some of his predictions which came years in advance. I was thinking we just mention it in the lead. Wikiman5676 (talk) 06:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Okay. so when i read the body now it seems like that isnt true anymore. But i remember that was the case in a prior version. "Lichtman's model received significant media coverage after he released his forecast for the 2012 election, predicting that Barack Obama would win re-election."

This used to also say why he received significant media coverage for his 2012 forecast. Namely that he released the prediction in 2010. And thats why it was covered. We should probably mention that in the body because just saying he got significant media coverage for his forecast of 2012 when he's a professional election forecaster is kinda silly if you dont explain why. Wikiman5676 (talk) 06:45, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

These sources all mention the Obama prediction.

https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/08/30/never-wrong-pundit-picks-obama-to-win-in-2012

https://www.american.edu/media/news/20100712_lichtman_predicts_obama_wins_reelection_2012.cfm

https://www.historynewsnetwork.org/article/allan-lichtmans-13-keys-predict-obama-will-get-re- Wikiman5676 (talk) 06:52, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

As for sources that explicitly state he generally makes predictions months in advance. This one says it.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/11/03/allan-lichtman-nate-silver-election/75993624007/

This is primary source but it also mentions years. Realistically we have to mention months or years. because even if the secondary source says months, we literally have an example in the body that says years.

https://www.socialstudies.org/system/files/publications/articles/se_720110.pdf Wikiman5676 (talk) 07:05, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I recently found this source. Video from the NY Times. This mentions that Lichtman used the keys to predict Reagan would win reelection two years prior to the election.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mp_Uuz9k7Os Wikiman5676 (talk) 07:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

 t c 22:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

References

JamesMLane t c 22:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Organisation of Criticism Section

This Talk page earlier debated two versions of the article, with "Version 1" being the status quo and "Version 2" being @JamesMLane's suggested major edit.

That debate unfortunately got framed almost entirely around NPOV disputes — but one of the major virtues of James' rework (which I *hope* we can all agree on!) was re-organising the Criticism section entirely by topic. The article previously demarcated an entire section for Nate Silver's criticisms specifically, which was pretty messy since some of his criticisms (e.g. on subjectivity) overlap with those of others'.

I have accordingly made a large edit to reorganise the Criticism section by topic.

---

The article has changed a lot since that debate, particularly around presentation of the popular vote vs electoral college content — so my headings & sorting aren't quite the same.

I also really like that James broke some of the statistical content down into further subheadings, eg "correlation with vote margins", "statistical fitting". I'm very open to integrating those.

However, I think we should also chat about whether presenting so much of Silver's statistical critique is actually required and NPOV. There's a lot of it and I wonder if we can summarise it more concisely to avoid giving it undue weight. I didn't want to cut any major content while re-organising, but I would personally favour a moderate cut here.

Point being... don't take the headings I put in as an indication that I much prefer them over James' Version 2 breakdown or anything!

---

I have added some small bits to Reception, notably:

• Lichtman's favourable reception by some outlets in general (not just for 2012 & 2016), including the Nostradamus terminology. @JamesMLane, hoping this goes some way to address your concerns...?
• More details of The Atlantic criticism of Lichtman's claim that he changed his methodology in 2016.
• A few sources here and there. (Some of the Silver critiques could have more sources added, even if it's the same one repeatedly being used.)

The biggest thing I tried to do was limit the Prediction of Popular Vote section to ONLY contain media commentary on the keys' predictions here.

Recall that the "Lichtman's prediction record (1984–present)" section already outlines exactly what Lichtman stated his predictions to be and his subsequent defence of his methodology. The kind of mental split I'm using is that the "Prediction Record" section currently contains only what Lichtman has predicted & stated about his popular vote predictions, while the "Reception" section currently contains only what others have said about it.

Is this a reasonable split? Is it redundant? Thoughts?

Hangways1 (talk) 06:34, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I actually really like what you've done here, I think this does a good job reorganizing and siloing off the general critiques and points against his system. Caraturane (talk) 16:20, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah second my compliments to your re-organization. Like it a lot! Jjazz76 (talk) 00:30, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Still no "Support" section, which my version included.

Still treating the Postrider bloggers as if they were worth quoting. They're not.

The "Prediction of popular vote" section is entirely one-sided. Points that are properly encyclopedic that are worth including, even if some editors disagree with them:

• Lichtman's interviews shortly before the 2016 election, predicting a Trump win without reference to the electoral vote.
• Reliable sources (more so than the bloggers!) that credit Lichtman with a correct 2016 prediction.
• Lichtman's explanation of the switch.

The same is true of the "2016 U.S. Election" section, very nonneutral. JamesMLane t c 02:00, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I am fine with including some points in Lichtman's defense but this is in the Criticism section at large, so I don't know that it needs to be restated if we do it in the 2016 U.S. Election section.

You continue to be the only one (other than Lichtman) calling them "bloggers" and protesting their inclusion. The Postrider journalists (we have already been through this, the two are legitimate journalists with a background in these areas are are cited for it) are frequently cited across sources as the most prominent investigators and critics regarding Lichtman's record (probably the most prolific other than Nate Silver himself at this point). It should be beyond dispute that they're notable for their criticism of Lichtman at this point, especially given how frequently they're quoted or cited on this dispute (or, honestly, how often Lichtman talks about them). Much of the actual substance of the Atlantic article is based on their work, in fact a third of that article talks about Lichtman's relationship with them, and Lichtman has repeatedly referred to them for their criticism. Time and time again, Lichtman, and you, have singled them out, and it has become very transparent.

Overall, I think @Hangways1 work is sufficient, with some minor touch ups here and there. But this is a Criticism section, it can be a little repetitive, but doesn't need to fully rehash every single argument. I think the most obvious part that could be reduced is some of the Nate Silver-statistical accuracy in predicting margins, as that's not something Lichtman has necessarily said the system is useful for and just seems to be some superfluous Nate Silver math (I know he's known for that, but trying to lightly tease :D) Caraturane (talk) 03:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

@JamesMLane

• Support section: I actually had a look at the Wikipedia policy on Criticism sections and it usually advises against dividing articles into Support v Criticism for NPOV reasons. Obviously the Media Coverage section is extremely favourable to Lichtman but that's why I didn't rename it to something like Support. Maybe it's possible that we just scrap the Criticism heading entirely too, but what would the alternative layout be, that wouldn't be highly redundant with the Track Record section?
• Correct 2016 prediction: There are a few sources in there that do credit him with a successful 2016 prediction. Do you want this more directly stated, or..? Edit: Scratch that, just looked at the page any there is a direct sentence already stating that he was labelled one of the few forecasters to correctly predict 2016. This looks fine to me.
• Lichtman's Words: As above, I tried to keep Reception mostly to reception of Lichtman's work, not his own statements. His claim that he switched methodology, for example, is already in the article, just under his track record section — so I didn't add it in again under Criticism. Do you think it's worth the risk of redundancy to repeat this sort of stuff? If so, we'd obviously also need to double up on other content (eg Lichtman stating in 2016 that he was predicting the popular vote) to keep it balanced. (In your favour, there ARE some of Lichtman's words/defenses even in the Criticism section; though this is primarily because they were already in there and I tried not to cut sourced content during my reshuffle, rather than because I'm advocating for inclusion.)

Hangways1 (talk) 03:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

1. I agree that "Support versus Criticism" is often disfavored. In the present case, however, there are editors bound and determined to include every conceivable criticism. If we must have a separate Criticism section, then we should have Support.

An alternative: Reception section, first subsection is media coverage (just about how prominent the Keys have been), second subsection is "Issues" or the like. Within "Issues", one subsubsection is "Popular vote versus electoral vote" and it presents all the arguments about 2000 and 2016. I personally favor a summary presentation but it appears that that won't fly. People would continue to re-insert any criticism they could find. Therefore, as a practical matter, the only way to preserve balance against constant assaults would be to go kitchen-sink and have an unduly long section, so that no one could plausibly object to any omission.

Your first comment also highlights the overlap between the prediction record and a separate, dedicated section on the issue of popular vote versus electoral vote. Of course, in the current heavily POV version, the point of the overlap is to reiterate the anti-Lichtman position.

One alternative that I've thought about is to move all the substantive discussion to the dedicated section, and confine the prediction recap to a bare-bones mention with a wikilink.

2. The discussion of 2016 is unbalanced. The POV that says he got 2016 right is supported by Lichtman himself, by his explanation, and by multiple independent reliable sources. That POV is mentioned, as you note, but is not fairly presented. The current version of the article quotes two no-name nonnotable bloggers, but can't find room to report that an established reliable source, The Washingtonian, has agreed that Lichtman got 2016 right.

If you think it looks fine to say only that he was one of the few credited with getting 2016 right, then it should be equally fine to say only that some commentators say he got it wrong. Elaborate on both POVs or neither.

3. As I noted above, I don't like the redundancy. We have an advantage that someone writing a book or article decades ago did not have: We can wikilink. In the prediction recap, we could just give a bare-bones summary mentioning the various POVs, each with a couple of sources footnoted, and conclude with "See #Popular vote versus electoral vote" (or however the section is titled.) JamesMLane t c 15:45, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

"An alternative: Reception section, first subsection is media coverage (just about how prominent the Keys have been), second subsection is "Issues" or the like. Within "Issues", one subsubsection is "Popular vote versus electoral vote" and it presents all the arguments about 2000 and 2016."

I don't mind the idea of replacing "Criticism" with "Issues".

However, I don't support merging in a lot of the content currently in the prediction record section and merely wiki-linking to it, for a few reasons. Top three are:

1. A separate "track record" section (as it stands) separates out exactly what Lichtman has stated himself, both before and after his predictions. IMO that's a big virtue on a topic where the actual substance of his predictions is disputed, and helps the reader clearly identify what his predictions actually were.
2. We're presumably keeping the track record table, and it makes sense to keep the substance of what Lichtman stated his predictions to be near the table that summarises his predictions.
3. It might not be viable to use a "summary" section and merely link later, because exactly what do you say in that summary about 2016, for example? You obviously can't settle on a single judgement ('right', 'wrong', 'unclear') while you're also presenting the dispute later in the article. And the introduction of the entire article has already summarised his record at a high level. So if you're going to start getting into the nuance of what his prediction record is, a "summary vs issues" section split makes less sense to me than a "what Lichtman said vs reception of it" split.

"The discussion of 2016 is unbalanced. The POV that says he got 2016 right is supported by Lichtman himself, by his explanation, and by multiple independent reliable sources. That POV is mentioned, as you note, but is not fairly presented."

I don't remotely agree with this.

The "2016 U.S. Election" section contains:

• 1x obviously neutral paragraph
• 1x paragraph with Lichtman's statements that (seem to) support him predicting the Electoral College
• 1x paragraph with Lichtman's statements that (seem to) support him predicting the popular vote

I say 'seem to' because not only is this as neutral as it gets, but it's entirely Lichtman's own words! There's no actual POV at all here. Presenting the facts of what Lichtman stated in 2016 is not unfair to him, and the section doesn't include anything like "therefore he was right/wrong". This is absolutely neutral.

You state that the section excludes what other sources have thought of his record — well, yes, because the article has a Reception section and that content is accordingly in Reception instead. That section leads with a "Media Coverage" section which is entirely positive towards Lichtman and there are four sources there at the end of a sentence that specifically says he was labelled as one of the few forecasters to get 2016 right. You want to add the Washingtonian as a fifth source for it? Go ahead, I guess. But, frankly, the article in its current shape *is* neutral and contains what you claim it doesn't.

As a meta-note, I've also personally edited in several of your requests (the Brandeis source, the Nostradamus quote, more quantification of the 9/11 number, etc.) to try to find compromise, and there are several of us actively removing vandalism along with you (e.g. claims of pseudoscience). I also took you up on the offer to help improve your Sandbox version some time ago.

That's not to say there aren't more improvements to make. But, frankly, I don't see a way to bridge our perceptions on the article's current framing and overall editorial approach to it. You seem to be mired in this conspiratorial sense that everybody here (on a regular basis) except you is out to get Lichtman, and I'm just not seeing it. Hangways1 (talk) 17:00, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I think your rewrite and reorganization is really good. Agree with Caraturane about the criticism section re: Nate Silver and inclusion of Emerson and Lovito (Newsweek and Atlantic articles, where they are the prime quotes and citations, targets of Lichtman's ire, put that to some rest). I agree with you Hangways about avoiding repetition and redundancy, and yes I think Lichtman's defense in the criticism section is pretty much already there, we did a lot of work on that months ago.

Happy to see we're moving on to some more substantive stuff, thanks for your work @Hangways1. Tomcleontis (talk) 15:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Changing "In Dispute" to be more specific

How does everyone feel about changing the description of the 2000 and 2016 election from "In dispute" to something similar to "He did not predict the outcome of the Electoral College in 2000 and 2024, or the popular vote in 2016 and 2024." This is probably more objective, especially because there seem to be basically no media sources beside Lichtman himself who contest the 2000 election. Kalbome22 (talk) 19:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

You mean "correctly predict" right? Jjazz76 (talk) 22:14, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I think thats just too wordy. Saying in dispute is a good summary because there are complexities the to it the reader can read more about in the body Wikiman5676 (talk) 04:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, there has been pushback from JamesMLane on thePostrider, but if accepted that would be once source that accepts his call for 2000 (as thePostrider's overall point is that it was always a popular vote model until after the 2016 election).

I also think that Lichtman can define what the model is predicting (so long as he does so ahead of the outcome of the election). And the important metric for a prediction is: did it match the variable he said it was predicting? That variable is the popular vote until 2016 (though I think there were claims from media sources for 2000 that he was insufficiently clear in his paper publication that it was popular vote; I'd have to double check those sources) and EV for 2020 and 2024. I don't think denoting the alternative (EV up to and including 2016, PV for 2020 and 2024) is very useful even if it is more objective. Apprentice57 (talk) 10:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC)