Talk:The Keys to the White House

2016 Election Confusion

It seems that there is some confusion about the 2016 prediction. Though the keys and Lichtman predicted a Trump/Republican win in 2016, this was about the popular vote, which Trump/Republicans did not win.

There are some changes that should take place:

1. A clearer indication in the page regarding what happened.
2. Some indication within the table/prediction record.
3. Addition to the "Criticism" subsection.

I will look for some sources. Caraturane (talk) 14:48, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

There are several sources regarding this discrepancy. Is anyone able to verify according to this source, a Social Education paper in Volume 80? This appears to be the source which is most frequently cited. This is also explained here, and here. A citation to his 2016 novel would also be consistent with this inconsistency, there is a quote in it: “predict only the national popular vote and not the vote within individual states.” Caraturane (talk) 18:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

When Lichtman made his prediction for 2016, he simply said Trump would win, he didn't talk about the popular vote. So I mark that as a qualified hit. And to show I am fair, I marked his 2000 prediction as a qualified miss. He did not discuss the popular vote in the journal articles wherein he made his prediction, he simply predicted Gore would win. He also did not and could not predict the miscounting of votes in Florida. Kurzon (talk) 22:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

His books from the 1990s do say popular vote only, so I am inclined to count 2000 but not count 2016, consistent with the sources. Are you able to get access to this source? It is from October of 2016 and has been brought up as saying "popular vote" but I cannot get access. I may try emailing him myself to see if he can send it over, it seems like this source specifically would answer a lot of the confusion. Caraturane (talk) 22:29, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

That's what his books say, but his books don't actually contain predictions, they explain the theory behind the predictions. Even if there is a discrepancy between his theory and his prediction for 2016, he nonetheless made a correct prediction. Kurzon (talk) 08:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

The October 2016 paper allegedly does, but I cannot find a copy. Do you have any ideas? Caraturane (talk) 21:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I am hoping to read a copy of that as well. In the meanwhile, the "The Postrider" article you linked to does contain a quote from that article:

"the Keys predict the popular vote, not the state-by-state tally of Electoral College votes.” Apprentice57 (talk) 07:13, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/ksm9n3qsptqkjd7avr5km/Allan-Lichtman-2016-The-Keys-to-The-White-House-Social-Education-80-5.pdf?rlkey=qdtcni8kxv60qxfz52ewecy1u&st=27o5ep7i&dl=0 Kurzon (talk) 13:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Wow good find, Kurzon and thank you for your help. We should rely on this citation concerning his 2016 prediction. It is his last and most definitive published word on the subject I was able to find (later than the Washington Post article, which is less clear than the language used here). This part makes it very clear that this was his prediction, when combined with the statement two paragraphs before that this only applies to the popular vote: "Since that time, however, the Keys have shifted and now point very slightly to a Republican victory in 2016... Although the model narrowly predicts victory by a generic Republican candidate, Trump is anything but generic and may vitiate that prediction." The first part of the article also "The model has successfully predicted the results of the popular vote in all eight American presidential elections from 1984 to 2012." Tomcleontis (talk) 17:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

A thank you from me for sharing that as well. After reading it I feel that the quote that "The Postrider" selected from it that I mentioned above is fairly smoking-gun and not mollified by context. Curious as per your thoughts Kurzon. Apprentice57 (talk) 19:42, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Lichtman missed one prediction and it was either 2000 or 2016 depending on how you look at it. Most people know Lichtman's prediction from his TV appearances. Who reads obscure science journals? I bet most academics didn'tread that article in Social Education. Lichtman went on TV and told everyone Trump would win. I am inclined to go with that.

Oh, and I am down $20 for the article. No big deal, I would have wasted that money on chocolates otherwise. But that I couldn't find it on Libgen goes to show how obscure the paper is. Kurzon (talk) 21:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

THANK YOU KURZON! That's very helpful. I have a few thoughts:

1. This paper is much clearer than I expected. I did not expect it to explain it was the popular vote several times, that's pretty open and shut.
2. This paper is his last word available on the subject and it is in line with his official predictions each year, this is where he publishes his prediction and its updates, thank you @Tomcleontis for looking at that.
3. Regarding his own words. We should value a published paper by him more definitively than a TV interview, and we should value something from October more than something from September, is that really up for debate?
4. I have looked at this for a while now and this reminds me of the dispute over when he changed his predictions. He said for a while that it was after 2000, but sometimes says something else, he is an inconsistent source on this, and a biased one as well. I want to be clear that this is nothing against him personally but when it comes to materials which review his work, they should be independent rather than by him. For an academic, peer or independent review.

Caraturane (talk) 21:35, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Consistent with best faith and independent review, we could just rewrite much of the article to explain that he's believes one thing, but an independent review has shown another thing. We can use his own papers and writings to make this point, and use the Postrider article to tell the complete picture. That is the most honest thing to do, but I think at the end of the day you are right, we should weigh the article, his October 2016 paper, and the word of others more than his own word. Tomcleontis (talk) 13:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

The books do contain his predictions. The only caveat is that for 2016, the book was published in May so a couple of factors were still uncertain at the time of publication. But the fact he's going through the motions at all show that he didn't change the keys between the book's publication and when he would later in media/a paper fill out the uncertain factors.

Conveniently for Lichtman, the 2020 book didn't contain the full 2016 prediction without uncertainties owing to an error. Which would've been useful clarification here. The linked "The postrider" article above goes into this a bit more. Apprentice57 (talk) 06:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I think of the books as persuasive evidence of his predictions and how they work, but the Social Education paper is his actual predictions. Tomcleontis (talk) 17:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Edit to add: the 2016 book raises eyebrows but this paper Kurzon found above (and mentioned in the Postrider article) confirms. The page should cite to all three: book, article, and paper. Tomcleontis (talk) 17:16, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Hey there, author of the reddit post linked to by Caraturane here. I do have access to the (May) 2016 book in question in digital form. I do not think it is freely available, but if it is of help for you/them/others the ISBN is 1442269200.

I'd like to quote a few sections from said 2016 book (italics are mine, bolding is theirs). I apologize in advance for the overall length but I want to give as much context as possible. Unfortunately the page numbers are inconsistent with the print book as I am using a digital copy:

1. "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." - Page 11
2. "Each of the thirteen keys (see page 3) asks a question that can be answered yes or no before an upcoming election. To avoid the confusion of double negatives, the keys are stated as threshold conditions that favor reelection of the incumbent party. When five or fewer keys are false, the incumbent party wins the popular vote; when six or more are false, the challenging party prevails." - Page 14
3. "Because the keys to the White House diagnose the national political environment, they correlate with the popular balloting, not with the votes of individual states." - Page 14
4. "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. Some analysts have suggested, however, that this relationship may have changed given the sharp division in America between Republican “red states” and Democratic “blue states.” - Page 11
5. "Only three times since 1860, however, has the electoral college not ratified the popular vote: the “stolen” election of 1876, when Democrat Samuel J. Tilden outpolled Republican Rutherford B. Hayes 51 to 48 percent but lost a disputed contest for the electoral vote; the election of 1888, when electoral college votes overrode President Grover Cleveland’s narrow popular-vote margin over Benjamin Harrison; and the 2000 election described above." - Page 14
6. "THIRTEEN KEYS TO THE WHITE HOUSE 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." - Pages 15-16

My read from these is that 1, 2, and 3 establish that the keys predict the NPV. 4, and 5 make the case that the NPV is very strongly correlated to the EV and thus overall winner. That is why Lichtman then introduces the Keys themselves, he uses the abbreviated language "wins" without literal contradiction with the text.

I think that may explain why there's confusion here. If you just look at the snippet that only introduces the keys (page 15-16) then the language implies just EV. But the extra context, in particular quote 2 above, clarifies that Lichtman means popular vote, but believes the two nearly if not totally equivalent.

The books also do contain predictions about the upcoming election cycle (the 2016 election is on pages 230 - 235 for instance), but with some uncertainties owing to being published too early in the election season. I don't believe there's a reasonable narrow exception that Lichtman could've changed the system to EV between the May 2016 book publication, and when he finalized the uncertain keys a couple months later.

Also see quote 1: ignoring Lichtman's claims and just analyzing the keys in and of themselves, it makes plenty of sense that national factors can only predict a national statistic like the NPV (rather than one that changes based on state specific ones like the EV).

I am therefore of the strong opinion that we should mark the keys correct for 2000, but incorrect for 2016. They always have, and always will predict popular vote. Apprentice57 (talk) 06:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

THanks for all that research, Caraturane and Apprentice57. Hopping in to add: the problem here is that to assume he predicted 2016 right, we'd have to believe that he changed the system and what it means to win without telling anyone before the 2016 election (which we cannot, because we should only be putting substantiated facts on the Wikipedia page). I do believe he changed his predictions at least after 2016 though. Therefore, I think we should call 2000 "questionable" (his 2000 prediction wasn't explicit enough for my liking, but I get the argument for including it) and 2016 wrong (the October 2016 paper and the independent reporting pretty much proves this). Tomcleontis (talk) 13:08, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't oppose a questionable rating for 2000.

Going forward after 2016 he is on record about them predicting the EC vote I concur (it doesn't really make sense *why* that's the case given he hasn't changed the wording at all, which is why I say they always will predict the popular vote, but that's at least a methodological issue and can be tackled later). Apprentice57 (talk) 18:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree. The keys were correct in 2000 and incorrect for 2016. Caraturane (talk) 21:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

In 2000, the Keys were correct, Lichtman was not. Kurzon (talk) 21:50, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

His actual line in the September 2016 interview he relies on is: "Based on the 13 keys, it would predict a Donald Trump victory." I think it's fair to conflate the Keys prediction with his own. Caraturane (talk) 21:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

He is one with the keys!

No but seriously this is a good point.

Tomcleontis (talk) 13:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I think that were getting too tied up in the specific case of 2016 and we're missing the forest through the trees. Lichtman consistently moves the goal posts and pretends to have never done so. 2016 is just another example.

Before 2000 Lichtman predicted the election winner. I read through the introduction and 1996 prediction in Lichtman's 1996 book and didn't see any distinction of the popular vote or electoral college. The difference between the popular vote and electoral college wasn't that relevant. After 2000 Lichtman pivoted to predicting the popular vote, and after 2016 it shifted again so that the keys only predicted the electoral college and the actual winner of the election. You can find plenty of examples of Lichtman saying the keys predict the popular vote beyond that October 2016 paper posted here, just look in any book or paper released. The 2016 and 2012 book introductions both say that the keys have accurately predicted the popular vote winners (https://archive.org/details/predictingnextpr0000lich_r9y9/page/n11/mode/2up at page x paragraph 2) and here's a blog post by Lichtman and Vladimir Keilis-Borok from 2004 that says that the keys predict the popular vote, and that John Kerry could lose the popular vote but win the electoral college https://www.hnn.us/article/why-the-odds-dont-favor-john-kerry.

In 1992 Lichtman called the short-term economy key false because the public perception was that the US was in a recession, but in 2024 Lichtman redefined it to be that "there is no recession in the election year" in response to polls that say majority of Americans think the US is in a recession. Lichtman maintains that the short-term economy key this election cycle is true because there is no recession. In the same breath Lichtman says that you have to stick with how the keys have been applied retroactively and proactively since 1860. I elaborate more in the "Key 5 - Perceptions" talk section.

I don't think you can accurately distinguish between if the keys predict the electoral college or popular vote. Lichtman has moved the goalpost so many times after the fact to keep the keys accurate that creating a concrete solution that covers the entire history of the keys isn't possible. I think the best course of action is to outline the fact that Lichtman is inconsistent with what the keys predict and avoid trying to establish if 2016 or 2000 were predicted wrong without any nuance. Instead point out that Lichtman changed what was predicted afterwards and what actually happened and leave it up to the reader. Ablevi202 (talk) 01:49, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the moving goal posts but reviewing the 1996 book does still plainly say that the system predicted the popular vote, and Lichtman himself said so after the 2000 election (whether that was convenient or not, it seems accurate, and sensible given his system evaluates how the electorate responds to governance, not individual state issues like the electoral college). However, I also believe that his predictions can still be definitively said based on his work, even if he has been dishonest post-2016. I suggest (and relying on the former discussion here over months and years) indicating that he has moved the goal post but also noting that he was correct in 2000 and incorrect in 2016, based on his own rules, a 9/10 prediction record. I agree there is more fleshing out to do on how he has manipulated his system or been dishonest about it, maybe in the "Criticism" section or "Lichtman's prediction record (1984–present)" section? Caraturane (talk) 13:19, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I believe Wikipedia should credit him as it does:

1) Raise an eyebrow about 2000 but say he did predict the popular vote outcome all along as my understanding is all of his books about the 13 Keys prior to 2000 did say that.

2) Rebut his 2016 prediction because of his books, previous predictions, and Octobrr 2016 paper which all went a step further than just saying "prediction" and said the system only predicts the popular vote, explicitly not the electoral college.

I admit that the more time I have spent on this, the more disreputable Allan Lichtman seems as a reference for his work today. For example, I learned that the school he works for, American University, went back a year later to edit their original 2016 prediction post (which said popular vote) and that Lichtman is now attacking two journalists involved in digging into his record who are alumni of his school by saying they have defamed him and that they have no academic/journalism "credentials." I still believe we should rely on his words for what he actually predicted right before the election: he said he was predicting just the popular vote, so we should go with that in 2000 and in 2016. But he is not a reputable or unbiased perspective of his own record and we should not rely on him or his words as to what he is now claiming in hindsight. Tomcleontis (talk) 16:44, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi all, I've gone ahead and begun making these changes, relying on the paper, book, article, and Twitter post from Nate Silver. I explained that Lichtman feels he did predict 2016 as well. This probably requires much more work on the table in particular. Tomcleontis (talk) 13:38, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I am of the position that if you put a note that his keys were "wrong" in 2016 because they predicted the popular vote, you should also put the note for 2000 saying he was actually right. Let's just be consistent here. Wikiman5676 (talk) 16:47, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

You are right, I added that on the table. @Tomcleontis raised a point that the table could probably use some work generally given this dispcrepancy and the fact that he changed what was being predicted after 2016, so I'm open to some ideas here too. Caraturane (talk) 16:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree for a larger revision of the table. I think it's important that we show using the existing red/blue cell coloring that the prediction matches the outcome in 2000 (both blue for Gore) but didn't match in 2016 (red for Trump popular vote prediction on the left and then blue for a Clinton popular vote victory on the right).

I'm not sure how to best show that what was predicted changed starting in 2020. If the table wasn't so wide already I'd suggest adding additional columns.

Perhaps we could end the current table at 2016, and also have the last two columns instead say "Predicted Popular Vote Winner" and "Actual Popular vote Winner". Then add a second table below that has entries for just 2020 (and 2024) but with the last two columns saying "Predicted Winner" and "Actual Winner". Still clunky but perhaps better than an even wider single table. Curious as to others' thoughts. Apprentice57 (talk) 19:10, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I like the idea of having columns that mention both. I'm also okay with how the table is now with the actual winners noted and the popular vote winners put in as a note. Wikiman5676 (talk) 19:52, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I prefer to keep the table as it is, and use the paragraphs above to explain the nuances of the 2016 and 2000 elections. Kurzon (talk) 12:00, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that's a good option, it's not really accurate now as is (or well, is with the note but that's clunky). Apprentice57 (talk) 13:06, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

An idea might be to color 2016 and 2000 differently and leave an asterisk, to show that they are different? Also an asterisk at the top of the table in the "Predicted Winner" and "Actual Winner" headers which reads: "Prior to 2020, the Keys predicted the winner of the popular vote." would help clarify. Tomcleontis (talk) 13:12, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Forgive me if I was presumptuous, but I figured that with a little change of language we could efficiently describe the anomalies in Lichtman's record with just a couple of sentences in the lede. Please see my edits and tell me what you think. Kurzon (talk) 17:41, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

For the time being I think we should lean towards more thoroughness and more sourcing about the discrepancy, as that seems to be the source of all the dispute. I also think saying "explained below in the article" is inappropriate language for a Wikipedia article and I think as it was (with sources provided) was a good compromise. I do think maybe including a section on this in the "Criticism" section may be helpful as well, though I realize that is adding more. Tomcleontis (talk) 17:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

The way it was written (before) was a bit confusing, so I cleaned that up too. As he did switch what he was predicting after 2016 anyway, so we should not say "9 out of 10" when referring to the popular vote (as it was 8 out of 9, then 2020). It may still need some cleanup. Tomcleontis (talk) 18:13, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

This entire discussion is built upon a faulty premise, which is that either Lichtman was wrong in 2000 because Bush one the electoral college, or that he was wrong in 2016 because Clinton one the Popular vote. What Lichtman said about the 2000 election after the fact is that up until that point he only considered the popular vote, because there had never been a case of the popular vote and the electoral college results being different. However, Lichtman also maintains that Gore was the legitimate winner of the electoral votes in Floria, and therefore the election. Regarding 2016, Lichtman Predicted that Trump would be the winner of the election, he did not predict that Trump would be the winner of the popular vote. The article should show that according to Lichtman, he has a 10, out of 10 record, and it should also show that the 2000 election did not have the outcome that the keys predicted. RevDan (talk) 06:14, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

But you agree that 2016 didn't have the outcome that the keys predicted either, right? Because the facts are:

1. The keys predicted the popular vote, not the electoral college. (Source: "As a national system, the Keys predict the popular vote")
2. The keys' output was Trump
3. Trump lost the popular vote

Paditor (talk) 07:42, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

No I don't agree with that at all. They source you quote doesn't say that Trump was predicted to win the popular vote, it says that as a national system the keys were based on the popular vote not the state by state electoral college, but that only once at that point did they not align. He never asserted that he predicted Trump would win the popular vote, he assered that trump would win the Election. RevDan (talk) 00:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

"The Keys predict the national vote, not the state-by-state tally of Electoral College votes" is directly saying that his system only predicts the popular vote, and this is the final paper of his prediction indicating the Republican candidate (Trump) will win according to his system. Caraturane (talk) 00:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes and Trump did win. You can argue that he was wrong because he thought he was predicting the popular vote, but in the case of the 2016 election that isn't what he said he. The the statement in explanatory note saying he was wrong in 2016 is at best an original conclusion in violation of wikipedia policy, at worst it is outright misinformation. I am removing it, until as there isn't a reliable source saying he was wrong in 2016 RevDan (talk) 18:21, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Please don't remove notes per the consensus of the talk page on this issue. It is important to add context regarding that prediction, as context also exists to support his 2000 prediction. The quote there notes that Lichtman and the keys only predicted the popular vote outcome and explicitly were not correlated with or predicting the outcome of the Electoral College. There are also several other sources which have explained this inconsistency and come to the same conclusion, not to mention Lichtman's own words, which are all cited throughout the piece. Tomcleontis (talk) 18:28, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Update: I will add citations to the table note though, I agree that's probably a good idea when providing the context. Tomcleontis (talk) 18:35, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

This is a restatement of Lichtman's position but I strongly feel it is on shakey ground. If you say it's a popular vote model as Caraturane quoted, and then say what the model predicts, you can infer that the model predicts them to win the popular vote. Lichtman is opportunistically using only the language from immediately before he introduces the keys, omitting the earlier context, to claim correctness post-facto.

I went over how to fairly parse this situation in depth earlier. This is for the books but it's the same situation: Talk:The Keys to the White House#c-Apprentice57-20240625063300-Kurzon-20240623221400 Apprentice57 (talk) 06:07, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Allan Lichtman has also not exactly engaged in good faith behavior on this. He encouraged his followers to remove material that discredited him from his Wikipedia pages, he attacked journalists who noted the inconsistencies in his record, and has ignored questions about the subject even when asked or provided an opportunity to explain. He has never ended up responding to what was reported. I have looked and looked and have never found a place where he even addressed his October 2016 prediction paper. Tomcleontis (talk) 16:47, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

His error in 2016 has been pretty conclusively resolved because he clearly stated the keys predicted the popular vote (see @Paditor's note, several articles cited, Lichtman's own writing). The outcome in 2000 I understand is questionable (and no matter what, does require explanation, which is what the keys page does), but until Wikipedia consensus is that Gore won the electoral college votes in Florida (Lichtman's own claims, for obvious conflict of interest reasons, shouldn't be what resolves this) or that it was definitively somehow stolen, the explanation on the page seems like the best approach given what actually happened in reality. Caraturane (talk) 12:01, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

This is not resolved. Lichtman's cited article is being deliberately misread. The second paragraph CLEARLY states: "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." Lichtman goes on to predict Trump as the winner. Folks, this paragraph is misleading. That's why they're so much discussion about it. Take it out. Or better yet GIVE LICHTMAN CONTROL OF HIS OWN PAGE. FFS. JayWeixelbaum (talk) 19:04, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

The paper begins by saying "The model has since then successfully predicted the results of the popular vote in all eighgt American presidential elections from 1984 to 2012..." before saying that the keys only predict the popular vote. Adding "However, only once in the last 125 years" has it diverged just explains why the prediction was still right. This is not his page, and a subject or the subject matter should not have editorial control over their page. That is for the Wikipedia community. Caraturane (talk) 19:13, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Key 5 - Perceptions

"Key 5 (strong short-term economy) is turned false if the economy is, or is widely perceived to be, in recession during the election campaign."

A Harris poll in May reported that 56% believe we are in a recession. An Affirm poll in late June said it was 59%. Does Lichtman follow his own rule? -Topcat777(talk) 23:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

"The short-term economy key does not necessarily depend on whether an economic downturn meets a narrow, technical definition of a recession....The key depends primarily on whether there is a widespread perception of an economy mired in recession during the election campaign." -Predicting the Next President: The Keys to the White House, 2024 by Allan Lichtman, pages 32-33 -Topcat777(talk) 20:32, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

There isn't any more recent data on this and even Fox News has come out to rubbish this sentiment in an August 12th article. I think it's safe to say that these numbers would not hold if the poll was repeated closer to the election.

Regardless, the page takes Lichtman as the one trusted source so this is purely academic. He has called the key true and regularly defends that decision. 141.105.103.151 (talk) 09:32, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Problem is he also turned short term economy key true for 2008 US election…. I repeat 2008 !

tell me with a straight face there was no recession in 2008 😅 Jimrot45556 (talk) 14:12, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? Because this article says it was false. Also lichtman said recently that it had to be an exceptionally large amount of people, like 80-90% thinking theres a recession. Idk anything else about it than Ablevi202 (talk) 20:00, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Actually, after looking into it lichtman is very unclear about it, saying both that it has to be exceptionally high (i forgot where i heard this but it was from lichtman) and that perceptions dont matter at all (see the 2024 prediction on lichtmans youtube channel). Definitely weird. Ablevi202 (talk) 23:45, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

In the 2024 prediction (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JoWt1EOA340&feature=youtu.be at 4:18 to 5:23) Lichtman addresses the idea that public perception of the economy could turn the key false. Lichtman disagrees with this and says the short term economy key is "sharply defined" as "there is no recession in the election year". Then Lichtman says that it doesnt mean voters have a good impression of the economy. Lichtman also says that you need to stick to how the keys have been used and answered since the 1860, retrispectively and prospectively.

In saying this, Lichtman ignores the 1992 prediction. There was a recession going into the campaign, which stopped midway through. Lichtman was confused about how to call the short term economy key, saying that while technically the US might not be in a recession, the public perception is that it is, so the key is a question mark. (https://www.c-span.org/video/?27493-1/presidential-politics at 43:43). I have yet to find a final prediction for 1992, but the key on wikipedia is marked as false and if the key were true then it would have predicted a Bush reelection.

Overall Lichtman likes to move the goalposts, after 2000 Lichtman moved from predicting the winner to predicting the popular vote, and then to predicting the electoral college after 2016. Or by changing the third party key and party contest key after 2016. Lichtman always denies or ignores having done whatever was changed. Ablevi202 (talk) 00:27, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I think he is predicting popular vote again in 2024 lol. Jimrot45556 (talk) 10:25, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

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)

Wrong prediction

Allan Lichtman has repeatedly stated he thinks Harris will win, not Trump. Just watching his YouTube livestream will tell you that. We are going by his predictions, not our own interpretations of the keys. He says there has been foreign success and no social unrest. Whether we interpret no foreign success or social unrest is irrelevant. Yavneh (talk) 14:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

It appears that someone was trolling, inserting original research into the article. As of this posting, the inaccurate changes have been reverted, and Lichtman's correct prediction has been restored. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 14:43, 22 September 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)

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)