User talk:Hangways1

The Keys to the White House

I have made a request for administrator intervention at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#SPAs POV-pushing in The Keys to the White House. Your account is not one of those as to which relief is requested, but you are mentioned. JamesMLane t c 20:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments in the thread. It seems that you and I are in agreement on the basics: The article should present the argument that Lichtman blew 2016 but shouldn't endorse it.

The practical problem is that there's no way to get the article into that neutral state as long as the three SPAs are patrolling it. They've demonstrated that they'll just keep pushing their opinion and quickly reverting any edit that doesn't pronounce that opinion as The Truth. That's why, having failed with all the other dispute resolution methods, I've been forced to seek an admin's help.

On the article talk page, I wrote:

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.

None of the people who want to push their POV took me up on that offer.

The section in my version does refer to the book you mentioned. If you think the discussion could be improved, feel free to make a suggested edit there. One thing to bear in mind is that our challenge is to present each side fairly but without undue length. We can't say everything that might be said on a topic, but I'm certainly open to a discussion about how to improve the coverage of the issue. Unless and until we get some relief from an admin, though, the SPAs will insist that their version be the baseline for any change -- and it better not be a change toward neutrality. That's why I mention the option of editing the Sandbox version. JamesMLane t c 00:11, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

No worries. I've taken you up on the offer to edit your sandbox. I'd broadly describe the edit as (1) re-organising the relevant Criticism section to provide a summary of the ambiguity first before getting into the 2000 & 2016 examples specifically, and (2) adding some clearer text around what Lichtman stated in 2016 before the election.

I think that as far as achieving NPOV goes, the single best thing we can do for readers in helping them to decide whether Lichtman was correct in 2000 and 2016 or not is to focus more on what Lichtman actually said & wrote before those elections. References to what media outlets and guys like Silver have decided about Lichtman are fine (especially because they are what constitutes the 'dispute'!), as are Lichtman's comments that he made after those elections — but the ultimate arbiter of truth is obviously the actual substance of what Lichtman himself said before those elections. If we are trying to keep the article concise and have to consider tradeoffs, we should err on the side of providing more direct quotes from Lichtman's work so the reader can make up their own mind. Hangways1 (talk) 04:16, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

If you're trying to decide what is "the ultimate arbiter of truth" then you're not following NPOV. It's undeniably true that the claim has been made. You think that claim is clearly mistaken? You're entitled to your opinion, but Wikipedia is not going to endorse that POV, any more than it's going to endorse Lichtman's POV. JamesMLane t c 01:34, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

"If you're trying to decide what is "the ultimate arbiter of truth" then you're not following NPOV."

Maybe I was unclear. I'm not talking about an ultimate arbiter of truth generally. I'm talking about how we convey the substance of Lichtman's predictions, i.e. what Lichtman has claimed.

The best way we can help the reader assess what Lichtman has claimed (which is at least one of the goals of the article) is to show them what Lichtman has claimed. This is simply tautologically true. And we are in the fortunate position of being able to do that because Lichtman has written books and papers himself that we can quote from, and which he doesn't dispute writing.

In big picture terms, though, I'm not even sure this is a debate we need to have. You seem quite clearly okay with the article containing direct quotes from Lichtman otherwise — e.g. your own version of the article extensively quotes Lichtman directly, e.g.:

• Lichtman has explained that demographic factors prompted him to make "the first modification of the Keys system since its inception in 1981."
• Concerning the presentation of his prediction for 2016 in the journal Social Education, where there were references to the popular vote, he states, "I was not as clear as I could have been in that article."
• Lichtman responded that the system is not designed to predict the margin of victory. He likened Silver's criticism to "critiquing a pregnancy test, not for its failure to detect pregnancies, but for its failure to determine the day of conception." He added, however, that, "purely as a by-product of the system", he had developed a formula for estimating the division of the two-party vote based on the keys.
• Lichtman responded that the 13 Keys system is not the result of "random data-mining", but is instead grounded in a theoretical model, the theory being "that presidential elections are determined primarily by the performance of the party holding the White House."

You also don't seem at all opposed to summarising Lichtman's words in the article — your version summarises his words in his 1988 & 2024 books, and his 1999 & 2000 & 2020 papers, and even his words during a Youtube livestream.

So quoting Lichtman's words as evidence simply shouldn't be an issue we have to debate. We're all agreed his words constitute his predictions and his thoughts. Fantastic! Let's move on.

What I'm trying to get across is that your version of the article didn't really apply this same approach in the years where Lichtman's accuracy was disputed, and I think it should.

For example, we have multiple quotes from Lichtman's academic work in 2016 that directly and clearly state that (a) the keys *ONLY* predict the popular vote, and (b) they predict the popular vote in years (like 2016) where the popular vote splits from the electoral college.

This is obviously really, really, really relevant to the essence of his prediction in that year... but the closest we get to summarising the popular vote prediction he indisputably made in 2016 is a vague "Lichtman had usually been referring to the popular vote." near the bottom of the article — and notably NOT in the "Prediction Record" section where 2016 is discussed specifically, which only includes Lichtman's post-2016 claim that he switched to an EC prediction that year instead.

That's just not representative, right? If someone writes in 2016 "I am predicting the popular vote this year", and then writes after 2016 "I actually wasn't predicting the popular vote that year", including only the latter in a paragraph is just flat out misrepresenting the state of the evidence.

So again, my highest goal here was to balance out the article by including more of what Lichtman actually said & wrote about his predictions at the time.

I'm not implying you were trying to push a POV. I'm saying that the text of your version (as others have noted) didn't seem very NPOV in its current shape, and I think leaning more heavily on presenting Lichtman's words without comment or judgement is the gold standard of helping readers identify clearly what his claims really were at the time... like we do everywhere else in the article already.

Hangways1 (talk) 02:59, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

My version noted that Lichtman's critics refer to what he said about predicting the popular vote. BUT in his last pre-election interviews, he predicted a Trump WIN, without referring to the popular vote.

All I ask is this:

(1) Wikipedia doesn't take a position, just reports the contending views.

(2) Wikipedia reports the notable critics, like Silver, and gives a fair presentation of their argument, including Lichtman's writings. (The Postrider bloggers are not notable.)

(3) Wikipedia also reports the other side, including Lichtman's October 2016 interviews, including his post-election explanation, and including the undeniable fact that multiple reliable sources credit him with a correct prediction in 2016. For example, these sources, which I tried to include, have been totally omitted from the current version, which is heavily stacked for the anti-Lichtman POV. There are other such sources as well.

Then we get into judgment questions about length. If you want to include an extremely detailed presentation of the criticism, then we have to include a comparably detailed presentation of the other side. NPOV doesn't require that we include absolutely every little detail that's relevant.

As for the discussion in the section on prediction record, I'm leaning toward the view that it should be drastically truncated. My neutral version, which was of course snap-reverted, had a whole subsection under "Criticism" devoted to the popular vote versus electoral vote issue. If people want to go to town with a treatise on that subject that leaves no stone unthrown, then putting it in a dedicated subsection like that would spare it from breaking up the flow of the predictions recounting. Of course, there would be, as in my neutral version, an internal wikilink to the relevant subsection. JamesMLane t c 04:48, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree with all 3 of those requested objectives (although I haven't looked into the notability of the Postrider guys myself, I'll stay out of that one). I've even added in the sources you request under (3).

I'm confused by your reference to including an "extremely detailed presentation of the criticism" in the context of my last comment, which was primarily about presenting Lichtman's own writing. It's not providing criticism to note that Lichtman made a popular vote prediction in 2016 - that's actually what he wrote in his own paper & book that year! There's not an "other side" to Lichtman's claims; what he wrote is (again, tautologically) purely the fact of what he claimed.

Similarly, on "NPOV doesn't require that we include absolutely every little detail that's relevant"... well, sure. But, for example, there are sections of the article dedicated to presenting the dispute around whether Lichtman was making a popular vote prediction or not in 2016. I struggle to see how there could be anything more relevant to those sections than direct quotes from Lichtman in 2016 stating his keys predict the popular vote! Those should clearly be included no matter how concise we want to keep the article. (And if you're comfortable with including quotes from Lichtman that make *retrospective* claims about what he said in 2016, I don't see any case for excluding quotes from Lichtman that were *actually* made in 2016.)

Again, none of this is even arguing for greater presentation of criticism. It seems blindingly obvious to me that simply quoting Lichtman's predictions neither constitutes support for, nor criticism of, those predictions. Hangways1 t c 06:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I've never said that we can't quote Lichtman. I'm just arguing against the position taken by Jjazz76 that what Lichtman says isn't relevant (and that a publication by Brandeis University isn't relevant because Lichtman was a student there decades ago). For example, my neutral version quoted Nate Silver's criticism of Lichtman, even though Silver is hardly an unbiased source. JamesMLane t c 14:48, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Okay. Well I'm not Jjazz76 and that position wasn't stated on this Talk page (mine), so let's just wrap it up here and you can debate their position with them. Hangways1 (talk) 14:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

References

JamesMLane t c 04:48, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Forgive me for not editing the sandbox of the guy who keeps insulting me (including now on a 3rd party's talk page) within what... a day or two of the offer being made? Apprentice57 (talk) 16:33, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I can understand that. I've responded to your comments with retorts like "Not everything needs a lecture, thanks!" and your reply "is overly reductive and unproductive" and your comment "tends toward lecturing and against productive discussion" and "I really object to the way you've handled yourself in this whole matter" and "Please tone down the authoritative talk postings, this is getting out of hand" and "the problematic way you talk to others" and "You are not doing much to allay fears about the nature of your edits" and "Are you going to continue to inflame discussions" and "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" and "Stop 'explaining' things to us".

After a barrage of incivility like that directed against you, I can understand why you'd be upset.

Oh... wait, my mistake. All of those comments were things you wrote about me. Never mind. JamesMLane t c 01:48, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I think James, you should take a step back and review the comment you just made. You listed a bunch of things that, while not exactly polite, are not incivil either. They're also *reactive*, not proactive complaints. They came in the context of you beginning with condescension and other impolite behavior. And I could make a similar list of things you said about me too.

The forest here is that it's improper to vent on someone else's talk page. To that effect, my apologies for the mess hangways! I'll leave this here. I do appreciate your efforts in all this. Apprentice57 (talk) 17:34, 8 November 2024 (UTC)