![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
The site is notable for its new polling methodology which gained attention for beating out most pollsters projections in North Carolina and Indiana in the heavily contested political primary race between Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in 2008. New polling methodology in the political world is of enormous economic and political impact. Page is often sited for its new, innovative polling prediction methodology in the Democratic Primary Election 2008. -Aaron Sawyer Aaronsawyer1 ( talk) 23:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Can anyone find/create a map with the actual results (including margin of victory) using the colors and fonts of the projection map on this page? This is the prettiest map I've seen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.116.212.15 ( talk) 14:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Arzel has added this to the lede, and I fixed the cite formatting although I was unable to find a reference to the site itself having a left-leaning or liberal-leaning slant in the article. What is the exact sentence please? ► RATEL ◄ 06:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Q: The blog had an overt liberal position, but you always said the statistics were objective. What kind of feedback, if any, did you get from conservatives?
Silver: We had a pretty good balance. We had probably about a 2-1 ratio in terms of liberal versus conservative readers, based on the comment threads. Now that we're not in an election, I think it's swung more toward the liberal side, both in terms of my writing and what people are reading about.
We try and be fair. That's the main thing, we try and be forthright. There's so much commentary from conservatives, also from liberals, that is just entirely disingenuous about certain things. It's a lot of cheerleading and cherry-picking of data. We're trying to present a case that by and large is a liberal's case, because it's my case. It's how I see the world. But we're trying to use data to do it where a lot of people just make bad arguments
I personally don't think either should be labeled because OPINION should NOT be used to define someone or something. Even per WP:NAMING the self-descriptor should be used. Now because both of you seem hell-bent on pushing your POV regarding RCP I see no other alternative than label similar entities by the same logic. FWIW, Silver does have a blog, and that blog is liberal. RCP has NOT stated they are biased nor are their statistics biased, and I doubt that Silver's are either, the only bias that may exist is in Silver's mind since he accused them of using polls that he thinks are biased. Arzel ( talk) 07:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Per RCP I added a similar lead for 538.com. I wasn't able to find an independent RS to make the case that the polling aggregation is nonpartisan, but I would be very suprised if they were. Arzel ( talk) 02:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
'Liberal leaning' is a joke right. I mean this fails to separate the News from the Analysis. When NBC News uses an pollster analyst that is liberal, then NBC News become liberal. That is not such an important distinction, nor is it neutral point of view for wikipedia. It is not really a fact that is germane to the article on 538 at all. It is just a method to 'tar' 538 with a liberal bias tag without focusing on the numbers and the issues that 538 site addresses. Nice try though to cherry pick a few words and deem all the findings at 538 are 'liberal leaning'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.32.166.162 ( talk) 21:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I think that 'with a liberal-leaning[2] blog' should be removed. It is not germane to the site at all. Should a site be judged by the group of fans or followers and what they say? No. This is not an important fact or piece of data. I think it should be removed or moved to the bottom of the article, since no one cares about who comments of what site on the internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.32.166.162 ( talk) 21:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Removed a POV paragraph that had snuck into the article: someone with an axe-to-grind with the subject matter of the article. While the insertion was essentially vandalism Some of the material is appropriate, but needs to integrated more appropriately. A job I will not take on
This article has slowly become a press release for 538.com. Out of the 116 references currently in the article over 75 of them are from 538.com. I am going to tag the article since it is mostly primary sourcing. Arzel ( talk) 15:11, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
It is mentioned that 538 and Rasmussen established an affiliation in 2008. What is the current status of this affiliation? Recent 538 posts have noted a less than desireable 'house effect' for Rasmussen. Mukogodo ( talk)
This article has over 100 hundred citations to Silver or his blog. The entire aritcle is almost complete primary sourced. This really needs to be fixed. Arzel ( talk) 20:51, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
The article talks a lot about the 2008 North Carolina election, but the 538 site today is exclusively about political opinion. There should be some discussion about why a sports site suddenly decided to add a political opinion site. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
72.83.3.102 (
talk) 20:11, August 30, 2016
I have added:
1. 538's Methodology
2. Commentary from NYTimes and FAIR on their polling data
3. For every race: 538's "polls-plus" average vs. actual result
4. Distribution of their forecast "error" (derived from 3) anyone interested should be able to reproduce this from the data
-- Invopuat ( talk) 11:49, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
The archived link says 388. I think making it "538" was someone's prank. The current alexa website says 239, although that's probably a temporary bump.
The Groucho Marx reference does not make sense without the background knowledge of what Groucho said that makes the allusion relevant. The link to the article ABOUT Groucho is no help. It seems to me that the appropriate place to address this is in a footnote, say to [1], but it's not exactly a "reference"---
What's the appropriate way to deal with this issue? Thmazing ( talk) 22:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on FiveThirtyEight. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't think we need a separate section with detailed assessments of 538's coverage of every election it covers. Any recommendations/thoughts on reducing that content? Power~enwiki ( talk) 06:54, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
I think this is a clear case for italics per MOS:ITALICTITLE:
Website titles may or may not be italicized depending on the type of site and what kind of content it features. Online magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content should generally be italicized ( Salon or HuffPost).
Objections? ― Mandruss ☎ 00:44, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Done ―
Mandruss
☎
00:23, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Since i wrote a section about the sites redesign which also includes reactions to Fivey Fox, do we also need a separate section about the mascot? Is there a way we can consolidate it? (I am still new at this whole Wikipedia thing) ~𝓜𝓙𝓛'𝓼 𝓔𝓿𝓲𝓵 𝓢𝓲𝓼𝓽𝓮𝓻 ( talk) 02:39, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
I can't find the origin of 538 anywhere, not on Wikipedia and not on fivethirtyeight. Can someone enlighten me and perhaps add this to the page? Blonkm ( talk) 19:29, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
The site is notable for its new polling methodology which gained attention for beating out most pollsters projections in North Carolina and Indiana in the heavily contested political primary race between Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in 2008. New polling methodology in the political world is of enormous economic and political impact. Page is often sited for its new, innovative polling prediction methodology in the Democratic Primary Election 2008. -Aaron Sawyer Aaronsawyer1 ( talk) 23:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Can anyone find/create a map with the actual results (including margin of victory) using the colors and fonts of the projection map on this page? This is the prettiest map I've seen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.116.212.15 ( talk) 14:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Arzel has added this to the lede, and I fixed the cite formatting although I was unable to find a reference to the site itself having a left-leaning or liberal-leaning slant in the article. What is the exact sentence please? ► RATEL ◄ 06:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Q: The blog had an overt liberal position, but you always said the statistics were objective. What kind of feedback, if any, did you get from conservatives?
Silver: We had a pretty good balance. We had probably about a 2-1 ratio in terms of liberal versus conservative readers, based on the comment threads. Now that we're not in an election, I think it's swung more toward the liberal side, both in terms of my writing and what people are reading about.
We try and be fair. That's the main thing, we try and be forthright. There's so much commentary from conservatives, also from liberals, that is just entirely disingenuous about certain things. It's a lot of cheerleading and cherry-picking of data. We're trying to present a case that by and large is a liberal's case, because it's my case. It's how I see the world. But we're trying to use data to do it where a lot of people just make bad arguments
I personally don't think either should be labeled because OPINION should NOT be used to define someone or something. Even per WP:NAMING the self-descriptor should be used. Now because both of you seem hell-bent on pushing your POV regarding RCP I see no other alternative than label similar entities by the same logic. FWIW, Silver does have a blog, and that blog is liberal. RCP has NOT stated they are biased nor are their statistics biased, and I doubt that Silver's are either, the only bias that may exist is in Silver's mind since he accused them of using polls that he thinks are biased. Arzel ( talk) 07:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Per RCP I added a similar lead for 538.com. I wasn't able to find an independent RS to make the case that the polling aggregation is nonpartisan, but I would be very suprised if they were. Arzel ( talk) 02:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
'Liberal leaning' is a joke right. I mean this fails to separate the News from the Analysis. When NBC News uses an pollster analyst that is liberal, then NBC News become liberal. That is not such an important distinction, nor is it neutral point of view for wikipedia. It is not really a fact that is germane to the article on 538 at all. It is just a method to 'tar' 538 with a liberal bias tag without focusing on the numbers and the issues that 538 site addresses. Nice try though to cherry pick a few words and deem all the findings at 538 are 'liberal leaning'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.32.166.162 ( talk) 21:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I think that 'with a liberal-leaning[2] blog' should be removed. It is not germane to the site at all. Should a site be judged by the group of fans or followers and what they say? No. This is not an important fact or piece of data. I think it should be removed or moved to the bottom of the article, since no one cares about who comments of what site on the internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.32.166.162 ( talk) 21:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Removed a POV paragraph that had snuck into the article: someone with an axe-to-grind with the subject matter of the article. While the insertion was essentially vandalism Some of the material is appropriate, but needs to integrated more appropriately. A job I will not take on
This article has slowly become a press release for 538.com. Out of the 116 references currently in the article over 75 of them are from 538.com. I am going to tag the article since it is mostly primary sourcing. Arzel ( talk) 15:11, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
It is mentioned that 538 and Rasmussen established an affiliation in 2008. What is the current status of this affiliation? Recent 538 posts have noted a less than desireable 'house effect' for Rasmussen. Mukogodo ( talk)
This article has over 100 hundred citations to Silver or his blog. The entire aritcle is almost complete primary sourced. This really needs to be fixed. Arzel ( talk) 20:51, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
The article talks a lot about the 2008 North Carolina election, but the 538 site today is exclusively about political opinion. There should be some discussion about why a sports site suddenly decided to add a political opinion site. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
72.83.3.102 (
talk) 20:11, August 30, 2016
I have added:
1. 538's Methodology
2. Commentary from NYTimes and FAIR on their polling data
3. For every race: 538's "polls-plus" average vs. actual result
4. Distribution of their forecast "error" (derived from 3) anyone interested should be able to reproduce this from the data
-- Invopuat ( talk) 11:49, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
The archived link says 388. I think making it "538" was someone's prank. The current alexa website says 239, although that's probably a temporary bump.
The Groucho Marx reference does not make sense without the background knowledge of what Groucho said that makes the allusion relevant. The link to the article ABOUT Groucho is no help. It seems to me that the appropriate place to address this is in a footnote, say to [1], but it's not exactly a "reference"---
What's the appropriate way to deal with this issue? Thmazing ( talk) 22:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on FiveThirtyEight. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't think we need a separate section with detailed assessments of 538's coverage of every election it covers. Any recommendations/thoughts on reducing that content? Power~enwiki ( talk) 06:54, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
I think this is a clear case for italics per MOS:ITALICTITLE:
Website titles may or may not be italicized depending on the type of site and what kind of content it features. Online magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content should generally be italicized ( Salon or HuffPost).
Objections? ― Mandruss ☎ 00:44, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Done ―
Mandruss
☎
00:23, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Since i wrote a section about the sites redesign which also includes reactions to Fivey Fox, do we also need a separate section about the mascot? Is there a way we can consolidate it? (I am still new at this whole Wikipedia thing) ~𝓜𝓙𝓛'𝓼 𝓔𝓿𝓲𝓵 𝓢𝓲𝓼𝓽𝓮𝓻 ( talk) 02:39, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
I can't find the origin of 538 anywhere, not on Wikipedia and not on fivethirtyeight. Can someone enlighten me and perhaps add this to the page? Blonkm ( talk) 19:29, 13 June 2022 (UTC)