Talk:Nate Silver/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

References Section

There is an extensive reference section pointing to various news articles but it's not clear how those news articles source the wikipedia article (which is quite well footnoted). Could the references all be converted into footnotes? I think that is the preferred style these days. 75.62.6.99 (talk) 09:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I converted a few of them to footnotes when appropriate. The remaining ones, IMO, provide additional background on his life and career (beyond the reasonable limits of what can be put into this kind of article but of interest to the readers of WP). They also speak to Silver's "notability" and "reputation" and thus bear on the importance of including the article in Wikipedia as well as on the "importance" ratings of the various projects in which this article is included -- viz., Chicago, Illinois, Baseball.--Mack2 (talk) 19:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
More recently, another poster came along with the same complaint. I have complied as far as I think is reasonable and removed a large number of references as a result. I would note, however, that references can't all be notes; they do have a function of providing some context or background for what's in the main text.--Mack2 (talk) 03:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
With additional effort I was able to move all of the references to footnotes in the text.--Mack2 (talk) 12:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


Additionally, relevant to references, the citations for the opening summary could be more numerous. I am sure the citations are there somewhere in the article, but for things like

"The accuracy of his November 2008 presidential election predictions—he correctly predicted the winner of 49 of the 50 states—won Silver further attention and commendation. The only state he missed was Indiana, which went for Barack Obama by 1%. He also correctly predicted the winner of all 35 Senate races that year."

there should be something pointing at the source. Forgive me if I am missing something.

We normally don't source stuff in the lead that is sourced in the article. That bit about the 2008 election, for example, is in the body. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Roger that, thank you. Should have looked more at article and into Wikipedia policy. Feel free to remove all this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Z11o22 (talk • contribs) 01:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

No worries, I think leaving it here might help others. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Spreadsheet Psychic

I found this very reliable New York Magazine latest scholarly and long thesis on this great man. And I want to share this wisdom to the readers of this article. New York Magazine, on October 12, 2008, reported Nate as "The Spreadsheet Psychic": "a number-crunching prodigy who went from correctly forecasting baseball games to correctly forecasting presidential primaries."nymag.com, The Spreadsheet Psychic

More on his personal life?

Simply everyone wants to know more about his personal life. Is he dating anyone? Faves and raves? Moncrief (talk) 18:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Non-notable. And simply everyone isn't a person. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
WP is not a celebrity gossip rag. If you want gossip go to Wonkette.--Mack2 (talk) 15:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Statistician

I bring this up because of a related article. Silver is listed as a Statistician, however, he does not have the educational requirements nor the employment status that would qualify him being listed as a statistician. By the own qualification of statistician he should not be identified as such. This is not to say that he does not use statistics, but the two are not one in the same. Statistician is a profession that hase certain requirements of which he does not qualify. Arzel (talk) 19:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

A little research shows that he is sometimes refered to as a Baseball Statistician turn Political Polster. Arzel (talk) 19:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
True, but he doesn't actually do polling. He analyzes the results using statistical methods -- he's a statistician and journalist.--Mack2 (talk) 03:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
A statistician is someone who makes a living through the manipulation and interpretation of statistics. A plumber is someone who fixes plumbing for a living. Professional certification is not a requirement for referring to onesself as belonging to a given occupation in most juristictions. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
However jobs such as accountant or actuary imply a recognised professional qualification is held. The OP is complaining about the term Statistician being used too loosely, when in fact there should be a recognised meaning. (as opposed to concepts such as 'model' or 'computer expert').Gomez2002 (talk) 15:33, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Gay?

Is he openly gay? I've seen conflicting reports, such as reports about him and his alleged long-term boyfriend in Chicago, but in my five minutes of research I haven't found a good source. In an interview with Queerty he gave a very ambiguous response.

To anticipate the "who cares" responses: many LGBT folks care about which public figures are out. And I'm not suggesting we out him if he's not out -- I'm just curious if he has ever come out publicly, in which case I think it's relevant for his WP profile. Aroundthewayboy (talk) 12:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Straight from his mouth: Nate Silver: it's the numbers, stupid. Not only does the article mention that he is gay but Silver himself confirms it: It turns out that what he calls his "dorkiness" is actually the secret to his powers. "I've always felt like something of an outsider. I've always had friends, but I've always come from an outside point of view. I think that's important. If you grow up gay, or in a household that's agnostic, when most people are religious, then from the get-go, you are saying that there are things that the majority of society believes that I don't believe."
What made you more of a misfit, I ask, being gay or a geek? "Probably the numbers stuff since I had that from when I was six."

Somedizzywhore (talk) 10:35, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Unless the subject has an active connection with the GBLT community, discussing his sexual orientation is massively inappropriate in an encyclopedic article. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
who cares if he's gay? I'm gay! I'm getting first dibbs! (ok i'm kidding) -- unless he's open or admits it publicly its irrelevant. A8UDI 21:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Your personal opinions about gayness and appropriateness are not what I asked for. What I want is facts if they are available, one way or the other. If not, then of course it would not be included, since it would be unsourced. Thanks in advance for any replies that are actually useful. Aroundthewayboy (talk) 17:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any reliable sources either. I think I'd agree with you that material on anyone's sexuality shouldn't be included unless it's a direct quote from him/her coming from a sterling source. (At least that's what I interpreted your statement to mean). -- Bfigura (talk) 03:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Exactly, thanks. I had always thought he was gay (I think due to some innuendo in a couple articles), but in my brief poking around on the internet, I didn't find him ever openly discussing it. What prompted this question is that I was writing something about famous gay nerds. I am not on some mission to out him (and it's very possible he is not even slightly gay), but if he were indeed out I think it would be a non-controversial addition to his entry. So if any Silverheads know more about this than I do, please include it (with sterling sources). Aroundthewayboy (talk) 14:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the December 2010 issue of Out Magazine includes an article listing the "100 most influential and inspiring members of our community," and Silver is included. Pitamakan (talk) 18:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm normally in the "who cares" camp, but since this article mentions his inclusion in Out's LGBT list, it seems like an omission not to explain why. EboMike (talk) 17:28, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

For the record, Occam's razor certainly favours the conclusion that the sources which describe him as openly gay are correct, for a number of reasons — he's never objected to the description, he wouldn't have allowed himself to be photographed and interviewed for Out if they were wrong, etc. However, it is quite correct that for Wikipedia's purposes, WP:BLP is quite clear that we can't describe or categorize someone as gay until we can demonstrate that the sources are definitely correct rather than just probably correct. Anderson Cooper was also described as "openly gay" in quite a few sources long before he actually confirmed it on the public record — but even though those sources were indeed correct, he wasn't described and categorized as such on Wikipedia until we actually had his own words on the subject for verification. Which indeed means that until we can actually find a source in which Silver explicitly acknowledges being gay in his own words, we do have to exercise caution. The situation as it currently stands, which acknowledges both the description and the uncertainty about it and avoids the categories, is the most appropriate way of handling this under the circumstances — if somebody can actually find a more solid source, however, then we can update the article at that time. Bearcat (talk) 22:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Jewish?

From Twitter: @fivethirtyeight Nate Silver Family considering delaying Christmas until the 26th because the house is too messy. 24 Dec via Twitter for BlackBerry® Favorite Retweet Reply

He is definitely Jewish, has said so himself in interviews. Whoever it is who keeps removing him from the "American Jews" category, or the ethnicity field in his info box...give it a f***ing break. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.60.236 (talk) 07:39, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
His father is Jewish, his mother is not. I think that's about all he has said. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 00:31, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Jewish ethnicity is sourced and added now ^^ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.165.96.172 (talk) 15:12, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Fluff

This article is full of a lot of fluff. The award section, in particular, is far too long. It includes several questionable awards and praise even after removing some of the clearly non-notable sections and those specific to the website and not Silver. Arzel (talk) 05:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Your generic "this is full ... of fluff" is neither actionable nor helpful. If you want to propose changes, please describe the specific passages you believe are inappropriate, and detail the policy grounds upon which you believe your assertions are based. Thanks! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Since Silver is 95% of his own website, most awards to the website are also attributable to Silver. In some cases awards are appropriately listed in both locations.~Mack2~ (talk) 19:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Just like the 538.com article, this page is almost completely devoid of secondary sourcing. This reads like Silver wrote it himself. Arzel (talk) 15:18, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
You deleted two valid awards as "wrong article." A little research on your part on the Nieman website would locate the changed link to the award citation from 2008, as I found it in a couple of minutes and inserted it. On the 2012 Webby Award, the citation was correct; just look down the page cited or search "FiveThirtyEight." Also, in case you didn't notice this is a biographical article and at least 75 citations are secondary sources and not Silver's publications, including two that you wrongly deleted.~Mack2~ 04:18, 12 July 2012 (UTC) Not only was this criticism off base in July, when there were then in fact more than 75 citations to secondary sources, but it's even less founded in fact now that there are more than 125 secondary citations.~Mack2~ 00:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

It reads like it was written by a publicist. All of the praise comes from NY Times articles... where he works. Thismightbezach (talk) 22:15, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

That is totally bogus. Look at Awards and recognition section. Practically none is from the Times (are you confusing NY Mag with NY Times Mag?).~Mack2~ 21:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Extraneous Information

The bit about the Facebook group entitled "There's a 97.3 Percent Chance that Nate Silver Is Totally My Boyfriend" feels irrelevant and less-than notable, considering that the group has, at the present, two members (as followed by the link). It should be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.254.5.80 (talk) 16:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Fixed, good catch. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Criticism section

Hi everyone. I imagine this is probably the worst day ever to bring this up, but, the article is not entitled 'Nate Silver and people who disagree with him' it is supposed to be a BLP. I do not see what the section does to add to the article. Perhaps the criticisms could be added into the body of the article itself. I also wonder, what with it being election day and all, if we are simply giving undue weight to stuff that in a couple of weeks will look like a proverbial tempest in a teapot. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:10, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The criticism section is entirely too long (laundry list?) and WP:UNDUE. Perhaps some of the criticisms could be moved to the FiveThirtyEight article but a lot of them just need to be trimmed out entirely. DP76764 (Talk) 16:30, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Very WP:UNDUE. Not every negative statement about him is notable. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:05, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Looking thru it further, the section is looking more and more like a soapbox aggregating negative comments about the subject, with some rebuttals thrown in. It should be condensed into a summary of the substance of the criticisms, perhaps with quotes of key phrases, and citations pointing to original articles... not paragraph-length quotes reproduced verbatim here. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:46, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

We could put something in the 2012 election section like 'while his predictions of the probability of an Obama victory were criticized by many pundits (references here) Silver's model managed to correctly predict all 51 states in the presidential race' This would integrate the criticisms into the body, and show that they were unfounded. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

It isn't our responsibility to show whether the criticisms were unfounded or not, but to present them succinctly without undue weight. I've done an overhaul of that section to boil it down to the substantial themes (e.g. he's been wrong, he lacks political insight, his model is secret, he's allegedly partisan, he's overconfident) without all the demagoguery of the original quotes.

Cosh

The #Criticism section seems to me to favour Cosh's remarks too much. Surely there are other critics worth mentioning at equal priority. Crasshopper (talk) 14:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

All 50 states? Really?

"In the 2012 Presidential election, Silver correctly predicted the winner of all 50 states" - How could he possibly predict all 50 states, when, at the time of this writing, Florida has not yet been officially called? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.11.231.226 (talk) 05:40, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Romney has conceded Florida, he Silver's model predicted all 50 states and DC. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
I think its fair to include Florida, per Romney's concession.[1]--Milowent • hasspoken 14:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Super Bowl

Must we include every prediction he makes, right or wrong? This will become quite long in a short while. Oh and I was accused of 'vandalism' by the IP that reinserted this, I am simply following WP:BRD. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The idea that whether he was accurate or inaccurate in predicting which teams would make it to the Super Bowl in one particular year is even relevant to a discussion of his strengths or weaknesses as a predictor of election results is incredibly bizarre at best. If the discussion were of his strengths and weaknesses as a sports pundit, sure — but it isn't. And the addition isn't discussing any actual properly sourced criticism, either — it's literally nothing more than a pinch of "Hah hah, Golden Boy got something wrong! Suck it, beeeyotches!" gloating, which isn't contributing anything of any substantive value or actual meaning to our article.
And, for the record, neither Dbrodbeck nor any other Wikipedia editor is systematically burying criticism of Nate Silver just because it's criticism of Nate Silver; the article, as written, already contains a significant section of criticism that's relevant, fair and properly sourced. The problem is that this particular Super Bowl item is none of those things, not that all "criticism" is automatically invalid. Bearcat (talk) 16:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The NYT and ESPN sites, recent news.

External links will have to be updated soon.

Per this blog post, and observing the NYT site, the NYT external link can be capped as "FiveThirtyEight/NYT (2010-2013)" and the "FiveThirtyEight.com archive from pre-NYT period (2008–2010)" link is going to be the new address for the ESPN site. →StaniStani  09:26, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


Punctuation note

A minor but proper correction] that may appeal to other pedants who edit here: Added second em-dash to close pair that set off the clause "who also aggregated polls from multiple pollsters". Since we're already using commas to set aside the phrase about the three other analysts who aggregate polls, we end up with a dash-comma combination, which is correct, albeit kinda archaic. This happens because the clause that we're setting aside with em-dashes is embedded in and comes at the end of aforesaid phrase (cf. MOS:EMDASH). I suspect this will look weird to someone else, who will then remove the comma rather than the dash, an imperfect solution but superior to having just the comma. So it goes. --Middle 8 (talk) 17:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

2O14 Predictions

It would be good to have this. Nate did make predictions about 2014.

AMA

Shall we mention this? https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/3fwxdm/i_am_nate_silver_editorinchief_of/ --Iady391 | Talk to me here 21:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

2016 Iowa primary results relevant?

The section on the 2016 Iowa primary results seems to me to provide no useful information for readers. I'd delete it altogether.D.Holt (talk) 22:38, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the present content is uninformative. There may exist significant-enough information related to both the primaries and the election day results to warrant a section on the 2016 election season, but what is there presently is unencyclopedic. Xenophrenic (talk) 15:59, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

2016 Predictions Controversy

Silver was accused of skewing in Trump's favor triggering a tweetstorm and an apology. I think this would be useful to include as it reflects that Silver came closer to reality than traditional pollsters, though he is nonetheless wrong.--2601:246:800:43FE:DC0:4ECE:1566:1D5 (talk) 11:03, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

That appears to be nothing more than a "tweetstorm" in a tea pot. If you wish our article to convey "that Silver came closer to reality than traditional pollsters", reliable sources saying so would be helpful. Xenophrenic (talk) 15:59, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Nate Silver. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:25, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Nate Silver. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:25, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Nate Silver. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:46, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Nate Silver. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:53, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

"In April 2018, ABC News became FiveThirtyEight's new home, replacing ESPN"

What the f-ck does that mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.160.236.29 (talk) 22:49, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nate_Silver/Archive_1&oldid=1137036165"