This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the FiveThirtyEight article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives (index): 1Auto-archiving period: 6 months

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Blogging (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Blogging, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BloggingWikipedia:WikiProject BloggingTemplate:WikiProject BloggingBlogging Websites: Computing Mid‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (assessed as Low-importance). Journalism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Elections and Referendums This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums United States This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Disney Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disney, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of The Walt Disney Company and its affiliated companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DisneyWikipedia:WikiProject DisneyTemplate:WikiProject DisneyDisney Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (center, color, defense, realize, traveled) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

The current state of this article is deplorable. There is next to no coverage of Nate Silver's failures, only his successes. I'm not saying he's not successful or influential. I'm saying the lack of a downside makes our article *very* suspicious. The {{primary}} tag is a huge problem, since it basically turns the article into a spokesperson for 538's excellence. The emphasis on the 538 performance on past elections is very likely undue, exacerbated by the lack of 3rd party coverage. After a brief look over I rate this article "close to trainwreck" status.

It needs some serious attention, preferably by people that follow US polling, to introduce some semblance of neutral balanced reporting, and also WAY more reliable sources. Failing such attention, I propose we trim down the article to its bare bones, and then let people organically add things back again (this time using secondary sources).

CapnZapp (talk) 21:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

100% just had this reaction after reading the two paragraphs describing the 2016 elections that read like a PR statement written by someone at the organization. I went straight to the talk page without even noticing the neutrality banner just to see if anyone else had brought it up. Tmore3 (talk) 04:28, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quinn's "on the road" sections were a major component of the site in the early days, but his existence seems to have been wiped from the article. Indeed, the first mention of him is now his announcement that he was leaving to join the White House press corps, which would only make sense if he had been a significant part of the site in the first place. I dont have time to comb through the history to find out why he was disappeared. Any thoughts? · rodii · 16:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I lied, I did have time. :) I restored the section, deleted in 2012 by User:Ypnypn as irrelevant, which I dispute. Feel free to disagree here if you like. · rodii · 16:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

538 is shutting down next week, according to a decision by Disney. Update "is" to "was" and include the information that it doesn't exist anymore. 192.42.55.22 (talk) 06:40, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to get clarification because I may have at some point missed an article or other that did in fact make such a statement, but their polling and data interpertation itself at no point claimed a narrow Harris win, just very slight odds toward a Harris win which are not even remotely the same thing. A 51% chance to win is not the same as winning with a narrow margin and furthermore appears to have framed the most likely result if Harris had won (a win with 270 electoral votes) as 538's 'prediction' despite it in their simulations having had less than 50% odds of occurring even within the possible results of a Harris win. Qewy (talk) 18:44, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To add so that I also do not forget to cite the article when I or someone else potentially fixes this and adds to this being a completely misquoting or misreading of 538's polling data: https://abcnews.go.com/538/538s-final-forecasts-2024-election/story?id=115511051 Qewy (talk) 19:04, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both 538 and Silver included some unknown niche polls in swing state predictions in two or three days before the election, This led to their previous prediction that the situation would be infinitely close to 50% and might even be slightly unfavorable to D was reversed on the eve of the election. However, some polls show D narrowing their lead in New Hampshire were not included focused. In fact, 538 and Silver's coin-tossing predictions were criticized before the election, they were accused of discrimination without any basis, although their settlements before October were very consistent with certain public opinion trends, and they tip the scales in the final stages didn't earn them outright forgiveness. It was not until after the election that the center-left forces belatedly defended them, but 538 and Silver's credibility and reputation had been damaged. Cbls1911 (talk) 22:51, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This was, however, due to a lot of misunderstanding of their polls. Repeatedly they explained that a lead on their electoral percentile wasn't, as it is in systems that primarily are based on popular vote, to be taken as 'who was in the lead' but, as it was, a percentage chance of either candidate winning. Stating that the Republican candidate had a roughly 49% chance is in no way the same as claiming the Democrat candidate had a lead considering their system and the US' electoral college system. Claiming that 538 stated that the Democrats would have a narrow win is a total misrepresentation of their actual claims, their shared data, and their methodology.

PA, MI, and WA were all won by a <1% margin, states that, if had been Blue, would've resulted in a Democrat win--which fit 538's data. A coin toss of an election due to the narrow margins in the crucial states of PA, MI, WA, and GA (GA having been won with still a tight margin, but mildly wider at <1.5%). In other words: the line that I have pointed out in the article is erroneous. Qewy (talk) 17:22, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]