Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2020 November 5

= November 5 =

Countries other than the US where media outlets project the results of elections, even immediately after polls close
In the US, there's a practice called poll projection where media outlets project the winner of elections, even when not all votes have been counted, but more importantly sometimes as soon as voting closes. Is this practice common or done in any other country? From what I remember from following elections in other countries, media will sometimes say that one candidate has an insurmountable lead or even muse about winners, but this is usually not until hours after voting closes. In fact it seems that it's more common in other countries for media to only mention winners when all or a significant number of votes have been counted (including in my own), as opposed to even when a small percentage has been counted. Nevertheless, are there any other countries where US-style projecting is practiced? If not, why would it be a US-specific practice? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:55, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * We do this in Canada too, even though there are more than two parties and our electoral districts are organized differently...there's always immediate predictions and projections about which party will win the right amount of seats to form a majority government. Things change constantly as the votes are actually counted, so the initial projections are mostly worthless. On the other hand, voting is apparently a relatively simple process here, and isn't overtly designed for voter suppression. Since we have a non-partisan federal agency responsible for counting ballots, the results are generally known within a few hours. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:20, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Either Adam and I watch different election newscasts, or he's answering the wrong question. What I think is common in Canada is that election results in a riding are predicted with only a few percent of the vote counted there, but not, as the original poster said, as soon as the polls close. --174.95.161.129 (talk) 08:19, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh maybe I misread. Still, the talking heads try to predict the outcome of the whole election based on the early ridings. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:56, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Side comment: in Canada when partial results in a riding are given, the degree of completion is always given in terms of the number of polls, for example "with 220 out of 276 polls reporting", shown on the TV or in printed tables as 220/276. Results from each poll are released as the counting there is completed, as opposed to the British practice with nothing released until the total in each electoral district is known.  When I see US partial results like "98% complete", it strikes me as awfully imprecise to see only 2 significant digits. --174.95.161.129 (talk) 21:35, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It definitely happens in Australia. Our most famous psephologist is Antony Green, who has been doing it for thirty years. He has even been doing it for this US election. You can see his work here.HiLo48 (talk) 01:43, 5 November 2020 (UTC)


 * It's routine in Germany too. First projections extrapolated from exit polls are released by the main media networks immediately the minute the voting stations close. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:25, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ditto in the UK. What is different from the US is that no running update of the count in each constituency is released, it's a closely guarded secret until the result is announced at the town hall (usually within a few hours of closing). Until then, it's all guesswork based on exit polls and turnout. Once a few results have been announced, experts try to find an underlying trend. Alansplodge (talk) 08:49, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * In UK the broadcasters also make it clear that a prediction is a prediction and not a result and also say whether it is based on an exit poll or a computer prediction of the national result based on constituency results so far announced. The results of exit polls are only annouced after the polls close (this is always the same time as there are no time zone differences.)Spinney Hill (talk) 10:02, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Which are non Wikipedia sources on encyclopedic and compendium writing?
Hi,

Encyclopedias seem to have a very long history. Wikipedia seem to have couple of articles like Encyclopedia Compendium and History of encyclopedias. The last two are tagged for lack citations. In Encyclopedia section too almost six paragraphs are missing in citations.
 * 1) After reading all three articles on Wikipedia as a reader I do not get information what a reader of an encyclopedia is supposed to expect from encyclopedia or readers part many commercial encyclopedias might have done marketing putting those points forward so can one find any such information in any source? (I am not expecting discourses of Wikipedians but discourses of Non Wikipedian intellectuals or marketeers of traditional encyclopedias.
 * 2) Another missing point is how an encyclopedic entry needs to be written features tools challenges etc. again not Wikipedian point of views but editorial or intellectual discourses of traditional encyclopedias writers or editors.
 * 3) How an ideal Compendium and Encyclopedia content quality is supposed to look like (beyond it's alphabetical etc organizational aspects) again not Wikipedian point of views but editorial or intellectual discourses of traditional encyclopedias writers or editors with critique of some Compendium and Encyclopedia.
 * 4) Is there any (Non Wikipedia) source that would say or suggest Compendium and Encyclopedia as  'up to date' state of information / knowledge ?

Pl. do suggest sources if you know any of so we can update articles Encyclopedia Compendium and History of encyclopedias a little more, a little further.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku (talk) 17:23, 5 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi Bookku, that’s a great project. Here are some references beyond the ones already in Encyclopedia.
 * Sanford, Eva (1949) Famous Latin Encyclopaedias
 * Tsien, Tsuen-Hsuin (1952) A History of Bibliographic Classification in China
 * Preece, Warren (1965) The Organization of Knowledge and the Planning of Encyclopaedias: The Case of the "Encyclopaedia Britannica"
 * Sullivan, Lawrence (1990) Circumscribing Knowledge: Encyclopedias in Historical Perspective
 * Burke, Peter (1996) Reflections on the history of encyclopaedias
 * Binkley, Peter (ed.) (1996) Pre-Modern Encyclopaedic Texts.
 * Fowler, Robert (1996) Encyclopaedias: definitions and theoretical problems
 * Twomey, Michael (1996) Towards a reception history of western medieval encyclopaedias in England before 1500
 * Harvey, Steven (1998) The Medieval Hebrew Encyclopedias of Science and Philosophy
 * Stockwell, Foster (2000) A History of Information Storage and Retrieval
 * Toshio, Yokoyama (2007) Some notes on the history of Japanese traditional household encyclopedias
 * Würth, Stefanie (2008) Historiography and Pseudo-History
 * Burke, Peter (2013). A Social History of Knowledge.
 * Hope this is a helpful start. If you can’t read any of the paywalled articles, you can request them at WP:RX because you are using them to improve Wikipedia. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 19:20, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

2020 USA Presidential election
I am just wondering how things shake out in such a scenario. The Trump campaign is making allegations ... essentially saying "the vote / count / election / process is unfair / illegal / rigged / corrupted / etc." So, let's say that the Court ( Supreme Court or whichever court ) agrees with the allegations. What would be the remedy? I can't imagine: OK, let's do the election all over again, a second time; and this time, make sure to get it right. But, what else is there? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:45, 5 November 2020 (UTC)


 * A monarchy? --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:50, 5 November 2020 (UTC)


 * See the 1872 and 1876 United States presidential elections for examples. In 1872, the electoral college delegations from Arkansas and Louisiana simply weren't counted in the final vote; this did not affect the outcome of the election, however. In the 1876 election, there was a dispute that impacted the outcome, and led to the formation of an Electoral Commission culminating in the "Compromise of 1877". Anyway, those are historical precedents.My understanding (from my colleagues working for various campaigns) is that the normal course is to demand recounts, find and dispute ballots that are suspicious or misread, and change the outcome that way. In addition, where the actions alleged are violations of the state criminal law, the campaigns could demand prosecution of the culpable election officials; this would not affect the outcome but could serve as a strong deterrent to it happening again. 199.66.69.32 (talk) 18:59, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Even more recently than that. See 2000 United States presidential election and Bush v. Gore.  -- Jayron 32 19:01, 5 November 2020 (UTC)