Humanities desk
< June 19	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 21 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

June 20[edit]

Maoism before Mao[edit]

This Google Ngram, not surprisingly, shows an increase in the appearance of "Maoism" after about 1940, peaking around his death, and declining since. However, it occasionally appears in the 19th century, with a higher spot in the early 1840s. In what context would these six letters be appearing in this order in the 1840s? Is it perhaps just the result of mistakes in Google's OCR software? Nyttend (talk) 01:13, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps they meant Daoism/Taoism ? StuRat (talk) 03:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the title of this section, as it was likely to be offensive to many people from China. Looie496 (talk) 04:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I get that all the time. Occasionally Google mixes up archive dates, meaning something that pertains to the Qing Dynasty would show up in a search for "Mao" or "Maoism". Sometimes the search results are even stranger, although I can't list any specific examples off the top of my head. Kurtis ^(talk) 04:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you do a Google Books search for "maoism" in the 19th century you'll find indeed that every single match is an OCR mistake. Some of them are way off, but "magism" can easily be mistaken for "maoism" if the 'g' is unclear. - Lindert (talk) 07:40, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating how far off they can be. One hit was apparently occasioned by the numeral 1889. How 1889 becomes Maoism is a bit hard to reconstruct. --Trovatore (talk) 07:51, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's Mohism... AnonMoos (talk) 14:52, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

US primary elections in the 19th and early 20th century for other offices than President[edit]

Dear everyone; I can't find any information about American primaries in the 19th and early 20th century for other elected offices than president. I am especially interested in governors and senators. Which way lead to the party nomination as governor or senator back in those days? --Jerchel (talk) 10:14, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an answer, but it's worth keeping in mind that senators weren't uniformly elected by popular vote until after the Seventeenth Amendment and although some states brought in popular votes before that the earliest was apparently Oregon in 1907 [1] so in the 19th Century, the question with regard to senators is "how did the state legislatures choose the senator?" Valiantis (talk) 13:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jerchel -- You should keep in mind that even when running for the U.S. presidency, as late as the 1950's primaries were not really decisive in themselves, but were a kind of a supplement to the main action of smoke-filled-room negotiating and convention-floor balloting. However the White primaries of Texas and some other states were notorious... AnonMoos (talk) 14:47, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the modern Primary system really didn't become the way we know it today nationwide until the 1970s. Check out the picture to the right. These are the states that had primaries in 1968. In the 19th and early 20th century, delegates met at the national conventions and selected the candidates by ballot. Each state's party had its own procedure for selecting delegates, but once the delegates got to the convention, they were free to nominate and subsequently vote for any candidate they chose. That's how we ended up with so many Dark horse candidates in the 19th century: At the convention, it was often difficult to get a candidate who could get an absolute majority of the vote. There could often be a dozen or more rounds of voting before a candidate finally won their party's nomination. It was a gradual process through the 20th century that caused the transition from the old system (where the Convention itself chose the candidate) to the current system (where the candidate is selected through the primary process and the Convention is a mere formality). --Jayron32 20:22, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The point should be taken that parties are private organizations, and that while they may back candidates there is no constitutional right for them to "have their candidates". Anyone who meets age, residency, and local petition requirements gets on the final ballot. How the state primary runs, if one is had, differs by states. Even though the NY state primaries are publicly funded the party bosses can reject candidates. In 1996 Pat Buchanan met the eligibility requirements for the state GOP presidential primary, but the party kept him off anyway since they wanted a unanimous choice for Bob Dole. The state court allowed this.

Recently rep (dem) Conyers forgot to get enough signatures to qualify by law for his primary. A lower court said the law applies to all, the state court decided the law did not apply to a powerful sitting politician. A decade back sitting (NJ, Dem) Senator Toricelli who was about to be arrested dropped out of the final race less than 30 days from the election. State law required all names on the ballot to be certified 30 days before the election--there was no legal way to replace his name. Retired Democrat Laughtenberg was put on the ballot after the legal deadline when the NJ supreme court decided along party lines that the people had a right to vote for a Democrat candidate regardless of the law.

Publicly funded primaries are part of a gradual "establishment of party" in the US. In the cases involving the Democrats above, the needs/desires of the parties were explicitly place above existing law. By the time the final election comes along, "the" candidates are named--you can vote for John D Corruption or John R Corruption, or go third party, and throw your vote away. μηδείς (talk) 18:10, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Engagement photographs[edit]

I'm interested in understanding photography sessions for couples who have got engaged to be married. This seems especially prevalent in the United States but I believe it's reasonably popular in the UK and other parts of the Western world. Who is interested in these photos? Why are they being taken, considering that the wedding is the real event and will occur with reasonable likelihood? They are often posed and horribly, awfully cheesy. I can understand perhaps one photo or two of a smiling couple for an announcement (local newspaper, facebook, etc), but entire extended sessions with multiple poses seems like overkill. Is there an appeal in this that I am missing? Or is it likely that only the couples themselves think it's important/are self-obsessed, just because they are happy with their own engagement? 2601:9:F80:1CA:4013:ED09:51D0:967D (talk) 23:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some couples (or at least one of the partners) will probably look back at least some on the photos later. My parents being almost old enough to be my grandparents, I only found out about people taking more than a couple of photos a year or two ago. I suspect part of it may be that the photographer is already hired for that time, or that they figure it's a better deal to hire a friend of a friend for multiple photos instead of just getting a couple. At least, that's what the polite part of me suspects, other parts want to make accusations of people confusing money, attention, and love; but it could be a spectrum, or even matters of degree for various reasons. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As for them being "cheesy", telling them to "look lovingly into each other's eyes" is bound to make people wretch. A more imaginative photographer might have them dress up, say, as Bonnie and Clyde, complete with mock machine guns. StuRat (talk) 23:48, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of wretch would misspell that word? --70.49.171.225 (talk) 04:29, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Be quiet, or I'll hit you with a rench (or maybe a wench). :-) StuRat (talk) 05:40, 21 June 2014 (UTC) [reply]

The bride-to-be, and quite possibly the groom and the families, are the ones interested in these photos. Whether such photos make unrelated, unromantic observers cringe is probably not on their list of things to worry about. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:42, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It could be two brides-to-be, or two grooms(-to-be). What then? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:08, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR here but since I know several photographers (many of them wedding photographers), I thought I'd speak up. Many couples use the engagement photos for their wedding announcements and invitations. Those are often two separate things nowadays for whatever reason. The couples also may already be living together and want photos of themselves before the wedding for putting on their walls or on their desk at work. The couple may also want photos of themselves which focus more on them as people as opposed to focusing on the event of the wedding. If the couple only has wedding photos, then everyone's eyes are drawn to the dress or the venue or whatever. If they intend on having children, they often also want photos of just them as they were without children. Then when the kids come along later, they get photos of the family together. Dismas|^(talk) 02:36, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]