Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2019 February 8

= February 8 =

How do I cite an image with a no-longer-functional source link?
I found an image which appeared, 22:47, 5 May 2005, and was posted by User:Chris 73. The image file is titled: File:1912 Lawrence Textile Strike 2.jpg. The source link provided takes me to a website which has moved and when I go to the location of the current website, I cannot find the image. Does anybody know what I can do to provide a citation for the image's source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MutantGodChicken (talk • contribs)


 * For convenience, I made your file reference into a wikilink.


 * The Wayback Machine is probably the best way. By searching for archived copies based on the original URL, you can find one at https://web.archive.org/web/20070713171213im_/http://womhist.binghamton.edu/teacher/lincoln.jpg and cite that instead.  See Template:Webarchive for how to construct the citation.


 * Another possibility is to use TinEye to look for another copy of the image, but you have to be careful because you might find one that is not quite identical and then it is not appropriate to cite it as a source. --76.69.46.228 (talk) 09:51, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Our reverse image search article lists other tools available if TinEye doesn't deliver. Alansplodge (talk) 11:03, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia's 'On this Day' is wrong?
On today's Wikipedia's front page, in the 'On This Day' section, it says, "1837 – Richard Mentor Johnson became the only person to be elected Vice President of the United States by the Senate." But he isn't the only person elected to VP by the Senate. Gerald Ford was also elected to be Vice President by the Senate. Am I missing something? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:01, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Johnson was elected under the provisions of the Twelfth Amendment because he didn't get a majority in the Electoral College. Ford on the other hand was confirmed under the provision of section 2 of the 25th Amendment. The subtle difference is that in Johnson's case the Senate did what the Electoral College was supposed to do, i.e. elect the VP. So it's actually correct. That said, if you do notice errors for items on the main page, report them at WP:ERRORS so people can see and fix them quickly. Regards So  Why  13:22, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Or to WP:TRM if you want them acted on really quickly. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:47, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Have any other afterlives offered lots of sex partners?
I can only think of one, and it's more exclusive than their heaven. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:00, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Say what? -- Jayron 32 15:09, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Confused as well. I can’t even think of one... much less “others”. Blueboar (talk) 15:31, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Is this a reference to houri?--Shantavira|feed me 16:54, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I suspect so. Although I also suspect the OP hasn't actually studied even our article, let alone the various sources so probably has little idea of the various issues and has only heard of vague mentions of 72 virgins. I don't claim to know much either, it was only recently that I first heard of the bird thing Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2015 January 19, but OTOH if you want to look for other religions with similar concepts, it's probably best to have some familiarity with what you're comparing to. Nil Einne (talk) 14:13, 10 February 2019 (UTC)


 * It depends on how modern you want to be. Most westerners know that Roman, Greek, Egyptian, and Norse religion was full of god-like creatures having sex with each other, with people in the afterlife, and even with people still walking around on Earth. The same concepts are found in Native American religions and in early Hinduism. In modern times, Christianity as a whole doesn't touch on sex in the afterlife. If Revelations is accurate, the afterlife is nothing more than praising God non-stop for eternity. So, there's no time for sex. Judaism has differing views and, as a whole, hardly discusses the afterlife. There is a concept of rejoining with one's ancestors. There is also a concept that death is simply death. Modern Hinduism, along with the offshoot of Buddhism, are reincarnation religions. Therefore, the afterlife is reincarnation. There is obviously sex. Buddhism differs in that the goal is to avoid the afterlife and reach a state on non-being. Therefore, there is no sex because there is nothing. 71.12.10.227 (talk) 19:25, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Most afterlives offer a full life. That may include sex partners or not. I think what you are after is afterlives that offer bounty for followings here on Earth. The pharaohs would take their whole world with them assumedly to be pharaohs again and therefore partners for whatever they wanted. If you were referring to the Islamic offerings it may be worth noting, they often refer to the afterlife as "The Permanent Abode". They'll hand you forty virgins, and a sack of nappies/diapers, and let your wives in before they close the door on your prison, perhaps. ~ R.T.G 12:06, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Especially if they also let the forty mothers-in-law in. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:18, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Theoretical vassalage?
Can anyone provide something that examines the phrase "theoretical vassal" without simply saying, such was a theoretical vassal of other? It probably just means, vassalage theoretically. And it only gets 100+ google hits, but a chunky amount of those are in contemporary historical publications and academic history accounts. ~ R.T.G 23:12, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Would this book help? Tamanoeconomico (talk) 00:49, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't think so. It only gives one hit for the phrase, again verifying it authoritatively as a phrase, but I assume it lacks definition. We can say for sure who has been, and even may have been, a theoretical vassal, but we cannot say why that is. I know it's dumb or something but I just saw it somewhere and looked for a definite tense and got a veritable stream of academic reference but no dictionaries, no conversations even just for a personal comforts. ~ R.T.G 01:03, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You are correct that it appears often in historical examinations, but I see no reason to consider it a phrase with special meaning. I looked up examples in writings about feudal England, Spain, Iraq, and Ethiopia. Each time, it was used to mean that a vassal was technically a vassal in a legal sense, but did not act as such. In theory, it was a vassal. In reality, it wasn't. You could replace theoretical with technical or legal. I don't feel any synonyms have exactly the same meaning. 71.12.10.227 (talk) 03:22, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * @User:71.12.10.227, this is a good explanation. However it lacks authority as it is just between us. It is definitively a phrase though. And especially as it is particular yet ambiguous (could just mean here-be-monsters/unknowns), or it could mean some heretofore unexplained twist on vassalage. Consequently it holds requirement of definition. It might not appear useful as it would be worth nothing more than a line or two in a Wikipedia article on vassalage, but as a research tool, with a list of historical reference, it cries out for a side article, which would merely clutter an article on usual vassalages. ty o/ ~ R.T.G 11:49, 9 February 2019 (UTC)