Humanities desk
< July 8	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 10 >

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

July 9

Intentionally Blank Page

Hello. Intentionally blank pages in documents, which missing pages can pose serious consequences, have "This page is intentionally left blank" labelled. This is a paradox. Why can there not be "The next X page(s) is/are intentionally left blank" on the page preceding the blank one? Thanks in advance. --Mayfare (talk) 02:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As communication, it works fine. As a logical proof, it does not. Guess what the people who leave such pages care about more. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 03:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if there was nothing on the page it would still confuse people, and I think "This page is intentionally devoid of content" sounds too weird.

The thing is, if you put it on the page before, a lot of people are not going to notice it and are going to get concerned when they see a blank page. However most people will notice it when the rest of the page is blank. Remember these are usually in circumstances where it matters and often when you don't want to spend a whole lot of time looking at previous pages to see if it mentions it somewhere (e.g. for both, exams) Nil Einne (talk) 18:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps they could be labelled: "Aside from this notice, this page is left intentionally blank." Ninebucks (talk) 22:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biblical - equality of sexes

Where in the Bible does it say that women are of equal value to men? 91.106.24.106 (talk) 08:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I kind of doubt it does. If it does manage to do that, it's a kind of a mixed message, since the Bible spends a lot of time talking about how inferior, bad and generally filthy women are, as this article handily illustrates. That's the Good Book for ya. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 10:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the Beatitudes Jesus reaches out to everyone. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How does Jesus reaching out to everyone imply that women are of equal value to men? The following is from the article you linked (under ""The Fourth Beatitude"):

"He feeds, during the first event, "about five thousand men, beside women and children" with ...".

I think the original poster was looking for something more explicit. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 12:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look at Women in the Bible? There are several articles along these lines, connected with a link template and everything. -LambaJan (talk) 13:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can start with the statements in Genesis that man and woman are both "made in the image of God". DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The questioner probably had in mind such passages as Galatians 3:28:

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (RSV)

-- AnonMoos (talk) 16:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might also want to read Christian views about women, which looks at the topic more broadly. Gwinva (talk) 20:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus defended a woman's right to divorce in the New Testament. I don't remember the exact verse, but there is a part where Jesus rebukes Jewish leaders for exploiting divorce laws to women's harm, basically leaving them alone and destitute when they were "done" with them. There is also a scene in which a woman is accused of adultery by a group of men (curiously, the guilty man is absent!), but Jesus refuses to have her put to death, instead asking the men present to think about their own guilty deeds. After he died and was resurrected, Jesus also chose to appear to Mary Magdalene, a woman, before appearing to his 12 apostles or even to his own Father in Heaven. Wrad (talk) 21:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ask yourself this: if the Bible does not say women are equal to men, does that necessarily imply men are superior, or might it mean that women are? DOR (HK) (talk) 08:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I kinda doubt that. The Bible pretty explicitly says that men are superior to women (or that women are inferior to me) a whole bunch of times. (Of course, these days, when rampant misogynism just isn't as popular as it was in the days of yore, those passages tend to be ignored; it's not particularly enlightened stuff.) -- Captain Disdain (talk) 09:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giving birth

How long is the maximum length of labour? 91.106.24.106 (talk) 08:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For humans?--droptone (talk) 12:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the sort of thing that goes into the Guinness Book of World Records. And because increased length of labor impacts negatively on the health of the child and mother, it's not the sort of thing that the mother's attendants would, morally, let go on to the "maximum'. The average length of labor for the first child is 12-14 hours, less for subsequent children. Epidural anaesthesia increases the length. Certainly labors of 30 hours or more are reported, they but these are probably not "maximum".- Nunh-huh 12:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not always clear exactly when labour begins. There may be widely spaced contractions or contractions that stop and start again. The woman may believe that she is in labour but the midwife does not agree, or vice-versa. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As Judith says, the way labour begins varies greatly from woman to woman, and can be hard to define. It's quite possible (and not terribly unusual) to be in "slow labour" for days. However, a prolonged second active stage (ie the actual delivery) is usually indicative of a complication, and most attendants/health professionals will attempt some kind of intervention. Gwinva (talk) 21:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In some cases both mother and baby have died in labor and have been buried with the baby in the birth canal. In such a case one could argue that labor lasts for all of eternity. StuRat (talk) 17:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Former Egyptian Ambassador to Israel

Mohammed Bassiouny - ? What I need is the preferred (by the English-language media) romanized spelling of his name for further searching. I'm posting here rather than on the Language Ref Desk because I need to know what's most ~~official~~ prevalent among reputable sources, not (necessarily) a recommended academic transliteration or transcription. This spelling of the surname gets more Google hits than others I've tried, and that's without the first name that comes in numerous variants. The Hebrew Wikipedia doesn't have a page; unfortunately, I don't read Arabic Thanks! -- Deborahjay (talk) 08:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Post: Mohamed Bassiouni, NY Times: Mohammed Bassiouni, BBC: Mohammed Bassiouny and Mohammed Bassiouni. Seems like you've found the right spelling as much as anyone. The thing about transliterations is that there's little or no variation in scholarly narrow IPA versions but once you get away from that there's considerable variation for various reasons. -LambaJan (talk) 15:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These are reassuring findings, LambaJan, thanks! I didn't get too far by searching in the Egyptian Foreign Ministry's English-language website, nor was there anything definitive in the online catalog of the U.S.Library of Congress, so I'll go with "Mohammed" as reasonably prevalent (the double "m" looks convincing as I hear the name pronounced) and "Bassiouni and see if I can get the final "i/y" distinction explained to me at some point. -- Deborahjay (talk) 15:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"i/y" distinction? In the IPA the /i/ sounds like the 'ee' in "freeze sucker!" so that's where that spelling comes from and that spelling is therefore more correct than the 'y' spelling which is an ad hoc transliteration for English speakers who don't have any phonetics training.-LambaJan (talk) 02:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

psychology and social work

what is the role of psychology in social work? is it necessary for a social worker to know about psychology for practicing social work? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cool-icon (talk • contribs) 09:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the type of social work you want to do. If you want to deal with financial planning, debt reduction then knowledge of psychology isn't as important as if you want to be a family counselor. If you take a look at this article, most of the job types in "clinical or direct practice" generally require some knowledge of psychology whereas most of the job types in "community practice" generally do not. Each job type varies in what sort of psychology you'd need to be familiar with (death and aging when dealing with the elderly, relationships/violence when dealing with domestic violence, etc). If you have an area where you'd like to know more then please post a followup question.--droptone (talk) 12:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Top

1. What happens if a prime minister/president/etc dies during their reign? 2. I remember reading a book saying that the oldest person ever to have had this job was from Laos. But I can't remember this person's name. What is it? 208.76.245.162 (talk) 13:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on the laws of the country. In the U.S. succession is clearly written in the law and I assume it's the same in most other countries. -LambaJan (talk) 13:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the British prime minister dies then a new one is chosen by parliament. Probably this will involve appointment of a temporary PM while the governing party chooses a new leader who would then become PM. I believe it's the same in Canada and probably other countries with a British-derived system. As far as I know this has never happened in a country with a British-style parliamentary system. Anyone know differently? DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for the Laos part of your question, you may mean Nouhak Phoumsavanh who was certainly among the oldest heads of state, but I don't think the oldest ever. Fribbler (talk) 13:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nouhak was 88 when he retired, which about matches Sandro Pertini (Italy) who left office at 88.75 and was the oldest elected by a legislature. Malietoa Tanumafili II of Samoa still reigned when he died at 94 and was the oldest living head of state (till then, of course). I couldn't find a historical list, so that's the best I could do. I don't know if anyone else breaks those records or not. -LambaJan (talk) 14:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Formerly speaking, it's the monarch (or, in places like Canada, her representative) who appoints the new PM. Of course she will choose whoever the party controlling parliament chooses as their new leader. As for if this has happened, see Spencer Percival. Algebraist 14:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Formally speaking...DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also Australia's : Frank Forde: "In 1945 John Curtin died, and as Deputy Leader Forde was commissioned by the Governor-General as Prime Minister on July 6. Again he contested the leadership with Ben Chifley and Norman Makin. Chifley won, and Forde left office on July 13." and Earle Page: "When Lyons died suddenly in 1939, it was Sir Earle whom the Governor-General Lord Gowrie called on to become caretaker Prime Minister. He held the office for three weeks until the UAP elected a new leader.". Rmhermen (talk) 17:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And Harold Holt who drowned while Prime Minister of Australia. Rmhermen (talk) 17:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand seems to have had several, in 1893, 1906, 1925, 1940, and 1974. See List of heads of state and government who died in office. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@ DJ Clayworth: In Britain and most other Commonwealth realms, the choice is made by the governing party/coalition, and the person is directly appointed by the monarch or governor-general. The parliament is the last to be told (officially) what's happened. I think Papua New Guinea may be an exception to this arrangement.

@ 208.76.245.162: Why did you call this question "Top"? -- JackofOz (talk) 22:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The new PM has to have the approval of parliament, not just the governing party. If the governing party/coalition has a majority then it amounts to the same thing, but if the government is minority then they can't just choose a PM against parliament's wishes. Of course a PM can be voted out at any time without majority support... DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also see deputy prime minister. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Canada it happened twice in a few years. John A. Macdonald's Conservative Party was reelected in March 1891, but Macdonald died in office that June. The Conservatives settled on John Abbott to succeed him. But in November 1892 Abbott resigned due to illness (he died in October 1893) and now the Conservatives, apparently thinking that the Prime Minister must be a man in his 70s named John :-), now chose John Thompson. But in December 1894, he died in office. The Conservatives now fell back on a second favorite choice :-) -- men whose name started with "Mac-" -- and Mackenzie Bowell became Prime Minister. But he lost the party's support and in turn was forced to resign in May 1896 and Charles Tupper succeeded to the position. But by now it was time for a new election and Tupper and the Conservatives were promptly defeated. Five prime ministers from one election to the next. --Anonymous, 05:32 UTC, July 10, 2008.

For the US, see United States presidential line of succession. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 03:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In France, the President of the Senate takes over when a President dies in office, and then immediately organises elections. This happened in 1974, when Pompidou died and Alain Poher took his place. Rhinoracer (talk) 11:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, he was "Interim President", which doesn't seem to have the same status as "President", hence he appears as a footnote to the main table. Perhaps his powers while in office were somewhat circumscribed. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noah's Ark

I am trying to get an idea of the dates when Noah and his family were alive and the Ark was created? Also, what happened to his sons? Where did they and their decendets live? Rjpartridge (talk) 13:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC) rjpartridge[reply]

When: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/When_did_Noah_live 87.102.86.73 (talk) 13:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As to where they lived try Noah and follow the links from there for each of his sons/other relatives. You might also want to read Mountains of Ararat.87.102.86.73 (talk) 13:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent Great Flood in the area may have been around 7600 years ago at the Black Sea, which may have served as a basis for the Biblical story (although the location was moved considerably south from there). StuRat (talk) 17:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Source data for economics map

Would anyone know where the source data for this map: http://www.economist.com/daily/chartgallery/displayStory.cfm?story_id=11693372 would be? Presumably it can be found somewhere on here: http://www.imf.org/external/data.htm Thanks --Rajah (talk) 17:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the map seems to come from here. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Do you mind sharing how you found that? i.e. what were your search terms etc. ? Thanks again. --Rajah (talk) 18:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just did a site search for "fuel", and it was the second link in the first hit. (That was after about ten minutes of just poking around the site.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone ever died in the Houses of Parliament

? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.191.114 (talk) 21:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spencer Perceval. There have been others. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I expect this question is something to do with the illegality of dying in parliament! --Cameron * 21:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does the anon mean, MPs dying in office? Or anybody dying in the House (physically present)? GoodDay (talk) 21:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This question was asked a few months ago. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that was about the US Congress? --98.217.8.46 (talk) 01:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned by Cameron, it is in fact illegal to die within the Houses of Parliament. Quite what the punishment would be, I'm not sure.--NeoNerd 15:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that's a joke. If not, can someone come up with a source? I'd be most interested to add it to my list of the world's silliest laws. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is commonly listed in such lists, Jack, but appears to have little basis in fact. It is something to do with the HoC's alleged status as a royal palace, and an assertion that dying is in some way illegal in such places. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't imagine how even the most gullible person on Earth could believe that for a second. (On the other hand, some of the silly laws I've seen are utterly counter-intuitive, so ....). Thanks. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the House of Lords I wonder how long it would take them to notice. -- Q Chris (talk) 08:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeepers guys, dont bicker, of course theres a Wikipedia article! Prohibition of death See section In the UK then the footnotes. Mhicaoidh (talk) 10:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it's on the list now. Thanks for the ref, Mhicaoidh. -- JackofOz (talk) 10:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate designs by famous artists

I got to thinking about Salvador Dali and his design of the logo for Chupa Chups. It then made me wonder... Are there any other examples of famous artists doing design work for corporations such as logos or packaging. I'm not thinking of situations wherein the company hires the artist based on the fact that they are famous to put together some sort of avant-garde advertising campaign. Dismas|^(talk) 21:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Warhol maybe --omnipotence407 (talk) 22:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, Warhol didn't do any works for the companies. He had a sculpture of Brillo boxes and there was his famous paintings of Campbell's Soup cans but those designs were already being used and he didn't create the labels. Dismas|^(talk) 23:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to recall Warhol, and many other artists, doing magazine ads for Absolut vodka at some point in the 1980s. The Absolut art campaign is probably the largest single campaign to use professional artists in this way—well over 300, I believe, in the course of their ad campaigns.[1] --98.217.8.46 (talk) 00:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Château Mouton Rothschild has a famous artist design their wine's label every year. We even have a list of artists who have created a Château Mouton Rothschild label. Plasticup ^T/C 01:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Seuss "worked as an illustrator for advertising campaigns, most notably for Flit and Standard Oil". I'm sure there are loads more.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Apple worked with Warhol and also designed logos for companies such as the Farmers Department Store that are World famous in New Zealand. Mhicaoidh (talk) 09:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway who says this guy wasn't an artist! Raymond Loewy. Mhicaoidh (talk) 09:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

God: Yay or Nay?

I'm not asking wheather God, or a God, or any God exists, but what are the strongest arguments from both the yes and no sides to a divine presence on Earth, or through out the universe. I hope this doesn't turn ugly.--68.231.202.21 (talk) 22:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It needn't turn ugly. We have an article for your delectation: Existence of God. Fribbler (talk) 22:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. You would have thought I would have came across that.--Xtothe3rd (talk) 23:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's start by defining terms, like, say, "God." DOR (HK) (talk) 09:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]