Talk:Intentionally blank page

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Intentionally blank page has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Q: If I replace the text of this article with "This page intentionally left blank", will that make me cool?

A: No! Everyone else has already thought of that! Go do something original!

Contents 1 Not a Paradox 2 Vandalism 3 Folio 4 Falsified? 5 Origins 6 Blank section 7 woe 8 Y'know... 9 comment on the notion that "this page intentionally left blank" is self-refuting 10 User box 11 blank page example 12 Is “This page intentionally left blank” missing a verb? 13 stripped parts 14 Tristram Shandy

[edit] Not a Paradox

The sentence

This page intentionally left blank.

is not a type of liar paradox. It is a sentence that is always false whereever it appears, but it is not a sentence that is both truth and false. (And there is nothing unusual about sentences that are false wherever they appear, most false sentences are like that: "Ronald Reagan was a king of Egypt".)

Also, note that it is not self-contradictory. A self-contradictory sentence is one that asserts both P and Not-P or is equivalent to a sentence that does so. E.g., "Bob is an married bachelor" is equivalent to "Bob is married and Bob is not married." So it is self-contradictory. But "This page is intentionally left blank" is not equivalent to any "P and Not-P" statement. It contradicts the facts of the matter (as all false sentences do) but it does not contradict itself.

It is a comical sentence in that the very act of writing it on a page ensures that it is false, whereas "Ronald Reagan was a king of Egypt" isn't made false by the very act of writing it. Nevertheless, from the standpoint of logic, it is just one more false sentence. It is not really a paradox. --- I agree. Is the reference to Godel supposed to be funny?

[edit] Vandalism

Wow, if I was going to blank any one page on Wikipedia, this would be the one. Or maybe not, since everyone else has already thought of it, so it wouldn't be creative. -- Phyzome is Tim McCormack 01:32, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Folio

The correct term for a sheet of paper that has been folded into 2,4,8, etc. is a folio. For example, folded to make 8 pages, it is called an octavo. More commonly, 16mo and 32mo are used in modern printing. linas 16:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, only when folded into two is it a folio. (in four, a quarto). The generic term is signature.linas 16:22, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Falsified?

Does a phrase like "This page is blank" necessarily falsify itself by its existence on a page?

• If it's printed in invisible ink, isn't it somehow true as long as it isn't readable?
• What if it's projected onto a blank page through shadows and/or mirrors by a conspiracy of its neighboring pages?
• What if the page is blank and appears blank, but the book is written in a language in which blank space means "This page is blank"?

This is fun. Melchoir 09:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Origins

I've heard many times that the phrase, "This page intentionally left blank" originated in IBM technical documentation. If this can be corroborated, it should go in the article. Better still would be getting a scan of one of the original official blank pages. Victor Lighthill 16:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blank section

A blank section is not a good idea to put in the article. It does not demonstrate any of the reasons why intentionally blank pages are used, and is not in itself an intentionally blank page anyway. The images are enough demonstration and example. Dysprosia 23:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Although the article is called "Intentionally blank page", the content doesn't have to be restricted solely to entire pages that are blank, such as the use in the Zork game: "This space intentionally left blank." I'm not sure whether the section should stay, although in other articles we have similar written examples. This one just looks stranger than the rest. Maybe put it inside PRE tags, so that it's blocked off from the rest? — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-8 23:31

I'm sorry, but I had to remove this. This is so incredibly pointless. "We can do this, therefore we should". Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. It's like inserting "fnord" after every sentence in fnord. If someone really feels this absolutely must be in the article before we can call it complete, fine, go ahead, I won't revert it. But I'm going to wince every time I see it. JRM · Talk 00:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but that "Avoid self references" has nothing to do with this. That guideline is about avoiding references to Wikipedia itself. Should we also get rid of the first example block at ASCII art? — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-9 00:58

No, since the ASCII art does not refer to Wikipedia in any way. Sections that talk about "this section" do. JRM · Talk 01:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

But it's in the very nature of the subject itself to be self-referential. An example cannot be made that isn't self-referential. The main problem with not referencing Wikipedia is so that the content will look alright on mirror sites, which this would. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-9 01:14

The non-main problem (also mentioned) is that it looks unprofessional, but one cannot argue about matters of taste. The main example would be for this page to be intentionally left blank, which we can't do for obvious reasons.

An example can certainly be made that's not self-referential. The article contains several, in fact. You can't escape a self-referential example in self-reference because people would be shocked and disappointed to see such cleverness omitted from the encyclopedia. But is there anyone who believes readers will be serviced by an intentionally blank section, or is this one of those "too cute to leave out" things again? I know it's futile to stand in the way of those, but I still feel compelled to try. JRM · Talk 01:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, besides the point mentioned above (blind people can't easily read pictures), the example shows how easily such a self-refuting, meta-reference can be made, and how it can be applied to other "regions" besides pages. That's why I put it under the "variations" section. I don't see any reason it can't exist, but once better/more pictures are found for the article, then I would be fine with removing it. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-9 01:41

Whether you're blind or not, you have to be gifted with a remarkably small and ineffective imagination to not understand the concept of such pages (including the futility of an explicit notice) from the description—the added value is dubious. Actual examples that illustrate where this is used in real life (whether visible or not) are valuable, but an artificial example we think up ourselves (not as a simplification or as an instance of a general problem) is dubious. Have you ever heard of or seen an "intentionally blank section" other than in this article? The Zork mention hardly counts, since it amuses by being deliberately incongruous.

I don't see any reason it can't exist either, other than that I personally dislike it, which is a poor justification against anything. On the other hand, I'm having a hard time imagining a use for it, too. JRM · Talk 01:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Blind people can't read non-Braille books either. Let's run with the argument. Suppose a blind person uses a text-to-speech reader for this page. They have already read the common version of the "this page..." text above, so why do we have to repeat it? Why not use alt texts for the images? Furthermore, for the majority of users, the section looks ridiculous. So the section is redundant in the least amount of cases and looks silly for the rest. We should act with a bit of professionalism. Dysprosia 03:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] woe

I'm really quite crushed that this page isn't actually blank.

Live and learn.

Adrian Lamo 06:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

• Other Wikipedia articles don't describe themselves. The article on Green isn't green, for instance. Nor is Hoax a hoax. Why do you think this one should be different? —Keenan Pepper 13:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Deep down, I want to believe in a slightly more absurd universe, where an illustrative example of an intentionally blank page might be encyclopedic. Adrian Lamo 21:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, if you check the history, the article does often fulfill that role :) — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-13 13:12

Hoax isn't a hoax? My God. Leave me some of my hopes and dreams. Adrian Lamo 21:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Y'know...

"In military and classified documents, intentionally non-blank pages are used to confirm that the page has not been stolen and replaced with a blank page."

I don't really see how that practice helps. If someone was going to go to all the trouble of stealing a classified document, couldn't they just leave a page that has "this page is intentionally left blank" on it, in the style of intentionally non-blank pages, instead of a blank page?

[edit] comment on the notion that "this page intentionally left blank" is self-refuting

i'd like to request others opinions on this matter.

it seems to me that the common-sense interpretation of "this page intentionally left blank" is to insert an implied word: "this page intentionally left OTHERWISE blank." where the article says:

Printing "this page intentionally left blank" on a page is self-refuting, since a blank page cannot have any writing. Some organizations, such as the College Board, have realized this and changed the blank page notice; for example, on the SAT exams, the message now reads, "No test content on this page."

it implies that organizations other than the college board are idiots for printing an "obviously" self-refuting statement. IMHO, the original usage (with a dose of common sense) is more appropriate. could the wording of the article be changed to reflect this?

Lunch 21:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

it implies that organizations other than the college board are idiots for printing an "obviously" self-refuting statement. Not at all; that's what you make of it. The statement is obviously self-refuting, just as it obviously conveys the idea that the page was intentionally left blank except for the sentence that conveys it was intentionally left blank.

The College Board (and possibly others) changed the wording to prevent the distraction of a statement that, literally taken, refutes itself, even if it also has a non-trivial meaning (in contrast to sentences like "this sentence does not contain the letter 'e'", which do not convey anything useful). You can certainly argue it's not necessary to do this, since readers will know what is meant in either case, but it does simplify matters somewhat.

The current revision of the article reads "have avoided this problem" rather than "have realized this", which should take away any objection over implying foolishness. It is a problem to have a sentence which distracts the reader with its form, even if it's a very minor problem in this case. 82.92.119.11 15:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Yeah, I like the change to "avoided this problem". I didn't realize that change had been made.  ;)

You mention that the statement when read literally is self-refuting. Mind if insert the phrase "if read literally" so that the paragraph says, "Printing "this page intentionally left blank" on a page is self-refuting if taken literally since a blank page cannot have any writing. Some organizations, such as the College Board, have avoided this problem by changing the notice; for example, on the SAT exams, the message now reads, "No test content on this page.""

Lunch 15:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I think nobody could object to such an addition, if you feel it's necessary. If someone does object, you'll notice. :-) 82.92.119.11 17:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User box

Placing{{userbox|black|white|[[Image:Crystal kthememgr.png|40px]]| This userbox has been deliberately left blank}} on your user page will produce

[edit] blank page example

make a page blank page/example for example of a blank page?.**My Cat inn @ (talk)** 00:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

What would be the point? The images make much better examples. —Keenan Pepper 23:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is “This page intentionally left blank” missing a verb?

What is the origin of the above sentence? In which cases is it written with a verb like “is” or “has been” before the “intentionally”? --RolandIllig 07:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

So? One can often make sentences shorter by leaving parts out. "Story currently closed" doesn't have a finite verb, either... —Nightstallion (?) 09:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I would say, the sentence violates the basic rules of semantics. I consider this an important point to note for anyone, or are you targetting in changing semantic rules? --Alexander.stohr 16:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] stripped parts

 +==Variations== 
 + A Google search from summer 2006 reveals this: 
 + * This page has been intentionally left blank: abt. 70.000 hits 
 + * This page is intentionally left blank: abt. 500.000 hits 
 + * This page intentionally left blank: abt. 1.690.000 hits 
 + * intentionally left blank: abt. 3.820.000 hits 
 + Other variations might exist. 
 +  
 + ==Substitutes== 

Without discussion those paragraphs were removed. As a reason it was stated that this contribution has no source and is irrelevant. I would call it valid statistics data about the current real world usage of the phrases in questions and further a listing of the forms those phrase is used. For me Wikipedia is always a melting pot where quality meets information. You cant reach quality of an article without getting all major parts of information on the topic. Documenting nowadays use of some wording is as essential as e.g. listing the number of inhabitants for New York. --Alexander.stohr 16:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• It's original research. Find a reliable source that lists this data. That's how content is added to articles. I would still argue that this content is irrelevant. We don't list Google searches in other Wikipedia articles. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-20 17:55

Hey on 7chan http://img.7chan.org/i/res/22876.html people link to this page and say "It's not actually blank. Fix it /i/." So keep watch for vandalism. Anomo 23:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tristram Shandy

The novel Tristram Shandy by Laurence Sterne might have been the first sample of intentionally blank pages used for humor. There are two variations on it, IIRC (don't have the book at hand); a sequence of blank and black pages, and later on a gap in the page numbering, followed by an explanation of why the previous several pages had to be omitted. --Jim Henry 19:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)