Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:54, 15 May 2013

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

Welcome!

Hello, Apteva, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! - Darwinek (talk) 08:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Emigrate/immigrate

The easy way to remember it is that one emigrates to a country and immigrates from a country. If you move from the United States to Australia, then you have emigrated to Austrailia and immigrated from the United States. ;) --76.189.109.155 (talk) 01:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Please check any dictionary. Mine says the opposite. Emigrate means leave, immigrate means arrive. The United States has a Department of Immigration (INS), and an immigration policy. Apteva (talk) 01:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

You are confusing yourself, my friend. Yes, when one leaves a country, they are therefore moving TO another country, which is emigrating. And when one arrives in that new country, they have immigrated FROM the original country. As an example, if you are planning on moving from Poland to another country, one would ask you, "Apteva, where are you emigrating to?" You would say, "I'm emigrating to the United States" Conversely, when you arrive in the United States, one might ask, "Apteva, where did you immigrate from?" You would say, "I immigrated from Poland." Or simply, "I'm a Polish immigrant." Get it? Again, the very simple rule is: you emigrate TO a country and immigrate FROM a country. I teach college history. Have a great evening. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 01:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I think your confusion is simply with the words leave and arive. The words leave and to go together. The words arrrive and from go together. So, you LEAVE a country to go TO another country (emigrate). And you ARRIVE in a new country FROM another country (immigrate). So when you've settled in your new country, you have immigrated from your orignal country. That's the best I can do to help you on this. :) --76.189.109.155 (talk) 02:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• I think 76.189.109.155 is confusing the matter. Apteva is right. It is a question of perspective. Someone moves from the US to Australia. From the US, they are consider emigrants, they left. From Australia, they are considered immigrants, they arrived. For the person in transit, it can be ambiguous. For this and other reasons, such as the ease of international relocation, many prefer to use "migrant" over either of "immigrant" and "emigrant" where the more precise word is not required. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:19, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

IP has reversed now the meaning, and will hopefully eventually figure out how to use the two words (or one of them) in the Barbara Walters article. Migrant workers can just be itinerant and not just immigrants.

"Synonym Study

. Migrate, emigrate, immigrate are used of changing one's abode from one country or part of a country to another. To migrate is to make such a move either once or repeatedly: to migrate from Ireland to the United States. To emigrate is to leave a country, usually one's own (and take up residence in another): Each year many people emigrate from Europe. To immigrate is to enter and settle in a country not one's own: There are many inducements to immigrate to South America. Migrate is applied both to people or to animals that move from one region to another, especially periodically; the other terms are generally applied to movements of people." Apteva (talk) 02:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Smokey, you are saying precisely what I said. You said, "Someone moves from the US to Australia. From the US, they are consider emigrants, they left." Yes, that's exactly what I said. When you emigrate, you leave. Therefore, you are moving TO another country. Then you said, "From Australia, they are considered immigrants, they arrived." Again... yes, that's exactly what I said. When they arrived, they are immigrants from the United States. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 02:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Apteva, you are confusing yourself again. Yes, people emigrate from various places but it must be TO somwhere else. So, when you say "many people emigrate from Europe", it is incomplete. It would be correct when you say, "Many people emigrate from Europe TO the United States" (or some other country). It is the "to" part that qualifies it as emigration. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 02:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

An immigrant arriving in Australia from the United States is someone who has emigrated from the United States to Australia, just like "Isaac Abrahams, was born in Łódź, Poland (at this time a part of Prussia), and immigrated to England", emigrating from Poland. The article is not even GA status, so the writing is not expected to be as brilliant as our FA articles. There is a famous New Yorker cartoon (I wish I could find it) that shows a hen pecked husband pointing to an entry in a giant dictionary on a stand and his domineering wife snottily says, "well, that's one man's opinion" (referring to the venerable Merriam Webster). Apteva (talk) 02:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Walters' grandfather emigrated from Poland TO England. The key is where he moved TO, thus completing the emigration cycle. Once in England, he was a Polish immigrant. I suggest you take take this 20-question quiz, which is similar to one I have used with my students. In each question click on the word you think is correct, then click on the "Score" button when you're done. Good luck. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 02:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Just for giggles Please compare the syntax of questions 11, 12, 14, and 19 with the quoted sentence from the article which is as it was before it was "corrected", and kindly revert unless all of them also use "emigrated". Does the article say emigrated from Poland to England? No, it says born in Poland and immigrated to England. Polish immigrants are people from Poland who immigrated to one specific country. Polish emigrants are people from Poland who left Poland, to many countries. Apteva (talk) 03:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Apparently, you didn't learn from the quiz. The Walter's article says her grandfather "was born in Łódź, Poland (at this time a part of Prussia), and emigrated to England", which is absolutely correct. In other words, it's saying he emigrated from Poland TO England, or, conversely, he emigrated to England FROM Poland. Either way, the emigration cycle was established by the move TO England. Care to share your score on the quiz? Keep in mind that I'm very familiar with the average score ranges on a quiz like this the first time someone takes it. I've been giving a similar one for many years and it never changes. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 03:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

(no, you had it right the first time, I did not take the test, I read it through to see if their answers were right) Here are questions 12 and 13:

12. My forefathers immigrated to the United States.

13. Did your ancesters emigrate from Holland?

Now lets do some substitutions.

12. Walters' grandfather was born in Łódź, Poland (at this time a part of Prussia), and immigrated to England

13. Born in Łódź (at this time a part of Prussia), Walters' grandfather emigrated from Poland, to England

Both of those are fine, and the article can be corrected any time. If it was GA I would do it myself, and if was FA, it long ago would have been corrected. Apteva (talk) 03:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Your admission of not even taking the quiz tells the entire story. You said, "I read it through to see if their answers were right". Actually, that's impossible without first answering the questions. If you were so confident in your understanding of this issue, you would've tested your knowledge and admitted your score. You should not be afraid of learning. Education is a gift. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 04:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

There are question marks at the left of each question. It really does not matter if I got none or all of them correct. What does matter is the article needs to use correct grammar, and emigrated to England is incorrect, if one is to believe the answer to question 12. It also is not particularly a good idea to either overly praise or at all berate any editor for their education and knowledge. It takes all of us working together, with the skills that each of us has, to build this encyclopedia. Apteva (talk) 05:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

No one has berated you, but you are welcome to quote me on anything you feel supports that allegation. The sentence's grammar is fine. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 06:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I see now the trickiness. Language develops by its speakers in theri environmental context. Environmental context determines whether the relocation was emigration or immigration. Misplaced Pages seeks to write in a global perspective, unless the article is associated with somewhere. In an article on England, all the arrivals will be immigrants. From a global perspective, Europeans emigrated from Europe to immigrate to the New World. While on the Atlantic, they had emigrated, but had not yet immigrated.

"Walters' paternal grandfather, Isaac Abrahams, was born in Łódź, Poland (at this time a part of Prussia), and emigrated to England, changing his name to Abraham Walters" is correct because the sequential context of the sentence, the location is Poland when emigration is mentioned.

An alternative sentence that would use immigrated instead of emigrated could be: "Walters' paternal grandfather, Isaac Abrahams, was not born in England, but immigrated to England, changing his name to Abraham Walters".

In Australia, where emigrants from many nations immigrate, and few Australians have four native-born grandparents, it is normal to prefer the use of "migrate", of migrating migrants, but with usage restricted to when they are in, or chronologically close to, the act of migration. If they become nationalised, they are no longer immigrants, but Australians. If they do not become nationalised or start the process, they remain migrants with the default assumption that they will leave again.

In the US, the social designation of immigrant is longer lasting. Unless the immigrant emigrated from Canada. There are racial-economic subtexts. New Zealanders don't migrate to Australia either.

I scored 17/20, and attribute my three mistakes towards the end to the tediousness of the quiz. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe, you stated it beautifully by alluding to the "sequential context of the sentence". That's precisely the point with this particular sentence. And great job on your score! My students do not typically do nearly that well the first time. And they are not allowed to use "tediousness" as an excuse for any incorrect answers... haha. :) 76.189.109.155 (talk) 06:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

It would either have to not mention England, or say emigrated from Poland to be correct. Since it says to England, it needs to say immigrated, because otherwise to England is left out in the cold with nothing to attach to. Another way to fix it is to add another comma: "Walters' paternal grandfather, Isaac Abrahams, was born in Łódź, Poland (at this time a part of Prussia), and emigrated, to England, changing his name to Abraham Walters", but that is even worse writing, although it is proper grammar. "Walters' paternal grandfather, Isaac Abrahams, was born in Łódź, Poland (at this time a part of Prussia), and immigrated to England, changing his name to Abraham Walters" is the one that is correct. See questions 12 and 13 above, which compare immigrated to with emigrated from. The problem with analyzing anything too greatly is that it becomes a case of the more you know the less you know – the answers that seemed simple start looking complex, whether they are or not. Apteva (talk) 06:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

"The more you know the less you know" is definitely not a convincing argument, particularly when you're speaking to an eductator. ;) 76.189.109.155 (talk) 06:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Questions 15 and 16 demonstrate that "sequential context" is not a factor.

15. In the mid-1800's, some immigrants from eastern states settled in the west.

16. In the late 1800's some immigrants from Northern Europe settled directly in the mid-west.

A useful way of checking for the proper grammar is to use a sentence diagram. My guess is that few to none of the college freshmen today have ever learned this technique. Apteva (talk) 06:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Exactly! "Immigrants from". There you go. Read the very first sentence of this thread. ;) I think SmokeyJoe and I have said enough. Perhaps you'd be better off contributing to more substantial content in mulitple articles instead of obsessing about one word in one article. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 06:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The first sentence is blatantly wrong and completely violates the dictionary definitions of immigrate and emigrate, which are the exact opposite of how that sentence uses them. Misplaced Pages has no reason to make up definitions of words. Here is what the dictionary says. "Immigrate: to come to a country of which one is not a native, usually for permanent residence." "Emigrate: to leave one country or region to settle in another." It is really mind boggling that anyone would argue for five hours about the words in and out, and which to use. Apteva (talk) 07:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I think the most suitable option would be to look at professionally published sources to see if the following context is used: born in (country x) and emigrated to (country y). For example, if you look at this source from PBS, "He was Scottish-born and emigrated to New York", or Jewish Business News "born in Poland and emigrated to England", or "Like the Tsarnaev brothers, she was born in this part of the world and emigrated to Boston as a child" in the The Moscow Times. That said, it appears to be grammatically correct despite the logical anomaly. In further consideration, it appears to be much more common to say "immigrated to" by more sources. Such as Politicker "born in Greece and immigrated to the the U.S.", or Toronto Star "born in Russia but immigrated to Toronto", or "born in South Carolina to two Indian parents who immigrated to the U.S. from Punjab" MSNBC. Anyway just a thought. I only came here to check on Apteva since he mentioned a controversial move and I wanted to check if he meant 2013 Cleveland, Ohio, missing trio. Cheers, Mkdw 07:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and do the editor who pre-closed it a favor by asking them if they want to be an admin. I thought years ago that they already were. But that is "he or she" thank you. Apteva (talk) 07:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

As Mkdw stated, the current sentence is indeed grammatically correct. For further simplification, I'd refer Apteva to Merriman-Webster's definition of "emigrate", which says, "to leave one's place of residence or country to live elsewhere <emigrated from Canada to the United States>". It's about the process of moving TO another place. Obviously, if you're moving TO somewhere, you must come FROM somewhere. So as has been explained to you, emigration is the process of leaving one country and moving TO another. In Webster's example, the emigration is from Canada TO the United States. To apply this to Barbara Walters' grandfather, he emigrated from Poland TO England. Now, we move to the sentence in the Walters article. It says he "was born in Łódź, Poland (at this time a part of Prussia), and emigrated to England"; therefore, the inclusion of him being "born in" Poland as a preface is equivalent to saying that he was "from" Poland. Get it? Now that the sentence has established where he moved from, all we're missing is to establish his emigration destination. It is England. The result: he was born in (or, synonymously, was "from") Poland and emigrated to England. Therefore, the sentence is correct. It's perfectly aligned with the Webster's definition. So, where Webster's definition says "<emigrated from Canada to the United States>", if you simply remove "from Canada" then you are left with "emigrated to the United States", which is of course what cements the process. As another example, Arnold Schwarzengger emigrated from Austria to the United States. Therefore, he is an Austrian immigrant. He immigrated from Austria and emigrated to the United States. Once he arrived in the U.S., he was an immigrant of the United States; an immigrant from Austria. Further, he is among hundreds Austrian emigrants to the United States that have WP articles. There are also about 200 other "Emigrants to (country)" categories. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 08:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

As an aside, there are many examples of common mistakes. In fact that is why we call them "common mistakes". But it is a fact that every emigrant is both an immigrant and an emigrant. They emigrate from somewhere and immigrate to somewhere else. The word emigrate is more commonly used than immigrate. Immigrate is rarely used, but immigrant is since 1900 far more common than emigrant. Apteva (talk) 08:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

That thread about me at AN/I

I won't say it on that page, but it's getting very frustrating watching wanting to prove that all his troubles are my fault. As far as I can tell, nothing I did before he reported me was wrong. I did become firm in insisting that he was wrong about WP:BLP, which he was. I don't believe anything I said was a personal attack.

It seems that because I was the one reported, even though no finding was made against me and there was a finding against my accuser, I'm still seen as somehow guilty here.

In my mind is behaving in a vexatious and malicious way. I should not have to be defending myself against his crap. How much more is he allowed to complain about me? HiLo48 (talk) 09:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Two wrongs do not make a right. You are correct that a lot of, and I have stricken the editors username, because another thing that is forbidden is talking about someone behind their back. But a lot of their edits (not saying who it might be) are less than ideal for a BLP. But I believe that issue has already been addressed in an appropriate forum. Apteva (talk) 09:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I'm learning a lot of rules here. That's good. But can't you see that that particular editor appears to have it in for me? He is wasting your time, my time, and probably yours. Is he allowed to keep bring my behaviour to AN/I, when it's his that is unacceptable? HiLo48 (talk) 09:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Life is nothing but a learning experience. WP has no rules, though, and one of the rules is to ignore all rules, if it benefits the encyclopedia. But yes the policies and guidelines are thought of as rules. Anyone can bring anything to ANI, and will most often be dismissed quickly, or even result in sanctioning the party who brought the complaint if it is without merit. All of us are here for one purpose only, to improve the encyclopedia. It is important to keep that foremost in mind. Apteva (talk) 20:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Yup. Would you mind pointing that out to the editor who just posted this ? I don't want any more confrontation. HiLo48 (talk) 00:22, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

This is obviously relevant. HiLo48 (talk) 00:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

AE request result

Per this discussion at WP:AE, your existing topic ban is modified to read as follows:

• Apteva is topic banned indefinitely from modifying or discussing the use of dashes, hyphens, or similar types of punctuation, broadly construed, including but not limited to at the manual of style and any requested move discussion, and from advocating against the MOS being applicable to article titles.

Given that the administrator who imposed the original sanction is not currently active, I have also set a value of six months for the "reasonable amount of time" required before appealing the original sanction. You are therefore permitted to appeal the original sanction (including the above modification) at WP:AN at any time after 11:40 9 July 2013 UTC and at intervals of six months or more thereafter.

You may appeal the above using the process described at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Appeal. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal. If you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Thank you, Gatoclass (talk) 11:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Can I say that the above addition is absurd, meaningless, and without merit? Apteva (talk) 20:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

your Shanti Swarup Bhatnagar Awards

I notice that you have added yourself to a number of categories so that you appear to be a recipient of Shanti Swarup Bhatnagar Awards in many different spheres such as Biological Science, Engineering Science and four others. Could you explain how this is appropriate or remove yourself? NebY (talk) 11:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

There can be no valid reason for a user to add themself to any of those categories. Perhaps Apteva incorrectly believes that it's an allowable joke, based on them being added as part of "Amusing edits". In any case, they should be removed immediately. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 15:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for pointing that out. Apteva (talk) 18:10, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Canvassing