Talk:Taylor Business Institute

What is wrong with "is presently"?

When used with the present tense of a verb, “presently” is almost always unnecessary since the present tense tells us what the present condition is of something. We can just let the present tense of the verb do its job without adding a redundant “presently”. There are times when clarification can be useful when contrasting current conditions with past or future conditions. In these cases, “is now” is better because it is shorter and simpler.

For example:

The restaurant will be open tomorrow morning, but it is closed now.

I was feeling sick this afternoon, but I’m all right now.

In these cases, the present tense on its own isn’t really enough because the reader has just received contradictory information. Adding “now” provide the emphasis to make the situation clear.

In Wikipedia, however, what may be "now" for the writer (e.g., 2013) will not be "now" for the reader if the article is not updated every year. It is better to use {{As of|year}}, {{As of|year|month}} or {{As of|year|month|day}}, which mark potentially dated statements, and will add an article to the appropriate hidden sub-category of Category:Articles containing potentially dated statements.

Furthermore, “presently” has traditionally meant “soon” or "imminently", although many people are now using it to mean "now". Will your reader know which meaning you intend? Or could it be confusing? For this reason, it is best to avoid "presently". Ground Zero | t 22:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Gabby Merger reverted my edits (instead of discussing them on the talk page), and made the following comment:

"the reason for the "presently" is because of the point that it was NOT ALWAYS THERE but was originally in New York, and also MAY NOT FOREVER be in Chicago... Reason for the wording, as I said...per historical context etc...."

Does this mean that from the first sentence, "Taylor Business Institute is a private for-profit business college in Illinois, that teaches general education, professional skills in coursework, offering associate of applied science degrees, professional diplomas, and certificates" means that TBI will always be a private, for-profit business college and that it will always teach general education and professional skills, etc.? Of course not. It could changes its legal status. It could close. It could change what it teaches. We do not need to add "presently" before "is a private" and before "teaches general education". That would make the text leaden. This is not a good writing style, and it is not necessary.

The issue of its previous New York location is clearly identified in the first paragraph of the article -- there is no ambiguity here, so its present location does not need qualification.

The notion that the present tense is used to identify or imply an eternal and unchanging condition is an incorrect understanding of the present tense. Is there any difference between these pairs of sentences?

Barack Obama is presently president of the United States.

Barack Obama is president of the United States.

The Burj Khalifa is presently the tallest building in the world.

The Burj Khalifa is the tallest building in the world.

Moscow is presently the capital of Russia.

Moscow is the capital of Russia.

The second sentence in each pair means the same thing as the first sentence, but it is shorter and simpler. No-one would think that those are permanent conditions. The same is true of the sentences above; Barack Obama is not the eternal president of the United States – he is limited by both the US Constitution and his own mortality. The Kingdom Tower is under construction. If it is completed according to plans in 2019, it will be taller than the Burj Khalifa. Moscow has not always been or may not always be the capital of Russia.

It is called the present tense, not the "permanent tense" for a reason. These sentences aren’t ambiguous, are they?

I am sick.

It is raining.

He is naked.

No one would conclude that I have always been and always will be sick and naked, or that rain is a permanent condition because I do not live in Vancouver or Seattle. I have enough sense to put clothes on when I am sick at it is raining.

I hope that clears things up for you. Ground Zero | t 01:48, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

?? Not sure why you're doing this over something so minor. First off, your comment on my page. You said that I did not address your point, in my edit...which is simply not true. I DID address your point. You just don't see it that way. I left a comment in the edit revert, as to why the word "presently" should be left...because of historical context. How is that "not addressing your point"? Don't lie, and claim "edit warring". I addressed your point, and I gave reasons. YOU are edit-warring also, if that's the case.

Number two: The reason (as I already stated) for the wording of "presently" is because of the point that it was NOT ALWAYS THERE but was originally in New York, and also MAY NOT FOREVER be in Chicago... Reason for the wording, as I said...per historical context etc..... (And also, not just "historical context", but in the context of the very next sentence in the paragraph: "The New York location being closed down in 2006 because of so and so" etc.

What part of any of that is so hard to accept or go along with or respect? Again, this is minor, and does not really warrant all this what to do, sir. Really. I appreciate your concern, but the "presently" is for the reasons I gave, despite your long drawn out stuff about "present tense" rules.

The Barack Obama is presently the president is NOT the same context as the Taylor Business Institute situation, where IT MAY NOT BE in Chicago forever, and given that it was actually in NEW YORK ONLY, before it got shut down in late 2006. It's not necessarily a stable situation with the location, given its history. Why is that not something you're understanding? I addressed your point in my revert, and I'm addressing it more now. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 04:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

The first time you reverted my deletion of "presently", your edit summary stated "reason for that wording...", which does not in any way address my point. So I provided a detailed explanation on the talk page. You reverted again providing a terse comment in the edit summary ("the reason for the "presently" is because of the point that it was NOT ALWAYS THERE but was originally in New York, and also MAY NOT FOREVER be in Chicago... Reason for the wording, as I said...per historical context etc....."), rather than addressing my comments on the talk page. Because you edit summary did not address my comments on the talk page, I concluded that you had not read my talk page comments. It is not just that we disagree, it is that you are dismissing my points without addressing them, suggesting to me that you think that you have more of a say in writing this article than I do.

Here are comments that you did not address: 1. "Presently" is a word with disputed meaning (see [1]) so it could be confusing. Some people use it to mean "now", other use it to mean "imminently". Why use an ambiguous word?

2. I asked whether, in your view, the article is saying that TBI will always be a private, for-profit business college and that it will always teach general education and professional skills, etc., because you have not added "presently" in front of the present tense. You haven't addressed this either.

As far as your number two above, I think you still don't understand what the present tense is used for in English. It does not indicate a permanent condition. I suggest that you review Present tense and [2]. Ground Zero | t 12:58, 25 August 2014 (UTC)