Humanities desk
< July 25	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 27 >

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 26

history of the current european immigration laws.

Please do not publicize my Ip. I am a contributor to Wikipedia and probably have an account. My questions is this: how do I go about finding info in Wikipedia as to the history of the current European countries immigration laws?

Thank you,

Ilona Proska

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:243:1:9385:6040:9d25:aaed:dc37 (talk • contribs)

To clarify the message you were shown before posting without logging in:

"You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits."

If you have an account but post without logging in, your IP address is automatically logged. See WP:IP.

If ypu need help to recover your password &/or username, check Help:Reset_password

On your question, try Immigration law. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 04:54, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is Wikipedia English or American?

I know the language of Wikipedia is supposed to be British-English, not American-English. My question is not about language, it is about, how should I put it, which mentality, which way of thinking, which standards. Thanks. Akseli9 (talk) 11:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confusingly and irritatingly, it is both, depending on the article subject and/or who originally wrote it. See WP:ENGVAR. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:39, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who says "the language of Wikipedia is supposed to be British-English, not American-English"....? "The English Wikipedia prefers no major national variety of the language over any other." Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:42, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

... and the fundamental standards of Wikipedia are the five pillars. I don't think these are particularly British or American. How could you tell ? Gandalf61 (talk) 11:56, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian English exists too, eh? InedibleHulk (talk) 06:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Debatable.

General Ization ^Talk 19:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In some respects, it's actually French. The "Wikipedia mentality" (openness, collaboration, pursuit of knowledge, objectivism, the view that the common people can contribute, etc.) derives in large part from Enlightenment philosophy, which comes from all across Western Europe, but it often identified most closely with French thinkers. More directly, it stems from similar views as the open-source movement and free software movement (both worldwide, but associated with American "founders") - but applied to knowledge, rather than software. Even more directly, Wikipedia was created in America by Americans (Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger), but with the intent of a global reach. -- 160.129.138.186 (talk) 17:45, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

American neutrality or common mistake?

Thank you all for your useful comments and links. As I said, my question was not about the language and British-English (thanks again for the links). I have a question about the article July 24, and in general, about the way we should handle notable people's place of birth, nationality, and appurtenance (where people belong, where people feel they belong). In such article as the July 24 article, I can find many examples of what I would call a typically American way of thinking people's nationality, people's appurtenance. My question is, is it just a mistake by one random contributor, or is it more about an American logics of assigning nationalities and appurtenances?

There would then be a subsidiary question about the choice of forgetting "West-" and keeping only "German", for people whose notability exists only within the cold war period when there were two distinct Germanies. Makes me recall also the Yugoslavian example, which is sometimes wrongly replaced by "Slovenian" or "Serbian" or such.

Thanks. Akseli9 (talk) 09:10, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry Akseli9, I don't understand the question. Specifically: I don't know what you mean by "American" or "British" mentalities or standards. What is a "typically American way of thinking people's nationality, people's appurtenance", and which ones do you think might be "mistakes"? Iapetus (talk) 12:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for being so unable to make myself clearer. With the help of your focussed questions we shall eventually reach the point. I think a "typically American way of thinking people's nationality, people's appurtenance", is to view it the way they view it in American countries (especially the US but I'm thinking also of Brasil). In such article as the July 24 article, you find a list of people who sometimes are just "American", and sometimes can be "South-African American", or "Polish-American", etc. You find also some Germans who according to precedent contributor was not German but "West-German". You find also that interesting case of a French who was born in French Algeria (before 1962, thus not in Algeria), who according to some contributors, becomes an "Algerian-French" or an "Algerian-born". My focussing on American logics comes from the fact that American culture is so omnipresent in our very lives and indeed thoughts, I was wondering if this way of assigning nationalities to people, was perhaps coming from this constant americanization of ours? One obvious mistake in the July 24 article or in her own article, was to consider French alpinist Catherine Destivelle as an "Algerian-born" or as an "Algerian-French", but I'm wondering whether there could be a lot of similar mistakes in the entire encyclopedy? Akseli9 (talk) 12:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please give an example or two of where someone is described as "American" and you think it is a mistake. Regarding your example, it is not a "mistake" to describe someone as French-Algerian rather than French. This is a matter of opinion and Wikipedia style, and it is not as clear-cut as you seem to believe it is. Furthermore, you seem to think that describing someone's nationality in a particular way is somehow a distinctively American thing to do, which is also incorrect. --Viennese Waltz 12:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the July 24 article, Robert Graves is described as an English-Spanish. In the same article, Ed Mirvish is considered an American-Canadian. These two examples are just two quick picks I could pick at first glance. Please tell me (no irony here I just would like to understand) how is it not a mistake? What makes Robert Graves a Spaniard? The fact that he spent his last years and died in Spain? What makes Ed Mirvish an American? Just because he was born in the US? But more on topic of my original questions, how can it be that unimportant to misassign a nationality to someone? Akseli9 (talk) 13:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about Graves, but Ed Mirvish states that he was born in the US, the son of Jewish immigrants from Lithuania and Austria, and moved to Canada when he was nine. So what do you think that makes him? He could be described as American, Canadian, Lithuanian-Austrian or any combination of those, and (this is the point) they would all be correct. Calling him "American-Canadian" is not "misassigning his nationality". You seem to think this stuff is black-and-white, when it clearly is not. --Viennese Waltz 13:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I understand your point, now please try to understand my question: Isn't it so American to think this stuff can be left loose and to think it can so easily cope with mistakes and approximations? Akseli9 (talk) 14:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your question proceeds from a misapprehension, that describing someone's nationality in a particular way is a mistake, loose or approximate. As to whether describing someone's nationality in a particular way is a distinctively American thing, no it is not. Going back to your original point about the supposed cultural bias of Wikipedia on this matter, bear in mind that the description of people's nationalities in these articles is the result of an edit made by a single contributor, which can always be amended or reverted by another contributor. Those contributors come from all over the world, and there is no evidence that nationalities are described in response to any particular cultural viewpoint. --Viennese Waltz 14:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, if I understand correctly all you said, you wouldn't mind if someone corrected Robert Graves' line and took away his qualification as a Spaniard, making him a mere English author, poet, and scholar, not Spanish anymore? You would think that the matter is not as clear-cut as you would need to revert such edit, right? Akseli9 (talk) 16:04, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But things may work differently if the revert is by another user. You should be able to build upon this nonetheless if you want to argue Graves as a British expatriate rather than as an dual citizen, the former is how he's viewed regarding that matter, by The Guardian. Not a one-off either regarding Graves, from the Guardian [1]. --Askedonty (talk) 18:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whether Wikipedia's article describes Graves as English or English/Spanish is a matter for debate on that article's talk page and by reference to any policy or guideline on the matter. According to this site he lived in Spain from the age of 34 onwards. Does that make it wrong to describe him as Spanish? No, because there is no right and wrong in this matter. You think it's wrong to describe him as English-Spanish because he wasn't born in Spain, yet you also think it is wrong for Ed Mirvish to be described as American-Canadian even though he wasn't born in Canada. Make up your mind. --Viennese Waltz 19:36, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is not the slighest doubt in my mind that Robert Graves is English (or British) and that he is not Spanish. There is not the slighest doubt in my mind that Ed Mirvish is not American, not Austrian, not Lithuanian, that Ed Mirvish is Canadian. The doubt in my mind is that I believe people who see that stuff your way are Americans, not Europeans. About this I'm not so sure, thus my original questions. Akseli9 (talk) 19:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A person can be English by nationality, British by citizenship, Spanish by residence, French by adoption, and a citizen of the world by common consent. It all depends on what exactly you're talking about. Also, saying that someone is "Spanish" (by whichever of the preceding measures may apply) is not the same as saying they are "a Spaniard". I think there's more than a subtle difference between those words. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:06, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By that argument, Douglas Jardine was an Indian cricketer, and Rudyard Kipling was an Indian poet. Hmmm... Tevildo (talk) 21:27, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And J. M. Coetzee is an Australian Nobel Prize-winning novelist, and Albert Einstein was an American scientist. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm British, not American, so there you go. --Viennese Waltz 20:08, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Graves change was made about a year ago, by a still-active account.[2] You could ask him why he made the change. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:08, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On Wiki voyage American English is wholeheartedly rejected. Only "british-English" is allowed. Void burn (talk) 23:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another reason to avoid it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and one could ask also why it doesn't seem to bother that the two articles are inconsistent. Akseli9 (talk) 03:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It clearly bothers you, so I recommend you talk to the editor who made the change a year ago and ask him why. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My question was not about one single example that I quickly picked out of a long list. My question was about how should we handle nationalities in general in this Encyclopedia. Akseli9 (talk) 07:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And as I've already said, that is a matter of Wikipedia style, policy and guidance. The only guidance I've found on the matter is in WP:MOSBIO: "In most modern-day cases this [i.e. the given nationality] will mean the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable." You're welcome to apply this guidance to any article on Wikipedia. You might wish to discuss any changes you wish to make on the article's talk page before doing so, although this is not mandatory and you might encounter resistance. That's how this encyclopedia is made. --Viennese Waltz 07:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Einstein long cat quote

"You see, wire telegraph is a kind of a very, very long cat. You pull his tail in New York and his head is meowing in Los Angeles. Do you understand this? And radio operates exactly the same way: you send signals here, they receive them there. The only difference is that there is no cat." -Albert Einstein [3][4]

Did Einstein really say this? If so, is there an authoritative source proving it?

I have a feeling this is a recently invented quote that's mis-attributed to him, since it sounds suspiciously like the the mash-up of two memes: longcat and series of tubes. My other car is a cadr (talk) 12:08, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[5] gives an anteceding quote a date of 1866. Result: Not Einstein. Collect (talk) 12:29, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.My other car is a cadr (talk) 14:14, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Not so fast! The 1866 version was only about the telegraph, not radio. The punch line that with radio "the dog is imaginary" was not added, according to the source Collect cited, until 1917. Of course that doesn't mean that Einstein said it; but it does mean that we can't rule it out on the grounds of the date alone: his career as a physicist was well established by then. However, according to the same source, the 1917 version was originally rendered in "heavy dialect", and Einstein's name was not mentioned in connection with it or with a 1924 version that's close to the one we were asked about. I'd say that makes it extremely unlikely that it was him. --65.94.50.73 (talk) 21:00, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not in The New Quotable Einstein. That doesn't prove he didn't say it, and not everything he ever said is in there, but it's the sort of quote likely to get a guernsey if it were authentic. (The internet has spawned a whole new industry of misattributed quotations, some of which are patently absurd and obviously made up, but which then get copied as gospel truth and enter the belief systems of people who don't know any better, who often then strenuously defend the veracity of the attributions because first impressions last.) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:38, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Schrödinger: "Hold on there, Albie. Maybe there's a cat, and maybe there isn't. Did you look?" Clarityfiend (talk) 22:34, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]