Talk:Immigration to the United States/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Requested move 27 October 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus for any sort of mass-renaming on these topics. Jenks24 (talk) 01:33, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

---

• Immigration to the United States → Migration to the United States
• Emigration from the United States → Migration from the United States
• Immigration_to_Canada → Migration to Canada
• Immigration to Mexico → Migration to Mexico
• Emigration from Mexico → Migration from Mexico
• European emigration → Migration from Europe
• Immigration to Europe → Migration to Europe

– WP:NPOVTITLE with regards the reader's location, per WP:WORLDWIDE LeadSongDog come howl! 22:27, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Obviously, there are many other pages in the same pattern, these are just examples. LeadSongDog come howl! 22:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support per WP:CONCISE (which I find more compelling than the NPOV argument), and as an aid to non-native English speakers who may not be clear on the emigrate/immigrate distinction (hell, plenty of native speakers are not). As long as "to" or "from" is in the title, the prefix attached to "migration" is unneeded.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  04:39, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support per SMcCandlish's WP:CONCISE argument. As noted, 'to' and 'from' is a simple and intuitive method for readers to establish who has moved where (...and, yes, I'll stop before this starts to sound more and more like an episode of "Get Smart"). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:00, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
• These appear to be correct uses of the terms. People immigrate to countries and emigrate from countries. "Migration" more often applies to the internal or periodic movements of people or animals and is better used for articles like Migration in China or Migration in Japan, which states "This article focuses on internal migration as well as migration from and to Japan", or for articles like bird migration. Station1 (talk) 05:52, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I would suggest that "Migration within China" and "Migration within Japan" are far more intuitive than the current WP:TITLEs. Migration is used as both a geographical and sociological descriptor for human movement across nation-state borders, and is certainly not a term proscribed exclusively to other fauna. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 19:55, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
• We need to keep the standard, established and official terms used:Immigration and Emigration.Immigrant and Emigrant. This is the USA, we speak American English here. The terms immigration and emigration are accepted but others are not, in official AND common parlance. So the use of other terms is what will confuse matters. Why would we use less-descriptive terms that are not specific? Immigration means something specific (in-migration of a permanent nature) and emigration means something specific (out-migration ). We do not need to degrade or change our language used in order to cater to those who are not proficient in our language. We should use our LANGUAGE as it is properly used.

The term "migrant" in Brit english has a different meaning than in the US. In American english, a migrant is a person who moves around inside the usa. For instance, a migrant worker is one who moves around to follow the crops or a seasonal type job. IT DOES NOT REFER TO FOREIGNERS PER SE. It used to be mostly Americans doing this MIGRANT work, they moved and "migrated" over the crop season to follow the fruit as it ripened, etc. SO KEEP THE AMERICAN ENGLISH TERMS or you will be trying to IMPOSE British english onto American language and subject matter, on an American wikipedia page. NO good reason to do that. Not justifiable in any way.We cannot allow the illiterate to confuse languages on a wiki article.

INSTEAD, you could just redirect/ link the term "migration" to the proper titled article on "Immigration" pertaining to the usa, in American english. Or something to that effect.

• IMMIGRANT https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/immigrant
• MIGRANT https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/migrant

Meat Eating Orchid (talk) 06:28, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

"This is the USA, we speak American English here"? Really? Have you even read wp:WORLDWIDE? LeadSongDog come howl! 19:31, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. The proposed titles make the topics less clear while only saving one or two letters in the title. Migration is also less common than immigration for such topics. I don't even understand the NPOV argument. —  AjaxSmack  01:53, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

To clarify then, the terms "immigration" and "emigration" assume that the writer and reader are in the same place. "Migration" is neutral because it avoids that assumption.LeadSongDog come howl! 19:20, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• • Actually, having checked over a few other examples, there seems to be confusion and a lack of any standard pattern for the usage of 'migration' and 'immigration' for ancient historical human migration and the concept of 'emigrants' and recent 'immigration'. As an example, see Immigration to Australia (where Australian immigration policies was merged), and Immigration history of Australia. The rationale behind that move was that the White Australia Policy was, at that time (2013), deemed to be unimportant enough to merit an article of its own (I beg your pardon, but nothing could be further from the historical truth). There appears to be a conflation of disparate subject matter being applied to articles. 'Out of Africa' migration routes and recent history, the formation of nation-states that adopted legislation surrounding entry into that country/nation-state are not one and the same thing. I'm finding the principles being applied less and less intuitive as I delve in. The standard seems to be whatever two or three editors paying attention to an article/series of articles at any one moment in time to be the only rule of thumb. Does anyone have suggestions as to how to apply WP:COMMONSENSE to this issue? Ancient human migration, sociology, politics, etc. are not conducive to 'one rule fits all'. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:53, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
    • "Immigration" and "emigration" are really legal terms; they're not properly used in absence of a jurisdiction with border controls, so they don't apply historically past a certain point (which varies by location).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  01:26, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per AjaxSmack and Meat Eating Orchid. The proposed titles are more difficult to parse, and less natural. As a non-native English speaker, I'm not confused with them in the slightest, and the proposed rationale would be maybe appropriate for simple:, but not here. No such user (talk) 18:54, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
• Strong oppose articles are about destination country .....as per normal usage.--Moxy (talk) 04:24, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose blanket nomination. Immigration/emigration is the modern method of moving between political jurisdictions. "Migration" as a term is evocative of prehistorical or pre-nation/state movements of humans, such as migration to between the continents (Africa to Europe, Asia to the Americas). -- Netoholic @ 08:12, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose not needed. Non-native English speakers are not helped by oversimplification of standard terms --if they are unaware of "immigration" and "emigration" they should consult their dictionary. Rjensen (talk) 08:21, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Proposed titles are more confusing and inappropriately broaden the scope. Migration seems to imply any type of migration, including ancient migrations. Immigration and emigration are common enough terms. However I would support creating redirects such as Emigration to the United States, which exists or Immigration from the United States, which doesn't, which would help address the location bias issue.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:14, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Immigration to the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://druid8.sit.aau.dk/druid/acc_papers/ddc0o0tvadau53k1v2ljajs07a0x.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090112015346/http://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/cea_immigration_062007.pdf to http://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/cea_immigration_062007.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:40, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Public opinion

I would recommend mentioning the different sides of the topic, both for and against it. The article should include distinct examples of those, for and against. More examples of the different views from real life perspectives would create a better comprehension of the topic and how people feel. Nolan williams (talk) 16:29, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Wrong word in title

The article title should be either "Emigration to..." or "Immigration into..." WCCasey (talk) 17:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Recommend to Remove Racist Language

It is a misdemeanor to cross into the United States illegally and if done repeatedly can become a felony.

[http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/a2011_76.pdf "Illegal immigrant" and "illegal alien" are being used in this article to describe Mexicans and other latinos that are not criminals. This derogatory and racist language is an attempt to alter voting patterns of people that lack experience regarding immigration and employment. It is a violation of federal tax law for a charitable institution to engage in political activity. The terms "illegal immigrant" and "illegal alien" cannot be used in Wikipedia to describe people that have not engaged in any misdemeanor or felony activity without crossing that line. Taxes could be owed starting on the date when charity status was first compromised with that kind of language.]

The correct word used to describe a person that lacks documentation is "undocumented". The correct non-racist terminology is "undocumented tourist" for visitors with an expired visa, "undocumented foreign born worker" when the employer failed to pay the documentation fee for a foreign born worker, "undocumented foreign born student" for exchange students with an expired visa, "undocumented foreign born resident" for people living in the US with an expired visa, etc.

The term "illegal immigrant" is only applicable to foreign born citizens found guilty of a crime, but the term is being used in this article to describe people that "look foreign" and lack documentation.

Many people born before 1959 in Hawaii and Alaska are undocumented because they cannot obtain a valid US birth certificate. Most people born before 1940 in places like Arizona and Oklahoma are undocumented because valid US birth certificate were not issued. Descendants of over 1 million US citizens deported to Mexico in the 1930s are also US citizens. All are undocumented. None of those people are "illegal", but the article implies that they are all criminals. The debate on immigration is a controversial subject.

"Illegal immigrant" or "illegal alien" would only be acceptable in a quote:

Arizona’s Conservative White Legislators: Illiterate and Racist on Immigration

SB 1070 is at best an inflammatory law and will surely come to serve as a rationale to justify violent attacks by the misguided against persons who appear to “look illegal.” ... Indeed, it is this ecology of fear that led to the murder of a young legal Ecuadorian immigrant in the Bushwick section of Brooklyn on December 7, 2008. The perpetrators of this crime were white youth who, like those convicted last month on Long Island for a similar crime, were out “Beaner hopping” or hunting for “illegal aliens.”

The difficulty is that the kind of racist language used in this article is being used to encourage genocidal behavior.

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

• (a) Killing members of the group;
• (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
• (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
• (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
• (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

The text of the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 9 December 1948.

"Undocumented foreign born worker", "undocumented foreign born students", and "undocumented foreign born residents" become documented by obtaining documentation.

Non-academic examples of how the terms "illegal immigrant" and "illegal alien" communicate racism help to illustrate how this article compromises the intellectual integrity and charity status of Wikipedia.

• The anti-illegal immigrant agenda is about promoting xenophobia and nativism that has surfaced at various times in our history.
• Those who agree with Mr. Vargas say “illegal” should be banned because it suggests that “illegal immigrants” are criminals, which often isn’t true.
• Texas trooper in chopper shoots, kills 2 suspected illegal immigrants
• TEXAS ASKS FBI TO INVESTIGATE HELICOPTER SHOOTING
• Colorado Gas Station Caught Selling “Illegal Immigrant Hunting Permit” Sticker
• Gas Station Pulls Racist 'Illegal Immigrant Hunting Permit' Bumper Stickers
• Oops! You're racist.
• Taco Cid ... in Columbia, S.C., .. produced ... the T-shirt includes an image of a wooden trap with tacos used as bait and a caption that reads: “How to catch an illegal immigrant.”
• Charles Garcia created a stir among many conservatives recently when he defended and parroted allegations that using the term “illegal immigrant” is a racist slur.
• Mexican Restaurant Causes Commotion over “Racist T-shirt”
• Hundreds Protest NYU Republicans’ Racist “Illegal Immigrant” Hunt
• Immigrant tuition petition drive is all about bigotry

Regards, nanoatzin (talk).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nanoatzin (talk • contribs) 04:21, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

NICE TRY. But "illegal alien" means a person who has entered this country illegally and WITHOUT PERMISSION. getting documented is not automatic simply by applying. PERMISSION TO ENTER AND PERMISSION TO STAY MUST BE ALSO GIVEN FIRST, before entering, or afterward if that is possible (usually not). Then the person can be "documented". The term "illegal alien" refers only to the fact that the person has entered illegally or is present illegally WITHOUT OFFICIAL PERMISSION. It DOES NOT refer to the person having committed a crime other than illegal entry, which is designated as a misdemeanor. YOU cannot change that FACT by your wishful thinking and coercive guilt-shaming. This FACT in print may help some to avoid committing a misdemeanor if they read the FACTS of this important matter. Your assertions are absurd and false. No person who knows our laws would take you seriously. YOUR diatribe is actually imaginative opinionated deceptive POLITICAL ACTIVISM and does not represent our laws at all. Show us your court decision supporting your outrageous bogus claims spelled out plainly on a court document or Congressional document that lays down the law. The link you gave to the IRS has NOTHING ON IT about the subject you are preaching on. STOP USING HEAVY HANDED THREATS TO COERCE WIKIPEDIA TO CATER TO YOUR SERIOUSLY BIASED POLITICAL PREFERENCES. Meat Eating Orchid (talk) 06:48, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

@Meat Eating Orchid: A) You are responding unnecessarily, and in a WP:BATTLEGROUND manner, to an extremely old thread. B) Please read WP:SHOUT. I would suggest that you modify your response both here and, more particularly to the move request (below) to conform with good talk page practices. Thank you for your understanding. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 19:35, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

The same thing goes Nanoatzin. It is not racist to use the correct term illegal immigrant and is reprehensible to even suggest it. I now changed the article to feature the correct term.--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 19:22, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

We should reflect the language that the sources. The overwhelming majority of scholarly sources use the terms "undocumented" or "unauthorized". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:40, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

The overriding principle is WP:NPOV. Even if a source reference Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant as terror organisation (which most western media does). The article should and is NPOV. Take a look where undocumented immigrant takes you.--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 19:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the term "illegal immigration". Most RS, in particular scholarly RS, do not use the term "illegal immigrant" though. If you're completely unfamiliar with the debate over terminology on this subject, you should perhaps stay out of it and inform yourself first. You also seem extremely confused as to what WP:NPOV is. Do you just randomly throw around phrases that you hear other Wikipedia editors use? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:48, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I just told you what NPOV says. An outside debate whether or not to use a term that tries to conceal the meaning is irrelevant as wikipedia should use neutral language and not take a side in the level immigration. Now did the Isis article say: " is a Salafi jihadist militant group and former unrecognised proto-state that follows a fundamentalist, Wahhabi, and heterodox" or "Isis is a terrorist organisation"? Take a look at the headline of this section. The user claim illegal immigrant is racist which tells you exactly which kind of people that use undocumented immigrant.

So you are clearly wrong here. Plus your tone and behavior is not compatible with community standards. --Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 20:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

The term "undocumented immigrant" is neutral language. There's nothing more neutral about using "illegal immigrant"; in fact it's a term that most RS do not use. I have no clue what the point of your ISIS rambling is. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Since this is your 4th time you mention within two days that you do not understand an argument that is being presented by me or others, the problem seem to be with you and not with me. Maybe you shouldn't have such strong opinion about language if you are not proficient in English? Undocumented immigrant is vague Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Words_to_watch, also Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Expressions_that_lack_precision. If you were serious editor, you would of course acknowledge (as the section's original poster have demonstrated that) "undocumented immigrant" is only used by people who have a agenda not recognize the people of the united states right to regulate their immigration. [1]. But again, if you were a serious person, you would not be an advocate for unregulated immigration in the first place.--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 11:23, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Stop the personal attacks Immunmotbluescreen – Wikipedia has a no personal attacks policy, and you risk being blocked if you persist. As to Snooganssnoogans command of the English language: Wikipedia:Don't call the kettle black. Instead of galloping roughshod over several articles and noticeboards, you'd best rein 'er in kemosabe. Mojoworker (talk) 19:45, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

IT'S IMPORTANT TO DISTINGUISH WHO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT . AN UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANT is nonexistent. A person without papers is NOT an immigrant at all but an alien, and an undocumented one. So at least use the correct term- perhaps undocumented alien would suffice. Only a person with proper papers, whose intent and application is to stay permanently and become a citizen, can be technically termed an "immigrant".

Any number of scenarios can apply to the term "alien"- that denotes a foreign person present but not a citizen. It is a broad category which includes people present from a foreign nation, who may be either legally present or ILLEGALLY present.

Thus the term, Illegal Alien, refers to persons without proper papers, whose presence in the USA is illegal. It is illegal for them to be present. That is a very technically correct and widely accepted term. It does not contain anything about their race , nor is it derogatory, but rather it is very clearly declaratory of their actual status. Unfortunately user nanoatzin has aggressively tried to use the page as an activist and manipulate everyone with extremely erroneous FALSE accusations which are not supported by any laws. 

The term "illegal alien" does not indicate a person who has committed a law violation, other than being present in the US without proper papers. Their presence in the US is a law violation and therefore illegal. This applies to all persons present illegally, whether they are Latino, European,British, Chinese, African, or whatever their foreign nation may be. They are foreign nationals present without permission and without proper papers. END OF STORY. you can't change the fact they are illegal aliens, nor can you remove or change the meaning of that term in common parlance. It is the most well-understood term in use by American english speakers today. It does NOT carry any meaning that denotes the commission of additional crimes other than illegal presence or illegal entry.
FROM THE US GOV IMMIGRATION TERMINOLOGY PAGE:
"Immigrant
An alien who has been granted the right by the USCIS to reside permanently in the United States and to work without restrictions in the United States. Also known as a Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR). All immigrants are eventually issued a "green card" (USCIS Form I-551), which is the evidence of the alien’s LPR status. LPR’s who are awaiting the issuance of their green cards may bear an I-551 stamp in their foreign passports."
"Illegal Alien
Also known as an "Undocumented Alien," is an alien who has entered the United States illegally and is deportable if apprehended, or an alien who entered the United States legally but who has fallen "out of status" and is deportable."
https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/immigration-terms-and-definitions-involving-aliens Meat Eating Orchid (talk) 15:03, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Loaded term ("anchor babies") inserted and misrepresentation of information from a source

The text in paragraph nine does not accurately nor neutrally summarize the information in the source. It conflates two separate actions and adds unnecessary politically charged interpretation and language.

Section: History, Paragraph Nine (not including block quote): "In 2012 and 2014, President Obama initiated policies that were intended to ease the pressure on deporting people who use anchor babies as a means of immigrating to the United States.[31]" [31] Gonzales, Daniel (March 13, 2016). "How we got here:The many attempts to reform immigration, secure the border". Florida Today. Melbourne, Florida. p. 1A. Archived from the original on March 14, 2016. Retrieved March 13, 2016.

Relevant text from source (Gonzales): "June 15, 2012 Obama announces a new policy to let “dreamers” brought to the U.S. illegally as children to apply for deportation deferments, a way of remaining in the country temporarily without the threat of deportation. Those approved could receive work permits, allowing them to work legally.

Obama characterized the policy as a stopgap measure until Congress could pass more permanent solutions, such as the Dream Act. The move helped shore up support with Latino voters upset over the record number of deportations during his first term.

Nov. 20, 2014 Obama uses his executive authority to expand deportation deferments for dreamers and also offer deportation deferments to undocumented parents with children who are either U.S. citizens or legal residents. The programs are put on hold after Texas and two dozen other states including Arizona file a lawsuit claiming Obama acted illegally. The Supreme Court is considering whether to rule on the lawsuit." Hensong (talk) 03:45, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

In Literature

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_(novel_by_Jorge_Majfud) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alondresgirl (talk • contribs) 16:57, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

US student assigned to this Wikipedia entry

I'll be adding suggestions in Talk as well as sending 8-10 major edits before May 10th. Looking forward to working with this page's editors! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubersuperman (talk • contribs) 02:12, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Added to Political section. Noted calls for the National Guard at the United States-Mexico border. Added to Military Immigration. Clarified between foreign births that require additional documentation and military programs to gain or give access to United States citizenship. Ubersuperman (talk) 08:01, 2 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubersuperman (talk • contribs) 07:55, 2 May 2018 (UTC) Added a section in inequality explaining the negative impact and resulting imbalance of workers and housing prices caused by sending high-skilled workers from home/sending countries.Ubersuperman (talk) 15:00, 5 May 2018 (UTC) Added a section on brain drain; the effect sending healthcare professionals has on sending countries.Ubersuperman (talk) 15:12, 5 May 2018 (UTC) Added to the asylum for refugees section to explain the lack of resources to cover monthly applications that had led to a backlog.Ubersuperman (talk) 17:22, 5 May 2018 (UTC) Added to Political to describe the arrival of the caravan of Central American asylum seekers. What policy has been updated by Attorney General Sessions and President Trump? They have made statements about border wall security, immigration, and specifically about asylum seekers (the caravan).Ubersuperman (talk) 17:45, 5 May 2018 (UTC) Added to Religious diversity section by including numbers on non-religious.Ubersuperman (talk) 18:35, 5 May 2018 (UTC) Added to Assimilation section to elaborate on the process and speed of assimilation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubersuperman (talk • contribs) 19:14, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

It appears that the country Norway is missing from the "Origins" table (it does show on the map that appears adjacent)

Be nice if someone added Norway to the Origins table. First time for me to make a comment so not quite sure how this works 73.95.190.19 (talk) 17:43, 13 August 2018 (UTC)Ed Stanton

It's off the bottom of the chart at 22,669. I'd add it, but I'm not sure where the 1986-2016 stats are coming from. Mojoworker (talk) 00:18, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2019

Please update the immigration statistics for year 2017 Oxidised Alpha (talk) 05:42, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 06:13, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Reorganisation of Subheading

The subheading for 4. Effects of immigration can be separated into 4. Effects of immigration on the United States and the section under '4.3 Social' can be its own subheading: 5. Social effects on the immigrant. This would be more clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aliciageng1 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 7 March 2019 (UTC)