Wikipedia:Peer review/Frenchification of Brussels/archive1

Frenchification of Brussels

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I intend to keep editing it anyway, I hope that's not a problem. Oreo Priest ^talk 13:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

This article is already featured in Dutch and French, and we're trying to get it featured in English too. This is a mix of translation from the Dutch and French versions (the latter actually being an improved-upon version of the former), so it might need to be more uniform in some respects. Thanks, Oreo Priest ^talk 05:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

MasterOfHisOwnDomain

 Doing... MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 11:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, it's slightly spooky that I was looking at this article earlier today, and then I end up peer reviewing it. Still, I'll let it pass. As for the review:

1. I've fixed minor grammar and wording issues. The biggest problem is with ','s; some of the sentences are very large and complex and would benefit from being read through so as to establish a good flow. Those that I have immediately spotted have been fixed.
2. Images should preferably be set to just thumb, I noticed several with 200px.
3. The article would benefit from images being anchored right then left, especially as there is ample space in some of the larger sections.

   I don't really understand what you mean by that, sorry. -Oreo Priest ^talk 19:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

   No problem. I should have quoted the MoS: "Multiple images in the same article can be staggered right-and-left". Personally I consider this a very recommendable guideline where there is room (as there is in this article). MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 09:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

   Ok, will do. -Oreo Priest ^talk 16:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

   I'll put this off until after everything else is done, as it looks like it will go through many more changes. -Oreo Priest ^talk 17:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

4. The languages split picture should not be duplicated. Consider replacing its first occurrence in the lead with either the Manneken Pis or a similar image.

   Agreed. See below. -Oreo Priest ^talk 17:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

5. No 'See also' or 'Further reading'; I'm sure that this article would benefit from either.
6. In this section there are some issues with the references, where a reference occurs and then ':149' or another number.

   Those are page numbers, and a template was put there to add them. Do you think they should be removed? -Oreo Priest ^talk 19:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

   I wasn't especially aware of the template before now. It seems to not be used wrongly in the case of the article, where you already have 99 references (and therefore using <ref>[source], [page]</ref> would lead to a staggering number of references), however I am questioning why it's only used in one section. Other sources total 300+ pages, and yet the specific page reference is not given for those. Is there any reason why you give page numbers for just those sources? MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 09:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

   The reason is that I found comments in the text in the FR version there and only there. I assume it was challenged on FR. I don't really have any good rationale for it though. -Oreo Priest ^talk 16:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

7. The article has uncomfortably many leading headers. I would consider putting 3, 4, 5 and 6 under 'History' immediately, and there may be other history-related sections.

   Working on it. -Oreo Priest ^talk 17:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

8. "(Percentages add up to more than 100% because some people speak more than one language at home.)" in the Introduction could be made into a note using {{Note_label|A|a|none}}

Vb

 Doing... Vb (talk) 07:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

1. Lead.

1.1. "voire multilingue" in French version's lead suggests that the multilingual character of Brussels is not a clear fact. IMHO, the existence of references (Rudi Janssens, Phillippe van Parijs) that discuss the possibility that French could now be more considered as a franca lingua than a native language should not be simply summarized as if this recent trend or observation were a clear fact generally acknowledged. These authors have both political agendas they are not necessary neutral.

Rudi Janssens is a researcher at the VUB and an authority in this field. Neither of both authors claim that French is merely a lingua franca; according to them, it is both majority language and lingua franca. This seems self-evident to me. --Hooiwind (talk) 12:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree but I think adding "according to several authors" or simply "maybe" or adding the word "trend" would clarify this and correctly translate the "voire" nuance which I have a lot of difficulty to translate in English. Vb (talk) 16:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I did it myself: I replaced "multilingual" by "bilingual or even multilingual". Vb (talk) 06:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

1.2. "Only since the 1960s, after the fixation of the Belgian language border, limiting official bilingualism to the 19 Brussels municipalities, and once the socio-economic development of Flanders was in full effect, did Dutch stem the tide of increasing French use.[5]" is a bit complicated sentence. I think the use of tense should be corrected from simple past to present perfect. The "socio-economic development of Flanders" should be explained in a sentence of its own.

There is a paragraph about this deeper down, I'm afraid expanding this would lengthen the lead too much. --Hooiwind (talk) 12:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

We don't need to explain this but simply cut the sentence into two. That would clarify much. Vb (talk) 16:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Done --Hooiwind (talk) 08:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

1.3. The picture with Mannekenpis should be replaced by something more informative. I suggest "Languages spoken at home in the Brussels Capital Region (2006).svg" however a map with the location of Brussels in Belgium might be required too.

I agree. I moved it out of the lead because it appears later where directly relevant to the prose. It would be great in both places, but MOHOD is right, it shouldn't be there twice. Thoughts? -Oreo Priest ^talk 23:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not so certain. Note that neither the Dutch or French versions have a diagram as the lead picture. I don't think the article needs to dip into such detail until later (where the image currently is). MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 08:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Isn't there a way to move up the image of the location of Brussels in Brabant without suffering from that white space some apparently have in their browsers? --Hooiwind (talk) 12:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I have an idea: we could use this image on the right. It shows the current bilingual character of the city, and isn't needed elsewhere in the article. I've put it in, so say so if you don't like it. -Oreo Priest ^talk 23:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks good --Hooiwind (talk) 08:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)]

Having said that, I find the arrow kind of distracting. If other people have the same problem, we could potentially crop it, but I'm not sure that's necessary. -Oreo Priest ^talk 13:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

No I don't think so. It is fine like that. Vb (talk) 06:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

2. Introduction

2.1. The first picture in the introduction produces a huge blank on its left.

This won't be the same for everyone. I don't see that at all. -Oreo Priest ^talk 23:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I've heard this before, but can't see it with any of the browsers I have (firefox, safari, explorer). --Hooiwind (talk) 12:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

This problem does not appear in the French version. The pdf version of the article split the image into two: the map and the dot are separated. The map on the left. The dot on the right. Vb (talk) 06:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

2.2. I am the opinion the whole section should be deleted and incorporated into the lead.

I somewhat agree. I wonder whether maybe they should be reversed instead? -Oreo Priest ^talk 23:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree as well. I recently merged both sections in the Dutch article. I think the French lead is good. There I had to add an extra paragraph on terminology (Brabantian/Flemish/Dutch/Low German), but I don't know if it is necessary in English too. --Hooiwind (talk) 12:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

3. Late Middle Ages

3.1. The title should be simply "Middle Ages"

Done. -Oreo Priest ^talk 23:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree. --Hooiwind (talk) 12:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

3.2. "A large part of the Duchy south of Brussels": "Large" should be suppressed.

I disagree. I think it's needed to establish that it wasn't trivially small, like the present day German part of Belgium, for example. -Oreo Priest ^talk 23:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I see what Vb means. The French-speaking part was relatively small compared to the Dutch-speaking part of Brabant. I replaced "a large part" by "the area south of".--Hooiwind (talk) 12:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

3.3. "today forms the separate province of Walloon Brabant." I its for sure only approximative.

Reworded. -Oreo Priest ^talk 23:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

This nuance was lost in translation. --Hooiwind (talk) 12:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

3.4. "gradually written in Dietsch". As explained in the French article, the word Dietch is not a clear and univoque wording for old Dutch.

The English article says that it's the version of Middle Dutch spoken in the southern Low Countries, so it seems appropriate to me. Does that address your concern? -Oreo Priest ^talk 23:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I replaced it by "Middle Dutch". --Hooiwind (talk) 12:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

3.5. "German principality". What means German at those past times? The concept of nation was far from being clear.

I've checked the French and Dutch versions, and I can't make out what the word German refers to. Hooiwind? -Oreo Priest ^talk 23:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

It refers to the Holy Roman Empire. I added a link. --Hooiwind (talk) 12:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes but the use of the German adjective to refer to the Roman Empire is not the best choice. Please consider "principality vassal of the Roman Emperor" or "principality belonging tho the Holy Roman Empire" instead. Vb (talk) 06:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I forgot to mention I already changed it. -Oreo Priest ^talk 15:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

3.6. "Seventeen Provinces". Why are these words italicized?

Fixed. -Oreo Priest ^talk 23:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

3. Spanish rule

3.1. "Princelijcke Hoofstadt van 't Nederlandt" should be replaced by its translation which should not be italicized. I think this translation is univoque.

Indeed. --Hooiwind (talk) 12:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

3.2. Do we really need the link to the Fall of Antwerp? I wonder whether an English language reference could not be found for this kind of information instead of"Guy Janssens; Ann Marynissen (2005). "Het Nederlands vroeger en nu". ACCO. http://books.google.nl/books?id=JOo9oNIUcFUC. Retrieved on 2009-01-16."

Definitely. The Fall of Antwerp is known as the "division of the Netherlands", the definite divorce between North and South; after which the North became a world power and the South a mere province of other empires.--Hooiwind (talk) 12:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

3.3. "Brabant and Flanders were engulfed in the Counter-Reformation, and the Catholic priests continued to preach in Latin." is in contradistinction with the next paragraph and Daniel Droixhe. However I think here a distinction must be made between the liturgy and the preachery. I am not sure but the sermon might have been done in the venacular while the liturgy must have been done in Latin (till Vatican II).

I've asked myself the same question... --Hooiwind (talk) 12:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I might have found the answer: "[In] popular preaching [Latin] gave way to the vernacular after the seventh century; but it could still claim the Liturgy and theology, and in these it served the purpose of a living language. In the liturgy ecclesiastical Latin shows its vitality by its fruitfulness." Catholic Encyclopaedia Vb (talk) 07:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I've tried to pipe a link to liturgy. Can a Catholic double check this please? -Oreo Priest ^talk 15:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

3.4. "The administrative languages during this time were both French and, to a lesser extent, Spanish.[17]" Does the source really says that? I have the feeling that it could be that Spanish might be used in diplomatic letters but not in the administration. A quote would help.

Page 9: " In de centrale administratie was Frans en soms ook Spaans de gebruikelijke voertaal. " --Hooiwind (talk) 12:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

My Dutch is far but being good but I think the quote means that Spanish was used to a lesser extent within the central administration (for example to communicate with overlords) but not necessarily as an administrative language. I think "administrative language" could be understood as the language to communicate with the population on an administrative level. Vb (talk) 16:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe. I think the point is just that it was used in government administration. I doubt it was used to communicate with the population at large; "administrative language" says to me more that it was used internally. -Oreo Priest ^talk 18:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the provided translation must be bette. The language used in the central administration is not necessarily what is called an administrative language. Vb (talk) 07:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree. Rewritten. --Hooiwind (talk) 08:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

3.5. "This attracted a considerable number of other Walloons to Brussels who came either in search of work or to beg." This sentence (which is not sourced) smells very like basic Flemish POV.

page 13 "Arme lieden uit het Franse taalgebied kwamen hier om aalmoezen bedelen." But I agree we can just stick to "in search for work". I'll edit the other language versions as well. --Hooiwind (talk) 12:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

3.6. The last sentences of the section are not well written. One feels some internal contradistinction. Why would Walloon personal working for French-speaking nobles start learn Dutch? The word Walloon should also be explained somewhere. The meaning of this word (just as Flemish) is far but univoque.

Probably because nearly everyone else spoke Dutch. I've mentioned that Walloons are French-speaking, even if this is a bit of a simplification. -Oreo Priest ^talk 18:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

In this context, Walloon means French speaking even if that French was not the French of Paris but one its numerous dialects spoken in the Low Countries. For sure you are right about the reason why the Walloons started speakin Dutch but I think this does not appear clearly from the text. Vb (talk) 07:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I rewrote the sentence : "This Walloon presence led to the adoption of Walloon words in the Brussels flavor of Brabantian Dutch, but was too small to prevent the Walloons from being assimilated to the Dutch-speaking majority." Is this any better (and correct English?) ?--Hooiwind (talk) 08:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's better. FYI, the English is good, but I've replaced "assimilated to" with "assimiliated "into", and reworded it so the subject in the second half is a bit clearer. -Oreo Priest ^talk 13:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

4. Austrian rule

4.1. "had acquired the status of "street language"". "Acquired" is something positive. Here the meaning is negative. "was reduced to a street language" might be better.

Right you are. Changed. -Oreo Priest ^talk 18:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

4.2. "The repressive policies of the Spaniards": not the Spaniards but the Spanish nobility.

What's the difference? They were the ones in charge. This seems pretty clear already to me. -Oreo Priest ^talk 18:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

No because many think the Spaniards were some kind of occupying force (just as the Germans during WWII). Here we speak about the Spanish nobility, i.e. the Habsburgs and their court. Vb (talk) 07:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

It was much more than that. The Spanish sent their army to keep order (we are speaking about the time when Catholicism was under threat). I think "Spanish nobility" underestimates the mass-scale repression that occurred and explains the steep decline of the Southern Netherlands... --Hooiwind (talk) 08:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Well the Spanish "Army of Flanders" was not really made of Spaniards. It was made of foreigners from the whole Europe. Only a minority of the soldiers were Spaniards (many of them were French BTW). This army was controlled by the Spanish nobility (most notably by the Duke of Parma) and the Habsburgs (which were not Spanish either). When Spain went into bankrupcy, the army was not paid anymore and plundered much of Flanders. But those were not necessarily Spaniards. Vb (talk) 08:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Why not just replace "Spaniards" by "Spain"? --Hooiwind (talk) 12:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's not lose sight of the fact the sentence is about the "repressive policies of the Spaniards". I do see the distinction you're trying to draw. I think Spaniards is better than both "Spanish nobility" (emphasizes too few people) and "Spain" (seems to imply it was the Spanish state itself, as separate from the Spanish Netherlands). -Oreo Priest ^talk 14:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I prefer Spain but I think the Habsburg would be the best. My problem (just as for "German principalty") is that there was no clear idea of nation before the 19th century. France might have been an exception to that rule but the Habsburgian Empire was far but being a nation. However we don't need to discuss this here but simply avoid the problem by using unambiguous (thanks :-)) wordings which don't refer to nations before 1800. Vb (talk) 06:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I think Habsburg wouldn't work, especially considering it was still under the dominion of the Habsburgs. And I don't really like "Spain" because they were part of Spain too, no? -Oreo Priest ^talk 15:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I retract that; Habsburg works well and I've changed the text. -Oreo Priest ^talk 15:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

4.3. "(de Munt)" this tramslation is useless.

Gone. -Oreo Priest ^talk 18:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

4.4. "who were later pejoratively labelled Franskiljons (loosely: little Frenchies)." When? I think the concept of Franskiljons should be expanded but not in this section.

Exactly. I think the concept is even worth a small article. --Hooiwind (talk) 08:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, I'll create it at some point, but it's frankly not high on my to do list. Oreo Priest ^talk 22:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

4.5. "The large growth coupled with the increasing impoverishment of the population led to even further stigmatization of Dutch, the language of the Brussels commoners. In Brussels the percentage of impoverished people doubled from 1755 to 1784, at which point 15 percent of the population was in poverty.[28] The small French-speaking minority was quite affluent and constituted the social upper class.[30]" One feels here the many editors of this set of sentences. This should be summarized and better written.

I've reworded it. Oreo Priest ^talk 05:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

4.6. Jan-Baptist Verlooy's contribution to the emancipation of Dutch should be emphacized in order to link this orphan paragraph with the rest of the section.

I've deleted the paragraph. I think the image caption is enough, as the essay is a symptom, not a major event. Oreo Priest ^talk 05:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

4.7. Some words about the Brabantian revolution and the United States of Belgium should be added. Not all readers are supposed to know what it is.

I've deleted it entirely as I don't think that brief period of revolution and independence (nor what language was used) is particularly important in an article that's already too long. Oreo Priest ^talk 05:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

4.8. There are no logical link between the first sentence of the last paragraph and the rest of it. Maybe the whole section should be reformated so that the use of languages in the administration and the nobility during this period appears more clearly in one single paragraph. The current presentation provides the impression of a long repetition of the same content.

5. French rule

5.1. "Hapsburg" Use "Habsburg" instead.

Done. -Oreo Priest ^talk 14:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

5.2. "In Sint-Gillis, near the center of Brussels, Flemish was still spoken at the time.[15]" Why is Flemish italicized? Why Sint-Gillis and not Saint-Gilles?

Fixed. Oreo Priest ^talk`

5.3. "During the implementation of these laws Brussels continued to grow. The first city walls were gradually dismantled during the 15th to 17th centuries, and the outer second walls (where the Small Ring now stands), were demolished between 1810 and 1840, so that the city could incorporate the outlying districts.[39]" These sentences do not belong to the paragraph and should stand on their own or be put somewhere else.

Moved. Oreo Priest ^talk 03:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

6. Dutch rule

6.1. "Nevertheless, the union of the Netherlands and Belgium did not lessen the political and economic power of French in Flanders, where it remained the language of the aristocracy.[40]" Of the aristocracy only? What about the Franskijons? Did the whole Flemish upperclass suddenly turned to the Dutch language? I don't think the situation was that black and white. This is contradicted by "the Belgian delegates spoke only French".

I'm not sure what you think is going on, it's all consistent. It's saying French stayed the language of the upper class. Does that make sense to you?

6.2. "requested the same for bilingual Brabant and Brussels." This is not clear. Did he request Dutch schools or sometimes Dutch sometimes French or bilingual? In which sense bilingual? I guess Nivelles: French and the rest of Brabant Dutch. But what about Brussels? Who were the pupils of those schools? What about the private school system?

He requested that they be made monolingually Dutch also. It's not as clear as it could be, but I'd prefer not to go too much into detail. Oreo Priest ^talk 05:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

6.3. "French-speaking citizenry": it should be made clear that these peoples were also including the Flemish Franskijons.

Again, I don't want to make this any longer than it has to be. Oreo Priest ^talk 05:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

6.4. "The French-speaking population" not really population but upper-class.

"French-speaking population" just means "those who spoke French" in English. Oreo Priest ^talk 05:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

6.5. "the language use of Brussels." might be replaced by "the language use in Brussels."

Done. Your English is good! Oreo Priest ^talk 05:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

7. Belgian Revolution; capital of Belgium

7.1. Replace the title by "Belgian Revolution"

Done. Oreo Priest ^talk 02:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

7.2. Suppress the subtitle "French as the sole official language"

Done. Oreo Priest ^talk 02:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

7.3. "Bourgeoisie" should not be linked

Yes it should. The word is not as well-known in English. Oreo Priest ^talk 02:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

7.4. Delete "There were a number of reasons for these occurrences."

Gone. Oreo Priest ^talk 02:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

7.5. Delete ", even though a majority of the population was Flemish." I think the reader understood that already.

7.6. "With more French being spoken, there was a certain aura of "decency" in societal progress, culture, and universalism.[38]" Could decency not be replaced by something else? The sentence sounds strange and POVed.

It's been changed. Oreo Priest ^talk 02:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

7.7. "Many supposed French-speakers were actually Flemish bourgeois with Dutch-speaking roots.[48]" Hasn't that be said already?

Pretty much, but in the context of the paragraph I think it might make sense to repeat it. Oreo Priest ^talk 02:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

7.8. Does Baudelaire's citation really belongs in this paragraph about the Belgian Revolution?

See 7.9. Oreo Priest ^talk 02:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

7.9. I have the feeling that just as MasterOfHisOwnDomain said that the article should be divided in a history section which could stop here just after the Belgian Revolution. The general considerations such as Baudelaire's citation should be grouped somewhere else with analyses of the language problem in Brussels within modern Belgium.

You're right about the sectioning. I think that its contents can stay mostly the same though, as is pretty much lays the groundwork for the later sections. Oreo Priest ^talk 02:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

8. Role of Education

8.1. Here we move from History to Analysis. The structure is different.

9. French-speaking immigraton

9.1. "This cycle of Frenchification led many Flemings to place a high value on raising their children to speak French and attend French schools in order for them to be able to reach higher social classes and receive better job opportunities.[51][52] Because of these measures, many Flemings became monolingually French.[26]" This paragraph does not really belong to this section about immigration.

You're right. I've cut it out. Oreo Priest ^talk 01:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

10. Flemish complaints

10.1. I suggest another title: Flemish movement in Brussels

I changed it to " Early Flemish movement in Brussels". Oreo Priest ^talk 01:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

10.2. I suggest putting the last paragraph starting with "In general, the Flemish movement in Brussels did not garner much support for its plans regarding the use of Dutch." at the beginning of the section because it gives an overview of what the section is talking about.

I think it fits in just fine where it is. Oreo Priest ^talk 01:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

10.3. The Lion of Flanders links to Robert III, Count of Flanders and not to the book. A red link is better than a wrong blue one.

That sentence has been deleted anyways. Oreo Priest ^talk 01:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

11. Language laws

11.1. "language border cities" should be replaced with "cities along the language border" without any winkilink to language border.

Done. Oreo Priest ^talk 02:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

11.2. ", even though the majority of Brussels residents spoke primarily Dutch" has been said already.

I, for one, found it a nice reminder (I tend to think of Brussels as being majority francophone.) I'd prefer to keep it. Oreo Priest ^talk 02:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

11.3. I have doubt about the title. "Language laws" are discussed in many sections. Here the only discussed laws are the ones of 1878 and 1921. I would prefer "Formal recognition of the Dutch as an official language" or alike.

I changed it to "Early language laws". Oreo Priest ^talk 00:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

12. Language censuses

12.1. "This did not sit well with some French-speakers in Brussels" Is that correct English?

Sure is. Oreo Priest ^talk 01:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

12.2. "Flemicization" should be replaced with "Flemishization"

Done. Oreo Priest ^talk 01:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

12.3. "In 1932 Sint-Stevens-Woluwe was removed from the bilingual agglomeration, because the percentage of French-speakers dropped below 30%.[8]" is repeated twice.

Rectified. Oreo Priest ^talk 01:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

13. Establishment of the language border

13.1. "Many French-speakers considered this contrary to societal reality" Is that English?

13.2. "The division of the country into language areas had serious consequences for education, and the "freedom of the head of household" was abolished. Thence, Dutch-speaking children were required to be educated in Dutch and French-speaking children in French.[50]" I think we need here more explanation on how this freedom can be abolished in practice. I understand in Wallonia and in Flanders but what about Brussels?

13.3. "more radical" is Flemish POVed. Engaged would be better but I am not sure.

14. Dissatisfaction of French-speakers

14.1. Delete "(see image)"

14.2. The few sentences about the FDF posters. Don't you think this is quite a detail? Why discussing this particular poster and not others?

I completely agree. I have deleted all mention of it. -Oreo Priest ^talk 01:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

14.3. Delete "(see state reform in Belgium"

14.4. This section is full with trivia which should be summarized or deleted (for example the false Flemish or the Roger Nols controversy). This level of detail is not required.

I've trimmed the section greatly. Look better now? -Oreo Priest ^talk 18:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes indeed.

14.5. Guest worker, Belgian gendarmerie should not be wikilinked.

15. Reassessment of Dutch

15.1. sociolinguistic, primary school, high school, Dutch should not be wikilinked

Standard Dutch should. Primary school is known as elementary school in North America, so it should be kept to clear up confusion. I've delinked high school. -Oreo Priest ^talk 18:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't we use "elementary school"? We use American English, don't we? Vb (talk) 07:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Right you are. Changed. Oreo Priest ^talk 03:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

15.2. "began to bear fruit" Is this English?

Yes. -Oreo Priest ^talk 18:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Vb (talk) 07:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

15.3. "Even today," is POVed

I don't see how. -Oreo Priest ^talk 18:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

"Even today" sounds to me as if the author was supposing the reader would not expect the Dutch school system to be attractive. There is no particular reason for which "today" could surprize anyone. Simply suppress "Even" and I am happy. Vb (talk) 07:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The even in this context means "still", as in, "Dutch schools still attract ...". Does that make sense to you? -Oreo Priest ^talk 14:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

15.4. "The French spoken by immigrants and Wallonia's economic decline did little to help the prestige of French relative to Dutch.[74]" What does this mean? I don't understand. If this is irony this is strongly POVed!

This means that French was no longer associated just with the upper classes, so lost some prestige. I don't think it's POVed, because I took it from FR, where it seems to have withstood scrutiny. -Oreo Priest ^talk 18:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

This sentence is not logical. According to me "French spoken by immigrants" should reinforce the "prestige of French" and "Wallonia's economic decline" should lessen it. Thus both subjects act in different directions. So the sentence says they "did little". In which direction did they help? Did they improve the prestige of French (to a little extent)? Or do we have to understand this sentence as irony? Vb (talk) 07:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty clear to me that immigrants speaking French would make it lose prestige. What used to be the language of the upper classes became the language spoken by recent immigrants. Not to be racist, but I can't really see the Moroccans and Turks in Schaerbeek, etc. making French any more prestigious, and I would expect the opposite effect. Oreo Priest ^talk 03:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

15.5. " During this period," Which period? (years?)

"After World War II". Sound good? Oreo Priest ^talk 03:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

15.6. "decent job" POV

Changed to well-paying job. Good? -Oreo Priest ^talk 18:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Not sure. "Well" is also a subjective concept. Is that 4000, 2000 or 1000€? "Leading position" might be better. However I know people working in Brussels (in federal daministrations) which are not able to speak more than two Dutch sentences but are earning qúite a lot. Vb (talk) 07:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is a subjective concept. Obviously there's no clean cut line. I've reworded it to "increasingly a prerequisite for well-paying jobs", which changes the tone substantially and I think is more accurate. Oreo Priest ^talk 03:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

15.7. "For example, since 1970, there have been more students enrolled in Dutch language universities than French ones." You mean in general in Belgium not in Brussels. This should be specified.

Done. -Oreo Priest ^talk 18:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

15.8. "To be called a Dutch speaker no longer evokes images of lower class laborers, as it did before." Before what?

Before in this context means earlier. -Oreo Priest ^talk 18:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course I know but this is not clear in the text. The text does not clearly says when the Flemish economy started its boom. Vb (talk) 07:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

15.9. "The Dutch language's current prestige in Brussels is chiefly for economic reasons." Is that English?

Sure is. -Oreo Priest ^talk 18:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

OK Thanks. Vb (talk) 07:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

15.10. "It was clear from many different angles, that if the Flemish Community wanted Dutch to have a prominent place in Brussels, it would need to make investing in Dutch language education its primary concern.[20][46]" Sounds more like analysis of authors than encyclopaedic tone.

I'm not a fan either and I'd like to cut it out. -Oreo Priest ^talk 18:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Please don't but tell the reader who had this opinion. Vb (talk) 07:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

15.11. The last paragraph should be rewritten in a more encyclopaedic tone.

16. Foreign immigration

16.1. "due to the French-speaking African origins of many that came" Is that English?

Yup. How is this one confusing? -Oreo Priest ^talk 18:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

16.2. "when the change was Frenchifcation of Brussels's existing Flemish inhabitants." I am missing a "due to" or a complete rewrite.

The Frenchification was the change. Does that clear it up? -Oreo Priest ^talk 18:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

16.3. Turkish language should not be wikified

Why not? -Oreo Priest ^talk 18:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Because we are speaking English and that everybody speaking English knows waht Turkish language means. Vb (talk) 07:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

True, but they might want the wikilink as a bridge to find out a bit more about it. Oreo Priest ^talk 03:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

16.4. The Dutch name "allochtoon" and its plural "allochtonen" should be explained in the text.

I actually have no idea what that means, and the article explaining it is pretty bad. -Oreo Priest ^talk 18:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Allochtoon means speaking a non native language. Vb (talk) 07:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, Allophone, although that doesn't really have a good article either. Oreo Priest ^talk 03:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I hope linking it is ok, because I feel an explanation would slow down the text a lot here. Oreo Priest ^talk 04:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

16.5. Lingua franca should not be wikified.

Yes it should. It links to an article on that very subject. -Oreo Priest ^talk 18:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

OK

17. Creation of the Brussels Capital Region

17.1. "were at this point" Which point?

17.2. "own competencies" Does someone understand this outside of Belgium? Could one translate "Competency" by "Power"?

Good point. Maybe jurisdiction is a better word. Thoughts? -Oreo Priest ^talk 18:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

There was also problems about this when we wrote the Belgium article. We decided to translate compentency by power. Vb (talk) 07:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Jurisdiction sounds like justice but here the Communities and the Regions have nothing to do with the power of justice which is still ruled on the federal level. Political power is, I think, better. Vb (talk) 08:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Political power, if you read the article, is 100% a different thing. Hooiwind was also confused about jurisdiction, but with all due respect, that's because you are not native English speakers. Jurisdiction is the correct word for saying what areas (physical and legal) a given level of government has control over. -Oreo Priest ^talk 15:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

17.3. "hampered by different visions" How can a vision hamper something?

Because people wanted to go in different directions, leading to conflict. -Oreo Priest ^talk 18:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I understood but the problem is the logic. A vision is not really physical. Vb (talk) 07:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the logical problem, or why a vision would have to be physical. War, for example, is not tangible, but it of course can affect many things. -Oreo Priest ^talk 15:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

17.4. "be given devolved cultural competencies" could be simplified into "be devolved..."

I somehow feel like this might make the sentence less clear. Thoughts? -Oreo Priest ^talk 18:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

17.5. "Initially, Flemish political parties demanded Flanders be given devolved cultural competencies, concerned with the dominance of the French language in the federal government". Initially: when? "demanded" => "asked for a devolution"

17.6. ", in spite of the fact that the country had a Flemish majority." has been already said.

Where? I think it's a good reminder here anyways. -Oreo Priest ^talk 18:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem is the whole structure of the article which sounds like an eternal repetion of the same thing. We have to think about it in order to reduce the length.Vb (talk) 07:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

You're right. I've deleted that part. Oreo Priest ^talk 04:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

17.7. It is explained above that the creation of the Brussels Region prevented the Frenchification of the municipality around Brussels. This is in contradistinction with the "surrender to the Frenchification".

The idea is that Brussels was being definitively cut off from Flanders, which was painful for the Flemish. -Oreo Priest ^talk 18:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course I understand but the contradistinction is nevertheless still there. This has to be clarified. Vb (talk) 07:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I've changed it to "and being an admission of the loss of Brussels to Frenchification." Is that better? Oreo Priest ^talk 04:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

17.8. " and influenced the competencies it was given" I doudt someone can understand this outside Belgium. Try replacing competencies with powers and given by devolved. (Not sure this helps!)

See 17.2. -Oreo Priest ^talk 18:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

17.9. "As a concession to the Flemish" I would say Flemings

I think Flemish makes more sense. -Oreo Priest ^talk 18:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Can one use Flemish for those speaking Flemish? Shouldn't we write Dutch speakers? The situation is so complicated! Vb (talk) 07:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I like Flemish in certain parts precisely because the term is not well-defined. But you may be right that Dutch-speaker is better, (although the text flows better using Flemish). -Oreo Priest ^talk 15:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

17.10. Cabinet is a disambiguation. The sentence "The Minister-President is in practice always a francophone, so the cabinet of the Region has 5 French-speaking and 3 Dutch-speaking members." is therefore almost ununderstandable.

I've fixed the link. Does that help? -Oreo Priest ^talk 18:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

No because it is not clear here whether the cabinet includes the Ministers only. Vb (talk) 07:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure it is, 8 people are mentioned, and we say the cabinet has 8 members. On top of that, the positions will be fairly clear as cabinet positions to an English speaker. -Oreo Priest ^talk 15:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

17.11. "jurisdiction" is not clear here. Do the Comunnities have any jurisdictions?

See 17.2. -Oreo Priest ^talk 18:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

17.12. "a successor to the NCC" What menas NCC. Is that detail somehow important?

NCC was mentioned above. We might just want to gloss over the difference if possible. -Oreo Priest ^talk 18:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes NCC was mentioned but so long ago! (This article is 27 pages long!) Vb (talk) 07:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I removed mention of it by name. Oreo Priest ^talk 04:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

18. Current situation

18.1. This subsection should be a section on its own.\

Done. -Oreo Priest ^talk 18:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for that wonderful article and I hope it shall get featured very soon and help its Dutch, French, German and Hebrew counterparts improving further. Vb (talk) 12:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Your detailed review is really appreciated. Thank you! --Hooiwind (talk) 12:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks for your participation. I'll get to the comments I haven't addressed when I get the chance. -Oreo Priest ^talk 18:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Only after pounding through all of your comments do I really see how exhaustive and lucid they are. My previous comment may have seemed lukewarm, but you really did a great job. Oreo Priest ^talk 05:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Oreo Priest

I guess this isn't really a peer review per se, because I am one of the primary contributors to the article. I've gone over the article and re-read it, and noticed a number of issues. The vast majority were issues with wording, though I have been bold and made some potentially contentious changes, mostly content deletion. Anyone interested can check the edit history and I'd be happy to discuss any of it.

I did this mostly independently of the other comments here, as I found it allowed me to work more efficiently. Some might be duplicated above. I'll get to reviewing and implementing comments above, but I've been working on this for 5 hours straight and I need a rest. Anyways, I've listed some suggestions below for comment/discussion. -Oreo Priest ^talk 04:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

article is too long

• Most importantly of all, and it pains me to say it: this article is too long. Even with my familiarity with the article and interest in the topic, this article is gruelling to go through. We should seriously look at reducing the length of the article by cutting out material that is not necessary (and not only what's merely not relevant) wherever possible. I know Hooiwind, Daveblack and I have put in tons of time translating and working on all this, but the reality is that it's not reader-friendly right now. The PDF version of it (see the toolbox on the left) is 27 pages long and fairly dense, so it would probably take over an hour to read, minimum. This really needs to change.

I agree: this article is too long. I also needed something like 5 hours to write the review above. However, since the topic is per se complicated and controversial, I don't believe the answer is cutting through but using summary style and adding sub articles when required. We really need a thorough discussion of the reasons why Brussels became bilingual/multilingual. I suggest creating Frenchification of Brussels before 1830 or Language censuses in Brussels.Vb (talk) 06:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with this. Readers will want to read about the subject as a whole, rather than mid way through being diverted to another article. I can see it being a nuisance already. If we trim effectively then there is no need to separate. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 10:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Well put. I think the keyword here is trim effectively. The topic is complex, but much of what we have in here is not really necessary, and readability must be foremost. I'm not sure how we could fork the content in a non-weird way either. -Oreo Priest ^talk 14:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it will not be possible to boil it down so that we achieve a bearable length. However I think it is clear to everybody that the Frenchification of Brussels really started to be effective from 1830 on. So I think the reader should only have a summary of the history section and could be referred to a correponding subarticle for the details. This might be done very easily: cut the history section as it is and paste it into Languages in Brussels before 1830. For me this article would be almost perfect and could get very fastly featured! Moreover I don't like the title history because the Belgian Revolution is also history. In fact most of the article is just history. Vb (talk) 07:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree this article is too long. I agree with Vb that this article can be cut up in two parts: one speaking about the period BEFORE Belgian independence, one thereafter. The first laid the fundaments for the second, but did not lead to a massive switch to French (yet).--Hooiwind (talk) 08:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand you guys think it's important to keep all the details because the subject is so important. We could even add relevant details until this ballooned to 50 or 100 pages without going off topic. But boiling it down to a bearable length is exactly what an encyclopedia article (as opposed to a thesis or a book) is supposed to do. It may well be that we should create more detailed (i.e. keep the current level of detail) subarticles for those who really want to plunge into intricate depth (and for whatever reason aren't reading the Dutch or French versions). I staunchly oppose splitting this article into parts; for one, we'd be kidding ourselves if we thought that it isn't one united subject, and for two, any break would just be artificial with the sole purpose of reducing the length. We could maybe copy the bottom half of the article to something like "Linguistic conflict in Brussels (or Belgium) since 1830", but it seems unnecessary to me. I really think that this article need to keep its current scope but be made a reasonable length. That's our job. -Oreo Priest ^talk 15:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

It's also occurred to me that the solutions to many of the other concerns with the article hinge around whether we decide to shorten the article or not. Given that all three of us are very close to the article and subject, I think it might be nice to have some outside voices about what they think a reasonable length might be. What do you guys think? -Oreo Priest ^talk 04:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I've added a request for comment, so let's continue this portion of the discussion on the article's talk page. -Oreo Priest ^talk 18:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

other remarks

• The sections are mostly out of order. Expansion of the metro area, Establishment of the language border, Creation of the BCR and The periphery of Brussels sections are thematically linked and should probably be moved together. Likewise Flemish complaints and Dissatisfaction of French-speakers should probably be together. As it stands, there's more thematic jumping around than necessary.

• We need to choose between the words monolingual and unilingual. Monolingual seems to be the proper word.

• F(rench) R(ule): Up to "Southern Netherlands" should be mostly cut out, since it's not really relevant, as suggested in FR.WP. I've copied it to History of Belgium.

I don't agree with these changes. Creating Frenchification of Brussels before 1830 would really help! Vb (talk) 06:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• FR: "Although mainly used by in higher social circles, a more appropriate measure of actual language use might include an observation of written testaments, three-fourths of which in 1804 were written in Dutch.[15] Thus, the higher classes still used primarily Dutch near the turn of the century.[15]" This seems like it might be OR. I'm not sure that conclusion can be drawn from the preceding statement.

No, it is not. The references support this. However adding "an according to [15]" might help here. Vb (talk) 06:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, no OR, literally drawn from the reference and I read that in others as well (but without adding them as a ref...). --Hooiwind (talk) 08:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Alright, that's fine then. Oreo Priest ^talk 22:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• F(lemish)C(omplaints): "Among others, Hendrik Conscience, author of The Lion of Flanders, was a member of this organization. [the Grievances Commission]" Is this really relevant?

Cut this out! Vb (talk) 06:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The Lion of Flanders could be dubbed the "national manuscript" of Flanders. Although Conscience's membership was certainly not determining, I think it is relevant for the rise of Flemish nationalism. --Hooiwind (talk) 08:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

With respect, I am still going to cut it. It's more interesting from his point of view than from that of Brussels. I think his membership in the organization is a bit too minor a detail to be presented here, although I do understand what you mean. Oreo Priest ^talk 23:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• FC: "The Flemings adapted their goals to the realities of the situation, and devoted themselves to a monolingual Flanders,[14] where metropolitan Brussels society still played a major role.[22]" What does the second half of this even mean? What is trying to be said here?

Agree. Must be clarified. Vb (talk) 06:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Failure of translation. French: "Les Flamands adaptèrent alors leurs exigences et commencèrent à réclamer l'unilinguisme en Flandre[49], dont l'agglomération bruxelloise faisait encore sociologiquement partie." If someone could rewrite the sentence in English please. --Hooiwind (talk) 08:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I've replaced it with "monolingual Flanders,[14] which Brussels was still socially a part of.[22]". It's not my favourite sentence (grammatically), but I think it should be fine. Oreo Priest ^talk 23:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• FC: "In 1873 in the Sint-Jans-Molenbeek district of Brussels, Flemish laborer Jozef Schoep refused to accept a French-language birth certificate." Whose? His own later in life? For his children? This is not clear. Also, this confused even me as in the previous paragraph it says they were granted the right to Dutch birth certificates, although only on closer inspection does it say that that was afterwards.

I've cut this out, as it is too much devotion to a minor (on the scope of the entire article) incident. I hope this is not a big problem. Oreo Priest ^talk 23:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I retract that. It fits well in the text and, while ambiguous, whose birth certificate it was exactly is not very important and would slow down the text. Left as is. Oreo Priest ^talk 23:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• DFS: "The party demanded more protest from Roger Nols, mayor of Schaerbeek, around the issue of the language of service in the municipality. Nols designated six of the nine service counters for French-speakers, two for guest workers, and one for Dutch-speakers. After national public debate, the situation was brought under control by the Belgian Gendarmerie after which each citizen from each municipality could speak his own language at the counter.[60][65]" Should we just axe this? I'm not convinced it needs to be kept in an article of this scope.

Agree. Cut it out. Vb (talk) 06:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. -Oreo Priest ^talk 14:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

A major issue in Belgian politics in the 70s and a very mediatised action of the FDF (maybe the most widely known nationally), but I understand it does not ring a bell to English-speakers. --Hooiwind (talk) 08:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• RoE: "It was clear for many reasons that if the Flemish Community wanted Dutch to have a prominent place in Brussels, it would need to make investing in Dutch language education its primary concern." I'd like to remove this; it doesn't really fit anywhere, especially not here.

I don't agree. This POV is important to be cited but should appear as a POV and not as a fact! It definitely need to be rewritten. Vb (talk) 06:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree. In French and Dutch this nuance is kept "On assure de différents côtés", "Er wordt vanuit verschillende hoeken gesteld dat,". --Hooiwind (talk) 08:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• CS: This section is in many ways too close to being a list of statistics in sentence form.

I agree but those statitistics are really relevant. A subarticle might help. Vb (talk) 06:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I think they are very relevant as well. Moving them (and the national concerns section) to a subarticle would be a loss to this article since they somewhat conclude the article. Some can be moved, however. --Hooiwind (talk) 08:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Some of them though are more important than others. The breakdown of Dutch as a second language between the communes isn't really important. We could do without the mention of advertising also. It's interesting, (to me anyways), yes, but the section needs to be streamlined. -Oreo Priest ^talk 15:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)