Talk:Brussels

Municipalities : image : languages -> link to archive

For my proposal behind the change of the municipality names a did today, see Archive 2.--Luxem (talk) 11:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Etymology

(From archive 2):

"The name of Brussels (Bruxelles) possibly has the same origin as Latvian word brukstalas, meaning 'a bushy place, a brushwood', brukslājs 'a marshy place, a bog'. Roberts7 17:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Have you got a reference for that? - SSJ ☎ 05:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Text article:

"The name Brussels derives from the Old Dutch Bruocsella, which means marsh (bruoc) and home (sella) or "home in the marsh".[citation needed

"Bruoc" nor "sella" sound very Dutch. More of Latin. "Broek" however is an old Dutch word for "land".

It is also said, that the name Brussels comes from "Brugzele". "Brug" (still) is Dutch for "bridge" and "Zele" might be a former version of nowadays Zenne. "Bridge over the Zenne". VKing (talk) 22:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

"Bruoc" and "sella" are just old forms for "broek" and "zele". The old Dutch "broek" does not mean "land", it means marsh or brook (It is pronounced like the english "brook" too. Bruoc/broek (nl) and "brook" (en) have the same germanic origin.)--Luxem (talk) 08:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Wet (or marshy) land is "land", so "broek" means "land". VKing (talk) 05:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

You're probably right. But if you ever have been in a marsh or a wet land, I'm sure that you would have doubted whether you would call that place "land". --Luxem (talk) 08:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't Brussels' german name be listed in the beginning, since Brussel is part of a country where that language has offical status? To many, Brussels is known both as Bruxelles, Brussel and Brüssel

==>> The most common theory for the toponymy of Brussels is that it is composed by the celtic word "bruoc" and the Latin word "sella", which means marsh and chapel or "chapel in the marsh".

Dutch dialect

In most places of this article, where the language Dutch is mentioned, in fact it is Flemish, (which is a rather different Dutch dialect). This might be worth mentioning in the text. VKing (talk) 04:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

1. Dutch is Dutch, whether you mean one of the Flemish dialects, or one of the Hollandic dialects, or one of the other dialects spoken in Flanders or the Netherlands.
2. There is not one single Flemish dialect. The difference between the different dialects spoken in Flanders is broader than the difference between either of them and the standard Dutch.

Have a nice day. --Luxem (talk) 08:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

"Dutch" is "dutch" and "land" is "land", but the way with "land" sec usually not is meant marshy land, with the word "Dutch" in princple is meant standard Dutch (called "ABN" = "Algemeen Beschaafd Nederlands" = "General Civilised Dutch"), and not one of it's dialects. They use to be called either "Dutch dialects", or the exact name of the dialect in question, (in this case "Brussels"). So the word "Dutch" sec in the text of this article might be not really sufficient. VKing (talk) 02:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

This is an article about Brussels, not about the languages spoken in Brussels. It would be wrong, IMHO, to substitute every occurence of the word "Dutch" with "a Dutch dialect" or "a Flemish dialect". This is not relevant.

In the New York article, there is mention of Spanish, Italian and Russian as languages spoken in the city. Now we know that the Spanish, Italian and Russian spoken there is not necessarily the standard form of these languages. Ex., I expect that it would be Latin American Spanish, and not Iberian Spanish, that is meant.

So, if we would follow your suggestion, we would have to change this article too. And lots of other articles. I don't believe this is a good idea.

Furthermore, there is a paragraph on the fact that the Dutch spoken here is a Brabantian dialect.

I believe that for clarity, we should keep "Dutch" as the name of the language, and keep the paragraph on the dialect issue.

--Luxem (talk) 17:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, it may be Brabantian and not Flemish. The word Flemish is likely to be used too generally for all Dutch (ahum) speaking part of this country. (The way "Holland" and "Hollandic" often uncorrectly is used for all of the Netherlands and it's standard ("Netherlandic") language).

Anyway, it was very interesting, to learn, that it's not standard Italian and Spanish, what is spoken in a town like NY. In the same way, for NY'ers it can be very interesting, to learn from the Wp-article, that in nowadays capital of Europe, natives are not speaking standard Dutch, but a local Netherlandic dialect.

It seems difficult, if not impossible, to find a valuable reason, why this information shouldn't be provided by this encyclopedia. VKing (talk) 16:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Three valid (and maybe even valuable) reasons :

1. The information is provided in the article : "The original Dutch dialect of Brussels (Brussels) is a form of Brabantic (the variant of Dutch spoken in the ancient Duchy of Brabant) with a significant number of loanwords from French, and still survives among a minority of inhabitants called Brusseleers, many of them quite bi- and multilingual, or educated in French and not writing the Dutch language."
2. If we would change all occurences of Dutch to "Flemish dialect", the readability of the text would suffer.
3. There is also a tactical reason why this change might be a problem : You and I both know that it has long been a highly sensitive political statement to say that the language spoken in Flanders not really is Dutch, but an inferior dialect, not worth keeping, which was an argument against the official use of Dutch in Belgium. Flemish nationalists might feel that you were promoting this anti-Flemish POV. Therefor, you might be provoking an edit war with Flemish nationalists.--Luxem (talk) 21:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Isn't that article called "Brabantian"? There's no link to it in this one yet. That could for instance be changed by adding one in the intro, behind: "Although historically Dutch-speaking",....., so that the text would become: "Although historically Dutch-speaking (Brabantian),......

This allready would do, so that not all occurrances of the word "Dutch", would have to be changed. Besides in the article about this dialect, there's nothing said about inferiority.

This suggestion is just meant to add more exact information to the article, by mentioning a fact. It seems very unlikely, that Flemish nationalists will have objections against that.

(By the way, without spending too much time searching, a paragraph about the dialect is not easy to be found in this article? For sure it's not in the section about languages.) VKing (talk) 04:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that the Brussels dialect is really Brabantian: through the French and international influences, it has become a different unique dialect mix that became almost a language on its own. --Foroa (talk) 06:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance. IMO, it decreases the readability and therefore the value of the article. So I think it is a bad suggestion.

The article as it is now is correct (ref. Dutch language for the definition of Dutch, which comprises the Flemish dialects of Belgium). Adding more detail on a subject that is not the subject of the article would be a bad thing for the article.--Luxem (talk) 11:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

New image

I recently uploaded a 17th-century engraving of Brussells by Wenceslas Hollar (right). Feel free to use or not use. Dcoetzee 11:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I recorded  Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Gewest but I don't know where to put it in the article. Does anybody have an where it would best fit? --Hooiwind (talk) 09:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Region isn't Belgium's capital

Since when did Brussels-Capital Region become Belgium's constitutional capital? The introduction did already explain that Brussels (municipality) is the real capital. - SSJ ☎ 15:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe I missed that. My bad. Oreo Priest ^talk 15:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

No worries. ;) - SSJ ☎ 16:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

"Brussels is the capital of the European Community"

The EU has no capital and the source cited is not authoritative. That statement sounds like boosterism. I would recommend changing the article "the" to "a," and changing community to Union since the EC is a pillar for the time being. You cannot have a capital of a component of a governmental organization. Miglewis (talk) 01:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Crime

Not a single word about the crime rate, which is the highest of any capital city in the EU? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.196.68 (talk) 20:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Languages in the introduction

Sorry for bringing up the eternal language issue once again but I wonder if it's really necessary to begin the introduction to language in Brussels by stating that it was originally Dutch speaking?

"Although historically Dutch-speaking, Brussels became increasingly French-speaking over the 19th and 20th centuries. Today a majority of inhabitants are native French-speakers, although both languages have official status."

Some months ago I added a similar text to article about Helsinki which has a linguistic history similar to that of Brussels, to see the reactions (of course I was reverted) see: [1]. What's going on here? Why is the original majority language more "important" in Brussels and the present majority language more important in Helsinki? Well if you ask me it's because of the nationality of certain Wikipedians.Aaker (talk) 00:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Etymology

The firsts mentions of the city are "Brosella" in 695 and some later "Bruocsella". So the etymology of Brussels is connected to them and not to an unreal dutch name.

They are many sources which explain the celtic and latin origins. Please don't be so pangermanist... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.172.141.127 (talk) 20:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

We could perhaps put both etymologies in, but it is out of line to remove a claim cited by a print source with no rationale. Oreo Priest ^talk 16:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Infobox picture

I was thinking of putting one of these pictures I found in the commons up as the infobox picture, since the old image was deleted. They would help people looking at the article an idea about how part of Brussels looks, but didn't want to make the change if no one agreed with me. The Panorama looks good when put at the right size in the infobox. Anoldtreeok (talk) 09:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, the modern buildings in it are still under "copyright", so these are no better than the panorama. However, I think this is a good policy gone excessively paranoid, so I'll put up the second. We could also make a collage with only old buildings if we wanted... Oreo Priest ^talk 16:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Brussels REGION is the de facto capital CITY of the EU?

Do we have any reason to believe (i.e. references) that it is the REGION Brussels that is the de facto capital of the EU, as opposed to the CITY of Brussels? If no such references exist, I propose that we change the article so that the CITY of Brussels is the de facto capital. I'm proposing this because OH MY GOD IT IS SO CONFUSING TO SEE BRUSSELS AS THE CAPITAL CITY OF THE EU, BUT NOT OF BELGIUM, BECAUSE THE ARTICLE IS ACTUALLY ABOUT THE REGION, AND HOW CAN THE REGION BE A CAPITAL CITY? IT CAN'T! BUT IT CAN OF THE EU! OMG IT TOOK ME LIKE HALF HOUR TO FIGURE ALL OF THIS OUT!!! </rant> (hope there's not Wikipedia rules against capitalized rants) Gabiteodoru (talk) 05:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The "Region" is just the legal status of the entity. It's really just a big city that everyone calls "Brussels". The City of Brussels is a municipality within the city. It's probably easiest to think of it as a capital city that technically has the same powers as a Region, somewhat in the same way that Washinton DC is an autonomous region. Oreo Priest ^talk 20:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes. People were very careful about not calling the region the capital of Belgium, but calling the city the capital of Belgium (I understand that here it doesn't actually have to do with its region/city status, but with the Belgian constitution). However, shouldn't we be equally careful about whether to call the city or the region the de facto capital of the EU? I feel that currently we are not, and think we should fix that. Gabiteodoru (talk) 00:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

They don't have to be different. A region/district/state can be a capital city. See Berlin. What's for sure is that it's not the City of Brussels municipality that's the de facto capital, most of the institutions aren't even in it. Oreo Priest ^talk 11:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Are they not? (Well, I do see that you are (interested in things?) Belgian, so I am taking that into account). But when I stare at this map, it seems that the most important ones (Justus Lipsius, Espace Leopold), are actually within the City of Brussels. Is that incorrect?

Also, do any of Belgium's official institutions fall outside the City of Brussels? If yes, then one can argue that although the City of Brussels is the official capital of Belgium, the Region Brussels if the de facto capital of Belgium. Gabiteodoru (talk) 15:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe the Berlaymont is also within the City of Brussels. Some of the offices (various DGs and so on) are based in other municipalities, however.

While it doesn't explicitly say it, the article already basically implies that the region is the de facto capital of Belgium in the second paragraph of the "In Belgian politics" section, I think. --David Edgar (talk) 12:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

My mistake. And David Edgar is correct on all counts. Oreo Priest ^talk 13:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've edited the page saying that the region is the de facto capital, the city is the de jure capital. I think it reads better and is less confusing when writing it like this. Take a look and see if you're happy with the changes. Thanks! Gabiteodoru (talk) 16:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I removed the constitution bit as it's too much detail for the lead, and it's explained later on. Otherwise, your changes look good. FYI there is a rule against capitalized rants on WP, it's considered yelling and uncivil. No harm done though. Oreo Priest ^talk 19:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

OK. The constitution part was already there before my edit, it said "constitutional capital". Let's pat ourselves on the back for another successful edit! :) And I'll try to stay off the capitalized rants :) Gabiteodoru (talk) 19:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Missing Twin City

There may be a city missing from the sister/twinning cities list. The Wikipedia entry for Manneken Pis states:

"There is also a statue of Manneken Pis in Tokushima, Japan, which was a present from the Belgian embassy (Tokushima being twinned with Brussels)."

I don't know how to verify this nor do I know how to edit the sister cities listings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruce A. WIlliamson (talk • contribs) 00:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

First Solvay conference was not in 1927

If you follow the link supplied with the picture of the 1927 Solvay conference, you come to the wikipedia page which unambiguously states that the first conference was in 1911. The subtext on the picture on the 'Brussels' page states the first conference was in 1927. Please fix this. 129.241.172.204 (talk) 08:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Image

I made this image last may and I'm wondering if it can be added somewhere in this article. Image link --Viscontino (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I've added it to the article Grand Place, but I don't think it really belongs in the article on Brussels as a whole. -Oreo Priest ^talk 15:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

You're right. --Viscontino (talk) 14:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)