Talk:Joyous Entry

A fact from Joyous Entry appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 15 December 2005. The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the
Blijde Inkomst (the "Joyous Entry") of January 1356 was the basic charter of freedoms for Brabant, compared by Romantic historians to Magna Carta?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2005/December.

Wikipedia

Netherlands

This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.NetherlandsWikipedia:WikiProject NetherlandsTemplate:WikiProject NetherlandsNetherlands articles

Belgium

	Belgium portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belgium, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Belgium on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BelgiumWikipedia:WikiProject BelgiumTemplate:WikiProject BelgiumBelgium-related articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Title

"Joyous Entry" is an entry of Britannica, so the article should be in English rather than in Dutch. Moreover, the French translation was incorrect. --Melodius 11:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moved back to its original title with the following note: The original title, which is the name of this famous document known to everyone. Magna Carta is not "Big Chart". It might be sensible to establish a User page, a courtesy to other editors, and to think twice before making changes where, perhaps, angels fear to tread. --Wetman 14:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Melodius has reverted again to Joyous Entry. We await Melodius" reversion of Magna Carta to Big Charter. This is irresponsible editing, based on whim. --Wetman 09:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A search through Amazons book database shows equally recent and authoritative books that use "Joyous Entry" as use "Blijde Inkomst". Unlike Magna Carta which is clearly most well known by the name, there does not appear to be guidence on this from the "real world". The naming ambiguity is notable in and of its self and perhaps would make an interesting sentence or two in the article. --Stbalbach 16:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, in English there is no significant prevalence for the Dutch or English term, but only the so-called authors about the charter are responsible for the overall total appearance of the French term being used more than the Dutch and English terms together: 77% of them seem to have merely copy/edited or referenced only or mainly French sources on the charter. For a topic on a historical text written in Dutch regarding the Dutch-speaking duchy of Brabant and about which many Dutch-language sources exist, this so-manied sourcing it not impressively professional. Only 52% of the assumedly less highly specialized authors who wrote about some of the many Joyous Entries of which not so few actually occurred in French-speaking cities, show this particuliarity and may themselves have been influenced by forementioned 77% of texts mentioning the charter by its French name.

content language	content topic	by any term →		joyous entry	blijde intrede	blyde intrede	blijde inkomst	blyde inkomst	blijde intocht	blyde intocht	joyeuse entrée	joyeuse entree	entrée joyeuse	entree joyeuse	selector determining language & topic
Dutch	charter	8%	112 ←	1	21	0	70	0	2	3	13	2	0	0	het 1355 OR 1356 -the
Dutch	other	92%	1224 ←	35	426	5	164	25	164	0	343	57	4	1	het -1355 -1356 -the
	intended term →			36	452		259		169		415		5		→ en:0.03%, nl:66%, fr:34%
English	charter	12%	240 ←	29	0	0	26	1	0	0	139	42	2	1	the 1355 OR 1356 -het
English	other	88%	1723 ←	407	220	1	142	11	10	0	488	217	178	49	the -1355 -1356 -het
	intended term →			436	221		180		10		886		230		Google effectively shown extracts without its own domain or language selectors set
	term's language →			en:22%	←← nl:21% 411 →→						← fr:57% 1116 →

Each search had " -wiki -wikimedia -wikipedia -wikimiki" behind the in table shown selector. Note that any particular page might mention the topic in more than one language or by more than one variant or spelling, thus a page may have been counted into more than one column. A page mentioning the year (OS or NS) of the charter and counted as such, might also mention other Joyous Entries while not being counted on that row. The assumedly rare occasion of the charter being mentioned without its year, would have been counted as 'other'.

— SomeHuman 16 Mar 2007 20:40 - 17 Mar 2007 01:30 (UTC)

Some minor changes

Let me minutely explicate some minor changes:

The 14th-century language of the document's text and name needn't be identified at the outset with modern Dutch rather than modern Flemish. Why not let sleeping dogs lie?
In a sentence that concerns the Duke of Brabant, the revised hidden link Duchy of Brabant redirects to Brabant. I have made sure that there is a link to Brabant at its first appearance.
The adjective "Brabantic" being a barbarism in English, rather than revert to the former "Brabant custom" I have chosen the third way: "custom in Brabant"

Offered in hope that we can avoid the edit wars that are disfiguring the Page history of Brussels --Wetman 20:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The English word is "Joyous Entry", just as the English word for that other document is "Magna Carta". That's all there is to it. --Melodius 14:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the text of the document is Dutch, since that is the name of the official language which is used in official documents like this one. The fact that the dialects most influential on the normative language at the time were the Brabant and Flemish dialects rather than the Holland dialect as is the case today does not change that. Moreover, although I am not a linguist, the text as it is quoted here looks more Brabantic than Flemish to me, and it is not clear if it reflects the orginal language of the document or that of the more recent compilation of law it was taken from. --Melodius 09:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the text is no longer available to me: dead link. Can it be obtained elsewhere on the internet? — SomeHuman 16 Mar 2007 20:40 (UTC)

Joyous Entry rewritten

As the abundant number of references in the now revised article —and the table in section 'Title' here above— make very obvious, the term 'Joyous Entry', like in French and Dutch languages, mainly means the first official visit of a city. At those visits, extra rights were often granted. At one such occasion of a Joyous Entry into Brussels, an important charter was signed which in context of major law texts became referred to as the Joyous Entry. It thus deserves a proper section by itself, but cannot occupy the entire and far more general term (and article name) 'Joyous Entry'. Since both the general and the specific meanings are most closely related, it would not have been correct to create some disambiguation page; at the contrary, the lead section clarifies the origin of the occasion as well as the name of the famous charter. — SomeHuman 15 Mar 2007 11:18 - 17 Mar 2007 19:24 (UTC)

The article is actually a subsection of Triumphal entry (but check the present redirect!), an opportunity for propaganda and pageantry from the early fifteenth up to the early eighteenth century, which repeatedly occupied the best architects, painters and designers of Europe, represented in Renaissance festival books. Louis XIV carried on the tradition as an instrument of cultural propaganda in his well-publicized fêtes. Raw material: Borso d'Este's triumphal entries into Modena and Reggio (1453); the triumphal entry of Leo X into Florence (1515), occupying Andrea del Sarto and others; Charles V's triumphal entry into Lille, wedding festivities for Grand Duke Cosimo I de’ Medici and Eleonora di Toledo (1539); Henri II's triumphal entry into Lyon (1548); the triumphal wedding procession of Grand Duke Ferdinando and Christine of Lorraine (Florence, 1589); Louis XIII's triumphal entry into Lyon; Cardinal-Infante Ferdinand into Antwerp (1635 with its richly illustrated book) --Wetman 21:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Triumphal entry now redirects here (was to Palm Sunday!). I think ultimately a split is needed between an article on the JE of 1356 (was it) and one on the wider phenomenon, as outlined by Wetman above - I have added a sentence or two to the article lead on it. Or just a new article on the Triumphal entry, borrowing the list etc from here. I've added the BL link, and another German one from HAB Wolfenbüttel. Johnbod 22:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If Triumphal entry receives an encyclopedic treatment, it needs a summary-with-hatnote-link of Roman triumph, which it was consciously reviving, and a summary of Joyous Entry, as well as the modern devolution to Victory parade. Then it can become the enveloping article into which these more specialized articles are enfolded. --Wetman 02:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see the short [1] takes us back to 1301 - I suspect less elaborate, and less well-recorded, festivities go back even further. Johnbod 03:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Norbert Elias, The Court Society 1983, is required reading: I had a paperback of it here somewhere...--Wetman 04:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have Roy Strong's Art and Power; Renaissance Festivals 1450-1650, which is another key text. Johnbod 17:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do people think is the best title - I like the idea of centring it on "entries" rather than general festivities:

Magnificent Entertainment (James I - sadly no I think), or something else? With capital E? Johnbod 17:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Fork

As this page was articles on two different things uncomfortably fused together, I've split the content of the

1356 Joyous Entry to a separate page. This one can focus on the general idea of the triumphal entry, and that one can focus on the charter. I'll update all links to this page to point to the proper article. I hope that's OK. Oreo Priest ^talk 04:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Arguably this article should now be merged to royal entry then. Johnbod (talk) 04:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So that makes sense to you then? Good. Perhaps whatever's not mentioned in royal entry can be added there, and this can be renamed List of Joyous Entries in the Low Countries or something? Oreo Priest ^talk 04:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A proper fork leaves behind a concise summary of the stripped-away material; otherwise, this merely cannibalizes articles, not a move forward.--Wetman (talk) 10:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe split is a better word. There's a hatnote sending the reader there, and is a blurb several lines long describing why the 1356 Joyous Entry was significant and linking the reader there as part of that line in the list. The 1356 Joyous Entry was really a Brabantian constitution named after the Joyous Entry, so the pages are about two pretty distinct things. A summary of that constitution would be out of place here, no? Oreo Priest ^talk 12:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Joyous Entry. 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:

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.

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 12:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]