Talk:Bilingualism in Ottawa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Ottawa, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Ottawa and Canada's National Capital Region. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

I made a few revisions. Some might be controversial, and for that reason I am anxious to discuss them. They are as follows:

• I removed the reference to "rural areas" among those parts of the City where official bilingualism is generally opposed, as the policy does have its support in some rural parts of Cumberland and Gloucester. I think the existing reference to the west and south ends is enough to identify the main areas of opposition (both urban and rural), and avoids characterizing the issue as city-dweller vs. farmer.
• I removed the reference to Terry Kilrea (although his opposition to official bilingualism should be added to the Kilrea article, if it is not already there). He is but one mayoral hopeful, and depending on who runs in 2006, might not even be Chiarelli's biggest challenger. Unless we list every municipal politician (existing and potential) that is pro or anti the bilingualism policy and/or official bilingualism, I think we shouldn't mention just one. A previous reference to two-thirds of Councillors having voted in favour of the policy was already removed by someone else, which makes sense since this article shouldn't really be a tally sheet of support. For that same reason, the reference to Chiarelli's position should also be removed.
• I removed the rest of the "controversy" section, as it simply repeats what is already stated above. Further, this is an encyclopedia article, not an online debate, and the bullet-point format will likely just degenerate into a point/counterpoint debate within the article. I know I have been doing my best for two weeks to resist adding retorts to all of the "against" bullet points. I believe that the existing summary of the opposing views provides sufficient detail and fairly treats both sides.

Hope I do not offend anyone with these changes. Happy to discuss the article further. Skeezix1000 20:22, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Gloucester isn't rural. Cumberland is after a fashion, but for the most part the statement is true. It belongs there, you could put in the exceptions. -- Spinboy 20:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• • Large tracks of Gloucester are rural. I note that the Councillor for Gloucester-Southgate ward (made up almost entirely of parts of former Gloucester) is on the Rural Issues committee. Skeezix1000 20:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Having said that, I added a general reference to opposition "particularly in suburban and rurals parts of the city". Skeezix1000 20:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Works for me. Thanks. -- Spinboy 20:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• I removed all discussions of the two viewpoints. It is obviously going to become a back and forth debate, starting with the relevance of census figures. Safer to keep the article to the facts of the timeline, then. Skeezix1000 21:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

This article should be merged with Bilingualism in Canada or an Ottawa-related article. It could have its own heading, though. CJ Withers 03:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

No it shouldn't. It's distinct enough for its own article, especially if you put in the entire debate. Ardenn 03:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the article content itself is the locus for a debate. Here's an extreme example: I've made a point for merging the Joual article (the nec plus ultra and paragon of perception/wishful thinking/preconceived notions) into Quebec French. Read the discussion on Joual as well as what's listed within the article and you'll see exactly what I mean.

Bilingualism in Ottawa, on the other hand, is a factual article and would be better accessed through the Bilingualism in Canada article, in my opinion. Being "Distinct" is not the salient criteron. The article is, however, noteworthy, i.e. a prime example, and that is part of what Wikipedia is about. If it is so important, then it may even be emblematic of Canadian institutional/legal bilingualism. Therefore, I suggest a merge into the Canadian bilingualism page; this will probably require a new page in the form of a list (chronological?) of events/laws/court decisions. Now that would truly be encyclopedic, no? And why not a double merge? If Ottawa Bilingualism is quitessentially Ottawan, it certainly should, if not must, be featured there.

The big picture is this - how will the information be most easily reached, processed and understood? My latest discussions have revolved on exactly that, stepping back and trying to see how things are organized/linked to improve clarity, content and noteworthiness (if that's a word!). CJ Withers 04:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] update needed

"City council revised its biligualism policy in 2004."

To what? Revised it can mean redefine the scope, expand the scope, limit the scope, review it and do nothing, review it and plan to do something, etc.