Talk:Montreal

Demographics

Why is it that the demographic data on the language of the city is one of the metropolitan area of Montreal and not the city per se ( the island of Montreal ). I'm not sure that francophones would still be in majority because the combined anglophone/allophone population of the island of Montreal is very near to that of the francophones. The problem is that at this point I don't have precise numbers on that given the fact that the mergers actually happened after the 01 Census. I do feel that data presented on wikipedia is unclear and may be missleading because we have some places in Montreal where French is virtually not spoken at all, the place that I live in has an over 90 % of anglophone/allophone households. The point is that the population of the French speaking Montreal should not be overestimated in the article vis-a-vis the anglophone/allophone population. VicFromTheBlock

Francophone cities

I remember reading a few years back that Montreal had fallen to 3rd largest francophone city, after Paris and Kinshasa, Zaire, which is given here as having a pop of 4.5 million, considerably larger than Montreal's. But are they all francophone? (Montreal's population certainly isn't.) zadcat 16:26 Sep 5, 2002 (PDT)

Is Kinshasa's? user:Montrealais

Well, the demographics page about the DR Congo (Zaire) says French is the official language, and the page about Kinshasa gives its population as 4.5 million. It's probably on a par with Montreal, at least. zadcat

French is also Quebec's official language. FWIW, Kinshasa says that the lingua franca of the city is Lingala, not French. - Montréalais

Dude... It's not because certain areas of Monatal are *not* Frenchs that make Monateral a 'non-francophone' city. It is because certain areas of Montreal have seen an aggregation of like-minded cultures that make this burg a cosmopolite city.

What make all these people from all sorts of different locals come here? Exactly because not only is MTL a French & English speaking city, but also because MTL is an open-minded place to live ena breath.

Montreal, Quebec versus Montreal

When did this get moved from Montreal, Quebec? I thought the understanding was that all US and Canadian cities article titles would include the state/province. -- Zoe

It has always been at Montreal, and considering that there's a redirect, I think we can leave it here by virtue of its prominence. - Montréalais

Neighbourhoods

Should the neighbourhoods really be in the syntax Côte-des-Neiges, Quebec? I think this sort of gives the impression that they are, or recently were, separate cities. Although Plateau Mont-Royal has no Quebec on it...

By the way, 65.94.58.254 , thank you for all your work on the suburbs and historical figures. - Montréalais

---

I'm not sure about the syntax. I thought it would be preferable to simply Côte-des-Neiges, although I think Rosemont is the only nieghbourhood where it would be stricly necessary. Rivière des Prairies, Quebec and Pointe-aux-Trembles, Quebec are cetainly the right form, since both are seperate postal districts from Montreal. The Plateau I left as is because it seems more like a discriptive name than the name of town.

Port

Montreal is a major port city, being at the mouth of the Saint Lawrence Seaway which links it to the industrial centres of the Great Lakes. As the most important port in Canada, it is a transshipment point for grain, sugar, petroleum products, machinery, and consumer goods. For this reason, it is part of the railway backbone of Canada and has always been an extremely important rail city.

The Vancouver Port Authority claims to be the largest port in Canada with over $30-billion Canadian in goods each year. The Port of Montreal website (http://www.port-montreal.com) has very detailed information on cargo volume, but I can't find information on value. Either way, it doesn't challenge Vancouvers claim.

Perhaps "most important port in Eastern Canada" would work better? Or "most important port on Canada's east coast" -- stewacide 03:31, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Cleanup

This page needs some cleaning up. I tried a little bit. We should seriously think about using a template.

fvincent 07:24, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)

See also

The "see also" list should be relatively limited, to topics strongly related to Montreal as a whole (list of cities in Canada, etc.), not to events that simply happened in Montreal. Otherwise the "see also" list could be very long indeed, including links to Expo 67, the 1976 Olympics, the Expos baseball club, the Montreal Canadiens hockey team and so forth. On the other hand, such events would fit into a "timeline" page or section... some other cities have them, see for instance Dallas. P.T. Aufrette 20:08, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Culture

Seems like some mention should be made of various cultural happenings. Particularly the Montreal Jazz Festival and the international fireworks competition, but I suppose the Nuits d'Afrique, the Pride Parade, and the Just For Laughs festival deserve mention too. Perhaps also the Tam Tam jam, not necessarily because it's of international interest (although tourists should see it) but because it's interesting in being self-organized. I don't know where these sorts of things would fit into the entry (or whether they're worth including). I think they're cool, but I live here. --Andrew 09:02, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)

You can come and improve Culture of Quebec#Events if you know of these events. There is also a List of Quebec festivals which doesn't yet have a lot of articles to point to. Mathieugp 12:47, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hmm. Both good articles (at least in principle). How much of their content should be duplicated in this article? --Andrew 13:39, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)

You mean in the Montreal article? Not sure. I think it's OK if some of it is duplicated. We should try to have it worded differently though. :-) Mathieugp 14:13, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Winter images

Does someone who lives here have some arctic-wasteland pictures of Montreal to post in the weather section? I discovered, to my astonishment, that I have none. One of the mountain in summer would be good, too, to balance our ch'i. --Andrew 03:00, May 5, 2004 (UTC)

Tell you what: I will have some in about three months, if you can wait. ^_^ - Montréalais 16:04, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Street names

copied from User talk:Mirv

This wiki uses french terms for Montreal streets in the middle of English sentences. This is just wierd. Nobody says "It's at the corner of rue University and boulevard René-Lévesque." You should use English terms on an English website. - 69.157.181.136

1. The articles are placed under Marie-Reine-du-Monde Cathedral, not Cathedral of Mary, Queen of the World; Notre-Dame de Montréal Basilica, not Basilica of Our Lady of Montreal; and Saint-Joseph du Mont-Royal, not Saint Joseph's Oratory. They also use French for other proper names: Place d'Armes, Chapelle du Sacré-Coeur, etc.
   • They are under the terms by which they are commonly known in English, "Marie-Reine-du-Monde Cathedral" and "Notre-Dame de Montréal Basilica", not the French terms "Cathédrale Marie-Reine-du-Monde" and "Basilique Notre-Dame de Montréal". I am not proposing to change "Chemin de le Côte-des-Neiges" to "Coast of the Snows Road", but to the term by which it is commonly known in English, "Côte-des-Neiges Road".
2. The French names are official names, printed on the street signs, on maps, in guidebooks, and so forth.
   • The French terms are used on street signs because Montreal is officially a French city, and on maps because there is no point in publishing seperate English and French maps. In English guidebooks the English terms are used.
     • Frommer's and Fodors, for example, use the French. Others omit them entirely, as described below.
3. The French names are more common; most people, whatever their native language, call the streets Rue Peel, Boulevard St.-Laurent, Chemin Côte-des-Neiges, and so on (when they use the titles at all—from my experience they tend to leave them out entirely, saying simply Peel, St.-Laurent, and Côte-des-Neiges).
   • I've lived in Montreal for more than 20 years, and I cannot recall once hearing a term like "Rue Peel" in the middle of an English sentence. If you don't believe me, pick up a Newspaper or listen to a traffic report.
     • I've only lived here for a few years, but I have heard such uses—though as I said, I've heard people omit the Rue or Street more often than not.
     • As for newspapers: The Gazette uses the English names. The Mirror simply omits them.
4. Taken to its conclusion this Anglicization would require translating all the French street names into English: thus you would end up with Saint Lawrence Boulevard, Pine Avenue, and other perplexing terms.
   • Again, I not am proposing the "Anglicization" of Montreal street names. I am proposing we use the terms by which they are commonly known in English, such as "Saint-Laurent Boulevard" or "Côte-des-Neiges Road".
     • Except it seems equally common to call them simply Saint-Laurent or Côte-des-Neiges. Would that be agreeable?

—No-One Jones 04:53, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

I have not objections to omiting them, although I don't understand why this is preferable to using English terms. - 69.157.172.53

It's a compromise between the official names and the common English usage, which is divided between using French (rarely), using English words (sometimes) and omitting both (sometimes). I'll go ahead and make the changes. do nothing, since you've already done it. Thanks. —No-One Jones 06:20, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

International English

I think that for the sake of all the English speakers who do not live in Quebec, know absolutely no French (or so little), we can write Peel street, St-Denis street and mention somewhere that since (insert date here), a regulation makes all city signs French. (Before that, it depended on the neighbourhood.) Mathieugp 15:42, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

I am opposed to using anything but the French terms for Montreal streets. It is not up to us to decide which of several possible unofficial anglicizations is preferable for French street names. Would it be De L'Assomption Boulevard, L'Assomption Boulevard, Assomption Boulevard, De L'Assomption, L'Assomption, Assomption, or Assumption Boulevard? Correct answer: Boulevard de l'Assomption.

Furthermore, nobody would dare write Rivoli Street or Champs-Élysées Avenue for Paris streets... I hope. Or for that matter, rue Fleet in fr:Londres. Why should the official, French street names in this officially French-speaking city be treated differently?

Finally, I shouldn't have to point out that what people say has little or no bearing on what we ought to write. I think official usage has just a little bit more to do with it. And my mail arrives addressed to Rue Saint-X. - Montréalais 01:54, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Just to throw in my two cents worth, we should write what people will expect to read. Which, in the Montreal press, is "Peel" for English, or "rue Peel" for French; official documents generally use "rue Peel" or, occasionally, "Peel Street", causing Montrealers to pause and check that it really means the same place. Now, people who've never been to Montreal and speak no French might as well be prepared for what they're going to see and hear when they visit. (If they're never going to visit, it doesn't really matter what we call everything...) And the choice of partial Anglicization is a major stumbling block. (I should point out, just to muddy the waters, that Arabic names are transliterated and the English name is often used in Wikipedia; but the criterion seems to be "what do English speakers familiar with it call it?" By this test, "Peel" it is, along with "de la Montagne" and so forth).

Using the full French name can be cumbersome and probably not useful; one rarely sees "rue Peel" (any more than "Peel street") in English print.

So I guess my vote is for "Peel", or "Peel (street)" if disambiguation is necessary ("Peel (street in Montreal)"? Isn't it named after a British one?). --Andrew 03:58, May 11, 2004 (UTC)

The notion that the form "Peel" is regularly used in print to refer to Montreal streets is simply false. Sure, we say it in informal speech, and in a few contexts where using the full name would be heavy, for example if several other generics have already been used in the same clause. But it would not ever be presented as the full name of the street. "Peel is a street in Montreal running between...."? Preposterous. - Montréalais 05:07, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Incidentally, here are the official rules for Quebec toponyms:

On doit respecter la langue dans laquelle les noms ont été officialisés. On ne doit donc pas traduire les noms de lieux du Québec, ni même seulement leur élément générique (lac, rivière, mont, etc.). Exemple : Dans un guide touristique en anglais, on parlera des Îles de la Madeleine, non pas des Magdalen Islands.

("The language in which names are officialized [French] must be respected. Place names in Quebec must therefore not be translated, not even their generic element (lac, rivière, mont, etc.) Example: In a tourist guide in English, the name Îles de la Madeleine should be used, not 'Magdalen Islands.'") - Commission de Toponymie

I could see violating this rule in cases where usefulness of the encyclopedia could be hampered (for example Quebec City -- which nevertheless mentions the official name in the first section), but this is not the case with street names. Quite the reverse: a person who comes to Montreal looking for Pine Avenue (or "The Main," for that matter) is going to have quite the hunt on her hands, even though many people still call it that.

As for the "comprehension" argument, that's not treated as a good reason to alter street names in any other city. Madrid mentions "Plaza de Colón," "Gran Vía," "Plaza del Dos de Mayo," with not the slightest concern spared for the poor, suffering monolingual reader to whom the word "rue" apparently presents an insurmountable barrier.

The fact remains that there is one and only one name for a street in Montreal, and that is the French one: generic + articulation + specific. It is not our job to rule on which of several conceivable English variants ought to be used for French-named streets, which is, all euphemism aside, what is proposed. The least we can do in writing an encyclopedia is to get the name right.

A complete database of Quebec toponyms with correct orthography is available from the Commission at [1].

- Montréalais 05:21, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

OK. I agree now that we ought to stick to the official names including the rue, avenue, boulevard, place, croissant, lac, etc. part of the name so that visitors are informed of the real names. If it is going to be that way however, then we should definitely give some sort of an explanation for it somewhere in the article. Mathieugp 15:16, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Map

For the time being I've removed what I gather is meant to be the locator map of Quebec, since it's very large and of no help in finding Montreal. I also question whether we need the complete list of MPs and MNAs in the box. Maybe just a number of seats, as in the province articles. - Montréalais 03:36, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Keep the MPs, just look at the Toronto, Ottawa, Calgary, Peel, and Greater Vancouver Regional District articles. I'm trying to get a project started. I'm gonna upload a new map that will be a little more help. Earl Andrew 05:37, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree that a list of MPs and MNAs would be useful; I just question whether they should be in the box. I imagine boxes as being primarily for "facts at a glance," which a big list is not; it's also makes the box very cumbersome from a layout point of view. I'd prefer for the lists to be within the body of the article, and in a different format (including the name of the riding, for example).

Also, the map is cool, but if I could make a suggestion: have a box within the map showing a blowup of the Montreal area, with the island in red. That could be useful in distinguishing Montreal from its immediate environs. It would also be especially helpful for articles concerning suburban regions, to show them in geographical relation to the metropolis. - Montréalais 16:27, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The idea to have the MP's and MNA's was copied from some british articles (eg. City of London) Montreal just happens to have a lot of people, therefore a lot of representitives. If you are going to take them off, a link would be helpful at where the MP's used to be in the box. And I was thinking the same thing about the map, I didn't want to go through the trouble. I might as well now though. Earl Andrew 17:30, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I like that idea foe the map. For the MP's, just put them in a section of the article. 21:48, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Montréal, Québec

(moved discussion from the Wikipedia:Village pump.)

Could an admin please move "Montreal, Quebec" to "Montréal, Québec"? It cannot be done right now, not sure why (the target page is just a redirect). The e acute is ISO-8859-1 safe.

Urhixidur 12:16, 2004 Aug 23 (UTC)

Is the English name really with an accent? I cannot recall ever seeing it written such outside of French texts. Anárion 13:04, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Google gets 12 million hits for Montreal and 4 million for Montréal, or if limited to english pages only, 7.4 and 1.2 million respectively -- Chris 73 Talk 13:44, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)

Officially, the name Montréal is supposed to be written with an accent in English.

From The Canadian Style, published by Public Works and Government Services Canada, 1997:

"On November 23, 1983, the Treasury Board issued its Circular No. 1983-58 to implement the policy adopted by the Canadian Permanent Committee on Geographical Names (CPCGN) regarding the linguistic treatment of geographical names on federal maps and in federal documents. [...] Names of inhabited places retain their official form in both English and French texts, e.g. Montréal (Que.), Saint John (N.B.), and St. John's (N.L.)."

On the other hand, Montreal (sans accent) is very very common, and easier to type on keyboards sans accents. Grstain 13:47, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There has been considerable discussion about naming conventions for cities. I believe the convention is to use the most common English language spelling rather than defer to "official" spellings. It was decided that the article should be at Kiev rather than the official "Kyiv", similarly Calcutta is used rather than the official "Kolkata". If we locate Montreal at Montréal, Québec simply because it is the official spelling, we could risk reopening some highly contentious cans of worms (which have been fairly quiet of late). older≠wiser 14:16, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Style sheets created and used by government bodies are just that. They have no standing outside the body that creates them and anyone who choses to use them. Different government bodies within the same government may have different style sheets. Often, as with any style sheet or style guide, a particular recommendation may not be generally followed outside the organizaton. See Hansard: Thursday, May 13, 2004 for an official English transcript from the Canadian parliamentary record in which diacritics are not used on Montreal or Quebec (though diacritics appear on personal names and the place name Trois-Rivières). This is normal Canadian English usage in which it is customary for certain place names to appear in English without diacritics (even though in general diacritics on French names are preserved). I would not be surprised to see this change eventually. In which case Wikipedia can also change

eventually. Jallan 18:30, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This article should be at Montréal instead of Montréal, Quebec, as this is a prime example of primary topic disambiguation. Trilobite (Talk) 17:26, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've only ever heard Montréal pronounced in such a way as to warrant keeping the accent in English. Then again, maybe it's pronounced differently in the US (like coupe and coupé). How is it pronounced in Canada - is the spelling Montréal more accurate? zoney ███ talk 19:28, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In Canada both Montreal and Quebec are generally pronounced in English as they look like they would be pronounced in English: something like Mun-tree-all and Kwuh-beck. That an Anglicized pronunciation is normal for these forms in English is certainly part of the reason for the customary dropping of the acute accent. In any case, since that is current de facto standard practice and also a practice of the Canadian government (as indicated above in my last note here) it is what Wikipedia should follow. I believe that use of Montréal in an English context is increasing but that it is very far from being the norm. That parliamentary transcripts do not use it shows that CPCGN recommendations are not accepted universally for English text by government bodies. Jallan 20:40, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Our policy is quite simple - you are to use the most common english name. As has been said above, I think that means the unaccented form (Montreal and Quebec). →Raul654 22:52, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)

Oh good. So the policy for this encyclopaedia is to use the wrong names. I think it is splitting hairs to insist on the accent removal - the accented form is correct, but almost identical to the "common" form. zoney ███ talk 23:33, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It is not the policy of this encyclopedia to use the wrong names. It is also not the policy of this encyclopedia to replace the forms of names in general use in English by forms not generally used because some people think they ought to be used. Such advocacy is against Wikipedia policy. If, for example, you wanted Deutschland to appear in Wikipedia instead of Germany, you would first have to persuade a substantial number in the outside world to use Deutschland in English text instead of Germany.

To make a case that Montréal is the correct form in English text, you might first convince the editors of the Canadian parliamentary proceedings that they should use it. Then convince the Bank of Montreal (which calls itself "Bank of Montreal" in English and "Banque de Montréal" in French) that they should use Montréal in English. Convince the Montreal Gazette that they are spelling it wrong and so forth. Convince other English newspapers that spell Montreal but Trois Rivières. Only if the outside English-speaking world changes should Wikipedia.

There's a discussion of such translation issues at "Reader Reaction and Workplace Habits in the English Translation of French Proper Names in Canada" by Brian Mossop, Government of Canada Translation Bureau and York University School of Translation. It states in part:

No government-wide official rules have ever been enunciated by a federal authority concerning the translation of French place names into English in running text. However, some government institutions do from time to time provide translators with rules, and these do not necessarily conform with The Canadian Style. For example, the instructions from the Immigration and Refugee Board state that 'Montreal', 'Quebec' (the province) and 'Quebec City' are to be written without accents. Also, an Alta Vista search of Government of Canada Web sites (...gc.ca) showed that 'Québec City' is used, but not nearly as often as the unaccented form: there were 1,124 hits for the accented form, as compared to 5,254 hits for 'Quebec City'.

While your at it, persuade French speakers in Canada that "London, Ontario" in Canada should not be rendered in French as "Londres, Ontario" because "Londres" is the wrong name.

Names of places are often different between languages and only usage defines what is right. Style sheets like The Canadian Style cannot force their views on correctness. No style guide can. The French Language Academy is often the butt of ridicule for attempting and failing to force particular usages and spellings. As long as a significant majority government documents and university publications and newspapers presenting text in English predominantly use Montreal rather than Montréal in English, Montreal is the predominant correct form in English, the form of common usage, and therefore the correct form to be used in Wikipedia. The Canadian Style hasn't yet been able to change general usage on that matter. If usage does change, even if the change were mostly confined to government use and academic use and reference works, then there would be a good case for Wikipedia to follow along.

Are the correct Gaelic forms of Irish names with diacritics always commonly used in Ireland in English text or are the names used in English text often those forms that have become normal in English?

Jallan 02:36, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree with the "most common" rule for spelling — this is language, not mathematics, and there are only "standard" and "nonstandard", not "correct" and "incorrect" — but I wouldn't use Google blindly. We should use the spelling (and accenting) that is most common among professional sources. This is especially important for accenting, because many nonprofessional English-speaking writers don't know how to type letters with accents. That being said, the New York Times, CNN, and other English newspapers I can find, even the Canadian canada.com and the Globe and Mail, use the unaccented "Montreal" in their online editions (I'm not sure about print editions). —Steven G. Johnson 01:08, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)

Do we have to have this discussion every three weeks? Why do new editors think that, somehow, the arguments that have failed in the past will somehow prevail this time? THIS IS THE ENGLISH WIKIPEDIA!!!! RickK 05:00, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)

Er, if they are new editors, they wouldn't been around for previous debates. THIS IS COMMON SENSE!!!! Pcb21| Pete 07:20, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Webster's Ninth New Collegiate lists both spellings in both cases, each with a different pronunciation (the French pronunciations are given for the accented forms). This is consistent with the "conventional/local" distinction, which seems to be standard in English writing. Keep it where it is. Austin Hair 07:51, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)

Would it make sense to ask the developers to design and provide a facility, much as we have now for dates, which would allow entities that have alternative presentations, such as Montreal/Montréal, Hawaii/Hawai'i, etc. to be displayed according to a user's personal preference? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 16:22, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Leave the accents off. I've never once seen them used in Australian English, and suspect that the only place you will find them consistently used in English is in Canada, where Francophone politics is an ever-present force. Our consistent policy has been that where something is well known internationally by a different name to that used locally, the international name takes precedence, and the local name is used as a redirect. This as I see it is saying that so far as article names are concerned, it's more important for the encyclopedia to be easy to use than to be pleasing to the pedants. Andrewa 17:36, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You suspect wrong, Andrewa. Mostly Montreal remains mostly unaccented in English text in Canada. And The Canadian Style rules adopted by a some government departments which would like Montreal to have an acute accent in English text are just as clear that English names should not be modified in French texts, for example that "St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador" should be rendered in French as "St. John's, Terre-Neuve-et-Labrador" instead of the normal French usage "Saint-Jean, Terre-Neuve-et-Labrador". Their rules want cities, towns and villages to remain untranslated and unadapted in style although names of regions and geographics names are to be translated. From this comes the oddity above that they don't want the city "St. John's" to be translated when rendered in French but accept that "Newfoundland" should be translated. I sympathize with an attempt to simplify by standardizing on one name only for each municipality. But the CPCGN rules have not caught on in Canada outside of some government departments and have not become general usage in Canada outside those departments in either English or French. CPCGN wants names of cities to be left alone (other than translating of geographical terms that might be part of a city name). That changes much traditional usage. But names of provinces are to be translated (as the translations are too "official" to be discarded). That produces the much ridiculed recommendation that the city of Québec in the province of Québec should be "Québec, Québec" in French but "Québec, Quebec" in English. The traditional English rendering is "Quebec City, Quebec" and that remains the normal English rendering. See List of communities in Quebec for the normal English forms which are in almost all cases exactly the same as the French forms.. The only ones with different English and French forms are Montreal (which is Montréal in French), Quebec City (which is Québec in French), and Trois Rivières which is often rendered in English by the English translation "Three Rivers". Jallan 19:22, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Very interesting, but I think you've misunderstood me. What I was saying was that outside of Canada, I don't think the accented form is common in English. If as you say the accented form is not the most common English form inside Canada either, that's even more reason not to use it in English Wikipedia article names.

And from what you say it seems this pattern carries on to translated names as well as transliterated ones, with some amusing glitches. Andrewa 03:03, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia: Requested moves

(Discussion on article name moved from WP:RM - see also #Montréal, Québec above.)

• There's no Montreal, and Montreal, Quebec is most definitely the most prominent Montreal. 132.205.15.4 06:51, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Well, there is a Montreal, but it's just a redirect. I concur. Noel 14:20, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Strongly support. I wouldn't like to see New York, New York. --[[User:Valmi|Valmi ✒]] 01:12, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm not too sure. I think Montreal is quite a big city in France. How do the French do it? Dunc|☺ 09:58, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • If you look at the disambig page, you'll note no other large cities. From the Montreal article, it says Montreal Quebec is the second largest french (language) city in the world, after Paris, so any city in France would still not be all that notable in comparison. 132.205.94.229 22:16, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Follow the french way of doing it at http://fr.wikipedia.org because they'll know best about the relative importance of the places. They have the main city at Montreal (Mon-ray-al, and with the accent), and all the other places in France don't have articles yet for some reason. Dunc|☺ 10:46, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • Sounds basically reasonable, but I wonder about that accent, which most non-Frence speakers probably don't even know how to type? Clearly there ought to be something at Montreal, but whether it's a redirect to the page (with accent), or the actual page itself, I don't yet have a strong feeling. Noel 14:43, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
        • Wikipedia:Use English; officially the name has an accent, but most English speakers leave it off, so so will we. The French get a bit touchy about what they perceive as American cultural imperialism, and there was something in WP:VP about this before. Dunc|☺ 15:48, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Is Toronto, Ontario going to be moved to Toronto? How about Los Angeles, California? I thought it was now WP style to have Canadian and American city article titles include the state, province, or territory. - Montréalais 20:26, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • • It would have been nice to know that (I didn't) before the move was made. That's the kind of data the move notice planted over here was supposed to attract. I would not have supported the move (see above) had I known about this. Noel 15:20, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • This is ridiculous. Move it back to Montreal, Quebec. There needs to be a standard. Only one city in Canada should not need the province following at that's Ottawa because it's the capital. There is a standard that must be followed. Earl Andrew 20:52, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Actually, I would argue that if Montreal is Montreal, Quebec, Ottawa should certainly be Ottawa, Ontario, since unlike Washington it's definitely in a particular province. - Montréalais 21:12, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • Ottawa is the capital though of Canada. It is important to Canada more than Ontario. However I will concede there is a case to move it to Ottawa, Ontario but I would not agree with it. We are trying to follow some sort of a naming convention, which has been until name, City, Province except for Ottawa. Washington is at Washington, DC because Washington is also a US state. :-) Earl Andrew 22:02, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • There seems to be some consensus to move it back to Montreal, Quebec. Any objections, or shall I do so? - Montréalais 16:02, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Not yet. There are two issues here:
  1. Montreal and Quebec versus Montréal and Québec (where I think the answer from WP:VP above and general practice is put the articles in the English Montreal and Quebec rather than the French Montréal and Québec, with redirects from the French versions to the English versions); and
  2. Montreal versus Montreal, Quebec (ultimately, I don't care very much, as there will be a redirect from one to the other in any event: however, the most common English name for Montreal, Quebec is Montreal and that would usually prevail, I think; ditto for Toronto, Los Angeles etc., with, of course, a {{otheruses}} header and disambiguation page for the other places and things with the same name. I will of course defer if official policy says otherwise. Very much earlier, I note that Montréalais said "It has always been at Montreal, and considering that there's a redirect, I think we can leave it here by virtue of its prominence." Plus ça change...).

There is no readily apparent consensus on naming at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (city names) / Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (city names). -- ALoan (Talk) 16:17, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'd say move it to Montreal, Quebec or Montréal, Québec just not Montreal as it goes against the normal convention. Earl Andrew 02:13, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Do we really want the "American English" pronunciation? As far as I'm aware, /mAn.tri"AL/ isn't a variant pronunciation, it's just incorrect.

Origin of the name

Some anon added the following to the article:

There are a few stories behind how Montreal got its name. One story says that it stems from Mount Royal. Another says that King François named it for Archbishop Monreale of Sicily who persuaded the Pope to annul Spanish and Portuguese claims in the New World, thus allowing the French to claim land. The third story claims that one of Cartier's men was from an area of France that was known for its fortresses name Montréal that were elevated on cliffs and the area reminded him of it. The true story may never be known.

Quite apart from the fact that this is copied directly from http://montreal.rezrez.com/whattoexpect/areahistory/index.htm, I can't find any confirmation of the second theory anywhere; the closest thing I found was a story that Cartier named the mountain after Archbishop Monreale (in Lanctôt's A History of Canada, v. 1, p. 60, 1963 English translation). Everything else suggests that the city is named after the mountain. —No-One Jones ^(m) 05:39, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Montreal Toronto economic rivalry or the metropolis move

I took the following paragraph out of the "people" section because it should be elsewhere. Personally, I do not think it should be in the Montreal article at all because it concerns Toronto just as well as Montreal, and it concerns Canadian Economic History even more because we are talking here of the shift of the economic and technological and population metropolis of Canada (and the English-Canadian cultural metropolis) out of Quebec and to Ontario. I have the impression that there should be a separate article on this major shift or move. It should have a lot more than the mention of the most recent exodus of the English - Canadians from Montreal. For starters, the big (unending) economic boom in Toronto started before WWII with the discovery of huge amounts of mineral wealth in Northern Ontario and the creation of a thriving stock exchange in Toronto to support its development. In addition, Toronto surpassed Montreal (in population as well as in economic terms) shortly after WWII, a long time before the most recent exodus of the 1970, and was recognized as the metropolis of Canada before any question the future of Quebec and its relationship with Canada came to the surface in the 1960s and 1970s. --AlainV 10:54, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There is an intense rivalry between Montreal and Toronto, Ontario which increased after many businesses left Montreal during the 1970s among a general panic about the future of Quebec and its relationship with Canada. Most of the businesses relocated to Toronto, and Toronto subsequently became the business capital of Canada. Many Montrealers still resent this time period and are supporters of the recent development of commerce and industry in Montreal. Conversely, Montreal is seen by many people from Toronto and the rest of Canada as being a party city with great nightlife.

What rivalry?

Factual error

Recent modifs to this article introduced factual a factual error:

The intro paragraph reads: "It is often stated that Montreal is the second largest francophone city in the world after Paris; however almost half the population is anglophone (though many speak French with varying degrees of proficiency)."

I am not certain why the fact that Montreal is a French speaking city was toned down. It seems a bit absurd. Are we going to have to monitor this all the time? I know I personnaly won't have the patience for it.

Also, I do not know why it was added that half the population is anglophone which is factually wrong.

Montreal is a French speaking city de jure and de facto. The greater Montreal area is even more French-speaking.

Here are the facts :

Using the 2001 numbers, 68.7% of the population in the GMA had French as their mother tongue, 12.9% had English, and 17.6% had some other language. On the island of Montreal, it is 55.9% for French, 19.4% for English, and 24.7% for the others.

This reality is not always appearent because of the great proportion of francophones and allophones who can speak fonctional English as a second (or third) language. However, these bilingual (and sometimes trilingual) francophones and allophones are NOT anglophones. An anglophone is someone who was brought up in English or ended up adopting this language through assimilation.

When looking at the stats for language most often spoken at home (which is one of the best indicator of language of adoption) we get this:

• Greater Montreal: fr=70.1% en=18.1% others=11.1%
• Montreal Island: fr=57.4% en=26.0% others=16.6%

Counting all the people who claim to know English (Anglophones + bilingual francophones and allophones) we get:

60.5% of the people in Greater Montreal and 68.6% on the Montreal Island.

Doing the same for French (Francophones + bilingual anglophones and allophones) we get:

91% of the people in Greater Montreal and 86% on the Montreal Island.

-- Mathieugp 21:36, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You are right. The paragraph should be rephrased to state explicitely the proportions for mother tongues and also, separately, the proportions for the capacity to understand English to some degree. Right now the intro leads to many different interpretations. --AlainV 01:20, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The phrase "second largest francophone city in the world", although comforting, is nevertheless somewhat misleading. Many people even today express continuing concern about the future of French on the island of Montreal. I think accuracy requires mentioning the partly-anglophone character of Montreal. Perhaps "half" is an exaggeration, but it is a high percentage nevertheless. Of course if you include "450" then the percentage of French speakers is much higher. -- P.T. Aufrette 19:02, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I see your point. We should make sure that readers understand it as "second biggest city/metropolitain area (in terms of population) where French is the most universally spoken language". We can certainly point out the extrodinary number of these same Montrealers who can communicate in English as well. This question cannot be avoided abviously, but since it is quite complex and largely misunderstood, I think it deserves to be developped under its own subheading. -- Mathieugp 22:00, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, such a subheading exists already, as "Demographics", and the topic is already developed there. So it's just a question of whether to say something in the first paragraph. But if everyone objects, we can just drop it and leave it like before. -- P.T. Aufrette 06:17, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That's what I was saying. We should make everything clear in the right places (History of Montreal, Demographics of Montreal), then write a meaningful sentence that gives readers a good indication and invite them to read further. For example, it could say: "Montreal is presently the second largest French-speaking city in the world after Paris. The city is also home to an important anglophone population whose permanent settlement began in the late 18th century. The city was even in the majority English-speaking between the 1830s and 1860s. (See Demographics of Montreal and History of Montreal)" -- Mathieugp 17:31, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Francophone City

I changed the statement in the introductory paragraph to indicate that Montreal is the second largest Francophone city. It is well understood that any city in any country is not mono-linguistic. Even Paris, which is considered the largest Francophone city in the world, is not 100% French speaking, just as Montreal is not 100% Francophone, but it is still the second largest city where the MAJORITY of the people speak French as a mother tongue. Páll 23:53, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but Paris is not 25%-35% Arabic-speaking. And most world cities with large other-language communities have only had them since the start of mass immigration in the 1960s, whereas Montreal had a large anglophone percentage probably since two centuries or so (throughout most of its history as it grew into a major city). Maybe even at times in Montreal's history there was an anglophone majority (are old census figures available?). Wishing Montreal to be more completely francophone doesn't make it so, maybe this is "wishful thinking". -- P.T. Aufrette 06:08, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Maybe if you read the section "People of Montreal" you will find that there is a historic (not just linguistic) cleavage in Montreal. There are considerable areas in city, with not so large concentration of population, being traditionally anglo. It's more difficult to find a similar aspect in Paris or some other place of the world. --Vasile 15:14, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If you are interested in the phenomenon of bilingualism enough to make a regular study (or irregular readings) you will find it is rather easy to find other cities in the world with traditional sections where a minority language is spoken. If you want to compare with countries having an industrial economy like ours go take a look at Brussels, the capital of Belgium and at Helsinki, the capital of Finland, and at other lesser urban areas in the same countries. From 1831 to 1867 Montreal had a majority of English speaking citizens, with nearly all of them coming from the United Kingdom. For another 40 years after that the percentage of the English speaking was high enough to warrant a rough alternance in the election of mayors. The mother tongues of the mayors of Montreal reflect this. The last one to have English as a mother tongue was elected in 1908. Since then all mayors have had French as their mother tongue, reflecting the nature of the population. See http://www.rootsweb.com/~qcmtl-e/MairesMTL.html . But at the time, the geographical area of Montreal was just a tiny part of the island of Montreal (while today it covers the entire island) and the surrounding areas mostly spoke French. --AlainV 18:17, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Census reveals that only 17% of Montrealers speak English as a first language, while 52% speak French as a first language. Additionally, 30% are allophones (speak neither English nor French as a first language). (Statistics were taken for the entire island of Montreal, not the CMA.) Hence, I removed the anon edit that stated that the numbers for anglophones and francophones were the same, since this is clearly false. Darkcore 00:51, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Public bickering makes Wikipedia look foolish

Right now, the article seems to change every day or two, with Wednesdays being "Anglophone!" day, Fridays being "Francophone!" day, and alternate Mondays being "Allophone!" day. This continuing uncertainty seems to add credence to the people who claim that Wiki is an unreliable, highly-politicized source of information.

Is there any chance that we can agree on some relatively-neutral language to leave stable in the main article while folks use this discussion page to hash out a finely-tuned, acceptable-to-most political statement about the language(s) spoken in Montreal?

Atlant 16:38, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Digging up the facts

I agree with Atlant. I was hoping that this would happen when I added my input under the Factual error subheading. We need to clear everything up in this talk page. I think we should first create tables which will clearly state:

1. the number (and proportion) of Francophones, Anglophones, and Allophones in Montreal (the city, the island, and the region)
2. the number (and proportion) of Francophones who can speak English as a second language
3. the number (and proportion) of Anglophones who can speak French as a second language
4. the number (and proportion) of Allophones who can speak French as a second/third language
5. the number (and proportion) of Allophones who can speak English as a second/third language
6. the number (and proportion) of Montrealers who speak French at home
7. the number (and proportion) of Montrealers who speak English at home
8. the number (and proportion) of Montrealers who speak neither French nor English at home
9. the number (and proportion) of Montrealers who speak French at work
10. the number (and proportion) of Montrealers who speak English at work
11. the number (and proportion) of Montrealers who speak neither French nor English at work
12. Any other relevent data pertaining to the current situation

This article could be Demolinguistics of Montreal. We should also try to find all the data available on the linguistic evolution of Montreal, ie, how it was prior to the latest census.

-- Mathieugp 17:32, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Mathieugp that a good solution (the best I can see for now)for getting a stable portrait of Montreal should be to make another article on "language in Montreal", which would have the advantage of placing in long term perspective(Montreal as an English and then a bilingual city during the 2nd half of the 19th century) as well as short term (suburban growth after WWII with English Suburb concentrations in some parts of the West island and the)view and immediate political context (the recent fusions and the integration of allophone families through the public schools) all of the elements involved. The main article on Montreal would have a clear statement that liguistics in Montreal can be very complicated and would lead immediately to the language in Montreal article, without "giving away" anything. --AlainV 02:15, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Montreal Wikipedia Meetup

OK, so, this is waaaaaaaay off-topic and it's wrong to bring it up here, but: there is a Montreal Wikipedia Meetup that will be getting together on 14 Mar 2005. I think it'd be great to bring together some of the chief combatants in the edit wars over this city over beers and coffee. We'll be meeting at Casa del Popolo, neutral Latin American ground right along our city's traditional east-west border (av. St.-Laurent). If you're in Montreal or interested in Montreal please feel free to attend. --ESP 05:12, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea if it's wrong to bring that up here, but I think it sounds like a great idea. If I were going to be in Montreal on that day, I'd come and in the interest of amity, I'd buy a round for everyone even though I have very few dogs in this hunt. But whatever you do, don't get hung up on a beer versus wine argument! :-)

Atlant 13:33, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Damn... I have night classes. :( - Montréalais 02:33, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Gay/lesbian population

Until today, this article claimed that about 15% of Montreal's population was gay or lesbian. This claim was just removed, with no explanation. I'm certainly not about to put it back without some sort of reference to back it up, but perhaps someone knows of such a reference? --Andrew 07:10, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

Kinshasa

OK, kind of not really encyclopedic, but I saw the addition of the link to Kinshasa, and after I clicked through I was amazed by the similarity between that city's geography (see Image:ISS007-E-6305.jpg) and Montreal's. It took me a second to realize that I was looking at a different city. --ESP 03:34, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ex-Zaire not about to catch up to Montreal nor Paris

About 80% of the population of Kinshasa speak one of the Bantou languages. Read about it en français on this page :

http://www.tlfq.ulaval.ca/axl/afrique/czaire.htm

-- Mathieugp 20:49, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Just on this "About 80% of the population of Kinshasa speak one of the Bantu languages." Where does that come in conflict with the fact that they might speak French too? Besides, it's not 80% of the population of Kin that speaks a Bantou language, it's 80% of the population of the Congo-Kinshasa, aka the country DR-Congo. ---moyogo 00:56, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)

You are right. The statistics are for the whole country. Are the statistics significantly different when counting only the population living on the Kinshasa's territory? Like in Quebec, the Congo probably has greater linguistic diversity in its urban areas, but nevertheless French is not the language of the majority in Kinshasa. If one day there is a majority of the people of Kinshasa who speak French as their native language, then it might very well become the largest French-speaking city in the world. Let's hope it never happens as it would be a great loss for African languages and cultures. -- Mathieugp 02:55, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't know how significant the national statistics are compared to just for Kin. We cannot make any assumptions for they might be totally off. As far as Mtl vs Kin, both have lots of non-native french speakers but I'd say Montreal wins the ratio battle. I don't know what the real numbers are though. About the linguistics/cultural great loss: somebody's loss is somebody else's gain sometimes. People of the Congo cannot go on talking all the languages and dialects they currently do. French and the other national languages are already taking over. They are more a solution than a problem. Congolese culture will live on and evolve ;) ---moyogo 05:24, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)

Areal versus Linear dimensions

I'd like to publicly apologize to User:24.69.255.205 for reverting their correction and I'd also like to publicly thank User:Indefatigable for re-applying the correction and making clear to me where my thinking went wrong.

I'll now apply a dope slap to my forehead: D'oh!!

And I'll try not to make this particular mistake again. :-)

Atlant 18:36, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Area of Montreal

Right now, the article cites two different "areas" for Montreal:

In the text:

The city is spread over an area of 482.84 km² (186.43 square miles).

In the data box:

Area 500.05 km² (193.07 sq. miles)

One or both of these must be wrong (or their definitions of "area" must vary).

Atlant 18:39, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC) (Trying to make up for his recent foolishness)

Abidjan

It is getting really annoying to see some misinformed users constantly deleting the reference to Abidjan in the article, without even a word of explanation about why they delete it! Abidjan has long been recognized as the second largest French speaking city in the world. Contrary to what happens in most other parts of French speaking Africa, the French language has really become a native language in Abidjan, whose population is so diverse and from so many different ethnic backgrounds that French ended up being a sort of lingua franca, now native to a majority of people whose parents or grandparents moved to Abidjan and who know nothing else but French, having not grown up in the bush (la brousse, as it is locally known), where African languages are still spoken.

The situation in Kinshasa is quite different from Abidjan, as the little discussion above has shown, and Kinshasa can't really be described as a French speaking city. French in Kinshasa is confined to public administrations and a small class of educated people. It may well be that in the future, as education progress, and as the different ethnicities of the ex-Zaire fuse into a single nation, Kinshasa indeed become a truly French speaking city. Then, yes, it will be the second largest French city in the world (and even probably the largest French speaking city in the world, as Kinshasa will soon have more inhabitants than the whole metropolitan area of Paris), but we are not there yet. Actually, if French ever becomes the main language of the ex-Zaire, this country is probably destined to become the largest French speaking country in the world, a sort of Brazil of the francophone world if you will. Anyway, at the moment, the linguistic situation in Kinshasa is quite similar to the one in Dakar, Bamako, or N'Djamena, where French is to be found, but is certainly not the main language, not yet. In Abidjan, on the other hand, French has already become the majority language, a situation also found in Libreville, and I believe also in Lomé and Cotonou, but these last three cities are much smaller than Montréal (at least at the moment).

So please don't edit this again if you don't have any knowledge of Africa. And if you are not conviced, write to the Embassy of Ivory Coast in Ottawa and ask them for their point of view. Hardouin 15:27, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Abidjan vs. Kinshasa

Though the New York Times, like any paper, should never be taken without a healthy dose of skepticism, this article talks about the topic at hand:

"From its quiet perch in the middle of the St. Lawrence River, Montreal goes about its business making few waves. The third largest French-speaking city in the world, after Paris and Kinshasa, is remarkably bilingual as well."

From: "Choice Tables; Classic to Madcap in Montreal," by Eric Asimov, published August 29, 1999

• the author of the New York Times article probably used an earlier Wikipedia Montreal page as his source.
• Yes, quite true. As much as I enjoy the NYT articles on Montreal and the rest of Quebec (which have grown in number in the recent years) I have noted that the ones in the Travel section section tend to be impressionistic more than realistic, and do not seem to have been checked for factual errors, as the articles in the other sections appear to have been.--AlainV 20:17, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ivory Coast not French-speaking at all

http://www.tlfq.ulaval.ca/axl/afrique/cotiv.htm

Let's hope French never becomes the native language of the majority of the population anywhere in Africa, as this could only be the result of failed policies to keep African languages alive and spoken. Neither French, English, nor Spanish has any place being the sole official language of an African country.

-- Mathieugp 23:32, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Curious; according to the Wikipedia article, 76% of the residents of Cote d'Ivoire are French-speaking.

Atlant 00:25, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The site L'Aménagement linguistique dans le monde claims that about 2/3 of the people of age 6 and above can speak some form of French. It is nevertheless not their native language and would sound more like a French creole to native French speakers. The lingua franca of the country would be a language called dioula, the native language of 14.8% of the people and also spoken as a second language by some 7 million other people. -- Mathieugp 12:36, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As you may have noticed, the point here is about Abidjan, not about Ivory Coast. Abidjan is only a small area of Ivory Coast, and the linguistic situation in Abidjan is quite different from the linguistic situation in the rest of Ivory Coast. Hardouin 18:34, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Montreal, not the first biggest French speaking city in the World

Obviously nobody can say if Montreal is the second, third or fourth francophone city of the world. We don't know how many francophone are in Montreal, nor how many are in Abidjan or Kinshasa. I don't care what the statistics say. If the government counts immigrants as francophone that's messed up. If you count second language speakers as non francophones, that's messed up too. As long as people will be debating this, I don't think we should say that montreal is the nth francophone city but just say it's surely the biggest one in North America, and that it's from the second to the 4th wolrdwide depending on what sources one takes. ---moyogo 06:15, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)

More than enough evidence

I am sorry, but there is not debate on Montreal being the first French-speaking city in the World. Montreal is, without a doubt, the second largest French-speaking city in the world after Paris. The statistics are publicly available and have been so for many decades. The statistics can be read online here:

http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/demo12b.htm (Statistics Canada)

Anyone willing to do some research ca see that French is the native language of the majority in the Montreal Metropolitain area. In the actual city of Montreal, the proportion of francophones is lower and the proportion of anglophones and allophones is higher. Nevertheless, francophones are still the majority. However, on the island of Montreal, the francophones are only ~52%, in constant decline since 1971 when they were at 61.5%. Read more on this here:

http://www.tlfq.ulaval.ca/axl/amnord/quebecdemo.htm (La question démographique (Québec))

Counting a city as francophone only because French is the official language of that city is non-sense. Everybody knows Africans were colonized by foreign powers and were imposed European languages. Paris is a French-speaking city because the majority of the population have that language as their first language, because an even greater percentage speaks it at home and at work, and pretty much everyone who doesn't speak it as their first language either learned it or are currently in the process of learning it as their second (or third) language. It is the same with Montreal, only those same francophones are also largely able to speak English (like me) which makes things more complicated and also French is not universally accepted as the common language because of the competition with English.

-- Mathieugp 16:50, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)