Talk:Montreal/Archive 2

Demographics
Uh.. I hate to stir the pot, but what exactly is the definition of a 'quebecois' vrs 'canadian' listed in the ethnicities box? The implication, at least from my point of view, is that the two are mutually exclusive, which I'm sure many Montrealers would take issue with.
 * No, man, no stirring at all - the answer's actually really simple: Statistics Canada asked people what their ethnicity was, and this is a simple summary of their answers.  Now, StatsCan didn't allow certain answers (several people tried to answer "Jedi" - those were's counted.), but they basically allowed people to self-define.  People were allowed to give hyphenated answers (like "German-Japanese", or "French-Canadian" - I know those two examples are wildly different in this context, but my point is that the census treated them in exactly the same way: one tally for "German", one for "Japanese", one for "French", one for "Canadian").  So it only says that, basically, "this many people reported themself to be 'ethnically Québécois' and that many people reported themself to be 'ethnically Canadian'."  Take that as you will! Hope that helps you out. AshleyMorton 18:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I am afraid this is not quite it. First, there is no census question asking Canadians about their ethnicity. They are asked about the ethnicity of their ancestors. In the 2001 census, the question #17 read:


 * To which ethnic or cultural group(s) did this person's ancestors belong. For exemple, Canadian, French, English, Chinese, Italian, German, Scottish, Irish, Cree, Micmac, Métis, Inuit (Eskimo), East Indian, Ukranian, Dutch, Polish, Portuguese, Filipino, Jewish, Greek, Jamaican, Vietnamese, Lebanese, Chilean, Somali, etc. 


 * The novelty is that in 2001, StatsCan added Canadian as the first example and possible answers, a decision that was noticed.


 * But there is worst than question #17... Question #19 asked you if you are White, Chinese, South Asian, Black, Filipino, Latin American, Southeast Asian, Arab, West Asian, Japanese, Korean, or Other. It's amazing that questions about "race" are still being asked. Personally, I checked "Other" and wrote : "Varies depending on how long I have been exposed to the sun light." :-) -- Mathieugp 12:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Pictures
I just added this to the talk page at Montreal Skyline but I thought it should go here too: why are there doctored pictures in this article? The (very nice looking) pictures of the skyline have a fake building very poorly photoshopped in on the far right. It seems to me that these pictures should just be deleted and replaced with something authentic.

There is something about the skyline photo at the top of this article that just doesn't look authentic. Has someone re-arranged the Bell Canada buildings that are north of Square Victoria? Has Place Ville Marie been moved further north and east? Idesofmontreal 01:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Airports
Can we get a citation (or at least an actual figure in square kilometers) that backs up the assertion that the New York boroughs of Manhattan and Queens could fit inside Mirabel airport? That seems highly unlikely to me, and it suggests that the airport is almost as big as the entire island montreal sits on. Similarly, how about a citation demonstrating that it is indeed the world's second largest airport?


 * On the Mirabel airport article there is a rough map that shows the transportation links that were planned and the ones that were actually built. The land area shown for the airport looks a but smaller, but still pretty close the size of the Island of Montréal.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ed/Mirabelintlarpttransportlinks.png

The total area expropriated is less than the area of Montreal Island but larger than Ile Jesus (Laval).

Origin of 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. &#8212;No-One Jones (m) 05:39, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * A lot of people are led to believe that the name "Montréal" has some exotic origin because it is somehow distinct phonetically from "Mont Royal". But, when the French started to colonize New France, "Mont Royal" was pronounced (to our best knowledge) "Montrwéal". Although we don't precisely know how we came up with two distinct spellings, it is not hard to believe that they have the same origin.Marcus wilby73 05:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The name of Montréal clearly comes from "Mont Royal". This is supported by a large amount of historical evidences (maps, texts), for instances in the "Relations des Jésuites" (1632-1791), historical accounts which cover pretty much everything there was to know in New France / Quebec. Since there are 6 other towns or villages named "Montréal" in France (and even one in Italy, Montreale!), this gives a reason for the natural evolution of the name from "Mont Royal" (pronounced more or less "Mont Rouéal" in old French) to "Montréal"; city names tend to simplify over time, we see this tendency all over the world. Other cities saw their name evolve through the centuries, for instance "Lachenaie" which evolved from "Seigneurie de La Chesnaye". As the written language was simplified and normalized, city names were simplified accordingly. Hugo Dufort 08:06, 26 November 2006 (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 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. The development of Toronto (and Ontario) was also largely due to John A. Macdonald's "National Policy", under which the Federal government invested heavily in the industrial infrastructure of south-eastern Ontario. As a result of this policy, Toronto had surpassed Montreal (in population and economic weight) 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. A number of businesses relocated to Toronto, and Toronto subsequently became the business capital of Canada.


 * see section Growth of the sovereignty movement and the Montreal economy for a more neutral and factual version. -- Denstat 06:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Alain is quite right. I expanded the section Growth of the sovereignty movement and the Montreal economy . Not sure how to do the quotes, but most of them come from the Dickinson and Young academic book on Quebec's socio-economic history.


 * The business class moved to Toronto in two steps. First, when the Saint Lawrence Seaway opened in 1962, all the cargo operations moved to Toronto and thus, the Calgary-Toronto economic axis emerged (grain was and still is a very important export) and wealth moved west. Then, in 1976-1980, there was a further move of "economic elite" because of political instability. However, at this time Toronto was already much bigger and more healthy economically than Montreal. Please be careful when you read books that blame it all on the "darn separatists". Some situations are clearly more complex. Hugo Dufort 08:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

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
Entry #1

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)

Entry #2
 * 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)

Entry #3


 * 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)

Entry #4


 * 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)

Entry #5

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)

Entry #6

NEW ENTRY

By Jump01 21:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually the Census claims to reveal that only 18% of Montrealers speak English as a first language and additionally 30% are allophones. Keep in mind that even though 30% of allophones do not speak either English or French as a first language, they do still speak either English or French as a second or a third language. We also cannot take literally the (or any) government Census because they too are unreliable and highly-politicized. '''For example, the Census results that were also supported by the government themselves, stated that the majority of Jewish people in Montreal actually speak Yiddish in their home's. This is completely false, and has been confirmed to be false. Speaking with the leaders of the Jewish community, including the mayor of Cote St. Luc, Hampstead, many of the Rabbies of the synagogues throughout the city of Montreal and speaking to the leaders of the many Jewish foundations, such as Combined Jewish Appeal, etc. etc. reveal this to be false. ''' Many (and most) of the so-called allophones speak English on the streets and at home, attend English CEGEPS and English universities, and a majority of them integrate into the English community not the French community.

Entry #7

NEW ENTRY

By Jump01 21:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

There is not only a Linguistic cleavage or a Historic cleavage in Montreal but a Historically demographic cleavage based upon institutions and population demographics. Note that Entry #2 states that Paris, France is not 25 to 35% Arabic speaking. Also note that the majority of institutions in the downtown core of Paris, France, the so-called Centre-ville, are not English institutions as it is in Montreal. Note that amongst the approximately 13 churches in downtown Montreal, only 3 churches are French and 10 are English with absolutely no French churches on Ste. Catherine Street itself. Note that in the downtown core there are absolutely no French hospitals, only English hospitals. There are no French universities in the core of downtown Montreal, only English Universities McGill and Concordia. The University of Montreal is in Cote des Neiges, the University of Québec at Montreal's primary campus is east of St. Lawrence Boulevard near Berri Street. Note that however a new building for University of Québec at Montreal was built west of St. Lawrence Boulevard adjacent to Place des Arts only several years ago but again, that is not in the downtown core but closer to the edge of St. Lawrence Boulevard, which historicly has been known as the Great Divide between English Montreal and French Montreal. Note that the French hospital St. Luc is located east of the Great Divide and that there is a French hospital on St. Urbain Street, one block west of the Great Divide but far northeast of the downtown core. Notice that approximately 90% to 95% of bookstores in the downtown core of Montreal are English bookstores that carry only a small percentage of French books or no French books at all. During the 1980s a French bookstore on St. Catherine Street, close to de Bleury Street near their present-day Musique Plus building existed but not for long. Most recently, there was a large French bookstore of the large French bookstore chain  Reneaud et Bray that opened up on St. Catherine Street in August, 2000, but eventually closed this year in the year 2006, it was not moved or re-located somewhere else. However, there is the plans for a new Reneaud et Bray store to open up in Place Ville Marie away from the core downtown area of St. Catherine Street. There is a French bookstore/music/DVD video store called "Archembault" on St. Catherine Street in the old Eaton’s building but that only opened up in the year 2001.

The entire downtown area of the city of Montreal was built by the English. The first building designed by French architects only occured in the 1960’s with the Château Champlain.

The majority of the street names in the downtown core of Montreal are English names and have always been English names, and take great note that a good percentage of the French named Street's used to be English names that were either translated into the French equivalent or replaced by French names over the last 40 to 50 years. For example, de la Montagne Street, originally was called Mountain Street, Rene Levesque Boulevard was originally Dorchester Boulevard, De Maisonneuve Boulevard used to be an English name, but it was so long ago that I can't even remember it! Avenues des Pins’ original name is Pine Ave., and is called Pine Ave. by most English citizens including myself, and is the street name that taxi drivers respond to best. St. Jacques Street, that runs from NDG through St. Henri, Little Burgundy and down into old Montreal was originally called St. James Street. St. Pierre Street in old Montreal was originally called St. Peter's Street.

Since the majority of institutions in the downtown core of Montreal, such as hospital's, churches, secondary and postsecondary institutions are English, and the majority of street names are English, including the ones that have been converted into French, and the fact that the entire downtown core of the city of Montreal's buildings and economy historically was built by the English of Montreal, and the fact that the French-speaking population on the island of Montreal was always less than 50% up until the 1990s, hardly constitutes Montreal as a French-speaking city. Historically West of St. Lawrence Blvd. has been English demographically and institutionally, which geographically makes up 2/3 of the city of Montreal. This hardly makes for a French-speaking city or a French city, for things certainly are not this way in either Paris, France or Quebec city, real French cities. That Montreal is a French city is an illusion and a highly-politicized propagading dream creating a false image and a false perception of the realities of the city of Montreal and its people.

The fact that 18% of the population on the island of Montreal is English-speaking and another 30% are allophones means that the mother tongue of only 52% of the population on the island of Montreal is actually French-speaking. This hardly makes Montreal a French city. It is a French-speaking city in the greater metropolitan area but not a French city on the island of Montreal, the two are quite different. The island of Montreal is rather an English city that is linguistically bilingual and trilingual. The fact that the greater metropolitan Montreal area is a French-speaking city, paradoxically however rooted in fact, does not negate that it is also an English city, an English-speaking city, a bilingual city, a trilingual city, and a French-speaking city. Because of the institutions, the demographics, and the geographics, the history and the economy historically and even presently Montreal cannot be called a French city.

The island of Montreal is an English city whose majority is bilingual speaking and whose minority is multilingual speaking, and whose majority in the greater metropolitan area is French speaking and whose minority is English-speaking and multilingual speaking. This can be said without Contradiction but with factual evidence and hopefully it does not take just a philosopher to understand it.


 * Wikipedia is supposed to represent the reality, not your personal opinion on the subject (which is based on contestable data and very subjective arguments). Saying that Montreal is an "important world-class French-speaking city" (or "second after Paris") doesn't negate its complex history and its important English population. It is just a fact. Look at these links. This is the REALITY. This is what we read in booklets, tour guides, official publications, etc. Official publication City guide BBC topic Gay travel guide Language school profile Head hunters firm. -- Hugo Dufort 05:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Public bickering makes Wikipedia look foolish
Entry #8

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)

Entry #9

NEW ENTRY

By Jump01 21:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

For user Atlant, even a government Census is highly politicized, the Census cannot be trusted to show the exact truth of the language of its citizens. Many Census put forth about the Montréal area are done to give the illusion that the English speaking population is less than it actually is. For example, it has being said, by the Census and confirmed by the Québec government as well as the mayor of Montreal that a majority of Jewish Montrealers speak Yiddish at home. This is completely false, see the above discussion, Entry #6 and Entry #7.

Digging up the facts
Entry #10

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)

Entry #11


 * In my recent revisions to the page you'll notice that I have a link about allophones outnumbering anglophones by more than two-fold. The link is to the Stats Canada site which lists the stats for population by mother tongue. That will at least answer your first question.
 * --Vitamin D 21:46, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Entry #12

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. :( - Montr&eacute;alais 02:33, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * group is dead as of september 2006. -- Denstat 22:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Gay/lesbian population
well I heard in the Gay area of Montreal (gay village) there are about 350,000 people living there.... it doesnt mean everyone is gay but majority is im sure. Being gay myself I think I would know.

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)
 * I added stats from the 2001 census. -- Beland 03:52, 13 August 2006 (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)


 * The Congo is a member of the Francophonie, and Kinshasa is it capital city of 7 500 000. French is its official language. It is the only language taught in all the schools, and all students have to learn it. It is the common language of the Congo, and the . Everyone seems to consider it a francophone city except the authors here. I can only guess the motivation behind it, but I think the old cliches about Montreal die hard for some peope of a certain age. Until someone can comoe up with a compelling reason why Kinshasa should not be considered a francophone city, I think we should edit this.


 * 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)


 * This is a tricky subject. It depends of you consider the island of Montreal or the areas covered by the merged city. It also depends if you include some minor islands in the archipelago (Dorval island, Nuns island and Notre-Dame island, for instance). When considering these figures, it's important to keep that in mind. Maybe both are correct because they use a different methodology. But of course... they should be normalized for obvious reasons. Hugo Dufort 07:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

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)


 * I agree here. I recently revised the intro paragraphs to this article but was at the time unaware of the debate about where Montreal ranks in terms of francophone cities. I reworded that sentence, but it still reads that Paris is #1 and Montreal is #2. I vote for removing it in general. It's a silly distinction anyway.
 * --Vitamin D 21:49, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, the issue is not resolved. First, as of today, there is a contradiction between what is stated at "Kinshasa" and what is said here affirmatively, and I am sure we don't want contradictions in Wikipedia. Second, it should be mentionned that according to the latest statistics available (from 2005/10/01, http://www.citypopulation.de/World.html ) Montreal is the 4th most populous city among the four officially-French metropoles of the world. The mention that Montreal is the 2nd biggest French city holds only if we select "Mother-tongue" French language as opposed to "functional French". I thus propose to add "arguably" to the sentence "Montreal is arguably the 2nd...." in order to remain the most neutral possible. By adding "arguably", we remove the contradiction.


 * The root of the problem was that some stats are counting the whole population of any city which has French as official language while some other are counting francophones in any city. When counting francophones, Montreal is clearly second, when counting everyone even those who do not speak French, you get an African city where French is a foreign colonial language. -- Mathieugp 13:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Back on the topic, Kinshasa had a new census a few months ago, it's population is aroud 7.500.000 inhabitants. Now there are a few facts you might want to take into accound to consider the francophoness of this city. First of all, bantu languages are only tought in primary school, and that is in some primary schools, not all. Secondly the medias are majorly francophone, the only sort of media I've been able to find in lingala are either religious books or tracts translated in Kin, or a minority of shows on francophone radio stations. The television is exclusively French speaking and most radios are in French too. Lingala is only holding strong in music. Then the population itself is a big mixture of population from all over the Congo Bassin, multiple ethnic groups and therefore multiple languages. Lingala has been quite popular but lacks any decent literacy, most people know how to write French better than they can write Lingala (especially considering there isn't much written media or any technology available in it). French is also the official language of the country and of the governement. The parliament, the justice system and the police officially speak French. Only the army used to officially speak Lingala, but I don't know if this still holds. The reality is that the population speaks many languages, with most of the time French and Lingala, or even Kikongo. Now, how does that go in the statistics? I don't know, but I can tell you no figure can really explain the current situation. ---moyogo 18:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * We would need to have satistics on linguistic transfers from Linguala to French and Kikongo to French to know how fast francophones are swallowing up the other linguistic groups. -- Mathieugp 00:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Mathieugp, I don't want to look stubborn at all, but I wouldn't be as affirmative as you are when you say: "When counting francophones, Montreal is clearly second", at least if you acknowledge by "francophones" any fluent French speaking person. While I acknowledge that we are crudely missing reliable statistics, it is my clear impression--supported by Moyogo-- that at least 50% of the inhabitants of Kinshasa speak fluently French. Also worth of mentioning, in the latest edition of "the Economist", which presents a special section on Canada, Montreal is described as the third largest French-speaking city, after Paris and Kinshasa. I couldn't find their source, though. -Marc
 * And apparantly, even the Montreal's new tourism brochure acknowledges that Montreal is the third largest French-speaking city. I am looking for the on-line reference--Marc


 * It is a fact that the number of speakers of French as first (home) language is much larger in Montreal than in Kinshasa, Abidjan or any other African city. French is used in Africa as the official language of instruction and government, but it is not a national language anywhere in the continent. Instead, in all former French colonies, a non-European local language is spoken most often at home (in the case of Kinshasha, probably Lingala). In the greater Montreal area on the other hand, 67 % of the population are indeed native francophones, which means roughly 2.3 million people, i.e. more than the population of Lyon, Marseille, Brussels or any city other than Paris where French is spoken as first language by a majority of the population. Even if we consider a broader definition of "francophone" to include not only native speaker, but anyone who has a functional command of the French language, still Montreal easily beats Kinshasa or any other city where, apart from the upper middle class and the ruling elite, most ordinary people on the streets do not speak French ! There is no question then that Montreal the world's second largest francophone city after Paris. 200.177.9.33 02:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * First, you provide an opinion, not based on facts. Second, as was already discussed, the issue is not about mother tongue, it's about people who speak French fluently, be it a second-language. Along this line, people forgot how numerous Kinshasa is: according to the latest data on www.populationdata.net, Kinshasa has a population of almost 9.5 million people. So even if only 30% of the population speaks French in Kinshasa, it still makes it a bigger French speaking city than Montreal. And at this point, we have no data suggesting that less than 30% of the population knows French in Kinshasa. Additionally, if the reports are true that most citizens of Abidjan speak French, that makes Montreal fourth. Third, there is NO NEED to be controversial. Let's just agree that Montreal is one the biggest French-speaking city, and by doing so, we will not offend the people living in Congo-Brazzaville and Côte-d'Ivoire. So I modify back the text unless we have clear evidence of the contrary. User:Marcus wilby73 25/09---If I may add...in French Wikipedia, it's said that Montreal is 3rd; in spanish wikipedia, it's said that Montreal is 4th...here(English wikipedia), people keep changing the rank to 2nd...I mean, it takes away the credibility of wikipedia, to say the least.

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)

Neutrality: Montreal being 2nd, 3rd or 4th francophone city
Whether Montreal is the 2nd, 3rd or 4th francophone city in the World is obviously something people here don't agree upon. We should not remove the notice until we have a statement that most people agree upon. Please state what you think should be said and let's vote. ---moyogo 12:41, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)


 * Montreal 2nd
 * -- How about "The second largest city in the world with a first-language Francophone majority"? Failing that, just delete it. We don't need all these tsuris over a throw-away reference. - Montr&eacute;alais 20:38, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Montreal 3rd


 * Montreal 4th


 * Depending on statistics, 2nd if counting native speakers, 3rd or 4th if counting total population and official language
 * in favor ---moyogo


 * State "One of the largest French speaking cities in the world"
 * in favorTrapper 00:43, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * disfavor, even though it makes total sense for now, this doesn't resolve the issue of people changing that sentence every two weeks. Visitors and new contributors will change that sentence because it lacks precision even though it is accurate. ---moyogo 04:39, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)

The choice of answers is flawed: the only right answer is the last one of course. If ranked by the official language, than Montreal, an officially French-speaking city, is not second after Paris, because some African cities are more populated than Montreal. But these cities are populated with human beings who, in the majority, are not francophone. Let us ask a different question:


 * Is a city French-speaking when the majority is de facto francophone (and non-francophones know this language to a large extent)?

or


 * Is a city French-speaking when the majority is de facto non-francophone but French was nonetheless made the official language, making it de jure French-speaking ?

I guess this is a question of point of view that we must resolved. However, in my opinion, this decision should be taken by the whole Wikipedian community because it is of concern for all city statistics. In my humble opinion again, since many cities have no official language, the real demographic numbers are more likely to be useful to us, but this is just a guess.

If you believe that the question should be answered by the whole wikipedian community outside this talk page, add your name below:


 * -- Mathieugp 15:17, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * What about we mention that de-facto and de-jure? If not I'm sure visitors will keep adding the nth francophone city in the World ---moyogo 04:39, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)


 * This is ridiculous. Why are we arguing about this? Just remove the reference entirely. This "detail" is so minor (in the greater scheme of this article) that it's really not worth wasting all this time and energy over it. Darkcore 21:03, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree. I ripped out the offensive statement and the POV tag; when people decide, it can go back.  (I hope that what I put in is sufficiently non-offensive; if not, take it out completely.  No point having a POV warning over one non-essential sentence.) --Andrew 22:40, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * Perfect! Keep it like that. Really.  The uncertainty of the statistics makes it too difficult to come to a concensus.  Besides, whether we list Montreal as 2nd, 3rd or 4th, it's just as effective as saying "one of the largest French...".  Trapper 00:47, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * The surprising fact that is missing is that Montreal's a bigger city than any city in France except for Paris. But it's just not worth the hassle. --Andrew 01:01, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * I put the POV tag because it was getting ridiculous, that sentence was being changed every week or so. If we don't put a precise sentence, this is bound to happen again. People want precision even though it might be inaccurate. ---moyogo 04:39, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)

For the latest discussion, see above (sorry for the confusion :))

A Modest Proposal

 * I have provided a few links coming diverse sources in one of my messages above. The reality is that Montréal has been constantly TOUTED as the "second biggest francophone city after Paris". Maybe it's because Quebec is the second most important place in the world where French is the only official language? Whatever the reason is, this piece of information has been used across the board for a few decades now. It is part of the image that Montreal projects abroad. So maybe Montreal isn't, by some of the methodologies used, the second French-language city in the world. Or maybe it is. But it is important that the Wikipedia content reflects reality, and the reality is that Montreal enjoys that REPUTATION. This statement has been made in official publications from the provincial (Quebec) government and from Montreal. I don't know if other cities in the world make a similar claim, and quite frankly I think this is not relevant here.


 * In order to respect the NPOV policy:
 * - since the claim that Montréal is the 2nd biggest francophone city in the World (after Paris) has been extensively published, printed, quoted and used for at least 2 decades
 * - since it is possible to build counter-claims by using specific methodologies, counting methods, argumentations or historical arguments
 * - since Montreal's absolute importance as a major center for the francophone culture and its institutions cannot be ignored
 * I hereby propose that we include the following statement in the text: "Montreal enjoys the reputation of being the second most important francophone city in the world after Paris "
 * Please note that this statement doesn't imply that the claim about being "second in the world" is objectively true by all possible means. It also avoid the purely quantitative approach to demographics (which would involve choosing a geographical subdivision: modern downtown area, merged city, whole island, metropolitan area, 19th century area (western part of downtown)? and then to properly process the data about allophones and bilingual persons -- both parameters being subject to POV). The term "importance" may reflect demographic, cultural, institutional and economic reasons for Montreal to be an important francophone city; this is not only about the number of citizens.


 * I'll recopy the links that I used as a reference here: Official publication City guide BBC topic Gay travel guide Language school profile Head hunters firm. Hugo Dufort 07:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

History of Montreal
Our history section claims to be a summary of the main article, History of Montreal, which is about half as long and a mess. We should either delete that one, or move everything here into the other one and write a summary.

Wanna bet this major change is less controversial than whether we're the scond or third biggest? --Andrew 04:51, May 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * No bet. :-)


 * Atlant 11:26, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * This has been fixed.--mav 15:47, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks!


 * Atlant 16:05, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Greater Toronto Area vs Communauté Métropolitaine de Montréal
I have reverted edit by anonymous user 24.141.10.112. The Greater Toronto Area is only a stastical area. It is not an administrative or political entity unlike the Communauté Métropolitaine de Montréal, which is an administrative and political entity, with a president elected by a council (assembly). This is a major difference. The closest thing comparable to the CMM that existed in the Toronto area was the "Greater Toronto Services Board", but it was disbanded in 2001. So please, do not make misinformed edits just to show at all cost that Toronto is larger than Montreal. Stupid chauvanism ! Hardouin 23:18, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

High school
Any reason why St. Georges High School merits being on this page more than any other Montreal high school? Why are we listing secondary institutions to being with?


 * I agree, universities should be enough, feel free to remove it if you feel like it. Elfguy 29 June 2005 12:35 (UTC)


 * Done. fvincent 04:50, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Ethnicities
Could the person who added the list of Ethnicities (24.226.10.98) provide a source? I wonder if the French/English are really separate from Canadian. After all, there are certainly not 900k people in montreal who were actually born in France.

UnHoly 29 June 2005 00:14 (UTC)


 * You're talking about linguistic identities, not ethnic identities. A concept that makes a lot of sense if you're from a multilingual country, but that you'll find weird otherwise. In some countries, people identify themselves by religion (for instance, Sunni versus Shia); in other places, the ethnicity is important (in Rwanda and Burundi, for instance). In Quebec and to a lesser extent in Canada, it's mostly about the language. This may or may not overshadow the national identity (Canadian); it depends on complex sociopolitical issues. Hugo Dufort 08:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation
Sorry, that was me who changed the pronuncation information. I think it clutters the page, and information like that was successfully moved to a sub article on the Hong Kong article. I personally think its bad form to start an article with a mass of pronunciations. Páll 29 June 2005 23:34 (UTC)
 * Again I think we should not fragment the article by creating sub-articles all the time for no real reason. Here there are only 3 IPA pronunciations, I don't see how it "clutters" the article. We are writing encyclopedia articles after all, we are not writing finely crafted poetry. The case of Hong Kong is special, because there are many different pronunciations and transliterations. Hardouin 30 June 2005 10:26 (UTC)

Swingbeaver 22h58, 14 Sep 2005 ::
 * Why is there a reference to both the so-called "standard French" and the "Québécois French" pronunciations for the name of Montréal? It's not like the Toronto article lists both Canadian English and British English pronunciations. The Montréalais pronunciation should suffice. C'est niaiseux là.

--Ravel07 20:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC) The difference between the Standard French and Montréal French pronunciations is, on the one hand, the quality of the first vowel and, on the other hand, the place of articulation of the "r". While the vowel quality is unarguably a feature of Québécois French and differs from international French, the Québécois French "r" tends more often than not to be articulated as a uvular sound (in the throat), like in Standard French, and not as a trill (rolled), as is indicated by the "Montréal French" pronunciation. The trilled "r" is an old feature of Québécois French not found in the speech of people under 50. My suggestion would be to either change the "r" to a uvular "r" in the Montréal French pronunciation or have only one, Standard French pronunciation.

Demographics of Montreal
The following information was moved here to be merged into this article, per Votes for deletion/Demographics of Montreal. As it does not match the information already proved in this article, it must be reconciled with what is here:


 * The city of Montreal is largely European even though the city is very large and has no fully set boundaries that remain constant. Regardless, the city's approximate racial figures as of 2001 are: 77.8% White (chiefly French, British, Italian, Irish)


 * 6.7% Black (chiefly Haitian)
 * 5.8% East Asian,
 * 3.1% Latino,
 * 3.3% South Asian,
 * 3.3% Arab/West Asian

I will get to it when I have time, but that might not be for a while, so if someone else wishes to tackle it, have at it. Cheers. -- BD2412 talk 16:31, July 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * Can we also get a source on these figures? The numbers on the page may or may not be accurate but a source would clear things up. If there is one, it's not clear enough; I can't see it. fvincent 05:09, July 22, 2005 (UTC)


 * It is my suggestion that major changes be made to this section. First of all, the terminology is poor. For example, "Canadian" is rarely considered to be an "ethnicity." I think these figures were taken from Statistics Canada, who unforunately considers "Canadian" as an ethnicity. Also, listing figures in terms of race seems like a bad idea. I completely disagree with the use of racial categories for any reason. Race is concept that is not scientifically valid. Using racial categories only perpetuates racism. And even if I agreed with the use of racial categories, the ones listed are arbitrary. How often is "Arab" considered to be a race? Or Latino (consider the fact that some Latinos consider themselves white while other Latinos consider themselves to be black). I vote for deleting the parts about race.
 * --Vitamin D 01:05, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

People in Montreal (and in Quebec) usually don't care about the color of people. Have you EVER seen a Québécois municipal site displaying racial statistics? Hugo Dufort 08:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Music venues in Canada
Hi, I started a new category compiling music venues in Canada. So feel free to add any Montreal venues... or to create article for local venues/clubs like Metropolis. Cheers, --Madchester 08:03, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Rue de la Montagne
As for the usual legend about Bishop Mountain, with all due respect to His Grace, a map drawn in 1761 (when Mountain was 11 years old) shows a chemin de la montagne et des sauvages where rue de la Montagne is today, so called as it led to the mountain and to the Sulpicians' Indian mission. Enjoy. - Montr&eacute;alais 06:03, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Firstly, there is no reason to consider the historical information in that explanation correct. Also, what does this mean: "Anciennement : Avenue Redpath, Rue McCord, Côte à Bréhaut"? What happened to "Ch. De La Montagne"?


 * I would just like to say I'm not arguing with you. The Bishop Mountain explanation was only propagated by English-speakers trying to preserve their culture in the face of francization. Of course, there's no reason why there can't be a sign saying


 * rue de la Montagne
 * Mountain St


 * Oh wait- that would pose a threat to french in Quebec, just like Stop signs that say "STOP"... now there's a risk. --Larineso 23:27, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Some street names (and even city names!) used to be translated to English (and English only) up to the 1970s. The current trend is to revert to the original French name, such as Rue de la Montagne, Avenue du Parc, Avenue des Pins, etc. Same thing for city names: whoever decided to translate "La Malbaie" into "Murray Bay" in the 1800's saw his changes reverted! Instead of criticizing the current sociocultural trends, why not covering them. We're in Wikipedia, not in an editorial journal. By the way, the article from the Commission de Toponymie clearly states that the path to the mountain existed, and was named as such, pre-1761, long before the arrival of Bishop Mountain (1793). Case closed. Hugo Dufort 08:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Merger and Demerger
Someone please remember to move the whole merger/demerger section to its own article in Jan 2006. Present-day municipal politics, though infinitely fascinating /eye roll/, will not be directly relevant enough to stay in a general article about a city. I'd move it now but I'm sure it'd get rvt before I could blink. fvincent 05:09, July 22, 2005 (UTC)


 * I am not living in Québec at the moment so I wouldn`t know how true it is but I remember reading a year or 2 ago that there was an idea circulating for the west island`s towns to merge togheter into another city (City of West-Island ?). Does anybody known more about this ?--Marc pasquin 15:30, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Montreal region box
At the bottom of this article there is a "region" box, that links to Montréal (region), with accent, which is re-directed back to this article (Montreal no accent). It seems quite pointless. Is there a reason for this that I'm not aware of. Would editing the template cause any undesired side-effects? --rob 02:51, 24 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The "region of Montreal" comprises the Island of Montreal in geography, but is actually a collection of all the cities and boroughs on the island. Shouldn't it have it's own article? Also, for the issue of accents, I refer you (not just rob but anyone who cares) to WP:UE, Wikipedia's naming policy. In English, the accent is not used to talk about Montreal. The city's name in English is always spelled without the accent, except for people trying to sound "PC" or whatever they think they sound like.. --Larineso 00:32, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * According to Island of Montreal "The island formerly contained 26 municipalities, all of which were merged into the City of Montreal on January 1, 2002.". So, there's no apparent need for a seperate regional article.  Even the re-direct of "Montréal (region)" should probably be deleted, since nobody would ever type that in.  They might type in "Montreal region", but never "Montréal (region)" or even "Montreal (region)".  Oh, and yes, I agree the standard is to not use accents with Montreal (city or region). --rob 04:30, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Temperature records...
OK, we need to see sources for those records. I don't believe the temperature ever dipped to -47C without windchill, and I also doubt the +40C new maximum.

Addition: I found this link website with actual sources (though they don't seem to cover 2004):

http://www.dandantheweatherman.com/


 * Done. fvincent 04:20, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Cegeps
Should we include a list of cegeps on the island of Montreal?--Janarius 13:09, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

--Wouldn't that be better served with a different article on CEGEPS in Quebec? Caspiankilkelly 04:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Allophones outnumber Anglophones 2-fold
This statement in the third paragraph or so is misleading. It refers to StatCan's statistics for only Montreal proper, or the City of Montreal. The population information in the infobox, as well as all the information in the article, refers to the island of Montreal (which makes much sense considering how closely tied all the communities on the Island are). If you look at the statistics for the entire island, which are mentioned later, they are different. Also, the division of linguistic groups into French, English, and Other is incorrect. Here's why: officially, English is exactly the same as Swahili in terms of being a "foreign language" in Quebec. Therefore, using unbiased counts, English is the second-largest linguistic group on the island. This is a POV issue. --Larineso 23:10, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Temperature Error
The article reads The warmest month is July with a daily average of 20.9°C (70°F). That is completely incorrect. It may have been true at some point but I do not know that knowledge. The summer of 2005 that just passed had temperatures from 80° F, 27° C, to 90° F, 32° C. The two weeks near the end of July had consistent temperatures of 32° C or near it with much humidity. I was there those two weeks to experience the hot temperature. While I do not know the temperature history, I was also there about 5 years ago in August and the temperature was above 27° C.


 * This seems somewhat low but it is close to the 24-hour Average Temperature given for various Montreal locations on www.worldclimate.com.--132.206.150.33 17:30, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I've always lived in Montreal and everytime I read the recorded average temperatures I'm surprised. The official numbers always show that summer is cooler than I thought and winter warmer than I thought. I think there's a big difference between the temperatures as we remember them and the actual 24-hour average temperatures. MeteoMedia, the most common source for weather forecasts here, confirms that the average in July is 21° C Saintamh 22:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

While I was in Montreal in July I checked the weather on weather.com and it was very hot around 32 C. http://chicagomontreal.blogspot.com/2005/11/temperature.html  says "For instance, this summer when we were in Chicago the temperature was an oppressive 40C (104F) degrees. You can't do anything in that type of heat. We were even sweating in the pool. At the same time, in Montreal it was 36C (96F). Still hot, but good swimming weather and you can still do stuff outdoors." I just believe that the weather statement in the article is incorrect and will mislead people. The average may not be as high as it was this summer but the fact is it can become very hot and some travelers may not know that and thus are not prepared for the hot weather.

It all depends on which Montreal weather stats you look at. Environment Canada has six for Montreal, of which only one Montreal/St-Hubert Airport meets World Meteorological Organization standards. The average is calculated over a 30 year period from 1971-2000. The six available for Montreal (with average) are:
 * Montreal/St-Hubert Airport July Avg 20.5 C
 * Montreal/Pierre Elliott Trudeau International Airport July Avg 20.9 C
 * Montreal/Mirabel International Airport July Avg 19.5 C
 * Montreal McGill July Avg 22.3 C
 * Montreal Lafontaine July Avg 22.4 C
 * Montreal Jar Bot July Avg 21.9 C

The highest ever recored in Montreal is at Trudeau in August 1975 at 37.6 C. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

First section
I strongly believe that the introductory section should be re-written, or at least highly edited. I see redundancy (we read that it's a large French city, and then that French is spoken in the city), irrelevancy (I don't think that the historical note stating that Montreal was a "Sincity" during the American prohibition is important enough to be mentioned in the introduction paragraph of an encyclopedia. In any case, the point is merely repeated, without further details, in the history section), dubious or at least imprecise information (the port of Montreal being at one end of the St-Lawrence seaway?), and I find that it overall lacks the quality of wikipedia. Anyone shares my opinion? -Marc 9 dec There is no source for this line "It was also named the best city in the world to set up and operate business. Melbourne came in second; Toronto in third." Furthermore, the information about Melbourne and Toronot, although perhaps interesting, is not relevent to the topic. -Jack 9 July

American English pronunciation
User 64.122.95.110 added the following to this article:


 * and in American English.

Does anyone know what is meant here? Is there truly an American pronunciation distinct from the Canadian one? Obviously there are accent differences (I'd expect a Texan to say "Montreal" differently than would an Ontarian, as woule be true for many other words) but is there truly an "American pronunciation"? Saforrest 23:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * There is a different pronunciation: Americans pronounce the first syllable with the vowel of "con" rather than the vowel of "ton". They also tend to put the primary stress on the first syllable instead of the last. That said, I don't think the difference is significant enough to include in the article. There are too many pronunciations in the first paragraph. Two should be enough: Montreal English and Montreal French. The other variations could be moved down further in the article, but I'd prefer to delete them entirely: this is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Indefatigable 16:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * For the record, no, there is no "American pronunciation". The way Indefatigable described would sounds extremely odd if I heard it in a conversation, and I'm from southern California. :) --Schrei 21:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, Indefatigable's description of the "American" pronounciation is pretty much bang-on all up and down the Eastern Seabord of the U.S., from Maine to at least as far south as North Carolina. Which is quite odd, when you think of the wide variation in accents that one naturally expects to encounter when dealing with such a large geographical area, and yet there it is. I lived in northern Virginia for many years, and have spent a good deal of time travelling up and down I-95 and I-87 and can personally attest to this being the case--I've even had the singularly bizarre experience of having my pronounciation "corrected" by the occasional American who thinks he or she knows how to pronounce the name of my home town better than I do, but that's a bit beside the point... Anyway, I can't say for sure about all of southern California, but I can say this: At the wedding I attended in San Diego two years ago, I was again in the company of people who, despite coming from places as far-flung as Louisiana, Kansas, Chicago, upstate NY, and of course southern California, all somehow managed to agree on the pronounciation of the word "Montreal", and all pronounced it in the manner described by Indefatigable. But really, who cares? As Indefatigable said, this ain't a dictionary, and we don't need more than the French- and English-Canadian pronounciations on the city's page. Buck 03:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Murder capital
I've removed "...thus making it safer than the city of Toronto. Toronto police investigated 78 murders in 2005. Montreal had always been known as "Canada's Murder Capital" but according to new statistics, it looks like Toronto may soon hold that title..." from the article. It simply does not add to the article's content, and draws point of view conclusions on another city, which doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. There are probably going to be a ton of replies to this saying "in your opinion, because you're from Toronto," and if I was from Calgary, for example, I probably wouldn't even care, but nonetheless, you'd never see something like 'there is too much garbage on the streets in Miami, making it much more dirty than Boston.' It just plain doesn't fit is all. Seems like an editorial comment. --Jay (Reply) 23:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * An article on the evolution of crime rates in the main Canadian cities would be more interesting. Gene.arboit 23:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Montreal has been known as the bank robbery capital of Canada for a long time. When you look at the homicide rate we always got beaten by urban areas in the prairie provinces. They do not have a reputation as violent places but nevertheless have higher homicide rates. Take a look at the statscan figures.--AlainV 06:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I can attest. I was a bank teller in Montreal last year and was robbed at gunpoint!  Not fun. --Dross82


 * Don't for get car-jacking, capital of canada ;)

Merge
Both Montreal Skyline and Downtown Montreal are almost the same as the section Montreal. It seems a bit strange to have so many things covering the same material. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 05:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Merging into here doesn't seem reasonable since this article is already double the recommended article size. More likely, the sections need to be merged out into the separate articles.  —Wknight94 (talk) 16:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe we can compress the Montreal skyline article and then merge it with this one. They are the same in content. Constantzeanu 15:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Montreal Skyline and Downtown Montreal were identical to the Montreal section, which for some strange reason had been duplicated within the article. I've turned the others into redirects. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 09:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

plateau/mile end
Just out of curiosity, why are the plateau and mile end given separate entries here? It doesn't seem neccessary, and that space may be more effectively used for some other locale, considering that not even the city sees them as separate areas anymore.

The current statistics on the Plateau need better referencing, and the "coolest place to live" line has been used in about 4 different magazines, including the Utne Reader. It might be good to point out that the neighborhood has been internationally recognised for about 10 years or more. Caspiankilkelly 22:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Food/Cuisine?
Shouldn't this article have a little something about the food? When I visited my Guidebook made a big deal out of the Montreal bagels, smoked meat and the more general Quebec treat, poutine. I'm sure there's even more that can be written. Might be a good addition. Bobak 20:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Also think that the history of Montreal should be associated with the article of Montreal itself,along with the famous building and points.

Bands and Music
It's not really relevant to include cultural information at this level of detail. It's nice that all these bands are from here, but it also strikes me as being a bit off-topic for the article. We're not including information about William Shatner or Leonard Cohen here, so why are we including stuff about the bands listed?

Most city articles don't contain this type of information, and usually the hometown of the band should be listed in the band's own article, so I'd suggest removing the music section entirely for the purposes of brevity. CaspianKilkelly 17:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

French IPA pronunciation
There was a mismatch with the French IPA pronunciation. The audio recording is in International French, not Quebec French accent, yet it was described as being Quebec French. So I corrected that, and wrote the correct IPA pronunciation for International French. Now it would be great if someone from Quebec could record the pronunciation of Montréal in typical Québecois accent (avec les r qui roulent). That would be a great addition to the article. Hardouin 01:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Someone more qualified than me needs to take a look at the pronunciation section, because there are several problems. First of all, Quebec French is not a single accent, and pronunciations of "Montréal" will vary throughout the province.  The realization of "r" as /ɾ/ in Quebec French, as far as I know, is relatively stigmatized and only common in the Montreal area, especially among older generations.  I am tentatively changing "Quebec French" to "Montreal French" and ask that someone more familiar with Montreal pronunciation verify this.  Secondly, I am wary of the term "International French" as it generally refers to an accent more typical to France (usually Paris, I believe) than anywhere else.  However, many speakers in Quebec and elsewhere in francophone countries modify or attempt to modify their accent to be closer to this pronunciation, so it is likely the most internationally-understood variety of French.  I am leaving this as it is, but if anyone knows another word (I would use Parisian French, but I really don't know if that's how Parisians say "Montréal" and I don't know where the person who recorded the sound is from), it would probably be better. MissingNo 20:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Disagree with first point -- Montreal has so many distinct neighbourhood dialects that I think it's better to revert to "Quebec French" (which is not to indicate Quebec City accents) rather than "Montreal French". There's a big accent gap between Outremont and Ville-Émard, for example. Yes, certain pronunciations change through the generations, but media, radio and regional differences keep many of them alive. Another possibility might be "Québécois French", but that's a hybrid term. Maybe what needs to be done is to use "Quebec French" but mention that this is comprised of many regional accents. International French is maintained by the Académie française so I would think that yes, that one can be left as is. I would not use "Parisian" French, because Parisians have a distinctly nasal twang that is specific to Paris. I'll look for a Francophone to voice the word. -- Denstat 07:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Regarding the pronounciation of Montréal in Québécois french -- As MissingNo pointed out, the realization of "r" as /ɾ/ is only common (and as far as I can tell, not very common at all) among older generations. As a french canadian living in Montréal, I pronounce it /mɒ̃ʀeal/. With the /e/ being very close to an /i/. --Z0id 17:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Population Density
Removed the sentence"It(Montreal) is the most densely populated city in Canada".Vancouveris more densely populated and third in N.A.after New York City and San Fransisco.

Religion
The section on religion is fairly recent, from watching this article over a period of a year it was never there before, and it's been written in a way that implies that the vast majority of people are religious, and on that, mainly Catholics. First of all, Quebec is one of the places that's the least religious in North America (mainly due to the Revolution Tranquille). Second, if there is a religion section (and I don't think there should be, since most cities don't have such a section, and for one of the least religious city in NA to have one would be misleading at best), then it surely should portray the reality, which is plainly visible in the empty churches on Sunday. The 'Religious Sanctuaries' sub-section should be plenty. Elfguy 17:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Granted. But if you feel the religious section is not accurate then you should improve it rather than delete it.  To say Montreal is the least religious in North America is not entirely accurate; most liberal perhaps, but not least religious.  Attendance at religious services are certainly low compared to pre-Quiet Revolution times, but the statistics indicate loud and clear that religion is still an important characteristic of most Montrealers.  It's also important to note that Montreal was built to serve as a base for Christian missionary work.  Its religiousness has been a vital aspect of its history even to this day.Trapper 19:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The point is that it certainly isnt more religious than other major NA cities, yet most of those articles don't put a big section about it, and I would say it's even less religious than most. There already is a sub-section about it, there is no need to add a whole new section, especially one that implies things that are not true. If the point was to talk about the buildings and the history of such buildings then there's no reason not to use the 'religious sanctuaries' sub-section. Elfguy 20:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

New Montreal??
I came upon this article: New Montreal which I am reading through and wondering what in the world is this article all about. Anyone care to shed some light on this, to me it just seems like someone having a little too much fun on wikipedia. Eric B ( T • C • W ) 08:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Does appear to be good fun. Not qualified to debunk - so I just enjoyed. Thanks for flagging this. Williamborg 14:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

It'a funny hoax, and I wish the authro or authors luck and the courage to persist over the years til it becomes something as notable as the Rhinoceros Party of Canada. But in the meantime I think that article should be deleted, and if and when they do become notable an article describing them should be written noting its status as a hoax instead of trying to make people believe it's real inside Wikipedia. --AlainV 17:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well looking at the article after going to the Deletion page, I saw someone already do it... so go Articles_for_deletion/New_Montreal to this article and either support the nominatrion for deletion or decide to keep it. --[[Image:Flag of Canada.svg|20px]] Eric B ( T • C • W ) 22:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Bombardier
whoever is always deleting the info on bombardier stop right now. dont delete it


 * You are the one who should stop putting this irrelevant information. The company is already mentioned in this article and it has its own article. Montreal is not a one industry/company town, so this section you keep inserting is nothing but commercial spam. (timestamp not working on this machine--132.206.150.33).

Mention of Bombardier has been removed from the industry section, as it is too detailed, somewhat irrelevant, and seems more like advertising than information. Instead, content was adjusted to include references to the aerospace industry. Caspiankilkelly 22:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Length
This article is too long. The sections on Music, Hockey and a few other things should be moved to their own articles, rather than staying here. For a decent model of how an article like this should look, please see other city articles within wikipedia. London, New York, Toronto, Paris, Berlin and Tokyo are good examples to follow for both ideas for content, structure and brevity. Currently, this article reads more like a Lonely Planet summary than a proper city entry. Caspiankilkelly

It's still far too long. Poeple should check out articles like London, Berlin, New York City, Sydney and Tokyo...not Paris or Toronto, theyr'e too long as well, I mean seriously, this article looks like a travel guide. Jackp 11:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * and still too long! montreal has a long and complex history and the politics to go with it, but many sections are either not notable, reek of POV, or deserve to be spun-off into their own article. one good example is the Olympic Stadium (Montreal); brief references and the link in the main Montreal article to the specific stadium article are all that's needed, instead of a folk history of gossip and grievances (at worst!). and is all the detailed description of municipal government process necessary for a general readership? -- Denstat 15:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * bravo to the efforts made so far. the Griffintown section has spun out of control, however, in terms of length and historic content, with much uncited possibly POV material. as it stands, the content in the montreal article could be switched with the content in the Griffintown article. anyone object or want to comment on this proposal? -- Denstat 04:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

movies (includes material to move?)
Also, would it be possible to either completely remove, fix or streamline the tidbit about films made in Montreal? The current list is pretty long, and only includes Holywood titles, which accounts for less than 1/2 of the local film and television industry. Caspiankilkelly 22:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree about removing this laundry list of Montreal-pretending-to-be-elsewhere films. Unless a particular film defines the city culturally or historically, it has no place here. Surely there are film facts that are of economic interest, as opposed to titles? -- Denstat 07:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This information could be useful but has no place in this main article. ---moyogo 08:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I have removed all titles and added context about film production's contribution to the economy, and mentioned film festivals. Don't have figures but some would be excellent, as well as selected festival names/external links (we have so many film fests that this could lead to a potential daughter article). Here's the deleted info below for moving elsewhere as necessary, or if someone feels strongly that some or all of the material belongs in the article (hail democracy!). -- Denstat 05:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Montreal is a popular filming location for feature-length films. Major international titles filmed partly or entirely in Montreal include The Art of War, The Aviator, The Bone Collector, Catch Me If You Can, Cellular, The Day after Tomorrow, Driven, Gothika, Heist, John Q., The Notebook, Rollerball, Secret Window, The Sum of All Fears, and The Terminal, while The Jackal, The Red Violin, The Score, The Whole Nine Yards, and Taking Lives had scenes set in the city.

NPOV and non-English writing
You know, i just read through it for the first time in a long time, and this article is infested with POV -- the attraction entries read like ads, or as Caspiankilkelly says above, like a Lonely Planet guide, and the comments about the position of English Canadians here is someone's opinion. As the article is long, I will return to it periodically to try to eliminate extraneous POV. Language usage also often reads like that of a non-English speaker (see Outremont entry, which says it "hosts" residents), and I'll take a crack at that too. -- Denstat 20:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Capitalization of "Anglophone/Francophone/Allophone" - answer
What is the policy regarding the capitalization of these words? Right now, the article is not employing any consistent standard; some paragraphs have the words capitalized and some don't. 69.137.220.179 21:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I suspect no policy is in place... take a look at anglophone... However, since the words are all lower-case in French (and they are all quite obviously recent derivations from French), they should probably all be lower case in English. iggytalk 22:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * i just consulted The Canadian Style, the definitive Canadian style guide (published by Dundurn Press Limited in co-operation with Public Works and Government Services Canada's Translation Bureau; Toronto, 1997.). from page 72, section 4.11, on Races, languages and peoples:


 * "Capitalize nouns and adjectives referring to race, tribe, nationality and language: examples: Caucasian, Métis, Inuk, Francophone, Anglophone, Arabic, French"
 * "(and so on. then it goes on to say:)"


 * "'Do not capitalize the word allophone, which refers to a person whose first language is neither English nor French and which is used with specific reference to Quebec.'"


 * so unless this contradicts a Wiki policy, this is finally the (gasp!) answer, and the standard. i suspect this is "it" -- who better to wrestle down a set of official canadianisms than canuck government translators? of course, in French, these same terms are all lower case capitalization, which probably led to some of the confusion in the first place. --  Denstat 01:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * i have gone over the article and edited using the abovementioned guideline, and added a note citing the source in Notes in the main article. -- Denstat 05:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ed g2s deleted all my work accidentally when he confused my version for another that had sports logo transgressions. i will try to do it again, as too many versions have gone by for me to simply revert his action. -- Denstat 05:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Nightlife
Removed POV fast food recommendations -- not historical or notable, and not everybody's idea of the nightlife here! Could someone add a couple of facts about the city's sex trade, past and present (Lili St. Cyr, etc.)? It's been a big draw here for decades.
 * deleted text: Some bars and nightclubs charge a cover charge varying from 5 to 15$ CAD. You are expected to tip 1$ per drink. Popular late-night fare includes 99-cent pizza slices, Lebanese-style falafel sandwiches, shish taouk, and the local favourite, poutine.  --  Denstat 05:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Not 37th Most expensive city
I don't know why the citation from "city mayors" *cough* unreliable *cough* regarding Montreal as being 37th most expensive city to live in. The UN came out with the numbers for this year, which reflect the 2nd citation there naming it much lower, as Toronto, for the first time has made it above the top 50 (47th) due to a number of factors, mostly attribuatable to the appreciation of the Canadian Dollar. Montreal remains a distant 30 after Vancouver and Calgary. This is based on the Mercer Consulting report which is what 90% of new companies reported on. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2006/06/26/expensive-cities.html

--Gteed 10:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Maps
It would be helpful to have some sort of mesoscale map, which shows how the city is situated with regard to surrounding provinces and U.S. states and water features. It's a little confusing to only have it at the bottom of Quebec, with no indication of what Quebec is bordering.

Maps comming. I will prepare some GEOPICTORIAL maps for this site. These are unique illustrated maps that will look good on the site.±15:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)JLRJLR the mapman

Growth of the Quebec sovereignty movement
I removed that subsection because finding a neutral POV earlier edit or trying to remove the BS was impractical. But now there's a hole in the section. Somebody with some proper knowledge of history rewrite it nicely quick...--132.206.150.33 19:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * i have reworked it for neutrality and fact, and renamed the section to reflect that it's about the politics and the impact on the city, rather than a patchy jumble of separatist history and toronto emphasis -- now it's called Growth of Quebec sovereignty and the Montreal economy. could still benefit from citations, however. -- Denstat 06:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

"One sport city"
I think calling Montreal a "one sport city" is a bit iffy. The hockey team is much less successful than it used to be, and the Alouettes are becoming increasingly popular. I'm not a big sports fan myself, but I'd suggest someone more knowledgeable consider editing that section.
 * I was perterbed by that as well, specifically with the Alouettes in mind (plus, the Habs suck). WilyD 15:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * agreed, and rewritten. we may be hockey-crazed, but that's just because of what they put in the water. ;) also refined sentence about university football, which has had Anglo support for years, and now attracts more Francophones. also would be great if something factual could be added about the annual football Garbage Bowl. info about professional soccer team The Impact needs work. -- Denstat 18:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Corktown?
i've lived here all my life, and had griffintown and point friends, and never have i ever heard the term "corktown". it may be an additional nickname for griffintown, but it does not deserve a section to itself. it sounds like someone made it up or put in a pet name for the district. if someone can define and cite sources for it, fine, but i think it needs to be removed. -- 216.239.81.212 15:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * i agree. there are corktowns in toronto and detroit, for example, but none here. out it comes. thanks. -- Denstat 18:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Dawson College shooting redirect
have added temporary redirect. it should be taken down within a month, depending on the breaking story. thank you. -- Denstat 22:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not a redirect. It's a link to the article. I don't think it's neccessary to do this. Just because it happened in the city, doesn't mean there should be a link about it at the top of the page. By this logic, should we add a link at the top of Quebec and Canada, too? Rawr 23:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * true, terminology mistake, it was a link, not an actual redirect. it was out of compassion for people searching for info who might google montreal, see wikipedia come up in the first few hits, then get bogged down in what is presently an overly long article. i see you've removed it and will not dispute you over the timing, but as i said i intended it to be temporary, and was keeping an eye on news developments. you may be technically right but for a few hours i think it's more important to rise above technicalities and think about people searching for news about family and friends during an emergency. -- Denstat 03:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

City of Saints
Who ever called Montreal "The City of Saints"? Many of its street names begin with "Saint", but that is true of almost every community in the province of Quebec. Is this a verifiable statement? (unsigned comment posted by User:IdesofMontreal), and moved from top of page to heading of its own by User:Denstat)
 * another editor added it, and as a montrealer i questioned it, but googled and came up with a published historical reference from the 1800s. i'll find it again and source it. whether it's still relevant enough today to keep it in is another matter, and should be researched further. i reverted your deletion. --  Denstat 20:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * okay, i found the reference again at: http://www.bartleby.com/81/3611.html extract from E. Cobham Brewer's "Dictionary of Phrase and Fable" from 1898. is this a reliable source (see author article) i have no idea from where the original editor retrieved their info. like User:IdesofMontreal i'd never heard it before; is it archaic, or relevant? imho it should come out, but didn't touch it after i found this. will not cite until someone responds, thanks. --  Denstat 06:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Surely it is archaic. The Dictionary of Phrase and Fable. 1898, states Montreal is "so named because all the streets are named after saints." This was not correct in 1898, and even less accurate today. Some streets, many streets, but not all streets. Furthermore, The Dictionary cites the phrase "Mr. Geo. Martin said he came from [Montreal] a city of saints ..." There is distinct difference between "a city of saints" and "The City of Saints" Idesofmontreal 17:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * so be it! the original author and no one else can defend it -- out it goes! :) -- Denstat 05:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, Montreal had for a long time the nickname "La Ville aux cent clochers". I concur that "City of Saints" was a bit less known, but by no means this 1898 author is idiosyncratic in doing so. The Grolier edition also has it, but you will find many references on the web designating Montreal as "the City of Saints". I agree that these two nicknames are from another age (and should not be placed at the top of the article), but there is no doubt that it should be included in either (or both) history and religion section. This is what I did.Marcus wilby73 05:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Places in Montreal
here's a new can of worms... has anyone else noticed that almost all the districts mentioned are Anglo or allophone 'hoods? places like outremont, rosemont, st. henri, tetraultville, etc., also have a place in the montreal imaginary. also, the section is very long, and seems to grow weekly -- does it need its own article? it also seems to have become a section where editors invent names -- there was a recent deletion of non-existent "corktown" as a nickname for griffintown/the point, and it seems editors are applying terms that are not in common usage here, such as calling greek districts "greektown" (there's one in toronto, but that term is not used here in English), etcetera. the whole section is very POV, and barely disguised neighbourhood pride is taking over. -- Denstat 06:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Montreal vs. Montréal - Should the article name be changed?
I am wondering if the French spelling Montréal would be a better title for the article. I have seen it done a lot with people, but not with cities. Just wondering why it is OK to Anglicise place names but not people's. Cologne vs. Köln I think would be another example of this bit of bias. OBILI ® ± 14:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The practice on the English Wikipedia has been to use the well-established English-language name of a city, where one exists, both for the article name and for references to the city elsewhere in the encyclopedia (although the official name of the city should usually be referenced in the lead paragraph of the article on the city). For that reason, we use Montreal, not Montréal - which is consistent with the practice of the English-language media here in Canada (see the Canadian Press and Globe & Mail style guides).  Similarly, we use Quebec city, Warsaw, Prague, Munich, Copenhagen, etc., rather than Québec, Warszawa, Praha, München, København.  By the way, this practice is currently being translated into a guideline at Naming conventions (geographic names).  I am not sure how this gives rise to bias -- this is an English-language encyclopdia, after all.  I would think bias would only arise where there is dispute as to the name, or we used an out-of-date English name (for example, if we continued to call Iqaluit as Frobisher Bay, or used Peking for Beijing). I would also point out that this practice goes both ways.  In the French Wikipedia, for example, Newfoundland is referred to as Terre-Neuve.  In the Polish Wikipedia, Canada is Kanada, New York City is Nowy Jork, etc. As for the names of persons, we likely do not anglicize names because, unlike many cities, no well-established, commonly-accepted English-language versions exist.  Therefore, it is inappropriate to anglicize a person's name.  One would, for example, never pick up a newspaper and see a reference to Andre Boisclair or Andrew Boisclair.  One would, however, typically see a reference to André Boisclair (with the accent) speaking at a rally or meeting in Montreal (without the accent) in an English-language newspaper.Skeezix1000 15:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're exactly right. Montreal is the right name for the english language article, just as Montréal is the right name for the french language article.  In cases like Boiclair, we'd be anglicising his name, which is wrong, but in the case of Montreal or Turin, we're only using the already existing english name.  For someone who has an english name, say Jackie Chan, the article is placed at his english name, not his name in his native language.  This is an english language encyclopaedia, after all. WilyD 16:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Who said anglicizing (or adjusting a name to a language) was wrong anyway? It's been done for centuries, and suddenly we expect people to be able to know how to read names written in different languages. --moyogo 16:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you misunderstood me. I meant it would be wrong for us (i.e. Wikipedians) to do.  We should use whatever name they're likely to be refered to as in English (i.e. André Boisclair Jackie Chan) WilyD 16:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * We are working on a fix for this at Template:Infobox City. The fix would place the English name first and the other/native language name second.  If it looks good you will see the results soon. &mdash;MJCdetroit 17:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it is rather silly to keep using these old Anglicisations in cases where the non-Anglicised form is increasingly used in English. The omission of accents is particularly unwarranted in situations like this where the pronunciation in English commonly follows the accented form. Still, at least the Canadians don't have a place referred to as Termonfeckin in English. zoney &#09827; talk 12:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Not sure on what basis you say that the non-Anglicised form is increasingly used in English -- what is the source for that claim? And I'm not sure where you get the idea that the pronunciation in English follows the accented form. Skeezix1000 13:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * My french is a little rusty but Montreal in English is not pronounced the same as Montréal in French. &mdash;MJCdetroit 14:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Griffintown
!!!! --A Sunshade Lust 06:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Culture
The culture section is particularly misleading. It is as if contributors made the equation that culture is nothing more than identifying the multicultural differences. But this is totally wrong. First, several cultural activity goes beyond language and ethnicity. There are cultural institutions which are popular regardless of language and ethnicity---Orchestral music (OSM, Orchestre metropolitain), museums, operas, classical dance and new dance, architectural and institutional monuments, even night lives and cafe. Second, there is a mixture of cultures for which this division in sub-sections of "French, English, Italian, Jewish, Arab, etc" is not appropriate. Wajdi Mouawad, for example, the most popular theater director of Montreal, was born Lebanese, has written in French, and has been played in English. In which sub-section does he go: Lebanese? French? with a repetitive sentence in English? The truth is, he goes in the theater section which does not exist. If you look at the article written in French and in Spanish (two golden-stars), the culture section really insists on culture, whereas, in the English article, many subjects such as dance, opera, stand-ups, theater, and the activity in the bars and cafes are barely if ever mentioned in the culture section. I therefore suggest that we re-organize the whole section. In my opinion, the first sub-section should expand on the different events that animate the cities. The following sections should discuss (in random order) about Montreal cultural institutions (OSM, Opera de Montreal), monuments, night live, bars and cafe. A following section should then discuss about theater and musical scene, where the French/English dichotomy could be introduced, insisting on the French side of Montreal and its importance for Quebec. A last section could then be written about Montreal multicultural face. Any opinion? 74.57.3.198 03:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I kind of like it. It's refreshing. It gives the article a unique flair and a real flavour of the city. Perhaps things like Orchestras, Theatres, and Museums can go under "Arts".


 * Well, I made major changes. I think I have written too much, but so perhaps other groupings can be done. I am still not satisfied with the last sections "French"/"English"/"other communities"... There must be another way to treat these subjects, but I couldn't figure it out.Marcus wilby73 14:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, Trapper moved the section Montreal culture into another section. I am not against the idea, although the current section now appears really too slim. Waiting for anyone's suggestion.Marcus wilby73 14:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Corrected part stating "Montreal is the cultural capital of the Quebec Nation"; this is POV as there is considerable contoversy about whether Quebec constitutes a nation and who belongs to that nation; changed to "Montreal is the cultural centre of Quebec", which is less POV and gramatically less awkward and in no way denies that Quebec is a nation (if you wish to see it that way)

Flag / Coat of Arms
There are articles for both Montreal's Flag and its coat of arms, but the links show up as dead. I tried to include these myself in the city infobox, but couldn't figure out how. Could someone please do that for me? The links are Flag of Montreal and Coat of arms of Montreal Thanks. --Gregorof/(T) 01:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I did it using a redirect. The reason that the link is dead is because the offical name (in English) is City of Montreal,... and not just Montreal.  It is a glitch in the template that we are aware of and should soon have a fix for.  &mdash;MJCdetroit 02:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Montreal is as French is Los Angeles is Mexican
look guys, we can debate the article's accuracy on how French or Quebecois is Montreal, but includes every ethnic group under the sun. I've read similar arguments on Los Angeles is the US' largest Spanish speaking city, but home to different races to surely have L.A. speak all sorts of languages. Montreal is a mishmash of an English past, inhabited by more French (most are bilingual in both languages) and lots of allophones comfortable in three languages. its an excellent skill to master to know/speak a foreign language but to speak french in Canada isnt a foreign one if the country is officialy bilingual through out its history. im born in america, grew up in here in an english speaking environment, but i spoke french at home with family since they hail from quebec canada. i dont like french separatism or the projected "republique du Quebec" that never surfaced. the Bloc quebecois harbors the most racial ethnocentric extremists of any democratic country. some are openly anti-semites, whine or moan on quebec loses its "ethnic purity", the hired drifters known as "les tongue trouperes" go out in montreal to harass non-french language signs". they dont emphasize rural folk culture or the catholic element of French Canada had held quebec and the nation together. im from a family who are americans first, canadians second, who are of the French culture, and NON QUEBECOIS! - I cant imagine how the US be like if it werent for Martin Luther King Jr. to lead the struggle to integrate African Americans, victims of racism based on fellow Americans' skin color. Instead of the majority of black Americans to separate or take down the country, they want to JOIN AMERICAN SOCIETY and want to have the right to be treated like everyone else. NOT THE RADICAL FACTIONS OF QUEBEC SEPARATISTS. I worry the manipulation of the Chicano/ Mexican american movement is taken place, same pathetic idiocy of one race wants to break off and not follow a society that today dont oppress them and allowed millions of Mexicans to settle, find work and move freely in america. The city of Montreal paid for separatist demands with a dying economy, an inefficient city government and the provincial politics to HATE Canada. Now you wonder how I feel if a minority drives out another minority (Francos vs. Anglos in Montreal) but they needed to share a city and a country. - Antoine, je suis le une Americain.


 * Dear Antoine, your comments show that you have a lot to learn about Quebec and Montreal. First, le Bloc québécois is not racial ethnocentric or whatever. You say so either by ignorance or by bad faith. The Bloc has deputies who were born in Africa, in Haiti, and in Lebanon. In the last elections, they also had candidates born in VietNam and born as a member of the first Nations, making this party one of the few to have a spectrum from all mankind origin. Second, Le Bloc has defended views which could be qualified as pro-Palestine, but does being pro-Palestine makes one being anti-semite? I hope you have more intelligence than that, otherwise, you will be forced to qualify the Israelian liberals who believe in a peaceful way to treat Palestine as antisemite as well. Third, what the Bloc has to do with Montreal, anyway??? The Bloc is the second force in Montreal, on the federal scene, behind the Liberals. Are you so obsessed with the Bloc to make a central subject of Montreal??? Fourth, your comparison of Montreal with LA is deeply wrong. Montreal is the metropole of the French Quebecers. Their leading cultural institutions of the province, from radios to TV networks to editors to newspapers to libraries to...you name it...is in Montreal. As far as I know, the cultural capital of the Mexicans is still Mexico, isn't? Lastly, you praised in your intervention the bilinguism and trilinguism of the Montreal. I agree with you at 100%. Well, whether you agree or disagree with the spirit of bill 101, the fact is bill 101 is a major cause of Montreal bilinguism. Before Bill 101 or bill 22, young immigrants were massively speaking English and ignoring French. This was a time when clerks at Eaton were forced to speak in English to all the customers, even the French ones. I sincerely regret the exodus of the Montreal English-speaking community. I wish they could have stayed and made Montreal better and stronger. But there is no doubt in my mind that Bill 101 had the consequence that most young immigrants can speak three languages, which ultimately increase dialogues and interaction between all Montreal communities.199.202.95.16 07:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. The comparison between L.A. and Montreal isn't a valid one.  Must say though, that the stories about clerks at Eaton's is more myth than anything else.  Skeezix1000 12:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That is the most insane piece of BS ever written in this talk page. Antoine: the Bloc, and all Quebec provincial political parties advocate integration of all non-French speakers TO JOIN QUEBEC SOCIETY. There are two HOST societies in Canada. There are two nations with the political instruments to welcome immigrants: one speaking English all across Canada and the other speaking French in Quebec. Naturally, that means there is overlap and competition INSIDE Quebec. In Montreal, the two main languages overlap very much, hence the need to insure that immigrants integrate Quebec first, otherwize for certain they would simply follow the largest path of integration, that of the great Anglo-Canado-American melting pot that promises gold and free sex for everyone. That's right, so that our immigrants, those WE INVITED TO LIVE HERE WITH US AS EQUAL CITIZENS, do not just assimilate to English and forever remain stranger to our reality, we voted for their right to learn French and become Québécois in every sense of the word. That is what the Bloc stands for but you will not read this in English language media very often.
 * By the way, Montreal is by LAW a French speaking city on top of being a city where a majority of the people speak French in their homes. As for the high English-French bilingualism, this should convince anyone that Franco-Quebecers are not the ones to be told they are closed-minded, but some powerful agents use the media they own to continue dividing us, Quebecers, along ethnic lines. I suggest you take your American grid of analysis and trash it. It will only be useful in the USA. In Quebec, you'll have to construct a new grid of analysis, otherwize you are certain to reach the wrong conclusions no matter how accurate you think your data is.
 * Instead of being proud of millions of people being integrated, in English, to American culture, you should ask yourself: why is it that there is so much poverty in Mexico that by the millions THEY ARE FORCED to abandon their homes to go work in a foreign country?
 * Only a century ago, there were so many Franco-Quebecers doing the same, moving to the States for work, and once there not wanting to learn English, not wanting to become "real" Americans, that they were called the "Chinese of the East" by the people of New England. Why were these people migrating in mass? And why did this mass migration from Quebec to the USA stop by the 1930s? The answer is that between 1850 and 1930, Quebec had progressed and was now a more urban and industrial society that could provide jobs to its own people on its own territory. (It will be the same for Mexico in time.) Sure, the new industries brought us jobs, but they were jobs where you had to speak English to a British, British-Canadian or American boss who was only there for the cheap labour. But at least our people could stay home and go abroad only WHEN THEY WANTED TO instead of because there was no other alternative. Franco-Quebecers then decided that if there was a place where it was 1) legitimate and 2) possible to build a French-speaking nation with all the modern bells and whistle (that includes immigration policies), it was in Quebec. So one day in 1977, we made it a right of every person in Quebec to:


 * 1 have all government branches, professional corporations, employee associations and enterprises doing business in Quebec communicate with them in French.
 * 2 The right of persons to speak French in deliberative assemblies.
 * 3 The right of workers to carry on their activities in French.
 * 4 The right of consumers to be informed and served in French.
 * 5 The right of persons eligible for instruction in Quebec to receive that instruction in French.


 * Because in 1977, NONE OF THIS WAS ASSURED even though 80% of the people spoke French as their mother tongue. Two centuries of British and eventually British Canadian rule over Quebec made the French language useless for anything other than talking about hockey with your friends or saying dirty things to your wife. Unbelievable? I find it too. I was born in 1979 and I was always able to go around Montreal never speaking any other language but French. It's hard to believe that such a freedom was only recently acquired.


 * But the world is stupid. Very soon, we will have to write this into law:


 * 1 The right of persons to breath clean air
 * 2 The right of persons to drink fresh water
 * 3 The right of persons to eat food that comes from mother nature
 * 5 Etc. Etc. ad nauseam


 * That's how stupid man can be: he only reacts when things have degenerated to the point that the situation shames us all. -- Mathieugp 09:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The Weatherbox is wrong...
The precipitation should either be stated as being in mm or divided by 10.See link. How does one fix this?--Boffob 21:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean. The source data doesn't even match that.  Also, in English it's periods (.) not commas  as the decimal point.  I edited it now for now.  MJCdetroit 01:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Economy/Quebec Sovereignty
Does this section really belong here? Shouldn't the section on Montreal's economy deal with the leading sectors of the economy, and not serve as a debating section on Quebec seperatism?--Soul scanner 22:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Please sign your comments. After verification I noticed some POV pusher had vandalised it again (and the Toronto article as well). I found an earlier section that is more appropriate (though I doubt the half million exodus mentioned, more likely the still massive departures were on the order of 100 000 or 200 000 from memory but I can't back up this at the moment). It does need some mention at least to dispell this "language laws and sovereignty are the cause of everything in Quebec" mentality that appears to be common in English media. Yes it has influenced the economy in many ways, but things are not so simple. Unfortunately, this section gets rewritten and massacred a lot by those who want to exaggerate its impact, either to maximize or minimize it.--Boffob 17:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This isn't about correcting perceived impressions created by the English or French media. Spending more than one sentance on this (whether from the English or French perspective) assigns more importance to this topic than it deserves in a section on the Montreal Economy. Right now, this section reads like a highly POV section, and any intelligent reader will not trust it.  It makes this site look like a debating section between seperatists and federalists, and devalues the article. A simple sentence indicating that the possibility or Quebec independence affects the Montreal economy in the past should be enough. There's no need here for long, ponderous apologetics for either side of the sovereignty debate. This is not a history article, but a description of the current Montreal economy. Just get rid of the section. It's not worth this much space. --Soul scanner 06:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That wouldn't be a bad idea. Unfortunately, removing it entirely will likely just result in an edit war anyway. The other problem is that the whole economics issue is tangled with history and politics. Remove those and you get accused of POV, include them and it's still POV. I've had to clean up the Economy section of the Toronto article for the same reasons, though there it's much less of a problem. Yet it always comes back.--Boffob 22:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC) --155.42.21.133 06:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not removing it because I want to avoid an edit war for now. It is not POV to relegate the issue to one simple non-POV sentence on which there is a general consensus. You do not see the Economy sections for Boston, Calgary or Lyon delving into the historical ups and downs of the economy, much less the political reasons for it. We should decide on a sentence and agree to revert to it if someone wants to push another political agenda, and appeal to freeze the site for two days if someone wants to alter it. If someone objects to this policy, they can discuss it here. Is there a way of freezing only the Economy section? That would be an interesting option. --Soul scanner 06:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Someone (IP:140.247.205.55) tried to do this and got wholesale reverted. I reinstated some minor changes. I would translate the French version of the economy section but I'm not too satisfied with it either.--Boffob 19:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

God, can someone re-write the section on the economy/separatism? Regardless of its content, the English is butchered.

By the way, Boffob, the number is 300,000. Go on the NFB's website and lookup The Rise and Fall of English Montreal (1993).

G. Csikos


 * I've got 75% (to 90% including allophones, or 95% using projection of data from 76-81)of 367,000 (approx 275K-350K) from here between 1966-1991. Here  it says there were 200K departures between 1966 to 1975 (citing Statscan did not record interprovincial migration before 1966). I'm still looking for 1976-1986 data specifically which is the time period mentioned in the paragraph, but I'll put it at 300K (an overestimate for that time period) provisionally.--Boffob 17:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You're really allergic to just agreeing with me, huh? -- G. Csikos


 * No. I just prefer to have the most reliable sources as possible. Failing to find things directly out of Statscan, I found sources citing it. I did not look at the NFB thing (documentary I guess) but most likely their data come from there as well. It is interesting to note that a large amount of migration actually appears to predate the election of the PQ and Bill 101.--Boffob 18:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Please, you have a real self-important attitude. You certainly didn't seem to care about sources when you first reponded. -- G. Csikos


 * What? I'm the one who put the citation needed tag in the first place (without changing the 500K until I found some, though the tag is still there).--Boffob 20:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The fact that there is even a controversy about including this piece of pro-Toronto propaganda in the Montreal entry illustrates the limits of Wikipedia as a serious and reliable encyclopedic source. I suggest that Montreal-bashers stay away from this entry. There is so much more self-congratulation you could do in the Toronto article. Why not worry about that instead?


 * As expected, as soon as the Economy/Sovereignty subsection was removed, someone reverted all the edits by 140.247.205.55. Though the more recent and major changes placed too much emphasis the entertainment industry, I reverted to the pre-removal version rather than undoing all those edits.--Boffob 19:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi guys, I am the latest most important contributor of this section. Let me first apologize for the bad English of the section; English is not my natural language. About a year ago, when I became interested in this article, this section already existed, and it basically defended the view that Toronto became Canada's metropolis because of Quebec nationalism. I made serious research on this topic and devoted a full day in the library trying to resolve this question, and while some historians who have not studied this specific question reported the same sentence, most historians, including those who have contributed significantly to the topic, asserted that Toronto had a very strong economic momentum well before the rise of Quebec nationalism, and already surpassed Montreal on a significant number of key indicators for good economy before the 1960s. Therefore, it is my neutral opinion that a strong consensus exists that the rise of Quebec nationalism only cristalized a process that was alreay well undertaken. I expressed this consensus in the article by the voice of the historians Young and Dickinson, because they are English-speaking, politically neutral, well-respected specialists on the topic of Quebec's historical economy.

Given this general agreement among historians, it would be wrong, in my opinion, to nevertheless raise the possibility that Toronto became Canada's metropolis because of Quebec nationalism.

A similar misconceived opinion is that there has been a precipitated "exodus" of HQ from Montreal to Toronto after the 1976 election. First of all, let me stress that the word "exodus" is not neutral and should be removed entirely. A majority of companies, and even of English-speaking Quebecers for that matter, have remained in Montreal. When a majority of people remain still, it is by definition not an exodus. Secondly, when you look at the hard data for companies, there is a local peak of HQs moving out in 1977, but overall the rate of moving out did not change significant from the rates already existing in the 1950s and 1960s. What changed is the reason provided to those departures.

Yet, despite being wrong, these two ill-conceived opinions (that Quebec nationalism cause Toronto to become Canada's metropolis, and that there has been an exodus of HQs in the 1970s and not before) are shared by-and-large in the public opinion. As a consequence, it is my strong opinion that 1-simply raising the possiblity of these views when the bulk of evidence against these views is so strong is wrong and will only entertain biased opinions in the community; 2- we make a significant and positive contribution in addressing these ill-conceived opinions. For these two reasons, I disagree with simply deleting the section. But I agree with the opinion that the section is out of place for the general page on Montreal. Perhaps it should be on a page further down the road (for example, on a page "Economy of Montreal").

That said, other facts are not disputed: An important and significant number of English-speaking Montrealers decided to move out of Montreal, and there is absolutely no question that the loss of capital and consumption activities following these departures have had a negative and significant impact on the level of Montreal's economy. Another undisputed fact is the local peak of relocation observed in 1977 (but saying that there was a local peak in relocations in 1977 is different than saying that a "sudden" change which caused Montreal to lose its leading role in Canada). We could settle on these non-disputed facts in this article (and forget about the comparison with Toronto altogether), and address the impact of Quebec nationalism (with the pros and cons) on another page.Marcus wilby73 06:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This is all interesting, but I'm not sure it should be what the economy section is about. I believe the section of the article itself should present only the current economic situation of Montreal as neutrally as possible (this is what the French Montreal article has at the moment, though last time I looked it felt a bit too catalogue-ish, a more concise version would be preferable). A seperate article on the economy of Montreal could include this historical perspective and information.--Boffob 07:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think we could then agree to remove any contextual/historical information in this page (Montreal), and perhaps introduce the discussion about the impact of Quebec nationalism on Montreal economy on a different page (Economy of Montreal)199.202.95.16 11:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC).

What is truly amazing in this discussion is that the fact of Montreal's economic decline is simply assumed. This is simply wrong: Montreal's economy has grown significantly since 1976, albeit at a lower rate than Toronto's. In fact Quebec's economy grew faster in the second half of the seventies  than Ontario's.  The idea of an economic decline is therefore misleading.

The very least that can be said is that this question is highly debatable and therefore does not belong in an encyclopedia. All it does is to convey the negative impression that Montreal is a an economically dying city, a cliche with currency in some misinformed circles but that simply does not reflect the reality. For Toronto lovers that truly want to demonstrate that Montreal's "decline" has nothing to do with the growth of their own favorite city, this is just not the place to do it. Situationist biases make bad encyclopedias, whether you like it or not.


 * You are projecting your own biases into the discussion. There is only yourself to blame. No one has ever said that Montreal is a dying city, or that Quebec economical activity slowed since 1976---a fact not in dispute here. The whole discussion is about the shift of activity from Montreal to Toronto---a fact that you admit yourself, and the economical aftermath of the departure of thousands of Anglophones out of Montreal. Even the most sympathetic voices to the sovereign cause like Jean-François Lisée have acknowledged the economical impact of the thousands of people leaving the country.


 * I still believe that Wikipedia should have a page somewhere explaining that the rise of nationalism had little to do with Montreal lsoing its metropolitain role to Toronto for Canada.199.202.95.16 05:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

What the hell happened to this article?
Completely deleted, no history to refer to, no redirect, nothing findable through Wikipedia search. Yet this talk page shows that there was a very detailed article here.

This doesn't inspire confidence in Wikipedia.

Forget it, I purged and it's back. Why was it ever gone though?

JLR-mapman's map illustration
The map illustration is very nice (thanks for sharing, Jean-Louis!), but it doesn't belong right at the top of the page. I'm not sure where it should go though... my first thought was the "Downtown Montreal" section, but it's got quite a lot of photos already. There's the "Geography" section, but it concentrates mainly on situating the city relative to other major landmarks, not the geography of the city itself... Anyone have any better ideas? --Nephtes 15:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree: this image is inappropriately placed; perhaps it is better placed in the 'External links' (next or near to the Wikimedia Commons link), 'See also', or similar section? Psychlopaedist 18:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I must say that I was rather disapointed to have my geopictorial map illustration relagated to the bottom of the page. The idea was for it to serve as an attractive masthead . The  French site of Montreal offers such a masthead with a good photo and I believe it makes the whole subject more inviting.  JLR-mapman 02:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * What about replacing one of the two right-hand-side images in the "downtown" section? It doesn't seem to me that the Ste-Catherine one, in particular, is very helpful.  I'm afraid the top of the page isn't quite right though...  I don't think "attractiveness" is an overriding consideration in terms of what makes a good article.  --Nephtes 16:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

HEC Montreal photo
I'm rolling back the change of the HEC Montreal picture. The new picture is of a much lesser quality than the previous one. I find that the new image is a) tilted and b) overexposed (on the right hand side). The older picture is smaller but of a higher photographic quality and allows for the appreciation of the architecture. I have to admit that it is small though... -- docking man  talk 02:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Archive
Talk:Montreal was archived on December 23, 2006. Mkdw talk 07:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)