Talk:Montreal/Archive 2

message: 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)
thread_title: Pictures

message: Some anon added the following to the article:
:There are a few stories behind how Montreal got its name. One story says that it stems from Mount Royal. Another says that King François named it for Archbishop Monreale of Sicily who persuaded the Pope to annul Spanish and Portuguese claims in the New World, thus allowing the French to claim land. The third story claims that one of Cartier's men was from an area of France that was known for its fortresses name Montréal that were elevated on cliffs and the area reminded him of it. The true story may never be known.
Quite apart from the fact that this is copied directly from http://montreal.rezrez.com/whattoexpect/areahistory/index.htm, I can't find any confirmation of the second theory anywhere; the closest thing I found was a story that Cartier named the mountain after Archbishop Monreale (in  Lanctôt's A History of Canada, v. 1, p. 60, 1963 English translation). Everything else suggests that the city is named after the mountain. —No-One Jones (m) 05:39, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Origin of name

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Factual error

message: 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)
thread_title: Public bickering makes Wikipedia look foolish

message: 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)
thread_title:  Gay/lesbian population 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Kinshasa 

message: 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)
thread_title: Areal versus Linear dimensions

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Area of Montreal

message: 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)
thread_title:  Abidjan 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Abidjan vs. Kinshasa 

message: 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)
thread_title:  More than enough evidence 

message: : 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)
thread_title:  A Modest Proposal 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Greater Toronto Area vs Communauté Métropolitaine de Montréal 

message: 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)
thread_title: Ethnicities

message: 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)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: The following information was moved here to be merged into this article, per Wikipedia: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)
thread_title:  Demographics of Montreal 

message: 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)
thread_title: Merger and Demerger

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Montreal region box 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Allophones outnumber Anglophones 2-fold 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Temperature Error 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  American English pronunciation 

message: Both Montreal Skyline and Downtown Montreal are almost the same as the section Montreal#Downtown Montreal. It seems a bit strange to have so many things covering the same material. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 05:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Montreal Skyline and Downtown Montreal were identical to the Montreal#Downtown 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)
thread_title: Merge

message: 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)
thread_title:  plateau/mile end 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Food/Cuisine? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Bands and Music 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  French IPA pronunciation 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Religion

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Well looking at the article after going to the Deletion page, I saw someone already do it... so go Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/New_Montreal to this article and either support the nominatrion for deletion or decide to keep it. -- Eric B ( T • C • W ) 22:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Montreal?? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Bombardier 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Length 

message: 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)
thread_title:  NPOV and non-English writing 

message: 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)
thread_title: Nightlife

message: 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)
thread_title:  Not 37th Most expensive city 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Maps 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Growth of the Quebec sovereignty movement 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "One sport city" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Corktown?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Dawson College shooting redirect

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: so be it! the original author and no one else can defend it -- out it goes! :) --  Denstat 05:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: City of Saints

message: 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)
thread_title: Places in Montreal

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. —MJCdetroit 17:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: My french is a little rusty but Montreal in English is not pronounced the same as Montréal in French.  —MJCdetroit 14:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Montreal vs. Montréal - Should the article name be changed? 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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.  —MJCdetroit 02:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag / Coat of Arms 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The Weatherbox is wrong... 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  JLR-mapman's map illustration 

message: image:hec-montreal.jpg|New picture
image:hec.jpg|Old picture
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... -- dockingmantalk 02:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  HEC Montreal photo 

message: Talk:Montreal was archived on December 23, 2006. Mkdwtalk 07:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive