Talk:Montreal/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


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

Funny, funny, funny

I've heard Montreal's got a museum of humor; anybody know what it's called? Trekphiler talk 05:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It's called "Le Musée Juste pour rire". It`s located on St-Laurent street.

Feature article once again?

It appears to me that most of the points raised by the critics when this aricle was considered to be a feature article have been addressed by the community. Anything else should be changed? Yes. The original name is not Ville-Marie. It has been named Ville-Marie but the original name is Hochelaga given by the Iroquois. (This was in 1534 when explorer Jacques Cartier got there in his first expedition) Hochelaga meaning sacred mountain.

Marcus wilby73 03:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Two valid points have not been addressed: too large a infobox (mainy because the extra - and out of place - boroughs map), too long a TOC: many sub-sections could be merged to create an easier to navigate article (look at the table of contents of Canada for example). --Qyd 01:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
InfoBox appears okay to me (is it because it was changed?). In any case, compared to the pages consacred to New York and Chicago, the current infobox appears just okay. As for the sections, I agree, and I propose to remove all subsections, except perhaps in the history section. Any comments before I make the change?Marcus wilby73 05:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Something I notice on my own that should be improved is that many francophones (myself included) have contributed to this page. Perhaps a generous English-speaking contributor could take some time to go over the syntax and semantics of the article. Marcus wilby73 05:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Anglophone presence and review offered. Keep me in mind on the next separation vote.  :) 22:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Borough map

Why has this been taken down? I found it to be very useful and should still be included in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ChrisErb (talkcontribs).

Official name

It doesn't matter what links get messed up...the official English name is "City of Montreal" without the é. If changing the title causes problems with the links, then fix the links to reflect the Official English name. For now, I will leave it as it is to avoid 3RR...but please make sure the information is accurate. As it is being "City of Montréal" is Inaccurate
Blipadouzi 15:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

When using "br" or other markup tags in the official name parameter, the links to the coa and flag can not be fixed, as those tags will become part of the wikilink. (see this revision) --Qyd 15:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I've looked into this (see below), and the official name of the city, in both English and French, is Montréal - with the accent. From The Canadian Style, published by the Translation Bureau, Public Works and Government Services Canada:

"The official form of a geographical name is the one adopted by the provincial or federal authorities in whose jurisdiction an entity lies. This name can be found in the Gazetteer of Canada."

Natural Resources Canada maintains a geographical names database with information drawn from the Gazetteer; a search of that database for "Montreal" returns a list of results, all spelled "Montréal".

The Canadian Style also notes that "only two municipalities in Canada have two official forms of their names, one in English and one in French: Grand Falls and Caissie Cape in New Brunswick, which are also known officially as Grand-Sault and Cap-des-Caissie. All other municipalities have only one authorized form: thus Montréal and Québec (the city) retain their accents in English." (emphasis added) - Eron Talk 16:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Eron, Qyd, you are right on the issue, but Wikipedia has its own policy, and the policy of Wikipedia with regards to English spelling is to use the conventional Engliash spelling which, in Montreal's case, is to write without the accent (see archives for discussion of this point in the past). That said, there is also a wide-scale practice, as shown above with the examples of Florence (Italian:Firenze) and Lisbon (Portugese:Lisboa), to accompany the English spelling of a city, at the beginning of an article, with the "official" local spelling in parenthesis (as I did here). Therefore, I take your points to further emphasize the need that "Montréal", with the accent, is mentioned at the beginning of the article along with the English spelling, as it is currently displayed. 20:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree entirely that the article should use the conventional English spelling. I just wanted to address the incorrect claim that "the official English name is 'City of Montreal' without the é," which seemed to suggest that we shouldn't reference the accented version at all. - Eron Talk 21:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
You are citing the style guide for the Government of Canada. Despite its name "Canadian Style" is only the Canadian style within the halls of the bureaucracy, and even then it is rarely used. CP style, used by newspapers and magazines, does not use accents for Montreal
And don't forget, Montreal has a significant English speaking population. It is a bilingual city. Surely, if Anglophone Montrealers can't use English style for an English article about their own city, it says something rather dire about our views on minority language rights.

Reviewing the article from an English perspective.

First and foremost, I want to say, I love Montreal. Beautiful City, was the closest my mother could ever get to Paris. I will use this discussion to present my thoughts on the article from an Anglophone 22:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

  1. The french and english presentation of information has to end. It doesn't matter to me if we present Montreal with the accent or not, but it stands to reason that one place does not have TWO official names. When I first viewed the article I was going to correct that, but I was afraid no matter which I had chosen someone would get their feathers ruffled. Editors, please chime in and lets decide. 22:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Alan for your contribution. I somewhat disagree with your first point, though. Look at the majority of articles on international cities: many present TWO official names, the English one, and the local one (Florence (Italian: Firenze), Beijing (Chinese:Pinyin), Moscow(Russian: Москва́, Romanized: Moskva), and I could go on and on. Montreal (French: Montréal) does not differ on this aspect.Marcus wilby73 00:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Somewhere in law, there is one name for the City of Montreal. I believe the reference in the lead paragraph outlines this fact. Besides the fact that this is an English article and should use the English name. What name to use in the French article version, is another issue. 00:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Alan, the Wikipedia article on Florence is in English, and nevertheless mentions that Firenze is the Italian name of the city. The English Wikipedia article on Moscow mentions that Moskva is the Russian name of the city. The English Wikipedia article on Bordeaux mentions that Bordèu is the Gascon name of the city. The English Wikipedia article on Lisbon mentions that Lisboa is the Portugese name of the city. I could go on with thousands of examples. I cannot see why this criteria shouldn't apply to Montreal, regardless of what article of law you refer to. In all due respect to your opinion. Marcus wilby73 08:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Good points. However, in all of those cases, we are translating the official name into english and displaying the official name as well. I believe for Montreal it either has an English official name or a French official name. How many examples can you cite where a city has two official names? 19:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
More common than you think, in polylingual countries. The capital of Belgium, f'rinstance, is Bruxelles in French, Brussel in Flemish, and Brüssel in German -- the three official languages of Belgium (and oddly enough, we don't use any of them, the article is at Brussels). Likewise, the official website for Geneva has Genève on its French version,[1] Genf on the German,[2] and Ginevra on the Italian,[3], to correspond with Switzerland's official languages. Helsinki is Helsingfors in Swedish.[4]. The City of Cape Town is Stad Kappstad in Afrikaans and Isixeko Sasekapa in Xhosa.[5] I could go on, but now I just found List of countries and capitals in native languages. You'll note that where there is more than one language, there's often more than one name. -- SigPig |SEND - OVER 16:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
It is extremely redundant to put all language versions of a name on an encyclopedia that has articles specific to each language. In your example, you point out that the official web site for Brussels only uses the language version of the name on the site that is written for that language.

I am in support of two possible outcomes:

  1. Presenting the English language version of the city name Montreal, with Montréal underneath it in () as the native name.
  2. Determining that the City has one official name and using that name only in the English article. 16:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The article title is "Montreal"; the accented version Montréal redirects there. Similarly, Québec City redirects to Quebec City. I'm not sure there is any need to make changes; the article notes that the city's name in French is Montréal. Perhaps we could add a note that the official name in both languages is the accented version, but as the name in common use in English is written without the accent, I don't think we should change it in the article. - Eron Talk 17:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I haven't found a specific reference in law, but five minutes of browsing the City of Montréal's official web site - including all pages on the English version - makes it pretty clear that the official name is in all likelihood Montréal, with the accent. I'll dig further to confirm that. - Eron Talk 20:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally I prefer the french version. There must be a document of incorporation available at the central Montreal library. 20:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Request Move

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The request is based on the principal that the common denominator, per the new category UTC-5 demonstrates that cities generally have the state or province name. Take for example Ottawa which should redirect to Ottawa, Ontario and not vis-versa. This will help when categorizing cities. --CyclePat 00:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

This move discussion is located at: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Current_Local_City_Time#Move_and_Rename_cities —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 06:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC).
See previous discussion on the subject: Talk:Montreal/archive1#Wikipedia: Requested moves. --Qyd 15:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Opposed to US-centric policies and per my comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Current Local City Time#Move and Rename cities. We've already decided to undisambiguate this. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 18:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. Per Canadian city naming conventions. Looks also like you failed to achieve consensus on your own project page WRT this move. -- SigPig |SEND - OVER 18:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
That's rude dude. I'dd appreciate an appology. In fact the talk page on CCT is to coordinate effort for CCT and is part of the process of billions of instruction you have to follow for trying to move an article. --CyclePat 22:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

2nd-3rd-4th largest French-speaking city?

In the archives, there is a tremendous amount of (heated) debate about the position occupied by Montreal as the largest French-speaking city of the world. The new contributors to the Montreal page should refer to it. In short, there are many arguments for (and against) placing Kinshasa and Abidjan, which have much greater population than Montreal, as 2nd and 3rd largest French-speaking cities of the World. A better, less controversial, and more neutral, is to refer to Montreal as the largest French-speaking city, after Paris, of the Western Hemisphere (which traditionally excludes Africa). BTW, don't forget that Wikipedia is a comprehensive encyclopedia, which refers to Kinshasa and Abidjan as well. Henceforth, it is important to not introduce sentences in one topic (Montreal) which contradicts other topics (Kinshasa). Marcus wilby73 00:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

In fact, I hesitate if we should write western hemisphere or western World. Any comments?Marcus wilby73 01:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, since Paris isn't in the western hemisphere, then you would have to reword the sentance to show that. BUT, what's the population of Port-au-Prince, it's getting close too. Perhaps, all can say is that Montreal is the centre of the French speaking community in North America, 2nd to Paris in the first world, and one of the largest in La Francophonie.Kevlar67 04:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
According to Demographics of Haiti, "French is one of two official languages, but it is spoken by only about 10% of the people." The universal language there is Haitian Creole. With an estimated population of 8.5 million, that means 850,000 francophones for the entire country (let alone Port-au-Prince). So I think it's safe to say that Montreal is the largest French-speaking community in the Americas/Western Hemisphere/New World/whatnot. --SigPig |SEND - OVER 05:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
"The third largest French-speaking city in the world, after Paris and Kinshasa,..."New York Times article On the other hand, "Mr Bemba, on the other hand, is popular in the capital, Kinshasa and in his nearby home state of Equator. Both are places where the vast majority speak Lingala." the BBC. I dunno; Kinshasa is 2nd if it's a francophone city; but the more I read, the more I get the impression that French is a language learned in high school, and the lingua franca (pardonthe pun) in Kinshasa is Lingala. --SigPig |SEND - OVER 05:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
In case you didn't know, Lingala is a lingua franca too. Educated Kinois speaks french very well, in its Congolese variant of course with its own accent and some specific vocabulary. But a large majority of the population gets around in either Lingala, others do in French or a mix (a creole, or lots of code mixing, whichever floats your boat). The written press is mostly in French, only the spoken media is importantly in Lingala or other bantu languages from the Congo. The bottom line is almost every kinois speaks French to some degree. Many speak only a few words, and many speak fluently (bilingual or mother tongue). The main issue is that we have no figures and if half of Kin spoke french it would still outscale Montreal. --moyogo 08:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Western hemisphere is still POV. Who says your half is the west, or vice versa? Last time I check the Earth is round! What's wrong with writing "one of the largest French-speaking cities in the world..." and forget about the actual rank? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kvasir (talkcontribs) 08:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC).
There are some criticism about the use of "western hemisphere". What about Western world? According to wikipedia, the expression specifically refers to West Europe and America, thus excluding Africa. So I suggest "2nd largest French-speaking city of the Western World". Two reasons for using rankings. First, having an accurate ranking adds to the precision one expects from a good encyclopedia. Second, having a vague sentence incites wikipedians to modify the article and write down the potential accurate sentence that Montreal is the 2nd largest French-speaking city of the World. So, for or against my proposal "2nd largest French-speaking city of the Western World"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marcus wilby73 (talkcontribs) 16:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC).
Ummm, since Paris is east of 0 degrees, isn't it in the Eastern Hemisphere? Kevlar67 05:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
But Western World is not western hemisphere. Western World traditionally includes western Europe. Therefore I ask: for or against my proposal "2nd largest French-speaking city of the Western World"? Marcus wilby73 02:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I must say I do not really agree with the starting point of the discussion. The statement "there are many arguments for (and against) placing Kinshasa and Abidjan, which have much greater population than Montreal, as 2nd and 3rd largest French-speaking cities of the World." does not appear true to me. I think there really is no issue here but this one: In Wikipedia, are we to rank cities 1) based on official language status/total population of the city, 2) total mother language stats for the city or 3) both. If we are talking about official language status, then there is no argument at all, Montreal is not the second largest French-speaking city in the world. If we are talking about mother language stats, then it is possible that Montreal is still second after Paris. My opinion is that both these information are relevant, and maybe an effort should be made to standardize on presenting at least these two for all major cities. -- Mathieugp 06:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
French is an official language of Congo Kinshasa. The government is run in this language. Zaire is also a member of the Francophonie. That makes Kinshasa the second larges francophone city in the world. What is so difficult about accepting that? -- 18:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Congo you mean, not Zaire ;-) The argument is really about trying to fit details and accuracy in one sentence, when we could just be blurry but acurate, i.e. we don't know everything, Montreal is just one of the biggest French speaking cities in the World. --moyogo 19:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree, why do we need to get hung up on the statistics and rankings? Just say: "one of the largest francophone cities in the world" and get on with it. There are already way too much rankings and stats in the introductory paragraph alone. It makes the intro sounds childish and boastful. An intro paragraph should give general overview facts. --Kvasir 04:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't know, I read somewhere that a quarter of Britons speak some French. Maybe London is a bigger French-speaking city than Montreal. Actually, I'm just joking. My point is, mother tongue makes sense because it means people actually spend their time speaking the language. I'll bet most people in Kinshasa who aren't in the elite say 95% of what they say in a day in other languages. So if we were to count the number of words spoken in French every day, I think Montreal would come out on top by a mile. And there is nothing wrong in relying on mother tongue. That way Montreal is the second largest French-speaking city, and Kinshasa is the largest Lingala-speaking one. Joeldl 07:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I just read this article for the first time and the sentence "It is the second-largest French-speaking city in the Western world after Paris." immediately made me think that there is in fact a larger French-speaking city elsewhere in the world. The sentence implies nothing regarding the subtleties of ranking french-speaking cities worldwide. A sentence from Demographics of Montreal has the appropriate information: "Montreal is the largest French-speaking city in North America, and second in the world after Paris when counting the number of native-language Francophones (third after Paris and Kinshasa when counting second-language speakers)." I suggest saying "It is the second-largest French-speaking city in the world after Paris." with a footnote something like, "based on the number of French native-speakers. Kinshasa would rank second when counting second-language speakers." SeanGustafson (talk) 23:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, couldn't fit everything I wanted to say into the edit summary: The comment above mine refers to a statement that supports calling Montreal the second largest world wide (according to one method of counting), but unfortunately the Demographics of Montreal doesn't have any reference (I could see at a glance), for this factoid. So I thought "largest in the Americas" should be OK. I can live with disagreement though :D. Regards Sean Heron (talk) 04:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I would agree with some points raised above that making Xth-largest claims are somewhat lame, but I'd have to say that "largest in the Americas" is incredibly lame. Between English, Spanish, Portuguese and French, French ends up being the smallest of the largest. Since it's really just a matter of (unencyclopedic) pride in the face of unclear evidence, I'd be thinking more along the lines of "one of the largest", "2nd-largest native-French speaking", "among the five largest". However, the comparison is better made world-wide. "Largest in the Americas" omits the fact that Montreal has more French-speakers than any French city but Paris. Isn't that notable? Franamax (talk) 10:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm neither from Montreal, nor a french speaker myself I'll have you know ;D. Anyway, I think "2nd-largest native-French" and "among the five largest" are fine, and I can follow your reasoning, it gives a better image of the relative size. So I'll change it ("to among the five largest", but anyone that feels the other option is better, please change it so). Regards Sean Heron (talk) 04:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Franamax, what we have now is a little too watered down. I do particularly like the point about Montreal being home to more francophones than any city in the world other than Paris. That really makes it clear and avoids the whole Kinshasha dispute, which is a larger city than Montreal but with far fewer actual French speakers, or so I gather. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
OK so we're at "among fifth-largest". Anyone willing to take the bit and nail this down? It seems Mtl is definitively larger than any non-Paris French city. Other than that, we're looking at Brussels, Port-au-Prince, Lagos, Abidjan, Kinshasa... These are some pretty serious cities. Do we have a process to figure it out? (BTW, SH, I am equally in both your neither/nor's, that doesn't stop us from being proud of such a great city. I was speaking cyclopedically, not personally ;) Franamax (talk) 05:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


The article is made into so much languages, it's very flattering to know that a lot of different cultures love Montréal.—Preceding unsigned comment added by FreshBulletTime (talkcontribs) 17:20, February 10, 2007

Western world? What is this (today it is ideology-laden American nonsense). Why can't you say that Montreal is the largest French speaking city in North America? Roobit 20:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC))

For practical reasons: in the last three years, everytime the proposition : "Montreal is the largest French Speaking city in North America" has been introduced in the text, it is soon changed by well-intended wikipedians for the sentence: "Montreal is the second largest French Speaking city in the World". Unfortunately, this last sentence is probably false (see above), and, not the least, get in contradiction with other articles in Wikipedia. The actual sentence "2nd city in Western World" is surprising stable. So instead of doing daily policing, the actual sentence is true, is stable, and I believe it remains respectful to the African or Asian communities. Saying that Montreal is in what is designed as "Western World" does not take anything from those living in Africa or in Asia.Marcus wilby73 03:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Non-French speakers in Montreal and Quebec

Not sure if Wikipedia has an article on this subject, but what is the situation in Montreal (and in Quebec in general) regarding English-speakers and non-French speakers? Is it tolerant, antagonistic, so-so, etc? Is linguistic assimilation encouraged? I'm assuming that in Canada in general the government provides both English and French language education free of charge, since this would make sense to encourage bilingualism in both official languages, but I would imagine that the Quebec government only offers this in French (since English is not official there). Khodavand 22:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Khodavand, I believe there are exhaustive articles on the linguistic situation in Quebec in general and in Montreal in particular, but considering that it is the provincial government that decides over the issues of education, culture, and language, you will rather find these articles in the different pages related to the government of Quebec than related to Montreal. As a short answer, I must respectful say that your view on Quebec is unjustified. First, with respect to the Quebec Chart of Freedom and the canadian constitution, any English-Canadian living in Montreal can make its full studies, from nursery school to the Ph.D, entirely in English. This situation is promoted by the Quebec government, and by a very large portion of the population, as the English-speaking community continues to contribute vigourously to the dynamism of Montreal. Second, It is true that the only official language in Quebec is French, but this official position doesn't imply that the other linguistic communities must abandon their mother language. All the contrary. Speakers from the minorities are highly spurred to preserve their mother language, in addition to learn French. As a result, we who live in Montreal hear on a daily basis many foreign languages. In fact, there are some neighborhoods in Montreal where kids learn three to four languages while growing up. The position of the Quebec government with the minority communities is to encourage them to share their culture. It is also to promote understanding between the communities by encouraging the learning of a common language, shared by the most, French, so that each community can speak to one another.Marcus wilby73 03:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Sister Cities

Sister cities

Could someone please explain where this information came from and how it meets inclusion guidelines discussed in WP:NOT? 12:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe these are cities with which Montreal is either offically twinned or has a relationship with. Most city articles on Wikipedia have a similar section.SkorponokX 13:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Still, a reference for this section would be needed (I couldn't find one). --Qyd 15:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

French Indian wars

There is a confusion in the dating of the French Indian wars, in the history given of Montreal. A peace treaty between French and Iroquois that was dated 1642, through the treachery of its misrepresentation to Algonquins as all inclusive, permitted the first to invade the great nations fortress (Algonquin) on the upper Ottawa that happened in 1642. The move was expalined by French authority as protective of the new Montreal settlement. Although individual raids by Iroquois preceded, notably of Huron transportation on river, this started the fur wars. The peace of 1701, was conducive to the establishment of Detroit, with the Ottawa's central participants. (I offer this only for your closer considerations)—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:28, February 19, 2007

George Plet, email

I think we need a better distance map like showing a dot for the city to make it easier to read.

Here is an example if you can find something nicer than what i did that would be nice...


I made a climate chart that has more info and is easier to read - it gives a better picture of the climate in Montreal than the current one (which is a template). You can view it here, it is collapsible so click on the "show" button on the right of the blue bar. Vidioman 18:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Arab population

I have read various places there are more then 150,000 Lebanese people in Montreal alone. I have lived there, and I would say that the idea there are only 100,000 Arab people in Montreal is very wrong. eternalsleeper

One thing is certain: we cannot write in the Demographics section, at one place, that Arabs form over 100,000; and at another place, write that Arabs form 2.3% of the Montreal population (which would make less than 50.000). Please someone resolve the contradiction. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 02:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

Maple syrup...

Silly little thing in the climate section, where it is stated that sugar maple is an enduring symbol of Montreal (and Quebec), thanks to the production of maple syrup. Reference: a tourist brochure. Yeah, there's tons of maple syrup for sale in Montreal, but how much, if any, is actually produced in the city (or on the island)?--Boffob 21:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think the source meant that Montreal is known as a good place to get maple syrup, not that maple syrup is in any sense emblematic of Montreal. I think we should add a [dubious ] tag and see if anyone steps in to defend the statement. Joeldl 07:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Maple syrup is more a product of the Province of Quebec than of Montreal itself.
Atlant 11:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation of name

Could someone please change the english montreal pronounciation (I dont know the alphabet, so i could only assume). No one calls montreal 'mahntreal'(or, if they do, they're a minority). English montrealers call the city 'muntreal', while other english speakers usally call it 'montreal', with 'on' as it 'on' (as in 'on top') [Comment made by User:]

It sounds like a computer speaking. In any case, to me it sounds like it's "Muntreal" he's going for, not the American pronunciation (like it's spelt). Joeldl 03:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
The IPA representation for English and French seem to be correct. --Kvasir 04:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Not really for French, actually. Although dictionaries write [ɔ~], the European pronunciation is closer to [ő], and the Canadian pronunciation is closer to what's in dictionaries. It's curious they picked that symbol for it. Maybe the French pronunciation used to be closer to the Canadian one and they kept the symbol. Joeldl 07:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

In my experience, anglophones in Canada tend to say "muntreal", whereas Americans pronounce it "mahntreal".

Definitely true. There is a clear distinction Canking 16:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an IPA expert, but why does the article say Montreal is pronounced X in Canadian English, but Y in European French? Shouldn't it say Canadian French - or even just French, since both Canadians and Europeans pronounce it the same way? Tokyo tintin —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

POV on the PQ

Formerly the largest metropolis of Canada and the economic hub of the country (a distinction acquired by Toronto in the mid-1970s), it has since lost that status after three decades of political uncertainty which resulted in turmoil, a population exodus and economic decline.

This is clearly an attempt to introduce anti-sovereigntist, and perhaps anti-Quebec POV. A start would be to find a source that says that Quebec or Montreal has been in "turmoil" in a way that extends beyond politics. "Population exodus" is exaggerated, and "economic decline" is not accurate. The economy has grown, just not as fast as Ontario's. The assertion that Toronto's status as the economic hub of the country is primarily due to the Parti québécois (which "political uncertainty" links to above) needs to be sourced to begin with. If any sources exist, sources saying the opposite can likely be found. Joeldl 04:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Montreal's decline is unquestionable. It has gone from Canada's largest city to a mere cultural anomaly, the city of 23% unemployment and "festivals." This, however, was a rather long affair. It actually began in the 1950's with the opening of the St.-Lawrence Seaway. This allowed shipping to bypass the Port of Montreal. The election of the PQ in 1976 did not cause the exodus of Anglo capital but it did exacerbate it.

Please sign your posts. Montreal is not a "mere cultural anomaly", it is still the second city in importance in Canada, though, as pointed, it may not be growing as fast as other cities due to a number of factors, the least of which, at least since 2003, would be the PQ. Anyway, I undid the POV revision by User:Apple2gs which parrots the same old inaccurate, oversimplified and in many ways plain wrong story that, say, the Montreal Gazette loves to tell. Repeat a lie often enough...--Boffob 23:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I was in Montreal las moth and I met many studnts who are very political in diffirent opinions. Very nice to see diffirent opinions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

metropolis reference

The following needs valid reference: "Montreal is ranked as the 15th-largest metropolitan area in Northern America[5][6] and 74th-largest in the world." [5] is empty, and [6] is immaterial to the assertion ranking the metropolis in North America.

I'm looking for a verifiable reference. In the meantime, I think the sentence should be removed.--Landersn 00:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up: There are two references, which rank the metropolis in the N. American continent and in the world. One source (, places Montreal 18th in the continent and 92nd in world- according to a population estimate of 3.75 mil. The other source, the statistics office of the UN (, places Montreal 16th in the continent given a 1996 census (population approx. 3.39 mil.). This source does not conveniently tabulate a world-wide ranking. For this reason, along with the outdated population estimate (the first source provides an estimate closer to reference [3]), I tend to favour It isn't institutional, but the researcher seems to have documented adequate methodology. --Landersn 12:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I decided the references (see above) are questionable given the context, and so I conclude the sentence itself is inaccurate and is reasonably deleted. --Landersn 05:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

If anyone can find a definitive source, please reinsert the correct rankings for the sentence (see top) in question, which should follow: "The population of the Montreal Census Metropolitan Area (also known as Greater Montreal Area) was 3,635,571 at the same 2006 census."-- 05:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


Shouldn't there be a link to ? Matt714 01:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic origin

In the table on ethnic origin (under "Demographics"), the first entry is "Canadian," and lists a figure that is slightly higher than the entire 2006 population figure. I assume this is an attempt at fostering a sense of nationalist pride, but it does seem a bit odd (especially as the population figures presumably include a significant number of immigrants). Also, a note needs to be made on this table as to a) the source, and b) if respondents are allowed to list more than one ethnicity. Come to think of it, as a non-Canadian, this table is somewhat puzzling overall. Does ethnicity on this table refer to place of birth, language spoken, or something else. The items (e.g. Jewish, Irish, French, etc.) don't seem to match the standard list of ethnicities one usually finds on these surveys.Notmyrealname 17:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I would like to add a comment to the statement above, lastly I checked Judaism is a religion, not an ethnicity. Note that some people can be French AND Jewish, Polish AND Jewish, etc. Why not add a section on religious minorities in Montreal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the Ethnic Origin table needs improvement. I don't see references for either the entire table or most of the individual entries and there are figures and omissions that need to be addressed. Yet, they are readily available as Census information from Statistics Canada. Anyone care to enter it for us?
Several things to keep in mind: The Statcan info is based on their Census Metropolitan Area of Montreal, which is larger than the city itself but smaller than the area typically included as Metropolitan Montreal; Multiple origins can be and are listed giving larger total populations than the whole; Ethnicity is not defined by Statistics Canada, it is defined by the respondents (thus, if someone identifies as ethnically Jewish, that is what is marked); and different people my self-identify in different ways so that someone who is, for example, of primarily Lebanese origins may only mention Canadian because their family has been in the country for several generations or because they recently acquired Canadian citizenship and wish to emphasize their new belonging. AnthroGael (talk) 18:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)