Talk:Main Page

This is the talk page for discussing changes to the Wikipedia Main Page: please read the information below to find the best place for your comment or question. For error reports, go here. Thank you.

Today's featured article

• Do you think today's featured article is awful? Instead of complaining see what you can do about it.
• "Today's Featured Article" is selected from existing featured articles. To nominate one for the Main Page see Today's featured article.
• To report an error in today's featured article, leave a note at the Error Report.

Did you know...

• "Did you know..." lists facts from new or newly unstubbed articles. To nominate a fact for inclusion see Did you know.
• To report an error in "Did you know...", leave a note at the Error Report.

In the news

• "In the news" items are listed as they are added – there is no subjective order.
• To suggest a Wikipedia article that has been updated with new material, see the "In the news" page.
• To report an error you've seen in "In the news", leave a note at the Error Report.

On this day...

• If an important event isn't mentioned in "On this day...", it may be because you haven't suggested it yet at Selected anniversaries.
• To report an error in "On this day...", leave a note at the Error Report.

Today's featured picture

• Today's featured picture is taken from the list of successful featured pictures, If you would like to nominate a picture to be featured see Picture of the Day.
• To report an error with "Today's featured picture...", add a note at the Error Report.

Main Page and beyond

• Answers to Frequently Asked Questions about the Main Page
• Preview tomorrow's Main Page at Main Page/Tomorrow. To report an error on tomorrow's Main Page, leave a note at the Error Report.
• If you want to start a new article seek help here.
• If you see something wrong with a particular article, raise your concerns on that article's own discussion page, or fix it yourself. Do not talk about other articles here.
• Wikipedia running slowly? Check the server status.
• If you have an opinion, comment, question or are looking for help regarding Wikipedia in general, find the place where your post will get the most attention here.

Otherwise; please read through this page to see if your comment has already been made by someone else before adding a new section by clicking the little + sign at the top of the page.

Main page discussion

• This page is for the discussion of technical issues with the main page's operations. See the help boxes above for possible better places for your post.
• Please add new topics to the bottom of this page. If you press the plus sign to the right of the edit this page button it will automatically add a new section for your post.
• Please sign your post with --~~~~. It will add the time and your name automatically.

Nathan

I believe that we should limit editing to members only because of the vandalism and ban in the first signs of vandalism

Nepal

It's a little embarrassing that an article that has a neutrality disputed tag and a grand total of two citations is today's featured article. --Descendall 03:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Which is better, well-referenced Pokemon articles or poorly-referenced geography articles? Seriously though, I agree, this probably deserves to get kicked off the list. YoBub 05:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

It's already on WP:FAR. Apparently there are citations in the article source, which passed muster in 2005. --Dhartung | Talk 10:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

sad but true

the only thing that this wikipedia is good for is spreading nationalist propaganda... but that makes no difference to you admins, does it? it's obvious how u r dedicated to making this wikipedia a better place guitardemon666 click me guitardemon666

That's not true. Spreading nationalist propaganda is not what wikipedia is for. And for general complaints, please go to the Village Pump. -- 64.229.221.217 10:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly what propaganda is wikipedia supposed to be spreading? Do you have any evidence, or are you just very bored? dposse 14:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

He/she is obviously very bored, look at that grotesque signature. As an admin, who works on frog articles, I am interested to know how I am spreading nationalist propaganda. --liquidGhoul 14:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

It would be better to complain about your concerns regarding Macedonian content on those pages that you take issue with. It's a very large generalisation to stretch your experience on one topic to the WHOLE of Wikipedia. Instead of EXPLODING randomly, have you considered rational, reasoned debate backed with academic research? You may find you get further contributing to Wikipedia rather than screaming at everyone. --Monotonehell 16:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Please update ITN (28 September 2006)

Several ITN candidates have been left unattended at Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates. Admin attention is requested. Thanks. --64.229.221.217 10:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Done. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Seems that the admin who is most active on ITN is currently on a Wikibreak. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Zzyzx11. --64.229.205.204 15:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Can we have better writing in DYK squibs?

was subsequently killed in action two years later?

Oh God, that's awful. Take one of those out. Please. Daniel Case 02:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Today's Featured Article - maybe they shouldn't be 'good'

Have a look at what's happening over at yesterday's FA. A previously quiet page that was made an FA back when standards were perhaps lower(?) However that's not the issue I want discussed here.

The result of featuring a poorer than usual article might be that it becomes improved. Although the political issues of this particular subject may impeed progress. What if the TFA section occasionaly featured articles that needed attention? Something along the lines of...

"Today's Featured Article: Green Widgets is an example of a work in progress on Wikipedia. Can you help improve this article?"

If this garners enough attention I might wade into the pump with it. But I'd like a few more thoughts on it to develop the idea better before exposing it to more editors. --Monotonehell 04:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

1. A major problem is that everyone would want certain articles to be featured (and someone would want every article to be featured). How would an article qualify?

2. We already have a section for this purpose (Did you know...), and we address the above issue via the criterion that every article must be newly created or newly expanded from a stub.

3. Every Wikipedia article is a work in progress that can be improved. If we draw too much attention to our weaker articles (by featuring them individually), we'll lead some people to believe that we have nothing better to offer (and are desperately seeking help). —David Levy 05:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

1.The mechanics of selection can be worked out later. Perhaps the dicotomy between WP:GA and WP:FA? I'm thinking of only articles that have reached a good level but need more work to get to FA status. It's easy to get an article beyond stub, we have many. Raul has stated in the past that we're running out of FAs to feature. If we pick one day a week to feature a "needs work" article that could fill the growing gap. Also, if it works we may get more articles up to FA status. Isn't that the focus that we are supposed to be embracing now?

2. DYK is for newly created or unstubed articles. I'm talking about articles that are good but not great. Like those that need citations, fact checking etc. The DYK section doesn't seem to gain the attention that the TFA section has.

3. What's the problem with that? We do need help. Most visitors aren't aware that Wikipedia is a commnity project. Wikipedia isn't Britanica, it's a WIKI. --Monotonehell 09:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

No, this is a very bad idea. Raul654 15:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• k.... (ie. reasons?) --Monotonehell 17:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I concur. It's not the first-time anonymous Main Page visitors who write featured stuff. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 15:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

No it isn't, but the people who are now editing Nepal aren't either. This article has benefited from being featured. --Monotonehell 17:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I think a link to the collaboration projects would be enough. Wikipedia:Community_Portal#Collaborations. I agree with Raul that putting inferior articles in the featured article stream is a bad idea. If we ever look like running out of featured articles, then an appeal to get more people working and nominating at WP:FAC should be all that is needed. And what about Wikipedia:Danny's contest? That is trying to increase the number of featured articles. Carcharoth 22:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Arabic

Why is there no Arabic Wikipedia? I live in the Middle East, and although am an English speaker, I find it odd that so much of the world is not represented in this wonderful site. User:Waldo J. Cartridge

Actually, there is. It's at http://ar.wikipedia.org. Raven4x4x 09:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

== Vandals == or bj is pony one of the two

I wonder where it is that Wikipedia has been listed just recently that has increased vandalism to such amazing heights in the past few weeks? --Monotonehell 14:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

College freshmen with new internet access and nothing better to do on campus are probably to blame. Can't wait for mid-terms to come.... --64.229.205.204 15:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Hm, seems almost too childish for Freshmen. I wouldn't put it pass them, but there have been shadows of a wikivandal group with proxies banding together. It makes you think. --80.42.102.144 20:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

School-age kids, perhaps. Mainly, I think it's just the fact that we have more traffic than ever before – Gurch 22:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

There is a reason the Citizendium fork of Wikipedia will not allow anon edits. Why Wikipedia still does so is beyond me. To paraphrase Robert A. Heinlein, to grant power (to edit) without requiring the burden of responsibility (accountability) is to invite disaster. - Vedexent (talk) - 01:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

There is accountability. Blocks. Vandalism gets reverted quickly enough in 99% of cases that it hardly matters. —Cuiviénen 05:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Given that about 72% of articles are unwatched (ie, on nobody's watchlist), it seems unlikely that 99% of vandalisms are being reverted... — BRIAN0918 • 2006-10-03 06:06Z

At best there can be said to be a form of limited accountability for anon users. Blocks are mostly ineffective against IPs, as (at least in North America) most high-speed Internet Service Providers do not provide their users with a static IP address. All a vandal has to do is wait until they relog in, or in the case of some ISPs wait a pre-determined number of hours for their IP to automatically "tumble" (this practice is put in place to discourage high-speed home users from mounting servers on their home systems - and is one of the reasons dynamic-DNS services became popular). A cleverer form of vandal, mentioned above, can route though proxies. There is even software that allows someone to route through a random proxy in a massive list with each http-request. Additionally, a great deal of random vandalisation seems to come from blocks of IP address attached to school districts. In those cases, it seems that all a vandal would have to do is shift one seat to the right (left, back, whatever) in the computer lab to continue their "fun".

I think the vandalization statistics speak for themselves, as does their recent upswing, and the fact that the Citizendium proposal will no longer allow them.

Vandalization is not the only abuse that anon edits are used for. Avoiding censure for the 3RR rule in an "edit war" and using anon IPs as "anonymous sock puppets" in talk page arguments and straw polls are other popular anon past times, just to mention two.

For user accounts, there is full accountability. Edits are tied to a single pseudo-identity whose behavior and adherence to all wikipedia rules and guidelines is logged as part of the system. I have seen user accounts shut down within ten minutes of going on a "spamming spree". I have also dealt with pernicious spam which I presume to be from the same author (because the spam messages were the same, reinserted into the text repeatedly) spread over half-a-dozen IP addresses.

I understand the ideology behind allowing anyone and everyone to edit. The hope is that anyone and everyone will contribute, and that by lowering the "hassle" involved in being allowed to edit to zero, the casual reader with that critical nugget of information will add it when they otherwise would not bother if they had to go through 10 minutes of setting up and account, providing an email address, getting a confirmation code, entering the code, etc.

The question that Wikipedia has to ask is "What is the real contribution of the majority of these anonymous edits". I myself don't know this - not having made a systematic survey of it. It is entirely possible that the vast majority of anon edits are positive contributions. It may be that none of these people who are making positive contributions anonymously would do so if they were required to create an account. It may be that the number of positive editors lost by the requirement that a user account be created to edit would outweigh the number of negative editors and the time/energy/resources consumed correcting spam and vandalism rather than expanding wikipedia. My personal belief is that none of these conditions holds true - but given that I don't believe anyone has gathered empirical data on any of them, I am willing to admit this could be a mistake. Perhaps this is grounds for someone with higher level access to do some statistical analysis of Wikipedia itself? - Vedexent (talk) - 08:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Until recently (a matter of weeks) the anon vandals have been a minimal annoyance with maybe one or to RVs a day, but now it seems that the actual edits on this page are out numbered by Vandals by a factor of 10. Although not all the vandals on this page are anon. Quite a few are from user accounts.

There may be a point in the future where anon edits are disabled. It depends on the balance Vedexent mentioned above. --Monotonehell 09:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

There were studies done on this. Burried somewhere in my contribs is a posting on village pump which showed that anons produced hundreds of thousands of kept articles per year, and a research cited in an article on the web a month or so ago suggests that most articles are written by anons or irregulars and edited into shape by regulars and admins. Zocky | picture popups 03:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure the recent increase in vandalism is because school started. College students not so much a problem, but high school and lower are often a source (when I run the IP through WHOIS). This school year, I'm less tolerant of vandalism. If the talk page has past warnings, I start with {{bv}} or maybe {{test2}}, and then block. Of course it's tricky when the school IP is a shared IP. In those cases, the blocks will be short. It's a waste of time, IMHO, to go through test, test2, test3, test4, and then block if the intent is obvious. Basically, zero tolerance. Other times, instinct tells me the vandal wants attention, and it's best to revert, ignore them, and they go away. And sometimes, the "vandalism" is really a test, and will handle it accordingly. --Aude (talk) 15:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Rampant pro-hurricane bias

OMG, the two top sections of the Main Page have tropical cyclones at the top of them? Where are the earthquakes and tornadoes? It's rampant pro-hurricane bias, I'm telling you! Titoxd^(?!?) 23:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Give it about 5 minutes ;) Raul654 23:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Is the Main Page too long?

One of the things I like the most in the Main Page is the Featured Picture, and unhappily I almost always miss it since it's two pages down @ 1024x768. While all the content is very important, I feel a lot of it is "lost" because it isn't in the right place. I wish the Main Page was a bit different from the rest of Wikipedia... well it's already different since no normal user can edit it. It's the face and first impression of Wikipedia.

As a suggestion, could the In the news, Did you know... and On this day sections be transformed in some sort of news banners, showing one item at the time? Moving text does catch the attention of the user more than static ones.

I also thing the side-bar takes too much area from the content of the page, but I have no ideas how to change it.

In sum, this is one of the main sources of knowledge of the humanity, and I do feel it needs all the presentation it takes to make it more pleasing to read, user friendly, and still contain all content you'd like to pass to everyone else.

I feel a bit sad about using such as buzzword, but the Main Page does need a more Web 2.0-ish feature rich look, of course in a healthy way that our high-profiled webdesigners can surely do. --ren 05:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Basically any redesign for the main page will have to go through a lengthy community discussion such as here and here. However, you do have the option instead to look at one of the pages listed on Wikipedia:Main Page alternatives. If you just want to look at the feature picture of the day, you can always put {{Pic of the day}} on your user page. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I would certainly oppose any moving text. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

You can always "roll your own" main page under your user page and bookmark it. Put the sections in an order that makes sense to you, omit what you care less about, and as they say, viola. --Dhartung | Talk 14:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Horrible pro-contributor bias

Come on. Where's the original research, unreferenced statemets, and goatse images? You need to fairly represent vandals, this is a horrible pro-contributor bias! 80.41.202.89 10:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I know! How can wikipedia be so biased? dposse 16:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Such a travesty. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 16:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. dposse 16:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

<sarcasm> OMG! Yes I totally agree! </sarcasm> YSHOULDUKNOW123 21:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone read Wikipedia:Community Portal lately? The pro-contributor bias is beyond horrible there. -- 64.229.229.244 13:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Its just a disgrace. --Gold Blade53 05:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Welcome link

Based on a recent merge of Wikipedia:Introduction and Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers, the links in the header ("Welcome" and "anyone can edit") both lead to the same place. I'd suggest "Welcome" gets unlinked, or at least linked directly to the Introduction instead of via a redirect. --Quiddity 19:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers link. —David Levy 19:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Super-Sub Paragraps

On my view of the talk page, some of the sub-paragraphs (the ones that have the left margian moved to the right) are being done so much, the text is only 20 characters long, and also shoved to the extreme right of my screen, making them very hard to read, and also making the page very [[[LOOOOONNGGG|long]]. Should there be a limit on this?Biteebacca 20:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Usually someone anounces an 'indent reset' and the discussion moves back to the left, which topic(s) are extreme for you? I'll flick them back a bit. --Monotonehell 20:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Spelling error.

"In the news" The recent addition about Israel and Lebanon misspells the word Israel as Isreal, and actually redirects to the Isreal disambiguation page. Someone mat want to correct it. LordNaughty 21:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Ever heard of WP:ERRORS? Try that next time. --64.229.221.9 10:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I had not, but I will now use it if a similar situation arises. LordNaughty 14:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Please be civil. Jeltz talk 14:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Would smileys help? If whatever I typed is somehow perceived as uncivil, I apologise. -- 64.229.229.244 14:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipe-tan as today's featured picture

Ok, I have read the debate at both Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Wikipe-tan and Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day#Wikipe-tan as POTD?, but I am still not sure if Wikipe-tan is appropriate on the main page due to its potential self-reference. Keep in mind that this is a consequence of the only requirement on how a picture of the day is selected: being the list of FPs in the order they get promoted. Thoughts? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Read WP:RULE PARANOIA. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{blah • Spinach crisis '06! • WP:NYCS}} 00:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm...well, it's a valid concern. I don't think this particular situation raises too many ethical concerns though, but this is simply an uninformed opinion. --HappyCamper 00:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

No, it is more like I am still a little emotionally uncomfortable about it. That's all. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The image is meant to illustrate moe anthropomorphization, not Wikipedia itself. —Cuiviénen 01:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Try actually reading WP:ASR. It's not simply "avoid self-references". If you are still confused, read the discussion at Image talk:Wikipe-tan full length.png. --BRIAN0918 03:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I strongly oppose using this as a front page image. Phil Sandifer 01:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Why? Pacific Coast Highway ^{{blah • Spinach crisis '06! • WP:NYCS}} 02:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I strongly oppose people adding their unqualified opinion. This is Wikipedia, please explain your reasons, otherwise your opinion counts for nothing towards consensus. --Monotonehell 13:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm in two minds. I don't think it is the best look for Wikipedia to focus on itself, but then again, it is a good illustration of the personalisation of organisations are done, with an organisation that readers obviously do know about. However, having Wikipedia on the front page I would completely object to. --Midnighttonight remind to go do uni work! 06:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Montreal

1535 - French explorer Jacques Cartier sailed along the St. Lawrence River and reached an Iroquois fort on the island now known as Montréal.

On this day in 1535, Jacques Cartier discovered the Island of Montreal, not the Island of "Montréal". It is now known as Montreal in English, and Montréal in French. On it is the City of Montreal (French: Ville de Montréal). This city has a long and very interesting history which you can read about at History of Montreal, and not "History of Montréal". There is a reason why Wikipedia articles omit the accent: this is the English Wikipedia, and English names are used.

Moreover, Montreal is the name used by the native population (which is 25% English-speaking, with almost all others being bilingual). This means that Montreal is not just an English spelling imposed by Anglophones onto a foreign place, but a native English name. Montreal is not some tawdry mini-Paris Disney attraction designed to allow Americans and Ontarians who are too lazy or cannot afford to take a six-hour flight a taste of France. It is a real city, with a large and highly cohesive and functional English minority. Furthermore it is located in a country where English is the majority language. These English speakers also call it Montreal. The lack of accent is not because of laziness or technical impossibility. French speakers have long been able to type accented letters and if the English name required an accent, we would have used it long before now.

Every day, Montrealers succeed in living together jovially and peacefully while being acted upon by the influence and demands of (often Anti-Quebecois) English Canada and (often Anti-Anglophone) French Quebec. One thing we do not need, however, is foreigners imposing their uninformed ideas of cultural sensitivity onto us.

The reason why we get along so well is that in Montreal, each group allows the others to conduct their cultural lives without criticism or comment (the famous Laissez-faire ideology). It is not the place of an English-speaker to impose their language on Francophones, and it is not the right of Francophones to dictate how the name of our city should be spelled in English. Certainly, therefore, you the administrators, being neither Montrealers (francophone, anglophone, or otherwise), Quebecers, or even Canadians, have no such right.----65.94.95.158 01:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Typing it without an accent would be deciding the issue as much as typing it with an accent is. You can't have it both ways. —Cuiviénen 02:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

That was quite a discourse for an accent. However, you should consider the possibility that whoever wrote that didn't have any evil intention against people from Montreal; just spelt it that way because she thought it was right.--cloviz 03:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

While the discourse must seem strange to a non-Montreal, language is an extremely divisive issue here. As the OP says, you can read up about it in the history section, or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_qu%C3%A9b%C3%A9cois_de_la_langue_fran%C3%A7aise. Regardless, having Montreal written with an accent is jarring for an english Montrealer, since it causes an english phrase to finish with a french word, with a different pronounciation. While I agree the OP probably feels a bit *too* strongly on it, it does feel a bit insulting. However, it probably was an accident. Tyir 03:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

This outsider finds it quite strange that "Montreal" / "Montréal", with a very non-English pronounciation, is considered an English word. ... BTW, thank you Canadians for being as civil and polite as advertised. Chances are that if the word in question is the "Spanish" name of a place in (or controlled by) the US of A (Is "Guantanamo Bay" / "Guantánamo Bay" English or Spanish ?), many Americans would be screaming here.... IMO, the accent should be included whenever the keyboard allows it (kind of hard for English typewriters till recent years). I might get flogged in Montréal, eh? --64.229.221.9 12:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Whatever the first poster feels, this site, which claims to be the official portal of the city, seems to use Montréal in English as well. Piet | Talk 13:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and your saying that English is the native language because "we speak English and the other ones are bilingual" tells us more about you than about Montreal. According to the Montreal article, in 2001, 67.29% spoke French as a first language, followed by English speakers numbering 12.07%.

On a side note - not related to the issue at hand, of which I know nothing - You are acting all insulted about your language, but how many native English speakers, when abroad, have ever made an effort to address a foreigner in his own language? Respect goes both ways. Admire the French-speaking majority of Montreal for speaking your language too and don't dismiss their native language by saying they're "bilingual". They're French speakers. Piet | Talk 14:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The main page text should reflect whatever is written in the main Wikipedia article which, in this case, refers to Montreal with a note that it is Montréal in French. If the article is wrong, then that should be changed first and the main page text amended afterwards to reflect it. It is right that, as this is the English-language Wikipedia, places should be referred to by the commonly accepted English version — so, Cologne, not Köln, and Moscow not Москва or Moskva — alternatives belong in the articles, not on the main page. I also would like to add my thanks to our Canadian friends for their civility in what is obviously a sensitive matter. Bazza 14:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I am glad at least to have raised some discussion on the issue. Please not that there have been pages of discussion before coming to consensus within the community about how to properly write Montreal placenames (including Street names). I would like to respond to all of the points raised and clarify any misunderstandings.

Firstly please excuse me if my explanation sounded accusatory. I am merely trying to explain the sensitive issue and maybe lack the patience to explain to outsiders what is an ongoing and ever-present dialogue in our own city. To the poster who found it strange that Montreal is considered an English word, I would like to point out that Montreal has had an English-speaking community for several hundred years, and at one point the population was split equally between English and French speakers. Montreal, along with its English pronunciation, is the native name of the city to these people.

Let me clarify: Montreal is inhabited by two main groups. They are the French and English speaking citizens. Both communities are coterminous and overlapping. Other groups are generally grouped into the "Allophone" or "Other" group. The English and French communities exist side by side and each have a name for everything. This means that the poster's comparison to Guantanamo Bay is inaccurate. A better example would be San Francisco, Los Angeles, New Orleans, or Boise, all of which have names coming from other languages but which also have a English name given by their native English-speaking inhabitants. The idea of writing Montreal in English with an accent is as ridiculous as writing Boise or Baton Rouge as "Boisé" and "Bâton-Rouge" (their French names).

To the poster Pieter, who linked to the City of Montreal's official website, there is a very simple reason why they write Montreal in French. This is because Montreal's official language is French only and English has no official status. Under Quebec's Language Laws, a city must be over 50% English-speaking just to be allowed to be officially bilingual. It is unclear whether the city has a legal right to recognize official English names. Thus, the City uses only French placenames, regardless of language.

Piet also mentioned statistics found on the website which say English speakers constitute 12% of the population. These statistics are only for the City of Montreal, which is not the only municipality in the Montreal Urban Community. The Metropolitan Area includes other municipalities. In the 2000s, the provincial government tried to force the merger of all these municipalities into one "Mega-City". All of the English-majority cities and some French ones left the Megacity and were reconstituted as separate organisms. The statistics I mentioned represent the entire Island of Montreal, including these separate English communities (some of which are contiguous with the inner city, while others are suburban) which is the most common idea of "Montreal".

Piet also talked about English-speakers abroad not bothering to use the native language. As I have outlined above, English is one of two "native" languages in Montreal, and not a foreign language. Respect does go both ways, as I said in my original post, which is about why Montreal's Anglophone community should be respected. To be clear, I didn't "dismiss" French-speaking Montrealers. I was merely pointing out nature of Montreal. In fact Anglophones are Montreal's most bilingual group, with over 60% of English-speakers being functionally bilingual. Bilingualism is, however, besides the point. I say this without judgment or prejudice, but in Piet's final statement, "[...] don't dismiss [the majority's] native language by saying they're "bilingual". They're French speakers.", he displays a prodigiously shallow understanding of the linguistic situation and of the point of view I was trying to express, which is to call for respect of both of the city's main linguistic groups.

To Bazza, the Montreal article is indeed correct for the reasons outlined above and the consensus was reached after extensive negotiation. Also, you are quite right to thank everyone for their civility and I would like to thank them in advance for their sensitivity in any future contributions they would make.----65.94.174.69 21:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

A prodigiously shallow understanding of the linguistic situation... Correct, however we have our own linguistic situation in Belgium and Brussels so I am very well aware how sensitive it can be, and of the crooked reasoning that people use to prove their point (no offense to you). I will repeat what I said. Calling your own group "English speaking" and the others "bilingual" is disrespectful. Just as it would be to say that 50% is French speaking and the other ones are bilingual. Piet | Talk 08:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe you misunderstood what I said. I was talking about the number of English speaking Montrealers. If quoting the number of French speakers I believe it would be acceptable to say that the city is 50% Francophone with most others being bilingual, as this is in fact the case. The important part of what I was saying was the number of English speakers and I could in fact have simply said that the city is 25% English speaking. For you to suggest that I am in some way against francophones is insulting mostly because it is so untrue. What I am against is the diminishment of the importance of the native English speaking community by outsiders who insist that Montreal is French when in fact it is bilingual. I don't know if the situation in Belgium is comparable but in Montreal nearly everyone is bilingual and that is what I was trying to convey. Writing Montreal with an accent brings mild disgust to most English Montrealers and is disresepectful for the reasons I and others have stated. Citing the number of anglophones and saying that most Montrealers are bilingual is not.---65.94.228.63 23:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Leave the demographics alone; whenever a city has an name in English, that one should be used. Montréal was an error as München, Los Ángeles or Heūng Góng would be. But believing that who did this was trying to introduce a French identity to Montreal denying its anglophone population is a bit paranoiac; use Hanlon's razor and assume good faith.--cloviz 12:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Why would "Boisé" and "Bâton-Rouge" be "ridiculous"? And why would "Los Ángeles" be an error? "Heūng Góng" is an error, as "phonetic symbols" can't be considered a language. I would consider "Moscow", "Munich" and "Hong Kong" English words, but I wouldn't consider "Montreal", "Boise", "Baton Rouge", "Los Angeles" ... etc. English words. "Mourn-Tree-All" is the English pronounciation of the French word "Montreal" with or without the accent on the "e". Maybe I am stupid (see Hanlon's razor), too. Omitting the accents doesn't seem enough to me to make any word borrowed from a foreign language English. (Is there a threshold? I don't know. Would changing "Abe Shinzō" to "Abe Shinzo" make the new Japanese PM's name English words? I don't think so.) BTW, accents should be applied when possible. (But don't get too upset when accents go missing. Many people don't know how to type them out, or can't do it with an old keyboard.) --64.229.231.60 15:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Cloviz, I am not saying that it was some kind of attack on anglophones. I'm just pointing out why it should in fact be written without an accent, for future reference (this is also the second I have seen Montreal appear in French on the main page). I would just like to impart the importance of what may seem to others a trivial matter. I'm not sure who updates the Main Page, but I wish they'd read the talk page now and then...

For the anonymous user who said a word must be changed in order to become "English", by your definition most English words are not English. Roughly a third of English words derive from French and Occitan, and many others from Latin, Greek, Italian, other European Languages. Many of them have no change in spelling, not even removing an accent. Is "tradition" an English word? How about doctor, privilege, sterile, metropolis, polygon, and others... Come to think of it, you say Baton Rouge isn't English, but "baton" is an English word taken directly from French. Is it possible that the thing that gymnasts twirl has no name in English and we have been unknowlingly speaking foreign languages our whole lives?----65.94.229.41 22:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

In the context of placenames (with no change in the meaning of the word at all), well, if the spelling doesn't change, it's hard to convince me that it's a different language. As mentioned in my previous post, I don't know where the threshold might be, esp. when the same letters of the alphabet are used in different languages. I also have trouble seeing the use of accents in borrowed words as errors. --64.229.227.51 01:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I've been watching this discussion since it started and, forgive me but, I'm of the opinion that it's all a little silly. With or without the accent Mon