Talk:Montreal/Archive 5

"Second Largest Primarily French Speaking City"

The wiki article on Lyon gives the 2007 census of to be 1.738M urban area, and 4.4M metropolitan area. Compare that with 2006 census numbers in the wiki article (1.620M urban area, 3.635M metropolitan), and it seems clear that Montreal is the third largest such city. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rerutled (talk • contribs) 11:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

This is further muddied by two African cities, Kinshasa (wiki metro pop. 8M) and Abidjan (wiki metro pop 3.8M) that are also French-speaking. A rank order of French-speaking cities by metro area would be Paris, Kinshasa, Lyon, Abidjan, Montreal. 132.206.92.166 (talk) 14:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The Lyon article references the fr:wiki article for at least some of those population figures. The Metro population is from fr:wiki for "Rhone et Alpes" [1], which should probably be fr:Rhône-Alpes and even then the figures don't match.

One could also look at what the government itself has to say [2], which appears to be that the population of Lyon city itself is 480,778. To get to our definition of the urban area population is tricky, cause their figures include Villeurbanne, which is across the Rhone river and thus might be considered a separate urban area. But look at the bottom line, the entire Rhone departement has a population of 1,669,655 - that would be the metro population. Or you could look at where the city itself claims a metro population of 1.2 million [3] - which if you subtract out the INSEE numbers for Villeurbanne and Villefranche-sur-Saone up to the north looks about right. So it looks like someone has been a little ambitious when editing the Lyon article.

Sister cities section

An IP has recently added Algiers as a sister city and provided this reference. My French is n'est pas le very good, so I could use some help in reading the ref. It looks like Algiers and several other cities listed are subjects of a "Déclaration d'intention d'amitié et de coopération" which I read as "declaration of intent for freindship and cooperation". This to me means that there is no actual agreement signed, just an agreement to intend to have an agreement, thus Algiers should not appear as an official sister city.

Reading the whole list, I have several more questions though:

• Port-au-Prince has a Protocole de coopération - should it be in the list?
• Milan has a Protocole d'échange et de coopération - should it be included as an "other cooperation" as Montreal is in the Milan article?
• Beihai has an Entente de coopération - list it as "other"?
• Hanoi has a Protocole de coopération - list it as "other"?
• San Salvador has a Déclaration d'amitié et de coopération - is this twinning or other cooperation?
• Yunnan has a Mémorandum d'entente - is that a sister city? Busan has a Protocole d'entente and we source the Busan side as saying that's a sister arrangement. So should Yunnan be in there too?
• Managua has a Déclaration d'amitié et de coopération same as San Salvador
• And Yerevan is shown as only having a Déclaration d'intention and the source listed in our article doesn't seem to work anymore and doesn't show at archive.org. Should this one come off the list? (MTLSkyline added the source last summer, maybe they would have some information on what it said)

That's the list. Any help on parsing this is appreciated! Franamax (talk) 06:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not really sure what to do with most of these. For sure I would remove Algiers and Bucharest. Perhaps we could have a new article, Sister cities of Montreal (like Sister cities of Toronto, and list them all in detail there. Toronto has them divided into friendship cities (amitié) and partnership (coopération?) cities. I'm not sure if Yunnan should be included seeing as its only a memorandum of agreement or something to that affect. Regarding Yerevan, I found a new version of the link [4], which says pretty much what it said before.--MTLskyline (talk) 15:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• To my point of wiew, all of these agreements names don't allow cities to be labelled as Sister City. These are just formal deals over specific criterias beetween cities. In french, it's called jumelage or twinning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.235.212.224 (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-06-06/Montreal

Hello, this is to inform all editors interested in this article that a Mediation Cabal case has been opened regarding a recent content dispute. If you wish to comment and/or join as a party, please visit the case page. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 17:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

Why is the spelling without the accent?? Even in english it'll be pronounced mont-real without it. Plus the official english version of the website uses Montréal (link here[5]) so why are we useing Montreal if the city itself spells it Montréal when talking in english.--Fire 55 (talk) 00:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Because English, even Canadian English, normally spells it that way. As for the city's website, we don't do official names; ssee WP:Official names. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:UE (Use English names). See also previous discussions here and here. — AjaxSmack 04:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I withdraw the nomination thanks to pmanderson explanation.--Fire 55 (talk) 04:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Arab and Latinamerican as visible minorities?

The Canadian Census can make a distinction because Christian Arabs (like most Lebanese in Canada) and white Latinamericans are NOT visible minorities. Only Muslim Arabs and mestizo, indian or black Latinamericans are visible minorities.--88.24.240.254 (talk) 22:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but what is your point? StatsCan has its own definition of what constitutes a visible minority and it asks those who complete the census form to voluntarily identify themselves. Technically it's against the law to lie on a census form, but I rather doubt they're out there saying "no way, you have black skin and you never ticked the box!". The Canadian census is what it is and the meaning of the numerical results has been discussed in many many Canada-related articles.

Do you have any specific proposal for how to better word the article? The drawbacks of the census are glaringly obvious, but we haven't come up with a good solution yet. Regards! Franamax (talk) 00:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Previous discussions can be found here and here and I'm sure further back too if you look. The problem with Kinshasa and Abidjan is how many of the city population actually do speak French. We briefly discussed rewording this to "native French speakers" or such-like. Franamax (talk) 07:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

There seem to be reasonable arguments against Kinshasa, but what about Abidjan? Articles on Abidjan seem to suggest that French really is the native tongue there.24.202.31.187 (talk) 16:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Abidjan is a tough one. It does seem as though a dialect of French is widely used as the "official" language. What proportion of the total population can speak it though - who knows? Detailed information sources seem to be hard to find, as opposed to (say) the Canadian census.

As far as "native tongue" though, as in what language you speak with your family, it would rather seem that various Kwa languages would be the native tongue(s). I'm not a great fan of "biggest" claims to anything on Wikipedia, so I wouldn't mind seeing a rewording here. The question is precisely what the rewording should be. Perhaps "third-largest" is the simplest way to go. A reliable source would really help here. Franamax (talk) 19:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Here are rankings culled from the different articles:

Paris: Census 2006 2.167M (Urban area), 13M Metropolitan Area

Kinshasa: Census 2007 8M (Urban area), 11M Metropolitan Area of Kinshasa-Brazzaville

Abidjan: Census 2006, 3.79M (Urban area), 8.07M Metropolitan Area

Lyon: Census 2007, 1.78M (Urban area), 4.415M Metropolitan Area

Montreal: Census 2006, 1.62M (Urban Area), 3.635M (Metropolitan).

By these, Montreal is fifth most-populus, primarily French-speaking urban area.

I don't see an argument (referred to above) against including Kinshasa above: French is the single official language of the Congo, and Kinshasa is its capital. Lingala is considered by the CIA fact book to be a "lingua franca trade lanugage". But the claim in the article that Montreal is "second largest primarily French Speaking" is clearly wrong -- it is certainly no higher than the forth (if someone can make clear what the objection to Kinshasa is) and perhaps is fifth (including Kishasa). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rerutled (talk • contribs) 22:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Montreal cannot claim to be the "second largest" French speaking city. Apparently Lyon has surpassed it. Also, Abidjan qualifies as "primarily French-speaking." Kinshasa on the other hand, doesn't have as many native French-speakers as Montreal. As our article on Kinshasa notes, "Lingala, [is] more widely spoken in Kinshasa than French." I've adjusted the wording accordingly. A citation would be nice, though. Sunray (talk) 23:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The standard described in the article was "largest" (which I read as equivalent to "most populous" not "geographically large") "primarily French-Speaking" (I changed to "Francophone"). That is not the same criterion as given here -- "largest number of native French speakers", and I don't think the criterion of "largest numbers of native French speakers" is an interesting or useful one for characterizing a city, since the culture of Montreal is dominated by the Francophonie (it is the single official language of the City, and of the province of Quebec in which it sits). Moreover, if you wish to change the criterion in the article from "most populous Francophone city" to "largest number of native French speakers" then Montreal's status of "fourth largest" should be changed following a comparison with the number of Native speakers in other cities. The 2006 Canadian Census says, among Montrealers, there are 890,000 "mother tongue" French speakers in Montreal. But, if the article is changed to compare the number of native French speakers, it seems to me that what we have here is a "we're more French than they are" contest; whereas what's important for the purpose of the article is to note that it is a Francophone city, and to place it on a scale of total population size among other Francophone cities in the world. I think the article should remain as it is now; although an appraisal of Kinshasa as a Francophone city is needed (it's not clear at all in [Kinshasa]'s article; but French is the official language of the Congo and of Kinshasa, all street signs are in French, and the Peace Corps wiki (unreferenced; so it's unclear how reliable it is):

People of different African mother tongues living in Kinshasa usually speak Lingala to communicate with each other in the street, but French is the language of businesses, administrations, schools, newspapers and televisions. French is also the predominant written language.

Due to its widespread presence in Kinshasa, French has become a local language with its own pronunciation and some local words borrowed for the most part from Lingala. Depending on their social status, some people may mix French and Lingala, or code switch between the two depending on the context. Here are examples of words particular to Kinshasa French. As in Abidjan, there exist various registers and the most educated people may frown upon the use of slangish/lingala terms.

Yes, the way it is worded now makes sense and I agree that it also makes sense to evaluate Kinshasa as to its status as a Francophone city. Sunray (talk) 00:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, without sourcing, it's difficult for the rest of us to figure out what "makes sense," as you say. The language in the article is based on secondary sourcing, which is why it's been relatively stable for a while. For example, the "primarily French-speaking" language developed through consensus over several discussions (linked above). Completely altering it, without sourcing to boot, is not a good idea.

In particular, our article on Lyon indicates:

• city population of 472,305
• urban area population of 1,783,400
• regional population of 4,415,000 (the Rhône-Alpes region).

That compares, for Montréal, with

• city population of 1,620,693
• urban area population of 3,316,615
• metro area population of 3,635,571.

The problem is the Rhône-Alpes population, which is the source for the "regional" Lyon figure, is not comparable to the Montréal metro figure. Population densities are obviously going to differ, but I think it helps here to potentially illustrate the difference between a "region" and a "metro area": the Rhône-Alpes consists of 43,698 km², while the Montréal metro area consists of 4,259 km². In addition, we're talking about, again, the "second-largest primarily French-speaking city in the world," not the "[whatever] largest [to some extent] French-speaking region in the world." user:J aka justen (talk) 00:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

What you are saying makes sense, and I agree that there are problems with sourcing. The source purporting to support the notion that Montreal is the second largest francophone city is/was The Participatory Democracy: Prospects for Democratizing Democracy. by Roussopoulos and Benello, published in 2003. This source is not good enough, IMO. For one thing is is now six years old, an age in population statistics. For another, it is not a reference that deals with comparative demography. We need to find a better source. In the meantime, we could re-write the sentence to reflect the various claims. Something along the lines of: "Montreal has long been regarded as the second largest francophone city in the world.[ref] However, there are also very large cities in Francophone Africa, such as Abidjan], with large numbers of French speakers, that may supersede this claim [ref]" We might find sources for something along those lines. Sunray (talk) 01:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

You're saying "there are problems with sourcing." There have long been problems with sourcing. The stable language now in the article developed, with great difficulty, in light of these problems. Significantly revising the lead of the article with no sourcing, though, is not acceptable when it is based on either a.) non-comparable figures, b.) original research, c.) synthesis, or d.) self-referencing. If someone has a hunch the figures have fundamentally changed since 2003, source it. But without sourcing, the lead needs to stay stable. user:J aka justen (talk) 01:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I have a problem with the source in the lead right now (as described in my previous post). So we should probably just say "Montreal is one of largest French-speaking cities in the world" in the lead until someone can present an adequate source. Someone should also prepare a short paragraph summarizing the above discussion for the "Demographics" section (with appropriate sources). Since you have reverted me I will modify the lead accordingly. We can hammer out the wording here in the meantime. Sunray (talk) 01:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Suggested language: Worldwide, Montreal is the nth most populous Francophone city. Rerutled (talk) 01:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The only problem we have is determining what "n" is :) Sunray (talk) 01:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

You've both heard the phrase "reinventing the wheel," yes? What you two are working on right now is reinventing the failed prototype that came before the wheel.  :) We've already gone through this very discussion multiple times before. The phrase "Francophone city" is more ambiguous than we were able to be with any past sourcing, for a number of well discussed reasons (again, links above). The phrase "primarily French-speaking" was developed through consensus because it most (reasonably) precisely conveyed what the source said. The problem here is what has happened today is that one of you changed the lead, and the both have you have since reverted to protect those changes, without (and against past) consensus (and without any reliable sourcing, arguably even worse). wp:bold doesn't say "be bold, then revert, revert, revert." If either of you have a hunch that the existing source is now inaccurate, provide reliable sourcing showing what you're saying. Otherwise please restore the reliable source we do have and please restore the lead back to the stable, sourced, and as precise as possible revision. user:J aka justen (talk) 06:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I must say I am surprised to see this come back when it was properly dealt with a while ago.

First of all, we had to determine what we meant by "French-speaking". When we say "Montreal is the second largest French-speaking city in the world", it could mean 1) "Montreal is the second largest city (population-wize) where French is the official language, regardless of who speaks it and to what degree" or 2) "Montreal is the second largest city when considering who actually speak the language as first language". Since French is a State language in many African countries, there are many cities that are certainly larger (population-wise) than Montreal (counting in the whole metropolitan area or not), and have French as the official language of administration of the city, just like Montreal. Using this ranking, Montreal cannot be second right now. However, when considering the language actually spoken by people, we see that the people in many cities in Africa could hardly be said to be French-speaking since it is no one's native language and people who speak it as such are very few.

In the archived talk on this matter, it was decided to precise that by "second in the world", we mean that it is the second largest metropolitan area where French is the actual language of the people, not just an administrative language.

Regarding Abidjan, the capital of Côte d'Ivoire, the people there speak one of 70 or so languages of the country[6]. One language, dioula, has the status of lingua franca and is widely spoken by the population at large. It is said in that very detailed source that "environ les deux tiers de la population âgée de six ans et plus pratique «une forme de français». " making it clear it is a second language for most people, much like English in Montreal. Also, the languages table in that article does not list French as one of the languages spoken by more than 100,000 people. It is therefore quite marginal by itself, but is supported by the State which made it official as a language of administration.

Regarding Lyon and this new information on the fr:Espace urbains of France, I think the definition provided in the French article makes it clear it is not the same as a metropolitan area: "un ensemble continu formé par des aires urbaines et par les communes dont au moins 40 % de la population active résidente travaille dans l'une ou l'autre de ces aires urbaines". The fact that the Espace urbain de Paris is listed as having a population of 15,289,745 inhabitants makes it clear it that we are not talking here of either cities or metro area because for these, Paris has a population of (respectively) 2,181,371 and 9,644,507 inhabitants [7]. -- Mathieugp (talk) 15:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Possible WP:GAR

Hi, There appears to be an edit war in progress on this article over a simple statement "Montreal is the second-largest primarily French-speaking city in the world". If this edit war continues the article may loose its GA-status; which would be a shame. Please note that the WP:GAN requirement is WP:Verify, i.e. a source must be provided as a means of verifying the validity of a statement, there is no requirement to prove that the statement is true (or not false). The in-line citation that is currently being used is "Participatory Democracy: Prospects for Democratizing Democracy‎, Dimitrios I. Roussopoulos, C. George Benello, p.292." which appears to be a book, as a book similar to that is listed on Amazon.com. However this in-line citation, as currently provided, is not acceptable: if it is a book I would also expect to see a date of publication, publisher, place of publication and ISBN. The book listed on amazon was a revised version dated 2003, so the information is likely to be no later than 2002. For those who object to the statement, modifying it to read ... as of 2002(?) Montreal was .... is a more acceptable way forward than simply deleting the citation. Much of what is discussed in the previous section above appears to fall into the category of original research, i.e. trying to prove that the statement in the article is true or false (which is not a requirement of wikipedia) or is merely unreferenced statements.Pyrotec (talk) 17:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Right, on all counts, I think. I would add that there is more wrong with this citation than merely its form. For my part I will not further any edit waring. However, I do want it to be clear that I am challenging that source in accordance with WP: VER. If Montreal is indeed the "second-largest primarily French-speaking city in the world," that should be easy to verify with an online source or sources. Participatory Democracy does not appear to be a reliable source. I do not know what the authority of the authors is in this field, but their subject is: "the historical roots of participatory democracy in our political culture," not demography.

I think that we should leave the article as is for now, but request the proponents of the current wording to provide a reliable source within a reasonable timeframe—say one week. If they cannot do this, the statement should be removed from the article. Sunray (talk) 18:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you missed the point. To be as clear as possible: you need to provide reliable sourcing that provides a basis for your "challenge" to the existing source. Otherwise all we can guess is that you have done some sort of (original) research that gives you personal knowledge that the existing reliable source is no longer accurate, but that isn't good enough. As Pyrotec pointed out, our job isn't to figure out whether the existing source is true or not true, our job is to verify whether or not it is reliable. The citation needs to be improved, but it appears to be a reliable source. When you (or someone else) provides reliable sourcing superseding our existing reliable sourcing, we can actually get somewhere on this. Until then you're hurting a heretofore stable, sourced article based, as best as the rest of us can tell, on your own opinion or original research. user:J aka justen (talk) 19:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Here are five book references which name Kinshasa as the second-largest French-speaking city in the world. This is a challenge to the primacy of the reference now given in the Montreal article that Montreal is the second-largest French speaking city in the world. There cannot be two second-largest French speaking cities in the world.

The world's second-largest francophone city is not Montreal, Dakar, or Algiers, as most people would assume, but Kinshasa, capital of the former Zaire.

A third factor is simply a demographic one. At least one in ten Congolese live in Kinshasa. With its 6-7 million inhabitants, it is the second largest city in sub-Saharan Africa (after Lagos). It is also the second largest French-speaking city in the world, according to Paris (even though only a small percentage of Kinois speak French correctly).

The apostles of francophonie in the 1980s labelled Zaire as the second-largest francophone country, and Kinshasa as the second-largest francophone city. Yet Zaire seemed unlikely to escape a complext multilingualism. Lingala was the language of music, of presidential addresses, of daily life in government and in Kinshasa. But if Lingla was the spoken language of Kinshasa, it made little progress as a written language. French was the written language of the city -- as seen in street signs, posters, newspapers and in government documents. French dominated plays and television as well as the press; French was the language of the national anthem and even for the doctrin of authenticity. Zairian researchers found French to be used in vertical relationshps among people of uneven rank; people of equal rank, no matter how high, tended to speak Zairian languages among themselves. Given these limits, French might have lost its place to another of the leading languages of Zaire -- Lingala, Tshiluba, or Swahili -- except that teach of these languages also suffered from limitations on its growth.

A generation later, when apartheid had been scrapped, Coca-Cola stopped placing Afrikaans words on it South African Labels. In Zaire, meanwhile, the residents of Kinshasa -- whose rapid population growth had forced Montreal to stop calling itself "the second-largest French-speaking city in the world" -- hurled insults as the country's longtime despot, Mobutu Sese Seko, fled the country. Watching the motorcade of the sick tyrant speed through ravged streets to the airport, people shouted, "We don't have to speak French anymore!" Mobutu's replacement made English an official language."

Montreal, Canada's second-largest city, is geographically as close to the European coast as to Vancouver, and in look and feel it combines some of the finest aspects of the two continents. Its North American skyline of glass and concrete rises above churches and monuments in a Melange of European styles as varied as Montreal's social mix. This is also the world's third-largest French-speaking metropolis after Paris and Kinshasa, but only two-thirds of the city's there and a half million people are of French extraction, the other third being a cosmopolitan mishmash of les autres, including British, Eastern Europeans, Chinese ,Italians, Greeks, Jews, Latin Americans and Caribbeans.

Rerutled (talk) 21:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Notes

Continued Discussion

Several of these sources directly indicate why consensus developed the "second largest primarily French-speaking" statement. Your Trefon and Manning sources specifically illustrate why this was the case. user:J aka justen (talk) 21:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The "second-largest city" can change over time. The Roussopoulos reference quoted appears to have been published in 2003, so it was probably written in 2001/2 and none of these sources appear to disprove that Montreal was not the second largest at the date that quoted source was written. However, you do appear to have a valid reference to suggest that it was the third-largest by about 2004; and provided you add the citation(s) to verify it, I have no objection to Montreal being named as the third-largest city by 2004. I would also like the full reference (include date and publisher) for Roussopoulos; so second-largest at (unknown date) and third-largest by 2004 is OK by me (if properly cited). I was under the impression that Canada was a bilingual country, they were certainly using both English and French in Ottawa and Gatineau yesterday (I was there in both).Pyrotec (talk) 21:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Canada is a bilingual country (at least for Federal services and programs), but Quebec is unilingual. In fact, the only bilingual province is New Brunswick. Clear? Sunray (talk) 00:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you have missed the point... Perhaps you are right, J. I was looking at the section of WP:VER that says:

"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation..."

I have stated reasons why I do not believe that Participatory Democracy is a reliable source. Would you be able to specify the aspect of the policy that I have missed? Sunray (talk) 22:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

All the sources quoted above are excellent if you are trying to disprove something the article never wanted to assert.

Quantity of books could be quoted to support the claim that Montreal is the second largest French-speaking city in the world after Paris. Even ignoring the books on tourism, we can quote a whole lot of them. THAT IS WHY THERE WAS A LONG DISCUSSION (now archived) in Talk:Montreal. It became obvious by the discussion that we needed to PRECISE by what MEASURE it can be accurately asserted that Montreal is second if true at all.

The sentence in the lead was rephrased to say "primarily French-speaking" for I believe that reason, which, as it turns out, might still be too ambiguous. For a while, the lead even said "It is the second-largest French-speaking city in the Western world after Paris." [8] or "It is among the five largest French-speaking cities in the world."[9] always without reference.

It also said very accurately: "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.) " but this statement was unsourced also. Consequently, I propose that we say something along those lines, this time with references, based on the obvious fact that:

1) Kinshasa is larger than Montreal population wise (and this is not new data), is French-speaking officially, therefore some people conclude that it is the second French-speaking city in the world, without considering the actual language demographics. When considering language demographics, we find that 2) Kinshasa is inhabited by people who speak various African languages, lingala with 8.5 million speakers, being the most widely spoken as first or second-language in the capital[10]. (Please let me know if you cannot read the French source instead of ignoring it. I can provide translation if required.) Also from the same source, the fact that in Congo-Kinshasa, A) French is known by only by 10% of the people, who all speak it as a second or third language, and B) French is declared the official language, but is not listed as one of the four national languages: kikongo, le lingala, le swahili et le tshiluba. -- Mathieugp (talk) 00:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

You are right. French is not a NATIVE language of the population neither in Kinshasa nor in any other African nation. Even in Algiers, after Independence and after most French native speakers left, Arab is the native language.--88.24.240.254 (talk) 22:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Interesting analysis, but clearly this much detail is not appropriate for a lead. Also, your final sentence states that "French is only know by 10% of the people in Kinshasa, who all speak it as a second or third language." Thus it would seem that Kinshasa is not a contender for the "second largest primarily French speaking city." So we are back to Montreal being the second. If this is the case we still need an authoritative reference that says so. Sunray (talk) 00:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

If you can think of a more concise way to say the same, I am all hears.

This source specifically references to African cities contesting Montreal's claim as the second French-speaking city in the world.

This one explicitly mentions that Montreal is second on account of its Francophone majority.

Also, one point of detail: it is 10% of Congo-Kinshasa, the country (not just Kinshasa, the capital) that knows French. -- Mathieugp (talk) 22:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I propose the present language be changed from:

Montreal is the second-largest primarily French-speaking city in the world, after Paris.

to:

Montreal is the third-largest Francophone city in the world, after Paris and Kinshasa.

[WIKI:RS] favors authors which are authoritative with regards to the subject at hand. Between the two sources at hand, Nadeau would appear to be the more authoritative text on the subject of the French language and the francophonie. Rerutled (talk) 01:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't keep up with this discussion, it's bouncing all over the place, and after this I give up... You say, above, that sourcing indicates only ten percent of the people in Kinshasa actually speak French. Yet the vast majority of people in Montréal (and, obviously, Paris) speak French. On administrative terms, sure, you can argue Kinshasa is a "Francophone" city. But that tells us little, practically speaking, in comparison to Montréal or Paris. This has all been hashed, rehashed, hashed backwards, hashed forwards, and hashed sideways several times before. Hence the exact wording that has been stable in the article for some time, with reliable (and thus far not proven unreliable) sourcing. I've done my best to communicate my concerns with what has taken place at this article this weekend, and that's all I can do. Take care. user:J aka justen (talk) 04:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

To support the version you prefer, all you need to do is find a proper source, as far as I can see. Sunray (talk) 07:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It's already been found and linked by Mathieugp, above. user:J aka justen (talk) 02:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The reference culled by Mathieugp which I assume J is referring to is: here. It's called "Working and Living in Canada", and is a Sunday Times guide (i.e. published by the newspaper) to advise people thinking about moving to Canada and work there; its purpose is to provide a snapshot of Canadian culture. The reference I give above is called "The Story of French", published by St. Martin's Press -- a recognized publisher of non-fiction and well-researched books -- and written by Jean-Benoit Nadeau and Julie Barrow (see http://www.nadeaubarlow.com/books/ here], who have written several books on French in Canada, the French language, and French Canadian Culture, including "La Grande Aventure de la langue Francaise", "Pas Si Fous Ces Francaise", and "Plus Ca Change: The Story of French from Charlamegne to Cirque de Soleil" -- which makes them far and away more reliable sources than the features section of the Sunday Times, and therefore are the preferred resource, according to [WIKI:RS] . I therefore hold that the authoritative reference is the reference by Nadeau and Barrow, "The Story of French", and not the "Working and Living in Canada", and that the proposal for the changed text is:

Montreal is the third-largest Francophone city in the world, after Paris and Kinshasa.

Rerutled (talk) 10:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Your point is understood. The issue I and others are trying to convey is that whether or not it is or is not the "third largest Francophone city in the world" is not core to the the lead of the article. If New York, tomorrow, were to declare French the city's official language, it would suddenly become "the largest Francophone city in the world." The reasons Kinshasa is a "Francophone city" are obviously much deeper and complex, but the end result is not dissimilar. Because only small portion of the population of my proposed Ville de Nouvelle-York would actually normally communicate in French, it would be a point of trivia more than substance. The same is true with Kinshasa. The city charter may be in French, but as multiple sources provided by you and others point out, only a small minority of its population primarily speak French. user:J aka justen (talk) 00:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

J - None of which is relevant, since it is opinion, or == at best -- original research, neither of which are acceptable for inclusion in wiki. If you have a more relevant, verifiable secondary source than Nadeau that can be cited, to provide a verifiable fact, then please provide it. If not, then the Nadeau reference is the relevant and authoritative one for the issue at hand. Rerutled (talk) 01:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

It isn't my opinion, it's sourceable fact (see any number of the references above, including those provided and quoted by you). There are several where specific commentary is provided on the fact that only a small portion of the population in Kinshasa speaks French. My restating that is not original research, and my concern that "Kinshasa is the n largest Francophone city" be provided in that context is not a novel position. I refer you, again, to any of the previous discussions of this subject. All that being said, I'm not going to belabor the point further. The statement in the article is true to its source, it is reliably sourced (although I will improve the citation as soon as I can get a copy of the book), the verifiable population figures have not radically changed since, and I don't seen any consensus here for you to change the lead to your preferred language. That being said, I'm going to step back and allow others to respond to any of your future proposals, should they choose to do so. user:J aka justen (talk) 10:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The Nadeau reference, dated 2006, certainly appears to be acceptable as a verifiable fact. Roussopoulos and Benello "may" also be verifiable source - I say "may" only because it is not properly cited. They were the editors of a book to which another twelve or so editors contributed, so they may not be the actual author(s) of the chapter in which this information is given. These two sources were published at different times, so any "conflicting" information can be subjected to a process of clarification. I would agree that a newspaper article is not all that authoritative as a source.Pyrotec (talk) 11:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned on my talk page, I will fix the citation as soon as I can get a copy of the book. I would dig through and figure out who originally inserted the reference to see if they could, but it'll probably be easier to just get the book myself. That being said, I'm a bit concerned that Rerutled just reverted to once again include his "Francophone city" version of the lead without any consensus here for doing so. user:J aka justen (talk) 12:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

There is consensus -- evidenced by your saying that you intend to try to find a copy of a book to improve it -- that the sentence stating "Montreal is the second largest primarily French-speaking in the world after Paris" was (1) poorly sourced, and (2) an inferior (less authoritative) source to the Nadeu book "The Story of French", which is now the source for the new sentence. I understand you want Montreal to be number 2 and not number 3 with regards to the size of Francophone cities -- and if you can find a more authoritative reference than "The Story of French" (St. Martin's Press), then you should provide it. Rerutled (talk) 12:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC). Continuing: there is nobody above stating that the Roussopolous reference is more authoritative reference than Nadeau's "The Story of French" on the subject of the Francophonie. Since we've had back and forth about 4-5 times since these issues were raised, the result of which J decided to go "get a copy of the [Roussopoulos] book" to try to verify it (and not demonstrate that it is more authoritative -- which is the relevant Wiki criterion here). I don't see any suggestions above for a more authoritative reference than "The Story of French". J -- if you find one, put it up here, but the Roussopolous book certainly is not more authoritative on the subject of the Francophonie. Rerutled (talk) 13:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not know where the idea that The Story of French is authoritative comes from. This is not a scholarly work or a world reference, it is a best-seller in the English-speaking book market. The authors are journalists, not linguists or scientists of any kind. I do not understand the insistence on changing Montreal for Kinsasha or Kinsasha for Montreal, without any qualification. It does not solve the problem and leaves the ambiguity open. I have already found a source that contains a qualification ("Because of its Francophone majority, Montreal is in fact the second largest French-speaking city in the world."):

Patrick Twomey, Mike Gerrard (2008). Working and Living in Canada. 2nd Edition., New Holland Publishers, p. 64 [11] -- Mathieugp (talk) 13:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

J, it looks like the reference was inserted by User:Joeldl, who is a regular here. [12] I too think Rerutled should not be insisting on their version before consensus is reached here, especially in light of the outcomes of previous discussions of this issue. Franamax (talk) 18:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Continued -- if you check out the page for Abidjan it appears that Francophone city is also larger than Montreal. Oddly, I don't see that in any of the references -- but it seems authors focus mostly on the "second largest Francophone city, next to Paris", and very few have attepmted to make an ordered listing of Francophone cities by size, except for number 1 and number 2. Rerutled (talk) 20:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

You've reverted three times this morning to your preferred language, both times using the edit summary to say you're just "improving references." You do understand that is misleading, in that you are fundamentally altering the lead of the article without consensus, not simply "improving references"? Can you point to a specific statement by anyone on this talk page that supports your preferred language? Sunray supports: "Montréal has long been regarded as the second largest francophone city in the world, however..." Pyrotec supports the existing language with the citation repaired and the date of the publication added for clarification. Franamax and Mathieugp support the existing language (but both would like the citation completed). You are edit warring against consensus, which is not a good thing. user:J aka justen (talk) 21:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm am entirely neutral in respect of properly cited references for 'second' or 'third', or even both if it can be shown to have changed over time. Having carried out the WP:GAN on this article is somewhat disconcerting to me to see an edit war on (what to me) appears to be a minor issue (well I'm not Canadian and I'm not a French-speaker, so perhaps I'm biased - but I was in Canada last week and its a great country).Pyrotec (talk) 21:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

(fter e/c) All the more reason to keep discussing here rather than insist that your own version must be the one. (I've reverted it again - please wait for consensus rather than launching an edit war) And if you read the entire thread(s), you'll see that I and others commented directly on Abidjan above. It's the same situation as Kinshasa, the "official" language is French, but the actual population uses a wide variety of tongues. Franamax (talk) 21:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Extended discussion

The following is the publisher's summary for "Participatory Deomcracy:Prospects for Democratizing Democracy" (Roussopolous), which is the reference I think should be replaced by "The Story of French" (Nadeau) with regards to where Montreal stands in the size of Francophone cities worldwide. The book was first published in 1971, as a political tract on "New Left" democratic ideas (and not on the French Language), and updated in 2005:

First published as a testament to the legacy of the -concept made popular by the New Left of the 1960s, and with the perspective of the intervening decades, this book opens up the way for re-examining just what our role must be in the cause of democracy. With its emphasis on citizen participation, here, presented in one volume are 20 or more of the best arguments for participatory democracy written by some of the most relevant contributors to the debate, both in an historic, and in a contemporary, sense. This wide-ranging collection probes the historical roots of participatory democracy in our political culture, analyzes its application to the problems of modern society, and explores the possible forms it might take in the future on every level of society from the workplace, to the community, to the nation at large. "The book is, by all odds, the most encompassing one so far in revealing the practical actual subversions that the New Left wishes to visit upon us." -- Washington Post Apart from the editors, contributors include: George Woodcock, Murray Bookchin, Don Calhoun, Stewart Perry, Rosabeth Moss Kanter, James Gillespis, Gerry Hunnius, John McEwan, Arthur Chickering, Christian Bay, Martin Oppenheimer, Colin Ward. Dimitrios Roussopoulos is a political economist who has written extensively on social and politico-economic issues. He is the author of several books including The Public Place and Dissidence: Essays Against the Mainstream, and editor of a series of three volumes entitled The Anarchist Papers. He continues to work for local democracy, ecological cities and world peace. C. George Benello taught sociology at Goddard College, Vermont, until his untimely death. He was a Fellow of the Cambridge Institute and author of From the Ground Up: Essays on Grassroots and Workplace Democracy.

Language from here. Rerutled (talk) 20:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Having checked the British Library on-line catalogue, this is the record for the book [13] If no editors in Canada are able/willing to check the source, I will request the loan of the copy held at the British Library. However, the book(s), in paperback form does still appear to be on sale by www.Amazon.ca and www.amazon.com (but not www.amazon.co.uk).Pyrotec (talk) 20:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Page 292, makes it the first chapter of "The Case of Montreal" by Dimitrios Roussopoulos; and this is the BL record for the 1971 edition [14]. Pyrotec (talk) 21:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Evidently we have multiple conflicting sources. We can keep on with this argument about which source is more reliable and which is less (what's the French-language term for "pissing match"?) or we can look in practical terms at what information we are trying to convey. We're not trying to define what is a "Francophone" city or what language government documents are printed in. The information of relevance is that in terms of what language people use in their everyday lives, Montreal has the second-most number of people speaking French after Paris. So can we focus on how to properly express that fact? It's already sourced within the lede itself: The population of the Montreal Census Metropolitan Area (also known as Greater Montreal) was 3,635,571 at the same 2006 census. In the census metropolitan area, French is the language most spoken at home by 70.5% of the population.

I'm persuaded by the arguments put forth by several editors here and by reading of the sources I can access. Abidjan and Kinshasa are cities with a larger total population, but the actual language(s) in use are not French, each of those cities has at least four major languages in use. They could be described as polyglot and lead to the obvious conclusion that French is used as the "official" language to avoid favouring one ethnic group over another within the cities themselves. That may be OR and SYNTH, but that's permissible on this talk page, it's the actual article wording that must be free of such.

The article wording is correct as written: Montreal is the second-largest primarily French-speaking city in the world, after Paris and it is sourced immediately thereafter, from the Canadian census, a reliable source. Can we add something like "(Abidjan and Kinshasa are larger cities that have French as their official language)"? Can we do anything to end this tiresome dispute? Rerutled, could you make a few more than 21 article edits before you revisit this crusade of yours? Working a little more on other topics may give you a better feel for how to achieve consensus, other than insisting that you have the one true source to bind all other sources. Franamax (talk) 21:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate that you're trying to find some sort of enticement to help find a consensus with Rerutled, but mentioning Abidjan and Kinshasa in the lead of this article is really too much detail, although it could be mentioned later in the article. Along the lines of List of countries by English-speaking population, I think Rerutled might find a better avenue to express his energies through creating and sourcing something like List of cities by French-speaking population. user:J aka justen (talk) 22:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

One of the aspects of this discussion I find difficult to evaluate in the context of requirements of Wiki is the reliance of statements by editors which come without references or without qualification, and therefore cannot be verified, let alone be demonstrated to be authoritative. An example is in Franamax's paragraph above, "The article wording is correct as written...". In fact, "Correct" is not a wikipedia criterion -- and for good reason, because then people would spend thousands of words -- precisley as is happening here, arguing about what is "correct". Wikipedia criteria are not concerned with "correct." They are concerned with two criteria, both are about the nature of the referencable source for a fact. Those two criteria are: (1) that a source be verifiable. This is a binary consideration: the reference is verifiable, or it is not. Verifiable means that the source states the fact attributed to it, and a distant reader can simply open the reference to the given page and find the quoted language. While the verifiability of the Roussopolous reference has been requested by another editor, that is not the issue that I have with the fact that it is sourced for. The issue I have with the fact that it is source for is the second criterion: authoritativeness. The WP:RS page describes the requirements for sources, specifiying that they should be authoritative, in the following way:

Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication.

My point has been and remains -- the Nadeau reference, "The Story of French" is more authoritative on the subject of the French language and its use than is the Roussopolous reference (Participatory Democracy: Prospects for Democratizing Democracy), for the following reasons: (1) the subject at hand is the French language, and its use. The relevant topic is the exclusive subject of the Nadeau reference, and is not the subject of the Roussopolous reference, which is politics. Thus, my proposed reference is directly relevant to the subject at hand, and the existing reference is not. (2) The publisher of "The Story of French" is St. Martin's Press, which is a major, worldwide publisher of non-fiction books; it is an imprint of Macmillin, with 32,000 books to its name, a staff of thousands, covering all areas from non-fiction to academia to general interest; in contrast, Black Rose Books, the publisher of Participatory Democracy is a tiny private printer, which puts out about 10 books a year, all of which are political in nature. Thus, I assert the publisher of The Story of French is far more likely to have a staff capable, experienced, and motivated to check facts, than the publisher of Participatory Democracy, and therefore The Story of French meets the given rule of thumb for an authoritative work regarding the French language and its use, while Participatory Deomcracy does not. Finally, (3) The authors of The Story of French, Nadeau and Barlow have written no fewer than five books about the French language and French culture including LA GRANDE AVENTURE DE LA LANGUE FRANÇAISE : de Charlemagne au Cirque du Soleil, Sixty Million Frenchmen Can't Be Wrong, PAS SI FOUS CES FRANÇAIS!, PLUS ÇA CHANGE: THE STORY OF FRENCH FROM CHARLEMAGNE TO THE CIRQUE DU SOLEIL. In sharp contrast, the Montreal article doesn't even specify who the author is of the cited fact, and only the book editor is given. Thus, the authors of my proposed reference have multiple books to their names on the subject area at hand, while the author of the fact cited in the Montreal article is anonymous, and their experience in the subject at hand is unknown.

Therefore, I don't see any rooom for arguing that Partcipatory Democracy is more authoritative on the subject of the French language and its use than The Story of French. Those editors still tied to citing Participatory Democracy can make their case on how it is more authoritative than The Story of French below.

Understanding that The Story of French is more authoritative than the Roussopolous reference on the subject at hand -- French language and its use -- it is clear that the existing statement must be replaced with one which takes its facts from The Story of French. This is why I have proposed the following line -- directly taken from the source -- to replace the existing statement from Participatory Democracy with the following, for consensus acceptance:

Montreal is the third-largest Francophone city in the world, after Paris and Kinshasa.

A few final points:

• J invites me to start a page listing populations sizes of French Speaking cities. That's original research, which is against WP:RS. I'm not interested in doing that. What I am interested in is relying on secondary sources, which are strongly recommended by WP:RS. I've given that.

• When I have written this above, editors respond with their own, unsourced, unverified, and non-authoritative opinions -- such as -- Oh, they don't actually speak French in Kinshasa, even though it's the official government language; is the language of its newspapers and television, is taught in the schools, because there are four other languages, and I heard that only 10% of the country speaks it, and even though you say well that 10% is likely concentrated in the capital city, if anywhere, I don't agree with it..... You see, none of that matters. What matters is if you can provide a more authoritative source than The Story of French. And more authoritative doesn't mean that you happen to agree with it -- it means precisely as described in Wiki:RS above.

• Editors above make the statement, "Sure, Kinshasa might be Francophone, but we're saying here that Montreal is primarily French-speaking.". The problem with this excuse is that wiki defines Francophone as "primarily French-Speaking." They're the same thing. It seems that only those editors who insist on this point don't think Kinshasa counts because they have more languages spoken there than one. But again -- Wiki doesn't care with these editors think, WP only cares what authoritative references you have for citation of fact.

Having established that the poorly verified Roussopolous reference should be replaced by the far more authoritative Nadeau reference -- if someone wishes to propose a reference which is more authoritative than "The Story of French", and has language to propose for consensus, I would like to see it. If you don't have a more authoritative reference, then I don't think you have any reason to stand against the above proposed language. Rerutled (talk) 23:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed my statement above about the census conducted by Statistics Canada, recognized as one of the best government statistics agencies in the world? Those are hard numbers, do you have an alternative source counting "language used at home"? How many times do we have to reiterate which information we wish to convey in the article? We're not trying to compare opinions written in different books to find which is the best opinion as represented by which wiki-editor. I stand by my statement above, "The article wording is correct as written: Montreal is the second-largest primarily French-speaking city in the world, after Paris and it is sourced immediately thereafter, from the Canadian census, a reliable source." It's factually true and it is reliably sourced. Can we draw this discussion to a close? Franamax (talk) 23:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Huh? I wrote: "I think [you] might find a better avenue to express [your] energies through creating and sourcing something like List of cities by French-speaking population" (emphasis added). Your response is that such an article would inherently be a violation of wp:rs? I'm sorry, it just doesn't appear as though you understand wp:rs (or wp:or) and that may be a big part of the problem here, as well. The lead, as it is now, is vastly more precise and informative than your proposal. It has been reliably sourced, and while the citation needs improving (in the works), it is verifiable (and, although it's not our chief concern, I have seen nothing disproving its accuracy). At this point, we're going 'round and 'round in circles, with a few tangents irrelevant to this article. I tried to make a suggestion that might help you find a better avenue for what you apparently wish to accomplish, but that's the best I can do. user:J aka justen (talk) 23:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Rerutled responds: J, such an article is explicitly proscribed by NOR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rerutled (talk • contribs) 00:52, 6 June 2009

Franamax --- I'm challenging you to provide that Statistics Canada as a verifiable reference which can replace the present line. I don't believe you can do it. Rerutled (talk) 23:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure, which part of 3,635,571 * 70.5 / 100 = 2,563,077 are you having a problem with? Sorry, but I'm not buying your attempts to shift around the discussion to which book defines "Francophone" in which particular way. Those are hard numbers, from a reliable source. All you have to do is present alternative numbers. There are conflicting qualitative sources, of which you've selected one as the horse you will ride into this supposed "battle", and there is a quantitative source which is already in the lede and already backs the assertion of the currently worded text. The onus is on you to prove otherwise. Honest Rerutled, it would really be best if you gained some more experience at evaluating sources and policies in other areas before returning here. Wikipedia is not about what each of us think it should say, it's not about "winning a battle" to give a preferred source primacy - it's about presenting the best possible information to our readers. The current wording is accurate and sourced. Prove it wrong with actual numbers, not assertions. Franamax (talk) 00:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, what has to be provided are verifiable, authoritative sources which can be referenced in a wiki article. I've provided one; and I note that you've failed to provide one for the statement from Stats Canada that "Montreal is the second largest primarily French-speaking city in the world" which you claim exists. "Prove it wrong with actual numbers" isn't a WP:RS criterion. I've given the verifiable source, I've demonstrated it is more reliable than the existing one, and I'm asking editors for consensus on the language: Montreal is the third-largest Francophone city in the world, after Paris and Kinshasa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rerutled (talk • contribs) 00:34, 6 June 2009

It's clear from your statements above that you do not understand wp:rs nor wp:or. You may want to take a look at List of countries by English-speaking population and its two past nominations for deletion, both closed as keep, which may help clarify some of your misconceptions. Nevertheless, no matter how many times you claim whatever source(s) you have come up with is (or are) more authoritative, there has to be consensus that your source is more authoritative, and perhaps more importantly in this context, that the language you want to alter the lead to is more precise and more informative. In my opinion, your proposed language is not. Thus far, it seems pretty clear that consensus does not support your proposed changes. I believe you have made your position clear (as has just about everybody else). If others support your changes, I'm sure they will express that here and we can go from there. If not, there's no need to continue to go around and around in this circle. user:J aka justen (talk) 01:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

No editor (including you J) in this talk section has made the statement that you say that you support - that the Roussopolous article is verifiable (it is not) and that it is more authoritative than the proposed new source (Nadeau). I don't see any consensus in favor of the Roiussopolous reference as being more authoritative than the Nadeau reference -- I only see you and others avoiding the subject -- and avoiding having to say why Roussopolous is more authoritative than Nadeau is not consensus -- it's silence. So go ahead, J, Franmax, -- put your statement in writing here. Simply write "I believe the article by an unnamed and unknown author in the book Participatory Democracy: Prospects for Democratizing Democracy edited by Roussopolous is verifiable, and is a more authoritative source on the subject of the French language than the book The Story of French by Nadeau and Barlow". You won't, because that position is completely undefensible. Rerutled (talk) 01:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean the source isn't verifiable? I'm waiting on a copy from the library. Unless you're proposing that the material simply isn't in the book at all, which seems unlikely, it is most certainly verifiable (going to have to refer you back to wp:v). The citation needs to be completed (for that one you can see wp:cite). You first brought this issue up on Saturday, and as soon as I have the book in hand I will complete the citation, but I don't think any of us are going to spend $50 to get the book overnight simply to see you move on to another straw man. user:J aka justen (talk) 01:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Still waiting on you to say it is more authoritative than The Story of French. Rerutled (talk) 01:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Again Rerutled, what part of 3,635,571 * 70.5 / 100 = 2,563,077 are you having a problem with? It's not OR, it's simple math which you've yet to refute. The sources are already in the article, available to any reader of this wiki. Please don't spend your entire wiki-career arguing such a simple point. Franamax (talk) 01:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm simply not accepting your straw man argument, Rerutled. If it was a matter of two sources with differing figures, we could discuss which is more authoritative. That isn't the case here. The case here is that we have two different sources with two different figures for two different, both valid definitions. Your sources have been around for years. The situation with Abidjan and Kinshasa has been discussed before. Consensus has found that referencing Montréal as the "second largest primarily French-speaking city" is vastly more informative and precise than your "Francophone city" language. You don't get that, or if you do, you don't agree. But I'm done arguing with you, in either case. Consensus has not in the past, and does not currently appear to support the language you prefer. Your suggestion is not a novel one, just one that has been discussed before and decided to not be an improvement to the article. user:J aka justen (talk) 01:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Franmax -- Write that in a way which can replace the existing reference -- I believe you can't. Because you can't, it's not a verifiable reference. Here's how you prove me wrong: write a sentence, with a ref tag to the source, like I did above, and put it forward for a consensus vote. Vote as it stands: Number of editors who have stated he article by an unnamed and unknown author in the book Participatory Democracy: Prospects for Democratizing Democracy edited by Roussopolous is verifiable, and is a more authoritative source on the subject of the French language than the book The Story of French by Nadeau and Barlow": 0. Rerutled (talk) 01:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

(←) We don't vote. We build consensus. So far there are two past discussions with clear consensus supporting the existing language. Certainly, consensus can change. But I don't see anyone above, with the exception of you, advocating that the existing language be removed. The source is verifiable; again, take a(nother) look at wp:v. The citation simply needs to be improved. Otherwise, though, there is widespread support here for keeping the existing "primarily French-speaking city" language (with some caveats, such as those proposed by Sunray and Pyrotec). Your language may be appropriate for the body of the article, or perhaps in a sourced article on Francophone cities, but not in the lead here. user:J aka justen (talk) 02:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) Aw geez Rerutled, how many more times do I have to say it? The sources are already in the lead section which you dispute The article wording already reflects the desired message. It's fine, and no-one else is stepping up to the plate to support your fine interpretations of Francophone vs. French-speaking nor government-fiat vs. practical linguistic reality. We've worked very hard on this wording, now you've arrived with a novel interpretation based on your own idea of how your own preferred source must be the right one and you can rewrite the lede section to your own fancy over the objections of everyone else familiar with the topic. Do you spot any problems with this scenario?

But fine, you wish to persist, so we have a dispute. The next step then is to ask for a third opinion and various options are open after that. Don't take this as a threat, but do be aware that disruptive editing is frowned upon. Please consider your options carefully, if you want to escalate to 3O, no problem. We (collectively) have been over this again and again. editors have dropped out because they can't be bothered with the endless go-round, So it stops here - if you really want it, we'll go to dispute resolution. I'll once again strongly advise you in a friendly way - get more than 21 article edits under your belt before you enter such fora... Franamax (talk) 02:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

J, I'm counting editors who are making explicit statements for the position which you say you support (not votes) -- but which you are not willing to make an explicit statement about (because doing so is not rationally defensible -- prove me wrong by copying and pasting the statement in your next comment -- it takes 2 seconds). What you suggest in the previous paragraph ("The citation simply needs to be improved") is exactly what I've done -- I'm providing a more authoritative citation. To me, it seems that what you are objecting to is that the *facts* are different in the more authoritative citation (Montreal is number three, not number two) -- and that is also not rationally defensible. You keep coming back to "primarily French-Speaking" and saying that's different from Francophone. I've said it before: Wiki defines Francophone (the direct quote from Nadeau) as "primarily French-speaking" (your preferred language), so Nadeau's statement is identical to yours, except that Montreal is third behind Kinsahasa -- again, because the more authoritative reference says so. Number of editors who have stated the article by an unnamed and unknown author in the book Participatory Democracy: Prospects for Democratizing Democracy edited by Roussopolous is verifiable, and is a more authoritative source on the subject of the French language than the book The Story of French by Nadeau and Barlow": 0. Rerutled (talk) 02:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Franmax -- I am not providing an interpretation, I am providing a direct quote from a verifiable, authoritative source: "Montreal is the third-largest Francophone city in the world, after Paris and Kinshasa."

IF you are saying that what's in the article now reflects your guestimate of what an unreferenced source (like stats canada) seems to imply about the relative size of Montreal among Francophone cities, then it is you who are providing an unverifiable, lesser authoritative source. That or original research, contrary to WP:NOR. Rerutled (talk) 02:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Franamax. You should consider asking at wp:3o for a third (or sixth or so, as it may be) opinion. (While wp:3o is chiefly for disagreements between two parties, a more informal, uninvolved opinion solicited from there could well be helpful at this juncture, should you wish to pursue the matter, Rerutled.) I don't think we're getting anywhere at this point. user:J aka justen (talk) 02:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether this is a piece of surrealist or comedic art-performance anymore. I'm referencing definitively reliable, already sourced material. I'm totally at a loss as to why you don't get that. No problem though, we shall soon embark on the course of dispute resolution. The patience of regular article editors is not infinite. You've established no case, and you are talking in circles. Enough already. Franamax (talk) 02:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Referencing means putting something between ref tags, which can go into a wiki article, and satisfy the minimal standard of Wikipedia:Verifiability, which would then permit it to be compared to other references on standards of WP:RS. You have not done this, despite my challenging you to do so; I assert that you cannot, because the "fact" that you want to state ("Stats Canada says that Montreal is the second largest primarily French-speaking city in the world") to replace the existing Roussopolous reference -- which is not verified, and the author of which remains unknown -- does not exist in a referenceable format. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rerutled (talk • contribs) 03:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe I speak for both myself and Franamax when I say that we have managed, at least a time or to, to cite things, using these mystical <ref> tags you mention. That being said, I believe you should look further into wp:3o or other steps in the wp:dr process. user:J aka justen (talk) 03:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Amen to that. (Especially since I provided five links in my first post and have read and relied upon all provided sources since) There's nothing left to do here now except send out for different coloured sticks with which to beat the carcass. Franamax (talk) 03:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

J -- you send me off to seek wp:dr, and where I go to make my argument, you follow me, and insert your own counterargument. That's not cool. If you have an argument to make with me on the subject at hand, make it here -- don't say "I'm all done with this -- you go elsewhere" and then follow me elsewhere to harrass me there. And with regards to your statement: wiki defines Francophone as being identical to "primarily French-Speaking". So you're wrong that there's any difference between the two statements on that basis. Rerutled (talk) 04:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Rerutled, you are incorrect in your statements above. There is nothing wrong with editors making comments in dispute-resolution fora, I just did that myself. Making a charge of harassment is a serious thing, please be really sure about what you're saying before you trot out such an allegation, as you say "it's not cool". And do not remove other editor comments from discussion pages, that too is not cool. As far as what "wiki" defines, who cares? This whole mini-storm was touched off by inaccurate figures presented in the Lyon article, sourced to fr:wiki (note there how I specified a particular wiki, not the generic noun?) Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Also note that the course recommended to you was to seek a third opinion. Franamax (talk) 11:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Franmax WP:3O is for a dispute between 2 editors. I'm counting three (and more) here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rerutled (talk • contribs) 12:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, 'tis true that the dispute is between you and virtually every other editor with an interest in this page. I personally would have used WP:IAR to request a third-party opinion there no matter what the words say, it's the obvious first step and a third party may have wished to comment regardless of whether it's a formal "case". No problem though, pursue the matter as you wish. I'm still a little unclear as to why you have chosen this as your battleground, and I'd still recommend getting a little more experience with editing before you throw down the gauntlet, Franamax (talk) 13:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you feel that I "harassed" you at wp:rs/n, but my commentary was focused on the content, not on you. If you believe you somehow have the exclusive right to frame this discussion elsewhere, anywhere on Wikipedia, I'm afraid you're mistaken, and my discussing this issue at wp:rs/n most certainly is not harassing you in any way (despite how you may feel). user:J aka justen (talk) 15:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

After saying we were "beating a dead horse" with regards to the "Montreal is the second largest city", editors User:J and User:Franmax directed me above to go elsewhere on wiki and get other opinions, off Talk:Montreal. I did so, including seeeking discussion on "Reliable Sources". They followed me there to continue pressing their side, under the guise of "everywhere on wiki is open for discussion". Editors can find that discussion here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rerutled (talk • contribs) 12:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Please don't revert-war on the lead

Many editors here have seen the recent filing at WP:AN3 and the one at WP:RFPP. If the point of such filings is to get admins to monitor the situation, you all have succeeded. Please don't continue the revert war on the second-largest Francophone-whatever stuff. Anyone who reverts again risks being sanctioned, if the Talk page hasn't reached a clear verdict on the matter. Feel free to propose a vote, an RFC, a centralized discussion, or whatever approach could resolve the second-largest business. Taking the case to WP:RSN was a reasonable step but I gather that that did not achieve a decisive result. Anybody who has the patience to dig out more references to help decide this question would obviously be doing a service. EdJohnston (talk) 19:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

There are at least two sides to the argument. Those who wish to change "second-" to "third-" may have a vested interest in doing so, which is not necessarily to Montreal's benefit. On another side of the 'triangle' are those who wish to maintain the consensus view and they do not appear to be willing not accept any change that threatens 'their' "second-" status. I have several messages on my talkpage implying 'bad faith' on my part and I awarded the article its GA-status. I'm not all that convinced that there is any will to accept any changes (full stop).Pyrotec (talk) 20:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's accurate (or fair). The archived discussion on this talk page goes far back, and shows a strong basis for why the language currently used gained consensus. Consensus certainly can change, but the facts have not... Kinshasa, Abidjan, and other cities were discussed extensively in those instances, and they were larger cities, by population, at that time, as well (which is to say, this isn't a new concern). That doesn't negate User:Rerutled's bringing the issue up, but it does provide some context. In any event, it comes back to conveying what the source says: Montréal is the second largest primarily French-speaking city. It's not just a matter of it being the "official" language of the city, it is the primary, functional, everday language of the city, which is what differentiates it from Kinshasa, Abidjan, and other cities. They may be larger, and I and others have agreed that should be acknowledged, but the lead is not a coatrack for footnotes, and the current language clearly conveys the most precise, helpful information to the reader. user:J aka justen (talk) 20:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, what he said...

It's unfortunate that a rather inexperienced editor has arrived here with a peculiar view of what consensus is and which source is the "winner" for reliability. Then there was that whole "night of the zombies" thing.

We're really not lacking for sources here, it's a matter of how you read the sources. The current language is correct and sourced, and reflects the exact message we wish to convey. I've added a footnote to cover the issue with the "Francophone" cities in Africa. This has been very well-discussed in the past, no source exists which states that Montreal is not the second-largest primarily French-speaking city in the world, and that is the fact we (the consensus of editors experienced with this article) wish to express. There are all sorts of other facts out there. The Metro system runs on rubber wheels and the St. Lawrence is full of water, but we're not going to change the "second-largest" sentence to say that instead, even if it has a super-reliable source. Rerutled is trying to subtly change the terminology, for reasons known only to themself. Franamax (talk) 20:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and Pyrotec, yes that is rather unfair to imply that editors have some compulsion to see Montreal listed as "second-biggest" because it fulfills some emotional need of theirs. If you have anyone in particular in mind, please identify them, otherwise I would appreciate a retraction. It's unfortunate you feel that you've been accused of bad faith, but the answer is never to turn around and accuse others of the same sin. Franamax (talk) 20:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

My comments above are accurate. You have both stated that changes can be made to the article appart from the "second-largest" statement; and you will find the comments from user:J about 'lacking good faith' on my talkpage. There are two such postings.Pyrotec (talk) 21:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

In the first instance, I brought to your attention that you had inaccurately accused me of "ignoring" and violating wp:3rr at wp:an3. I did not accuse you of bad faith. You apologized and corrected yourself on the noticeboard. In the second instance, I raised concerns with your (in my opinion) incorrect interpretation of the difference between an incomplete citation and an unverifiable reference. I urged you to review the policies and use greater caution on the future, as your (again, in my opinion) misinterpretation could be accepted by others as a correct interpretation. That being said, if you believe this issue requires greater discussion, it should probably be on your talk page or mine, not here. user:J aka justen (talk) 21:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Pyrotec, has it occurred to you that we might not want the statement changed because it is factually correct and accurately conveys the greatest information to the reader? Or that the wording reflects consensus developed over a long timeframe among many contributors? Let me quote your words above: threatens 'their' "second-" status - what part of that is not ABF? Franamax (talk) 21:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It was not WP:verifiable, at least until User:Rerutled fixed that particular reference/in-line. The only uncertaintly now is whether that particular chapter dates to 1971 or the early 2000s. I'm sure that you can see the significance of a factually correct statement about populations dating to either the early 1970s or the early 2000s. See the discussion above. What is ABF?Pyrotec (talk) 21:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Is too verifiable. See the reliably-sourced census data immediately below the sentence. I made a point of asking about that at WP:RSN. You're falling for Rerutled's argument that if they can find a book that discusses something different than the statement actually in the article, they can change the entire sense of the statement. I don't think anyone disputes that Abidjan and Kinshasa are larger cities and use French as the language of government. So what? The sky is blue. That is not the point we wish to convey. How many times do we all have to say that the notable fact is that Montreal is the "second-largest primarily French-speaking city in the world"? Census data from around the globe supports that. Gah, I'm ready to tear out the last three hairs on my head.

The ABF part is your insinuation that resistance to change is due to ownership issues, as in when you use the words "threatens" and quoted " 'their' " - you're deliberately implying that we have ulterior motives and thus our collective opinions should be considered as equivalent to our recently-arrived edit-warrior, who must perforce be given their pound of flesh. You ignore all the detailed discussions that led to consensus and dismiss it all as people having some primal need to claim "second" of something. That's ABF. Have you fully read all the previous discussions on this? I can link them again if you wish. Franamax (talk) 22:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Pedophile paradise

I found this weird article in Maclean's magazine that describes Montreal as a pedophile paradise. Is their any validity to this claim ? Should surrounding issues of sexual libertinism be included in the article ? [15] [16] [17] [18] ADM (talk) 04:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

That's really alarming... (I should add, though, that, in singling Montréal out, it also appears to be alarmist. I can't imagine Montréal is the only city in North America to have such an online forum where these "men" can "discuss" whatever disgusting things it is they discuss, but I digress...) Only the first article refers to Montréal specifically, and one reliable source claiming such a thing doesn't seem significant enough to support discussing it from an encyclopedic standpoint. user:J aka justen (talk) 06:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Those articles are really screwed in the head. Montreal and Canada are not "pedophile havens" 99.236.221.124 (talk) 19:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)