Talk:Coat of arms of Montreal

Fair use rationale for Image:MontrealLogo.gif

Image:MontrealLogo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Lily replaced Beaver

From the Website of the Ville de Montréal[1]

What do the symbols on Montréal's coat of arms mean?

The city's coat of arms was designed by its first mayor, Jacques Viger, soon after his election in 1833. The design features an escutcheon divided in four by a red cross, where each quadrant is decorated with a plant or animal emblem. Four emblems, like the four founding peoples: the English rose, the Irish clover, the French-Canadian beaver and the Scottish thistle. In 1938, the coat of arms was redesigned, giving birth to the one we know today. It is similar to the first, but among other changes, the beaver was replaced by the French fleur de lys.

Crowning the whole is the motto that Viger used first for his own coat of arms, Concordia Salus, salvation through concord.

Also, this other source[2], cited in fr:Armoiries de Montréal, has more details on the same:

Les armoiries de Montréal

C'est Jacques Viger, premier magistrat de la Ville, qui dessina les premières armoiries de Montréal en 1833 et qui écrivit cette devise rassembleuse: «Concordia salus». La devise, qui signifie «le salut par la concorde», se voulait une incitation à la bonne entente entre les différentes communautés de la Cité. Les armoiries ont été redessinées en 1938 afin d'être conformes aux règles de l'héraldique. Les quatre symboles floraux représentent les principaux groupes vivant à Montréal au 19e siècle: les «Canadiens» (Français) avec la fleur de lys (qui remplaça le castor), les Anglais avec la rose, les Écossais avec le chardon et les Irlandais avec le trèfle. La croix rappelle la mission d'évangélisation à l'origine de la fondation de Ville-Marie et le castor se veut le symbole du caractère industrieux des Montréalais.

Translated to English, it reads:

The Coat of Arms of Montréal

It is Jacques Viger, first magistrate of the City, who drew the first coat of arms of Montréal in 1833, and wrote this unifying moto: "Concordia Salus" The motto, which means "Salvation through Concord" was meant as an invitation to good understanding between the different communities of the City. The coat of arms were redesigned in 1938 to conform to the rules of heraldry. The four floral symbols representing the main groups living in Montréal in the 19th century: the Canadians (French) with the flower of lily (which replaced the beaver), the English with the rose, the Scots with thistle and the Irish with the trefoil. The cross recalls the evangelization mission at the origin of the foundation of Ville-Marie and the beaver is meant as a symbol of the industrious character of Montrealers.

-- Mathieugp (talk) 21:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The article already states that the fleur de lys replaced the beaver in the design. Xanderliptak (talk) 02:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I see that. However, it does not say the right thing and does not have a reference note. The original coat of arms showed the emblems of four peoples: Canadians, Irish, Scots, English. There was no reference to France or to the country of origin of the distant ancestors of the majority of Canadians in Lower Canada at the time. In 1938, the beaver, as representing the majority of the native population of Lower Canada (Quebec) in 1833 was removed. To "conform to the rules of heraldry" the Lily was put alongside the other floral emblems. In 1938, the floral emblems were rather symbolic of the country of origin of the ancestors of Montrealers and the beaver no longer characterized the old Canadians, but all inhabitants of Montreal, as a city inside a different Canada, the federal Dominion of 1867, that was not longer predominantly French Canadian, as was Lower Canada in 1833. This is a pretty significant change in the symbolism of the coat of arms which reflects the political and demographic evolution between 1833 and 1938.

Upon reflexion, I think it might be too confusing to mention any of this in the paragraph supposed to describe today's coat of arms. Maybe it should go in a section on the first coat of arms? We can surely import the image from the Archives de Montréal into Commons. -- Mathieugp (talk) 13:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Check out this photograph clearly showing the belt: [3]

What do you wish it to say? The beaver represented the French originally, probably for the pelts. But as the beaver came to represent the whole city, so the fleur de lys was added specifically for the French so they did not seem left out. Again, all in the article, though not in detail. The whole article has one source, so the cite appears at the very end; no need to cite each sentence to one source. Besides the source, I also used the images available on the page and in t external links, which requires no citation yet is still verifiable. Xanderliptak (talk) 02:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The beaver did not represent the French originally. That is what I am saying, that is what all the sources I have quoted say. The beaver was never, at any moment of history, a sign of the French. It was the emblem the people of Canada (the Canadiens) chose for themselves and their country. Regarding how articles should be sourced in Wikipedia, here is what the guideline say (Wikipedia:Citing sources):

"In most cases, an inline citation is required in addition to the full citation. This shows which specific part of the article a citation is being applied to. Inline citations are mandated by Wikipedia's featured article criteria. They are required by Wikipedia's verifiability policy for statements whose factual accuracy is challenged or likely to be challenged, including contentious material about living persons, and for all direct quotations. An inline citation should appear next to material that it supports; if the same material occurs more than once the citation should be next to at least one of the occurrences."

Basically, since you assert the beaver represents the French, you will need to show the source for this and add it as a reference note. But I do not think you will find a source stating this because it is not true. So, rather than make the whole thing complicated, I suggest to write another section describing the symbolism of the original coat of arms. That way what you wrote will remain (I have nothing against what you wrote) and what I wrote (that you removed) will be expanded, clarified, etc. in another section. That section could simply be entitled "History". -- Mathieugp (talk) 08:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The official website of Montreal states, "Four emblems, like the four founding peoples: the English rose, the Irish clover, the French-Canadian beaver and the Scottish thistle." There is your source that states the beaver represented those of French descent. Xanderliptak (talk) 12:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

??? That is one of the sources I pointed out to you to show you that the beaver was symbolic of French Canadian, not French! These are two distinct nations sharing a common language, much like the British and the Anglo Americans, or the Spanish and any of the the Spanish-speaking nations/former colonies of Latin America. The people the British have called "French Canadians" called themselves simply "Canadians" in their language (French), much like the Anglo Americans call themselves simply Americans, because they identify with their country, not that of their long-ago ancestors, real or imagined. -- Mathieugp (talk) 18:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe you are applying a modern standard and definition to the 1833 timeframe. The French Canadian article you linked shows this “French Canadian” group still shows people self-identify as French rather than French Canadian by more than 3 to 1. So your idea that French Canadians are not French is not even supported by your own source. The term itself means and implies a Canadian that is French, so I am not certain how you deduce the two are separate and independent of one another. They are interchangeable terms. The only reason “French Canadian” is seemingly used for the French in Canada is to avoid confusion with the French in France. So, as the beaver represents the “French Canadians,” this means the beaver represents the French portion of the population, one and the same. Xanderliptak (talk) 10:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it is quite the reverse. I am not applying modern standard and definition to 1833 timeframe, or else I would have used the term "Quebecer" (Québécois) to refer to the "Canadians" (Canadiens). First, you are mistaken when you write "The French Canadian article you linked shows this “French Canadian” group still shows people self-identify as French rather than French Canadian by more than 3 to 1." That article is a Wikipedia article, and the information it contains is quite misleading. The Canada census question to which 2,838,000 replied "French" was:

While most people in Canada view themselves as Canadians, information on their ancestral origins has been collected since the 1901 Census to capture the changing composition of Canada’s diverse population. Therefore, this question refers to the origins of the person’s ancestors.

17. To which ethnic or cultural group(s) did this person’s ancestors belong?

For example, Canadian, French, English, Chinese, Italian, German, Scottish, Irish, Cree, Micmac, Métis, Inuit (Eskimo), East Indian, Ukrainian, Dutch, Polish, Portuguese, Filipino, Jewish, Greek, Jamaican, Vietnamese, Lebanese, Chilean, Somali, etc.[4]

So, to be accurate, the French Canadian article should read: "... found that respondents to the Canadian census who reported themselves as speaking French natively (and still understanding that language) reported the ethnic or cultural group(s) of their ancestors as French, Canadien, Québécois, or French Canadian." and NOT "... found that French-speaking Canadians identified their ethnicity most often as French, Canadien, Québécois, or French Canadian."

For details as to how incredibly confusing the word "Canadian" can become in a census, read this old archived talk: [5]

You assumed that "French Canadians" meant "people in Canada who consider themselves culturally French" when in fact in 1833 it was a people who considered themselves the Canadians, a national identity that emerged while Canada was still under French rule and was distinct from French from France. Like I wrote, in the French language, the people designated as "French Canadians" by the British called themselves simply "the Canadians" (les Canadiens), hence the symbols of Canada they gave themselves (beaver, maple leaf). To know why they were called "French" Canadians while they themselves considered themselves the Canadian nation (la nation canadienne), you'll need to read more history and (unfortunately) politics. To refer to the Canadians, most of course born in Canada of people also born in Canada before it became part of the British Empire, as "French" was intentional and had a purpose. One explicit reference to this is found in this letter written in 1822 by the leader of the Parti canadien[6]:

"Such as, assertions that the opposition manifested in this Province on the part of the population so stygmatised is the effect of prejudices alone, alluding to their supposed attachment to France and to the French principles; calling them foreigners; (foreigners in their native land!) The Bill in question, say these friends of the Union, being so well calculated to Anglify the country, which is to be ultimately peopled by a British race."

"The very style of these communications will it is hoped, produce quite a different effect from that intended. It will be easily perceived on which side prejudices lie. No doubt these aspersions on the character of those whom they invidiously denominate French Canadians, were intended to produce irritation; from which an advantage was expected to be derived; ..."

Another explicit reference, this time from the opposing party, those who wanted to unite the two Canadas into one large Canada where the people calling themselves Canadians would become a minority of "French" inside a new Canada that would be decidedly British, can be read here[7]:

"Your Petitioners humbly represent, that no arguments can be urged against the union by the French Canadians, which will not, when analyzed, be resolvable into this real meaning, that they desire to remain a separate people thereby ultimately to become a French nation, or as they have denominated themselves the "Nation Canadienne." "

The first two attempts (1810, 1822) at depriving the Canadians of Lower Canada of their Parliament through a legislative union failed, but it worked in 1840 and so it is that the meaning of Canada/Canadian changed as a result of the "merger" of the two Canadas. It changed again in 1867 when what was then known as British North America evolved into a federal union of provinces to which the name "Canada" was assigned for the first time. (The peoples of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, who had been thinking of the Canadians as their neighbours for so long, now found themselves "Canadian" too as a result of their inclusion into this new union.)

The majority of the people of Lower Canada, who called themselves the Canadians, as had done their parents and their grand parents, etc., became a numerical minority inside the new Province of Canada somewhere during the 1850 decade.

In 1938, when the coat of arms was redesigned, Canada/Canadian had been words formally designating the 1867 federal union and all the people in for quite some time. Long enough that the emblems on the 1833 coat of arms did not make much sense, suggesting that the English, Scots, and Irish were not "Canadians". It is the meaning of the word "Canada" that had changed. Is it clearer? -- Mathieugp (talk) 20:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

You want to get into contentious sociopolitical talk on a heraldry page. This is not the appropriate place, perhaps you should spend this efforts expanding the articles of the Franco Canadian kind. Most Montrealers can trace their ancestors to four nations, France, England, Ireland and Scotland. Yes, I understand the French settlers had been living in Canada for several generations by this time, but they still trace to France. Tracing Canadians back to Canada is redundant, I hope you can see this point I am trying to make. Saying 'Canadians can be traced back to Canada, and that is why we use the beaver and fleur de lys' cuts out a lot of history that explains the beaver and fleur de lys more appropriately. I will expand the portion, and make note they the beaver was representative of the French settlers that traded in furs. Will this suffice, without threatening to include politics into an apolitical article? Xanderliptak (talk) 21:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

You want to get into contentious sociopolitical talk on a heraldry page. This would be a mistake and misjudging what I mean to accomplish. First of all, you are the one who removed the information that was in the article already and had been there for some time. Now, because of the change you made, the English-language article does not say the same thing as the French-language one. They should obviously say the same thing, since they both pertain to the same subject and use the same source.

If a neutral and objective third-party looks at the history of both Coat of Arms of Montreal and Talk:Coat of arms of Montreal, he or she will see that 1) I began by restoring what you had removed and you removed it again. 2) After that, I restored it again, but this time posted an explanation to the talk page and invited you to read it on your personal talk page. 3) Since then, you have kept posting comments as if you did not understand what I was pointing out as obvious and well-referenced knowledge. At least in my mind, there was no reason to discuss or argue after I posted sources that clearly mention a French-Canadian beaver. the Ville de Montréal Web site does not say: "a beaver, you know, as representing the people of France or the French ancestors of many Canadians". It says a French-Canadian beaver. The beaver is universally understood as a symbol of Canada. Please tell me you at least agree with that?

Tracing Canadians back to Canada is redundant, I hope you can see this point I am trying to make. No, I do not understand the point you are trying to make. I want the meaning of the 1938 coat of arms to be as clear and accurate as that of 1833. In order words, what you wrote is perfectly accurate and reflects what is on the 1938 coat of arms. But to ascribe the meaning of the 1938 coat of arms to the 1833 coat of arms is a mistake. The 1833 coat of arms showed symbols representing the four peoples who, it was hoped, should coexist peacefully in Montreal in the first half of the 19th century. The peoples on the coat of arms were the Canadians (as understood from the POV of the majority of them), the Scots, the Irish, and the English. In 1938, one century later, "Canada/Canadian" meant something else. The Canadians of old were now, effectively, a national minority.

I will expand the portion, and make note they the beaver was representative of the French settlers that traded in furs. What French settlers? In 1833, French settlers had stopped landing in Canada 73 years ago already. The people who had French origins, whether still speaking French or not, were all either Canadians or Acadians. Fur trade was no longer a monopoly of the French since long before that. I am trying very hard to point out to you the obvious fact that the 1938 coat of arms shows the emblems of four European nations/kingdom, while the 1833 one shows the Canadians + the three main nations coming from the British Isles.

Find me a heraldry book that states unambiguously that the beaver can mean, either to French speakers or English speakers, the French or France, kingdom or republic, and I will gladly admit I am wrong. If you read French, I can show you quantity of sources showing that those who were called the "French" or "French Canadians" by the English speakers were, in the 1830s, referring to themselves as the Canadiens and to them it meant they were no more French than the Americans were English. -- Mathieugp (talk) 03:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I have to believe you do not fully comprehend English, and to mask your ignorance you show aggression. I can not believe you actually have to ask what French settlers have to do with Canada. Canada was a territory of France, and thus those men that came from France to settle the territory of Canada would be the French settlers I speak of. Those French settlers are what gave rise to your Canadians, French Canadians, Quebecois and so forth. Your terms have various boundaries, but they also overlap one another in there coverage; the one unifying thing amongst all these groups is that they descend from these original French settlers. This means, no matter what you want to call them, they have a unifying French heritage. Just like how those Canadians that came from England, even though they consider themselves Canadian, are still referred to as English in the article, I am not treating the separate groups differently in any way.

This is no longer a discussion of the arms. Move this to either your or my talk page if you wish to continue. Xanderliptak (talk) 08:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, this "discussion" is over. I think you know that the beaver is a symbol of the people of Canada. I have put quantity of sources for you to study. I think you have a lot of reading to catch up. You say that I "show aggression", in the very sentence where you insult my English and call me ignorant. That's original. I am impressed. ;-)

Here is what you seem not to understand or not know (I do not know for sure, since I do not read minds):

What you wrote is true for 1938 only. In 1938, there is a significant number of people who are native of the Dominion of Canada, who live in Montreal, Quebec, who consider themselves "Canadians" (in the modern sense), and can say their distant [or close] ancestors are from England, Scotland, Ireland or even France. BUT in 1833, in Montreal, Lower Canada, that makes no sense at all with reality. The natives of the province of Lower Canada, who consider themselves "Canadians" in the sense that it had then, and also had in the time of New France, who can say their ancestors were from England, Scotland, Ireland are very few. In Montreal, in 1833, they are a majority to be actual immigrants from England, Scotland, Ireland, and do not identify much with any of the two Canadas, that is of course unless they learned to speak French and intermingled with the people of Lower Canada. In 1833, the people who considered themselves the Canadians, in Lower Canada, are the ancestors of the Quebecers of 1938, who were still then composed of a majority of French speakers and a minority of English speakers. In 1938, "Canada" means something else than in 1833. (In Upper Canada or Ontario, which was really settled beginning in 1785 and entirely by people of British or British American origin, that is a different story altogether.)

On the distinction between French and Canadians, in the 1800s, under French rule, here is an obvious reference:

"The Canadians and the French, though having the same origin, the same interests, the same principles of religion and of government, a pressing danger before their eyes, cannot get along. It seems they are two bodies who cannot amalgamate. ... It seems that we [the French] are of a different nation, even an enemy one. - Louis Antoine de Bougainville, 1758[8]"

When I have more time, I'll come back and write a section on the original coat of arms, using better references than the Web site of Ville de Montréal. Meanwhile, enjoy your reading. :-) -- Mathieugp (talk) 16:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Greater Montreal 2008 logo.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Greater Montreal 2008 logo.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Article reassessment

This article is currently rated as Start class, and will likely stay that way until it is supplied with more inline citations to reliable sources. There are currently only four citations in the whole article and no references at all in the section National symbols. Three of the four citations currently in the article relate to the apparently deprecated logo, and only one citation is related at all to the article's main topic. Additionally, I must ask why we have a non-free image of the 2006 logo (or was that 2008?) that the article states no one liked and no one uses, but no image of the 1981 logo that the article states the city still uses. If an image of the 1981 logo could be added, this article would show good use of images. With additional references and some attention to overall structure and due weight, this article would be ready for reassessment. At this time, however, it needs a lot of work to get it beyond Start class, so I'm delisting it from the backlog at WP:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology/Assessment. Good luck, and please relist it there once these issues have been addressed. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 04:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Coat of arms of Montreal.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:36, 25 September 2018 (UTC)