Talk:Angine de Poitrine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Citation style

@Ezéchiel Péquay: Thanks for the work you've done on the article. Regarding your recent edit summary, I would argue that verifiability is always more important than keeping the text as clean as possible. A single footnote at the end of the paragraph that verifies everything preceding it is just fine; however, when you're clumping three or four citations at the end of a paragraph with no other footnotes, then you're violating the very guideline you quoted: so long as it's clear which source supports which part of the text. It's one thing to have a group of multiple citations that are all supporting the same thing, as in the end of the second paragraph in 'History', but by reverting my edit, you made it so a reader would need to check four sources to be able to verify the one sentence I was citing, which violates text-source integrity: Editors should exercise caution when adding to or rearranging material to ensure that text-source relationships are maintained. References should not be moved if doing so might break the text–source relationship. I don't mean to slow motion edit war, but I'm going to move the footnote back, hopefully this explains why. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 13:46, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

can we call it what it actually is, instead of 'microtonal'?

close examination of the instruments, or (y'know) actually listening to their stuff, reveals that it's simple quarter-tone, & firmly rooted in the traditional roots/thirds/fifths/octaves of 'normal' western 12-tone music. so it'd be nice to get this article off on the right foot, since it's so new.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microtonality#Microtone

duncanrmi (talk) 20:36, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

[citation needed] — Yerpo Eh? 18:15, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
Your linked article pretty clearly identifies quarter-tone tuning as a form of microtonality, so it's not incorrect to call it "microtonal" music. Wikipedia describes it as a broad term that incorporates many different sub-semitone tunings and styles (including blues and jazz). Almitydave (talk) 21:10, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

history

me again. folks like me have done some digging; would be nice to find a way to expand on the history section with some description of their previous incarnations: ... duncanrmi (talk) 20:38, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Howdy. I'm not going to reply in both sections, but my answer to both of your questions/comments is pretty much the same: we're restricted to what reliable, secondary sources report. If the sources call it microtonal (which they overwhelmingly do, at least for now), then we call it microtonal. And while they are not reporting on the members' real identities and previous projects, we don't either. Once that changes (which I imagine it will eventually), we can adjust the article accordingly. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 20:49, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
You are not supposed to "do some digging". ~2026-17879-69 (talk) 00:36, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

experimental rock label

@Aria1561: not to be a pedant, but... math rock is rooted in the avant-garde, and avant-garde rock is the same as experimental rock, and always has been. the experimental rock label will stay: it's a valid umbrella. take this up with WP:3O or WP:RFC if you object. Kinnimeyu (talk) 04:46, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

"the experimental rock label will stay" – As a matter of fact, it will not, for one simple reason: you do not own this article. You are not even the first person to expand this article either. Your original research you've displayed here is insufficient reasoning for why we should have an unneutral sentence to open the article lead. We require published secondary sources to prove your claim about this specific band, which is not what you are doing. Regardless of your personal opinions on genres, the tradition is that we do not list a specific subgenre in the lead for an artist if that is not the genre they are overwhelmingly labeled as by journalists and other writers. Even in cases where it may seem obvious, we still maintain a neutral "rock" tag anyway for neutrality sake (e.g., Pink Floyd not being labeled progressive rock, Joy Division not being labeled post-punk, or Tool not being labeled alternative metal - all examples that are featured articles). We can have an open discussion about it here and invite users to voice their opinions on the matter – the way we conduct this sort of business on Wikipedia. I see you are relatively new to the website, so I understand your anxiety to quickly assert your dominance, but that's not how we do things here. In the meanwhile, it will remain as "rock" rather than "experimental rock" to fit with guidelines on neutrality and content ownership. Aria1561 (talk) 05:13, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
...you're really arguing WP:OR when your entire argument hinged on just saying "they've been called math rock as much as they've been called experimental rock, if not more"? WP:3O requested. Kinnimeyu (talk) 13:44, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
to that end, per published secondary sources available on their articles:
  • math rock and experimental rock have been updated accordingly with published secondary sources
  • pink floyd have been like, 5-10 separate genres, but we don't call them "pop" based on early output because they explicitly transitioned into various, entirely different, styles of rock
  • joy division were regularly described in academia as gothic rock, no problem there
  • alternative metal for tool doesn't even matter since they regularly dabbled in rock enough to not be directly classified as "metal"
all three articles were promoted to FA prior to 2012. handling genres on-site, especially for niche acts (as opposed to decades-long+ musical hallmarks), has changed a lot since then. it isn't always the baseline. Kinnimeyu (talk) 15:03, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
personal opinion, though: perfection is not required. featured articles are a standard, not the norm. ignore all rules. let's compromise! though, ow, biting. Kinnimeyu (talk) 15:18, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
I've seen enough genre warriors taken to WP:ANI that I avoid these arguments as much as possible, and I don't have a strong opinion on which term to include in the lead sentence. I will say, though, Kinnimeyu, that the main argument Aria1561 is making is correct: it doesn't matter what your interpretation of a genre is, or even what WP:RS have said about those genres, what matters is what RS have said about the subject of the article. WP:SYNTH says "A and B, therefore, C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument concerning the topic of the article. Updating the experimental rock article to include math rock, and then using that to justify experimental rock here, runs afoul of that policy. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
reliable and verifiable sources, to establish a link, were provided on both pages? the timing of the edits has no bearing. it serves to strengthen the pre-existing association: by Aria1561's own admission, the band is both regularly referred to as math rock and experimental rock. bands like black midi, hella, don caballero, and battles get their genre consensus the same way. it's unfair to hold every band article to FA standards. per WP:NPOV, too, common descriptors by prominent sources are the baseline. to reduce it to just "rock" removes context. Kinnimeyu (talk) 16:02, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
You're correct that the timing of the edits has no bearing, nor does the fact that it was you who edited those articles, the issue is establish[ing] a link to this article in the first place. That's why I linked to WP:SYNTH, which again, is a policy. I'll let others debate the term to be used, I'm just explaining why using the "A and B, therefore, C" argument is invalid in this instance. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 16:18, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
i'm in the process of updating "artistry" to better reflect things, since the genre link isn't explained well enough as-is. everything in "history", currently, was written by me. Kinnimeyu (talk) 16:22, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
but to actually get WP:CONSENSUS, i'm willing to do one of two things here:
1) change it to math rock, since though it may be described as derived/a subgenre of experimental rock, a specific genre may be better than an umbrella.
2) keep it as experimental rock, because, ultimately, all three genres are rooted in experimental music and the avant-garde.
i'm firm on disagreeing with making it just "rock" because of the missed context. Kinnimeyu (talk) 16:29, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
@Aria1561: any thoughts on these options as consensus? Kinnimeyu (talk) 00:10, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
I am standing firm on keeping "rock" in the lead as a neutral option, as I find any change to it unnecessary and neither of these presented options as superior or inherently correct. I am willing to see if any other users have different takes though, and I will follow whatever consensus is established as a result of a discussion. Aria1561 (talk) 00:38, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
doesn't seem like a WP:3O is gonna cut it here, then. removing it from the list and seeking WP:RFC instead. Kinnimeyu (talk) 00:43, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
@Aria1561: feel free to cast your vote and reason why: Talk:Angine de Poitrine#RfC: lead genre label Kinnimeyu (talk) 01:19, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

RfC: lead genre label

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is consensus for option A. This, editors felt, was the most neutral, broad, and practical descriptor of the group; this also allows for elaboration later in the lede and in the body of the article. There were three WP:VAGUEWAVES towards the end of the discussion, which I have weighed less in my evaluation of consensus. Iseult Δx talk to me 21:56, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Should Angine de Poitrine, in the article's lead, be referred to as:

  • Option A: a "rock" duo
    (a broad, neutral tag that follows standard lead conventions)
  • Option B: a "math rock" duo
    (a specific and frequently used descriptor by journalists and reliable sources)
  • Option C: an "experimental rock" duo?
    (an umbrella for "math rock" and a reflection of the band's avant-garde nature)

Kinnimeyu (talk) 01:00, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Survey

  • Option B. while i was previously in favor of Option C, (and had edited the article to reflect that) the term "math rock" has been used in connotation with the band, and even by the band themselves, many times. i don't think an umbrella term fits the nature of the band anymore. Kinnimeyu (talk) 01:18, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Option A – As stated above, this is a neutral tag that I feel is fair for a band that has received equal labeling of terms like "math rock", "experimental rock", and "microtonal rock" for now. I do not believe, based on observations of published articles about the band, that they have been primarily labeled one particular genre over all others. I also disagree with the notion that experimental rock would serve as an umbrella term that incorporates math rock, though I understand this is subjective. Aria1561 (talk) 01:47, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
  • (Summoned by bot) Option A is fine. As Aria1561 has stated, sources do not tend to favor one term over the other. We have math rock, experimental, etc. in the genre section of the infobox, which to me is adequate. If the specific genre starts to get more coverage or if it turns out to be significant for some reason, a sentence in the lead à la "Their music has been described as X rock." I like octopusestalk to me, talk to me 02:00, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
    this actually brings up an interesting point. if we're solely factoring in WP:RS used in the article, while "math rock" is more commonly used as a descriptor, the microtonal aspect is actually mentioned more:
    math rock (#2, #4, #5, #6, #10, #16, #18, #20, #21)
    experimental rock (#4, #15)
    microtonal music / rock (#2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #9, #12, #18, #20, #21, #25) Kinnimeyu (talk) 02:37, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Option B I did some online searches and could find at least 3-5 freelance journalists/-writers and the like label them as a math rock band, so I am quite convinced that more of them label them as such; I also think that math rock is close to experimental rock genre-wise so why not at least add that the band's sound is mixing experimental elements with tradiotional rock and jazz elements or something like that? In my opinion, just classifying the band as "rock" is not adequate since that could basically mean anything rock-esque; I do not think a majority would believe that the sound of this band is reminiscent of or reminding them of, for exammple The Rolling Stones (which is labeled as a rock band on their Wikipage). I agree with the person who thinks that the inclusion of experimental rock and math rock in the infobox could be sufficient; however, I think the editing guideline says something about making sure the lead tells why the band is of interest or so. Hence, their style should be more precisely written in it, but all of this is just my view and discussions like those do often end up as being both subjecctive and speculative. IceSphynx (talk) 09:44, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
  • (Summoned by bot) Option A Wikipedia has a long history of disruption due to Wikipedia:Genre warrior debates. A way to avoid them is to use broad genre designations prominently, then note all the subgenres in places and ways where they can be included without inciting continuous debate and changes. Bluerasberry (talk) 18:27, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
    this feels like textbook WP:OTHERCONTENT, i'm not gonna lie Kinnimeyu (talk) 18:59, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
    The fact that this RfC exists confirms Bluerasberry’s point, though. If the genre label is being disputed, then we shouldn’t use one specific genre without extensive sourcing. You have also claimed that “math rock” is the most-used descriptor, and then inconsistently claimed that “microtonal rock” is the most used. There’s nothing wrong with using just “rock” in the lead sentence. It will not remove any context because the full descriptions will be a sentence or two later. It’s better to use a word that all the sources agree on than a disputed term that at most half of them agree on (even if you think it’s more accurate or specific.)
    Also, I’d recommend summarizing your arguments and support comprehensively in one post, rather than replying to every single contrary vote. I know it’s not your intention but people may view it as badgering. Thanks. I like octopusestalk to me, talk to me 19:31, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
    i've been trying to be neutral this whole time but it's frustrating that this is the conclusion that's been come to. i'm not perfect. i don't have encyclopedic knowledge of policies and guidelines. i can make mistakes, and showing i'm learning new information in real-time shouldn't be something worth judging. i didn't argue when Aria1561 violated WP:BITE by weaponizing me being a new user and personally attacking me as if i claimed ownership, nor when they refused to build consensus through their own interpretation of WP:NPOV.
    the discussion has gotten stale with empty "genre warrior" accusations when it's already been proven, in the words of people involved with this discussion, that "microtonal rock" is a neologism and "math rock" is the most prominent. i listened, and yet even after a genre label has been demonstratively proven to fit, the point of argument is now that "well, other articles do this..." standards can change. WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT exist for this reason. things now are simple: there are two rock subgenres, one is mentioned in context significantly more than the other. Kinnimeyu (talk) 20:02, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
    There was no "weaponizing" of your status as a newer user or any personal attacks made towards you. I acknowledged you were a new user and wished to clarify the guidelines for discussions and edit wars on Wikipedia as it seemed you were not familiar with them yet. Your assertation that your edits were finite and warranted no separate discussions absolutely made it seem as though you were operating as an owner of the article, and this was something that needed to be addressed. I was taking you seriously and in earnest but I fear I cannot do so any longer, as I do not appreciate unfounded accusations of misbehavior. I apologize if you felt offended by my comments, but there was no intent to "attack" you, I fear you may just be overly sensitive. For clarity sake, this is also not meant to be an "attack", but rather a mere observation of your reactions towards criticism from other users. I can assure you my contributions have been nothing personal towards you, and my focus has solely been on the status of the article and creating a discussion around something that is not universally agreed upon. Aria1561 (talk) 03:29, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
    @Aria1561: i'm happy to drop the discussion entirely so we can focus on the article's content. relying solely on the data from the article's current reliable sources, the newly added content will remain per WP:WEIGHT. Kinnimeyu (talk) 03:48, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
    I see you’ve requested a closure for this RfC. I’ve responded there, but in the meantime I am still confused on whether ‘math rock’ or ‘microtonal rock’ has received more mentions in sources. Citing NPOV and WEIGHT shows you have a good understating of Wikipedia policies, but they aren’t my main concern here. If anything, the undue weight policy would support my take of the situation as only roughly half of the sources support a specific term, but they all agree on “rock.” Since sources are split on how to characterize the band, we should reflect this split by using a more neutral term and explaining the multiple genre classifications a sentence or two later. I like octopusestalk to me, talk to me 12:36, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
    I have not been a main force of this discussion but I have read it through and did give my view earlier. I have not looked through that many sources but still around 10; a majority of those cite both ”rock” and ”math rock” so I think there is some consensus about the label of the band. However, since not all of them (and likely somr other sources) may only agree on ”rock”; I now agree with your stance that ”rock” would be a suffiecient label in the opening sentence IF it is followed by a somewhat more precise description of the actual genre. IceSphynx (talk) 13:51, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
    I believe this is the best course of action. Starting the lead by describing them as a "rock duo" and then expanding upon their sound and technique a few sentences later is the most neutral and encyclopedic solution. Aria1561 (talk) 02:44, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
    As long as there is at least a couple of sentences included, in which their specific style is being described or briefly discussed I agree with you. :) Just labeling them as a "rock duo" and then leave it at that would not be sufficient in my opinion since that (in my opinion) makes it sound like their style is not distinct - I thiink we all can agree that it de facto is, but just not in which way. :D IceSphynx (talk) 14:47, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
Id put Option C as top option in this case ~2026-22913-55 (talk) 10:57, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
math rock ~2026-23464-07 (talk) 12:55, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
  • C is most apt for me.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:34, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
  • A per Bluerasberry. No need for the genre to be so granular in the lead. Nemov (talk) 17:30, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Discussion

it's worth noting the band is in a unique position where the genre "Microtonal rock" is used for the first time on a wikipedia article. i believe its use is valid: prior to this, the most prominent use was by King Gizzard & The Lizard Wizard, especially on their album Flying Microtonal Banana, though that fell under Anatolian rock instead. if it weren't for this, i would have pushed the argument that "Math rock" and "Experimental rock" were similar enough to warrant sole use of one of the two by default, but it's possible that:

1) "Microtonal rock" is, in fact, an incorrect subgenre, and "Microtonal music" should be used instead,
or 2) the prominence of "Microtonal rock" would lead it to being appropriate for lead use instead.

i feel like 1) is more likely here, but 2) is only a possibility. the "Microtonal rock" genre isn't established enough, though it already existed as a sub-category on the microtonal article, so there's some relevance there. Kinnimeyu (talk) 02:06, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

paging @Aria1561 and Octopusplushie: in an above comment, i found that WP:RS specifically in the article (not all general links) actually define the band as "microtonal (music)" more often than "math rock". this raises concerns with WP:WEIGHT and WP:NEO considering... well... angine de poitrine is one of the only bands which could fall under "microtonal rock" right now. no other band on the site uses the genre. thoughts? because this means one of two things:
  • ...that the genre has now spawned into existence and the balance becomes math/microtonal rock due to WP:WEIGHT?
  • ...that because "microtonal rock" is a one-off genre, it violates WP:NEO, and because microtonal music is an instrumental concept, "math rock" becomes the sole "rock" subgenre?
Kinnimeyu (talk) 03:06, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
Again, I’m okay with the sentence in the lead saying that their music has been described as multiple different genres. But for the opening sentence, which this RfC is implied to be about, it’s not appropriate to use either of these options. “Microtonal rock” is a neologism and just “math rock” isn’t supported by the majority of sources. If you really can’t decide, another option is to omit genre from the opening sentence entirely (“Angine de Poitrine is a Canadian musical duo”) or something similar. I like octopusestalk to me, talk to me 13:34, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
i think going without a genre would be a WP:LEAD problem. i'll change "microtonal rock" to "microtonal music" accordingly, but because "microtonal music" is a standalone technique, it's removed from the genre list and moves to the lead instead. Kinnimeyu (talk) 13:39, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
Huh? Which part of MOS:LEAD does it violate? Also, I’m making a distinction between the lead section (where it is fine to list all the genres) and the first sentence of the article (where math rock or microtonal would not be appropriate. Plenty of musicians don’t have a genre in the opening sentence. I like octopusestalk to me, talk to me 13:49, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
because lacking a genre in the first sentence would fail to establish what the band is. (MOS:FIRST) a "musical duo" is too broad. many musical duos exist, with different genres and aesthetics. this is different for duos like Simon & Garfunkel, who did three distinct genres (pop, folk and rock), so a broad genre tag doesn't fit. but for angine de poitrine, we're talking two narrow rock subgenres which can be closely tied to one another. (and even then, reliable sources currently in use prefer "math rock" by a wide margin.) i'd argue omitting a subgenre also excludes why they are of interest. establishing a rock subgenre lead is no longer an issue with the idea of "microtonal rock" as a neologism out of the way. Kinnimeyu (talk) 13:57, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Option B. Microtonal polyrhythms are absilutely math rock, and the use by sources is I think definitive. — The Anome (talk) 16:17, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Synthesizers?

The article claims that Khn plays synthesizers, in addition to guitar, bass and looper. Is that the case? Is someone counting the buzzer as a synth? ~2026-23706-37 (talk) 20:52, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Good catch, that's not supported by any sources I've seen. Removed. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 04:20, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Nationality in Lede

In the intro they're stated to be Quebecois and not Canadian. As we all know, Quebec isn't an independent country, I don't think there's other wiki entries with Quebecois in the lead?--Ortizesp (talk) 14:43, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, they should be listed as Canadian. Popcornfud (talk) 14:54, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
Thank you for starting the discussion. I've reverted editors removing the 'Canadian' adjective enough that my resolve has been wearing down, I should've come here sooner. Regarding T4nn3r's recent edit summary that reads in part Quebec is actually a recognized nation within Canada, the within Canada is the relevant part. We're doing our international readers a disservice by not leading with the nationality (as in nation state) and then getting more specific. The band's social media posts do not supersede reliable, secondary sources as to what Wikipedia describes them as, and while some Canadian sources lead with them as being Quebecois, essentially all sources from outside Canada describe them as Canadian first and foremost, and an international encyclopedia should as well. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 15:48, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
Does the page for Benicio del Toro do a disservice to international readers by refering to him as Puerto Rican, and not American? What about the page for Carles Puigdemont saying he is Catalan, and not Spanish? I have also found out that the page for Pope Benedict XVI begins by saying that he was the sovereign of Vatican City in the 1st paragraph, that he was ordained in Bavaria in the 2nd, but only that he was born in the country of Germany in the 5th paragraph. Or isn't it ironic that the page for Yasser Arafat refer to him as Palestinian and not Egyptian? After all, Wikipedia is a US-based website, but the USA do not recognize Palestine as a country. --T4nn3r (talk) 19:28, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
Imho is Scots, Welshmen, and Englishmen can be described by those terms then I see no reason why Quebecois can't. Quebec has a seperate national identity even if they're part of the soverign Canadian state. Lots of indigenous Americans are also described by their tribal nation instead of "American" on Wikipedia.★Trekker (talk) 15:27, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
Scotland, Wales and England are countries. Popcornfud (talk) 15:36, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
Semantics. "Countries" within another country... Seems like special treatment given to the UK's nationalities Imho. Either way that doesn't change that people of tribal nations also get to be identified by their tribes a lot of the time, same with people from Hong Kong or Macau. I really don't see why Quebecers can't be treated the same.★Trekker (talk) 16:07, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
Scotland is a country. Quebec is not a country. You're not comparing like with like. No "special treatment" is made for UK nationalities. Popcornfud (talk) 03:58, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
What exactly makes them "countries" besides the UK government giving them the arbitrary name/word of "country" because they have strong national identities they like to perserve and the UK placates them? They're not independent states no matter how you twist it. Both have limited self governance, that's it. I see little meaningful difference between Quebec and Scotland. Canada could call Quebec a "country" within their country too if they felt like it. The article country pretty clearly states/shows that there isn't actually any universally agreed upon definition of "country" anyway...★Trekker (talk) 14:19, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
They could call Quebec a country, but they don't. They're semi-autonomous not autonomous. I don't think anyone in the world, including those from Quebec could say it is actually a country in any meaningful sense. Ortizesp (talk) 13:53, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
So again, no different from Wales or Scotland outside of nomenclature.★Trekker (talk) 12:31, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
You seem to be suggesting that Welsh and Scottish people would agree that "Wales and Scotland are not countries in any meaningful sense". Are you sure about that? Popcornfud (talk) 09:33, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
Well, I'm going to hurt my own argument here. I went through all of the cited sources on this article as well as the Vol. II article, and while I was correct that Canadian sources overwhelmingly refer to the band as Quebecois (or even Saguenee, from a Quebecois source), the international sources aren't as uniform as I thought. American sources tend to use "Canadian", but sources from the UK and France tend to use Quebecois or "from Quebec". I will note that The New York Times, the one publication of record cited, uses "Canadian", for what that's worth. I still believe that the current wording of leading with "Canadian" and specifying Quebec later in the lead sentence is the most clear for the most readers. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 16:40, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
Something thing to keep in mind is that it doesn't necessarily matter whether sources describe them as Quebecois, in the same way it wouldn't necessarily matter if the Red Hot Chili Peppers are described by sources as Californian - we would still describe RHCP as American, not Californian. The standard for Wikipedia is for the lead sentence to describe the subject's nationality. Are there are exceptions specified in Wikipedia policies for Quebecois people? Popcornfud (talk) 17:47, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
I agree, and no, I'm aware of no carveouts. MOS:NATIONALITY says The opening paragraph should usually provide context for that which made the person notable. In most modern-day cases, this will be the country, region, or territory where the person is currently a national or permanent resident In the original text "national" is linked to citizenship, which is an important detail. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 18:34, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
Yes there are pages with Québécois in the lead. For example, I could quickly find Jean Leloup, François Pérusse, Les Cowboys Fringants and Pierre Falardeau. And that's excluding those I have edited myself. --T4nn3r (talk) 17:44, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
That doesn't surprise me, but WP:OTHERCONTENT exists – I can easily point to the highly-viewed and -edited Celine Dion, Norm Macdonald, William Shatner, and Leonard Cohen articles for examples of Quebecois bios using the "Canadian" descriptor when discussing nationality. I would also argue that articles using "Quebecois" is probably due largely to Quebecois editors, who often seem to personalize this debate (which I'm not saying you're doing, T4nn3r, but one editor on this article who changed "Canadian" to "Quebec" used the edit summary Removed colonial description – that's not how Wikipedia does things, and this isn't the place to right great wrongs). DrOrinScrivello (talk) 18:51, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
There's a lot I could say about Céline Dion, Leonard Cohen and even Norm Macdonald relating to Québec, but I will spare that in my argument. Instead, I suppose everyone can agree on two things: 1. Angine de Poitrine are a French-language band, and 2. they incorporate comedy into their act.
1. If it wasn't for the fact that the group became viral worldwide in February of this year because of their talent, we wouldn't be having this argument, as you probaby wouldn't know about them and me neither. It would only be relevant to know that their live tour dates (prior to that moment so far) were mostly limited to Québec, where most French-speaking Canadians live and outside of which only few Canadians are fluent in French. As a matter of fact, in the videos of their studio performances (from KEXP, and CEM), the duo is heard saying their band name in distinctive Quebec French accent, and even the lyrics to their song "Fabienk" is basically the French-language first name Sébastien also pronounced in Québec French accent.
2. Considering that pages on specific types of comedy from different nationalities exist (for example: British humour), it should be noted that the comedy of AdP belong to a type of Québécois humour (for which the English-language equivalent article do little justice). It could be argued that, just like how Mr. Bean's comedy is universal (since it is mostly wordless), the comedy of AdP is also universal. But Mr. Bean's comedy is very British, just like AdP's comedy is also very Québécois. That is, a comedy type that is distinctively light-hearted and self-deprecating, and in line with the following other artists: rock band Les Trois Accords (for their whole repertoire, but see song "Tout nu sur la plage"), band Bleu Jeans Bleu (song "Coton ouaté", which they also sang live with Céline Dion), singer Jérôme 50 [fr] (song: "Tokébakicitte"), rap group Les Anticipateurs [fr] (also for the whole repertoire; their most notorious song being "Sapoud"), rock group Orloge Simard [fr] (also from Saguenay area; see song "Pendaison de crémaillère"), or comedy group Les Appendices [fr] (song: "J'ai faim plus que Alain"). All of which do not easily translate into English, and are therefore less known in English-speaking Canada.
Bottom lime: disregarding AdP's Québec identity would be a disservice to a reader who is curious to know where their art come from.
--T4nn3r (talk) 02:39, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
All of this is speculative and not based in Wikipedia policy. And we're not obscuring the fact that they're from Québec - it's in the first sentence of the lead: Angine de Poitrine is a Canadian rock duo formed in the Chicoutimi borough of Saguenay, Quebec, in 2019. Popcornfud (talk) 03:19, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I'm sorry if I haven't properly expressed what my argument here is, but it's simply to lead with "Canadian". The present first sentence in the lead reads, Angine de Poitrine is a Canadian rock duo formed in the Chicoutimi borough of Saguenay, Quebec, in 2019. I hardly think that can be considered disregarding AdP's Québec identity. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 03:22, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
Both of your points are original research. If you find sources for them, they might be interesting tidbits for the article body, but neither of those points are good reasons for using Quebecois instead of Canadian in the lead sentence. I like octopusestalk to me, talk to me 20:33, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
I’m going to say the band is Canadian per MOS:NATIONALITY. While it (MOS:NATIONALITY) does say country or region, it also says the country where they have citizenship. Quebec does not give citizenship, and isn’t an independent county. The article also says in the same line that they’re from Quebec. - PhilDaBirdMan (Talk | Contribs) 00:16, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
Could we not call them "Québecois Canadian"? That way, it's clear that they're from Canada, and the qualifying adjective specifies their culture. ~2026-29780-37 (talk) 21:27, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
Nobody says it like that. Just like it would be much redundant to say "New Yorker American". Here though, Québécois implies a cultural aspect for which it stands out of "Canadian". It isn't just a matter of geography. T4nn3r (talk) 09:25, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
When I navigate Wikipedia and write "Kilt" in a search bar, it says "Scottish skirt-like garment". It doesn't say British. Likewise, if I search for "Arròs negre", it says it's a "Valencian and Catalan dish", but not Spanish. My argument is AdP are relevant to the Culture of Quebec first and foremost, and that would be helpful to the Wikipedia reader. That is because Quebec has a cultural universe and market that thrives on its own, and which English-speaking Canadians (outside of Quebec) are largely unaware of. Don't believe me? Quebec has its own Survivor show, its own Big Brother show (apart from the Canadian one), had its own Saturday Night Live edition. A Quebec-made TV show called 19-2 was even remade (not dubbed nor subtitled) into an Canadian English version because non-Quebec people would otherwise shun the French-language original version. Et cetera et cetera et cetera. T4nn3r (talk) 09:18, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
First: you're the second person in this debate who seems to be confused about the countries of the United Kingdom. Scotland is a country, like Canada, and not a province like Quebec.
Second: WP:OTHERCONTENT exists. In other words, just because something is done a certain way in one part of Wikipedia doesn't mean it should be done that way everywhere else, too. Popcornfud (talk) 09:29, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

GA

This is surprisingly close to a GA. Bearian (talk) 14:01, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't disagree. Unfortunately the primary author is currently indeff'd (though I hope they'll be back eventually). I have enough authorship to nominate, but a lot of material has been added since I did most of my editing during its early days, so I would need to familiarize myself with all of the sources. I may wait until their current tour and festival circuit is through and see about it then. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 18:34, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI