Talk:Denis Villeneuve

Born in Gentilly?

The french version of this article says born in Trois-Rivières...

Phil 2011 Feb 27 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.59.161.59 (talk) 02:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Gentilly is a little ways down river from Trois Rivieres, kind of a suburb. Theonemacduff (talk) 23:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

And now it says Bécancour –Coreydragon (talk) 01:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Intro Sentence

Does not conform to other entries for Canadian film directors or prominent people from Quebec or any other province. See entries for David Cronenberg, Denys Arcand, James Cameron, Jacques Villeneuve, Patrick Roy, and Jean Béliveau for examples. Please either provide a relevant citation, or stop reverting changes. JimboM32 (talk) 08:42, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Also see Template:Biography. Nationality (in this case, Canadian), should be the only thing mentioned. JimboM32 (talk) 09:03, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

--

While Canadian may be the nationality, French-Canadian is the ethnicity and Québécois is many French-Canadian's nationality, such as Denis Villeneuve. I also completely disagree with your examples, as there are many artists from Québec who are described as either "Québécois" or "French Canadian", see Xavier Dolan, Armand Vaillancourt, Pierre Falardeau or Ginette Reno. Denis Villeneuve is not your typical Canadian, he's a French Canadian, and should be refered as such. I will undo any changes regarding this detail, as it is a crucial information to understand his artistic vision. Respect the identity of the artist. And be lucky I don't change it for "Québécois" all the time. I think "French Canadian" is a good middle ground. And it does fit with prominent people from Québec if you dig deeper. Of all your examples, two of them are not from Québec, three of them are athletes and only one is a good references. See also people like Luc Plamondon, Michel Rivard Jean-Marc Vallée or Serge Robert. Also, the government of Canada recognized the Québécois as a nation, hence my relevant change. I consider this debate done. - Sombracier47 (talk) December 11th.

@Sombracier47: Ethnicity is irrelevant and does not belong in that section and, as I said, does not conform to the biography template. It could perhaps belong in the "Early Life" sub-section. It is not the place of an editor to promote their own agenda when editing or creating pages, which is plainly what is occurring here. Quebecois is not a nationality as Quebec is not a nation-state. Quebec is a province of Canada, no different than Ontario or Alberta, and all Quebecers are Canadians. Also, citing article examples that you yourself have edited does nothing to contribute to your argument. When there is a disagreement like this, it is the responsibility of the editors involved to at least attempt to discuss the issue. Your response, and the fact that you have again reverted my changes, seems to indicate that you are not interested in discussion. Is that correct? JimboM32 (talk) 06:39, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

@JimboM32: Excuse me, but ethnicity, regarding Quebecers, is extremely relevant. And what is that you're saying? You don't need to be a state to be a nation. What are scotish poeple then? Catalans? Kurds? First Nations? Tibetans? You have a biased opinion of what a nation is and it clouds your judgment. Ask any scots if they're a nation, see what they tell you. It's the same for Quebec. Also, not all examples i've mentionned were edited by me and, if they were, i've simply looked at what was said about them in the french page and corrected the english one. Also, most of the artists I've mentionned have strong separatist ideas and calling them canadians is not even close to who or what they are as they do not consider themselves to be canadians. And what agenda are you talking about? I'm not screaming, but I'll put it in caps lock so you understand: it's a FACT. Quebec, as I've mentionned before but you didn't care so I'll repeat, is considered a nation under canadian law. It is the only province that is considered in this way, unlike Ontario, unlike Alberta, unline any other provinces. Oh don't worry, I'm open to discussion, but what exactly do you know about Quebec? and its nation-status? Because the way I see it, you too, you undo my changes without discussing much and not hearing my points.

So, to be very clear, French Canadian is the ethnicity, Québec is the nation, French is the language, and both French Canadian and Québécois, if you knew what you were talking about, are synonyms. I know this community gets cringy when someone replaces Canadian by Québécois, so I just change it to French Canadian as it illustrates a geographic reality, an identity reality and a language reality (which are the three main stones to declare/consider yourself a nation). Now, I really don't know how you could possibly change it again. It's not my "personal ideological agenda", it's a sociological reality and overlooking this important issue is, in my opinion, an insult. I'm changing it back to French Canadian, because I consider it's a good middle-ground between Québécois and Canadian, as I've mentionned before but you didn't care. Another good middle ground could be "Denis villeneuve is a French-speaking Canadian...", but if we're at it, it's just better to simply stick with "French Canadian". - Sombracier47, December 12

If it is true that Villeneuve (in this case, but also others you have mentioned) self-identifies as Quebecois rather than Canadian, I have no issue with that. However, as he carries a Canadian passport, that is the information that should be given in the opening sentence. His political leanings regarding Quebec separatism and "Quebecois vs Canadian" is perhaps something that belongs under the "Personal Life" section (or maybe a section of it's own) - provided that relevant outside confirmation can be cited. If there are no outside sources confirming this assertion, then wiki policy dictates that it does not belong here. JimboM32 (talk) 23:27, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

@JimboM32: I have no idea whether Villeneuve is a separatist or not; I haven't even mentionned it or suggested it. But he is definetely a Franco-Canadian, and I think it is important to insist on that fact, because French-Canadians make up to something like 19-20% of Canada's population. The general idea is that Canada is an english speaking country, which it is. But when there is an important artistic figure of Quebec's (and Canada's) such as Villeneuve, it is of the utmost necessity to point out that, hey, he's a french speaking canadian. It is important for anyone who stumbles on his page and wants to know who he is and where he comes from, i.e. sociological background.

Now, the "rules". I don't think that pointing out he's a french-canadian is breaking any rule. I think the way to see it is that I'm "bending" the rules. There are many rules in this world, and I don't think that blindly following rules is the way to go. Though I recognize following rules is essential to keep Wikipedia alive (if not, we would be absurdedly arguing over a pile of worthless junk). And bear with me, I'm not trying to undermine Wikipedia in any way or to blatantly show off some political agenda, but when constructing a page like this about a person, I think it's a good addition to the wiki page to identify him as a french-canadian, because it points two realities within one single word. I feel it's NECESSARY. And pardon me if my tone might have been off-beat at some point, but Quebec is indeed a nation and if I were an extremist, I'd fight over to describe him as a Québécois. But Wikipedia is a place of knowledge and compromise, and I think "French Canadian" is the best compromise we might come to. Sorry for my strange phrasing (you may have guessed I'm a French Canadian as well) and hopefully this can settled smoothly. As for the passport thing, I'm used to this argument and allow me to repeat what I usually respond to this: What good is a paper when you're talking about the soul? - Sombracier47, December 12th — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sombracier47 (talk • contribs) 02:41, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

@Sombracier47 and JimboM32: So the question, as I understand it, is should the intro sentence of the lead refer to Dennis Villeneuve as a "French Canadian" (proposed change) rather than a "Canadian" (existing term). As far as the arguments go, neither is very strong or compelling. Allow me to explain why... None of the comparison persons listed (from either side) are from quality reviewed articles such as a featured article, good article, WikiProject A class rating. As such we have to be careful drawing conclusions about what is the norm/acceptable. See WP:OTHERCONTENT for more info on this. Similarly the Template:Biography (and it's definitions) were made by one or more editors. While it is a good starting point in article creation, it does not necessarily reflect the policies and guidelines of a final and ideal biography on Wikipedia. Also, it can be changed without consensus (unlike Wikipedia's policies and guidelines). The argument that the lead should not be a soapbox is a potentially valid argument to make, although I don't see how making a such a brief reference promotes an agenda any different than a person's religion or political identity, so I don't feel this applies here. Just because a stronger term is possible, is not a good argument for inserting a less potent phrase, especially considering that the term French Canadian is about 60x more common than Québécois and that Québécois and French Canadians, seem to have slightly different connotations. Both terms, incidentally, seem to be much more cultural and ethnic terms rather than political or separatist terms. This point of view is also seen in French Wikipedia. Just because the government of Canada recognized Quebec as a nation does not mean that every biography on Wikipedia featuring someone from Quebec should be identified as "French Canadian" or "Québécois". Similarly, just because a person lives in Canada and speaks French, does not mean they should be identified as French Canadian. Referring to Dennis as "French-speaking" would probably not be ideal, seeing as he seems to be bilingual. JimboM32 stated "wiki policy dictates that it does not belong here". This is a vague statement. Usually it is helpful to elaborate and provide a wikilink to the specific policy or guideline. Sombracier47 suggested it is OK to sometimes bend the rules. While ignore all rules is a Wikipedia policy, when it comes to Biographies of living persons, we must be very careful (see below). In my view, there are 2 arguments/statements that are mentioned that merit consideration: "when there is an important artistic figure of Quebec's (and Canada's) such as Villeneuve, it is of the utmost necessity to ... know who he is and where he comes from". ----->Does the fact that he is an artist change things? Probably. His upbringing in Quebec may have influenced his work, similar to a Jewish or Aboriginal artist. However see below for guidelines on this. "If it is true that Villeneuve (in this case, but also others you have mentioned) self-identifies as Quebecois rather than Canadian, I have no issue with that"----- I believe self-identity is one important point to consider, but only one. Again I see this as comparable to a Jewish or Aboriginal person. What are the relevant Wikipedia polices and guidelines here? Please note the box at the top of this page, which has likely been there since the article was created. WP:Biographies of living persons is most appropriate guideline. Here are some relevant quotes from that page: Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies: Neutral point of view (NPOV) Verifiability (V) No original research (NOR) We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing. Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages. The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material. From this policy, we should ask ourselves if Dennis could be potentially harmed by labeling him as "French Canadian"? Could it harm his career? If he was outspoken about his background then probably not. The burden of proof to find high-quality sources lies with Sombracier47. Also term "French Canadian" may perhaps qualify as "contentious" (considering the exchange above), Sombracier47 should be cautious when making changes to biographies and making reverts. These pages are treated differently than other Wikipedia pages. The Manual of Style on Biographies is also a guideline that applies here. See WP:MOSBIO Birth date and place ...Birth and death places, if known, should be mentioned in the body of the article, and can be in the lead if relevant to the person's notability, but they should not be mentioned in the opening brackets of the lead sentence alongside the birth and death dates Context In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if the person is notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable. Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the lead unless they are relevant to the subject's notability. Given the above labelled guidelines, my opinion is that the article should state "Canadian" rather than "French Canadian" until Sombracier47 (or another) can provide proof from reliable sources that 1. such a label would not cause harm to Dennis (unlikely if he publicly self identifies as French Canadian) and 2. that his being French Canadian is relevant to his notability (i.e. there is obvious influence in his artistic works). For additional opinions on Biographies, consider making a general request for comment at WP:Requests for comment/Biographies Thanks for using 3rd opinion. Dig Deeper (talk) 19:48, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, more than half of his filmography has been done in french. I think it's a good first valid point. For the rest, I can dig. - Sombracier47 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sombracier47 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I dug, and here is an interview he hmade when he points out multiple times his attachment to Quebec culture ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OheWfw5mnDY&t=602s ). "Nous, les Québécois", "notre culture", "notre force", "chez moi, au Québec". In another interview, unfortunately it's not available anymore, he states that his real strength in the american movie industry is that he is a guy from Québec, it's his french mother tongue that gives him enough distance to produce something original.

Now, I'm sick of this debate. Clearly, there's a few people who undermines the importance of french-canadian culture. I'm not gonna call this racism, but this needs to stop. Denis Villeneuve is a french-canadian, he identifies himself as a Québécois and, in his wikipedia article, should be described as such. End of the story. - Sombracier47 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sombracier47 (talk • contribs) 11:24, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Best Director Oscar 2017

Accolades section shows he won an Oscar in 2017 for Arrival. I agree he deserved it over that La La Land nonsense, but maybe Wikipedia should stick to facts 2A02:C7D:C214:1900:11CD:C80A:C322:C8C1 (talk) 20:43, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. It turns out it was a problem with the template coding, which I have now fixed. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:58, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Dune

Can you already create Dune? There is already a lot of information available and filming is imminent. Thank you.--81.33.123.24 (talk) 15:13, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

We typically don't create articles until the projects begin filming; but you can help develop Draft:Dune (upcoming film) in the meantime. Thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 15:40, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Freshness rating

I've never seen this before: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Denis_Villeneuve&curid=505673&diff=937048599&oldid=937039568 why has this article been the testing ground against the project? Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

For instance Tim Burton does not have it. I checked several other actor-directors and did not find it. Can you show where you found it and explain why it should be added here and nowhere else? Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Frequent Collaborators

What's the point of having a "frequent" collabs table where the most frequent collaborator has only 3 appearances? 109.240.172.102 (talk) 09:33, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Excellent point. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:52, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I've commented it out as it was added by an anon, 201.239.167.169 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) on 2019-09-14T21:37:15. It's odd and doesn't add to the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:00, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

French Canadian is not an ethnicity

Quebec has been recognized as a nation within a nation:

• https://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/yes-quebec-is-a-nation-justin-trudeau-says/
• https://www.sqrc.gouv.qc.ca/relations-canadiennes/institutions-constitution/statut-qc/reconnaisance-nation-en.asp

I could easily find other sources to support the claim, but the prime minister should be enough to support the claim. Any objections cannot fall under MOS:ETHNICITY. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:23, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Also, this has been the case for several years, and WP:STATUSQUO applies until a new WP:CONSENSUS is reached overturning the one in the Intro Sentence section above. Discussion, not edit warring, is the correct solution. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:24, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I disagree, but either way it should not be mentioned in the lede as it is not relevant to his notability. no issues with it being mentioned elsewhere. GiantSnowman 09:28, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

He's from Quebec, right? Then just say he's from Quebec instead of being round-about about it. Though really it has no need to be in the lead: he's not notable for being a francophone (and many of his productions are in English, if you had any doubt), he's notable for his movies. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:50, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I would prefer Canadian, and have it unlinked (per WP:OVERLINK). It is incorrect to indicate that he is not notable for his being from Quebec. His early films—2010 and earlier—were deeply entrenched in his Quebecois heritage. It is time to create a new WP:CONSENSUS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:06, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Then state that he is 'Canadian filmmaker' (no link) in the opening sentence, and later on mention him being from Quebec. GiantSnowman 08:57, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Quebec has not been recognised as a nation. The majority-French speaking people of Quebec (i.e Quebecois) had been recognised as a nation within Canada, by the Harper government & the Canadian Parliament, years ago GoodDay (talk) 02:49, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

The sources I provided above state the opposite. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:30, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

First source is in error, as Trudeau doesn't have unilateral authority, on the matter. Second source backs what I've just posted. It's the French majority of Quebec who are recognised as a nation within Canada. GoodDay (talk) 22:15, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

For 'bleeps' sake, just call him Canadian & leave it at that. If he was born in France, then we'd use French Canadian. These annoying nationalists (usually Quebec-related) junk edits being pushed on any Canadian bios is just that, annoying & perhaps even disruptive. GoodDay (talk) 22:26, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Error. Now you're god and can decide who is and who is not in error. His predecessor stated the same. Parliament has repeated this at least twice. I have no problems with changing, if that is consensus, but not linking to Canadians. You know that's against WP:OVERLINK. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:39, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Stop being so stubborn & leave it as the neutral worded Canadian. He was born in Canada & lives in Canada. He's a Canadian, so leave it that. GoodDay (talk) 00:42, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:STATUSQUO and worse yet, WP:OVERLINK? I have no problems if a new consensus is reached, which it seems there will be, but let's get to that point before the change. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:38, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: why do you (at times) gotta be so pig-headed. Canadian is neutral & factual. Leave it at that & stop always trying to have it your way. GoodDay (talk) 00:39, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:STATUSQUO is clear:

If there is a dispute, editors should work towards consensus. Instead of engaging in an edit war, which is harmful, propose your reverted change on the article's talk page or pursue other dispute resolution alternatives. During a dispute discussion, until a consensus is established, you should not revert away from the status quo ante bellum (except in cases where contentious material should be immediately removed, such as biographies of living people, or material about living people in other articles). Instead, insert an appropriate tag indicating the text is under discussion. This process is meant for managing resolution of disputes while discussion is taking place. It is not appropriate to use reversion to control the content of an article through status quo stonewalling.

If you think following that guideline until a clear consensus is built is being stubborn, you should find another hobby my friend. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not interested in getting in any stupid edit wars, particular if it appears like some kinda separatist politics is being pushed. Quebec is not a nation, it's a province. That's how it's written up in the intro at Quebec & if one doesn't like it? bring their argument to that province's talkpage. As for this bio? I'm done with it. GoodDay (talk) 00:51, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So after making personal attacks (discussing the contributor rather than the content) you decided to hypocritically ignore the advice you gave me and stubbornly do things your own bleeping way. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:52, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I want nothing more to do with it. GoodDay (talk) 00:58, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Too bad that you're already up to your neck in it. You'll have to wait this one out now. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• The current version ("Canadian filmmaker") seem perfectly acceptable. Unless our friends GoodDay and Walter want to have a bit more mudslinging, this seems like a settled issue, as far as I'm concerned. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:58, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Admin comment: I have just now declined a request to full-protect this article because of edit warring. IMO the edit warring is not to a point where full protection is necessary. And you all are experienced editors and should know better. But I will make some comments. First, to Walter Görlitz: you are the primary edit warrior here, insisting on your own version while several other users disagree with you. This talk page is the place to work out your differences, through consensus, and so far consensus is not going your way, so you are ill-advised to keep inserting your own version into the article. Second, to all of you: this disagreement, and any disagreement, should not be settled by opinion or argument, but by what reliable sources say. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum. I suggest you all focus your attention on how he is described by Reliable Sources. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:07, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

@MelanieN: First thanks for weighing in. Second, calling the version my version shows complete lack of investigation. In short, it is not my version but the version of the previous consensus. Third, it is going my way. You clearly did not read what I have written here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:42, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Is anybody here actually suggesting we retain 'French Canadian'? I know myself, GoodDay and RandomCanadian suggest 'Canadian'. GiantSnowman 08:42, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Some points:

• Nation has different connotations in French and English; "A nation within a nation" isn't the same thing as "a country within a country". Europe has several countries with varying degrees of ethnopolitical recognition of minorities; I don't know which would be the best parallel to Québec within Canada.
• While French-Canadian is not listed in the 2016 Canadian census as an ethnicity, Québécois is, along with Acadian, Newfoundlander, and three other provinces. French-Canadian is often used synonymously with Québécois but that isn't quite accurate.
• Some articles have both nationality (Canadian) and ethnicity (Acadian, Québécois) listed in the opening sentence. If Villeneuve made a point of mentioning his Québécois origins, it's reasonable to mention both.
• It's dumb to write Québécois without the accents.

G. Timothy Walton (talk) 15:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I do not want French Canadian in the lede. It makes no sense. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Then why did you revert me when I removed it?! GiantSnowman 18:39, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps if you read what I wrote you would understand. Did I point to any procedure pages? Did I comment on the procedure more than once? Perhaps you could re-read what I wrote to understand instead of castigating me. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:36, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

If French Canadian is not an ethnicity, then French Canadian ought to be rewritten: the opening line is French Canadians are an ethnic group … — Kawnhr (talk) 16:38, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

We should definitely keep French Canadian in the header. It indicates that he's a Canadian, which should please the "All-in for Canada" team, while also pleasing those who want to insist on his Québécois/French Canadian heritage, which is important to state not only in terms of his film making, but also as a person period. French Canadians are definitely an ethnicity, Québécois people definitely form a nation. This is an encyclopedia, not a Court of Justice, so the answer we seek may not entirely rest on a limited reading of the law, but on a much more general reading of what is nation, what is an ethnicity, does Quebec fit in that, and is it noteworthy to point this out in his wikipedia article. Asking the question almost solves it in itself : the answer is yes, obviously. Also, I reverted to the edit that made consensus in the past without knowing a small edit war was going on. From my reading, this is the "normal" article, and any change should be backed with a consensus, which is not the case here for now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danalieth (talk • contribs) 05:10, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

The only consensus here is that the horse has pretty much bolted. In terms of Wikipedia policy, even if one agrees that "French Canadian" is an ethnicity (and if one willfully ignores that government "recognition" is clearly part of wider Canada/Quebec politics), MOS:ETHNICITY puts the burden of proof on those claiming that the ethnicity belongs in the lead, and so far the opinions for its inclusion are not very persuasive. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:11, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Not putting French Canadian is an erasure of our culture. We are seperate from them. I wouldn't expect Anglos to understand.

2607:FA49:763E:1F00:FCEA:C110:2ADB:FF13 (talk) 14:41, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Citizenship

It appears that the convention for biographical articles includes stating the person's citizenship in the first sentence. Citizenship, NOT ethnicity. However, for several famous Canadians from Quebec, they are identified as "French-Canadian". When I try to correct this to "Canadian", the change is reversed very quickly; this happened again tonight with Denis Villeneuve, the Director. He has no connection to France.

If ethnicity is used, not citizenship, then it's time to get Martin Scorsese's and Madonna's articles changed to "Italian-American". No? Sounds like hypocrisy and ignorance. 2607:FEA8:BF21:C800:8DBB:1967:E49B:5EE7 (talk) 04:06, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

To weigh in on this recurring discussion - I agree that the citizenship convention should apply here and “Canadian” should be in the first sentence. French-Canadian falls in the category of Italian-American or German-Argentinian - it refers to an ethnicity or cultural status. I realize that Quebecois want to clarify their identity, but it's not yet a separate citizenship. Further clarification on Villeneuve’s cultural ties should be added in later sentences. Pillarfog (talk) 13:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC)