Talk:French people/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

French ethnicity???

I've been extremely surprised to learn the existence of a "French ethnicity" in reading this article, and I would be even more curious to know who are actually ethnically French. The thing is that France is an extremely diverse country, divided in various regions having developped their specific culture. Are French Basque people ethnically French? Are Alsacian ethnically French despite having a traditional germanic culture? Are Guadeloupeans ethnically French considering their African roots? What about Corsican people? French Flemish people? Savoyard people? French catalan people? Furthermore, France has been a country of massive immigration since the middle of the 19th century. Estimates of French people with foreign roots vary between 30% and 50%. France is thus a country where families of various cultures are extremely intertwinned.

Considering all these facts, I don't understand what would be the criteria to determine someone as "ethnically French". Would that be someone having all its ancestry from the Loire Valley between Orléans and Angers? Frankly, let's be serious, there is no such a thing as a French ethnicity, and this should be well-clarified in this article. Metropolitan 17:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC).

Agreed - Wikigi | talk to me | 20:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

By stating French people, it is a misleading example to include Marie Curie. She was of Polish ethnic background, and therefore could not be included on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Funny4life (talk • contribs) 04:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

French ethnicity used to refer to the Celtic Gauls who were the native people of France. They were comparable to the Native-Americans in the United States or the Canaanites and Jebusites of Israel and Jerusalem according to the Torah. They were described by Julius Caesar in his book "the Gallic Wars." Since the Roman era the Celts have been ruled by Germanic Franks, fooled by Germanic Normans, and again fooled most famously by the Italian Napoleon Bonaparte. The Celts, like all the Europeans succumbed to the Eastern influence of Abrahamic religion brought to Italy by St. Paul. St. Paul's Roman Catholicism led to the Crusades in which the Norman pope Urban II convinced the Franks to murder Jews and Muslims in Christ's name, the French Revolution, the ensuing Napoleonic Wars, the Franco-Prussian War, WWI, Nazi Germany, and colonial wars in Vietnam and Algeria. To be French was once to be Celtic or a Frank or a Norman and is currently ever since Monsieur Bonaparte, anybody with a pulse that was born on French soil.Pistolpierre (talk) 00:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Reserving a large part of this article for the "French ethnicity" section give the illusion that this is an important criter when a French is wondering if someone else is French too. As a French, I'm not looking in the face of someone, wondering me if he seams to has French ancestor. Telling to non-French that Marie Curie is not considered by French to be French is absolutly false. She MUST be included in the "French people" section, because French, non-French, and herself was fealing she as a French. Being or not French is not a question of blood. Proning it leads to racism, and that's not the goal of an objective encyclopedia. --Duncan Idaho FR (talk) 18:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Objectively, this encyclopedia is supposed to represent verified information and a neutral POV. This article therefore must represent the French in terms of nationals/citizens, culture and as an ethnic group. Clearly there is a French ethnic group which is indigenous to France (and indeed would exclude Marie Curie and Josephine Baker in the more stricter aspects of the ethnic definition). I strongly feel that the best resolution to this issue (which has been around for a while but not properly dealt with) is to divide this article into two: one regarding the French ethnic group and the other on French citizenship or civic nationality (the information on this page already representing such could be merged into either of the new articles or existing ones such as Demographics of France. Epf (talk) 07:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I wonder where you've got this idea that "clearly there is a French ethnic group which is indigenous to France" ? - Wikigi | talk to me | 14:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Clearly there is a French ethnic group which is indigenous to France
Eh? By this criterion there must also be a different "French ethnic group" that is not "indigenous to France". Epf your weird views that ethnicity is defined only by ancestry and descent are not supported by even the most perfunctory understanding of anthropology. Ethnicity is not the same as "race" (which is of course itself a thoroughly discredited concept), ethnicity is a social construct that is based on an individual's subjective belief in group membership. Ethnic groups are not biological groups, they are socio-cultural groups. Some ethnic groups may well believe that they are the descendants of a specific individual, or the descendants of a specific group, to the exclusion of all other groups, but reputable anthropologists' research shows that these beliefs are a part of the "identification" process and are not necessarily "real", often they are associated with creation myths. For example the myth of the "Anglo-Saxon" invasion is a creation myth that has been used to support English ethnic identity. Of course we now know that even if there was an "Anglo-Saxon" invasion (dubious) it probably was only a few thousand people, and that the overwhelming ancestry of the people who now live in England is from the indigenous population, that is the first people to inhabit the region after the end of the LGM. But that's not necessarily what people "believe" subjectively. It doesn't make their identity any less real. As someone who claims to be an anthropologist you are displaying a distinct and consistent ignorance of even the basics of this field. You've been banging this drum of yours for the last two and a half years Epf, and you have little or nothing to show for it except for upsetting lots of people, and as far as I can tell your constant claims that "ethnicity=ancestry" are entirely your own and lack any academic support or credibility, you have failed consistently to support this claim from a reliable source.. You do not have carte blanch to make big changes to articles without a consensus on the talk page, you do not have any greater authority than any other editor, and your pattern of tendentious editing is disruptive and damaging to the project. Here is a direct quote from Jonathan Marks, a well known molecular anthropologist, so someone who is an actually internationally renowned academic:

As any anthropologist knows, ethnic groups are categories of human invention, not given by nature. Their boundaries are porous, their existence historically ephemeral. There are the French, but no more Franks; there are the English, but no Saxons; and Navajos, but no Anasazi...we cannot really know the nature of the actual relationship of the modern group to the ancient one...(Marks, 2002 What it means to be 98% chimpanzee)(emphasis added)

I suggest you give it a rest, you're not contributing constructively by any objective measure. All the best. Alun (talk) 17:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed this post Alun which I felt merited a response and noticed that you are the only one who seems to be having issues with the importance of descent/ancestry to aspects of most ethnic groups (not nations) in the world. "By this criterion there must also be a different "French ethnic group" that is not "indigenous to France." I do not know what you are talking about here or what sort of reasoning you claim to be using. The indigenous French ethnic group with the common French ancestry (Gallo-Latin) would be THE "French ethnic group", obviously, since it is the one that has all the aspects which define many ethnic groups. There are various other ethnic identities and minorities in France, many incorporating their non-French ethnic origins with aspects of French culture, but this still doesn't negate the fact they are ethnically distinct from the indigenous French (similar to the way Anglo-Celtic Australians and others there are distinct from indigenous Australians). My views about ethnicity are not "weird" at all and many of them are held by the majority of people and by the majority of anthropologists. Some of your views are in fact the ones which appear to be quite odd and not in line with most anthropoligical thought. I have never claimed that "ethnicity is the same as race", but they are obviously related concepts in that they are both most commonly based on shared genealogy and ancestry (see ethnic group article for references). "Race", although discredited in many aspects, is the term still used more often than "population" or "cline" by academics (with the exception of most cultural and many physical anthropologists) and mainstream society to differentiate between the obvious variation in physical appearance or geographic origins (apart from our common ancient-African ancestry 60,000 - 70,000 yrs. BCE) between various groups. Your view that ethnicity is only based on an individual's own subjective belief in group membership is ridiculous and not held by the general populous or most anthropologists. How a group and an individual is identified by others also plays an integral role (which is obvious unless one lives in a hole by themself). The indivudal's own sense of identity or membership in a group is also defined from various aspects, not simply by some random choice made on a whim from only one factor. In terms of your comments about the claim of common descent among ethnic groups, it is common to most ethnic identities around the world (again, sources going into more detail about my whole discourse can be found in the ethnicity article), and especially among the more tribally based groups (see Kinship and Descent). This is also obvious to most people considering people generally have a connection with their past, where they come from and their upbringing. While most groups have subjective claims of the descent, this does not mean that objective descent does not exist in most groups. Even though, according to some anthropologists, there is often evidence to counter subjective claims of descent, it does not go to say that those same groups do not have any specific common ancestry (often, there are aspects of common descent which do exist, but are different from the subjective belief or claim of the group). Yes, most anthropologists do recognize that the sense of common ancestry is also integral to group formation, but where do these claims come from ? and how/why are they even made in the first place ? Most often it is based on claims or records of ones familial descent/kinship, memories of past migrations/settlement or obvious commonalities in traditions, culture or physical appearance amongst a group. Ethnic groups are not solely biological or socio-cultural groups, but they are clearly a combination of both (a combination of ancestral, physical, cultural, behavioural, religious, behavioural etc. traits). Which aspects of the ethnic identification that are pertinent varies over time and depends on the views of varying individuals or sub-groups as well as political influences.

With regards to your views about the claim of common descent amongst English from the Anglo-Saxons, you make some incorrect assertions. The claim of descent may be in part based on the Germanic creation myths which are common to all the Germanic-speaking ethnic groups, but again this is not the sole case of it for the English. As I said previously, the sense of common descent is also based on shared cultural, biological and behavioural traits, as well as memories of colonization or migrations and tracing of familial descent/kinship. Amongst English, all of these come into play: they speak English, derived from the Anglo-Saxon language which has almost completely replaced the older Celtic languages with barely any influence (contrast this to French, Spanish, Portuguese langauges who although all Latin, are significantly influenced by indigenous non-Latin langauges; the Romans also settled in these regions in minor numbers); they have memories of settlement and invasion passed down through various sources (Bede and others come to mind); they have common cultural and behavioural traits; they have a sense of Anglo-Saxon kinship most seen with the Anglo-Saxon or Anglicized source of the vast majority of English surnames, as well as some given names (Edward, Edmund, Alfred, Edgard, Oswald, Osmund are examples known to be Anglo-Saxon names still used today); and finally they have commonalities in physical appearance, especially amongst central and eastern English where th Anglo-Saxon influence was most heavily concentrated. In addition to all of this, the biological, cultural, linguistic and historical sense of Anglo-Saxon roots still has similarities in their original homeland: Frisian is the closest living language to English; Anglia and Saxony are places in northern Germany; and also the noticeable similarities in physical appearance between especially eastern English and the Frisians and some northwestern Germans. The sense of common descent, as is shown in this case with the English, is for most groups more than simply that which is found in a creation myth (also remember that many myths have at least some sort of basis in reality, even if very minor). The Anglo-Saxon invasion is not dubious whatsoever, even with the early population genetic evidence, and is held by most academics, but it is the size and nature of the invasion/settlement that is what is in most debate. Read the sources about the issue, "the jury is still out" on the issue, and most geneticists involved will agree with this statement Alun. The estimates for the Anglo-Saxon invasion currently range from as low as 10,000 to as high as 250,000, and despite some of the beliefs of Bryan Sykes, the genetic evidence does not currently prove or disprove the migration (especially read, thoroughly, the Y-Chromosome census of the British Isles, the best genetic study to date on British populations: it states basically the same thing and also how the Anglo-Saxon component may be underestimated if the Frisians Y-chromosomes are closer to that of indigenous British than that in the study). Now, even if the English were almost entirely descended from the original indigenous inhabitants (those from shortly after the LGM), although shown by studies to not be the case whatsoever especially in eastern England, they would still have a common descent that although not directly associated with the common Anglo-Saxon descent, nevertheless still exists. You yourself admit this does not make their identity any less real, of course not, and it does not make their descent any less real either. This goes to my point about common descent that even if some of the subjective claims turn out to be objectively unsupported, in many cases an objective descent still exists and plays a prominent role in the groups ethnic cohesiveness and identification. Many English have in any case always been aware of the combination of both indigenous ethnic elements (Paleolithic, Neolithic and Iron Age Celtic settlers) with Germanic elements (Anglo-Saxons and also Danish-Vikings). One more note before I finish off this discussion about Anglo-Saxon and English ethnic identity. When the Normans came to England (which we know settled in very small numbers, generally agreed to be no more than 5000) they brought massive technological, cultural and societal changes from continental Europe when compared to those advances brought by the Anglo-Saxons. However, their Norman-French language did not have anywhere near the linguistic effect that the Anglo-Saxon language did which is the basis for the English langauge and which almost completely replaced earlier languages with barely any influence from them.

Alun, I have stated over and over to you that many of my views are held by many anthropologists, some held by most. I am not trying to be ignorant or act like I have a "carte blanche", but merely expressing my POV. I know I have sometimes edited tendentiously (then again, so have you) and I will try my best to no longer edit in such a manner. My view is not simply ethnicity = ancestry, but ancestry or common descent is an integral part of ethnic identification. I have often produced sources stating such, but if you won't take my word for it, read all of the source material in the ethnicity article. I am not pushing some agenda, and to be honest, am tired of being accused as such by you. If you have a problem with me, then that's your own choice (I consider you a great person to discuss with and a friend dare I say it), but please do not label false accusations towards myself, especially that I have some sort of "ignorance" towards the basics of my field of study which, as I have shown, could not be any farther from the truth.

In terms of the quote by Jonathan Marks, who although a notable anthropologist, is one I would not deem as "internationally reknowned". He mentions that ethnic groups are human constructs, not natural ones (I and most would agree with this statement), but he does not anywhere state that common descent and biological aspects are not part of ethnicity. I agree that ethnic boundaries can be porous and that historically their existence can vary over time. I will have to read the full source information myself, but I think we can know certain aspects of the relationship between ancient groups and modern ones via archaeological, genetic, anthropological and historical evidence. To say that there are "no more Franks" or "no more Saxons" is not entirely accurate since their cultures, languages and lineage/descent still exists in the modern English (Saxons) and with the Franks in modern Dutch, Germans and (to a lesser degree) French, but in solution with other elements. Few peoples ever completely vanish without leaving traces or influences (though some do like the Beothuk) in other groups which have evolved.

I will continue to edit constructively from time to time on Wiki Alun since I enjoy doing so and I hope I have resolved any of your assumptions about my views or on ethnicity itslef. Ciao, Epf (talk) 05:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

How do you people define Gaulish ethnicity? The way Caesar used it was more geographic than ethnic and by the Roman Empire it had a totaly different meaning than the one Greek geographs gave it. Even Caesar states that Gaul was divided in three parts, the Celtic part which would be ethnic and politicaly gaul (at least in what people understand here), Belgica (much larger than Belgium) which was ethnicaly German or German influenced and was a more than significant part of Gaul (even what would become French) although it was politicaly gaul (if you read Bruneaux' Nos Ancetres les Gaulois you'll understand a bit how the Gaulish tribal council worked) and finally Aquitaine with a totaly different culture and political organisation. Then what is a Gaulish ethnicity? Continental Celts? That would exclude not just Aquitaine but significant parts of France, from Picardy to Champagne which were part of Belgica and would include parts of Turkey (Galacia, are people from Ankara ethnic French?). To keep going Gallo-Roman is a cultural thing and not ethnicity, it refers to all resident of Gauls (mainly the three previous group) who adopted a Roman culture. The French ethnicity, if there's any, was formed by history and certainly not by Gauls. If you want a determining moment it could be Hugh Capet's election as King of Franks by all the peoples of his kingdom, the aristocratic Franks but also Gascons, Spaniards (Spanish marches, although they wouldn't stay French for long), Danes (vikings in Normandy), Gauls (most likely Celts) and Goths (Visigoths) because that's one of the founding moments of France but even that is not perfect and entirely satisfying. Matthieu (talk) 01:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of pictures

Epf, this repeated deletion of notorious French people pictures in the infobox is getting out of hand. Please discuss your POV here and do not delete anymore before you find support from others for that matter, thanks - Wikigi | talk to me | 12:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

See above. Alun (talk) 17:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Read my discourse above, but with regards to the pictures, read below. Epf (talk) 05:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that the pictures should be deleted from the infobox, and the controversy should be discussed lower in the article to be neutral. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 06:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
The mosaic image is the result of a poll that took place in March 2008 - Wikigi | talk to me | 11:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
As far as I understand that's an article on the French people not ethnicity. The infobox should reflect that and we should not wander in false debates everywhere. The discussion on the French ethnicity should strictly stay reserved for the French ethnicity section and not take over the whole article. The French people is determined by a common identity, like all nations are. That means to be French someone must identify himself as such AND be accepted by the other French people as such. Here that definately is the case of Joséphine Baker. Matthieu (talk) 01:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

So are the french celts?

--J intela (talk) 06:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Some of them. The ones in Bretagne (Brittany) definitely are. Brittany is considered one of the six Celtic nations. But French refers to the Franks who were definitely a confederation of Germanic tribes. The French are the cousins of the English, Dutch, Flemish, Belgians, Germans, Swedes, Danes, etc. The natives to Roman Gaul were Celts. Caesar conquered the Celts. The Franks conquered the Romans and the Celts. Now France is all mixed up except for isolated areas. The La Tene civilization is believed to have been Celtic. It included much of central France. Clermont-Ferrand, not far from Corrèze is near the site where the Gauls lost to Caesar. There is definitely Celtic ethnicity in alot of the modern French. Same as there is Germanic in many people from Limerick, Galway, Waterford, Dublin, Derry, etc. Pistolpierre (talk) 22:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah but at their height the Romans accounted for only a quarter of the population of Gaul and the Franks barely a tenth so would the Gauls be the primary ancestors of the French? --J intela (talk) 05:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
The Franks were Germans. The Gauls were Celts. The French monarchs and nobles were not Celts. They were German. Just like in England, the German states, Austria, Spain, Italy, Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Russia, Prussia, etc. I guess you could say that the majority of the population in modern France was Celtic.Pistolpierre (talk) 01:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't think so, throughout history the people in Europe and the Mediterranean have moved quite a lot. And in recent years people from the whole world have migrated to France. Hence, the French population is genetically a mix of Celts, Greeks, Romans, Saracens, Burgundians, Huns, Visigoths, Francs, Vikings, Roma people, Spaniards, Italians, Jews, Poles, Germans, Moroccans, Algerians, Tunisians, West Africans, Chinese and many more. The French culture and identity is however a part of the western civilisation and has its origins in the Roman conquest (e.g language and religion). I'd say that the majority of the French people is of Mediterranean-European descent. Aaker (talk) 16:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Aaker ; it is impossible to answer to the question of the French being or not celts. Pistolpierre, you are referring to the ethnicity of the population during the Dark Age, but if you go that way, you could also consider the celts were only invaders in the erea at the beginning of the Bronze Age, and were in fact a minority among the natives. What is important, I think, is to see that, culturaly speaking, the pre-celtic population have "celticized" itself under the rule of celtic leaders, "romanised" itself under the rule of roman leaders, and "germanised" itself under the rule of germanic leaders. This mix is a whole part of the French identity ... The situation in Brittany regarding its celtic origins is different, since this region was reoccupied by a celtic population coming from Great-Britain AFTER the fall of the Roman Empire ; thus, the celtic influences there are far more important than anywhere else in France. Grisold 12:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grisold (talk • contribs)
I posted in the French ethnicity discussion already but even Gaul wasn't entirely about Celts. There were significant German or German influenced parts in Belgica (and I'm not talking of Franks or Goths or whatever here but really "native" people of Gaul) while Aquitania had another clearly distinct culture and formed a totaly different "ethnicaly populated area". During the Roman Empire there has been lots of migrations and exchange within Gaul with residents from all the Roman Empire settling in thanks to the large untapped amount of land. There also were lots of barbarians who came in, sometimes entire populations moving in, because life was easier in the Roman Empire and would work as mercenaries. From this point it's impossible to connect the pre-empire ethnicity to the post one. Ultimately, are the French celts, no we're not. We're French, end of story, which became an identity by itself and shouldn't need mystic or romantic fallacies to define itself. Matthieu (talk) 01:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Photos

  • The current selection of photos needs to be either changed or, at least for the time being, removed. This is mainly because 1) the selection of photos doesn't encompass aspects to this article 2) includes persons who weren't even born in France, let alone ethnically, culturally or nationally French (many have been particularly annoyed by the inclusion of Marie Curie, who was Polish) and 3) the selection of photos reveals a somewhat obvious bias towards figures who were politically on the extreme left, supported the French revolution and formed a certain perspective of enlightenment thinking (Victor Hugo, Voltaire, and La Fayette). All three of these figures are also from the same period in history. There are many other famous French from other periods of history (including modern times) that could be included. For example: Louis XIV, Jacques Cartier, Samuel de Champlain, Joan of Arc, Charlemagne, Charles de Gaulle, Monet, etc. to just name a few off the top of my head. Epf (talk) 02:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Can you tell me in the list who was not French? Because i have checked and everone was French. To be French there is no need at all to be born in France. Marie Curie was as French as any other French. The way she accessed to nationality does not have any importance at all. Ditto for Josephine Baker. Read the French law if you are not convinced. The only question to be asked here is “Who represents France the best”. I think Marie Curie represents France extremely well: young immigrant who fled her country because she was persecuted, became French, had a perfect integration and did a lot of ground breaking work in her field. About ethnicity, there is no such thing as French ethnicity. Med (talk) 02:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Read the article and French history, there is indeed obviously a French ethnicity, otherwise this article would not even exist (it deals with the ethnic and cultural aspects, not just the national and citizenship). I do not think Josephine Baker is a good selection, she wasn't even born and raised in France. My main concern is with the other photos. I believe a good portion of the names mentioned above should be included. Marie Curie was also born and raised in Poland, not just Polish ethnically. Perhaps I should just leave the current photos and add some of the names above instead ? Epf (talk) 05:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
No, ethnicity in France just makes no sense. There is a strong French culture but certainly not a french ethnicity. The concept of ethnicity itself it even dubious as has already been discussed above on this page if i remember correctly. For Josephine Baker she fought for France during the war in her own way, and was already French at that time. That Marie Curie was born and raised abroad is of no importance regarding her French nationality. I am not even sure she could keep her Polish nationality (actually did she have a polish nationality or rather a russian one, as poland got incorporated in the Russian Empire in 1863) once she got French. One would have to check the laws of France and of the Russian empire that existed in this time. Anyway this kind of list inevitably leads to subjective choices. What about a link to List of French people ? :) Med (talk) 05:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually there must be a French ethnicity, but where Epf makes a mistake is to conflate ethnicity with ancestry. Ethnic groups often have porous boundaries and people can adopt new ethnic identities. Indeed in reality we all have multiple identities. Besides this article is not specifically about French people with an exclusive French ancestry, French people also include anyone who is a French citizen, the article itself states very early on Legally, the French people are the sovereign people of France, composed of all French citizens, regardless of ethnic origins or religious opinions. . Epf is just being exclusivist, if we use the broadest definition of French people that the article itself defines then there is nothing wrong with the pictures. Epf's been banging this tired old "ethnicity is ancestry" drum for several years, he is a thoroughly tendentious editor and won't give up, even though he has to keep comming back again and again to make the exact same changes. He just doesn't appear to know when he's beaten. Alun (talk) 08:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes there is a French ethnicity and one that is indigenous to France, as is evidenced in this article itself with millions who claim so, both in France and elsewhere. You both need to read my extensive discourse above. I am not confusing descent and ethnicity whatsoever, but your problem is that you refuse to accept the widely held fact that common descent is integral to many ethnic groups. Yes, ethnic boundaries can be porous, but they also can be strictly defined and it varies over time and between each group as well as depending on the poltiical situation. People don't simply pick and choose on a whim new identities, especially when the identity isn't just based on one's own subjective choosing, but justas much from the objective recognition of others as well as diacritics such as culture, langauge, descent and other traits. In reality, many of us do have multiple identities in some respects, but no so in others, especially with regards to indigenous peoples who remain in their ethnic homelands where they and their ancestors have inhabited for millenia. Alun, this article is about all types of French identity and people, including French citizens, nationals as well as people who are culturally or ethnically French. I am not being exclusivist here and I fought extensively for this article to even be kept in the first place over two years ago. I disagree (along with other users) with the current selection of pictures, but as I stated above, I suggest not to delete those currently there but add more people who are 1) ethnically indigenous French and 2) who are notable figures from other periods in history with other viewpoints distinct from those of the French revolution or the French republic. The current republic has only been around for just over 200 years, while French identities (the langue d'oil peoples and the langue d'oc peoples and cultures), or at least the components that make them up, have been around for numerous centuries going back to the original indigenous Gauls as well as the Romans and Franks. I am not coming back to make "the same exact changes" and clearly you have some sort of bias or personal problem with me that is affecting your reasoning and judgement in this matter. I am not "banging any drum" about "ethnicity = ancestry", but only emphasising the recognized fact that common descent is integral to ethnic identifications. I don't know how else to make you realize such, but if you can't, then there's not much else I can do. I have a passion for ethnology based on the facts and my edits are constructive. I haven't been "beaten" on anything of the sort, nor was I trying to win some sort of argument as far as I know in the first place (I don't know what you are talking about here).In terms of my drive to help ethno-cultural articles and enlighten you Alun in some of our disagreements, I guess I just have more of that notorious stubborness characeristic of so much of us of British heritage. Ciao, Epf (talk) 22:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with a great deal of what you say Epf. I dispute that "gauls" would have considered themselves a ethnically French, clearly many people in France are descended from the peoples the Romans called Gauls, but this does not make the "Gauls" synonymous with French. The idea that ancient groups, who are often described by outsiders such as Romans and not by themselves, are synonymous with modern ethnic identities is a commonly held belief, though it is also true that many academics in the modern world are sceptical of such "folk" mythologies. Regardless of that it is fair to claim that many "indigenous" French people really would claim a direct ethnic link to the Gauls, whether this is or is not a relatively recent invention designed to bolster the concept of the "nation state". The same case can be made for the "Celts" and the "Anglo-Saxons". Whatever anyone says, we simply do not know how the ancient groups are related to the modern groups, we can only hypothesise, at the one extreme we have people like yourself who have strong convictions that ethnic identity is relatively stable even over a millennia, at the other end we have the point of view that ethnic identity is very maleable and of a transient nature, this point of view would argue that the "Saxons" were a distinct group from the Angles, and that these groups were forged into a nation due to the Viking invasions. Neither point of view can be substantiated because we just cannot know how these groups related to each other, nor how they relate to modern groups. But I digress, I agree that there is a valid point of view that might argue that for someone to be enthically French they would need to have a high degree of French ancestry, but this article is not only about the ethnic group, it is also about French nationals and citizens of the French state. In many respects the French state is no more a nation state that the UK is, it is forged from numerous ethnic groups that did not necessarily see themselves as having a shared ethnicity, just as England, Wales, Scotland and the UK are, you mention the Occians yourself (though I'm not sure they themselves would have identified as being French in the past, the King of France did wage a rather bloody conquest on their region after all and they were certainly linguistically and culturally closer to Catalonians than to the French people of the time), but there's also Basque people in France and Breton people, many of these people may not consider themselves as ethnically French, but are clearly French citizens. Indeed the Bretons may claim that they are the true cultural descendants of the Gauls and the French are not, I don't know. As such I agree with your inclusion of more pictures, we do need to have people of French nationality as well as indigenous French people. This article is different to the English people, Welsh people or Basque people (etc.) articles in the fact that it represents not only an ethnic group, but also the citizens of a state, whereas the other articles represent people who are a nation but are citizens of different states. So clearly the pictures need to represent French people in the broadest possible terms, both from an ethnic point of view (as you see it) and from a citizenship point of view. I think I've probably whittered enough, but I do take your point. Alun (talk) 18:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I have therefore decided to add more photos from some of those I mentioned previously. In regards to Marie Curie, she was born and raised in Poland, and it doesn't matter if the Polish state had been incorporated into the Russian Empire at that time. The Polish nation and people or ethnic group have been around for a very long time. She was born and raised in Poland till she was 18, and her birth name is Maria Skłodowska. I am not removing her from the list, but simply going to add other photos of French from other periods, includig those who are ethnically indigenous French. Epf (talk) 23:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Pictures - a global proposal!

Hello everyone! The pictures in the box at the begining of the article are a mess! The format and the list and order of it. I believe we should produce a single image with a great number of individual pictures (with an inclusive attitude...), by date of birth and diversified (historically, regionally, occupationaly, by gender, etc.), such as the one produced (by myself and others) for Portuguese people, African American, Italians, Irish American, Jew, Sephardi Jews, Spanish people and other articles:

Here goes a list of all the people who could be there (not this many, though; and of course there could be others! I think most of these have images copyright-free, but I am not sure). I believe we should come up with a list of no more than 30 persons. This is a first proposal in order to achieve a final list of compromise between us all.

What do you think? The Ogre (talk) 20:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. I'm surprised to see that you can fit as many as 18 readable images. This would prevent perpetual changes like we get to see now, at last. We should proceed to a vote - Wikigi | talk to me | 23:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, let us proceed, then! In fact, I can fit as much as 30 readable images (see below). So, I made the "nominations" (not withstanding other proposal...), come on people! Choose 30! The Ogre (talk) 00:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The vote has been moved (as well as The Ogre current vote) to a special page : French people/Vote - Wikigi | talk to me | 23:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Louis IX, first King of the Franks to title himself King of France, deserves a place IMO. Matthieu (talk) 10:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The vote closed, the mosaic image is done and posted The Ogre (talk) 13:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

To Med - Our small revert war in Talk:French people - Sorry!!!

Hello Med! First of all let me give you my most sincere and humble apologies! I'm not playing any sort of game, I assure you. It was all a big mistake on my part and I am truly sorry if any of my actions or words have offended you. My mistake was that I thought (though I also thought it strange since it did not agree with you contributons' profile) that you were the one changing some other editor's words (in these case from a supposed Italian version of Napoleon's name to a French one) - my mistake was also provoked by the fact that you (why? can't seem to understand) also changed, when you reversed the anon vandal, Dbachmann's talk link from (𒁳) to (��). Again my strongest and enerst apologies! I wrote in French because I got the impression (wrong?) that you were a French speaker. And in fact I didn't even noticed that I was the one that called you a vandal in the first place! There are days everything one does is wrong and today I deffinitely should have stayed in bed! I'm so sorry for the small confusion I unintentionaly caused. I hope no ill will comes between us in the future should we meet again. Thank you for your understanding and calmeness! The Ogre (talk) 19:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S.:Wouldn't you be interested in participating in the vote for the French personalities to be included in the French people infobox, as Wikigi already proposed to you? Do come! We need all the informed votes we can get. Thank once again! The Ogre (talk) 19:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

We have a problem ! The new image is proposed for deletion

The new info box image is proposed for deletion due to the incompatibility of some of the specific licenses of the source pictures. We may have to change some of the pictures. I'm waiting to be told which are the incompatible ones. The Ogre (talk) 14:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

New French "people" article: French (ethnic group)

I propose to create a new French people article, distinct from this one, referring to the French ethnic group, indigenous to France (the pre-Gallic, Gallic, Latin and Frankisk elements which coalesced and created what is the French people and culture). This article will be similar to most of the other "people" articles which are based on the ethnic group. One excellent example about how this can be accomplished without any confusion (as is the case in this current article) is Dutch (ethnic group) and Iranian peoples (which was a featured article). The ethnic definition of the French is already sourced in this article, but for those who have not read such, here is one example from the US Department of State:

PEOPLE Since prehistoric times, France has been a crossroads of trade, travel, and invasion. Three basic European ethnic stocks--Celtic, Latin, and Teutonic (Frankish)--have blended over the centuries to make up its present population. France's birth rate was among the highest in Europe from 1945 until the late 1960s. Since then, its birth rate has fallen but remains higher than that of most other west European countries. Traditionally, France has had a high level of immigration. More than 1 million Muslims immigrated in the 1960s and early 1970s from North Africa, especially Algeria. About 85% of the population is Roman Catholic, 10% Muslim, less than 2% Protestant, and about 1% Jewish. However, the government does not keep statistics on religious affiliation, and according to a January 2007 poll, 51% of respondents describe themselves as Catholic, and another 31% describe themselves as having no religious affiliation. In 2004, there were over 6 million Muslims, largely of North African descent, living in France. France is home to both the largest Muslim and Jewish populations in Europe. Epf (talk) 08:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not publish original research. Any such article would be liable to speedy deletion. This article is about the French as an ethnic group and also the French as a nation. An ethnic group is defined as a social construct and is not based on ancestry. Anyone with a degree in anthropology should know that. Please stop your tendentious pov-pushing. Please further not that pov-forks are not acceptable. You cannot just go off in a huff to create your "own" article just because consensus is against you. It will be nominated for speedy deletion, and it will be deleted very quickly. Alun (talk) 10:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I am not publishing "original research" and you yourself claim that this article incorporates the ethnic group aspects in this article, even though several other users have argued against this claim. Alun, there is no reason not to create such an article about the French ethnic group, as long as it is referenced. This would not be liable to speedy deletion any more than this present article which itself is largely original research. I find it amusing that you do not even pay attention to this fact. This article does not even outline what it is about and is completely disputed. I have never read anywhere that ethnicitiy is simply just a "social construct", especially with the complexity in its definitions. It is not based solely on ancestry or descent, but that IS an integral part of ethnicity (read some of the actual material in the references in that article) or ethnic identification. Anyone with "a degree in anthropology" knows this and you are sounding ridiculous by continuing to claim otherwise (you are the only contributor to dispute such with me). I am not going off in "a huff" because consensus is against me (which is not so, since no one else found fault with the creation of such an article). It will not be nominated for speedy deletion and any attempt at doing so will be refuted if the article is properly referenced (see WP:Verifiability). Just because you have personal problems with this issue due to your own extremist viewpoints does not give you the right to make false accusations to claim an article should be deleted. Your personal complaints mean nothing and as long as other users support the creation of such an article with references (one of which I already provided), theres not much else you can do. Good day, Epf (talk) 22:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Alun is right -content forks are forbidden, as is original research. Epf can you explain how your proposal does notviolate these policies? Slrubenstein | Talk 21:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Indeed you would be publishing original research, for the simple reason that it is your interpretation that the French ethnic group is somehow only composed of "indigenous" French people, which is also defined by you and so constitutes OR. If you do not understand this, then please try to create such an article and I will put it up for deletion as a content fork. It will get deleted whether you like it or not. If you cannot accept a consensus opinion then you are simply be ing tendentious. Alun (talk) 06:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Rubenstein, I understand your concerns, but as long as the article is referenced with valid sources, there is nothing worng with the creation of such an article. This article itself about "French people" clearly contains massive original research and does not contain the aspects of ethnic identification like most other articles. There is nothing wrong with splitting this article by creating one solely on the ethnic group, as as has been done with other articles. Ciao, Epf (talk) 22:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Incorrect. It will be deleted. You don't have any sort of coherent argument, you are just in a big huff because you cannot get your own way, consensus is against you. Please try to be more mature. Alun (talk) 06:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually I am quite correct and clearly do have a coherent argument. I am not in a "big huff" and there is no consensus against me with only you having any "serious" problem with the creation of such an article. I suggest you in fact learn to act a little more mature, take more time to read my discussion and think more about what you are saying. The only other option I see is re-incorporating more of the ethnic group aspects into this article. Look at the original layout of this article prior to it being vandalized with OR and POV by users like Lapaz and Rama into its current state. [1] Epf (talk) 09:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


Epf, on my talkpage you say that you want to create an article for people who will support it. This sounds precisely like a POV fork to me. One complies with NPOV and NOR not by writing an article representing something we believe in,and then hunting for sources to support out views. One complies by researching a topic that is a serious topic of serious research, and identifying notable views about the topic, and representing those views. How about an article on French-Canadians? Such an article can cover a variety of points of view; that they constitute a distinct ethnic group, or a distinct nation, or simply are Canadians who speak another language than French? This would be an NPOV article. It sounds to me like you want to write an article espousing only one point fo view. Doesn't it? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I meant to say that I wanted to create an article with the help of those who support it, based on valid references. I do not want to create an article esposuing only "one POV", but one about French ethnicity that is in line with the NPOV of those who contribute to the article. As long as it is verified or correctly referenced and from an NPOV, there shouldn't be any problems, correct ? As for French-Canadians, it includes information on the ethnic French in Canada who are of French culture and of French descent. Francophones in Canada covers simply those who speak French in Canada. Epf (talk) 09:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Example from the article (currently uncited) showing the scope of the article which is not towards the French as an ethnic group:
Legally, the sovereign people of France are composed of all French citizens, regardless of ethnic origins or religious opinions. The "French people" therefore comprise all French citizens, including the French overseas departments and territories. Henceforth, members from any ethnic group can be included in the French people, as long as they have French nationality, whether by jus soli ("right of territory") or by naturalization.
Hopefully users can see now why I wish to create a separate article for solely the French ethnic group as it originally was when it first started: [2]
Now my suggestion is either to 1) create a separate artcle on only French ethnicity or 2) re-incorporate more of the ethnic group aspects into this article (including the infobox and photos). Epf (talk) 12:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
What are you talking about? The French people are a nation, there is also such a thing as French citizenship. I don't think you that you have made any case that there is a separate French ethnic group which is different to the French nation. Whether the French nation is distinct to French citizenship is something that needs a citation, can you provide one? Can you find a reliable source that defines the French nation differently from this putative "French ethnic group"? You have made numerous claims regarding the relevance of the "French ethnic group" but I have yet to see any reliable source that defines this French ethnic group in a way that supports what you are saying. If you take a look at the English people article it at least attempts to logically discuss the concept of an English ethnic group as distinct from the English nation. I would suggest that you try to incorporate something similar in this article rather than creating a pov-fork. Alun (talk) 13:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I already provided evidence (from the US Department of State) about the existence of the indigenous French ethnic group (Celtic and Latin with Teutonic or more specifically Gallo-Roman with Frankish) and how it is distinct from various ethnic minorities. I agree that more valid research is needed to create an article for the French ethnic group. No one is doubting that the French are a nation, and obviously the ethnic group differs from the nation as is evidenced by a quote you use yourself on Talk:French people/vote:
Unlike a nation, an ethnic group need not occupy a territory. Also, unlike a nation, it's 'common myths and historical memories' may be much more plausible; since ethnic groups may be much smaller than moder nations, the often quite implausible myths of common descent that nations espouse (and they may have been created or radically adapted by modern propogandists) can have much more credible equivalents in the case of ethnic groups. ("Language and Nationalism in Europe")
Yes there are cases where ethnicity and nation can coincide. When ethnicity and nations do coincide, this is called Ethnonationalism. Some (eg. Japan) moreso than others including a small number where to even be granted citizenship you need to be part of the indigenous ethnic groups (In Japan, the Japanese people and the Ainu).
Like I already said Alun, I suggest either creating a separate article for the French ethnic group or re-incorporating more of the aspects for the French ethnic group into this article. You mention a case similar to English people and I agree that is one possible idea. Note that in that article however, the infobox and photo selection refer specifically to the English ethnic group. Creating an article specifically with a focus on French ethnicity however is not "POV forking" as you erroneously claim. Epf (talk) 04:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Epf, are you back to lying? You never provided any evidence that the US State Department identifies a French ethnic group. Also, the US State Department really is not a scholarly source; it is a part of the US bureaucracy. It represents a view of French people, and one that I would agree is notable enough to mention in an article on french people. But there are other views, including views by scholars, that must also be represented. To take one of these views and make it the basis for an article is the definition of a POV fork and is forbidden. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

SLR, look close to the top of this section, this is where Epf has his "reference from the US Department of State". While it does recognize three founding ethnic groups (Celtic, Latin and Frankish), it speaks about the "French People" (not the French ethnic group) and expressly includes within the French people the large North African and Jewish minorities (among several others) for which it is well-known. So, while Epf is not lying about having provided a reference from the US State Department, he grossly misrepresents it by stating it supports his viewpoint (the existence of a "French ethnic group" which excludes people not having any regional Celtic, Latin or Frankish blood). So again, Epf's view is unsupported, and making up an article about it is a definite POV fork. End of story. Now, can we get back to the image infobox discussion and settle whatever (if anything) remains to be settled before another POV-pusher send us off-track??? :)--Ramdrake (talk) 14:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Ramdrake, I did read it - I searched the page for every incidence of US DEpartment of State and found Epf's entries - but, as you say, they do not provide any "evidence" for an indigenous French ethnic group. You may as well argue that because the dictionary contains the words "I" "am" "brilliant" the dictionary provides evidence that you (or I or whomever) is brilliant. It is disingenuous in the extreme and amounts to a deception ... or, if Epf is not consciously lying, it means that his reading comprehension skills are so deficient that one just cannot assign any value to his research. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Either that, or somehow, he uncounciously reinterprets what is actually said into something that supports what he thinks. How many times has he told us so far that, according to himself, "he makes a good argument" (regardless of how many times we told him he doesn't)? My only conclusion would be that he seems to live in a world where the rules of logic differ in significant ways from the ones they have in this world...--Ramdrake (talk) 16:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Wow, resorting to personal attacks and insults with no factual basis whatsoever. It seems that you are both the ones who lack credibility in these discussions. Just because I interpreted a source and its information differently (and clearly more accurately if you look at the description of demographics in other countries of the US Department of State's background notes, which deals with the ethnic composition) from yours does not mean I am "lying". Honestly, I don't really care if you think "I haven't made a good argument" and it is quite obvious that neither of you have made a valid response to them. My conclusion is that both of you have resorted to personal insults (please see WP:No Personal Attacks) because my POV and arguments strongly challenge yours. You are both abrasive and ignorant users and I am personally fed up with your "ganging-up" method of dealing with very supported viewpoints from other users that challenge your own. When someone interprets an issue differently with strong reasoning behind it, it does not merit you to make ad hominem arguments. Whatever relevance you had in this discussion has evaporated. Epf (talk) 15:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, re-read the whole discussion. Very few people have agreed so far with your position (and no one so far has endorsed your position fully). However, many editors have plainly tried to tell you your position and the arguments you are using to support it lack credibility (some went so far as to say it proved you never set foot in France, which I tend to agree with). Your POV does not challenge anything, as it just isn't credible: all sources provided so far, rather than supporting it, seem to indicate your POV fails to take into account the reality of current ethnic relations in France. I have provided sources to support the position that descent isn't a significant factor at all in the French identity. Therefore, your wanting to define a French ethnic group based primarily on descent goes contrary to the reality of French identity (not based on descent). I don't know how else to say it, except: you're very much flogging a dead horse. Sorry.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
You've provided one source with regards to French identity and I have provided one US government source. I don't feel I'm "flogging a dead horse" and I feel my own opinions and POV have had great validity here. If you disagree, then fine. I don't know what "sources" you are referring to that fail to take into account "the reality of current ethnic relations" in France, but again I only count two dealing specifically with French ethnic identity. I haven't ever set foot in France, but what does this have to do with anything ? We still need proper citations obviously, but clearly, as is seen in the article you provided below, if ethnic minorities (foreign or indigenous) in France still identify with their own distinct backgrounds, then what does the rest of the population identify ethnically as, nothing ? Again this is only one (non-French) source and therefore not alone a basis for a separate ethnic aspect in the article but it states the following:
Ethnic groups: Celtic and Latin with Teutonic, Slavic, North African, Sub-Saharan African, Indochinese, and Basque minorities.
Three basic European ethnic stocks--Celtic, Latin, and Teutonic (Frankish)--have blended over the centuries to make up its present population.
US Department of State
Anyways, we still need more sources to outline everything. Epf (talk) 22:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been reading this discussion with great interest; but why is the situation with the French different than other European groups. I'm not supporting one side over the other, but to cite the "nation" aspect is simply a political interpretation and not a socio-cultural one. Why would the French be any different than the Italians or Germans? Certainly the Italian people are every bit of "mixed stock" as the French, if not moreso, yet that article makes no qualms about the ethnicity. Shouldn't the parameters on which these sorts of articles are based be uniform? Dionix (talk) 21:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

All articles must comply with NPOV and NOR. All articles should be encyclopedic, in this case accurately representing current scholarship. So maybe the scholarship on Italy is different from that on France? There is no one cookie cutter. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Would this be scholarly enough? I can point to millions of references to a "French ethnic group". Dionix (talk) 22:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I am not into using one encyclopedia to write another. If people want to know what Britannica says, they can go to Britannica. I think the point of Wikipedia is largely to be different from existing encyclopedias. I would say, identify the major peer-reviewed journals that publish articles on French history, society, and culture, and search for recent articles (last ten years) on French people, and use these articles as the basis for the encyclopedia article. For starts, I would look at these journals: Comparative Studies in Society and History, Ethnohistory, Journal of Modern History, Journal of Social History, L'Homme, American Anthropologist, American Ethnologist, Cultural Anthropology, Current Anthropologist, Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power, Ethnos, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Cultural Geography, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, Progress in Human Geography Any articles that these journals have on France, people in France, or people from France, will be pretty reliable and notable; using them as sources will ensure that this encyclopedia communicates to the general public the best, cutting-edge research by professional scholars. I know it sounds like a lot of journals, but they publish on people and places from all over the world, so the number of articles specifically on Frnech people will be managable. (Let me note by the way that I have no idea whether articles in these journals do or do not refer to a french ethnic group. If they do, then our article should explain how they use the term and why. To be clear: if articles from these journals use "ethnicity" I would be all for discussing "ethnicity" in the article on French peoples. This is what I mean about being open-minded: start with notable journals and provide accounts of what they say whether we agree with them or not. This is a much better way of doing research than hunting for articles that say what we agree with. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Just found this reference regarding French ethnic identity[3]. One particular paragraph caught my eye:
Ethnic relations in France are framed by the dual notion of French cultural identity and assimilation of foreigners into French society. For several centuries, the French approach to ethnic relations has been to make non-French peoples French - in culture, language and lifestyle (...) adaptation has long been the pattern in France; nearly all residents wherever their place of origin, have come to identify with French culture and regard themselves as French.
Hope this sheds some light on the subject.--Ramdrake (talk) 13:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the USyan society has been compare to a salad, in which all component contribute to the overall taste, yet retain their distinctiveness. The French society would be more like a milk-shake. Rama (talk) 13:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Ramdrake, note however that it is referring more to the policy of the French state, specifically since the creation fo the French Republic. Previous to that section, there is also information regarding the various ethnic populations in France, including the distinct foreign (or foreign-descended) ethnic minorities. Epf (talk) 15:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Please show me where it says that this attitude only dates back to the inception of the French Republic. I see no such reference in the source I provided.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I need to read over it more, but I was only pointing out the relation to the views of the French Republic. It does clearly specify the various ethnic minorities and identities in France though. Epf (talk) 22:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, this is all fine and, personally, I don't buy into definitions of ethnicity based on lineage anyways- But, there are two aspects we cannot lose sight of: One, there is a perception (scientific or popular) that the French ARE an ethnic group. The Wikipedia definition of Ethnic group would certainly support this; Two, if we are to apply strict scholarly, scientific criteria to the French, then they should be applied to all European groups of people and not just the French. (To open another can of worms, if the major group that make up the French are Gallo-Latins, are they not the de-facto French ethnic group?) I think the bottom line is that there are two or more different supportable slants to this, and they both (or all) should be the backbone of the article, as they should on any article about peoples- Europeans in particular. To summarize, I don't think a separate article is warranted, but the ethnic definition should be included as one definition- along with and on par with the nation-based, multi-ethnic one. Dionix (talk) 19:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

And editors here have been asking for a reliable source which defines the French ehtnic group (as opposed to one that says that Celts, Latins and Franks are the founding ethnicities of the French people - there is a difference), or a source that specifically determines the boundaries of the French ethnic group. However, no such reference has been supplied. The only references we have so far are explicit that self-identification with the French culture is the main defining factor of French ethnicity, thus specifically allowing for people not born in France to claim being French (even moreso for people actually born in France of non-French parents). AFAIK, the French seem to be unique in Europe to define ethnicity around the concept of the French nation (with all its cultural and linguistic trappings), rather than defining a nation around a given ethnicity. This allows people like Marie Curie to be widely considered French (having her figure on French banknotes would in my mind be a clear indication that she is widely regarded as French, even though she wasn't born in France - although the Polish are certainly entitled to also consider her as a national).--Ramdrake (talk) 20:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't disagree with you, and I'm the first to concede that I'm out of my medium on this subject. But no one other than Epf is commenting on the fact that there is a perceived French ethnic group, only that most accepted scholarly work does not support such a thing. I ask, why not?? Just as it is accepted there is a "German ethnic group" or an "Italian ethnic group", which descends from virtually the same mix but perhaps with different proportions (to draw on the milkshake analogy), why do we concede to a different set of standards in this article?. The same scholars that say there is no such thing as French ethnicity would have to concede the same applies to many other groups generally seen as an ethnic group. (By the way, do they say there is no such thing or are they simply "silent" on the issue?). A very quick Google search for French ethnicity was not fruitful, but there are thousands for Germans, Italians, English, etc. Why is this thought different when the parameters are the same? Yes, I know- no OR, POV all that stuff- but in this case it seems this should be questioned. Dionix (talk) 22:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm no expert either, but from what I could gather from my reading, it has to do with how the French self-define their French identity, as opposed to how say Germans or Italians define their self-identity. Self-identity ("Frenchness") for the French seems centered around French culture and language rather than around some concept of ethnicity defined around ancestry. It would seem that Italian and German self-identity are more closely related to ancestry-based ethnicity. If the French edition of WP had no problem wth having as exemples of French people people not born in France, that should tell us that ancestry-based ethnicity isn't important for French self-identity. That may be all the difference that's needed. Your reasoning, while it seems logical, makes one basic, faulty premise: that all peoples define "ethnicity" the exact same way, cookie-cutter style. Anthropologists will tell you that the definition of ethnicity does indeed vary from one ethnic group to the next. Hope I've helped make things clearer.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
One thing you forgot though Ramdrake is that there are many anthropologists, such as Frederick Barth, who feel some concepts of ethnic identity can be universally applied. Any anthropologist will tell you that concepts of identification related to or based on descent are the case for the majority of ethnic groups. This is what Dionix was most likely referring to since among the general public, the concept of descent is also almost universally applied in how people ethnically identify. Epf (talk) 15:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Just show me one reliable surce which says that ethnic identity in France is significantly based on descent. I have provided you with a reference that says exactly the contrary (that ethnic identification in France occurs regardless of the place of birth of French citizens). You are just wasting your time and mine if you keep putting forth your baseless (unsourced) position in the face of the reference to the contrary which I have provided you. While Barth may think that concepts of identification related to or based on descent are the case for the majority of [[ethnic groups], it says nothing about whether this applies to France or not (it does say the majority, not the totality). So, to sum it all up, your position, for lack of proper sources to back it up, does not look credible, especially in the face of the source I provided, which state the opposite of your position.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I didn't say anywhere that those researchers (Barth thinks they can be universally applied; Cohen and Anthony D. Smith have only stated that it is the case for most groups, not all) held this view when regarding the French, did I ? I think that it is a part of French identity, like most other groups, but that's only my POV. As for the source you entered, it does mention the concepts of jus soli most affiliated with policies of the French Republic (where to be French you merely speak French and are a French citizen) but does this hold true for the views of most French ? I need to read over that article more myself anyway. Epf (talk) 22:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Small change in the image

Had to change the Mitterrand pic because the source is target for deletion due to bad license. The Ogre (talk) 02:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

need source for viking ascentry

As this change [4] vikings are eliminated from the list of ethnic groups, however, I understand that vikings rampaged the coasts of Europe and Rhin, killed many men, raped many women, and got stablished on several places, and that blond people with blue eyes on europe are mainly descendants of vikings. Anyone can find a source for this and re-add vikings as ascendants of actual french people? --Enric Naval (talk) 18:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Should be easy enough, surely Norman is derived from "Norse men", Normandy was settled and governed by a Viking elite, I don't think this is in dispute, see the article Normans which states just this. Cheers. Alun (talk) 18:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, thanks, the normans article includes at least two sources that talk about norman heritage on France, including a following of their heritage [5] --Enric Naval (talk) 13:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I sourced the norman ascentry claim on the lead with sources from the normans article, so it doesn't get deleted again --Enric Naval (talk) 13:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Beating a dead horse?

I'm impressed by the overall quality of the discussions here on "French people", especially compared to most other cultural-historical topics I've come across on Wikipedia. Nonetheless, I feel my initial post has not been adequately responded to. Like I previously said, I don't adhere to a strict definition of ethnicity based on ancestry alone either, but to write off the notion of a French ethnic group because the French way is based on self-ascription and nationhood is simply not good enough. I've come to this conclusion, in part, because I have found it equally difficult to source recent, scholarly references (again a quick Google search) on other European groups such as the Germans or Italians (Really. Try it!). Yet, there is a common accepted belief that these groups, along with the French, ARE actual ethnic groups. Here is one example, outside of France (Canadian), but If I spent a bit more time I'm sure I could point to many more, including some from French sources. In short, and speaking on a personal level, it seems to me there is little geneological evidence that any of these above-mentioned groups form distinct ethnic entities and, as with all such concepts, they are convenient oversimplifications; yet they are used by the masses and academics alike. Again, and I emphasize this, I'm NOT saying this is correct- only that such views are valid, commonplace and should be part of this article. Dionix (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

If you can find those sources, we will gladly incorporate them in the article. As far as your reference is concerned, it seemed to contrast French and English-Canadians, both of which are distinct from the French ethnicity (however it is defined). The problem we have so far is that we haven't found a reliable source to define and explain the boundaries of the "French ethnic group", and so far the few references we have found seem to indicate that French ethnicity is not based on ancestry, but rather on language and culture.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

But you're skirting the issue- there is a world-wide, commonplace acceptance of a French Ethnic Group, whether it actually exists or not. I think that is one of the points Epf has been making, but his inability to point to a reliable, scholarly source is problematic because that is a problem common to all major "mixed-stock" European ethnic groups. You will not find a reliable source for the French just as you probably won't for Italians, Spaniards or English. The point that I am making is that there is a popular conception, albiet simplistic, of French ethnicity, of which the borders are generally definable if not always clear cut, and THAT should be part of the article.
As far as my reference is concerned, the distinction between French Canadians and French only applies as far as it is based on the one definition of French people. It is fully supported by those who see no difference between Canadians of Scottish descent and Scots in Scotland (for example).
I think Wikipedia does not require a formal, reliable source for a common, explicit statement like "The French are the citizens of France (le français) or people of French descent". Dionix (talk) 00:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Dionix, it is you who are skirting the issues. I happen to believe that everything I believe is world-wide commonly accepted. But it doesn't go into Wikipedia unless there is a reliable source establishing it as a notable view. Our policies is the issue - provide a reliable source and some evidence of the notability of the view. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Why are you guys being so obstinate! Please understand I'm not disagreeing with your half of the picture; However, just try and use your "criteria" to find a source for any other group I mentioned- you wont find one! You are limiting the ethnic definition of French people to a science when you cannot do that for ANY group I mentioned. There IS a common "ethnic" view of what are the "French people"- If you must have "references", here are some random, simple, two minute finds: [6], [7], [8], etc., etc... Scholarly? Debatable. Notable? Absolutely! Dionix (talk) 23:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Who is being obstinate? WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR are core policies. Why did you put off providing sources for so long? The first one looks legit (although it demonstrates that cartographers use the phrase, not that it is universally held by all people around the world); the second clearly isn't; the third is not clear to me what it is saying. Be that as it may, it is not obstinate to ask for a source. To me, it seems disingenuous for you to resist providing a source when asked to, only for you then to rpovide three and then say it was easy to find them. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, it strongly suggests there are several long-standing ethnic groups on the territory of what constitutes France today, which brings us back to the description of the French as being "multi-ethnic".--Ramdrake (talk) 01:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Two things: first, I am really just a recent, casual participant in this discussion so Slrubenstein, I did not "put off" providing sources nor did I intend that the ones I posted be used to support "my cause" (by the way, the "cartographers" were at the service of "scholars", not vice-versa). They were merely posted to demonstrate how a quick, two minute Google search provides links referring to a French ethnic group, to show that according to many such a group is factual and explicit (just as there are "English", "Italians" and "Spaniards"- all of them "multi-ethnic" really), and to indicate that such a statement is definitely NOT WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR. Second, Ramdrake, you confuse the French nationality with the French ethnic group. What is it about this that you two cannot find suitable for the article?? Dionix (talk) 17:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

To put it simply, I find that defining a French ethnic group (from what I know of the subject) is an unjustified oversimplification (just as a British ehtnic group would be an oversimplification from the existing English, Irish, Scottish and Welsh groups). A French ethnic group ignores the reality of the Bretons, the Normans, the Basque and all other ethnic groups that do comprise the French people. If one can find a discussion of a French ethnic group it should indeed be inserted into the article; however, it's just wrong and against the spirit of Wikipedia to just assume that the French must be comprised of a single ethnicity and then go hunting for references to support this POV. The reality of the matter, AFAIK is that the French people are comprised of several ethnicities, some going back to prehistory, some very recent, but all those ethnicities are bound into a single French cultural identity, which is something not seen in most countries, and possibly a concept quite alien to many North Americans (US and Canadians alike) where multiculturality is prized and there is a bevy of hyphenated -Canadian and -American ethnicities.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
We seem to be going in circles here. Of course defining a French ethnic group is an unjustified oversimplification, there is no debate there. And people referring to a "British ethnic group" is extreme and is based on pure ignorance, so it's not a comparable example.
For a moment, let's drop political borders and concepts of countries. The Basque, Alsatians and the Bretons aside, the historic people from Normandy to Occitanie can be seen as culturally and linguistically similar enough to comprise a defineable ethnic group. Their descendents in America and elsewhere can also be seen as descendents of this ethnic group. The fact that this group is of mixed, multi-ethnic stock shows it is an oversimplification; but this is no different than calling Sicilians and Veneti part of an Italian ethnic group. It is over-simplified, shallow and convenient compartmentalizing- but it's there. Dionix (talk) 18:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you make a good point here Dionix and in some ways it is an over-simplifcation, but just how "multi-ethnic" it is in itself an oversimplification. Those groups had three broad cultural origins: Gallic, Roman/Latin and Germanic. People in Normandy had some more influence from Vikings while in Occitania clearly there was stronger Latin cultural influence. In terms of the people which pre-date these cultures, the composition is again fairly similar. To say that this "French" group composing of langue d'oil and langue d'oc peoples is homogenous is incorrect, but it is equally as incorrect to say it is "heterogenous" or "multi-ethnic" implying a large diversity of origins when in reality there was three basic cultures involved together with the original peoples which pre-date them. Sicilians and Veneti may be distinct but also clealry have closer cultural, ancestral and linguistic ties (compared to these regional groupss in France) which was aided by other factors (such as political unification at different periods and large inwards migration within Italy from the south to the north and vice versa) which has increased how much the Italians coalesced, therefore increasing aspects of "homogeneity". Epf (talk) 22:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
The problem with your statement Epf, is that most western European countries are a mix of Celtic (Gallic) Latin and Germanic. This doesn't stop ethnicities in France from being very different from those say in the United Kingdom. In the end, you seem to want to push a POV whereby you want to ignore the ethnic differences of the early historic inhabitants of France, to focus solely on the foreignness of later immigrants. In this, you are setting up a totally arbitrary paradigm which isn't supported by either history or the French identity. As I said earlier, there isn't a point in time by which one's ancestors needed to have arrived in France for one to qualify as really French. The way you put things, your "French ethnic group" sounds more and more like a fabrication: it is in some ways an undue oversimplification, and in some others the imposition of arbitrary criteria which do not exist in France. The Basques, Alsatians, Bretons, Normans all had different languages which wasn't the language spoken in Ile-de-France. They all had ethnic identities which eventually became part of the French national identity, the same as immigrants to France today do.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Again, if you can find a reliable reference which discusses of a French ethnic group, let's include what they say. The problem is, when people abroad talk about their hyphenated -French identities, what they are usually talking about is a cultural identity, not some specific ethnicity. And no, I wouldn't agree that historic people from Normandy to Occitanie can be seen as culturally and linguistically similar enough to comprise a defineable ethnic group, say to the exclusion of later immigrants which share the same linguistic and cultural baggage through assimilation. I don't see that there is a point in time where, if your ancestors arrived in France before that point, you are ethnic French, and if they arrived later, you aren't. Several ethnicities make up the French ethnicity, and that's been the case since the beginning. If one wishes to start an article on Ethnic groups of France, I don't object; however, unless verifiable proof to the contrary is turned up, I believe that an article on the French ethnic group is inappropriate. That's the issue and the point I'm trying to make. The French self-identify culturally and linguistically, not ethnically, I wouldn't force an ethnic definition unless it is backed by suitable and reliable references.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Your off track here- I do not and never did propose or support a separate article on the French ethnic group! I advocate including the ethnic definition as part of THIS article- complete with its shortcommings. You yourself wrote "Several ethnicities make up the French ethnicity" and I see no reason why references in support cannot include [9] posted above. I am certain there are many others of this nature. Dionix (talk) 00:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Several ethnicities make up the French people is closer to what I said. If you want to include the diverse ethnic groups that make up the French people, well that's already more or less been taken care of if the article. The map you turned up would be great as an illustration of a specific viewpoint, if you can find some reliable source which discusses just that. My original objection (and I will restate it here for clarity) is about presenting the unsupported notion (i.e. without reliable references discussing it) of a single unified French ethnic group, doubled with the view that French people whse ancestors came to France after this group was there somehow are something else than French.--Ramdrake (talk) 01:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
No, several ethnicities make up the current population in France, but not specifically the French ethnic group. Celtic, Latin and Teutonic could mean the various indigenous ethnic groups of France or it may mean specifically the French ethnic group itself since its main ethnic composition was pre-Gallic/Gallic and Roman with Teutonic (Frankish). The Alsatians, Bretons, Corsicans, Basques are distinct from this grouping. As for reliable sources, we've been over that repeatedly. One more thing, the Britannica definition refers to the original migratons that made up the indigenous groups of France (Gauls, Basques and others) then specifies the recent immigrations. There obviously was barely any significant migration into France between the time of the Franks and the 19th century. During this time, France had one of the largest populations in Europe and was for until recently more of a source for emigration, like the rest of Europe. It is only in recent times that it (and again like the rest of Europe) has been attracting numbers of foreign immigrants. Epf (talk) 01:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
The Britannica entry does not especify to what migrations it is referring to, and I put in doubt that you have the power of reading the mind of the entry's author and know it. Also, if it's obvious that there were no migrations from Franks to 19th Century then you will be able to find secondary sources for that. Also, the Medieval_demography says that the Europe population plumeted on the 14th century. The Hundred_Years'_War article says that France's population was reduced on 2 thirds. This would mean that after the 14th century the "France had no inmigration because it had a large population" could no longer apply. The fact that it was a source of migration should also be sourced --Enric Naval (talk) 12:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Epf, you still have to find and produce a single reference that discusses the French as a single, monolithic ethnic group (excluding recent migrations, of course). I also request that you produce a reference regarding the absence of migration into France from say the time of the France until the 19th century (modern migrations). As far as I can tell, you are now fabricating elements of French history to suit your POV.--Ramdrake (talk) 15:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
If either of you had read extensively into French history, you would know about how large the population of France was compared to other European countries at these times. This was especially the case during the regin of Louis XIV,and French hegemony was constantly the most pressing issue, both during the War of the Spanish Succession and the Napoleonic Wars when France was the dominant power on the European continent. Indeed I need to produce more references, but clearly if you read some of thie History of France, there really was little migration into France (and Western Europe in general) between the time of the Franks and the 19th century, with the Jews and Roma (historical minority groups dispersed across Europe) being the only notable exception (though the Jews were at some points expelled from countries, such as France in the 13th century or in England under Oliver Cromwell). Epf (talk) 22:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, the napoleonic wars article says that France was the "fourth-largest population in the world by the end of the 18th century (27 million, as compared to the United Kingdom's 12 million and Russia's 35 to 40 million", but you still need some source that indicates how this caused no migration into france to happen (how do we know that the increase wasn't caused by inmigration?). Also, the "history of france" article only mentions a celtic migration before the franks, but that is not a proof that there were no migrations after that one. The War of Spanish Succession and Napoleonic wars had nothing to do with demography and all to do with politic reasons, except for the fact that having a larger population helped on raising larger armies. You appear to be grapping at straws here and doing some original research, please show us some hard proof for your claims and don't make so many assumptions, and we'll be more ready to believe you. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm coming around to agree with you guys. I think I always did- only that this perception exists. As I mentioned initially (way up on the page), this is really making me question the term's use as it applies to other European peoples- especially Italians and Spaniards. One "hiccup", however, is the many people abroad that self-ascribe as French ethnically (as in Canadian censi). Dionix (talk) 21:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Well there is no need to question those since the cases of those groups are distinct from that of the French and have differing views on their ethnic populations (eg. including the collection of ethnic statistics, not even allowed in France, but found in most other countries). Epf (talk) 22:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

US department source is lifted from the CIA factbook, which is unverifiable and tertiary source

I have replaced the US department source for the CIA factbook since it's obvious that it was lifted from there. The other two sources appear to have been lifted from the CIA factbook too.

Now, the factbook provides no sources for its info, so it's unverifiable per WP:V, and it's also a compilation of other sources, so it's a tertiary source like an encyclopedia, as defined by WP:OR. So, it's OK to use it as a source to assert what the factbook says, but it's *not* a valid source for the article, because it is *clearly* on violation of WP:V and WP:OR --Enric Naval (talk) 22:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, there are some correlations in the description between the US Department of State and the CIA World Factbook, but both of these are valid government sources. They are not the same exact source, though are obviously both from the US government. There is nothing on Wiki that stipulates these are not valid. Although these sources do not list the specific sources of their information (as in say journal articles or essays), these are nevertheless considered reputable and valid government sources for various information. I am re-entering the sources because your reason for removing them is not justified or supported by Wiki policy. Epf (talk) 21:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
The ethnic entries have the exact same wording on both sites, and the factbook is released for use by US governtment, so we can assume it was copied.--Enric Naval (talk) 22:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with valid teritary sources which those from the US government fall under. You have no basis for their removal. See Wikipedia:No original research. Epf (talk) 22:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Tertiary sources should be avoided in favour of secondary sources. The factbook *does* have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, but this is a controversial disputes issue, so it may not be enough and its original secondary sources should be found and examined --Enric Naval (talk) 22:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


Please beware, as you have now reached WP:3RR.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, unfortunately I have, but I am contacting an administrator to deal with this. You and Enric are clearly POV pushing. You have no basis for choosing what is a valid article and what is not without any sources to back up your opinions. According to Wiki policy, both the CIA World Factbook and US Department of State would be deemed valid, especially since they are official, government sources. This is beyond ridiculous. Epf (talk) 22:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I also find it equally ridiculous that you re-enter unreferenced, POV information at the expense of information that is referened by a source considered valid under Wiki policy. This issue is a joke. Epf (talk) 22:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
(I would love to know how saying that french are descendants of iberians and normans is POV) --Enric Naval (talk) 22:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
It is POV because you have nothing sourcing it. They are not descendants of Iberians whatsoever and that is the first I have ever heard of something so ludicrous. In terms of 'Vikings', only the people of Normandy really had any Norse influence in France, cultural or ancestral. Epf (talk) 22:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
french are not descendants of iberians whatsover? The iberian ethnic maps on Iberians article paints a small part of one of the groups as living on actual French territory, and they are neighbours with it. Do *you* have a source that says that no french people are descendants of iberians, that no iberian group or descendant from iberians ever migrated north and got stablished there? --Enric Naval (talk) 13:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Found a source for iberian heritage, a genetical study [10]. To sum it up:
  1. "The simplest interpretation of these data is that haplogroup 22 arose in Iberia and that non-Iberian cases reflect Iberian emigrants"
  2. haplogroup 22 has been found in non-iberian (basques and French) on certain proportions
  3. "either the SRY-2627 mutation occurred outside Iberia, and individuals carrying it migrated into Iberia, where subsequent drift led to the high frequency in this region; or, alternatively, the origin was in Iberia, and the non-Iberian cases are explained by emigration", so the case is not closed because data does not allow to reach to definitive conclusions, and I left the fact tag. Also, its discussion section centers on basque-catalan flow, not on possible migration to French territory.
--Enric Naval (talk) 16:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
This wording is currently preferable as your wording totally ignores several important long-standing ethnicities present in France, such as the Basques and the Bretons (Normans). Please feel free to contact an admin and see what they say. Currently, the bare facts are that you are trying to steamroll your changes into the article, despite consensus to the contrary and despite objections based on WP policy.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
The Bretons do not trace any significant cultural hertiage to the Normans, but to Brythonic-speakers who fled South-west Britain from invading Anglo-Saxons in the 5th - 6th centuries. Epf (talk) 00:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah, "preferable". According to whom ? You ? You do not own this article and you just re-entered a statement that is completely unverified in favour of one which was verified by a valid source. You also kept the source in question in another part of the article, therefore completely rendering your argument as non-sensical. There is no basis for objection from any Wiki policy. There is no consensus against my edit or source to back up your desired removal of it. Epf (talk) 22:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
That paragraph has been reworded to indicate that it's an example of how the factbook defines ethnic groups on France. Also notice that it describes the ethnic groups on the territory of france, but does not define any "french ethnic group" --Enric Naval (talk) 13:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, it does not ignore those groups whatsoever since "Celtic, Teutonic and Latin" includes all the ethnic and cultural divisions of the indigenous peoples of France: Bretons speak a Celtic language, Alsatian Germans a Germanic/Teutonic language, French (incl. Occitans), Catalans and Corsicans a Latin language. The CIA reference mentions the Basque and other minorities. It is also speaking of the majority of the population, not all of it. Regardless, your disagreement is sitll groundless and POV in terms of the validity of this source. Epf (talk) 22:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
How do you know that it's speaking of the majority of the population, not all of it. That's not stated on the source. The factbook might be making assumptions that we don't know about (that's why I oppose it), and you are claiming here that you know of about at least one of those assumptions (that you can describe the french ethnic groups by talking about the majority of the population and not of all it). You are making statements not supported by your own source --Enric Naval (talk) 13:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

According to User:Blueboar on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard: "These are certainly considered reliable sources". If someone could re-insert my edit, it would be helpful since I have reached WP:3RR for today. Epf (talk) 23:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Your saying there is no consensus against your change doesn't make the existing consensus against your change magically disappear. Also, you can argue until you're blue in the face that yur point is right, without further supporting sources, you're not getting anywhere. The Bretons may speak a language from the Celtic family, they are not Gauls; please stop being so disingenuous when we're pointing out the shortcmings of your references.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Disingenuous ? Shortcomings ? What are you talking about ? There is no shortcomings about the source in terms of the use I had for it in the article but what is quite amusing is how you completely ignore the fact that the source has been deemed valid and therefore no reason for its exclusion. You didn't notice that I changed my edit to remove the inclusion of Gaul and Roman and left the entry exactly as it said "Celtic, Latin with Teutonic (Frankish)" which includes the ethnic and cultural classification of the majority of the population, while also mentioning minorities such as the Basques and others. There is no validity for arguing against my change. Epf (talk) 00:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I find too that you are being disingenious on claiming that there is no consensus against your change. I can see opposition from me, Ramdrake and Surebenstein. I also posted on the noticeboard my reasons for opposing the factbook as a source on your change. P.D. And Alun. Only Dionix supported your change --Enric Naval (talk) 13:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

One more reference regarding French ethnic identity

Here is a quote from an expert on Gauls regarding the ethnic ancestry of the French people (quote is in French from the French Wikipedia, sorry):

Jean-Louis Brunaux, spécialiste de la civilisation gauloise, dit : « Les Gaulois figurent seulement parmi d'autres dans la multitude de couches de peuplement fort divers (Ligures, Ibères, Latins, Francs et Alamans, Nordiques, Sarrasins...) qui aboutissent à la population du pays à un moment donné. Le sont-ils dans une plus ou moins grande proportion ? La seule certitude est que les Français se sont appropriés ces ancêtres-là dont ils attendent aujourd'hui bien autre chose que ce que les historiens nationalistes leur demandaient. Ils ne se voient pas leurs héritiers, comme les nobles voulaient l'être des Francs. Ils ne revendiquent pas une sorte de bagage spirituel qu'il faudrait transmettre à leur tour. Ils reconnaissent seulement en eux une origine qui n'est pas si mythique qu'on a voulu le dire, puisque c'est celle d'un pays et d'une vie en société qu'il a vue naître»[1].

Jean-Louis Brunaux, specialist of the Gaul civilization says: "Gauls are but one of a multitude of very diverse successive settlements: Ligurians, Iberians, Latins, Franks, Alamanni, Norsemen, Saracens which eventually populated the country. Are they more or less important than others? The only thing which we know for sure is that the French have appropriated (the Gauls) as ancestors, and they are expecting of them far more than the nationalists historians were expecting (...)»[2].''

This seems, again, to stress the multi-ethnicity of origins of the French people.--Ramdrake (talk) 01:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Also found this, contrasting citizenship in France and Germany here:

Vis-à-vis immigrants, the French citizenry is defined expansively, as a territorial community, the German citizenry restrictively, as a community of descent. These diverging definitions of the citizenry embody and express distinctive understandings of nationhood, statecentred and assimilationist in France, ethnocultural and `differentialist' in Germany.

Huguenots in the colonies

I was looking for somewhere to insert a phrase about Huguenots in Nova Scotia, in somee counties anyway I don't konw the details; not ssure about the rest of the Maritimes. But if it can be fit in it would go heere I think:

Huguenots appeared in all of the English colonies and likewise assimilated. Even though this mass settlement approached the size of the settlement of the French settlement of Quebec, it has assimilated into the English-speaking mainstream to a much greater extent than other French colonial groups, and has left few traces of cultural influence.
...other than Protestantism". I mean, it was Catholicism's divide from the Protestant world that helped keep French alive in Quebec and Acadia; Huguenots have less to assimilate, other than language; Huguenot religious an social conduct b ecame, like Puritan and Calvinist and Lutheran moral; qualities/characters/religiosities, part of the American/Canadian mainstream. Taht's not assimilation to me; it's contribution. Whatever; it just struck me, without wanting to be OR about it, that something should be said about Huguenotry's (?) easy integration into the mainstream as part of the building of that mainstream; "assimilation" is such a nssty work, or tends to be...they may have brought different tastes in bread and cheese, but ultim\ately they shared the same values as the other groups already here (British, Dutch, Germans etc) of the same materialist-reformationist bent. And they had no church lobbying them to remain French to keep them Catholic..Skookum1 (talk) 04:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I see no problem to the addition, but only if you provide a source for the evidence of Huguenots having been there and having been assimilated. This article has been very disputed, and unsourced additions could unchain an edit war. note: I closed the italics on your post because it appeared that you had not closed them, and all your post was in italics. Apologies if i didn't close them on the right place or if you wanted the whole paragraph to be in italics --Enric Naval (talk) 15:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for correcting the italics; my laptop's dog slow and "enter" can be a long time after I actually press the key, never mind the letters in between :-| Italics are in the right place, including that "suggested addition", if that's what it is; conceptually anyway if not that text. I'm pretty sure I can find something on Huguenots in the settlement of post-New France Acadia somewhere; one of my friends here is a Huguenot descendant from some from these parts, though he was raised in the States. As for "evidence that they were assimilated" that's inherently POV as a concept but I understand it's mainstream in francophone studies and also in critiques of anglophone North American societies; my families (not Huguenot) were not assimilated - they were integrated. That includes my mort vivant side, and it continues to be a thorn in the sides of non-Quebec francophones and also their non-francophone offspring that we are denigrated as "assimilated" as if that were forced on us or a sign of our cultural weakness or lack of identity; rather, it was taking part in the creation of a new one, something that is lost in translation or just beyond the bounds of ethnolinguistic prejudices to consider. Not critiquing you, just the prevalence of this highly-charged word "assimilation" in what otherwise pretends to be an objective context. All of this is why I posted this here instead of making changes to the page, which I understood implicitly by its content to have been warred over; I didn't have to look at the talkpage or the history to figure that out.Skookum1 (talk) 17:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
And I haven't read the article closely to see if the Saskais and franco-manitobaines are mentioned as historic communities in Canada; more pointedly are the Metis to be numbered as part of the francophonie (thet historic Metis Nation anyway, if not the modern Canadian constitutionally-defined Metis as any person of mixed parentage, rather than the old French-metis).Skookum1 (talk) 17:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

jacques clouseau caption

I loled at the addition of Pink Panther's detective [11], but I fear that the caption may be making some bad statement about the manner on which frenchs behave. On this sentence "However, his manner is undoubtedly of French national character.". The photo and statements about how Jacques Closeau is a clearly french person despite accent are OK, but this sentence feels like some joke about french that I'm just not getting. Also, does he have really a *belgian* accent? Is that another joke? On Spain, films are subbed, so I can't tell. Sorry if I am not assuming enough WP:AGF good faith on the poster, the caption just feels too weird to me. Could it be reworded to be clearer on what it means so non-french person can get the joke? Anyone more experienced can clear this? --Enric Naval (talk) 14:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It was intended as nothing more than an April Fools joke--yes, a bit of fun at the expense of the French, but with absolutely no malicious intent. Just a bit of tomfoolery which I intend to revert (if it has not already been done) as soon as the calendar changes to 2 April. :) K. Lásztocskatalk 23:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I want to propose Louis_de_Funès as a better example of french manners for next year --Enric Naval (talk) 00:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
That sounds like a good plan: but must we keep picking on the French? :) Dionix (talk) 00:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
To be frank i have not understood the joke at all. Could someone explain me please? Med (talk) 03:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Yesterday was April's fools day, a day in which french and american, among other people, make jokes to each other and publish hoaxes on newspapers and websites --Enric Naval (talk) 05:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
This i know. The only thing is that i do not understand what is funny. Med (talk) 11:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
If you read Jacques Clouseau, you will see that he was a comedy actor. If you watch some of the Pink Panther films where Peter Sellers stars, you will see that the behaviour of Closeau is plain hilarious. Stating that he is a model of french manners is frigging hilarious when you remember some of his most estellar moments. There is also a character called "the inspector" on the animated series that was also a riot. I'm guessing that if I knew more french people and their manners then I would find it even funnier when comparing their mannierisms to Clouseau's mannierisms. As I said, I am not sure about the belgian accent, but I know that Belgian make very cruel and frequent jokes about French, and French do the same about Belgian, so I suppose that stating that Clouseau has belgian accent must strike a chord on every French proud of his friendly hatred towards Belgians, by saying that Belgiuan accent is frigging ridiculous. This joke has layer after layer of meanings that only make sense to someone with wide knowledge of french popular culture, so don't worry for not catching some of the meanings, that is expectable from non-french like me, dunno about your nationality. I am spanish and read Gotlib comics on original version and have watched french films every once in a while (there is a law on Spain forcing cinemas and TVs channels to display at least a certain percentage of european films and series), so I can understand *some* of the meanings. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality?

Which parts of this article are single-minded? Wilhelmina Will (talk) 03:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

????

Napoleon french? Zidane french? JEJEJEJE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.24.85.145 (talk) 22:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry; your message is a little unclear. Could you please specifically state what you see wrong with this article? Wilhelmina Will (talk) 22:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry if this is poorly done; I had to use a translator. I'll reask you in French, alright?
C'est que l'article dit que ces deux hommes que vous avez mentionné sont français, quand ils ne sont pas ? Wilhelmina Will (talk) 23:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Napoleon was Corsican, therefore French. Zidane was born in Marseille of Algerian parents. Therefore, both are French, no?--Ramdrake (talk) 00:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict)They are both listed on the infobox, under the composite photo. They are on the top right part corner and the bottom right corner. Please notice that, according to their articles, Zidane was born in Marseille, and has double nationality French and Algerian, while Napoleon was born in Corsica in 1769, and the island had been bought by France one year before in 1768, so he is also national french born in territory of France. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
This article reads as if french ethnicity doesn't exist. - PietervHuis (talk) 01:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
As far as I can understand, French identity is built on culture and language rather than on ethnicity. France has been historically composed of several ethnic groups (Alsatians, Bretons, Normans, Basque, and many others) and remains to this day rather multi-ethnic, so singling out one ethnic group as representative to the exclusion of others is rather tricky.--Ramdrake (talk) 01:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Consider it a challenge then. Most historic ethnic groups have been intermixing, just like with Germans. Other peoples in France like the Basques have a completely different ethnicity, see Basque people. - PietervHuis (talk) 13:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't get it. This article is about the French people, which does not uniquely map to a single ethnic group, but to several groups. Besides, this has already been discussed ad nauseam a few months ago.--Ramdrake (talk) 13:50, 2 May 20y08 (UTC)
Yeah and the result is really bad. The article should deal with the ethnic french, not "citizens of france". Demographics of France already deals with that. - PietervHuis (talk) 14:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
The French identity revolves around culture and language, not ethnicity. Why force it so?--Ramdrake (talk) 15:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Because this is an encyclopedia, the french ethnicity is well-documented, and deserves its own article, just like all those other ethnicities in france also have one. You may personally believe it doesn't matter in real life, but it does here. - PietervHuis (talk) 21:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Then, please bring forward reliable sources documenting the French ethnicity, and they will be incorporated into the article.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Aren't "cultural identity" and "ethnicity" synonymous? Aaker (talk) 19:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm no expert, but as far as I understand, ethnicity is in part based on a perceived common genealogy (whether or not borne out by genetic markers), whereas cultural identity is based strictly on a shared culture (common language, values, etc.) but does not need to imply shared common genealogy.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

If you admit that you are no expert on ethnicity then stop pushing your POVs and learn about what ethnicity is by reading Wikipedia's own article on it: ethnicity. CanuckAnthropologist (talk) 18:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Josephine Baker is ethnically French?

Josephine Baker was French citizen but not ethnically French. This article is about the ethnicity not the nationality (which would be in Demography of France). So why is her image in the French people mosaic? CanuckAnthropologist (talk) 18:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

This has laready been discussed at length. This is an article about French people, as defined by the French. The French base French identity on language and culture rather than ethnicity. It is obvious that Josephine Baker was completely accultured to the French identity, therefore was French.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
That is all your POV. Read Wikipedia's own article on ethnicity and learn what it is before pushing your POVs. There is a difference between ethnicity and nationality. Her picture can be moved to Demography of France. This article is about the French ethnicity. Maybe in your mind she is ethnically French, but in France she would not be considered ethnic French. CanuckAnthropologist (talk) 18:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Provide reliable sources which state that she isn't considered French by the French people and we can talk. Without them, this is just your POV.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
They probably do consider her French as in national of France, but certainly not ETHNIC French. You are the one making the ridiculous claim that she is ETHNIC French so it should be you the one that has to provide a source for your POV claim. Anyone with common sense will tell you she is not ETHNICALLY French and that is what this article is about: ETHNIC French people, NOT French as in nationals of France.CanuckAnthropologist (talk) 19:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no such thing as ethnic French, as explained in the article. The article is, again, about French people... - Wikigi | talk to me | 22:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Canuck, as someone claiming to be an anthroplogist, you must know that ethnicity is a social construct, therefore anyone can identify as belonging to an ethnic group if it forms part of their identity, and they are recognised as such by other members of the group. Besides I can find no place in the article where it is claimed that Josephine Baker is "ethnically French", whatever that is supposed to mean. Alun (talk) 05:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Ethnicity is more than just a social construct. In anthropology we consider race to be a social construct though we still use the concepts for classification of humans. Ethnicity though is more real than "race". See the article on ethnicity, it is explained well there. I initially thought this article was about the French ethnicity, it seems this article is about more than just the ethnicity so I will leave this issue alone. However, if this article is not about the ethnicity then we should create another article about the French ethnicity. We after all do have many articles for other ethnicities which are supported by WikiProject Ethnic groups. I don't see why the French ethnicity cannot have its own article. CanuckAnthropologist (talk) 04:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Just click on French (ethnic group) and start writing. Since this is a controversial topic, I'll give you some advice:
  • get it labelled with {{Euro-ethno-group-stub}} at the bottom of the page, or pick another stub template from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Stub_types
  • be ready to prepare good sources that show the existance of an actual french ethnic group
  • before you actually start, read the archives of this talk page, and be ready to prepare counter-arguments for all arguments proposed, because they will probably be raised again on the article you create
  • be aware that it will probably be proded or nominated for deletion, so be sure that you start when you have a few days available to improve and source it, and to explain why the arguments for deletion should not be taken into account
  • be sure that the topic doesn't overlap too much with this page. People will insist on merging any overlapping section
That should be all. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for the tips. I really appreciate it. I will work on it some other time as I have to gather some scholarly sources. That takes time and I'm a little short on time right now. I only like to make small edits for now. Once have more free time I will make larger contributions such as writing articles. In the meantime, anyone else is welcome to start that article. Thanks. CanuckAnthropologist (talk) 04:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
We might as well rename this article to "Citizens of France" because it deals with nothing more than that. Have a french passport? You're french! I'm bewildered that the picture collage has hardly blacks in it. There's many blacks in France, yet none of them is notable? Add some more blacks and the article will look even funnier. - PietervHuis (talk) 15:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
This article has no sense of itself or what exactly it means by "French people" - does it describe a linguistic group, a cultural group, an ethnic group or merely the citizens and demographics of the French republic. It's probably best to leave it as is for some stability but the article however IS still very unreferenced. Epf (talk) 02:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Some 10% of France's population trace their roots to Italy

Like Great Britain where 10% of the population can trace their roots to Ireland, so can 10% of all persons claiming to be french. According to the Camrbidge Survey of World Migration, in the late 1990's an estimated 5 - 6 million people in France have an Italian grandparent. Throughout European history, Italy and France has had a lot of interaction. In the 1880's to the end of the second world war, Italian people as well as Polish made up the majority of immigrants moving to France. This along with land cedations where many ethnic Italians once lived. Is this not worth mentioning. Link: http://books.google.com/books?id=BLo2RqGdv_wC&pg=PA143&lpg=PA143&dq=5+million+italians+in+france&source=web&ots=FS8QNMYmoq&sig=dDwUB09FSWcdigHxd0PeG5L94vc#PPA143,M1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Galati (talk • contribs) 08:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, a Cambridge study is definitely noteworthy. The numbers do conflict with what is already in the text, however, where there is reference to 5.2m southern Europeans total. Dionix (talk) 22:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
So I have 16 greatgreatgreat grandparents and ONE of them was Irish. Does this mean I "trace my roots to Ireland"? Well, one of them, yes. The other 15, not. It doesn't make me "irish" in any meaningful sense. So those 10% of French people with Italian "roots", as you put it. How Italian does it have to be ? Eregli bob (talk) 15:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
The article states that 10 percent of the French population have Italian roots spanning three generations. Therefore, unlike your mathematical equation, it does not stem to 1/16th, rather 10% of the French population have an Italian grandparent or Italian great-grandparent. Also, in many border regions of France such as Nice, Savoy and Marseilles, many people have very recent Italian roots. In fact 60% of Marseille ward councillors have Italian origins. No scarcism needed Eregli bob, just take a look at the facts from a credible source! Galati (talk) 04:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)Galati

Article was a mess (now cleaned up)

This is one of the messiest articles in WP. I did some editing of one measly little section (as was requested by a Copy Edit tag), and then when I pasted in my version, I took a look at the rest of the article. Good God! Quel horreur! What a pastiche! Kind of a bouillabaisse! Yes, I have read much of the debate about the contents of this article (was Josephine Baker a French person? Was Marie Curie?), and I truly cannot figure out where it is going. I might just delete this from my watchlist because I don't intend to get caught in the crossfire, even though I have a great admiration for the French people, whoever they might be. On the other hand, I might just go through the whole piece and remove everything which does not have a Source and sit back to enjoy the resulting tumulte. Salut! Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Rearranged the sections and put like information with like information. Broke up some of the lengthy paragraphs. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Assume responsibility

Some tendentious views are expressed.I assume responsibility for my sentences as I have written them----Clive Sweeting 21 July 08 -and contest their suppression----Clive Sweeting 22 July 08

Kindly remember to sign your submissions by striking the tilde key four times. Thank you very much. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

genetics

I have realized that the genetic aspect is not considered here while it is considered in many other European articles. To begin with: According to DNA tribes, a company that specializes in DNA studies, the French are made up of different main European genetic subgroups, as could be more or less expected. The most interesting part, according to this site, is that the vast majority of French people would fall within the so-called Spanish group. See:

http://www.dnatribes.com/sample-results/dnatribes-europa-sample-spanish.pdf

Any comments? Should this type of information be added? Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.143.55.19 (talk) 18:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Uh... what the heck o_O This is a commercial site for DNA studies, and it lacks a lot of important details. It doesn't explain how the populations were determined, for example. For genetic stuff, we should be using stuff like scholar studies published at journals, or studies published by european comissions or governments, or articles by anthropological experts. Sorry, but this website is not adequeate at all. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree about the commercial part. But all this information is already well known among genetic circles, from other commercial sites like this one:

http://www.dnaheritage.com/masterclass2.asp

To well known hap maps from universities like this one:

http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/~mcdonald/WorldHaplogroupsMaps.pdf

And a long etc. What happens is that all this is relatively new and in contradiction with what was believed by previous pseudo-science. In short, most Western Europeans are of Spanish origins, particularly the French. Note in the map coloured yellow that the more intense the yellow the closer the affinities to the Spanish. Most France has the same tone as Spain but other important areas of Western Europe are also clearly yellow, although less. It confirms, more or less, the distribution of the genetic markers analysed in the Macdonalds map. Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.143.55.19 (talk) 19:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Those sources are way better. I'll let other editors the task of how to add it to the article. Btw, have you seen the article Genetic history of Europe? --Enric Naval (talk) 20:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I will not add anything myself either. I just find that it is a pity that all this new information is being ignored in many of these articles. I hope people will consider it, leaving aside chauvinism and propaganda. I have to admit that this issue attracts a lot of manipulators who like to misinterpret facts, cherry pick information, magnify minority cases, downplay majority cases, and a long etc. For examples that is what happens, unfortunately, in the Wiki article that you mention, in some cases or all too often. So, good luck. In any case, I find all this information very interesting and useful in articles speaking of peoples, their origins etc. Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.143.55.19 (talk) 20:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, the French are described as being of "Germanic, Celtic, and Italic heritage." According to many studies, French people have similarities to the some Spaniards, as well as north-central Italians. If you go to south-eastern France, many people who call themselves French have Italian last names. Also the first map is wrong because it classifies southern Italians with Greeks. According to a certain study found here: [12], southern Italians have a 15% Greek admixture leaving 85%. I would hardly count 15% enough to consider southern Italians as Greeks.
Also, what binds the French and Italians together genetically is past migration. For example 10% of France's European population has an Italian grandparent or great-grandparent[13], a credable source that is totally overlooked in this article. Galati (talk) 06:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)Galati

Well, population genetics is relatively new, but one of the results is that it often contradicts previous theories that were in use when DNA was not known. Anyway, one of the most interesting discoveries is that most Western Europeans (and that includes French, Italians, Britons, etc)come from the Spanish or Iberians, if the name sounds better. This is well known and is mainstream in population genetics nowadays. Only I guess it will take some time for many people to swallow it up due to nationalistic feelings. Most theories from the 19th and early 20th century are proven to be wrong by the present study of DNA. On the other hand, probably because DNA studies are still very young, we can often find contradictory results on many issues, but the Iberian issue is one of the few consensuses right now. No serious human geneticist doubts about the Iberian origins of most Western Europeans, including the French, of course. The only difference is in the terminology used: when the terminology refers to space, the terms Iberian, Spanish or Basque are used, to refer basically to the same thing. When the termilogy refers to time, the term Paleolithic is used. Iberia is not the only Paleolithic point of origins of Europeans, there was another in the Balkans and another in the Black see, but the Iberian origins is clearly the majority in Western Europe. Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.231.109.39 (talk) 13:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

This is because the Iberian Peninsula was the main refuge for humans in western Europe during the last ice age, hence a main source for repopulation afterward. 118.168.24.15 (talk) 02:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Something wrong with the table

According to the French Government document cited, there are 116,438 French citizens living in the United States of America . So why does the table as displayed show 11 million, clearly a nonsense. When I try to edit the table, the source of the table appears to have the correct 116,438 number in it, but that is not what is displayed. There is something wrong with the table but it is not clear to me, how to fix it. Eregli bob (talk) 15:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I corrected it a a few minutes ago. Maybe your cookies haven't updated yet. El Greco(talk) 15:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

ERROR

Incredible, you forgot so many french people in Africa. You can double the number of french speakers...--Eurobas (talk) 21:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide a source with numbers? Hellinalj (talk) 18:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The infobox, French ancestry, Belgium and Switzerland

What the hell are these: "Walloons are a distinctive ethnic group[11]." and "French Swiss do not come from France, they always lived in Switzerland."? We're not asking again if French speaking Swiss or Walloon are ethnicaly French, someone reading the "French ancestry" column should expect a number representing the amount of people living in this countries who have a French (from France) ancestry. This is an obvious example of what kind of abuses the discussion on ethnicity can lead to. So please keep that kind of arguments to the relevant sections and someone should just post the stats on proven French ancestry there, if not I'll just remove the whole stuff outright because it's totaly and utterly irrelevant. Matthieu (talk) 02:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Where'd the ancestry/citizenship table go?

I think that it gave needed information. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 23:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

ASPM haplogroup D

The claim that the ASPM (Gene) being highest in group D within the french population is also made, on wikipedia, about the Druze, Kalash and Papuan peoples. Not everyone can be highest.--Mongreilf (talk) 14:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Problem with the infobox

Not sure if it's been brought up lately, but there's one major problem with the infobox. It reports in very dissimilar ways for different countries, in way which really shouldn't be compared. For example, the infobox states 11+ million of Americans of French descent (there may be that many people in the United States claiming at least partial French descent but even then that sounds overstated), but only 4.7M Canadians as French, when actual the number of French-speaking Canadians (those for whom it is a first language) is actually about 7 million (about 6 million in Quebec and about 1 million in the rest of Canada). The discrepancy needs to be fixed, but I'm still unsure what the proper criterion to be used for counting these people should be.--Ramdrake (talk) 15:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Both figures are from official census. The US figure is from their 2007 census, while the France figure is from their 2001 census. US says "ascentry", and France says "Ethnic origin", so they would be using ethnic criteria (as in "people with French nationality that lives here, and their children") and not linguistic criteria. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but the issue is, with some countries like Canada the census data allows for a "Canadian" ethnonym. Thus, some people who would otherwise declare French ancestry now declare "Canadian" ancestry. This skews the numbers significantly (like I said about 7 million people in Canada are considered of French descent, even thouhg only about 5 million of them declared so as per suevey, the rest usually declaring "Canadian" ancestry.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I went ahead and modified the count for Canada as the census figure only counts people who profess "French" ancestry as per the census. It fails to count the people who choose "Canadian" as their ethnicity even though many of those are in fact of French ancestry. From a quick search, the sources I found seem to agree that the actual number of people in Canada of French descent is in fact between 7 and 8 million.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Religion

I'm not sure the religious percentages in the infobox are a good idea. If we are defining "French people" as people who trace their family origins to France (regardless of where they now live in the world), it seems awfully doubtful that 10% of them are Muslim. Even if it's correct that 10% of the current population of France is Muslim, it's a fairly safe assumption that most of said Muslim population is not actually "français de souche" but recent immigrants and their descendents. It's probably best to just say that French people are "predominantly Roman Catholic" and leave it at that.

If it is necessary to provide percentages, we should specify that they are for France only (and even then, I'm not sure that 85% Catholic figure is really accurate).

24.11.127.26 (talk) 05:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

And yes, french muslim exist. Even french with "european origin" can be muslim. Are you surprised ? I just add because you seem to ignore it that "francais de souche" is only used by racist people in France. French people prefer use the more accurate term "french with european origin".July 2009
I agree with you. This article claims to present the French ethnic group, but then does the exact opposite and talks about all the inhabitants of France, French or not. People like Zidane or Baker shouldn't be present, being, and it is quite obvious, Kabyle and African American respectively. Those such minorities should be presented in Demographics of France, in-line with the way such minorities in other countries are presented. ChrisDHDR 19:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Zidane is french because he has french nationality and he's born in France, there is not stupid thing like "french ethnie", where did you get this racist idea ? From Jean-Marie Lepen?

This article is about French people, french is not an ethnic group it is a nationality. I could understand that people refuse to see Josephine Baker as french (she not born and not raised in France) but I could not understand for Zinedine Zidane who is born in France. And What would mean french ethnicity ? Being white, this sound very racist. I am sorry to say that to you but a lot of white french have foreign ancestry, the reality is that the majority of French people with a foreign ancestry are white. (francais de souche is just a stupid expression to mean white french) Sarkozy the french president is the son of Hungarian immigrant father and his mother is the daugther of Greek immigrant. Minato ku (talk) 12:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree with Minato, "french ethnie" only exists in the mind of racist people, there are an "european ethnie" maybe, but a french one, no I don't think so. The "american" or others who write this seem really ignorant . Zinedine Zidane is french and if you come in France and say to french people "he's not a real french because of his origin", prepare you to be call "racist" and "nazi". The origin is not important, you're french if you're born in France, speak french and have french nationality. All the others stuff are bullshit, and only fascist people in France believe in a "french ethnie". I repeat "french ethnie" does not exist. And I want to add that a majority of french have foreign origin from Europe in majority and formers colonies.

You can't say that french people are predominantly catholic like that : if you refer to people with the french nationality, there are some jews, some protestants, a significant number of muslims and many atheists, agnosticists or other sort of irreligion. If you refer to people of French descent, many French Americans, nearly all the Afrikaners of French descent etc. are protestant (the same goes for Australia, New Zealand, Germany, where there are some people of French and mainly Huguenot descent). Moreover, many French American or Canadian may be agnosticist.

More Populations

I have added, to the list of populations of French people throughout the world; populations in Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia and Madagascar. Please note that the figures in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia include persons of mixed French and local ancestry (Which constitute the majority of these respective populations). This is noted beside the actual figures. I have also added a section regarding French people in Asia. --Billsta1 (talk) 11:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Not mentioned was the French population in past South Africa

Not mentioned in brief mention of French populations other nations of world. was the French population of nSouth Africa. Least in the past. DatedPMAfternoonFri.Aug28,200921stcentByDr.EdsonAndre'JohnsonD>D>ULC)ANDREMOI (talk) 20:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say there are any Frenchmen in SA anymore: any Du Toit, Le Roux, Visagie (Visage), or Cronjé (Crounier) would definitely say he is an Afrikaner and would consider himself Dutch if anything else. ChrisDHDR 18:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Picture

Why does the picture have zinedine zidane, who is Algerian and Napoleon Bonaparte, who was Corsican and of Italian ancestry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.133.251 (talk) 19:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

No Zinedine Zidane and Napoleon are french, we don't care of the ancestry. Minato ku (talk) 17:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
That's a pretty stupid thing to say: ancestry is one of the main factors of an ethnic group. So according to your logic since I'm from KwaZulu Natal it means I'm a Zulu even tho I'm white and English-speaking? ChrisDHDR 14:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I could do the oposite, some of my far far descendants were slave from Africa but I am never lived outside France, been in Africa and I don't speak any african language (execpt french). Is I am Africa because of this ? Some of closer ancestor were italian immigrants but I don't speak italian, I am very ignorant about italian culture and I been in Italia only three time. Is I am italian ? The obvious answer for these two questions is NO. I am french and nothing else OK it maybe don't work like that in many other country but this is an article about France. French is a melting of different "ethnicities" people come in majority for europe and more recently form africa, asia, pacific...

Saying that Zidane is not french is RACIST. Minato ku (talk) 20:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Napoleon Bonaparte was Emperor of France, born in Corsica, France, and Zinedine Zidane is a French citizen, born in Marseille, France, nuff said - Wikigi | talk to me | 11:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh, the good old race card, otherwise meaning "shut up and do as me" (bit like the nazis eh?); don't worry I'm used to it (from South Africa) and such a lame argument won't scare me.
Right, now lets think logically. You called me a RACIST: so could you please tell me where I said our Kabyle friend was inferior or said any other so-called "racist" remark?
The reason I think you say such things is that you don't understand: you are born where you are born. It means nothing except for a place name on your ID card. Just because you are born in South Africa doesn't mean you belong to the South African people (because it doesn't exist)! However you are born into a certain society, culture, way of life. It is this thing that defines the basis of your ethnic group. Your parents will bring you up according to their culture. They will teach you to speak their language. They will have the same ancestors as you, and it is this that determines in large part the previous two. You can do nothing about this, it is this that defines you and who you are. And it is the amalgamation of people who share these same basic building blocks of life that forms an Ethnic group.
The other reason I think that you have this point of view is because you are French. En effet the French seem to have a problem with calling a spade a spade: to them the word arab or noir is, for some unknown reason, derogatory. They refuse to admit the existence of different Ethnic groups, probably due to their relatively homogenous society, and so lack the experience associated with living in a heterogenous society. They can't even understand the fact that in South Africa if you meet a black in the road and then a white, they will speak different languages! And so this page, being so directly related to the French Wikipedia, gets quite a lot of French POV.
And therefore we can definatly say that Zinedine Zidane is a Kabyle; that does however not stop him from being French. Yes he is ethnically a Kabyle, which justifies this name being on Famous Kabyles; but he can still have French nationality. And the page Demographics of France is there for all inhabitants of France: whether they are ethnically French or not, even whether they are French citizens or not! As long as they live in France they can be there, regardless of race, sex, religion, height, fat, whatever.
ChrisDHDR 19:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ Jean-Louis Brunaux, Nos Ançêtres les Gaulois, Editions du Seuil, 2008, p.261
  2. ^ Jean-Louis Brunaux, Nos Ançêtres les Gaulois, Editions du Seuil, 2008, p.261
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:French_people/Archive_3&oldid=1142360374"