Talk:French people

French People

ChrisDDR : please don't define French identity with strange concepts far from the French People... I'm French and i can tell you that the French People from France consider themselves as a Nation and a people including black French, basque, corsican or whoever. In addition, Nation is a french political concept and a french word which derive from the latin natio. And people come from the french word "peuple". So you speak with the same words than us to describe the same things. Don't deal with. signed : a Lorrainer whom the grand father was victim from pangermanism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.172.141.127 (talk) 00:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Revival of photo debate

Note: Moved from #Pictures - a global proposal! to its own section here.

Why isn't Charlotte Corday's image shown? Or Margaret of Anjou's, Diane de Poitier's, Jeanne Moreau's, Coco Chanel's? The women selected are pathetically few in a vast sea of men.--jeanne (talk) 15:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, there are too many photos and they aren't proportionately chosen: there should be a similar number of men and women (5 each would be my choice) with each one being known for a different reason/field. ChrisDHDR 08:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me the picture only reflects there are pathetically few famous women in a vast sea of men in French history, and that's not something that can be fixed with photoshop. Equendil Talk 13:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

That Édith Piaf photo is hideous, it doesn't even exist any more. Having 8 photos (4+4) would mean that the photos could be bigger and not be those minuscule thing currently. How about:

Victor Hugo (literature)	Charles de Gaulle (politics)	Gustave Eiffel (architecture)	Blaise Pascal (sciences)
Joan of Arc (military)	Édith Piaf (singing)	Brigitte Bardot (acting)	Marion Bartoli (sport)

It has equal numbers of men and women and their specialities are varied. ChrisDHDR 18:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Guys, let me remind you that this point was subjected to a poll after lengthly discussions last year (see here). Before of that, pictures were swapped every week by someone else with a different opinion... - Wikigi | talk to me | 18:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

So what? Everything can be challenged if someone thinks that that there is a problem with it. The fact that there was a debate last year has nothing to do with it, Burma has a new debate almost every month. ChrisDHDR 14:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

There needs to be more women included. How many times does this point have to be made here? Women have played important roles in French history and culture, so just what is the excuse for not adding more?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The picture box in this article is incredibly bad. I can't even recognize the people pictured. And frankly, as a woman, you don't need to have the same number of representations of genders to really be equal. Nor do you need every field represented to be fair. It's excessive and unnecessary. I work on picture boxes for other articles and so have seen many, and I think this one is the worst. - Cyborg Ninja 17:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

François Mitterrand in the mosaic? why? is he famous because he was a socialist? it think a guy like Ferdinand de Lesseps is more relevant. Cliché Online (talk) 21:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I think Charlotte Corday should be in the mosaic.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Charlotte Corday, well why not Alfred Dreyfus, Raoul Salan or Jean Bastien-Thiry then? Louis de Funès should be there too. Women didn't achieve as much as the men, that's a fact. :) Cliché Online (talk) 20:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

just realized there aren't film director... writing, painting, acting, singing... sports. WTF? first motion picture EVER was made by Louis Le Prince, and the Lumière brothers aren't even in that mosaic. Cliché Online (talk) 20:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Marie Curie isn't French! She was born in Poland and had French husband but that doesn't make her French!!!!!192.44.136.113 (talk) 14:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

She did spend all her active life in Paris, France, and obtained French citizenship, read the article about her ... - Wikigi | talk to me | 16:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The leading image contains at least two non-ethnically French people: Napoleon I and Zinedine Zidane, who are ethnically Italian and Berber, respectively. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ereuthalion (talk • contribs) 23:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Yea I think that the image is in the spirit of the consitutional definition of french people not the gallo-romanic stock that forms the bulk of the "french" ethnicity. It seems heavily populated with people; curie, baker, dumas who are not ethnically representative of the french people but whatever... Ive noticed this change happening on other european ethnic groups pages as well. Some misguided attempt that is confusing nationality and ethnicity. 173.18.177.11 (talk) 22:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

This has been debated over and over, see archives - Wikigi | talk to me | 08:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Sklodowska was POLISH not French . She was living in France but she was Polish . Nationality is something else than citizenship . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkskk (talk • contribs) 12:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

If you guys are keeping the same number people represented in the mosaic, Claude Debussy should absolutely be there. Undoubtedly the greatest french musician ever, and the most important founder of modernism in music, worldwide - arguably the most important musician of the 20th century period, up there with Stravinsky (who was actually naturalized french too, but for the purposes of those mosaics I'd certainly consider him to be just russian). I'd put him in Bardot's place, for while she is a major french cultural icon, Debussy's legacy in the history of art is more firmly settled, while he's at least as big a symbol of french nationalist identity (he was in the 20 franc banknote, if that's a sign of anything). Also, Claude Monet would be a vastly better representative of french painting than Toulouse-Lautrec - though he's undoubtedly one of the great masters of post-modernist painting, Monet is arguably the greatest impressionist painter ever, and should be in the mosaic too. The current selection is really nice though --187.37.77.113 (talk) 06:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Cyborg Ninja that equality between man and woman in the mosaic shouldn't be defined by number of people included from each sex. Putting a woman in place of a possibly more influential and relevant man in the mosaic just because she is a woman would only demonstrate that woman are in a different condition from man and not really equal. And personally I'd say Corday is one of the worst choices for representing the relevance of french women, for her relevace is completely based on that of the important man she killed, Jean-Paul Marat (who would, by the way, arguably be an appropriate addition to the mosaic).

I also agree that the current number of people represented is too big, making the images too small, even though the current mosaic is not bad as a general introduction to the most culturaly relevant french people (although the reason for the choice of some of those people over Cardinal Richelieu, Montesquieu and the two artists I previously cited is really not clear to me). I think the mosaic for the Germans is the best of all, and a new mosaic for this article should be based on that one (25 people in 5 rows, and in the same size). I'd say the best selection would be: Joan of Arc, Cardinal Richelieu, René Descartes, Molière, Blaise Pascal, Louis XIV, Montesquieu, Voltaire, Napoleon, Victor Hugo, Alexandre Dumas, Évariste Galois, Louis Pasteur, Jules Verne, Gustave Eiffel, Claude Monet, Henri Poincaré, Marie Curie, Claude Debussy, Jean-Paul Sartre, Charles de Gaulle, Josephine Baker, Albert Camus, Édith Piaf, Zinedine Zidane. --Skhikkhi (talk) 00:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Population number!!!!!! 130mln!!!!?????

How could french people be so high as 130 mln!!!!!

A tiny minority of france people are french ie francolatins with french as mother tongue and a french background =j2+r1a haplotypes.

So by mother tongue it would be 50-60 mln frenchmen.

by genitic background it would be 10-15 mln frenchmen.

Humanbyrace (talk) 16:37, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

According to your logic it would be 150 mln Turks,500 mln Arabs,and 500-600 mln Englishmen!!!!!

Humanbyrace (talk) 16:42, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Obviously my friend, you can not read it right this article. I suggest you calm down and reread what that number means. Swax - 28/01/2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.67.81.143 (talk) 16:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree! the right number is around 100 mln...... Why doesn't anyone want to correct it? --FrankVonPedro (talk) 16:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The numbers here are misleading. In particular for Belgium and Switzerland it refers to "not Waloons" and "not French-speaking Swiss" when THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THE NUMBERS REFER TO. For some reason these "People" pages always get people trying to inflate the populations for some silly nationalistic reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.66.89.109 (talk) 16:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Inconsistent counting of people number

What is counted here? If you count French nationals the people of French Argentines or French Americans should not be counted - because they have mostly assimilated in the new society and - well - are not nationals of France. --- Or if you count people with French (Ethnogenesis) background, then this people could be counted but then there are never ever 62,000,000 French people in France. Have you ever been in France? There are so many people with African or Arab background. --- So there are two ways to count the French - both have its advantages - but to count both French Argentinians and people in France with some different background - Arabs, Africans and even Alsatians - is inconsistent and makes more French then there are. This problem is also in many other "people"-articles - but in the French people it is especially obvious, because it seems all people living in France are counted as French. If it goes after the French law, which makes it illegal to collect data on ethnicity and race (well - thats at least what the France article in wikipedia says) there should be only 65 million French people (the French Argentinians or Americans don't belong to this group) -- and if it goes for ancestry there should be no more then maximal 40,000,000 French people in France. Knarf-bz (talk) 15:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. One can't "have it all", and there must be consistency in what is counted. Either 1) only citizens of the French Republic, or 2) ethnic French people, which would also include those with French ancestry/ethnicity which are citizens of other countries, but exclude those who are descendants of other ethnic groups (i.e. descendants of immigrants). To include both these categories is inconsitent and unacceptable (and in a sense, rather imperialistic, or even chauvenistic). As it was intended, it was meant for the 2) category to be in the various "people" articles, and the 1) category to be in the "Demographics of..." articles (Demographics of France). But as said, a consistency must be established, as the current state is not appropriate. If it is indeed so that ethnicity is an utterly "banned" term in France, I would suggest to simply delete this entire article and/or merge it with Demographics of France. -TheG (talk) 16:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Is there any recognized difference between French ethnicity and nationality?

Well? 184.96.214.236 (talk) 03:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Simple answer, as discussed many times here (see archive): there is no such thing as French ethnicity. See also under Later immigration :
- The CIA World Factbook defines the ethnic groups of France as being "Celtic and Latin with Teutonic, Slavic, North African, Sub-Saharan African, Indochinese, and Basque minorities. Overseas departments: black, white, mulatto, East Indian, Chinese, Amerindian".
- The U.S. Department of State goes into further detail: "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.
- The Encyclopædia Britannica says that "the French . . . hardly constitute a unified ethnic group by any scientific gauge".
Regards. - Wikigi | talk to me | 08:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't help notice, but if what you just stated is the case, then isn't there a problem with the page's title? Shouldn't it be more like "Population of France" or "Inhabitants of France"? It seems as though the page pretends it's about an ethnic group, but then contradics itself by saying that a French ethnic group doesn't exist. 83.201.145.101 (talk) 14:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

No, because there are French people living in and outside of France. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

How is French ethnicity different from English?

In England, you've got the Anglo-Saxons, Frisians, Jutes, Danes, Normans, Picts, Irish, Britons, and Romans. How is this much different from France where you had the Gallo-Romans mixed with Franks, Normans, Burgundians, Iberians, Basques? In both cases you have a Celtic-Roman base conquered by Germanic tribes. Wiki claims that English ethnicity exists, yet French doesn't. When did French ethnicity become politically incorrect? Was it during the Revolution, the Empires, or one of the Republics? Pistolpierre (talk) 00:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Can you point us to where WP claims ethnicity for the English? I think you raise an interesting question. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

If you read the first sentence under "English people" it says the English are an ethnic group.Pistolpierre (talk) 01:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, to be precise, it says "an ethnic group and nation", but yes, your point is taken. So the question is, should one change the "English people" article or the "French people" article, or leave things as they are. Now, the "English people" article wikilinks ethnic group, where I find "An ethnic group (or ethnicity) is a group of people whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage, consisting of a common language, a common culture (often including a shared religion) and a tradition of common ancestry (corresponding to a history of endogamy).", supported by refs. WP is not a reliable source, but if we take the lead from that, I think it's arguable that the French are as much an ethnic group as the English. But it's not a simple question, and we need some additional sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

If the French and English are not ethnic groups, then neither are the Spanish. In Spain there were Celts, Iberians, Carthaginians, Greeks, Jews before the Romans and the Visigoths. Also the Italian and Greek ethnicities are suspect since the Etruscans, Sabines, Latins, Romans, Lombards, Normans, Spanish, Austrians, Macedonians, Mycenaeans, Cretans were all different peoples. It seems that either ethnicity is a myth in all five nations or something is wrong with the French conception of ethnicity.Pistolpierre (talk) 19:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I understand your reasoning, but what you need are some reliable sources that define or describe french ethnicity. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

"In Spain there were Celts, Iberians, Carthaginians, Greeks, Jews before the Romans and the Visigoths." No, in Spain, the Iberians were most numerous as compared with the invaders, Romans, Visigoths, .... In Italy, the Italic peoples were most numerous as compared with the invaders, Goths, Lombards, Normans, Spanish, Austrians, .... In France, the Gauls were most numerous as compared with the invaders, Romans, Franks, Burgundians, Visigoths, Norsemen.. The ethnic French are mostly of pre-Celtic/Celtic descent (mostly of Iberian and Ligurian descent in southern France). 88.178.38.7 (talk) 13:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Nevertheless, if "French people" can only be defined as the citizens of France, then it is completely wrong to include 16 million US American citizens to also be "French people" (actually, the article claims there to be 120 million French people, although there are only about 65 million French citizens). How is it that when it is about American citizens, it suddenly becomes OK to count ethnicity? Why are not the French immigrants in the US just "American people", as is the premise for this article? And further, if there are 310 million American people in the US, and 81 million "French people" in France and the US combined, then the total population number in these two countries suddenly becomes 391 million people, although everyone knows that 65 million + 310 million = 375 million. For this article to make any sense, either remove the immigrant population in France, or the emigrant French people abroad. -TheG (talk) 14:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The introduction reads:
   French people can refer to:
   - The legal residents and citizens of France, regardless of ancestry.
   - People whose ancestors lived in France or the area that later became France.
- Wikigi | talk to me | 08:31, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I can see that, but there are actually no source for the latter point, and I question the relevance of the source used for the first point. As long as there are no sources for the definition of "two points" itself, the definition is OR and arbitrary. -TheG (talk) 18:05, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Honestly there is no point in trying to argue this wikigi is a very agressive editor on this topic. Wikipedia considers english an ethnicity and not french simply because wikigi doesnt edit the english people page as he is french. 173.18.174.172 (talk) 17:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Please focus on the content and not the contributor. "People whose ancestors lived in France or the area that later became France" seem unworkable to me, since there's no telling who that might include--if someone living where Paris is now back in 200 BC lineage could be traced to someone now living in China, we would not call them French, any more than we would characterize every person alive today as being African. I would suggest that a more reasonable limit would be to say that someone born in France is French, as are legal residents and citizens of France. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Well its kind of hard not to get a little frustrated at you guys when you revert any edit related to the acknowledgement of a french ethnicity and cite crazy stuff that probably never happened as examples that we should keep it the way it is. I am not trying to change the article. I am just trying to explain on the talk page to other people why it is this way. And that they just shouldn't waste their time. 173.18.174.172 (talk) 22:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I can understand your frustration, and discussions regarding ethnicity seem invariably difficult. Clearly there's some disagreement here, perhaps we can resolve it? --Nuujinn (talk) 23:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

To be precise, I was pointing to the reason why the article claims so many French people, it doesn't mean that I agree with that. While it is clear that French are "the legal residents and citizens of France, regardless of ancestry" (thus regardless of their ethnicity), the others are barely descendants of French and, in my opinion, should not be listed in the infobox. There is a dedicated section "Populations with French ancestry" for that matter. - Wikigi | talk to me | 09:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikigi, thank you for the clarification.

Would anyone object to limiting the scope to people born in France, regardless of current location, and legal residents (and thus citizens) of France, as a working "definition" of French people? That seems to me to be the best place to draw a line for this issue. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Genetics

The references provided in the notes only lead to the article discussing the data, but not to the actual data (the ones used in the table). I haven't been able to locate any supplementary data in the online article.

I think it would a good idea to add a reference for the data, unfortunately I can't provide it. Maybe the person who made the table could do it ?

Bqnq (talk) 09:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Article needs major work

This article sounds like it was written by a politically correct, assimilationist, left wing activist. It portrays the French people as some "salad bowl" of different ethnic groups, much like the population of America. This is absolutely false. There is a verifiable French ethnic group which heavily populates France. While the group's ancient origins lie in various Germanic and Celtic tribes, over the centuries, their cultures have formed into one French culture. Their peoples have formed into one French people. While it is true that most of Europe is experiencing mass immigration, it is important to remember that the original Europeans, such as the English, Scottish, Germans, and French, still exist among the newcomers. They still have their own separate cultures and origins. Citizenship and ethnicity are two different things.

For example, if a Chinese man moves to Sweden and acquires Swedish citizenship, that does not mean that his ethnic origins now lie in Sweden. He is a Swedish citizen, but is ethnically Chinese. If his ancestors continued to live in Sweden, they would be considered Chinese-Swedish. If a sustainable number of Chinese people immigrated to Sweden and created their own enclaves and communities, perhaps a Chinese-Swedish Wikipedia article would be written. Notice how the Chinese-Swedish are never considered ethnic Swedes.

The entire article is noticeably written to support this false belief. It reads like a government issued "Know Your Rights" paper and mostly discusses the legalities of French citizenship and naturalization. This is the only "people" article that I have seen written in this way. To those who are interested in improving this article, please see English people, Germans, and possibly some of the numerous American ethnic group articles for design ideas.

The French people have existed in Europe for many centuries, developing their own distinct culture, language, and history. They deserve better. Thanks--(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 16:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC))

PS - Josephine Baker was not French. She was an African American who acquired French citizenship. I will remove her from the list of French people in the infobox, but someone else will have to edit the picture. I will also remove the 'related ethnic groups' section, since its exists only to verify that "Europe is some great big family". It further proves that this article needs to be less leftist and more balanced.

Citizenship and ethnicity are indeed two different things. But what makes you think this article is about ethnicity and not citizenship? What's stopping an immigrant into France, a citizen of France, being part of the "one French culture"?

The reason this article discusses the legalities of French citizenship and naturalization is possibly because French law is very particular about it. So what happens on other articles is not necessarily a reason for the article to change. I believe the reason Baker was included was to demonstrate breadth to the different types of "French People". She spent half her life as a French citizen and therefore fits under the definition of French stated on the article.

However, if you feel the article is light on detail about the ethnic French, please do improve on it. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem with this article is that it blurs the boundary between citizenship and ethnicity. I fear that this lack of clarity may mislead readers into believing that French ethnicity is entirely subjective based on French constitutional law. It is important for Wikipedia to have an article concerning the legalities of French citizenship. Blending French ethnicity and citizenship into one article was not the correct and honest way to describe ethnic French people.

While this idea has been repeatably rejected before, I feel that there should be two separate articles concerning French citizenship and French ethnicity. This debate has continued since the establishment of this article. Multiple users, including myself, have noticed this issue, which highlights that this is a real problem. The looming elephant in the room must be dealt with. Thanks--(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 23:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC))

PS- While Baker fits into the description of a French person according to the French constitution, her inclusion in this article was misleading. If this article is divided in the future, she will not be included in the ethnic French article.

Please read "Is there any recognized difference between French ethnicity and nationality?" section. This point has been discussed here over and over (see archive). Regards - Wikigi | talk to me | 08:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I have read the discussions of the past, and there has been no clear consensus. My take on the matter is that the French government currently forbids the notion of a French ethnicity. Therefore, it has become politically incorrect to suggest that such an ethnic group exists. This is not right. Wikipedia should not be written to coincide with the views of politicians. The reality is that there is a group of people which has inhabited France for generation, long before any of this immigration began. I am no expert, but the prevalent claim is that the "original" people of France originated from many different tribes and therefore cannot be categorized into one ethnic group. Again, this is absolutely false. Many ethnic group across the world originate from various other groups of people. An often cited example is the English people, who descend from the original prehistoric inhabitants of the British Isles, Celtic tribes such as the Britons, Germanic tribes such as the Angles, Saxons, Jutes, and Norse people such as the Viking explorers and pirates and the Normans. The fact that the ethnic French people descend from Italic, Germanic, and Celtic people does not separate them from many other recognized ethnic groups in Europe or the world. They are an ethnic group with a verifiable, distinct culture, history and heritage.

I have also noticed that whenever someone proposes this debate, many users condemn them as ethnicists. I encourage all users who do this to spend five minutes researching ethnicism. An ethnicist, much like a racist, believes that his ethnic group is superior to other ethnic groups. No one in this debate has ever considered this French ethnic group to be superior to any of the ethnic groups of France. This claim is just as unfounded as the claim that a French ethnic group in nonexistent.

Splitting this article into two separate articles on French citizenship and ethnic French people would solve the problem entirely. Everyone who likes the inclusion of French citizenship and naturalization law in Wikipedia could have one article, while those interested in writing on the ethnic French could have the other.

The length and size of this debate does not mitigate the problem. This article is pretty much an extension of the article written on French citizenship. The boundary between citizenship and ethnicity needs to be reestablished. Thanks--(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 14:07, 5 August 2011 (UTC))

You would enhance your argument considerably if you could reference a good reliable source that defines the French as "an ethnic group with a verifiable, distinct culture, history and heritage." Then we would some indication that such a thing is even definable. Only once we have that does it become possible to even consider a spit between nationality and ethnicity.

Looking back through the Archives I see only one passing mention of "ethnicist". Most discussion has concerned content, not on the contributor. Delighted to keep it that way. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I will find those sources and post them in a couple of days. Thanks--(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 15:37, 6 August 2011 (UTC))

It seems that I have been mistaken. Presently, there seems to be no verifiable universal "French ethnic group". However, that does not mean there aren't multiple ethnic groups within France. According to Ethnic groups worldwide: a ready reference handbook [1], there are distinct cultural groups within the 85 million strong "ethnic French" populous:

• Burgundy
• Brittany
• Auvergnat
• Alstace
• Aveyronnais
• Aquitaine
• Occitan
• Provence

It further states that while the traditional peoples of these lands have been assimilated politically and economically into France, their distinct cultures still exist. This is especially apparent in the peoples of Brittany and Alsace. Since it is illegal to collect information on ethnic groups in France, it is difficult to obtain accurate statistics on these groups of people. However, the book does give a population number of around 1.5 million for the Alsatians.

The only groups which seem to ethnically differ from the "original peoples" of France are the Bretons and the Alsatians. The Bretons have their own article, though the Alsatians do not. Just like the Bretons, the Alsatians have a language and history distinct from the rest of France. They speak Alsatian, a Germanic language distinct from both German and French, and are descended from nether the Gallo-Roman nor Frankish stock like most of the other cultural groups of France. They deserve more than a disambiguation page (perhaps a split of the Alsace area and Alsatian people?).

All of the political garbage surrounding this subject makes it a nightmare to research. However, I still believe that this article needs lots of work. The French government's assimilationist policies must not dominate this article. If readers would like to know about French citizenship, by all means let them read the article. The issue of French citizenship vs. ethnicity should be a subsection or maybe its own article. Perhaps in an article about the concept of an "ethnic French" group, the eight cultural groups I mentioned above would be discussed, with links to their main pages. Any thoughts? Thanks--(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 04:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC))

En la sección "Regions with significant populations", algunos no poseen fuentes (Ejemplo: Perú con 600,000) y otros estan incompletos (Ecuador). Saludos — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.104.192.187 (talk) 21:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)