Talk:French people

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)

RFC: Definition of the Ethnically French

Are such people as Zinedine Zidane and Josephene Baker ethnically French? Ie. does this article apply to the whole of the French population or only those that are ethnically French? Please see previous discussions at #Picture, #Josephine Baker?, and the archives (unhappiness with this article has been around for quite a while). ChrisDHDR 19:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that it's best if the article doesn't take a position on what qualifies as a "real" French person. Include people who fall under the more inclusive definition and specify their ethnic heritage or whatever other information can make them arguably not French (perhaps under a section called something like "French nationals of foreign descent", though I'm not officially endorsing it). I think people are approaching this question the wrong way. The reader can decide for themself, if they care in the first place, whether the person is truly French. --MQDuck (talk) 15:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

It's also somewhat contentious and POV in my opinion to decide that there is such a thing as "ethnically French". The European French persons I know would be flabbergasted by the idea that an Alsatian, a Gascon, a Norman, and a Marseillais would be considered members of the same ethnic group. You'd have to find good reliable sources saying that there is such a thing as "ethnically French", and then you'd need good sources to state which individuals should be included in that category. Remember that 200 years ago most people living within the boundaries of modern France didn't even speak French as a first language, and 500 years ago (a short time when it comes to ethnic identity) what we now know as France was a number of independent countries. --NellieBly (talk) 23:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Several issues with Chris' proposition. First, as pointed out by NellieBly, the French are in fact a heteregeneous group, ethnically speaking. Second, this article is about the French people as per those who were born into or have adopted the French identity (language and culture). And while it is true that recently there has been some erosion of the French identity, this doesn't negate its existence. Limiting the French people to some definition of the French ethnicity (how far back do your roots have to go in France to qualify? Are only the descendants of Celts, Latins and Teutons qualify? What about the Basques, who are really neither? Are they not French (at least for the French part of the Basque country)? That's why this article makes much more sense if it hinges on the French identity rather than an ill-defined "French ethnicity".--Ramdrake (talk) 00:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand you points of view. I'm actually very lucky and recently went to a political sciences class where the subject was the definition of a nation, and I think I'm coming to agree with you, there is no French nation. However this now makes the existance of the French people a non-lieu. I therefore propose that this page's content be merged with that of Demographics of France or be changed to something like Nationality in France: the current title makes that there is a homogenous French people, when in fact there is none. ChrisDHDR 19:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Still, I don't agree with a merge or a rename. There is a French people, it's just not defined by a single ethnicity, but rather by a linguistic and cultural identity. In that, it differs from possibly a majority of other "national peoples" around the planet. But so what? They still define themselves as a people, just not through ethnicity. I see nothing wrong with that.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Nationality, ethnicity and race are all imaginary concepts. But they are meaningful to the extent that we collectively attribute meaning to them. "French" is a concept people have, and there's nothing wrong with having a list of people who might fit in that concept. Along with this article's size, the fact that it's a relatively meaningless concept is good reason to keep it out of an article on the relatively much more meaningful concept of demographics inside the French nation-state. --MQDuck (talk) 21:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

So now "there is no French nation'"? Listen Chris, maybe you should keep studying a little more and read the talk page guidelines "This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject" - Wikigi | talk to me | 06:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I assumed he was using the first two definitions of "nation" given to us by Wiktionary: "A group of people sharing aspects of language, culture and/or ethnicity" and "A historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture". --MQDuck (talk) 14:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I agree with those that consider French people to be a heterogenous group, that can include any type of Franch national. I don't think the title is a problem, as most readers understand "French people" to mean "People of France" in the broad sense, and there must be an article to be writtewn about that. The demographics article could have a large overlap, but would be a subarticle of this (along with history, media represenation, etc). Simply presenting the information with the different viewpoints allows the reader to decide. The article makes no claim that the people covered are "ethnically" French, as the lead makes clear.YobMod 16:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no such thing as an "ethnic french", so we can't have an article on them. We have french people as defined by France government, and the article expands that definition to include people like the Gauls, the Franks, etc. I remember that the issue of french people popped up a few months ago in these pages, and that there were no reliable sources talking of a French race or anything similar, so there wouldn't be a RS base to make an article about it. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

This article is simply a great melting pot of different topics, and claims the resulting slush is a "French ethnic group" (for those who claim this article doesn't consider the French an ethnic group, then why is there {{Infobox Ethnic group}} at the top?). We should get things in order and merge the sections into their respective articles: Demographics of France and French nationality law (for "Notable expatriates", "Nationality, citizenship, ethnicity", and "Legal residents and citizens"), French diaspora (for "Populations with French ancestry"), Languages of France (for "Languages"), and History of France (for "History"). ChrisDHDR 10:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Even simpler: leave it as is, but remove it from the Ethnic Groups category. The French people do form a people, just not on ethnic grounds.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, and also rename it Population of France — the "people" suffix is used for ethnic group articles — remove the Category:Ethnic groups in Europe and {{Infobox Ethnic group}}. ChrisDHDR 17:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

No, please understand: these are a people just not ethnic grounds (rather on the grounds of a shared culture and language).--Ramdrake (talk) 17:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I've also raised the issue on WT:ETHNIC.--Ramdrake (talk) 17:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I know, it's just that "... people" is most often used for ethnic groups, and since such a convenient alternative exists (Population of France), alors pourquoi se casser le tête?. ChrisDHDR 17:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

[Obviously this page really tient à cœur, it's on 116 watchlists!]

The thing is, the French really constitute a people, just not on ethnic grounds. So, French people is indeed appropriate.--Ramdrake (talk) 17:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by "people"? "People" is either the plural of person or a synonym of "ethnic group". The French definitely aren't one person, nor an ethnic group (a previously decided). "Population" works just fine, and in the interest of everyone gets rid of any ambiguity. ChrisDHDR 11:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

A "people" can be defined by mean other than ethnicity. I'll just repeat one of the definitions written earlier in this section: "A historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture". The French definitely share a territory, a culture and a language. They do form a people. Shared ethnicity usually goes with that, but not in all cases. This is one of those exceptions. "People" isn't an exact synonym of "ethnic group". Please see an interesting discussion on the use of "people" on Wikipedia here.--Ramdrake (talk) 15:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The current article doesn't treat something "historically constituted", including people in France whose ancestors where in France since roughly ever, and those whose ancestors only arrived after the Second World War. Please Population of France suits everyone, lets not argue for nothing. ChrisDHDR 18:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

It's you who's arguing for nothing. The French are a people, united by a culture and a language, period. It would be unwise to deny that. I don't see anyone else here but you having a problem with the title of this article. Please let it be.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

United by a culture and language?!? So now that everyone realizes that they don't have a common origin, there's still work to be done! Haven't you ever realized the way the French justify their existence as a nation? Reading Le Tour de la France par deux enfants (or maybe it's Asterix satire) would give you the answer. It simply is that "We are all different, and that's what makes us the same". Take a peek in one of the two and you'll see how they go from region to region seeing the different cultures of France, the different foods, the different languages. Is it not in France that every substantial town and region is the capital of something? That they are overly proud of this and will never buy Camembert other than that of Normandy, nuts except from Grenoble, nougat unless it's from Montélimar. They all know these differences, and then pretend that this diversity is what makes them a homogeneous nation!

That isn't cultural homogeneity.

And can I remind you that when Molière went on his nation-wide tour, he had to tell his actors to over-emphasize their gestures, since the words weren't important, no one being able to understand them? And that is was not till the bringing of public education with Jules Ferry that a Parisian could speak, and be understood, in most parts of France. And even now, after Georges Pompidou declared that "there is no place for the regional languages and cultures in France" and French was deemed in the constitution "the language of the Republic", they are still alive! The délégation générale à la langue française et aux langues de France, a government agency, states that "26 % des adultes vivant en France avaient pratiqué dans leur enfance une langue autre que le français ", including, but not limited to, Alsatian, Occitan, Arpitan, Oïl languages, Breton, and Catalan. It then includes a list of 82 languages spoken in France (plus Parisian patois).

That isn't linguistic homogeneity.

ChrisDHDR 21:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I said united by culture, not "of a homegeneous culture". For example, I'm a Quebecer, proud of my culture, but my nation is Canada. And even if a sizable portion of the French people spoke some other language as children (as first language, second, third language, colloquial dialect?). The French people can very much still be a nation while being proud of their regional differences. It does not need anything like the Great American Melting Pot.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

In any case, this RfC is already closed and the consensus is against you. Please let it go.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't you just tell me what to do. I'll adopt the same attitude: out of everyone that was against the motion, you're the only one left, so please let it go. And the tag was removed by a bot, which is, by no means, an authority.

Now, if you don't have to have a homogeneous culture to be "united by culture", by what are they united? They're not unified by language (which you just admitted to with "a sizable portion"), not unified by origin (admitted in 6th paragraph with "just not defined by a single ethnicity"), not unified by culture (just admitted with "not of a homegeneous culture") - but then for you that still means "united". Very weird idea, by just what are they actually united? An un-united culture? The same country? The will of a Wikipedian? None of them justify this article's existence. You haven't even proven it, given just one source - do you think that blurbing it out enough will make it true (a bit like the Big Lie you know)?

With all this I ask you to create the article South African people. It has all the traits of this one: no unified language, no unified origin, no unified culture. It would make just as much sense tho, and you could use this page as a source:

1.	^Template:En iconSince the page French people exists, even tho they have no united culture, language, or origin, I guess this one should too. Hope you understand me, 'cos no one else can.

And your nation is not Canada - your country is. This confusion between country and nation is most notably shown in the word international - if you believe it then when I am dealing with a Zulu, it is an international deal (I'm from the English South African nation, and him from the Zulu nation). But of course not! it's just that the word should be something like "intercountry". Try to find out the difference between the words nation, people, ethnic group, inhabitants, citizens, and nationals, and then come back

Please, you obviously don't know a hoot about what you're talking about. You're making a fool of yourself.

ChrisDHDR 15:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing regionalism with a lack of national identity. And please, don't tell me what my national identity should or shouldn't be. The others have stopped contributing to the talk because they spoke their mind, which is the point of the RfC, not because your arguments swayed them. It looks obvious that nothing will convince you. So be it. I'm just asking you to respect the consensus as expressed in the RfC and leave the article alone (or at least not do anything drastic with it such as the name change you were pushing for). Thanks.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Erm, Chris, this thing of "out of everyone that was against the motion, you're the only one left", as Ramdrake says, I already commented above, and I didn't feel the need to go at it again. Idem for other people commenting here. There is a "French people" as defined by the French government, and this article expands it to cover people that has lived in the territory. And I have no problem with that. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not about whether you've got a problem with it or not, it's verifiability that's important, one of the core concepts; and obviously this debate has moved on from the simple RFC that started this section. It has been proved that the French are not united by a language^[1][2], nor united by an origin ^[3][4]. Although not even a single source was ever given for the point of view that the French are an ethnic group (which is constantly called a "people" here), its belligerents have continued on the single fact that they still have a united culture, the last of the three criteria for a people. Well I don't agree, and decided to go and interview 10 random people on the street to see what they think. And the results were a landslide: out of the 10, 9 said that the French were not united by culture. I tried to put the video on YouTube but that for some reason didn't work, and one guy half-jokingly said he didn't want his photo published, so anyone who wants a copy can just email me, and I'll sent it back.

Finally what is this nonsense that the French are a people, just not an ethnic one. The current convention is that the "... people" suffix be used for ethnic groups, which this has been proved beyond doubt to not be. Just look at American people: no one's pretending that they are a people, or even a non-ethnic one. It's just a disambiguation page for different articles on the population of America. Maybe we can take a few lessons here. The same situation is in France with all the ethnic minorities, so why do you still cling onto this page being called French people? The French use peuple français as much as the Americains use the American people - have an article on this particular phrase if you want, but don't pretend something is something it obviously isn't.

Even the French government doesn't know exactly what the French people are: haven't you heard about the Grand débat sur l'identité nationale, where they're trying to find out exactly what Frenchness is - and a good portion of the French population doesn't even see the point, saying there isn't a French people, so why try to find one. So where is this "French people"? No one, not even the government or the French population itself, know exactly what it is. ChrisDHDR 21:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

You are twisting facts in a bad way, Chris: even though a sizable percentage of the French population spoke one of the colloquial languages as a child, doesn't mean the French aren't united by a language: they all speak French. They all share the French culture, which has its regionalisms like any other culture. I am not sure why you are attacking the French identity as you are, but please cease and desist. You're not going anywhere with this argument. The editors here have spoken their mind and have agreed for the most part that they see the French people actually do form a people. You're the only one who disagrees. What are you going to do about it?--Ramdrake (talk) 22:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and BTW American people is a disambiguation page because the article on the American people can be found at People of the United States. There you go.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The French speaking people in Switzerland are not ethnic Frenchmen. There are in no way 1,350,000 French people in Switzerland. Indeed, they speak French, but they have never been part of France. And about 50% of the French-speaking population are of Swiss-German descent. Primusinterparem (talk) 13:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

See! This page is riddled with mistakes: it takes not only those who are ethnically French, but all those who have even the remotest French descendants like the Cambodian and Vietnamese métis. I don't see the Cape Coloureds at Dutch people - because their Dutch origins are now too small to be counted, and they've now got a new culture and language. Even you say you don't consider yourself French, so why does the article talk about 8 million Frenchmen in Canada? And then it puts people who just speak French like the Swiss - they have neither the same origins (but then what are French origins?) nor culture. I'd like to see you make them swallow the you-are-French pill! And then finally it includes all inhabitants in French territory, including a lot of EU-27 immigrant workers who can't even speak French! This is in fact 4 articles in one!

Secondly, do you know that Wikipedia is not a democracy? You debate, discuss, argue till the verifiable truth is found. It's not just a question of 5 against 1 so 1 looses. If those 5 are for 1+1=3 and 1 guy is for 1-1=2, plus with sources (which you haven't given yet), then his motion would be accepted.

Now I'm very happy you brought People of the United States to the debate - it should be an example here. Note the introduction and the rest of the article which should be used as a model for the new Population of France article:

The people of the United States, U.S. Americans, or simply Americans or American people, are citizens or nationals of the United States [Note not "ethnic Americans"]. The United States is a multi-ethnic nation, home to people of different ethnic and national backgrounds. As a result, some Americans don't take their nationality as an ethnicity, but identify themselves with both their nationality and their ancestral origins. [bolding changed for the case of this example]

Thirdly, I thought you would say it was OR. But the video is not original research. Those people over their lives have formulated their own opinions on the matter, and that information already existed in their brain. All I did was record it. To research, you go and do experiments, find information, compare, analyze, deduce, and publish your result. I just recorded what already existed, not at all the same.

Finally I am not attacking the French identity, and I definitely don't have Francophobia. As the video shows the French don't even think they have a common identity. I'm simply trying to bring to light the French accepted truth. As by the famous speech Qu'est-ce-qu'une nation? by Ernest Renan, a quotation present in this article and accepted by the French since it's in their curriculum,

“ Une nation [...] se résume pourtant dans le présent par un fait tangible: le consentement. [...] L'existance d'une nation est (pardonnez-moi cette métaphore) un plébiscite de tous le jours. ” — Ernest Renan, 1882, Conference faite en Sorbonne, 11 March 1882

So please, why are you trying to force the French to be an ethnic group, when even they don't want to be one?

ChrisDHDR 19:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, this article is not about an ethnic group. It is about a people. Why would you not bat an eyelid about one article being named People of the United States (which is a multi-ethnic nation, but very much a nation nevertheless), but insist that French people be renamed to Population of France? To me, that smacks of "deux poids, deux mesures".--Ramdrake (talk) 19:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll also note that there are quite a few books discussing the identity of French people[5], and those are after filtering for university presses. Adding "quebec" to the search restricts it to books talking about "Quebecuois" identity in Canada, like this one[6] (pags 117-118, and also 113), and there I see a few talking of how muslim in France as perceived by some as not being French people, despite being legally so, how identification as "French" evolved in absolutist times, etc.

In other words, there are many sources discussing the existance and the limits in time and space of a separate "French people" group inside France and outside of France. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, how about this as a solution:

• "French people" moved to "People of France" with the intro stating that the article is about all inhabitants of France and all French citizens, and not about an ethnic group
• "French people" changed into a disambiguation page with the main link being to "People of France" but also with links to "French nationality law", "Demographics of France" and "French diaspora"
• "Population of France" changed to redirect to "People of France"
• {{Infobox Ethnic group}} and Category:Ethnic groups in Europe removed (consensus that the French aren't an ethnic group)

I think this should work. ChrisDHDR 15:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I guess I can assume that the fact there are no comments shows a general agreement. ChrisDHDR 17:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I've unarchived this discussion so that it might be closed by an uninvolved editor. This was the outcome posted by ChrisDHDR:

click "show" to view

• The result of the debate, due to the sudden lack of response, was to adopt the measures proposed by ChrisDHDR, available at the bottom of this section.
• It should also be noted that this page, People of France, is not about an ethnic group, but about the inhabitants of France; and that an article about a French ethnic group, if properly sourced and justified, can be independently made in the future.

ChrisDHDR 16:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

An absence of further discussion does not render the points of view previously expressed moot, and I'm not sure the outcome described is an entirely representative summation.  Skomorokh  23:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

My read on the consensus is while it's agreed there's no "ethnically French" people there's not a consensus to rename the article. Gerardw (talk) 01:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Gerard. Chris, as the RfC has concluded the question of French ethnicity, perhaps a requested move discussion might be helpful.  Skomorokh  05:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

!? The people of France is the French people, don't you get it? As for the use of a ill-named infobox, ask yourself if the infobox itself should be renamed to cover a wider spectrum or if another infobox bearing a different name should be created, with probably the exact same parameters.. - Wikigi | talk to me | 08:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

It has been proved in this discussion, with the use or reliable sources, that the French are not united by either a culture, a language, or an origin: the three basic requirements for a ethnic group are therefore not met. However it can be said that the French are a nation, a idea reinforced by the recent referendums in Martinique and Guiana, both of which have populations that are unanimously agreed upon to not be ethnicly French. It is the confusion between these two ideas, and the idea of inhabitant, that has led certain editors to insist that the French are indeed an ethnic group. However, even after repeated demands, no fiable source has been given, and no attempt to a possible solution has been made on the other side. To come to their desired result, that is the keeping of the page as it currently is, they have persistently abused Wikipedia's policy of keeping the status quo until the debate is finished, and so have become ardent filibusters. I hereby show my indignation at these counter-productive measures, but also understand that anymore of my time spent here will simply be wasted, and so I renounce my right to continue this debate. Also, expanding the general idea, I have realised that Wikipedia has suffered the same problems as other Web 2.0 sites, and so is no longer the place it once was; I hereby announce my retirement from active editing.

If you (and I won't say any names) think I have admitted defeat and lost, you're wrong. The debate has simply indecisively stopped, and you've just lost another good-faithed editor, and all the good he could have eventually brought.

So long folks, ChrisDHDR 12:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes there is definitely a French ethnicity. Separate French people and French citizenship and you will solve your problem. A huge difference between the two. I'm not even Caucasian or European and I know this. There are real French people, the ethnicity and culture. I cannot believe people have to debate this. Too much information and layers today is making people forget basics and common sense and go through many wrong routes when the simple path has been there all along. Modern day immigration to countries, especially to OLD WORLD/naturally homogenous countries such as France has also caused people to be silly, unnecessarily confused and question things when there is no need to question the obvious. Every ethnicity is naturally made up of different groups, but from way back. And because of this ancient history and line, this is what has made an ethnicity and culture, such as the French people. And the French people is one of the oldest peoples and cultures and are OLD WORLD. It's not rocket science. Alex 25 March 2010

Requested edit

{{editprotected}}As per the now closed debate above could you please move this page to People of France. Thanks, ChrisDHDR 17:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

While I agree with the rationale for the move, I do not see consensus in the above discussion for it. I'd advise against closing RfCs you've taken a position in; it seems here as if you are trying to play prosecutor, judge and jury all at once.  Skomorokh  23:40, 16 December 2009 (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)

Too many pictures!!!!

Why there are as much as 27 pictures

it's perhaps the ethnos article with most pictures!!!!????

Humanbyrace (talk) 16:40, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

The answer to that question is under French people/Vote. - Wikigi | talk to me | 06:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)