Talk:French people

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)

The article for sure overstates ethnic influences on the French. For example few French are descended of Greeks as the article claims so few that it doesn't even warrant mentioning. On genetic plots the French come nowhere even close to Greeks or even Southern Italians for the matter. People have an odd habit of treating Northern & Southern France like they do North & south Italy. Which is a big mistake because they are not at all comparable. There is no great divide between regions of France. North is not Germanic and south is not mediterranean. You can find just as many pink skinned fair haired Frenchmen south of France as you can norther. Here is a group of people from Toulouse. On England, its similar to France. Not only did most of those people not make a dent in the ethnic structure of the English but most of them were similar to each other. Jutes, Anglo Saxons, Frisians were all Germanics, all Germanics came from north Germany and southern Scandinavia they were the same in ethnicity only different in tribe name. Picts, Britons were both celts Normans were largely Germanic, celtic peoples (who also didn't leave much impact on Britain genetically as much as they did culturally. Romans mostly did not intermix with the British population. Hence Britain today couldn't be any further from Italians on genetic plots. Overall the British in general are largely Celto-Germanics. Celts mixd with the Germanic invading groups. Not that mixed up as often portrayed. If they were Britain wouldn't cluster right next to Germany and other northern nations like they do today. Only non northern European people who overlap some with the British are northern French. France is very similar to the British isles. Both are largely celto-germanic people (with minor latin contribution in France). Britain and France are ethnically similar just in different quantities. Point is people can sit here and argue over groups not being ethnic groups because this and that group were once in the nation. This is of no importance what matters today is genetics and present populations because even people in antiquity were not all the same. Mexicans are largely the result of Amerindian and spanish intermixing and yet they are still an ethnic group because they cluster and overlap with eachother they are distinct from every other population. Which is the definition of an ethnic group and this same thing applies to the French and English both are distinct enough in DNA to be considered ethnic groups.

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)

There is certainly a such thing as ethnic French, and i can't believe someone just compared the modern French genetic make up to a group of early humans who lived on the African continent? Are you serious right now? FACT all populations on earth have people who are similar to each other in genetic make up. The Y-DNA & MtDNA of most ethnic French is of European stock. A minority no matter if they become a citizen WILL NOT be geneticaly similar to an ethnic French. It reminds me of the people who try to pass of German Jews as "Ethnic Germans", NO the average Ashkenazi Jew has Y-DNA & MtDNA different from the average ethnic German as the Jews differ from all European populations. Ashkenazi are actually closer to those in the middle east than they are ANY European population. This liberal media garbage trying to proclaim Europeans as some mixed up group of people who have no identity is just that CRAP. Europe is actually THE most homogeneous continent on the planet compared to either Asia, Africa, or South America. It does not matter who mixed with who Celts, with Normans, Saxons, with Angles THIS DOES NOT MATTER. ALL THESE GROUPS WERE OF EUROPEAN STOCK, and carried some of the same Haplogroups. A Germanic could carry the R1b haplogroup just as a Celt could. Many of the "Germanics" who inhabited Britain in the first place carried the R1b haplogroup rather than I1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C4EA:CA0:F481:792E:4CA7:D22 (talk) 00:04, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Well as the purveyors of liberalism and multiculturalism, I think the French have lost the privilege of being called an ethnic group. Anyone who lives in France is french, anyone who doesn't is not french. DNA is a cursed contrivance of the capitalist anglo racists. 50.80.146.188 (talk) 00:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

France is not multicultural and just like England to say so is showing ones ignorance of a country outside of its multicultural metropolitan areas like London and Paris. It seems people wrongly measure a nation's multicultural status by the demographics of its major cities. A foolish notion, one that undermines the culture of an entire country and puts priority on a synthetic one that exist only in the city. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giselle102 (talk • contribs) 14:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

In denial

The French gov't and whoever else are in denial. Even if their policy is nationality rather than ethnicity, you could still acknowledge the natural people or formula. Ethnic French people are a result of Gauls-Franks-Roman even Germanic tribes with other European tribes in its history. Then the Northern parts have more Celt and the South has Mediterranean ancestries and influence. France is no different than Spain or Italy, where the native people are a result of a formula from history, and are therefore the ethnic "homogenous" native people of the country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.230.174.218 (talk) 18:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that "Ethnic French people are a result of Gauls-Franks-Roman even Germanic tribes with other European tribes in its history". There's many archeological evidences that during the neolitic there were many cultural/people mixing in that area. And trought history it was the same, with Hannibal and the moorish "invasion" we can see how far people may have come from. Even today, many french families got the (very french) name "Moreau", wich means that they may be from moorish descent. And it's the same with english, irish, german etc peoples. So there's no "race" criterion to describe the French. But, there's a language and a huge cultural, historical heritage that describe what a French really is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:2E0A:6C80:5D25:7DA1:83AB:4B70 (talk) 12:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

France is a melting pot nation, just like the USA is, and was/is built by immigration. The French people are as the article states: They can be and are ANY race of people AND can be ANY religion. A "Black" Frenchman is just as French as the "White" Frenchman is. 107.222.205.242 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Ethnic French or French Citizens?

I found interesting the fact that among the representative French people in the infobox, there are 4 French citizens from different ethnic groups, namely, a Corsican, a Pole, an African American and a Berber. So, is this article about members of the ethnic group called French or about citizens of the country called France?--The Theosophist (talk) 16:54, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Both. See lead sentence; "The French (French: Français) are a nation and ethnic group who are identified with the country of France. This connection may be legal, historical, and/or cultural." --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Ethnic French

This article is a strange hodgepodge of "nationality" and "ethnicity" that's making the whole thing controversial. Why not just split the article into two. French people would redirect to a sort of disambuigity page where one could choose French people (ethnic group) as a sub-article. This whole issue would go away. Bulldog123 09:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

You honestly think it wouldn't just move over to the French people (ethnic group) article, where the argument would be who qualifies as being part of the French ethnic group? The reason this article is "a strange hodgepodge" is because it's extremely difficult to draw a dividing line where everyone is happy. And for the most part, the distinction is irrelevant. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand why the argument would spill over to French people (ethnic group). It's not been a major, overwhelming issue for any of the countless amounts of European ethnic group articles that already exist. Only this article seems to be considering "the French ethnicity" to not truly be in existence. There's a French Americans page which clearly doesn't list any person deeming themselves of French descent without proof (e.g., there's no requiremnt for people to have both French and US citizenship in order to qualify). Furthermore, to say the distinction is irrelevant is a matter of your opinion, not biological fact. You might as well delete French Jews and French Blacks as well... since these distinctions are irrelevant as well, using that logic. Bulldog123 23:48, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree but there seems to be no such thing as a French ethnicity according to the Wikipedia left-leaning gurus!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:21, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Ethnicity and race

I deleted Zinedine Zidane from this article, because Zidane is not thoroughbred French but is of Arabic descent. This article is about the number of thoroughbred French all over the world, not for the naturalized French. If so, then my aunt is Canadian and not Greek, because she spent a year in Canada.

Antonios1994 (talk) 11:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Hallo, I reverted per WP:BRD your deletion of Zidane from the French notables. In fact, the definition of French applied in this article is not that of the "thoroughbred", but implies a connection with France that can be "legal, historical, or cultural" (second sentence in the article). According to this definition, the descent is not a necessary condition to belong to the French people. The example about your aunt is nor probant. In fact, Zidane, did not spend "a year" in France, but he was born in France and because of that he became French Citizen. Last but not least, you should notice that according to your "thoroughbred" definition you should remove also Napoleon from the list, since he, born as Napoleone Buonaparte, was ethnically Italian. See also the thread "Ethnic French or French Citizens?" above. Alex2006 (talk) 13:14, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

And Marie Curie, and Josephine Baker. Gustave Eiffel was descended from Germans, and Charles de Gaulle's mother had French, Irish, Scottish, Fleming, and German ancestry. Albert Camus was half Spanish and Jules Verne's mother was of Scottish decent. And that's only the ones we know about. Good Lord! There's not a "thoroughbred" among them! --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Except Albert Camus, Jules Verne, Charles de Gaulle, and Gustave Eiffel all had ethnic French descendants and if one where to ask them "Are you ethnically French" they'd all likely respond that they are. I'm not sure you could say the same for Marie Curie, Josephine Baker, or Zidane... So you might want to be careful of strawman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:1524:C07A:226:8FF:FEEA:5922 (talk) 09:42, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I think that was my point. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:16, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

missing

Fermat is missing on the infobox — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swagsevokeoip (talk • contribs) 14:37, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Population of France shouldn't redirect here!

This article doesn't have a section on current and past population size. 74.96.172.110 (talk) 19:54, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Belgium?

Are there really 6.2 million Belgians of French descent, as the article currently claims? 2602:306:CFEA:170:3471:5FD9:3432:C26B (talk) 04:03, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

OF COURSE NOT BUT THIS ARTICLE IS CRAWLING WITH FRENCH NATIONALISM AND WANNABEISM. THEY HAVE AN OBSSESSION WITH ANYWHERE GERMANIC OR NORTHERN.