Talk:French people/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Josephine Baker?

Why is Josephine Baker included in the list of notable french people? This is an article about those who are of french ethnicity, not those who immigrated to france and spoke french as a second language. That 63,000,000 figure for ethnic french in france is rediculously exaggerated as well. It's probably much closer to 40 million. What justification could there possibly be for including 1st generation immigrants, many of whom don't even speak french, in an article focusing on those who are of French ancestry?--24.179.211.176 (talk) 20:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I admit that Josephine Baker as french can be critiqued as she was not born and/or raised in France. That's true in the 63 million people living in France, 5 million (surely more) are immigrant (people born outside France without the french nationality). Anyway how do you define the french ethnicity ? and this is the real question. For many people, it is being white but I don't see why a french of italian descent would be more french than a french of african descent. In France there is no ethnic census, no reconized ethnicities... No notion of french ethnicity. Minato ku (talk) 20:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Speaking in anthropological terms, ethnicity is usually defined as a product of language and culture. Under this definition, we can obviously exclude first generation immigrants, even if they have been naturalized. Most such immigrants would have been brought up in a culture other than french, and most would speak french as a second language, if they speak it at all. I think its fair to say that self description can play a major role is such classification as well. I imagine if you walked up to every person living in france, and asked them: "what is your ethnicity?," a good number of them would respond with something other than "french." Perhaps as much as a third of the french population would define their ethnicity as something other than french. We can debate exactly what ethnicity is, but I think we can agree that it's not enough to simply describe everyone currently living in france as belonging to the "French people." At the very least, someone who is described as ethnically french must have been born in france, and must speak french as their first language. Josephine Baker, therefore, cannot be considered a member of the "french people," no matter how liberally one defines this term. Her image should therefore be removed from the collage, and the number of ethnic french in france should be dramatically reduced from it's current figure of 63 million. Find out how many people living in france were born there, and use that figure to describe the number of ethnic french in france.--24.179.211.176 (talk) 01:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

You are missing the point, this article is about French people, not French ethnicity. See this archived discussion about the same.. - Wikigi | talk to me | 06:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

No, you're missing the point. The word "people" is used here in the sense of ethnic group (check wikt:people definition 2), just like at Basque people, Spanish people, or English people (where the figure of 45 000 000/40 000 000 ethnic English/Spainards is well under the official population of 51 000 000/46 000 000 in the country). The French population in general goes at Demography of France . How about we rename the page French (ethnic group) to get rid of such confusion in the future? ChrisDHDR 17:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Trying to define a French ethnic group is as unrealistic as defining a world ethnic group.. - Wikigi | talk to me | 17:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

So just because you think something's hard, you're going to make everyone give up? Whether Hugo is French or not, there is no question; and whether Baker is or not is a no-brainer as well. If you ask me it's pretty straitforward, you just have to use your grey stuff a bit. ChrisDHDR 18:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The fundamental issue here is that the French government itself doesn't recognize an "ethnic French" category. That is not the case in the United Kingdom or in Spain for example. For the French government, basically anyone who identifies with the French culture and speaks French is French, whether or not they were born in a different culture and to a different language (thus their inclusion of Josephine Baker).--Ramdrake (talk) 20:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The answer can be found in the article itself : French people#Later immigration. Very little grey matter needed.. - Wikigi | talk to me | 06:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

So just because the Burman government says that its litteracy rate is 18.7% means that it's true? Is a government some unquestionable source? If that's what you think then you're living in 1984 or during the Soviet era. The French government doesn't have an official position on ethnicity, it only identifies French citizens based on jus soli, so the "source" is irrelevant anyway. ChrisDHDR 18:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to :

Quote

• 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". Its definition is reproduced on several Web sites collecting or reporting demographic data.

• 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. . . . Traditionally, France has had a high level of immigration. . . . 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."

• The Encyclopædia Britannica says that "the French . . . hardly constitute a unified ethnic group by any scientific gauge", and it mentions as part of the population of France, the Basques, the Celts (called Gauls by Romans) and the Germanic (Teutonic) peoples (including the Norsemen or Vikings). France also became "in the 19th and especially in the 20th century, the prime recipient of foreign immigration into Europe. . . ."

Unquote

That is no "Soviet era", yada yada, statements. Surely not French government stuff - Wikigi | talk to me | 19:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's analyse your quotes:

• The CIA is a very fiable source, I must say. However the quote seems to be misunderstood: they talk about "ethnic groups of France", not the French ethnic group. So you can take away the Slavs, Arabs (North African), Blacks (Sub-Saharan African), Indochinese, and Basques; plus the overseas Blacks, Whites, Mulattos, East Indians, Chinese, and Amerindians. Now notice how they put "Celtic and Latin with Teutonic" as one single item: this is because they have blended to the point that they are indistinguishible, ie. they are the homogenous French people.
• This view is supported by the U.S. Department of State which says that the Celts, Latins, and Franks have "have blended over the centuries to make up its present population": ie. it is these three population stocks that have homogenized (homogeneity one of the criteria for an ethnic group) to form the French people. It then goes on to say that the presence of other ethnic groups in France is a result of immigration (plus slavery which brought the Blacks to the West Indies [present in the source since it is administratively part of France]).
• Encyclopædia Britannica also reinforces the fact that France has had a lot of Immigration. On top of that it simply talks about "the French [population]" not the French ethnic group, and so is perfectly justified in saying that the French population is not unified (but the French people are).

So you can see that even your sources draw a clean line between the French population (ie. all inhabitants of France) and the French people (ie. the French ethnic group)

As a final note I would like to draw your attention to the article English people and its talk page. It says at the top, something I think that is leading to the confusion here, and so this debate:

This article is about the English as an ethnic group and nation. For information on the population of England, see Demography of England.

Which could be transposed here as:

This article is about the French as an ethnic group and nation. For information on the population of France, see Demography of France.

Plus on their talk page there is no crying out because such people as Shaun Wright-Phillips aren't present on the page; I dare you to try to add this name there, see how long it lasts. I attribute the hypocritical point of view here, claiming that people that obviously aren't ethnically French are (tho no doubt about their citizenship), to the fact that this page is by nature exposed greatly more to this weird, typically French, point of view. However I still know Blacks who altho they were born in France and have lived all their life here, don't consider themselves French. You must know this: haven't you ever seen a typical French, 2nd generation immigrant, racaille proudly and overtly showing their support for Algeria? I even had a guy in my class whose family has had French citizenship for five generations but feels overwhelmingly more Algerian than French! So you must have a hard time imagining Zidane as ethnically French.

Sorry for not replying earlier but I was too busy in real life, ChrisDHDR 17:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

So how do you define the "french ethnicity" ? And who is and isn't of "french ethnicity" ? Without forgetting that had a load of european immigrant in the past. I wait your answer. Minato ku (talk) 11:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

And here it is (did you wait to long?). The French ethnic group is, by definition [of an ethnic group], a homogeneous group of people sharing a common origin, culture, and beliefs. Now the French are a mix of Franks, Celts, and Latins, who have mixed over the years till they now are indistinguishable. If one day the Arabs, for example, mixed with the French population till the point that they were indistinguishable from each other, then you could count them as [ethnically] French. However at the present day that is not the case: they do not have the same origins (their ancestors were from Africa), their culture is still very Arab influenced (cf. example above), and they do not have the same beliefs (you must watch the news a little to know what I'm talking about). Over the generations they are slowly integrated into the French, and so maybe in 50 years we can call them French. Untill that time they will have their own articles at Beur (or Afro-French, etc.).

"Ethnicity is a minefield" (from WP:ETHNIC), so just think logically and take it case by case. That's the way you do it.

I think the reason you have such a problem with this issue is that you can't accept the fact that you have French nationality but not ethnicity (Vietnamese I guess, am I right?).

ChrisDHDR 19:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Chris, I'd like a source for your definition. I've never seen it this way (especially called a "homogeneous group").--Ramdrake (talk) 22:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

OK but how do you do with the french of eastern european descent ? They are numberous. How do you count them ? You should admit that in your mind "ethnic french" just mean "white french", it does has nothing to do with a so called ethnicity but with a skin color. France doesn't reconize any french ethnicity and doesn't do racial stat, it will be hard to create a subjet about it. No stat, no possible claim... So we don't have any other choise that to use the official definition of french : people with the french nationality, like it or not. Minato ku (talk) 22:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

So you've just said that the French ethnic group doesn't exist, so shouldn't this page just be deleted then?

And of course not, stop making racism claims just as a lame argument. If you're a White (lets say a Ukrainian like a friend of mine), and you live in France, that doesn't make you a Frenchman. If you ask her she will ardently say she is a Ukrainian, and never a Frenchwoman.

Oh well I'm tired of you making us turn in circles like this (I guess it's since the status quo suits you fine), so I'm opening a RFC. Maybe we can get some POV on the matter. ChrisDHDR 19:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Need a correction

there is a problem or maybe two: 1) why for "French people" do you include immigrants in the population of France and it doesn't happen for any other country? 2) even if you include immigrants, the TOTAL population, as in the article, reaches 105 million, not 130! why this false number?FrankVonPedro (talk) 10:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree with you, it's very uncorrect to include immigrants in the Frech people while doesn't happen for any other country.

--Conte di Cavour (talk) 20:22, 14 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.	^(in English)Since 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)

I totally agree with you ChrisDHDR. I am French and I do not believe that there is a French nation and a French people. These are the claims of ignorant people and of the French government's propaganda. What makes up the so called real French or ethnic French are in fact people who used to speak different languages (my grand-father learned French at school), sometimes even distant languages: Alsacian (Germanic), Breton (celtic), Basque (not indo-european), Occitan (Romance language). Those people were force to learn French at school and to abandon their native languages, like the Russians forced everyone to learn Russians in the Soviet Union. They were all forced to learn a unique history even if it was not their own. The history of France only (starting from Clovis) is taught in schools in Savoy, even though the territory became French in 1860. That is also why today you may hear in Burgundy people say: "We hate the English people since Joan of Arc", even though Burgundy fought on the English side. All this started in the XIX century and it was in order to create a uniform French nation. They might be a French nation after all: a fake one.--Percht (talk) 11:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes there is definitely a French ethnicity. A combination of the Roman, the Northman, the Celt with of course the original tribes in the French land. This happened too long ago. So 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. That is why immigration to OLD WORLD countries doesn't really work or make sense. That is a different issue though. 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 happens to be 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)

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)

Why 130 mln of french people even if the correct number is around 100???

Why? PLEASE someone answer me! that numer must be changed!--FrankVonPedro (talk) 07:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

True French are Celtic and Latin

Yes. 97.122.162.181 (talk) 16:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The Latins are not an ethnic group. French people (Indigenous) are largely of pre-Celtic descent. The descendants of Greeks, Romans, Celtic peoples, Germanic peoples, Sarmatian peoples, Scandinavians, Saracens, etc., are a minority group. 88.178.38.7 (talk) 10:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

Uruguay

According to French Uruguayan there is 300 000 people of french decent in uruguay,wouldn't it be nice to edit the list and add Uruguay after chile ? Shid0x02 (talk) 20:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Why not? Gabriel Stijena (talk) 02:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Guillaume le Conquérant and the conquest of the English kingdom

This articles stipulates, about the so-called "Norman conquest" that :

"It was the Normans who, two centuries later, would go on to conquer England."

This is a ridiculous claim. If you translate it in the modern context, it would mean for example that the descendants of people who established themselves in the USA 200 years ago, thus in 1812, and assimilated the culture, religion, language, married the locals, and so on, are not "american people", but irish, italian, german, french, australian, etc. This sort of claim only serves to perpetuate the illusion of the english people that they weren't at some point in their history invaded by french people and ruled by a french "elite", an event which completely changed their political institutions, culture and language. Yes indeed, the english were invaded by their arch enemy, France, and conquered. This conquest is the founding event of modern England, which before hand did not exist. Just deal with it. It also serves to maintain the common myth in the anglo sphere that the French are utterly unable of any sort of military aptitude, much less prowess, which again is a ludicrous negation of historical fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.28.70.222 (talk) 01:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't follow your argument. What exactly do you see as a problem in the article? The fact that conquest of England is referred to as "Norman"? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 09:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Regions with significant populations

Add the UK: 200,000 - 300,000 (French born)in the UK according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_migration_to_the_United_Kingdom

...according to this source (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18234930): The French consulate in London estimates between 300,000 and 400,000 French citizens live in the British capital...i.e. that'd make the number of French people in the UK significantly higher — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kreutznaer (talk • contribs) 11:52, 28 December 2012 (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 [7], 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)

We really do need two different articles. One on French people as a nationality, and one on French people as an ethnic group. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples_of_Europe shows French as an ethnicity, however, the French People article doesn't reflect this. There really should be a page somewhere on Wikipedia discussing the French ethnic group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.70.236.248 (talk) 00:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

As long as some people will continue to understand the word "ethnicity" as a "racial/genetic/ancestry" term, we will fail to be able to define what french ethnicity is (as weel as any other ethnicity by the way).

An ethnicity is NOT defined by the belonging of the ancestors of the modern people that makes the ethnicity 2000 years ago... But the actual culture that have united those various individuals and still unite them in the history of the nation. The main "unifying" aspect of a people is the language, along with the political unity and sometimes the religion. The french ethnicity cannot being defined as the genetic mix of Celts, latins and Germanics... For the simple reasons that such a mix can have gave birth to many other ethnicities. Most other western Europeans, English, Spanish, Italians, Germans... can have in their genetic "pedigree" ancestors that were part of Roman, Celtic or Germanic peoples, without being at all of french ethnicity. French ethnicity exist and is defined by its culture (like Spanish, English, Italian or German ones), this is the fact of being rooted in the french culture that makes someone ethnically french, not the fact of having ancestors who were 2000 years ago either Roman, Celtic or Germanic.

We do no have to forget that those old "ethnic stocks" to which many people refers are not more genetic realities than french ethnicity. The people we call Gauls were celts because of their culture, not because of their genetic herency: It is very unlikly that the Celts (originally coming from central Europe) would have replaced the existing pre-celtic populations (ligurians, Basques and other pre-celtic populations we don't know much about outside the fact that they yet existed much before the celtification of their culture). So the Gauls were not probably in great part descent of those previous population, with maybe some influx of genome from the celtic invaders. The Gauls became celt because they adopted a celtic culture, celtic language. It is very likely that the population of Gaul did not had enough time to interbreed enough to form a more genetically homogenous population when the Roman arrived with their language and civilisation. When they arrived, the Romans (like the Gauls), where not an ethnicity in the genetic meaning, but a group of individuals whose ancestors were from various cultures and origins (etruscans, Greeks, Celtic, sabins, etc). At this time "Gaul" was not a country, and was not even fully "celtized"; it is more than probably that huge parts of the land did retain the pre-celtic cultures or language (especially Basque, but also ligurian and maybe others that we don't know much about). It was finally the same for the Germanic invaders that arrived at the fall of the Roman empire: they were a mix of individual from various tribes germanic by their language and culture, but whose ansestors were more likely a mix of the previous celtic populations of Southern Germany, with the "real" germanics from Scandinavia (to which we should add many peoples who were not Germanic such as the Huns, etc). Looking history like that, as it is really, we realize that thinking ethnicities as if they were homogenous "racial/genetic" groups or "stocks" that existed since ever has really no meaning at all. An ethnicity is something that is always moving and changing its components (like an organic being, like your own body), but keeping itself an individual entity thanks to the cultural herency, especially the language, that keep the components together and make them able to interbreed and mix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.221.194.15 (talk) 15:08, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

You are wrong, and seem to lack a proper understanding of genetics. You do understand that many of those different groups all carried the same haplogroups correct? The Angles & the Saxons were likely to carry the same R1b Y-DNA as the celts did. The reality is Europeans in general aren't that different from each other. Half of Europe carries the same Haplogroup R1b. Even those "Germanics" you claim to be pure have mediterranean admixture. Europe is the most homogeneous continent on the planet, but all of its haplogroups are of European origin. Over 70% of France carries the R1b Haplogroup, and the rest still carry haplogroups coming from Europe. Thats enough to claim the French as an ethnicity. An ethnicity IS NOT only culture and religion, and ethnicity is also when some share close genetic ties to each other, we have established that the ethnic French do INFACT have that. There is an ethnic French, as there are for every other nation in Europe saying anything else is pure delusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C4EA:CA0:F481:792E:4CA7:D22 (talk) 00:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

French Argentine

According to this Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Argentine There's 6 millon French descendants in Argentina... why is this number so different from the Article's 14,444? Like Uruguay, can't this be changed too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariano Menéndez (talk • contribs) 22:44, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

South Africa

Can someone possibly add the figure for South Africans of French ancestry? Afrikaners have been found to be 13.9% of French ancestry (see Afrikaner) and so a minimum figure of 450,000 (14% of 3 million) should seem suffice? This of course is a minimum as intermarriage between Afrikaners and Afrikaners and Anglo-Africans, as well as the Coloureds who are mixed. Bezuidenhout (talk) 11:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 02:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Ethnicity vs Nationality

This article should be about one or the other. In the introduction, it gives the definition as an ethnic group that is native to the region of France and supports this by adding a genetics sections and also being of interest to WikiProjects Ethnic groups. Yet, the infobox gives the demographics of those with French citizenship. Why is there this ambiguation in the article? That's essentially taking two completely different things and not caring about their distinction. If this isn't changed soon, the ethnic groups infobox is going to get an overhaul. Khazar (talk) 04:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree. This is the only article about a nation's people which depict those who are clearly not of French ethnicity. A change of citizenshop does not alter one's ethnicity!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

In the lead it says "but within France, the French are defined by citizenship, regardless of ancestry or country of residence.[12]".

This article covers a lot more than French ethnicity. For example, Marie Curie was Polish, but she is considered part of the "French people". --Enric Naval (talk) 20:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Did you even read my post? That's the issue with this article. The infobox isn't just misleading. It fails WP:OR and WP:V. This article needs to be rewritten in a way so that its about the autochtonous ethnicity rather than the nationality. Khazar (talk) 21:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Not to mention that how ethnicity is defined in France doesn't matter here on wikipedia since that wouldn't be objective andit'd violate WP:POV. Khazar (talk) 21:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Population re Canada

This is showing 50,000 even though the figure is miles higher. A P Monblat (talk) 19:01, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

that's probably because whoever's been editing that infobox means "people from France in Canada" vs. Quebecois/Acadians/Metis; i.e. more recent arrivals than since the Conquest. Still seems low, I'll looking in the census, though note [[8]]:

Top Four Reported "French" ethnic or cultural identities in Canada

Identity	Population
French Canadians	6,695,770
French	4,941,210
Québécois	146,590
Acadian	96,145

It seems that Haitians and francophone Africans and others don't rate the table, which surprises me re Haitians, you'd think there's be more. Also CensusCanada I don't think makes a distinction between Flemings and Wallooons, only has "Belgian" and similarly there is no ethnolinguistic breakdown of the Swiss.Skookum1 (talk) 02:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for all this effort, but I think this problem is the result of a weird technical glitch. The editable version actually reads:|pop2 = 10,400,000, but the version ordinary readers see says 50,000. Quelle mystère! A P Monblat (talk) 14:48, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Some kind of coding issue, not sure where you'd report that glitch, one of the infobox/table template talkpages I guess.Skookum1 (talk) 02:26, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I have fixed the Canada population error - it resulted from a country ("region") in the list (Morocco) being incorrectly code-numbered. It had the same coding as Canada. This had been wrong for several weeks, and underlines the importance of paying attention to detail and not rushing one's edits. All's well that ends well, though! A P Monblat (talk) 14:39, 14 October 2014 (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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The gallery of personalities from the infobox

I'd like to ask fellow editors how does the gallery from the infobox help the reader. What's it's role? How does this gallery provide encyclopaedic content? Why is it better to include such a gallery in the article? Hahun (talk) 08:13, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

This is an old story: for me the encyclopedic value of this collage is zero, each gallery is POV, being only a source of recurrent edit wars among users, but unfortunately appears to be a tradition of enwiki. On itwiki these galleries have been abolished some moths ago. Alex2006 (talk) 08:17, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Alessandro57, I understand that you support the removal of the gallery from this article. Is it right? Hahun (talk) 08:39, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I support the removal of all galleries from this "nationality" articles, but you need consensus to do that, and this is impossible to reach. Alex2006 (talk) 09:38, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Alessandro57, do you agree that a centralised discussion about all articles would be the ideal solution? We are talking about general arguments that apply for every ethnic group. I think that wikipedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes on similar articles and the lack of a coordinated guideline regarding this issue makes this encyclopedia look messy. Hahun (talk) 09:48, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree. You can try, tell me just where. Maybe the Manual of Style? Alex2006 (talk) 09:56, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I opened the following thread: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ethnic_groups#The_necessity_of_galleries_of_personalities_in_the_infoboxes Hahun (talk) 10:14, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

RfC can be found here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups#Proposal for the deletion of all the galleries of personalities from the articles about ethnic groups. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:29, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on French people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090207093333/http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/ressources/eurydice/eurybase/pdf/section/BF_EN_C1_7_3.pdf to http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/ressources/eurydice/eurybase/pdf/section/BF_EN_C1_7_3.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080513101711/http://www.neta.com/%7E1stbooks/jrm2.htm to http://www.neta.com/~1stbooks/jrm2.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080216031848/http://ourworld.compuserve.com:80/homepages/bib_lisieux/nation01.htm to http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/bib_lisieux/nation01.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090605035505/http://www.canalacademie.com:80/Les-merveilleux-francophiles,1009.html to http://www.canalacademie.com/Les-merveilleux-francophiles,1009.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:01, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Genetics for ethnic groups RfC

For editors interested, there's an RfC currently being held: Should sections on genetics be removed from pages on ethnic groups?. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:18, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on French people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080310121707/http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au:80/ABSNavigation/prenav/ViewData?breadcrumb=POLTD&method=Place%20of%20Usual%20Residence&subaction=-1&issue=2006&producttype=Census%20Tables&documentproductno=0&textversion=false&documenttype=Details&collection=Census&javascript=true&topic=Ancestry&action=404&productlabel=Ancestry%20(full%20classification%20list)%20by%20Sex&order=1&period=2006&tabname=Details&areacode=0&navmapdisplayed=true& to http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/ABSNavigation/prenav/ViewData?breadcrumb=POLTD&method=Place%20of%20Usual%20Residence&subaction=-1&issue=2006&producttype=Census%20Tables&documentproductno=0&textversion=false&documenttype=Details&collection=Census&javascript=true&topic=Ancestry&action=404&productlabel=Ancestry%20(full%20classification%20list)%20by%20Sex&order=1&period=2006&tabname=Details&areacode=0&navmapdisplayed=true&
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5nXdBl0QT?url=https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/fr.html to https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/fr.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090326114613/http://www.jerseyheritagetrust.org/edu/resources/pdf/normans.pdf to http://www.jerseyheritagetrust.org/edu/resources/pdf/normans.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761563379_21/canada.html
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5nXdBl0QT?url=https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/fr.html to https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/fr.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20031208020244/http://www.yale.edu/glc/events/race/Fredrickson.pdf to http://www.yale.edu/glc/events/race/Fredrickson.pdf
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5nXdBl0QT?url=https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/fr.html to https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/fr.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:13, 5 January 2017 (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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.223.127.247 (talk) 21:31, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

It refers to the Walloons, which is the name that the Germanic people gave to the French in this region. --86.220.251.188 (talk) 00:56, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Everyone talks French as first language

" Most French people speak the French language as their mother tongue, but certain languages like Norman, Occitan, Catalan, Auvergnat, Corsican, Basque, French Flemish, Franconian and Breton remain spoken in certain regions (see Language policy in France)."

This is definitively not true. The mother tongue of all French people is French nowadays. I don't know a region or a village where people talk their regional tongue before French. It was true in the past. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:8A8D:FE80:9F7:ED1:3427:35BE (talk) 04:06, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Well maybe you should travel in France a bit more. I know many "french people" who don't have french as their mother tongue but a "regional" language. Matieu Sokolovic (talk) 06:19, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on French people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/ABSNavigation/prenav/ViewData?breadcrumb=POLTD&method=Place%20of%20Usual%20Residence&subaction=-1&issue=2006&producttype=Census%20Tables&documentproductno=0&textversion=false&documenttype=Details&collection=Census&javascript=true&topic=Ancestry&action=404&productlabel=Ancestry%20%28full%20classification%20list%29%20by%20Sex&order=1&period=2006&tabname=Details&areacode=0&navmapdisplayed=true&
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090306193448/http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/testimonies/2006/0112france_vaisse/vaisse20060112.pdf to http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/testimonies/2006/0112france_vaisse/vaisse20060112.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720000644/http://cdis.missouri.edu/exec/data/courses/2313/public/lesson01/lesson01.aspx to http://cdis.missouri.edu/exec/data/courses/2313/public/lesson01/lesson01.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150524080817/http://www.genealogia.or.cr/docs/revistas/accg_revista012.pdf to http://www.genealogia.or.cr/docs/revistas/accg_revista012.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:54, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on French people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071209103306/http://pagnol83300.free.fr/barcelo02/Les%20Barcelonnettes%20au%20Mexique.htm to http://pagnol83300.free.fr/barcelo02/Les%20Barcelonnettes%20au%20Mexique.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130728081603/http://www.unomaha.edu/esc/2010Proceedings/KreppsPaper.pdf to http://www.unomaha.edu/esc/2010Proceedings/KreppsPaper.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061116061353/http://droit.univ-lille2.fr/enseignants/villalba/cours_PSC/Psc_chap_citoyen.html to http://droit.univ-lille2.fr/enseignants/villalba/cours_PSC/Psc_chap_citoyen.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:17, 20 December 2017 (UTC)