Talk:French people

This article was nominated for deletion on January 11 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus; keep. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.

Archives
Vote for Infobox image Archive 1

Why is the ethnicity template box different from all the others?

Seriously why is there no indication of their language, religion, or related peoples? WTF?!

~Supera45 09/03/2007 8:13 P.M. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.249.81.127 (talk) 00:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Just men??

Why are there just men pictured in the infobox? Wouldn't it be great to ad some women too?? Aaker 14:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

i've added gals. french women achieved peanuts compared to men except for joan of arc and marie curie (who isn't french born hence shes not on the list). there's no equivalent for Descartes, Molière, Victor Hugo, Pasteur, Ferdinand de Lesseps or Napoléon in the ladies. this is sad but true. Paris By Night 06:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

What about Olympe de Gouges, Simone de Beauvoir, Marie Antoinette, Édith Piaf and Simone Weil just to mention a few of all prominent Frenchwomen. But you're right the amount of men is much bigger. Probably because it has been more difficult for women to make a career. Aaker 19:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

We need also people like Alexandre Dumas, Aimé Cézaire or Zinedine Zidane. Ericd 00:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

A LOT OF VANDALISM!!!

Okay, this article has been uber-vandalized lately. Someone needs to revert it, and then protect it. Rabidcentipede 13:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

francophonie

The paragraph about francophonie got me wondering if the notorious pieds noirs inhabiting mostly the South of France might have considered Arabic (Algerian, Moroccan, and Tunisian dialects) to be their first language(s). I suspect, but I don't actually know. Dick Kimball 16:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Dick, FYI the Pied-Noir were the inhabitants of French Algeria which was officially part of the French Republic not an official colony (like indochina or madagascar), it was like Corsica now (or Ireland for the english I guess), consider it kind of lander or province. These were of european descent being catholic or spanish jew. French language is the sole official language of france, always been hence French was the official language of French Algeria (1830-1962). All Pied-Noir spoke French with a secondary European language being the German-dialect Alsatian (Alsatian people migrated to Algeria colony after the annexion of the Alsace and Lorraine in the Prussian war of 1870) and other latin languages being Spanish or Italian (or other latin languages dialects spoke in spain, corsica, malta and sicilia). Few of them knew arabic language, like few very French colons in Indochina spoke Vietnamese since French was actually the language taught at school, indigenous had to learn the colonial language it was not the opposite. In Algeria there was no de facto apartheid (despite the colon lived in urban area while the muslim lived in the outskirts or being nomadic - algeria was a low density 10 million underpopulated large territory) and the arab kids went to french school to get a french education. A bit like the use of French language was forbidden in the former French colony of Louisiana by the U.S. Consider the Pied-Noir in the likes of the Cajun culture. hope it helps. Paris By Night 17:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

p.s. french language is still spoken in free algeria in some TV news and newspapers. it is reminiscent of the century of french education to indigenous i was talking about. today algeria is francophone, colonial algeria was french. Paris By Night 17:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Original research

Many English-language sources, among them the U.S. Department of State, define the "French people" as an ethnic group, consisting of a "Celtic and Latin" majority, with "Teutonic, Slavic, North African, Sub-Saharan African, Indochinese, and Basque minorities". Celtic and Latin could be viewed as the original "ethnic French" population originating in what today is considered metropolitan France[citation needed]. However, this definition is contested for a variety of reasons:

Can we see some sources for (a) the many English-language sources making those claims, and (b) the scholars who contest them for a variety of reasons? Miskin 14:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the section 'The problematic definition of the "French people"' is problematic in itself. This is not a very encyclopedic section name, nor does the section's content say anything important enough to be at the top of the article. If this is an article of the French people then it should put its focus on the history of France itself, not of other regions of the world which may or may not contain descendants of French crusaders, colonists and ex-pats. Plus the vast majority of those claims are unsourced anyway. The first paragraph which speaks of the definition of "French people" in terms of official versus extremist definition, though a pragmatic question, it needs to be sourced and moved to a different article such as Politics of France maybe. Miskin 14:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

i agree with Miskin, i dislike such sections with oriented titles. titles have to be short, neutral and factual, this one is the french wikipedia way. i dislike the whole article by the way. IMHO it focuses too much on the muslim minority like if the muslim were the most important french. they are only one part of the minorities. others who don't put the mess in the suburbs and are never seen on tv like the indochinese and the chinese are overlooked. however those were in metropolitan france before the north african who came in two waves in the 1960s & the 1980s. Paris By Night 06:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I dont think the article focuses too much on the muslim "minority". It is true that Muslims (mostly Arabized Berber) are, for now, still a "minority" as they represent 12-15 % of the whole population (12% is a lot more than the Basques, the Alsaciens or the Corsicans...). But in main cities they represent more : for example 15% in Paris and Lyon, 25% in Marseille, 30% in Mulhouse and even 50% in Roubaix. And more important if we take into account only the young people (< 24y) as 50% of the muslims are under 24, the percentage is about 25-35 % in most french cities (Jonathan Laurence & Justin Vaisse, Intégrer l'Islam, Odile Jacob, 2007, p.40). It is also true that most of the Muslims arrived in France after the 1950s, but thousands of them settled around Toulouse after the conquest of Spain (711) and again after the Reconquista many of them settled in south of france after converted themselves to christianity (see Jonathan Laurence & Justin Vaisse). The first known interethnic mariage between a "French" woman and a North-African occurred in the 8th century when Odo the Great's daughter, Lampagie, got married to Munuza, a Berber, governor of the Cerdagne...(event mentionned in Chronique mozarabe (754) & Gesta episcoporum Autissiodorensium de Bourgogne). Today many famous "french stars" like Edith Piaf, Daniel Prévost, Jacques Villeret, Dany Boon, Alain Baschung, Isabelle Adjani and many others... all have at least a parent, or grand-parent from North-Africa--Rpetit 16:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

OP, you use the words "many sources" and you go on to say that even one of the largest agencies in the world even say it. Wikipedia is not about reporting the truth, it is about compiling what is in many respected sources. So those sources could say that the french, on average comparison to Americans, have very small pensis. Many respected sources say it. Like the rules say, it's not about the truth, it's about the sources, so this is a null issue. JayKeaton 20:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

About Angelina Jolie...

Born Angelina Jolie Voight in Los Angeles, California, she is the daughter of actors Jon Voight and the late Marcheline Bertrand. Macheline Bertrand was a french-quebecan woman, And thus Angelina has her family which results from the French people. Some years ago Angelina adopted a new family name as "Jolie" (which means in English "pretty girl" synonym of the french "belle") on the place of "Voight" (her father is of East-european origin). In the French people is considered also the 10 millions of french americans' origin, and I think that she is in the lot. Comments are welcome!

--Irrintzi 12:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Pretty girl = 'Jolie fille' in French not 'Belle'. 'Belle' = Beautiful Ericd 00:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

With regard to Angelina Jolie, I am not sure that having a French Canadian mother qualifies her as a "French" personality, she is a US citizen, was born in the US, and live and work in the US... In any case, having 12 pix of French most influential people doesn't improve this article in my opinion. For example the Spanish people article presents only four, Italian people six and English people eight for that matter - Wikigi | talk to me | 12:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

J'attendais ta réaction. Well, It's true, but in that case, we don't speak about French but The French people, and it's a complex and very vague differentiation. For other related articles, I shall encourage the others to put more images, Wikigi, on one hand these images are pulled by Wikipedia and thus they don't viol any rules. Effectively, for Angelina maybe that I shall get rid of this image, I shall want to put another current famous character, as French sportsman. But there is another problem, the man whom I wish to put is a non-Caucasian man ethnically, once again, is it possible to put peoples stemming from the immigration who have the french citizenship?

--Irrintzi 13:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Personally I just find it comical to include Angelina Jolie as a representative of the French people, and I'm really surprised to see that there are arguments in favour of this. There is simply nothing French about her. If the famous sportsman you're thinking of is Zizou then I don't see how the "non-caucasian" thing is a criterion (though he is clearly caucasian anyway). Zizou is French, Angelina Jolie is not - simple as that. The peoples who are stemming from the immigration are also French. One of them is the President of France today. Please, let's keep the racial theories to a minimum. French Canadians are not French, they're French Canadian. But Jolie is none of the above, she's an American. Miskin 14:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with the above - Wikigi | talk to me | 14:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello Miskin, I includes your opinion clearly, I am going to delete the Angelina's image, because I admit to have made a mistake and she certainly doesn't fit to the criterion (however I have to underline that several persons make the confusion on its origins and nationality). In what conserne the propallid of "racial theories", because of my origins and my politic positions, I see bad being a xenophobe, ok. I didn't speak about Zidane but a sub-saharian african, but it's true that Zizou isn't a bad idea. But there is almost a problem, I prefer to have a woman image because the proportion man-woman would be little disproportionated...

Eskerrik asko! Thanks!

--Irrintzi 08:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey! I finished the modification, I put the Diam's image one of the most famous French rappers, who corresponds with the the current French people.

--Irrintzi 09:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

2001 soccer game France vs Algeria

Following a double revert made on the subject here is more information with regard to that particular event :

This Decision of the FIFA Disciplinary Committee, dated November 13 , 2001, states :

- “Although almost 50,000 fans of Algerian nationality/origin were present in the stadium,” the match progressed according to plan.
.../...
In this case, the supporters who invaded the pitch wore garments that clearly showed that they supported the visiting team, Algeria. However, Algeria had never received any match tickets from the FFF to sell to its own supporters. Consequently, Algeria cannot be held responsible for the supporters in question, irrespective of whether they were Algerians or French of Algerian origin.

This BBC article, Thuram fury at invading fans, dated October 8, 2001, reports :

But already the celebration was shadowed when the Marseillaise was booed. "When we realised that the Stade was booing La Marseillaise, we could not believe our ears," Thuram added.
 
"We all looked at each other and wondered: 'What is happening? What are they doing?"
 
"I was not expecting that at all. The Algerian anthem was not booed, there was respect for Algeria, so why did these young people, who were born in France most of them, boo their country's anthem?

Lilian Thuram was on the field wasn't he? And he cannot be suspected of racism, can he? The crowd that booed the French anthem and finally ruined the game, was made of either French citizens of Algerian descent or immigrants from Algeria and other regions of North Africa, not by supporters coming from Algeria for the game.

Now, you keep editing this article under a different IP each time (90.36.149.109 - 90.36.145.161 - 90.14.106.195 - 90.28.230.214 - 90.28.98.100 - 90.14.111.68 etc.., all registered with Wanadoo France, city of Annecy), please have the courtesy of registering on wikipedia so one could start a discussion on your personal page and stop reverting edits without presenting a well documented explanation - Wikigi | talk to me | 15:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but they dont say anywhere that these Algerian hooligans were FRENCH CITIZENS (only "whether they were Algerians or French of Algerian origin" which means in fact that ... we dont know really about their citizenship ...and I dont think Thuram checked their passports). That's the problem. Many Algerian leave in France and are not french citizens. Communauté algérienne en France : 900 000 personnes, dont près de 450 000 bi-nationaux

We are talking about french citizens not algerian, or chinese ...

So just find an official source (from the french police for example) where it is written "French citizens of algerian origin stopped the game" and the discussion will be over...--90.36.149.109 16:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Listen, I cannot tell if this is a game or if you're just stiff, I'm afraid it's both. All started because of your previous edit when you stated being a French-Italian and insisted that French citizens of South-European extraction support their parents countries football teams. You seem to think that a guy from LA living in New York City or Paris and cheering for the Lakers is an important fact worth to be reported. Now you have been trying to mess with this article by spreading tags all over this portion of the article (here and there). I have tried to step up to the plate, now, find these references yourself if you don't like the ones I have found, you are the one requesting them and your contribution to wikipedia seems to be limited to this article. I have better things to do - Wikigi | talk to me | 17:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The point is that you are trying to show (without citing reliable sources) that French citizens from north-african descent are not assimilated (like the far-right says but I remind you that Wiki is an encyclopedia not a forum...) but most of them are. For example did you know that many "famous" french people like Edith Piaf, Alain Mimoun, Jean Amrouche, Isabelle Adjani, Marcel Mouloudji, Daniel Prévost, Jacques Villeret, Alain Bashung, Dany Boon and many others all have at least a Berber parent or grand-parent from Algeria ? And now only 45 years after the Algerian war we have 3 (out of 33) people of north-african descent who are members of the Sarkozy's government. How many centuries did it take you to "assimilate" black people and have some of them in your government ?--90.14.237.141 19:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Weren't you the one editing this article only to add French citizens of South-European extraction to French citizens from North African descent? And now you patronize me, calling me a far-right activist?
FYI, the first African American elected to US congress was John Willis Menard in... 1868 - Wikigi | talk to me | 08:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Vercingetorix

Why is Vercingetorix shown as a Frenchman? He lived long before the Franks established the beginings of France, the French culture, and the French ethnic identity. When Vercingetorix was alive, "France" and "French" hadn't even entered the world's vocabular. He was a Gaul, ie a (Romano-)Celt, not a Frenchmen. Harel Newman 00:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The Franks did not established the French ethnic identity at all. The Franks were very few. All the Germanic tribes that settled in Gaul never represented all together more than 200.000 people, in comparison with the Gallo-Roman people that was at this time about 5-6 millions (french encyclopedia Quid 2007).

this is indeed as silly as saying Sargon of Akkad was a member of the Assyrian people. This is pure romantic nationalism, not more and not less. Please cut this article down to something reasonable. It should treat an ethnic identity, not rehash History of France and Gaul. At present, all it does is make the French look like nationalist fools. The discussion should begin in the 15th century, when the idea of a French nation first emerged, and refer to other articles for the discussion of earlier periods. dab (&#55304;&#56435;) 12:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Right or wrong, in French history, Gaul is regarded as the base for main French land and Vercingetorix a national hero for defending it against the Romans. Vercingetorix came from Gergovia, a village located near Clermont-Ferrand, in the heart of France.

See the map of Gaul next to current map of France. Now, I won't argue that Vercingetorix was "French" but it certainly has something to do with the ethnic identity of the French people - Wikigi | talk to me | 13:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

gergovia was in the heart of gaul not france since france did not existed. your are right Harel, i have replaced vercingetorix the gaul (proto-french) by hugh capet true french as first king of france. by the way i have replaced all non french born pictures with real french. not jokes à la mode like diams. diams is not really the same stuff as joan of arc... Paris By Night 06:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Here we are, discussing if Vercingetorix should be part of the list and you show up and switch half of them (6), and with comments such as "replaced leftist activist (segolene royal supporters) pics with real french icons (sorry but "diams" is not really the same as joan of arc... and this fatty girl is not born in france!)" or "pic: replaced vercingetorix with capet first king of france (vercingetorix was not a french, not even a frank but a damn gaul !)". A great lesson of democracy (française?) for all. Thanks - Wikigi | talk to me | 08:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no time for such pointless discussions. Learn History and that's all. France was created in 843, before it wasn't france and thus Vercingetorix was not french, he was not even a Frank. About whatever lessons, before being a democracy with socialo-communist activists like Diams (she supported segolene royal and represents NOTHING outside the small french rapper wannabe community on top of this she's not even french born), or gerard depardieu (recently he went on pilgrimage at cuba to support fidel castro who is a worthless dictator) it was a monarchy. France is a democracy since very recently compared to its long running history. Democracy weakened france by giving exagerated power to worthless minorities, ever heard about the communist CGT & Co.? Emmanuel beart is bourgeois socialist activist supporting trespassers immigrants, she uses agit-prop. Diams is a famous antisarkoy and sarkozy was elected by the majority, hence she represents a minority, this is true democracy not a reversed oligarchy. Catherine Deneuve has much more language versions in wikipedia than your the socialist icons i removed (actually i was surprised segolene royal wasn't in the list too...). Catherine deneuve represents France at his best since a long time, have a look at her articles in other languages and you'll see. Bardot is a french icon of the 60s in the world. Diams did not achieved this. France's history is made of coup, even the 5th republic was born from the 1958 coup of algiers. The declaration of the 1958 constitution's decorum does not look like much republican to me. and de gaulle was nicknamed the "souverain". France lost all world territories and power she possessed as an empire because of the assholes at the head of the fourth republic, and segolene said she would give independance to corsica and new caledony if elected. by the way, not every french are republican and there are Bonaparte sons living yet if you get what I mean. Paris By Night 23:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Unless you pretend that each and every French is an immigrant that came in after 843, your point is moot. Anyone who ever lived within the limits of what is known today as France has contributed to its roots and has a place in the French history book. I won't comment on the rest of your silly propaganda - Wikigi | talk to me | 08:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

nonsense. If France was created in 843, the first French became French in 843. Of course their history reaches farther back, but Gauls are Gauls, and as such ancestors of the French, but not French themselves. It's simply not illustrative to display images of Cro Magnon or Beaker people to illustrate the article on the French people even if it is undisputed that the Cro Magnon have "contributed to France's roots". dab (&#55304;&#56435;) 09:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

What was a tree before it was called a tree? - Wikigi | talk to me | 08:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

There was a time when there were no trees and their ancestors are not called trees. But don't you see the difference between national identity and biological classification? The Gauls were not French and the French are not Gauls. Why is it so hard for some people to get? Yes, Celtic people most of the territory that we nowadays call Metropolitan France before the Roman conquest, but so were northen Italy, the British isles, Germany, Belgium and the Iberian peninsula too. Why don't the Italians claim to be Gauls as well? Throughout history the people has moved quite a lot and the French people has ancestors from all over Europe and indeed the world (like all the Western European nations). Aaker 11:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding emmigration in the 15th to 18th century period

Why list Acadia, Canada and Louisiana separately, and even worse, as provinces? At the height of French colonization, all three were referred to collectively as New France. AFAIK, none was ever considered a French province; they were colonies, and Canada was never used as an official territory name during French dominion over these areas. 70.54.255.66 19:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Stupidités

Bravo aux VANDALES qui se sont amusés à changer les images... Le gas qui dit que Diam's n'est pas une Icône n'a visiblement aucune idée de ce qu'il dit, Diam's ne vaut pas Jeanne D'arc? Diam's est un phénomène social et charismatique, elle regroupe la jeunesse française. Je préfère encore Diam's que vous traitez de pro-sociale à Bardot pro-FN, et chanteuse oubliée des français. Merci aux détracteurs. --Irrintzi 12:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I moved De Gaulle and F. De Lesseps because of their contreversial history. I replaced G. Depardieu because of his international artist career (great fims as 1492: Conquest of Paradise or Green Card and other 50 films), Colette (only woman who had national burials), and Diam's for reasons quoted above.

--Irrintzi 13:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Le gros problème de Diam's est qu'elle n'est pas "gauloise" mais chypriote, donc elle n'a rien à faire dans les Français emblématiques. De plus, elle est très peu connue en dehors de l'hexagone. Si vous voulez mettre une chanteuse mettez Edith Piaf diantre ! Je conseille fortement aux éditeurs francos de cette page de s'inspirer de la page consacrée aux anglais, qui est un petit bijou comparé à celle ci. Tanagarth 20:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)TanagarthTanagarth 20:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Effectivement Edith Piaf est bcp plus connue et plus représentative du "melting-pot" puisque sa grand-mère maternelle était nord-africaine, donc ajoutez sa photo.

Diams sur cette page? C'est une farce ou du délire? Pourquoi pas Brice de Nice plutot? Matthieu 14:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Je supporte pas Diam's. Hereusement elle est partie. C'est la honte d'avoir sa photo ici...--Burgas00 16:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

C'est absolument sûr que Diam's n'est pas Gauloise. Mais; qui l'est? Les Français d'aujourd'hui n'ont aucun rapport avec ce peuple celtique. Aaker 11:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Icône charismatique my rear end ! Comment peut-on oser mettre cette imbécile achevée comme un symbole de la France... Elle ne sait même pas parler Français correctement...--88.138.198.193 (talk) 15:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Français issus de l'immigration non-européenne

Des estimations diverses circulent sur le nombre de Français qui sont issus de l'immigration non-européenne. L’estimation qui est basée sur des chiffres officiels de l’immigration est la suivante : il y a en France deux tiers d’Européens d'origine et un tiers avec au moins un ançêtre récent d'origine extra-européenne. L’estimation est basée sur le fait qu’à partir des années 1950, la très grosse majorité du flux d’immigration en France est d’origine non-européenne (surtout d’origine africaine : Noirs et nord-africains).

Voici, en résumé, d’après les nombres officiels d’entrée des étrangers, les éléments de cette estimation :

-premier nombre officiel : chaque année 100 000 immigrés clandestins supplémentaires entrent en France. Le nombre d’immigrés clandestins est stable (entre 200 000 et 400 000) puisque ceux qui sont présents obtiennent d’une façon ou d’une autre la régularisation (mariage, naissance d’enfant sur le sol européen, etc.) et ils sont remplacés dans les statistiques par de nouveaux arrivés.

-deuxième nombre officiel : il y a chaque année en moyenne 140 000 immigrés officiels en provenance hors d’Union européenne.

Lien qui confirme 100 000 immigrés clandestins supplémentaires par an : http://www.rfi.fr/actufr/articles/076/article_43041.asp

Citation : « Le ministre de l’Intérieur Nicolas Sarkozy considère qu’entre 200 000 et 400 000 clandestins seraient présents sur le territoire et entre 80 000 et 100 000 supplémentaires y entreraient chaque année. »

Lien qui confirme 160 000 immigrés réguliers hors ressortissants communautaires en 2005 (en moyenne 140 000 par an depuis 10 ans) : http://www.interieur.gouv.fr/misill/sections/a_l_interieur/le_ministre/interventions/06-06-2006-immigration/view

Citation : « Autre résultat encourageant : le flux global de l'immigration régulière est stabilisé, pour la première fois depuis dix ans. Le nombre des premiers titres de séjour délivrés, hors ressortissants communautaires, a même légèrement baissé en 2005, pour atteindre 164 234 titres (- 2%). »

Premier nombre officiel plus deuxième nombre officiel, cela donne 240 000 entrées par an. En 50 ans ça fait 12 000 000.

Donc l’estimation qui donne 10 000 000 d’entrées d’origine non-européenne depuis 50 ans, est proche de la réalité. Si aux 10 000 000 d’entrées d’origine non-européenne depuis 50 ans on rajoute la descendance, cela donne l’estimation d’environ 20 000 000 Français avec au moins un ançêtre récent d’origine non-européenne sur une population totale de 63 000 000.

Isn't this the English Wikipedia !!? - Wikigi | talk to me | 09:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Not anymore... the invasion has begun :P Polletfa (talk) 20:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Well it is original research in anycase, so not really relevant.--Burgas00 11:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

20 000 000 bien sûr... En 50 ans il n'y a aucun immigré qui est mort ! Ericd 01:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Advice?

I have just attended my first class in beginners French. It is really great and I am now finding that it is not only a lovely language but France is an extremely fasinating place.
Consequently, my enhanced interest in the culture is not matched by my ability to speak French. My intention is to speak as fluently as I can, so if anyone has any advice or tips they would like to pass on to me that would be brilliant! For example, what is the right sound to use for 'e'?
Regards from QueenLucy.Queenlucy 15:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

You may want to visit this page : E - French Pronunciation of E. Regards - Wikigi | talk to me | 09:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

French ethnicity???

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Objectively, this encyclopedia is supposed to represent verified information and a neutral POV. This article therefore must represent the French in terms of nationals/citizens, culture and as an ethnic group. Clearly there is a French ethnic group which is indigenous to France (and indeed would exclude Marie Curie and Josephine Baker in the more stricter aspects of the ethnic definition). I strongly feel that the best resolution to this issue (which has been around for a while but not properly dealt with) is to divide this article into two: one regarding the French ethnic group and the other on French citizenship or civic nationality (the information on this page already representing such could be merged into either of the new articles or existing ones such as Demographics of France. Epf (talk) 07:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I wonder where you've got this idea that "clearly there is a French ethnic group which is indigenous to France" ? - Wikigi | talk to me | 14:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• Clearly there is a French ethnic group which is indigenous to France

Eh? By this criterion there must also be a different "French ethnic group" that is not "indigenous to France". Epf your weird views that ethnicity is defined only by ancestry and descent are not supported by even the most perfunctory understanding of anthropology. Ethnicity is not the same as "race" (which is of course itself a thoroughly discredited concept), ethnicity is a social construct that is based on an individual's subjective belief in group membership. Ethnic groups are not biological groups, they are socio-cultural groups. Some ethnic groups may well believe that they are the descendants of a specific individual, or the descendants of a specific group, to the exclusion of all other groups, but reputable anthropologists' research shows that these beliefs are a part of the "identification" process and are not necessarily "real", often they are associated with creation myths. For example the myth of the "Anglo-Saxon" invasion is a creation myth that has been used to support English ethnic identity. Of course we now know that even if there was an "Anglo-Saxon" invasion (dubious) it probably was only a few thousand people, and that the overwhelming ancestry of the people who now live in England is from the indigenous population, that is the first people to inhabit the region after the end of the LGM. But that's not necessarily what people "believe" subjectively. It doesn't make their identity any less real. As someone who claims to be an anthropologist you are displaying a distinct and consistent ignorance of even the basics of this field. You've been banging this drum of yours for the last two and a half years Epf, and you have little or nothing to show for it except for upsetting lots of people, and as far as I can tell your constant claims that "ethnicity=ancestry" are entirely your own and lack any academic support or credibility, you have failed consistently to support this claim from a reliable source.. You do not have carte blanch to make big changes to articles without a consensus on the talk page, you do not have any greater authority than any other editor, and your pattern of tendentious editing is disruptive and damaging to the project. Here is a direct quote from Jonathan Marks, a well known molecular anthropologist, so someone who is an actually internationally renowned academic:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deletion of pictures

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

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

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

So are the french celts?

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

Some of them. The ones in Bretagne (Brittany) definitely are. Brittany is considered one of the six Celtic nations. But French refers to the Franks who were definitely a confederation of Germanic tribes. The French are the cousins of the English, Dutch, Flemish, Belgians, Germans, Swedes, Danes, etc. The natives to Roman Gaul were Celts. Caesar conquered the Celts. The Franks conquered the Romans and the Celts. Now France is all mixed up except for isolated areas. The La Tene civilization is believed to have been Celtic. It included much of central France. Clermont-Ferrand, not far from Corrèze is near the site where the Gauls lost to Caesar. There is definitely Celtic ethnicity in alot of the modern French. Same as there is Germanic in many people from Limerick, Galway, Waterford, Dublin, Derry, etc. Pistolpierre (talk) 22:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah but at their height the Romans accounted for only a quarter of the population of Gaul and the Franks barely a tenth so would the Gauls be the primary ancestors of the French? --J intela (talk) 05:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The Franks were Germans. The Gauls were Celts. The French monarchs and nobles were not Celts. They were German. Just like in England, the German states, Austria, Spain, Italy, Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Russia, Prussia, etc. I guess you could say that the majority of the population in modern France was Celtic.Pistolpierre (talk) 01:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so, throughout history the people in Europe and the Mediterranean have moved quite a lot. And in recent years people from the whole world have migrated to France. Hence, the French population is genetically a mix of Celts, Greeks, Romans, Saracens, Burgundians, Huns, Visigoths, Francs, Vikings, Roma people, Spaniards, Italians, Jews, Poles, Germans, Moroccans, Algerians, Tunisians, West Africans, Chinese and many more. The French culture and identity is however a part of the western civilisation and has its origins in the Roman conquest (e.g language and religion). I'd say that the majority of the French people is of Mediterranean-European descent. Aaker (talk) 16:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Photos

• The current selection of photos needs to be either changed or, at least for the time being, removed. This is mainly because 1) the selection of photos doesn't encompass aspects to this article 2) includes persons who weren't even born in France, let alone ethnically, culturally or nationally French (many have been particularly annoyed by the inclusion of Marie Curie, who was Polish) and 3) the selection of photos reveals a somewhat obvious bias towards figures who were politically on the extreme left, supported the French revolution and formed a certain perspective of enlightenment thinking (Victor Hugo, Voltaire, and La Fayette). All three of these figures are also from the same period in history. There are many other famous French from other periods of history (including modern times) that could be included. For example: Louis XIV, Jacques Cartier, Samuel de Champlain, Joan of Arc, Charlemagne, Charles de Gaulle, Monet, etc. to just name a few off the top of my head. Epf (talk) 02:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you tell me in the list who was not French? Because i have checked and everone was French. To be French there is no need at all to be born in France. Marie Curie was as French as any other French. The way she accessed to nationality does not have any importance at all. Ditto for Josephine Baker. Read the French law if you are not convinced. The only question to be asked here is “Who represents France the best”. I think Marie Curie represents France extremely well: young immigrant who fled her country because she was persecuted, became French, had a perfect integration and did a lot of ground breaking work in her field. About ethnicity, there is no such thing as French ethnicity. Med (talk) 02:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Read the article and French history, there is indeed obviously a French ethnicity, otherwise this article would not even exist (it deals with the ethnic and cultural aspects, not just the national and citizenship). I do not think Josephine Baker is a good selection, she wasn't even born and raised in France. My main concern is with the other photos. I believe a good portion of the names mentioned above should be included. Marie Curie was also born and raised in Poland, not just Polish ethnically. Perhaps I should just leave the current photos and add some of the names above instead ? Epf (talk) 05:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

No, ethnicity in France just makes no sense. There is a strong French culture but certainly not a french ethnicity. The concept of ethnicity itself it even dubious as has already been discussed above on this page if i remember correctly. For Josephine Baker she fought for France during the war in her own way, and was already French at that time. That Marie Curie was born and raised abroad is of no importance regarding her French nationality. I am not even sure she could keep her Polish nationality (actually did she have a polish nationality or rather a russian one, as poland got incorporated in the Russian Empire in 1863) once she got French. One would have to check the laws of France and of the Russian empire that existed in this time. Anyway this kind of list inevitably leads to subjective choices. What about a link to List of French people ? :) Med (talk) 05:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually there must be a French ethnicity, but where Epf makes a mistake is to conflate ethnicity with ancestry. Ethnic groups often have porous boundaries and people can adopt new ethnic identities. Indeed in reality we all have multiple identities. Besides this article is not specifically about French people with an exclusive French ancestry, French people also include anyone who is a French citizen, the article itself states very early on Legally, the French people are the sovereign people of France, composed of all French citizens, regardless of ethnic origins or religious opinions. . Epf is just being exclusivist, if we use the broadest definition of French people that the article itself defines then there is nothing wrong with the pictures. Epf's been banging this tired old "ethnicity is ancestry" drum for several years, he is a thoroughly tendentious editor and won't give up, even though he has to keep comming back again and again to make the exact same changes. He just doesn't appear to know when he's beaten. Alun (talk) 08:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Yes there is a French ethnicity and one that is indigenous to France, as is evidenced in this article itself with millions who claim so, both in France and elsewhere. You both need to read my extensive discourse above. I am not confusing descent and ethnicity whatsoever, but your problem is that you refuse to accept the widely held fact that common descent is integral to many ethnic groups. Yes, ethnic boundaries can be porous, but they also can be strictly defined and it varies over time and between each group as well as depending on the poltiical situation. People don't simply pick and choose on a whim new identities, especially when the identity isn't just based on one's own subjective choosing, but justas much from the objective recognition of others as well as diacritics such as culture, langauge, descent and other traits. In reality, many of us do have multiple identities in some respects, but no so in others, especially with regards to indigenous peoples who remain in their ethnic homelands where they and their ancestors have inhabited for millenia. Alun, this article is about all types of French identity and people, including French citizens, nationals as well as people who are culturally or ethnically French. I am not being exclusivist here and I fought extensively for this article to even be kept in the first place over two years ago. I disagree (along with other users) with the current selection of pictures, but as I stated above, I suggest not to delete those currently there but add more people who are 1) ethnically indigenous French and 2) who are notable figures from other periods in history with other viewpoints distinct from those of the French revolution or the French republic. The current republic has only been around for just over 200 years, while French identities (the langue d'oil peoples and the langue d'oc peoples and cultures), or at least the components that make them up, have been around for numerous centuries going back to the original indigenous Gauls as well as the Romans and Franks. I am not coming back to make "the same exact changes" and clearly you have some sort of bias or personal problem with me that is affecting your reasoning and judgement in this matter. I am not "banging any drum" about "ethnicity = ancestry", but only emphasising the recognized fact that common descent is integral to ethnic identifications. I don't know how else to make you realize such, but if you can't, then there's not much else I can do. I have a passion for ethnology based on the facts and my edits are constructive. I haven't been "beaten" on anything of the sort, nor was I trying to win some sort of argument as far as I know in the first place (I don't know what you are talking about here).In terms of my drive to help ethno-cultural articles and enlighten you Alun in some of our disagreements, I guess I just have more of that notorious stubborness characeristic of so much of us of British heritage. Ciao, Epf (talk) 22:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with a great deal of what you say Epf. I dispute that "gauls" would have considered themselves a ethnically French, clearly many people in France are descended from the peoples the Romans called Gauls, but this does not make the "Gauls" synonymous with French. The idea that ancient groups, who are often described by outsiders such as Romans and not by themselves, are synonymous with modern ethnic identities is a commonly held belief, though it is also true that many academics in the modern world are sceptical of such "folk" mythologies. Regardless of that it is fair to claim that many "indigenous" French people really would claim a direct ethnic link to the Gauls, whether this is or is not a relatively recent invention designed to bolster the concept of the "nation state". The same case can be made for the "Celts" and the "Anglo-Saxons". Whatever anyone says, we simply do not know how the ancient groups are related to the modern groups, we can only hypothesise, at the one extreme we have people like yourself who have strong convictions that ethnic identity is relatively stable even over a millennia, at the other end we have the point of view that ethnic identity is very maleable and of a transient nature, this point of view would argue that the "Saxons" were a distinct group from the Angles, and that these groups were forged into a nation due to the Viking invasions. Neither point of view can be substantiated because we just cannot know how these groups related to each other, nor how they relate to modern groups. But I digress, I agree that there is a valid point of view that might argue that for someone to be enthically French they would need to have a high degree of French ancestry, but this article is not only about the ethnic group, it is also about French nationals and citizens of the French state. In many respects the French state is no more a nation state that the UK is, it is forged from numerous ethnic groups that did not necessarily see themselves as having a shared ethnicity, just as England, Wales, Scotland and the UK are, you mention the Occians yourself (though I'm not sure they themselves would have identified as being French in the past, the King of France did wage a rather bloody conquest on their region after all and they were certainly linguistically and culturally closer to Catalonians than to the French people of the time), but there's also Basque people in France and Breton people, many of these people may not consider themselves as ethnically French, but are clearly French citizens. Indeed the Bretons may claim that they are the true cultural descendants of the Gauls and the French are not, I don't know. As such I agree with your inclusion of more pictures, we do need to have people of French nationality as well as indigenous French people. This article is different to the English people, Welsh people or Basque people (etc.) articles in the fact that it represents not only an ethnic group, but also the citizens of a state, whereas the other articles represent people who are a nation but are citizens of different states. So clearly the pictures need to represent French people in the broadest possible terms, both from an ethnic point of view (as you see it) and from a citizenship point of view. I think I've probably whittered enough, but I do take your point. Alun (talk) 18:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• I have therefore decided to add more photos from some of those I mentioned previously. In regards to Marie Curie, she was born and raised in Poland, and it doesn't matter if the Polish state had been incorporated into the Russian Empire at that time. The Polish nation and people or ethnic group have been around for a very long time. She was born and raised in Poland till she was 18, and her birth name is Maria Skłodowska. I am not removing her from the list, but simply going to add other photos of French from other periods, includig those who are ethnically indigenous French. Epf (talk) 23:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Pictures - a global proposal!

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

• Portuguese
  Portuguese
• 
  African Americans
• Italians
  Italians
• 
  Irish Americans
• 
  Jews
• Sephardi Jews
  Sephardi Jews
• 
  Spanish

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

• Abbé Pierre – social activist
• Boris Vian – polymath
• Alexandre Dumas, père – writer
• Auguste Rodin - sculptor
• Blaise Pascal – scientist and philosopher
• Brigitte Bardot – actress
• Camille Claudel - sculptor
• Charles de Gaulle – President and politician
• Charles de Secondat, baron de Montesquieu - social and political commentator
• Claude Debussy – composer
• Claude Monet – painter
• Colette – writer
• Edgar Degas - painter
• Édith Piaf – singer
• Émile Durkheim - sociologist

• Eric Cantona – footballer
• Eugène Delacroix - painter
• Évariste Galois - mathematician
• François Couperin – composer
• François Mitterrand – President and politician
• Gilbert du Motier, marquis de La Fayette – military officer
• Gustave Eiffel – engineer
• Hector Berlioz – composer
• Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec – painter
• Henri Matisse – artist
• Hugh Capet – 1st king
• Jacques Derrida - philosopher
• Jean-Paul Sartre – philosopher
• Joan of Arc – saint and military comander
• John Calvin – theologian

• Josephine Baker – singer and dancer
• Léon Blum – politician
• Louis Blériot – aviation pionner
• Louis Braille – inventor of the braille reading system
• Louis XIV of France – king
• Marcel Proust - writer
• Marie Curie – scientist
• Marie-Antoine Carême – chef
• Napoleon I of France – emperor
• Olympe de Gouges – feminist
• Paul Bocuse – chef
• Paul Cézanne - painter
• Pierre Bourdieu – sociologist
• Pierre de Coubertin – founder of the modern Olympic games
• Pierre de Fermat – mathematician
• Pierre Mendès-France – politician
• Pope Urban V – well… Pope
• René Descartes- philosopher
• Robert Doisneau - photographer
• Simone de Beauvoir – philosopher
• Victor Hugo – writer
• Voltaire – philosopher and writer

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

Good idea. I'm surprised to see that you can fit as many as 18 readable images. This would prevent perpetual changes like we get to see now, at last. We should proceed to a vote - Wikigi | talk to me | 23:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, let us proceed, then! In fact, I can fit as much as 30 readable images (see below). So, I made the "nominations" (not withstanding other proposal...), come on people! Choose 30! The Ogre (talk) 00:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Hello Med! First of all let me give you my most sincere and humble apologies! I'm not playing any sort of game, I assure you. It was all a big mistake on my part and I am truly sorry if any of my actions or words have offended you. My mistake was that I thought (though I also thought it strange since it did not agree with you contributons' profile) that you were the one changing some other editor's words (in these case from a supposed Italian version of Napoleon's name to a French one) - my mistake was also provoked by the fact that you (why? can't seem to understand) also changed, when you reversed the anon vandal, Dbachmann's talk link from (𒁳) to (&#55304;&#56435;). Again my strongest and enerst apologies! I wrote in French because I got the impression (wrong?) that you were a French speaker. And in fact I didn't even noticed that I was the one that called you a vandal in the first place! There are days everything one does is wrong and today I deffinitely should have stayed in bed! I'm so sorry for the small confusion I unintentionaly caused. I hope no ill will comes between us in the future should we meet again. Thank you for your understanding and calmeness! The Ogre (talk) 19:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia does not publish original research. Any such article would be liable to speedy deletion. This article is about the French as an ethnic group and also the French as a nation. An ethnic group is defined as a social construct and is not based on ancestry. Anyone with a degree in anthropology should know that. Please stop your tendentious pov-pushing. Please further not that pov-forks are not acceptable. You cannot just go off in a huff to create your "own" article just because consensus is against you. It will be nominated for speedy deletion, and it will be deleted very quickly. Alun (talk) 10:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not publishing "original research" and you yourself claim that this article incorporates the ethnic group aspects in this article, even though several other users have argued against this claim. Alun, there is no reason not to create such an article about the French ethnic group, as long as it is referenced. This would not be liable to speedy deletion any more than this present article which itself is largely original research. I find it amusing that you do not even pay attention to this fact. This article does not even outline what it is about and is completely disputed. I have never read anywhere that ethnicitiy is simply just a "social construct", especially with the complexity in its definitions. It is not based solely on ancestry or descent, but that IS an integral part of ethnicity (read some of the actual material in the references in that article) or ethnic identification. Anyone with "a degree in anthropology" knows this and you are sounding ridiculous by continuing to claim otherwise (you are the only contributor to dispute such with me). I am not going off in "a huff" because consensus is against me (which is not so, since no one else found fault with the creation of such an article). It will not be nominated for speedy deletion and any attempt at doing so will be refuted if the article is properly referenced (see WP:Verifiability). Just because you have personal problems with this issue due to your own extremist viewpoints does not give you the right to make false accusations to claim an article should be deleted. Your personal complaints mean nothing and as long as other users support the creation of such an article with references (one of which I already provided), theres not much else you can do. Good day, Epf (talk) 22:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Alun is right -content forks are forbidden, as is original research. Epf can you explain how your proposal does notviolate these policies? Slrubenstein | Talk 21:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed you would be publishing original research, for the simple reason that it is your interpretation that the French ethnic group is somehow only composed of "indigenous" French people, which is also defined by you and so constitutes OR. If you do not understand this, then please try to create such an article and I will put it up for deletion as a content fork. It will get deleted whether you like it or not. If you cannot accept a consensus opinion then you are simply be ing tendentious. Alun (talk) 06:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Rubenstein, I understand your concerns, but as long as the article is referenced with valid sources, there is nothing worng with the creation of such an article. This article itself about "French people" clearly contains massive original research and does not contain the aspects of ethnic identification like most other articles. There is nothing wrong with splitting this article by creating one solely on the ethnic group, as as has been done with other articles. Ciao, Epf (talk) 22:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect. It will be deleted. You don't have any sort of coherent argument, you are just in a big huff because you cannot get your own way, consensus is against you. Please try to be more mature. Alun (talk) 06:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually I am quite correct and clearly do have a coherent argument. I am not in a "big huff" and there is no consensus against me with only you having any "serious" problem with the creation of such an article. I suggest you in fact learn to act a little more mature, take more time to read my discussion and think more about what you are saying. The only other option I see is re-incorporating more of the ethnic group aspects into this article. Look at the original layout of this article prior to it being vandalized with OR and POV by users like Lapaz and Rama into its current state. [1] Epf (talk) 09:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

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

No, I meant to say that I wanted to create an article with the help of those who support it, based on valid references. I do not want to create an article esposuing only "one POV", but one about French ethnicity that is in line with the NPOV of those who contribute to the article. As long as it is verified or correctly referenced and from an NPOV, there shouldn't be any problems, correct ? As for French-Canadians, it includes information on the ethnic French in Canada who are of French culture and of French descent. Francophones in Canada covers simply those who speak French in Canada. Epf (talk) 09:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Example from the article (currently uncited) showing the scope of the article which is not towards the French as an ethnic group:

Legally, the sovereign people of France are composed of all French citizens, regardless of ethnic origins or religious opinions. The "French people" therefore comprise all French citizens, including the French overseas departments and territories. Henceforth, members from any ethnic group can be included in the French people, as long as they have French nationality, whether by jus soli ("right of territory") or by naturalization.

Hopefully users can see now why I wish to create a separate article for solely the French ethnic group as it originally was when it first started: [2]

Now my suggestion is either to 1) create a separate artcle on only French ethnicity or 2) re-incorporate more of the ethnic group aspects into this article (including the infobox and photos). Epf (talk) 12:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The French people are a nation, there is also such a thing as French citizenship. I don't think you that you have made any case that there is a separate French ethnic group which is different to the French nation. Whether the French nation is distinct to French citizenship is something that needs a citation, can you provide one? Can you find a reliable source that defines the French nation differently from this putative "French ethnic group"? You have made numerous claims regarding the relevance of the "French ethnic group" but I have yet to see any reliable source that defines this French ethnic group in a way that supports what you are saying. If you take a look at the English people article it at least attempts to logically discuss the concept of an English ethnic group as distinct from the English nation. I would suggest that you try to incorporate something similar in this article rather than creating a pov-fork. Alun (talk) 13:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I already provided evidence (from the US Department of State) about the existence of the indigenous French ethnic group (Celtic and Latin with Teutonic or more specifically Gallo-Roman with Frankish) and how it is distinct from various ethnic minorities. I agree that more valid research is needed to create an article for the French ethnic group. No one is doubting that the French are a nation, and obviously the ethnic group differs from the nation as is evidenced by a quote you use yourself on Talk:French people/vote:

Unlike a nation, an ethnic group need not occupy a territory. Also, unlike a nation, it's 'common myths and historical memories' may be much more plausible; since ethnic groups may be much smaller than moder nations, the often quite implausible myths of common descent that nations espouse (and they may have been created or radically adapted by modern propogandists) can have much more credible equivalents in the case of ethnic groups. ("Language and Nationalism in Europe")

Yes there are cases where ethnicity and nation can coincide. When ethnicity and nations do coincide, this is called Ethnonationalism. Some (eg. Japan) moreso than others including a small number where to even be granted citizenship you need to be part of the indigenous ethnic groups (In Japan, the Japanese people and the Ainu).

Like I already said Alun, I suggest either creating a separate article for the French ethnic group or re-incorporating more of the aspects for the French ethnic group into this article. You mention a case similar to English people and I agree that is one possible idea. Note that in that article however, the infobox and photo selection refer specifically to the English ethnic group. Creating an article specifically with a focus on French ethnicity however is not "POV forking" as you erroneously claim. Epf (talk) 04:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

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

SLR, look close to the top of this section, this is where Epf has his "reference from the US Department of State". While it does recognize three founding ethnic groups (Celtic, Latin and Frankish), it speaks about the "French People" (not the French ethnic group) and expressly includes within the French people the large North African and Jewish minorities (among several others) for which it is well-known. So, while Epf is not lying about having provided a reference from the US State Department, he grossly misrepresents it by stating it supports his viewpoint (the existence of a "French ethnic group" which excludes people not having any regional Celtic, Latin or Frankish blood). So again, Epf's view is unsupported, and making up an article about it is a definite POV fork. End of story. Now, can we get back to the image infobox discussion and settle whatever (if anything) remains to be settled before another POV-pusher send us off-track??? :)--Ramdrake (talk) 14:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Ramdrake, I did read it - I searched the page for every incidence of US DEpartment of State and found Epf's entries - but, as you say, they do not provide any "evidence" for an indigenous French ethnic group. You may as well argue that because the dictionary contains the words "I" "am" "brilliant" the dictionary provides evidence that you (or I or whomever) is brilliant. It is disingenuous in the extreme and amounts to a deception ... or, if Epf is not consciously lying, it means that his reading comprehension skills are so deficient that one just cannot assign any value to his research. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Either that, or somehow, he uncounciously reinterprets what is actually said into something that supports what he thinks. How many times has he told us so far that, according to himself, "he makes a good argument" (regardless of how many times we told him he doesn't)? My only conclusion would be that he seems to live in a world where the rules of logic differ in significant ways from the ones they have in this world...--Ramdrake (talk) 16:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, resorting to personal attacks and insults with no factual basis whatsoever. It seems that you are both the ones who lack credibility in these discussions. Just because I interpreted a source and its information differently (and clearly more accurately if you look at the description of demographics in other countries of the US Department of State's background notes, which deals with the ethnic composition) from yours does not mean I am "lying". Honestly, I don't really care if you think "I haven't made a good argument" and it is quite obvious that neither of you have made a valid response to them. My conclusion is that both of you have resorted to personal insults (please see WP:No Personal Attacks) because my POV and arguments strongly challenge yours. You are both abrasive and ignorant users and I am personally fed up with your "ganging-up" method of dealing with very supported viewpoints from other users that challenge your own. When someone interprets an issue differently with strong reasoning behind it, it does not merit you to make ad hominem arguments. Whatever relevance you had in this discussion has evaporated. Epf (talk) 15:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, re-read the whole discussion. Very few people have agreed so far with your position (and no one so far has endorsed your position fully). However, many editors have plainly tried to tell you your position and the arguments you are using to support it lack credibility (some went so far as to say it proved you never set foot in France, which I tend to agree with). Your POV does not challenge anything, as it just isn't credible: all sources provided so far, rather than supporting it, seem to indicate your POV fails to take into account the reality of current ethnic relations in France. I have provided sources to support the position that descent isn't a significant factor at all in the French identity. Therefore, your wanting to define a French ethnic group based primarily on descent goes contrary to the reality of French identity (not based on descent). I don't know how else to say it, except: you're very much flogging a dead horse. Sorry.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You've provided one source with regards to French identity and I have provided one US government source. I don't feel I'm "flogging a dead horse" and I feel my own opinions and POV have had great validity here. If you disagree, then fine. I don't know what "sources" you are referring to that fail to take into account "the reality of current ethnic relations" in France, but again I only count two dealing specifically with French ethnic identity. I haven't ever set foot in France, but what does this have to do with anything ? We still need proper citations obviously, but clearly, as is seen in the article you provided below, if ethnic minorities (foreign or indigenous) in France still identify with their own distinct backgrounds, then what does the rest of the population identify ethnically as, nothing ? Again this is only one (non-French) source and therefore not alone a basis for a separate ethnic aspect in the article but it states the following:

Ethnic groups: Celtic and Latin with Teutonic, Slavic, North African, Sub-Saharan African, Indochinese, and Basque minorities.

Three basic European ethnic stocks--Celtic, Latin, and Teutonic (Frankish)--have blended over the centuries to make up its present population.

US Department of State

Anyways, we still need more sources to outline everything. Epf (talk) 22:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

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

All articles must comply with NPOV and NOR. All articles should be encyclopedic, in this case accurately representing current scholarship. So maybe the scholarship on Italy is different from that on France? There is no one cookie cutter. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Would this be scholarly enough? I can point to millions of references to a "French ethnic group". Dionix (talk) 22:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am not into using one encyclopedia to write another. If people want to know what Britannica says, they can go to Britannica. I think the point of Wikipedia is largely to be different from existing encyclopedias. I would say, identify the major peer-reviewed journals that publish articles on French history, society, and culture, and search for recent articles (last ten years) on French people, and use these articles as the basis for the encyclopedia article. For starts, I would look at these journals: Comparative Studies in Society and History, Ethnohistory, Journal of Modern History, Journal of Social History, L'Homme, American Anthropologist, American Ethnologist, Cultural Anthropology, Current Anthropologist, Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power, Ethnos, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Cultural Geography, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, Progress in Human Geography Any articles that these journals have on France, people in France, or people from France, will be pretty reliable and notable; using them as sources will ensure that this encyclopedia communicates to the general public the best, cutting-edge research by professional scholars. I know it sounds like a lot of journals, but they publish on people and places from all over the world, so the number of articles specifically on Frnech people will be managable. (Let me note by the way that I have no idea whether articles in these journals do or do not refer to a french ethnic group. If they do, then our article should explain how they use the term and why. To be clear: if articles from these journals use "ethnicity" I would be all for discussing "ethnicity" in the article on French peoples. This is what I mean about being open-minded: start with notable journals and provide accounts of what they say whether we agree with them or not. This is a much better way of doing research than hunting for articles that say what we agree with. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Just found this reference regarding French ethnic identity[3]. One particular paragraph caught my eye:

Ethnic relations in France are framed by the dual notion of French cultural identity and assimilation of foreigners into French society. For several centuries, the French approach to ethnic relations has been to make non-French peoples French - in culture, language and lifestyle (...) adaptation has long been the pattern in France; nearly all residents wherever their place of origin, have come to identify with French culture and regard themselves as French.

Hope this sheds some light on the subject.--Ramdrake (talk) 13:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the USyan society has been compare to a salad, in which all component contribute to the overall taste, yet retain their distinctiveness. The French society would be more like a milk-shake. Rama (talk) 13:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Ramdrake, note however that it is referring more to the policy of the French state, specifically since the creation fo the French Republic. Previous to that section, there is also information regarding the various ethnic populations in France, including the distinct foreign (or foreign-descended) ethnic minorities. Epf (talk) 15:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Please show me where it says that this attitude only dates back to the inception of the French Republic. I see no such reference in the source I provided.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I need to read over it more, but I was only pointing out the relation to the views of the French Republic. It does clearly specify the various ethnic minorities and identities in France though. Epf (talk) 22:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

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

And editors here have been asking for a reliable source which defines the French ehtnic group (as opposed to one that says that Celts, Latins and Franks are the founding ethnicities of the French people - there is a difference), or a source that specifically determines the boundaries of the French ethnic group. However, no such reference has been supplied. The only references we have so far are explicit that self-identification with the French culture is the main defining factor of French ethnicity, thus specifically allowing for people not born in France to claim being French (even moreso for people actually born in France of non-French parents). AFAIK, the French seem to be unique in Europe to define ethnicity around the concept of the French nation (with all its cultural and linguistic trappings), rather than defining a nation around a given ethnicity. This allows people like Marie Curie to be widely considered French (having her figure on French banknotes would in my mind be a clear indication that she is widely regarded as French, even though she wasn't born in France - although the Polish are certainly entitled to also consider her as a national).--Ramdrake (talk) 20:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you, and I'm the first to concede that I'm out of my medium on this subject. But no one other than Epf is commenting on the fact that there is a perceived French ethnic group, only that most accepted scholarly work does not support such a thing. I ask, why not?? Just as it is accepted there is a "German ethnic group" or an "Italian ethnic group", which descends from virtually the same mix but perhaps with different proportions (to draw on the milkshake analogy), why do we concede to a different set of standards in this article?. The same scholars that say there is no such thing as French ethnicity would have to concede the same applies to many other groups generally seen as an ethnic group. (By the way, do they say there is no such thing or are they simply "silent" on the issue?). A very quick Google search for French ethnicity was not fruitful, but there are thousands for Germans, Italians, English, etc. Why is this thought different when the parameters are the same? Yes, I know- no OR, POV all that stuff- but in this case it seems this should be questioned. Dionix (talk) 22:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm no expert either, but from what I could gather from my reading, it has to do with how the French self-define their French identity, as opposed to how say Germans or Italians define their self-identity. Self-identity ("Frenchness") for the French seems centered around French culture and language rather than around some concept of ethnicity defined around ancestry. It would seem that Italian and German self-identity are more closely related to ancestry-based ethnicity. If the French edition of WP had no problem wth having as exemples of French people people not born in France, that should tell us that ancestry-based ethnicity isn't important for French self-identity. That may be all the difference that's needed. Your reasoning, while it seems logical, makes one basic, faulty premise: that all peoples define "ethnicity" the exact same way, cookie-cutter style. Anthropologists will tell you that the definition of ethnicity does indeed vary from one ethnic group to the next. Hope I've helped make things clearer.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

One thing you forgot though Ramdrake is that there are many anthropologists, such as Frederick Barth, who feel some concepts of ethnic identity can be universally applied. Any anthropologist will tell you that concepts of identification related to or based on descent are the case for the majority of ethnic groups. This is what Dionix was most likely referring to since among the general public, the concept of descent is also almost universally applied in how people ethnically identify. Epf (talk) 15:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Just show me one reliable surce which says that ethnic identity in France is significantly based on descent. I have provided you with a reference that says exactly the contrary (that ethnic identification in France occurs regardless of the place of birth of French citizens). You are just wasting your time and mine if you keep putting forth your baseless (unsourced) position in the face of the reference to the contrary which I have provided you. While Barth may think that concepts of identification related to or based on descent are the case for the majority of [[ethnic groups], it says nothing about whether this applies to France or not (it does say the majority, not the totality). So, to sum it all up, your position, for lack of proper sources to back it up, does not look credible, especially in the face of the source I provided, which state the opposite of your position.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say anywhere that those researchers (Barth thinks they can be universally applied; Cohen and Anthony D. Smith have only stated that it is the case for most groups, not all) held this view when regarding the French, did I ? I think that it is a part of French identity, like most other groups, but that's only my POV. As for the source you entered, it does mention the concepts of jus soli most affiliated with policies of the French Republic (where to be French you merely speak French and are a French citizen) but does this hold true for the views of most French ? I need to read over that article more myself anyway. Epf (talk) 22:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Small change in the image

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

need source for viking ascentry

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

Should be easy enough, surely Norman is derived from "Norse men", Normandy was settled and governed by a Viking elite, I don't think this is in dispute, see the article Normans which states just this. Cheers. Alun (talk) 18:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Beating a dead horse?

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

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

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

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

Why are you guys being so obstinate! Please understand I'm not disagreeing with your half of the picture; However, just try and use your "criteria" to find a source for any other group I mentioned- you wont find one! You are limiting the ethnic definition of French people to a science when you cannot do that for ANY group I mentioned. There IS a common "ethnic" view of what are the "French people"- If you must have "references", here are some random, simple, two minute finds: [5], [6], [7], etc., etc... Scholarly? Debatable. Notable? Absolutely! Dionix (talk) 23:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Who is being obstinate? WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR are core policies. Why did you put off providing sources for so long? The first one looks legit; the second clearly isn't; the third is not clear to me what it is saying. Be that as it may, it is not obstinate to ask for a source. To me, it seems disingenuous for you to resist providing a source when asked to, only for you then to rpovide three and then say it was easy to find them. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)