Talk:French people

French People

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

Revival of photo debate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Inconsistent counting of people number

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

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

Is there any recognized difference between French ethnicity and nationality?

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

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

How is French ethnicity different from English?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Genetics

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

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

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