Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/French people

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 12:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

French people

[edit]

Delete This article is nonencyclopedic in its content and its title. It discusses the French as some kind of ethnic group, applying modern borders and criteria to eras where the boundaries of what was "French" and wasn't were totally different (for instance, in the Middle Ages).

In addition, the article confuses the idea of ethnicity with the idea of spoken language. Quote:

In Europe, there are several sizeable permanent French populations outside of France. The largest is in Belgium, in the region of Wallonia and the city of Brussels. In Switzerland, the main concentration of the ethnic French population is in the Western region known as Romandy. Smaller French communities can be found in Luxembourg and the Channel Islands, although most Channel Islanders speak English as their first language today.

I suspect that if we tell the French-speaking Swiss, Canadians and Belgians that they are "French", they will be as thrilled as US citizens told that they are English.

The whole essay looks like some kind of big case of original research used to make a bizarre point, with little regard for usual scientific standards. The factual information that it recounts is found elsewhere on Wikipedia. David.Monniaux 21:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I disagree with this page being up for deletion because then you would have to get rid of every page on every ethnic group in Wikipedia. The article discusses the indigenous French ethnic group who have origins to France since the time of the Gauls and even before that. It also discusses the diaspora of ethnic French around the world.
Most French-Canadians are actually quite proud of their French origins and culture, to the point that many want the province of Quebec to separate from the rest of the country. Swiss people are rarely defined as a distinct ethnic group since they are a cross roads of the French, German and Italian cultures and many of the French speakers there are indeed ethnic French. As for Belgium, there are also numbers of ethnic French there as well but they are sometimes confused with ethnic Walloons.
Also, you should know that in the 2000 US Census, some 25 million Americans cited English ancestry so clearly people there don't deny their origins, no matter which ethnicity they are, while also being proud of their own independent nation. Epf 22:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please cite a scholarly publication employing the phrase "French people" for discussing Canadians or Americans. Otherwise, this terminology is just original research. David.Monniaux 22:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
French people in North America is a self-described designation. Millions of people claim French ancestry in North America through the censuses taken as with the US census. Academic usage of French people is quite common, especially from a historical perspective and can be found in many journal articles Language and Nation in 16th-Century France: The Arts poétiques I think we need to relate this article of a French people to all the other articles describing various peoples. Even as the world becomes more and intertwined, some historical memory of regional histories and indigenous peoples can only add context to our understanding of the broad human experience. Tombseye 17:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I disagree with deleting this page. Considering the arguments given, one would find political reasons to delete every people in Europe from Wikipedia. For example, do the 18 million spanish in Argentina consider themselves Spanish? Would they feel offended by the Spanish people page? And the millions of Mexicans of Spanish origin? I suspect this page being put up for deletion is, as I have stated on the discussion page, the result of a taboo existing in France on the issue of ethnicity and on the French model of integration (their wholesale rejection of communitarism). I understand and partially agree with this stance, but this must not deny the inclusion of the French people in the "ethnic groups" section.--Burgas00 23:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the Spanish people article is about as flawed as the French people article, and should be deleted too. Do you really think Catalans consider themselves "ethnic Spanish"? Or maybe you are going to tell us that Catalan are distinct, so the article is in fact about "Castillian people"? But then what about the people in Murcia? Are they ethnic Castilians? And in Andalucia? Let's stop the nonsense please! Some nations were built around the notion of ethnicity, such as the German nation, or the Japanese nation, and it makes sense to have German people or Japanese people article. But other nations like France or Spain were built around the concept of statehood, and talking of an ethnic French nation or an ethnic Spanish nation is just a misrepresentation only worthy of the extreme-right. I strongly favor delete. Hardouin 02:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We have a policy of no original research which prohibits using Wikipedia for introducing nonstandard terminology. So far, nobody has been able to produce any kind of quotation of any reasonable publication showing the usage of "French people" to designate the French-speaking Swiss or Canadians. I thus conclude it's some kind of original terminology from whoeever wrote this article.
Given that the Belgians and the Swiss generally hate being lumped together with the French, and that the people in Quebec talk of the French as les maudits français, one can see how ridiculous this grouping is.
If what was meant was "people of French origin" or even "people of French language", things would possibly be better. Alas, the medieval part is also wrong in that respect! In the Middle Ages, the modern idea of a French nation did not exist. A third or so of current France was held... by the King of England (but it wasn't too bad because the ruling class in England were Norman nobles, which spoke Norman French). The "français" were those from the feudal domain of the King, around Paris. Most people elsewhere did not speak the same language or recognize themselves as from the same "country".
This article simply does not make sense from a historical or sociological point of view. If you want to make an article about Francophone countries, do so (but we already have Francophonie). If you want to make an article about the current sociological situation in France, do so. But PLEASE do not introduce anachronistic notions that do not fit with any kind of serious publication. David.Monniaux 03:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I strongy doubt that all Belgian and Swiss French deny their roots and to say otherwise is obviously typical of pro multi-racial poltical ideology. I'm from Canada and have lived in Quebec and I can tell you first hand that although some may call them "the cursed French", they still don't deny their ethnic roots and if they did, the strong separatist movement would have been extinct by now. Also, how can we forget one of the speeches of former French president Charles de Gaulle when he visited Quebec at Expo 67' and considerably aided in the FLQ and overall separatists movement by declaring "Vive le Quebec libre" !
  • Also, and more importantly, any reader of this discussion should ignore the ethnic and cultural nihilist-like views by User:Hardouin who clearly has a pro-multi-racial poltical agenda and completely disregards the existence of ethnic French despite their obvious roots there since Gallic times. Also, David, you say there was no medieval French nation ? I don't think Jeanne d'Arc would have succeeded in defeating the English and unifying France if that was the case ! The regions controlled by the Angevin kings of England consistently changed over the 300-400 years they had claims in French lands. The countless numbers of wars fought in the period with England clearly gives reason enough for an ethnic French nation which wished to ne ruled by outsiders. In terms of language, many regions did speak a very similar dialect to the Parisian French langauge or at least a "langue d'oil" or related "langue d'oc" (Aquitaine, Toulouse and Provence). I strongly advise the Wikipedia admin to NOT delete this article as you would be just giving into the point of view and political aims of various users. Articles on the ethnic French are present in many respected encyclopedias (see below) and so are articles on all other ethnic groups. Epf 11:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ah ah! Good example! The Hundred Years War was the beginning of some feelings of nationalism in both France and England. Because of this war, as I understand, the English (Norman) nobility stopped talking French, and some of the people in France felt a urge to throw out the English.
But, see, the Hundred Years War was at the end of the Middle Ages (the war stopped in 1453, and the end of the Middle Ages is generally set by convention to 1492 or a bit earlier). This means that for most of the Middle Ages, the notion of different nations separating France and England was not current. Different feudal domains, sure.. But nations?
As for ethnicity, France until the 19th century was a patchwork of provinces with different customs, languages, etc. It's very dubious to apply 19th- and 20th-century criteria of nation-state to these era (there has been significant homogeneization of the country in the 19th and 20th century due to government efforts and increased travel and communications). David.Monniaux 14:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Norman English kings and French fought various conflicts over land even before the long period of the hundreds years war. Although the English controlled certain parts of France, that does not mean the people there weren't ethnic or indigenous French peoples. When most of Russia was under the control of Mongols, were the indigenous slavic peoples no longer Russian ? I mean is it to say ethnic Italians have only existed since the unification of Italy in 1861 ? Italians are in a fact a great comparison considering although they have several local dialects and differences they have always been for along time seen as ethnic Italians since the different peoples of the peninsula were also closely related. The same can be said about the ethnic French peoples who although may have local differences in language/dialects and culture, they are still much more closely related to each other in terms of history, origins, culture, and language than peoples in other nearby nations. Anything else ? Epf 14:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I strongy doubt that all Belgian and Swiss French deny their roots. I don't know for Belgian, but roots of Swiss are in Switzerland. France is just an influencial (through the common language) foreign country. If a Swiss says that he is French, it means that he has a French nationality. For instance, I know quite a lot o French that live in Switzerland. I don't understand what you mean by roots. It can make sense for Québec, where people went. But it makes no sense for Switzerland. Marc Mongenet 02:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The history of Switzerland shows the historic divide between ethnic French and ethnic Swiss Germans. When the Burgundians invaded and settled in the west of Switzerland and in France(Burgundy), as with the Franks, they assimilated into the population and adopted Gallo-Roman culture. This is contrary to the majority Allemanni who remained distinctly Germanic. This part of Swiss history is documented here: [1] Epf 09:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, the historic divide is between two disapeared tribes: Burgundians and Alamannen. Now, there is a language border between French and German. The article says nothing about ethnic French because this concept does not exist. Better, the article says, When the French kings persecuted the French protestants ... a great number of them fled to French-speaking Switzerland. As you can read, the people living in the French-speaking part of Swizterland welcomed persecuted French protestants (ie foreigners = French). Marc Mongenet 20:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If there's something wrong with the article, correct it and make it better. --Khoikhoi 02:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per David.Monnaiux -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 05:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article. It's ridiculous to delete this article. This same information is found in Encyclopedia Britannica, Americana etc. Why is wikipedia suddenly no longer going to identify indigenous peoples of various regions? This article is about the French of France so the spillover issue is another matter that can be addressed by articles on the Walloons and so on. These articles aren't meant to please people, but to inform. I frankly don't see anything wrong with the article. It just plainly states who the French are. Comparisons with the US and Australia don't wash as these regions also have indigenous people, the Native Americans and Aborigines. We aren't going to have articles about them either then? Just because some people don't like the idea of there being an identification of a French people who pre-date the current multicultural changes taking place doesn't mean we ignore that there are French people. Tombseye 06:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article. I agree with the above statement exactly and it is unfair for the ethnic French not to have an entry here just as it would be unfair for the ethnic Spanish (I do agree they need to decipher between Castilians, Catalans and Galicians) not to have an entry. If you delete this article, than it is an outrage and if it were to happen you should delete every article on Wikipedia about every ethnic group because otherwise you would be showing massive bias against the ethnic French saying they are "less of a unique ethnic group" (or something along those lines) than the world's other peoples and that is just plain ignorance. Epf 10:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Eusebeus. Please don't misuse AfD nominations for a POV debate, which should be done on the article talk page. Lukas 11:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a debate on POV but on original research. David.Monniaux 13:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed part of it is, so provide some original research as to why there should not be an article on ethnic French. Epf 13:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Original research is prohibited on Wikipedia. See WP:No original research. David.Monniaux 15:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Contrary to what some users say, there is no article about French ethinicity in Encyclopedia Britannica. There is an "ethnic groups" secion inside the France article, and this is what Britannica writes in it: "The French are, paradoxically, strongly conscious of belonging to a single nation, but they hardly constitute a unified ethnic group by any scientific gauge. " [2] Hardouin 12:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Britannica is explaining regional diversity which exists even with the English, Germans etc. Encyclopedia Americana, has a people section and relates the origins of the French people as well. Check them out and then check out CIA Factbook and the Universal Almanac. They both describe the French people as well. Sorry, but your contention is still not accurate to contend that there are no indigenous French people. Tombseye 17:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article. The above item from encyclopedia Britannica about the French is still under the group of "ethnic groups". The statement itself is speaking of the indigenous people of France and if they are "strongly conscious of a single nation", it is fair to say there are a people or group of related peoples who are responsible for creating French culture, language and identity and which form the original inhabitants of the nation we call France. Epf 12:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article in a minimal form, stating someting like "The French are strongly conscious of belonging to a single nation, but they hardly constitute a unified ethnic group by any scientific gauge." and giving a list of related links, like Demographics of France, Francophonie, French diaspora... We do not have any decent source indicating that the "French people" form an ethnic group. The sentence "they hardly constitute a unified ethnic group by any scientific gauge" seems quite convincing to me that it is not the case. olivier 12:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree to a degree with this approach however the segment from encyclopedia Britannica is only one example from one encyclopedia. We need more information and more valid sources when discussing ethnic French. The sentence "they hardly constitute a unified ethnic group by any scientific gauge" doesn not however claim there aren't indigenous ethnic French peoples of France which are responsible for the language, culture and identity. The reason why this debate has been so difficult with ethnic French is mainly because the government of France has a ban on collecting data on ethnic groups and religion and has sought an assimilation policy which clearly has failed (hence the recent riots). This article must be kept to decipher between those French citizens which are immigrants or descended from immigrants and the indigenous peoples which have inhabited the area since the time of the creation of the French nation by Charlegmagne (and even before). 69.157.109.6 13:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place to publish your original research on the current sociological situation in France or the ethnic origins of those living in France prior to the 19th century. Neither is it the place to publish your opinions on recent events in France.
I'm asking over and over again for things that are verifiable, theses, explanations and categorizations that are found in reputable sources. David.Monniaux 13:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taken from another discussion:

  • Perhaps the easiest way to make your writing more encyclopedic is to write about what people believe, rather than what is so. If this strikes you as somehow subjectivist or collectivist or imperialist, then ask me about it, because I think that you are just mistaken. What people believe is a matter of objective fact, and we can present that quite easily from the neutral point of view. --Jimbo Wales, Wikipedia founder (from WP:NPOV).
That is questionable considering the page is a combination of edits from various people. "Original research" is a difficult to describe the whole of the article. (Please read the comment by Jimmy Wales). In any case, to delete the article entirely is not the answer. Epf 14:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo Wales' quote, put here by user Epf, actually leads to delete the article, because if we are to follow what most people believe, then most French people do not believe in a "French ethnicity". In all my life, I have met thousands of French people, and I can't think of anyone who would describe themselves as ethnic French (compare this with the Kurds or the Koreans who certainly describe themselves in ethnic terms). French people certainly feel a strong sense of belonging to the French nation, but this nation is not based on ethnic criteria. Olivier and David, ever met a French person thinking of him/herself as "ethnic French"? Hardouin 14:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well that is your opinion from your own personal experiences and I have to say the French people I have talked to have always spoken about belonging to a larger French nation that has origins in France dating back many centuries. Whether they say "ethnic French" (Francais de souche) or not, they're clearly speaking of a people with ancestors in France going back to the very beginnings of the nation around the time of the death of Charlemagne (814 ad.), widely considered the father of the French nation. Epf 14:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Charlemagne the father of the French nation? This whole thing is getting more and more POV. Hardouin 14:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More and more POV ? Charlemagne is widely considered the father of the French and German nations. Maybe you should read a little more into the history of France, the Franks and of Europe for that matter. After his death and the partitioning of his empire, the kindgdoms would be the foundations for France and the Holy Roman Empire (Austria and Germany). Hardouin, your comments on this will be largely ignored anyway due to your cultural/ethnic nihilist POV and multi-racial ideological goals. I told you before how this has become widely known amongst several Wikipedians. Epf 15:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like White supremacist talk. 193.55.96.31 16:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's not white supremacist talk and you shouldn't make such a nasty accusation. The term "white" doesn't really have bearing in Europe since there are distinct peoples and cultures. "White" as you put it or "caucasian" can refer to all people with some origins to Europe, North Africa and Eurasia in a sense.
I am discussing with Hardouin the protection of an indigenous culture and people. Nothing wrong with multi-culturalism as long as it doesn't negatively affect the native people and culture. I'm merely stating that Hardouin sometimes comes across as supporting "bad" multi-culturalism in the sense of destroying a native people and culture. Epf 17:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that all this ethnicist talk and this editorializing on French current events (riots etc) makes me suspect that this editor has an agenda of pushing personal political opinions onto Wikipedia. Nilhilist POV?
Again, Wikipedia is not a device for your opinions. Wikipedia can print the significant opinions of identifiable groups of people. It is not a device for writing a few wikipedians' theory on ethnic groups, violence in foreign countries, or whatever. David.Monniaux 17:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think there needs to be a clear understanding that there is no ethnicist intent here, but an attempt to identify indigenous people of various regions in the world. If we delete the French, then are the Native Americans, Berbers, and Japanese people next? The article is merely pointing out the traits of a French people who are diverse yes. I think a more fair compromise would be to re-write the article so as to point out differing views on the French rather than deleting the article altogether. There is no actual original research here as much of the information is simply being reiterated almost verbatim from other sources, including encyclopedias. The majority of references define the French from their Celtic, Roman, and Germanic backgrounds. Why is this wrong to state or even inaccurate or original research if other articles, books about France (Insight Guides: France defines French people this way), already explain what French people means and entails within the context of an indigenous population. Surely there is room for compromise rather than wholesale deletion. Tombseye 17:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the basic problem is in the whole "ethnic group" series in the english wikipedia, a series which does not exist in other languages such as the french. The problem is that no clear definition of "people" has been given from which to work on. The French argue that they cannot be defined by racial origin because this goes against the ideology of the French state. At the same time, the French do exist on many levels: they exist on a "de souche" level, on a cultural level and on a citizenship level. It would be difficult to ignore any of the 3 in classifying the French people. But we shouldnt jumble up the definitions in writing this page. I propose to divide the French people page in sections. Starting from the most restrictive definition of what it is to be French going to the the largest.

One starts with the French as an ethnic group...talk about their origins etc... (Franks,celts, Romans whatever...)

Then the French as a cultural and linguistic community which would include Belgians, Swiss, Quebecois etc...

The another section should give the "republican" definition of what it means to be French. (here we include Zidane and Sarkozy)

The issue of the Spanish people is more complicated, as there are racial, linguistic, cultural and political divides within the state aswell as the problem of the Spanish in Latin America and the deep connection with this region. The defintion of what it means to be Spanish must also be multiple: Spanish as members of the state; as members of the dominant castillian culture, or simply as Spanish citizens in an increasingly multiethnic spanish society; ,as part of the cultural, ethnical or linguistic community shared by Spain and Latin America...

--Burgas00 18:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My personal point for putting this page for deletion has nothing to do with the ideology of the French state, but with the anachronisms that litter this article. Actually, the ideology of the French state in the 19th century was that the ancestors of the French were the Gauls and the French are directly descended from them, and this article somehow seems to be written solely from this point of view, which is now generally considered ridiculous. David.Monniaux 07:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We have many articles on nationalities, completely independent of whether there is a corresponding state. This is exactly as valid an article as Serbs. This is in accord with WikiProject:Ethnic groups, which gives a very broad definition covering tribes, ethnic groups, and nationalities. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the messages above? As I have already explained, there are peoples who define themselves in ethnic terms, such as Germans, Kurds, Koreans, Japanese, etc., and it makes sense to have ethnic articles about these peoples, but there are other peoples, such as French, Spaniards, Swiss, etc., who do not define themselves in ethnic terms, but whose nations were formed around statehood, and so for these peoples it makes no sense to have ethnic articles. Hardouin 22:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hardouin, have YOU read any of the messages in this discussion other than your own ? Who are you to decide who is defined in ethnic terms or not ? OBVIOUSLY the Swiss aren't defined in ethnic terms because their country is at a crossroads of three different cultures and ethnic groups (German, French and Italian). It does make very good sense to have an article on ethnic French because as I've stated before, who do you think formed to create the indigenous people of France and created the culture, language and French identity ? The indigenous ethnic French people , even though the designation of these people hasn't been as readily discussed as other groups to which you have pointd out, doesn't mean that their ethnicity/nation doesn't exist. The fact you compare this with Spaniards is ridiculous. Ethnic Spanish obviously comprise of the closely-related indigenous ethnic groups of Spain although it does need to be divided into the major peoples which came from there in the Galicians, Catalans and Castilians. The fact still remains, they are the indigenous ethnic people of Spain who have diaspora around the globe and, just as with the ethnic French (the indigenous peoples who created the langues d'oil and langues d'oc), need to be differentiated from those who are immigrants and of immigrant descent. One of the main reasons why this has been so difficult is the ban by the French government on collecting data of ethnic and religous groups. Epf 15:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Change the definition One of the problems with this article is its title: "French people" or "Frenchmen" typically refers to "French citizens", whatever their ethnic background may be. The article attempts to redefine what "French people" means by defining them as an "ethnic group", which is debatable. The CIA World factbook [3] defines "Frenchmen" as "French citizens" and does not mention a "French" ethnic group. It gives the following information:

  • Nationality: noun: Frenchman(men), Frenchwoman(women); adjective: French
  • Ethnic groups: Celtic and Latin with Teutonic, Slavic, North African, Indochinese, Basque minorities

No REFERENCE has yet has been cited yet refering to the "French people" as en ethnic group. olivier 02:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keepI agree with jmabel. I don't really see where the problem is...Olivier: you just cited a reference yourself! tthe CIA factbook claims a majority of French people (as in those who are not of immigrant extraction) are of Celtic and latin origin. From this we can deduce that the French ethnic group has been traditionally of this origin, even though the notion of "French people" has evolved into that of citizenship.... as it has in the rest of western Europe. Olivier, there are ethnic Serbians with Croatian nationality, but this hasent hampered the existence of a Croatian people page!!! This whole debate makes no sense to me...--Burgas00 11:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see "Ethnic groups: French" in the example of the reference that I have mentioned above, but rather a list of ethnic groups to which French people belong. And again this list does not include "French". olivier 10:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't have anything to do with simply French citizenship or nationality, it has to do with the indigenous peoples of France. Epf 16:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then how do you say somone is French ? what was used in this article to say there are 85 to 90 million French ? This is only a point of view, impossible to check. GôTô 16:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Data from various census figures used in Canada, the US, France and other countries listed in the article could be used. No ethnic data is collected by the French government but is collected by independent organizations which can be found on the web. Other information on people of French descent and these communites around the world, whether in France, the Americas, etc. can also be found. Someone's nationality and citizenship is different than someone's ethnic origins. Epf 19:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Links to the resources you are mentioning would be helpful to support your argument. olivier 10:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your commentary will not change anything. I say what I think about this article. it's enough for me. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 18:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, several of the French-speaking Swiss are of French origin, espcially as their is no "ethnic Swiss". 69.157.109.6 20:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agreed in terms of the French-speaking Swiss who are descendants of the Burgundian invaders which adopted Gallo-Roman culture, this link will help: [4]
  • Delete. For those who compare with other articles about people (like Serbs, Bulgarians, etc), they have to know that French do not define themselves like they do. This article is then original work. --NeuCeu 19:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This proposal to delete is just silly. The subject of the article is valid and necessary. It is up to us to make sure that the content is accurate. Is the propopser, and supporters, seriously trying to say that there is no such thing as French people?--Mais oui! 20:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We have tons of those: List of ethnic groups ----moyogo 20:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems the bulk of French wikipedia users are against this page and the rest are in favour.... The section deleted by Marc Mongenet on French Swiss being part of the French people should be restored, in my opinion.
Agreed and it has been restored with a source. Epf 20:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ridiculous. As an Alsatian, I've got nearly nothing in common in term of ethnicity with people coming from the south of France. So french peoples cannot be defined with an ethnic notion. --NeuCeu 23:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, being an Alsation of presumed French nationality, what are your ethnic origins? And if you are descended from ethnic French, do you not admit that your ancestors are indigenous to France and are related to other langue d'oil peoples in France ? It is true the langue d'oc speakers of southern France differ culturally but are they not more related to you than peoples in other countries who are not ethnic French ?. The cultural differences between the langue d'oil ("northern France") and langue d'oc peoples ("southern France") is comparable to that between a German from Saxony and a German from Bavaria, but do they not still constitute to be ethnic Germans ? 69.157.109.6 07:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is exactly why this article needs to be kept. It is not about merely French citiziens like Zidane or just simply French-speakers, it is talking about the indigenous ethnic French in France and around the world in places such as Quebec. 69.157.109.6 07:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just read the article... "it is talking about the indigenous ethnic French" There is not such thing, if you read what is written, so I keep saying this article should be deleted because it is just nonsense. --Coyau 18:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is one encyclopedia's take on the indigenous peoples of France and even though it doesn't say they are an "ethnic group" in it's own classification, it contradicts itself by saying they are aware of belonging to a single nation. Note that the article also intends to separate itself from those French nationals who are immigrants or of immigrant descent. 69.157.109.6 07:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It seems to me that French are not an ethnic group. Khardan 00:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. I can only agree that this looks like original research, but I'll be happy to change my vote if anyone adds references to the article. Otherwise, while many of the comments on this page are insightful, IMHO most of them are not significant in the context of AfD (but they show that in any case, this article should probably be rewritten, with more discussion happening on the talk page). Schutz 13:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. French are not an ethnic group. - Almak 16:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and delete as well the whole series of articles English people, Welsh people and so on. The first sentence of English people says The English are an ethnic group, therefore, quoting from that article, a culture or subculture whose members are readily distinguishable by outsiders based on traits originating from a common racial, national, linguistic, or religious source. This is not consistent with the inclusion of people in the United States claiming an English ancestry. People in the United States claiming an English ancestry and people in the United States claiming a Welsh ancestry are not readily distinguishable. So the content of the English people article does not qualify for an ethnographic article. The same flaw permeates the French people and Welsh people articles. Only the Scots (ethnic group) article, redirecting to Gaels seems to be OK, as it rightly does not include the people in the United States claiming a scot ancestry. Scottish people should be deleted. The discussion in the England#English_identity section is an example of what can be written short of claiming an English ethnicity for people who merely claim an English ancestry. Therefore we could create an English identity in the United States or an English Identity article explaining the facts relevent to this identity everywhere in the world. Likewise we could create a Swiss identity article which could include the facts about American people claiming a Swiss ancestry. --Teofilo talk 16:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or rewrite completly). I globally agrees with Teofilo. But...oh my god, I'm SO sympathizing with the poor sysop that'll have to try to count the votes. maybe changing to a vote model like this one would be helpful ? (easier to see if some vote more than one time, like the 2 ones Hegesippe spotted below). Darkoneko 17:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I would like to understand why Epf and 69.157.109.6 ("Keep" votes) and Hardouin ("Delete" vote) have voted several times... Hégésippe | ±Θ± 06:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question

[edit]

I have one very simple question for people who would like to keep the article:if the "French ethnicity" exists, can you offer a definition of that ethnicity? In particular, could you tell us if you consider a Mr. Neumann from Strasbourg (whose grandparents spoke Alsatian) to be part of that French ethnicity? What about a Ms. Vandervelt from Dunkirk (whose grandparents spoke Western Flemish)? Is she "ethnic French"? What about Mr. Kernoroc'h from Brest (whose grandparents spoke Breton)? And Ms. Etxeberry from Biarritz (whose grandparents spoke Basque)? Mr. Delpech from Toulouse (whose grandparents spoke Occitan)? For the records, Delpech is an Occitan family name whose French equivalent is "Dumont". What about Ms. Spuig from Perpignan (whose grandparents spoke Catalan)? Last but least, what about Mr. Jacob from Lyon, whose French Jewish grandparents converted to Catholicism in 1900? Are these people "ethnic French"? or does your "French ethnicity" only applies to people like Ms. Lambry from Tours, Mr. Villeneuve from Beauvais, and the likes? Hardouin 12:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hardouin: Firstly, we must agree that all nations and nationalities are, to a degree, imagined and the product of a state legitimizing it's power. States always rewrite history in order to offer a continuity between the present day nation state and the past. You will find this problem in every nation state not just France. In Turkey, many people who consider themselves Turks are actually of Greek, Kurdish or Armenian extraction... but, so what? Should we erase the Turkish people page? The definition of the French people has been as broad as possible: "A PREDOMINANTLY GERMANIC, LATIN AND CELTIC PEOPLE WHO TODAY SHARE THE FRENCH LANGUAGE AND CULTURE." This definition applies to the Bretons, Occitans, Catalans and Alsatians. +Many of these regions are only different because of their proximity to Germany (Alsatians) and Spain (Perpignan and Biarritz). Nationalism and local cultures (except perhaps in Corsica) has also been wiped out by the French Republic to a point that you can hardly speak of an Occitan people or Alsatian people. The word "predominantly" is used so that exceptions like Mr Jacob (Globalization is not particular to France nor to the 21st century) can be allowed. Recent immigration is not included yet, because these groups retain their foreign ethnicity and culture and have not yet been fully assimilated into French culture and society. But I agree that these definitions are temporary and that in 100 years ethnicity will perhaps be meaningless in all western countries, unless mass immigration is countered by an ability of immigrant groups to retain their culture and to create transnational communities with the aid of new technologies. Perhaps, at this point it will be the nation state that will disapear.--Burgas00 14:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah? Then what about the millions of French people of Italian descent, Spanish descent, Polish descent, Armenian descent, Portuguese descent? Do your ethnicist theories treat them as "ethnically French"? Mr. Nicolas Sarkozy, Minister of Interior, of Hungarian descent, is he "ethnically French"? What about Mr. Michel Poniatowski, former minister, of Polish descent, is he "ethnically French"? What about French singer Yves Montand, of Italian descent? What about Charles Aznavour, of Armenian descent? Not to mention Mr. Jean-Claude Martinez, one of the leaders of the Front National, who is of Spanish descent. Is Mr. Martinez ethnically French? Jean-Marie Le Pen (of Breton ancestry, by the way) is anxiously waiting for your answer. 81.64.86.210 14:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't associate me with LePen - I am an immigrant to France. Reminds me of when the FN got through the second round of the elections and the French media accused the "old immigrants" of voting for them because they felt menaced by the "new" immigrants. Si tu comprends pas mes arguments, il faut les relire ou demander à quelqun de te les traduire.--Burgas00 15:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But where does this definition come from ? Schutz 16:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • First of all, I think you all need to understand that the Bretons, Occitans (langue d'oc peoples), the original ethnic French (langue d'oil peoples), the Basques and the Catalans of France are all indigenous peoples of France. The Catalans consider themselves as a separate nation, as do the Basques and Bretons, so they are irrelevant to this debate on ethnic French. The langue d'oil peoples are indeed the original ethnic French in a sense since it is their culture and language which dominated and formed the basis for the French nation. The langue d'oc peoples have a distinct language and culture in the south of France but the similarities with the langue d'oil peoples are obvious and the two are more closely related to each other than with any other ethnic groups. The person Hardouin mentions from France with a German last name very well could be of full or partial German descent, being so close to the German border. The same goes for the person with a Flemish last name living near the Belgian border. Hardouin and 81.64.86.210 are putting up a futile case with regards to the list of famous French people of foreign descent (some in the list who also have partial ethnic French descent). They seem to forget the numerous famous French people of ethnic French descent. Of course several countries in Europe have famous people from their nations who are immigrants or of immigrant descent, but that does not mean the whole country is comprised in such a multi-ethnic manner or that an indigenous population doesn't exist (whether or not if it forms the majority). It also appears that you ignore the fact that many of those famous people listed in the discussions above acknowledge their non-ethnic French origins and I know for a fact they realize there are obviously ethnic French peoples in France. The reason why this has been so difficult for people in this discussion (and in general) to realize is because the Government of France itself discourages ethnic identification even if the majority of people still maintain it to at least some degree (hence the survival of languages like Breton and Occitan). This assimilationist model by the government is practically unique within Europe and only after several recent problems and violence have officials started to listen to critics of the policy. Clearly new measures need to be taken, such as for one, the government collecting data on ethnicity and religion which is done by again practically every other European country (and most world nations for that matter).

If this still doesn't clarify something, please go ahead and say so, 69.157.109.6 16:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this for the most part and the article should be revised, not deleted. It really just needs some more sources. Epf 16:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it deserves to be said this article has a long history (I think any person who has edited the article will agree) of repeated vandalism and random massive deletions. Of the users saying it should be deleted completely, I believe this needs to be taken into account as some random users on Wikipedia have some ignorant/prejudiced views towards the French people. 69.157.109.6 16:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think we are getting somewhere... How about keeping the definition of ethnic French and then including a section on immigration, the assimilationist model and its effect on the immigrant community? I have to say aswell, I know Portuguese people inFrance, and even the young ones, who dont even speak the language properly, still feel portuguese...and this ethnic group is one of the most well integrated in France.--Burgas00 16:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see there is absolutely no consensus between you guys. Burgas00 says Bretons and Basques are part of the French ethnicity, IP 69.157.109.6 says only langue d'Oil peoples are the real ethnic French. This should be enough to prove to everybody that there is no such thing as a French ethnicity. What there is is a French nation, but it is based on a shared history built around statehood, it is not based on ethnicity, which nobody seems to be able to agree on. Hardouin 16:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need for a concensus on definition. We can explain all the varying perspectives and still retain the page. Obviously, the Basques were a distinct group that has largely been assimilated. This can be mentioned surely. This isn't a question of a French nation, but a discussion about the French people. These two aspects don't have to be identical. There's no point in trying to prove one thing or another as ethnicity is a tricky thing to define. A compromise here would be to explain all the viewpoints and add as much information as possible. One could even mention that for many French the idea of a 'pure' French people is offensive and relates to Le Pen, while also adding that from the perception of people outside of France there is a view of French people that is perhaps not entirely accurate. If we work by combining some of the ideas mentioned on this page, the French people page could be greatly enhanced and be more representative of the differing viewpoints of what constitutes a group. The alternative is to abandon the idea of there being any groups, cultural or otherwise and strictly go by language or personal orientation. Tombseye 18:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a re-write as Burgas00 suggested could be a solution. We could denote that the French are a diverse group and are changing as we speak etc. The description could retain the origins of the majority of the French people and explain that during the course of its existence, peoples from Germany, Spain, Eastern Europe, etc. have moved to France and assimilated into the culture and are essentially French today. Next, we could add the situation with Maghribi immigrants some of whose descendents have assimilated quite easily (Zidane, Adjani etc.), while there are also tensions etc. Surely this could be considered a fair compromise, while acknowledging that France has been a conduit and a willing recipient and place of refuge for immigrants for centuries and explain that a majority population more indigenous to France also exists and has absorbed these waves of immigrants. Is this a better compromise? Tombseye 18:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How do you claim that their is no ethnic French when I just told you the original ethnic French were the langue d'oil peoples. As their nation and culture became the predominant one in France, it absorbed the very similar culture of the langue d'oc peoples. With the creation of the nation of France, other indigenous peoples such as the Basques, Bretons and Catalans came to be included in the territorial boundaries of the nation. Though the French policy was assimilation, these peoples have clearly retained to some degree their language and culture. This however doesn't come to say that the ethnic langue d'oil and langue d'oc peoples don't exist. Yes, France encompasses other ethnic groups (both indigenous and foreign), just as does Spain, England, Germany and many other European states. Again, this does not mean that the indigenous ethnic group which created the foundations of the nation (culturally and linguistically) does not exist. I also don't think Burgas meant to say Bretons and Baques are part of the ethnic French, but are part of the nation of France. 69.157.109.6 17:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. This debate seems to be divided into: 1) the pro and anti camps who honestly want to find a solution to the problem through compromise and debate. 2) the intransigent antis who either i) have just joined the debate and are repeating past arguments or ii) find the idea of "french people" so offensive that no debate is possible.

In any case I think we should focus on what we agree on rather than on what we don't and Tombseye's solution is, in my opinion, on the right track. Another thing, I think that we should distinguish clearly between the French ethnic group and the French citizen. I can be a French citizen, without being an ethnic French, and I will not feel offended. So ethnic French people should not feel offended for me!!:-)--Burgas00 20:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

+the camp of people who think that the article is original research, and believe that this is a criteria for deletion regardless of the debate on French ethnicity. So far, I have not seen anything that indicates that it is not original research (sorry if I missed it in the long debate). Schutz 20:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This terminology is forbidden by French law because it has no sense: French people are whoever acquired French nationality, based on jus soli, and to date, no scientific way of evaluating a so-called "ethnic French" category have been found (of course, since it's a pseudo-scientifical category)
  • Delete. To be French is to be a citizen of France, hence to have acquired French nationality, based on jus soli. As several French people have underlined here, "French ethnic" expression is an oxymoron for mainstream French Republican conception, as French nationality is not based on "race" but on Ernest Renan's "subjective nationality", opposed to Fichte's "objective nationality". This is simple common knowledge. Now, to scholarly knowledge, French language wasn't talked by 90% of the population living in modern French territory in the 18th century, as did historian Eric Hobsbawm show in Nations and nationalities. See also Benedict Anderson's book on Imagined communities . French people are well aware that many Wikipedia users, including many US citizens, love having "ethnic" categories, defining from which "ethnic ascendency" someone has, and others such things. However, those Wikipedians must take into account that under French law, it is forbidden to make any statistics according to so-called "ethnic" appartenances, for the simple reason that French law does not recognize this concept, which most French people consider a simple racist concept, with no scientific groundworks at all (official institutes such as INED or INSEE never use such a category). Lapaz 18:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree with you. The French nation is based on Renan's idea of nation, i.e. a people bound by a shared history and the will to live together, whereas the German nation is based on Fichte's idea of nation, i.e. a people defined by language and genetic characterisitcs, whether or not they actually live in the same state. Hardouin 19:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See also Talk:French people#The reason why there aren't any French official references in this entry: "Ethnic French" is an oxymoron:
French law forbids categorization of French citizens by so-called "ethnic" ascendency, and this at least since Vichy France. The expression - often used in this entry - of Français de souche ("ethnic French") is forbidden from use in official statistics and is never used in census. In fact, it is almost only used by members of the far-right Front National. Henceforth, it will be impossible to find official French references for this article. This therefore justifies the nomination for AfD. "French" is a nationality, not an "ethnic" membership. French nationality law are based on jus soli, and not on racist jus sanguinis, which as no scientific meaning at all (what is all this Nazi blood mythology???).
Further information: Claude Lévi-Strauss, Eric Hobsbawm, and Benedict Anderson
. Many French people here have pointed that out, but it seem that the French Republic POV is to be ignored by Wikipedia. We are well aware that in the US, census considers "ethnic membership" and "race" as more or less valid notions. Such is not the case of the French Republic. However, do French people push the official French POV on US pages? Why should we, then, bear from US official POV, which leading intellectuals have refused ? Lapaz 19:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LA PAZ: WE HAVE ALREADY DISCUSSED THIS!!!!!!!--Burgas00 20:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • REDIRECT. The whole article should be redirected to Demographics of France, which is lot better done and deals with French people. As said over and over (we may have discussed it, but no action has been taken yet), "ethnic French" is an oxymoron which as no scientific meaning. If a debate on the matter is to be engaged, "French people" is not the place to do it. Lapaz 21:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that most of you are just kidding yourselves. All of your arguments seem to be based on the fact that French means a citizen of the nation of France. I don't doubt that, just as English, German, Italian, American and any other nationality means simply a citizen of the country, regardelss of ethnic origin. To say that the idea of gathering statistics for ethnic origins and race is a "US official POV" is ridiculous since America at first did not adopt the principle of ethnic statistics and mult-culturalism, just as France didn't and still doesn't. Also, France is currently one of the only European countries who does not collect such statistics and its assimilationist views can now be considered unique (and obsolete for that matter if you look at recent events). I don't know how reliable the sources used by Lapaz are in describing the percentage of French speakers in 18th century, but even if the majority didn't speak French, they spoke a very similar language/dialect of the langue d'oil family or the less related langue d'oc family. I also doubt most French people consider the gahtering of ethnic statistics as a "racist" concept without any "scientific groundworks" at all considering again, France is unique in being one of the very few countries that does not gather such statistics. The lack of such statistics from the government would make it difficult to gather the numbers of ethnic French in France, yes, but NGO's have gathered similar data and for most of the countries ethnic French have migrated to outside of France (Canada, US, Argentina,etc.) ethnic data on these populations is readily available.
It must be said that just because the French government policy does not wish to speak of ethnic French, it again does not mean they are not there and I guarantee most ethnic French in France do use the distinction of "français de souche" even if "forbidden" by government law. How do I know this ? Well other than speaking with various French people from France over my time, the ethnic French who live here in the Americas (including Quebecois and Cajuns) don't simply regard themselves as "American/Canadian" and also distinguish themselves from French speaking peoples who are not ethnic French (such as French speaking peoples of African ancestry from Haiti, Martinique, France, etc.). You also make it sound like the French government never has used ethnic statistics to describe people. Obviously you have not read much into French colonial history, especially in the Caribbean, where the French had countless numbers of names and statistics for people of varying degrees of mixed white, black and Amerindian ancestry (eg. Métis), just as the Spanish did.
I have explained already what the distinction of ethnic French (langue d'oil, langue d'oc peoples) entails in my entries above and I know from reading anthropolgical studies, French history and of course experiences with French people this is what the ethnic French are. The nation of France came to include other peoples who were not ethnic French and the government refused to recognize the existence of diverse ethnic groups within the nation. You even said yourself that all the various immigrants and their descendants as well as the Basques, Catalans and Bretons are all considered "French" (i.e. citizens of France) by the government, but does that mean their indivdiual ethnicity doesn't exist ? I don't think so and most people outwith the government of France don't think so either. If this is not the case, then why is it that so many North Africans in France are always referred to as "French, but of Arabic descent" ??? Obviously there is an unacceptable prejudice against people of North African descent in France, but it just goes to show you that the ethnic identities in France are only "non-existing" in the out of date policies of the French government (and in the minds of those French officials who still support it). I guarantee the Bretons, Basques and Catlans and also the non-native ethnic groups in France would hardly consider themselves ethnic French or even "French" for that matter. With this pointed out, obviously there are the peoples who do consider themselves ethnic French (langue d'oil peoples and langue d'oc peoples) since they are the ones who won't deny being called "French" when it calls into question ethnic identity/origin since they are the ones who are respnsible for the creation of the French language, culture and nation. To say otherwise is just ridiculous and most academics in the world and many within France would never deny this fact. Remember, the French language, culture and identity originated from somewhere, and this somewhere is clearly the indigenous peoples of France. If you still disagree and are from France, look at your background and see where your family/ancestors originated from and if the peoples of that country have the same language/culture as which is found in France. What more can be said ?

69.157.109.6 11:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Much less could actually be said. Whichever decisions the French government has made to minimize - or some might say "deny" - racial discrimination has basically nothing to do in this debate. These are, after all, "only" political decisions. Everybody here would most probably agree that people with very diverse ethnic backgrounds are French citizens, and all of them are as such called "French people". And yes, there are ethnic tensions in France, and yes affirmative action is currently being debated in France. Now, whether or not there actually is a group of French citizens (or descendants of French citizens) which could be called "ethnic French" seems to be where the actual debate is focusing. So far, we had many OPINIONS supporting the existence of a French ethnic group and we have been given several times the same personal definition of "francais de souche", but in no case did we have any SOLID REFERENCE (the best we had was a link to a Google search of "ethnic French" returning a meager 587 hits). On the other hand, we have at least 2 sources which are advocating against the mere existence of such an ethnic group (Britannica: "they hardly constitute a unified ethnic group by any scientific gauge" and CIA World factbook not even mentioning "French" in the list of ethnic groups in France, but rather "Ethnic groups: Celtic and Latin with Teutonic, Slavic, North African, Indochinese, Basque minorities".). The best conclusion that I can objectively draw at this point is: French people = mostly French speaking people of Celtic and Latin ethnicity. Would you call them an "ethnic group"? Not so sure. At this point, I believe that the article should be rewritten and mention these various POINTS OF VIEW with supporting sources. olivier 14:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some of you guys are asking for sources to proove that the French are an ethnic group. This is just an idea but, dosent the existence of French people, people with a French heritage and origin, outside the borders of France (Quebec, Chile, North Africa, Switzerland) prove that one can be part of the French ethnicity without being a French citizen? These guys dont have French nationality so all the arguments about ius soli are not applicable! So one must only reverse the argument to argue that there are people in France, who have French nationality, are full citizens but are not ethnic French. Its as easy as that! Like Zidane who is a French citizen and is an ethnic Kabyle.

Anyways, the existence of ethnic French outside of France (you can find sources for this...) is enough to prove that there is such thing as a French ethnicity which is unrelated to French citizenship. Voila!--Burgas00 17:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And following my line of thought I have found a source on the CIA worldfactbook site:

-) http://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/an.html (ethnic French in Andorra, as there are in many other countries!!! --Burgas00 17:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this debate should be ended and we should take the page off the "articles for deletion", all of us who have really thought this over agree that the page should be kept. The debate should continue on how it should be modified and presented.

  • Although the CIA world Fact Book only says "Celtic, Latin and Teutonic", if you look at the page for Ireland it also says "Celtic and English". Obviously it is clarifying that the "Celtic/Latin/Teutonic" resembles the indigenous ethnic French just as the Celtic and English (from Anglo-Normans settling in the "Pale" during the middle ages) resemble the ethnic Irish under the ethnic groups heading. Another way to show my point, is how under ethnic groups for France "Celtic, Latin and Teutonic" is separate from "North African, Slavic, Indochinese, Basque minorities". 69.157.109.6 18:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Olivier's post above is correct. The focus of the debate is of course on the expression "Français de souche", (badly) translated as "ethnic French" ("souche" refers to "roots"). And the reason of our argument may be (surely) a big difference of conception on what does "ethnics" means, especially refering to something called the "Republic", which doesn't categorize people according to their group or collectivity, but as individual. It may be a good or bad idea, and I would be the last one to deny that discrimination is very real in France, as in Anglophone countries, and that affirmative action is well worthy of thinking about (for the least). However, if a link to fr:Nationalité française here was made, it was so that those of you who speak French but aren't can read what French Wiki writes on French nationality. You folks must be aware that by creating a page legitiming the term "Français de souche", you are playing on the far-right Front National's side - no citation need about it being far-right!!! or you know absolutely nothing about France... :) - Therefore, I suggest again that this page be REDIRECTED to Demographics of France, which is exactly the subject we're talking about! In this page, you may put whatever controversy they're is to the usage of the term "ethnic French" in French statistics -- demography being the only way to speak "scientifically" about demos (i.e. "people" !)... Redirected, or MERGED TO... Lapaz 00:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
>"we have a number equivalent articles for other peoples" : this is partly wrong. There are no Californian people, Texan people, Floridian people, Vermont people, Massachusetts people, New York people, Manitoba people, Mexican people, Argentinian people, Brazilian people, Australian people, New Zealander people articles. The view that European states should elect for this kind of treatment, while American states could remain unbothered is not NPOV. --Teofilo talk 12:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken. But there is still one truth holding : a Dupont has more chances of being considered to belong to the French ethnic group than a Sarkozy. France is a Republic of many ethnic groups, citizens don't have to belong to a specific ethnic group, but they still do, and people are aware of that. ---moyogo 14:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess Lapaz wants to be politically correct and that he feels uncomfortable with the term "ethnic French" because some French extremist parties believe that French citizenship should only be granted to ethnic French. I understand and share his concern. But one cannot over react in such a hysterical way to these racists by denying that the French people ever existed. After all, whether they did or they didnt is inconsequential in modern day France. In my opinion you are just playing into the hands of the FN with this intransigence: Their discourse won't be based on sources proving the existence of the French people, but on the menace of those who are attempting to deny its existence and thus "destroying the nation".--81.37.18.88 12:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First sentence of the Ethnicity entry: "An ethnic group is a culture or subculture whose members are readily distinguishable by outsiders based on traits originating from a common racial, national, linguistic, or religious source." There is no way of "readily distinguishing" an "ethnic French" from a "non-ethnic French with French nationality" (sic). "Traits originationg from a common racial": "races" do not exist. "National": France is less than two centuries old, known as it is now. Same goes for nationalism. "Linguistic": you will say "langue d'oïl" & "langue d'oc": those languages are several centuries old. Today, everybody speaks French. On the contrary of (Spanish) Catalunya, in France, "occitan" more or less completely disappeared with the 20th century (a revival movement was created in the 1960-70s, with low impact compared to Spain). And finally, "religious", well, I'm sure you'll understand this one without me... Conclusion: your definition of an "ethnic French" is contradicted by the first sentence of the "ethnics" entry... Lapaz 21:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your recent entries make one want to laugh Lapaz. Ethnicities can also a share similar origin as is described in the [Ethnic groups] article as well as cultural traits and traditions passed down through the generations. Even without these, your claims of ethnic traits that the indigenous French do not possess have no factual basis with the possible exception of religion. - Race: The idea of races is currently very much in debate even though the majority of the world's people acknowledge the existence of such a thing. Whether or not a "race" exists, biolgical differences (as proven by modern genetics and physical anthropology )between different populations and ethnic groups do, even if the traits are not unique to that population/ethnic group alone. - National: Obviously there was a consensus of an ethnic French nation at one point otherwise the country would have a different name than "France" and the language and culture would not be French. As I have said on the discussion page, the French nation is not 200 years old and most academics would laugh at any such claim. The French republic is over 200 years old now but the majority of historians trace the beginnings of the French nation to the death of Charlemagne in 814 AD. The idea of the nation being a "modern invention" is refuted by the majority of academics and by people as a whole for that matter.- Language: Although practically all citizens of France can speak French, various other French dialects and langues d'oil exist which are rarely spoken by non-indigenous French peoples. As for the langues d'oc, it is currently estimated by the Ethnologue that there are 2 million speakers (600,000 native) and therfore hardly disappeared at any point in this century (although under pressure from the langues d'oil and English). Finally, - Religion: indeed under government policy there is no state religion for the nation of France ever since the dissolution of the monarchy. However, the predominant religion of ethnic French outside of France, for example in Quebec, remains to this day Roman Catholicism ([8]) and according to statistics (eg. CIA World Fact Book) this is also the case with the ethnic French (langue d'oil, langue d'oc peoples) in France with a minority of Protestants and Islamic, Buddhist, etc. converts. (There are also large numbers of French Huguenot descendants outside of France which are largely Protestant)

69.157.109.6 22:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This article shows what happens when people tries to write articles about topics they don't know much about.
I see the following weaknesses in this one :
  • Defining French people as an ehtnic group is a mistake. This article could be about people living in France but at this point, it's not. It's written about some imaginary ethnic group of people living in France. But, French people have really different origins : France, but also Italy, Poland, Spain, North Africa, Cameroon, ... . So, there is no unicity of religion, culture, etc.
  • Then comes the next problem. Let's assume that French people are the people who are supposed to be the original French (before immigration). The big problem with this approach is that you have to come back to the beginning of the XXst century while French weren't a single ethnic group but severals (Brittany, ....). So, even the people originally from France aren't a single ethnic group.
  • There is no (real) French diaspora as Italian, Polish, Jewish diasporas, simply because France hasn't really been a land of emigration (but immigration) in the XXth century. So, when this article quotes 16,000,000 French people in USA, 4 000 000 in South America, it's kind of stupid because those guys don't have links with France anymore (the major part have been emigrated between the 17th and 19th century).
To sum up, the concept of French people doesn't exist so it would be better to delete this article. Some information can be put in Demographics of France, or in article about French citizens, People living in France.Poppypetty 23:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/French_people&oldid=1082612634"