![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
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).
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)
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)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 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)
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)
Read my discourse above, but with regards to the pictures, read below. Epf ( talk) 05:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
-- J intela ( talk) 06:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
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:
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.
|
|
|
What do you think? The Ogre ( talk) 20:17, 18 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)
The vote closed, the mosaic image is done and posted The Ogre ( talk) 13:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
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 (��). 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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: [6], [7], [8], etc., etc... Scholarly? Debatable. Notable? Absolutely! Dionix ( talk) 23:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Two things: first, I am really just a recent, casual participant in this discussion so Slrubenstein, I did not "put off" providing sources nor did I intend that the ones I posted be used to support "my cause" (by the way, the "cartographers" were at the service of "scholars", not vice-versa). They were merely posted to demonstrate how a quick, two minute Google search provides links referring to a French ethnic group, to show that according to many such a group is factual and explicit (just as there are "English", "Italians" and "Spaniards"- all of them "multi-ethnic" really), and to indicate that such a statement is definitely NOT WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR. Second, Ramdrake, you confuse the French nationality with the French ethnic group. What is it about this that you two cannot find suitable for the article?? Dionix ( talk) 17:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'm coming around to agree with you guys. I think I always did- only that this perception exists. As I mentioned initially (way up on the page), this is really making me question the term's use as it applies to other European peoples- especially Italians and Spaniards. One "hiccup", however, is the many people abroad that self-ascribe as French ethnically (as in Canadian censi). Dionix ( talk) 21:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Well there is no need to question those since the cases of those groups are distinct from that of the French and have differing views on their ethnic populations (eg. including the collection of ethnic statistics, not even allowed in France, but found in most other countries). Epf ( talk) 22:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I have replaced the US department source for the CIA factbook since it's obvious that it was lifted from there. The other two sources appear to have been lifted from the CIA factbook too.
According to User:Blueboar on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard: "These are certainly considered reliable sources". If someone could re-insert my edit, it would be helpful since I have reached WP:3RR for today. Epf ( talk) 23:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Here is a quote from an expert on Gauls regarding the ethnic ancestry of the French people (quote is in French from the French Wikipedia, sorry):
Jean-Louis Brunaux, specialist of the Gaul civilization says: "Gauls are but one of a multitude of very diverse successive settlements: Ligurians, Iberians, Latins, Franks, Alamanni, Norsemen, Saracens which eventually populated the country. Are they more or less important than others? The only thing which we know for sure is that the French have appropriated (the Gauls) as ancestors, and they are expecting of them far more than the nationalists historians were expecting (...)» [2].''
This seems, again, to stress the multi-ethnicity of origins of the French people.-- Ramdrake ( talk) 01:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Also found this, contrasting citizenship in France and Germany here:
I was looking for somewhere to insert a phrase about Huguenots in Nova Scotia, in somee counties anyway I don't konw the details; not ssure about the rest of the Maritimes. But if it can be fit in it would go heere I think:
I loled at the addition of Pink Panther's detective [11], but I fear that the caption may be making some bad statement about the manner on which frenchs behave. On this sentence "However, his manner is undoubtedly of French national character.". The photo and statements about how Jacques Closeau is a clearly french person despite accent are OK, but this sentence feels like some joke about french that I'm just not getting. Also, does he have really a *belgian* accent? Is that another joke? On Spain, films are subbed, so I can't tell. Sorry if I am not assuming enough WP:AGF good faith on the poster, the caption just feels too weird to me. Could it be reworded to be clearer on what it means so non-french person can get the joke? Anyone more experienced can clear this? -- Enric Naval ( talk) 14:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Which parts of this article are single-minded? Wilhelmina Will ( talk) 03:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Napoleon french? Zidane french? JEJEJEJE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.24.85.145 ( talk) 22:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
If you admit that you are no expert on ethnicity then stop pushing your POVs and learn about what ethnicity is by reading Wikipedia's own article on it: ethnicity. CanuckAnthropologist ( talk) 18:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Josephine Baker was French citizen but not ethnically French. This article is about the ethnicity not the nationality (which would be in Demography of France). So why is her image in the French people mosaic? CanuckAnthropologist ( talk) 18:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
There is no such thing as ethnic French, as explained in the article. The article is, again, about French people... - Wikigi | talk to me | 22:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Like Great Britain where 10% of the population can trace their roots to Ireland, so can 10% of all persons claiming to be french. According to the Camrbidge Survey of World Migration, in the late 1990's an estimated 5 - 6 million people in France have an Italian grandparent. Throughout European history, Italy and France has had a lot of interaction. In the 1880's to the end of the second world war, Italian people as well as Polish made up the majority of immigrants moving to France. This along with land cedations where many ethnic Italians once lived. Is this not worth mentioning. Link: http://books.google.com/books?id=BLo2RqGdv_wC&pg=PA143&lpg=PA143&dq=5+million+italians+in+france&source=web&ots=FS8QNMYmoq&sig=dDwUB09FSWcdigHxd0PeG5L94vc#PPA143,M1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Galati ( talk • contribs) 08:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
This is one of the messiest articles in WP. I did some editing of one measly little section (as was requested by a Copy Edit tag), and then when I pasted in my version, I took a look at the rest of the article. Good God! Quel horreur! What a pastiche! Kind of a bouillabaisse! Yes, I have read much of the debate about the contents of this article (was Josephine Baker a French person? Was Marie Curie?), and I truly cannot figure out where it is going. I might just delete this from my watchlist because I don't intend to get caught in the crossfire, even though I have a great admiration for the French people, whoever they might be. On the other hand, I might just go through the whole piece and remove everything which does not have a Source and sit back to enjoy the resulting tumulte. Salut! Sincerely, GeorgeLouis ( talk) 06:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Rearranged the sections and put like information with like information. Broke up some of the lengthy paragraphs. Yours, GeorgeLouis ( talk) 17:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Some tendentious views are expressed.I assume responsibility for my sentences as I have written them----Clive Sweeting 21 July 08 -and contest their suppression----Clive Sweeting 22 July 08
I have realized that the genetic aspect is not considered here while it is considered in many other European articles. To begin with: According to DNA tribes, a company that specializes in DNA studies, the French are made up of different main European genetic subgroups, as could be more or less expected. The most interesting part, according to this site, is that the vast majority of French people would fall within the so-called Spanish group. See:
http://www.dnatribes.com/sample-results/dnatribes-europa-sample-spanish.pdf
Any comments? Should this type of information be added? Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.143.55.19 ( talk) 18:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree about the commercial part. But all this information is already well known among genetic circles, from other commercial sites like this one:
http://www.dnaheritage.com/masterclass2.asp
To well known hap maps from universities like this one:
http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/~mcdonald/WorldHaplogroupsMaps.pdf
And a long etc. What happens is that all this is relatively new and in contradiction with what was believed by previous pseudo-science. In short, most Western Europeans are of Spanish origins, particularly the French. Note in the map coloured yellow that the more intense the yellow the closer the affinities to the Spanish. Most France has the same tone as Spain but other important areas of Western Europe are also clearly yellow, although less. It confirms, more or less, the distribution of the genetic markers analysed in the Macdonalds map. Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.143.55.19 ( talk) 19:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I will not add anything myself either. I just find that it is a pity that all this new information is being ignored in many of these articles. I hope people will consider it, leaving aside chauvinism and propaganda. I have to admit that this issue attracts a lot of manipulators who like to misinterpret facts, cherry pick information, magnify minority cases, downplay majority cases, and a long etc. For examples that is what happens, unfortunately, in the Wiki article that you mention, in some cases or all too often. So, good luck. In any case, I find all this information very interesting and useful in articles speaking of peoples, their origins etc. Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.143.55.19 ( talk) 20:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, population genetics is relatively new, but one of the results is that it often contradicts previous theories that were in use when DNA was not known. Anyway, one of the most interesting discoveries is that most Western Europeans (and that includes French, Italians, Britons, etc)come from the Spanish or Iberians, if the name sounds better. This is well known and is mainstream in population genetics nowadays. Only I guess it will take some time for many people to swallow it up due to nationalistic feelings. Most theories from the 19th and early 20th century are proven to be wrong by the present study of DNA. On the other hand, probably because DNA studies are still very young, we can often find contradictory results on many issues, but the Iberian issue is one of the few consensuses right now. No serious human geneticist doubts about the Iberian origins of most Western Europeans, including the French, of course. The only difference is in the terminology used: when the terminology refers to space, the terms Iberian, Spanish or Basque are used, to refer basically to the same thing. When the termilogy refers to time, the term Paleolithic is used. Iberia is not the only Paleolithic point of origins of Europeans, there was another in the Balkans and another in the Black see, but the Iberian origins is clearly the majority in Western Europe. Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.231.109.39 ( talk) 13:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
According to the French Government document cited, there are 116,438 French citizens living in the United States of America . So why does the table as displayed show 11 million, clearly a nonsense. When I try to edit the table, the source of the table appears to have the correct 116,438 number in it, but that is not what is displayed. There is something wrong with the table but it is not clear to me, how to fix it. Eregli bob ( talk) 15:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Incredible, you forgot so many french people in Africa. You can double the number of french speakers...-- Eurobas ( talk) 21:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
What the hell are these: "Walloons are a distinctive ethnic group[11]." and "French Swiss do not come from France, they always lived in Switzerland."? We're not asking again if French speaking Swiss or Walloon are ethnicaly French, someone reading the "French ancestry" column should expect a number representing the amount of people living in this countries who have a French (from France) ancestry. This is an obvious example of what kind of abuses the discussion on ethnicity can lead to. So please keep that kind of arguments to the relevant sections and someone should just post the stats on proven French ancestry there, if not I'll just remove the whole stuff outright because it's totaly and utterly irrelevant. Matthieu ( talk) 02:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I think that it gave needed information. Saimdusan Talk| Contribs 23:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
The claim that the ASPM (Gene) being highest in group D within the french population is also made, on wikipedia, about the Druze, Kalash and Papuan peoples. Not everyone can be highest.-- Mongreilf ( talk) 14:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Not sure if it's been brought up lately, but there's one major problem with the infobox. It reports in very dissimilar ways for different countries, in way which really shouldn't be compared. For example, the infobox states 11+ million of Americans of French descent (there may be that many people in the United States claiming at least partial French descent but even then that sounds overstated), but only 4.7M Canadians as French, when actual the number of French-speaking Canadians (those for whom it is a first language) is actually about 7 million (about 6 million in Quebec and about 1 million in the rest of Canada). The discrepancy needs to be fixed, but I'm still unsure what the proper criterion to be used for counting these people should be.-- Ramdrake ( talk) 15:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure the religious percentages in the infobox are a good idea. If we are defining "French people" as people who trace their family origins to France (regardless of where they now live in the world), it seems awfully doubtful that 10% of them are Muslim. Even if it's correct that 10% of the current population of France is Muslim, it's a fairly safe assumption that most of said Muslim population is not actually "français de souche" but recent immigrants and their descendents. It's probably best to just say that French people are "predominantly Roman Catholic" and leave it at that.
If it is necessary to provide percentages, we should specify that they are for France only (and even then, I'm not sure that 85% Catholic figure is really accurate).
24.11.127.26 ( talk) 05:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
This article is about French people, french is not an ethnic group it is a nationality. I could understand that people refuse to see Josephine Baker as french (she not born and not raised in France) but I could not understand for Zinedine Zidane who is born in France. And What would mean french ethnicity ? Being white, this sound very racist. I am sorry to say that to you but a lot of white french have foreign ancestry, the reality is that the majority of French people with a foreign ancestry are white. (francais de souche is just a stupid expression to mean white french) Sarkozy the french president is the son of Hungarian immigrant father and his mother is the daugther of Greek immigrant. Minato ku ( talk) 12:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
You can't say that french people are predominantly catholic like that : if you refer to people with the french nationality, there are some jews, some protestants, a significant number of muslims and many atheists, agnosticists or other sort of irreligion. If you refer to people of French descent, many French Americans, nearly all the Afrikaners of French descent etc. are protestant (the same goes for Australia, New Zealand, Germany, where there are some people of French and mainly Huguenot descent). Moreover, many French American or Canadian may be agnosticist.
I have added, to the list of populations of French people throughout the world; populations in Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia and Madagascar. Please note that the figures in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia include persons of mixed French and local ancestry (Which constitute the majority of these respective populations). This is noted beside the actual figures. I have also added a section regarding French people in Asia. -- Billsta1 ( talk) 11:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Not mentioned in brief mention of French populations other nations of world. was the French population of nSouth Africa. Least in the past. DatedPMAfternoonFri.Aug28,200921stcentByDr.EdsonAndre'JohnsonD>D>ULC) ANDREMOI ( talk) 20:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Why does the picture have zinedine zidane, who is Algerian and Napoleon Bonaparte, who was Corsican and of Italian ancestry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.133.251 ( talk) 19:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I could do the oposite, some of my far far descendants were slave from Africa but I am never lived outside France, been in Africa and I don't speak any african language (execpt french). Is I am Africa because of this ? Some of closer ancestor were italian immigrants but I don't speak italian, I am very ignorant about italian culture and I been in Italia only three time. Is I am italian ? The obvious answer for these two questions is NO. I am french and nothing else OK it maybe don't work like that in many other country but this is an article about France. French is a melting of different "ethnicities" people come in majority for europe and more recently form africa, asia, pacific...
Saying that Zidane is not french is RACIST. Minato ku ( talk) 20:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
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).
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)
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)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 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)
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)
Read my discourse above, but with regards to the pictures, read below. Epf ( talk) 05:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
-- J intela ( talk) 06:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
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:
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.
|
|
|
What do you think? The Ogre ( talk) 20:17, 18 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)
The vote closed, the mosaic image is done and posted The Ogre ( talk) 13:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
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 (��). 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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: [6], [7], [8], etc., etc... Scholarly? Debatable. Notable? Absolutely! Dionix ( talk) 23:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Two things: first, I am really just a recent, casual participant in this discussion so Slrubenstein, I did not "put off" providing sources nor did I intend that the ones I posted be used to support "my cause" (by the way, the "cartographers" were at the service of "scholars", not vice-versa). They were merely posted to demonstrate how a quick, two minute Google search provides links referring to a French ethnic group, to show that according to many such a group is factual and explicit (just as there are "English", "Italians" and "Spaniards"- all of them "multi-ethnic" really), and to indicate that such a statement is definitely NOT WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR. Second, Ramdrake, you confuse the French nationality with the French ethnic group. What is it about this that you two cannot find suitable for the article?? Dionix ( talk) 17:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'm coming around to agree with you guys. I think I always did- only that this perception exists. As I mentioned initially (way up on the page), this is really making me question the term's use as it applies to other European peoples- especially Italians and Spaniards. One "hiccup", however, is the many people abroad that self-ascribe as French ethnically (as in Canadian censi). Dionix ( talk) 21:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Well there is no need to question those since the cases of those groups are distinct from that of the French and have differing views on their ethnic populations (eg. including the collection of ethnic statistics, not even allowed in France, but found in most other countries). Epf ( talk) 22:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I have replaced the US department source for the CIA factbook since it's obvious that it was lifted from there. The other two sources appear to have been lifted from the CIA factbook too.
According to User:Blueboar on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard: "These are certainly considered reliable sources". If someone could re-insert my edit, it would be helpful since I have reached WP:3RR for today. Epf ( talk) 23:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Here is a quote from an expert on Gauls regarding the ethnic ancestry of the French people (quote is in French from the French Wikipedia, sorry):
Jean-Louis Brunaux, specialist of the Gaul civilization says: "Gauls are but one of a multitude of very diverse successive settlements: Ligurians, Iberians, Latins, Franks, Alamanni, Norsemen, Saracens which eventually populated the country. Are they more or less important than others? The only thing which we know for sure is that the French have appropriated (the Gauls) as ancestors, and they are expecting of them far more than the nationalists historians were expecting (...)» [2].''
This seems, again, to stress the multi-ethnicity of origins of the French people.-- Ramdrake ( talk) 01:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Also found this, contrasting citizenship in France and Germany here:
I was looking for somewhere to insert a phrase about Huguenots in Nova Scotia, in somee counties anyway I don't konw the details; not ssure about the rest of the Maritimes. But if it can be fit in it would go heere I think:
I loled at the addition of Pink Panther's detective [11], but I fear that the caption may be making some bad statement about the manner on which frenchs behave. On this sentence "However, his manner is undoubtedly of French national character.". The photo and statements about how Jacques Closeau is a clearly french person despite accent are OK, but this sentence feels like some joke about french that I'm just not getting. Also, does he have really a *belgian* accent? Is that another joke? On Spain, films are subbed, so I can't tell. Sorry if I am not assuming enough WP:AGF good faith on the poster, the caption just feels too weird to me. Could it be reworded to be clearer on what it means so non-french person can get the joke? Anyone more experienced can clear this? -- Enric Naval ( talk) 14:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Which parts of this article are single-minded? Wilhelmina Will ( talk) 03:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Napoleon french? Zidane french? JEJEJEJE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.24.85.145 ( talk) 22:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
If you admit that you are no expert on ethnicity then stop pushing your POVs and learn about what ethnicity is by reading Wikipedia's own article on it: ethnicity. CanuckAnthropologist ( talk) 18:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Josephine Baker was French citizen but not ethnically French. This article is about the ethnicity not the nationality (which would be in Demography of France). So why is her image in the French people mosaic? CanuckAnthropologist ( talk) 18:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
There is no such thing as ethnic French, as explained in the article. The article is, again, about French people... - Wikigi | talk to me | 22:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Like Great Britain where 10% of the population can trace their roots to Ireland, so can 10% of all persons claiming to be french. According to the Camrbidge Survey of World Migration, in the late 1990's an estimated 5 - 6 million people in France have an Italian grandparent. Throughout European history, Italy and France has had a lot of interaction. In the 1880's to the end of the second world war, Italian people as well as Polish made up the majority of immigrants moving to France. This along with land cedations where many ethnic Italians once lived. Is this not worth mentioning. Link: http://books.google.com/books?id=BLo2RqGdv_wC&pg=PA143&lpg=PA143&dq=5+million+italians+in+france&source=web&ots=FS8QNMYmoq&sig=dDwUB09FSWcdigHxd0PeG5L94vc#PPA143,M1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Galati ( talk • contribs) 08:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
This is one of the messiest articles in WP. I did some editing of one measly little section (as was requested by a Copy Edit tag), and then when I pasted in my version, I took a look at the rest of the article. Good God! Quel horreur! What a pastiche! Kind of a bouillabaisse! Yes, I have read much of the debate about the contents of this article (was Josephine Baker a French person? Was Marie Curie?), and I truly cannot figure out where it is going. I might just delete this from my watchlist because I don't intend to get caught in the crossfire, even though I have a great admiration for the French people, whoever they might be. On the other hand, I might just go through the whole piece and remove everything which does not have a Source and sit back to enjoy the resulting tumulte. Salut! Sincerely, GeorgeLouis ( talk) 06:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Rearranged the sections and put like information with like information. Broke up some of the lengthy paragraphs. Yours, GeorgeLouis ( talk) 17:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Some tendentious views are expressed.I assume responsibility for my sentences as I have written them----Clive Sweeting 21 July 08 -and contest their suppression----Clive Sweeting 22 July 08
I have realized that the genetic aspect is not considered here while it is considered in many other European articles. To begin with: According to DNA tribes, a company that specializes in DNA studies, the French are made up of different main European genetic subgroups, as could be more or less expected. The most interesting part, according to this site, is that the vast majority of French people would fall within the so-called Spanish group. See:
http://www.dnatribes.com/sample-results/dnatribes-europa-sample-spanish.pdf
Any comments? Should this type of information be added? Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.143.55.19 ( talk) 18:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree about the commercial part. But all this information is already well known among genetic circles, from other commercial sites like this one:
http://www.dnaheritage.com/masterclass2.asp
To well known hap maps from universities like this one:
http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/~mcdonald/WorldHaplogroupsMaps.pdf
And a long etc. What happens is that all this is relatively new and in contradiction with what was believed by previous pseudo-science. In short, most Western Europeans are of Spanish origins, particularly the French. Note in the map coloured yellow that the more intense the yellow the closer the affinities to the Spanish. Most France has the same tone as Spain but other important areas of Western Europe are also clearly yellow, although less. It confirms, more or less, the distribution of the genetic markers analysed in the Macdonalds map. Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.143.55.19 ( talk) 19:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I will not add anything myself either. I just find that it is a pity that all this new information is being ignored in many of these articles. I hope people will consider it, leaving aside chauvinism and propaganda. I have to admit that this issue attracts a lot of manipulators who like to misinterpret facts, cherry pick information, magnify minority cases, downplay majority cases, and a long etc. For examples that is what happens, unfortunately, in the Wiki article that you mention, in some cases or all too often. So, good luck. In any case, I find all this information very interesting and useful in articles speaking of peoples, their origins etc. Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.143.55.19 ( talk) 20:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, population genetics is relatively new, but one of the results is that it often contradicts previous theories that were in use when DNA was not known. Anyway, one of the most interesting discoveries is that most Western Europeans (and that includes French, Italians, Britons, etc)come from the Spanish or Iberians, if the name sounds better. This is well known and is mainstream in population genetics nowadays. Only I guess it will take some time for many people to swallow it up due to nationalistic feelings. Most theories from the 19th and early 20th century are proven to be wrong by the present study of DNA. On the other hand, probably because DNA studies are still very young, we can often find contradictory results on many issues, but the Iberian issue is one of the few consensuses right now. No serious human geneticist doubts about the Iberian origins of most Western Europeans, including the French, of course. The only difference is in the terminology used: when the terminology refers to space, the terms Iberian, Spanish or Basque are used, to refer basically to the same thing. When the termilogy refers to time, the term Paleolithic is used. Iberia is not the only Paleolithic point of origins of Europeans, there was another in the Balkans and another in the Black see, but the Iberian origins is clearly the majority in Western Europe. Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.231.109.39 ( talk) 13:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
According to the French Government document cited, there are 116,438 French citizens living in the United States of America . So why does the table as displayed show 11 million, clearly a nonsense. When I try to edit the table, the source of the table appears to have the correct 116,438 number in it, but that is not what is displayed. There is something wrong with the table but it is not clear to me, how to fix it. Eregli bob ( talk) 15:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Incredible, you forgot so many french people in Africa. You can double the number of french speakers...-- Eurobas ( talk) 21:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
What the hell are these: "Walloons are a distinctive ethnic group[11]." and "French Swiss do not come from France, they always lived in Switzerland."? We're not asking again if French speaking Swiss or Walloon are ethnicaly French, someone reading the "French ancestry" column should expect a number representing the amount of people living in this countries who have a French (from France) ancestry. This is an obvious example of what kind of abuses the discussion on ethnicity can lead to. So please keep that kind of arguments to the relevant sections and someone should just post the stats on proven French ancestry there, if not I'll just remove the whole stuff outright because it's totaly and utterly irrelevant. Matthieu ( talk) 02:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I think that it gave needed information. Saimdusan Talk| Contribs 23:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
The claim that the ASPM (Gene) being highest in group D within the french population is also made, on wikipedia, about the Druze, Kalash and Papuan peoples. Not everyone can be highest.-- Mongreilf ( talk) 14:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Not sure if it's been brought up lately, but there's one major problem with the infobox. It reports in very dissimilar ways for different countries, in way which really shouldn't be compared. For example, the infobox states 11+ million of Americans of French descent (there may be that many people in the United States claiming at least partial French descent but even then that sounds overstated), but only 4.7M Canadians as French, when actual the number of French-speaking Canadians (those for whom it is a first language) is actually about 7 million (about 6 million in Quebec and about 1 million in the rest of Canada). The discrepancy needs to be fixed, but I'm still unsure what the proper criterion to be used for counting these people should be.-- Ramdrake ( talk) 15:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure the religious percentages in the infobox are a good idea. If we are defining "French people" as people who trace their family origins to France (regardless of where they now live in the world), it seems awfully doubtful that 10% of them are Muslim. Even if it's correct that 10% of the current population of France is Muslim, it's a fairly safe assumption that most of said Muslim population is not actually "français de souche" but recent immigrants and their descendents. It's probably best to just say that French people are "predominantly Roman Catholic" and leave it at that.
If it is necessary to provide percentages, we should specify that they are for France only (and even then, I'm not sure that 85% Catholic figure is really accurate).
24.11.127.26 ( talk) 05:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
This article is about French people, french is not an ethnic group it is a nationality. I could understand that people refuse to see Josephine Baker as french (she not born and not raised in France) but I could not understand for Zinedine Zidane who is born in France. And What would mean french ethnicity ? Being white, this sound very racist. I am sorry to say that to you but a lot of white french have foreign ancestry, the reality is that the majority of French people with a foreign ancestry are white. (francais de souche is just a stupid expression to mean white french) Sarkozy the french president is the son of Hungarian immigrant father and his mother is the daugther of Greek immigrant. Minato ku ( talk) 12:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
You can't say that french people are predominantly catholic like that : if you refer to people with the french nationality, there are some jews, some protestants, a significant number of muslims and many atheists, agnosticists or other sort of irreligion. If you refer to people of French descent, many French Americans, nearly all the Afrikaners of French descent etc. are protestant (the same goes for Australia, New Zealand, Germany, where there are some people of French and mainly Huguenot descent). Moreover, many French American or Canadian may be agnosticist.
I have added, to the list of populations of French people throughout the world; populations in Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia and Madagascar. Please note that the figures in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia include persons of mixed French and local ancestry (Which constitute the majority of these respective populations). This is noted beside the actual figures. I have also added a section regarding French people in Asia. -- Billsta1 ( talk) 11:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Not mentioned in brief mention of French populations other nations of world. was the French population of nSouth Africa. Least in the past. DatedPMAfternoonFri.Aug28,200921stcentByDr.EdsonAndre'JohnsonD>D>ULC) ANDREMOI ( talk) 20:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Why does the picture have zinedine zidane, who is Algerian and Napoleon Bonaparte, who was Corsican and of Italian ancestry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.133.251 ( talk) 19:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I could do the oposite, some of my far far descendants were slave from Africa but I am never lived outside France, been in Africa and I don't speak any african language (execpt french). Is I am Africa because of this ? Some of closer ancestor were italian immigrants but I don't speak italian, I am very ignorant about italian culture and I been in Italia only three time. Is I am italian ? The obvious answer for these two questions is NO. I am french and nothing else OK it maybe don't work like that in many other country but this is an article about France. French is a melting of different "ethnicities" people come in majority for europe and more recently form africa, asia, pacific...
Saying that Zidane is not french is RACIST. Minato ku ( talk) 20:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)