| This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: |  | This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. | |  B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. | | Top | This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. | | | This article has had a peer review which is now archived. | | |  | This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. | | | B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. | | High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. | | | | | |  | French people received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. | [edit] Revival of photo debate - Note: Moved from #Pictures - a global proposal! to its own section here.
Why isn't Charlotte Corday's image shown? Or Margaret of Anjou's, Diane de Poitier's, Jeanne Moreau's, Coco Chanel's? The women selected are pathetically few in a vast sea of men.--jeanne (talk) 15:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC) - I agree, there are too many photos and they aren't proportionately chosen: there should be a similar number of men and women (5 each would be my choice) with each one being known for a different reason/field. ChrisDHDR 08:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- Seems to me the picture only reflects there are pathetically few famous women in a vast sea of men in French history, and that's not something that can be fixed with photoshop. Equendil Talk 13:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- That Édith Piaf photo is hideous, it doesn't even exist any more. Having 8 photos (4+4) would mean that the photos could be bigger and not be those minuscule thing currently. How about:
Victor Hugo
(literature) | Charles de Gaulle
(politics) | Gustave Eiffel
(architecture) | Blaise Pascal
(sciences) | Joan of Arc
(military) | Édith Piaf
(singing) | Brigitte Bardot
(acting) | Marion Bartoli
(sport) | -
-
- It has equal numbers of men and women and their specialities are varied. ChrisDHDR 18:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Guys, let me remind you that this point was subjected to a poll after lengthly discussions last year (see here). Before of that, pictures were swapped every week by someone else with a different opinion... - Wikigi | talk to me | 18:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- So what? Everything can be challenged if someone thinks that that there is a problem with it. The fact that there was a debate last year has nothing to do with it, Burma has a new debate almost every month. ChrisDHDR 14:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- There needs to be more women included. How many times does this point have to be made here? Women have played important roles in French history and culture, so just what is the excuse for not adding more?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
The picture box in this article is incredibly bad. I can't even recognize the people pictured. And frankly, as a woman, you don't need to have the same number of representations of genders to really be equal. Nor do you need every field represented to be fair. It's excessive and unnecessary. I work on picture boxes for other articles and so have seen many, and I think this one is the worst. - Cyborg Ninja 17:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC) - François Mitterrand in the mosaic? why? is he famous because he was a socialist? it think a guy like Ferdinand de Lesseps is more relevant. Cliché Online (talk) 21:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- I think Charlotte Corday should be in the mosaic.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Charlotte Corday, well why not Alfred Dreyfus, Raoul Salan or Jean Bastien-Thiry then? Louis de Funès should be there too. Women didn't achieve as much as the men, that's a fact. :) Cliché Online (talk) 20:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- just realized there aren't film director... writing, painting, acting, singing... sports. WTF? first motion picture EVER was made by Louis Le Prince, and the Lumière brothers aren't even in that mosaic. Cliché Online (talk) 20:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
[edit] More Populations 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) [edit] Not mentioned was the French population in past South Africa 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) - I wouldn't say there are any Frenchmen in SA anymore: any Du Toit, Le Roux, Visagie (Visage), or Cronjé (Crounier) would definitely say he is an Afrikaner and would consider himself Dutch if anything else. ChrisDHDR 18:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Picture 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) - No Zinedine Zidane and Napoleon are french, we don't care of the ancestry. Minato ku (talk) 17:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
-
- That's a pretty stupid thing to say: ancestry is one of the main factors of an ethnic group. So according to your logic since I'm from KwaZulu Natal it means I'm a Zulu even tho I'm white and English-speaking? ChrisDHDR 14:43, 9 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) - Napoleon Bonaparte was Emperor of France, born in Corsica, France, and Zinedine Zidane is a French citizen, born in Marseille, France, nuff said - Wikigi | talk to me | 11:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
-
- Oh, the good old race card, otherwise meaning "shut up and do as me" (bit like the nazis eh?); don't worry I'm used to it (from South Africa) and such a lame argument won't scare me.
- Right, now lets think logically. You called me a RACIST: so could you please tell me where I said our Kabyle friend was inferior or said any other so-called "racist" remark?
- The reason I think you say such things is that you don't understand: you are born where you are born. It means nothing except for a place name on your ID card. Just because you are born in South Africa doesn't mean you belong to the South African people (because it doesn't exist)! However you are born into a certain society, culture, way of life. It is this thing that defines the basis of your ethnic group. Your parents will bring you up according to their culture. They will teach you to speak their language. They will have the same ancestors as you, and it is this that determines in large part the previous two. You can do nothing about this, it is this that defines you and who you are. And it is the amalgamation of people who share these same basic building blocks of life that forms an Ethnic group.
- The other reason I think that you have this point of view is because you are French. En effet the French seem to have a problem with calling a spade a spade: to them the word arab or noir is, for some unknown reason, derogatory. They refuse to admit the existence of different Ethnic groups, probably due to their relatively homogenous society, and so lack the experience associated with living in a heterogenous society. They can't even understand the fact that in South Africa if you meet a black in the road and then a white, they will speak different languages! And so this page, being so directly related to the French Wikipedia, gets quite a lot of French POV.
- And therefore we can definatly say that Zinedine Zidane is a Kabyle; that does however not stop him from being French. Yes he is ethnically a Kabyle, which justifies this name being on Famous Kabyles; but he can still have French nationality. And the page Demographics of France is there for all inhabitants of France: whether they are ethnically French or not, even whether they are French citizens or not! As long as they live in France they can be there, regardless of race, sex, religion, height, fat, whatever.
- ChrisDHDR 19:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Josephine Baker? Why is Josephine Baker included in the list of notable french people? This is an article about those who are of french ethnicity, not those who immigrated to france and spoke french as a second language. That 63,000,000 figure for ethnic french in france is rediculously exaggerated as well. It's probably much closer to 40 million. What justification could there possibly be for including 1st generation immigrants, many of whom don't even speak french, in an article focusing on those who are of French ancestry?--24.179.211.176 (talk) 20:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC) I admit that Josephine Baker as french can be critiqued as she was not born and/or raised in France. That's true in the 63 million people living in France, 5 million (surely more) are immigrant (people born outside France without the french nationality). Anyway how do you define the french ethnicity ? and this is the real question. For many people, it is being white but I don't see why a french of italian descent would be more french than a french of african descent. In France there is no ethnic census, no reconized ethnicities... No notion of french ethnicity. Minato ku (talk) 20:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC) - Speaking in anthropological terms, ethnicity is usually defined as a product of language and culture. Under this definition, we can obviously exclude first generation immigrants, even if they have been naturalized. Most such immigrants would have been brought up in a culture other than french, and most would speak french as a second language, if they speak it at all. I think its fair to say that self description can play a major role is such classification as well. I imagine if you walked up to every person living in france, and asked them: "what is your ethnicity?," a good number of them would respond with something other than "french." Perhaps as much as a third of the french population would define their ethnicity as something other than french. We can debate exactly what ethnicity is, but I think we can agree that it's not enough to simply describe everyone currently living in france as belonging to the "French people." At the very least, someone who is described as ethnically french must have been born in france, and must speak french as their first language. Josephine Baker, therefore, cannot be considered a member of the "french people," no matter how liberally one defines this term. Her image should therefore be removed from the collage, and the number of ethnic french in france should be dramatically reduced from it's current figure of 63 million. Find out how many people living in france were born there, and use that figure to describe the number of ethnic french in france.--24.179.211.176 (talk) 01:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
You are missing the point, this article is about French people, not French ethnicity. See this archived discussion about the same.. - Wikigi | talk to me | 06:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC) - No, you're missing the point. The word "people" is used here in the sense of ethnic group (check wikt:people definition 2), just like at Basque people, Spanish people, or English people (where the figure of 45 000 000/40 000 000 ethnic English/Spainards is well under the official population of 51 000 000/46 000 000 in the country). The French population in general goes at Demography of France . How about we rename the page French (ethnic group) to get rid of such confusion in the future? ChrisDHDR 17:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
-
- Trying to define a French ethnic group is as unrealistic as defining a world ethnic group.. - Wikigi | talk to me | 17:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- So just because you think something's hard, you're going to make everyone give up? Whether Hugo is French or not, there is no question; and whether Baker is or not is a no-brainer as well. If you ask me it's pretty straitforward, you just have to use your grey stuff a bit. ChrisDHDR 18:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
- The fundamental issue here is that the French government itself doesn't recognize an "ethnic French" category. That is not the case in the United Kingdom or in Spain for example. For the French government, basically anyone who identifies with the French culture and speaks French is French, whether or not they were born in a different culture and to a different language (thus their inclusion of Josephine Baker).--Ramdrake (talk) 20:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- The answer can be found in the article itself : French people#Later immigration. Very little grey matter needed.. - Wikigi | talk to me | 06:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
- So just because the Burman government says that its litteracy rate is 18.7% means that it's true? Is a government some unquestionable source? If that's what you think then you're living in 1984 or during the Soviet era. The French government doesn't have an official position on ethnicity, it only identifies French citizens based on jus soli, so the "source" is irrelevant anyway. ChrisDHDR 18:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I was referring to : Quote - The CIA World Factbook defines the ethnic groups of France as being "Celtic and Latin with Teutonic, Slavic, North African, Sub-Saharan African, Indochinese, and Basque minorities. Overseas departments: black, white, mulatto, East Indian, Chinese, Amerindian". Its definition is reproduced on several Web sites collecting or reporting demographic data.
- The U.S. Department of State goes into further detail: "Since prehistoric times, France has been a crossroads of trade, travel, and invasion. Three basic European ethnic stocks — Celtic, Latin, and Teutonic (Frankish) — have blended over the centuries to make up its present population. . . . Traditionally, France has had a high level of immigration. . . . In 2004, there were over 6 million Muslims, largely of North African descent, living in France. France is home to both the largest Muslim and Jewish populations in Europe."
- The Encyclopædia Britannica says that "the French . . . hardly constitute a unified ethnic group by any scientific gauge", and it mentions as part of the population of France, the Basques, the Celts (called Gauls by Romans) and the Germanic (Teutonic) peoples (including the Norsemen or Vikings). France also became "in the 19th and especially in the 20th century, the prime recipient of foreign immigration into Europe. . . ."
Unquote That is no "Soviet era", yada yada, statements. Surely not French government stuff - Wikigi | talk to me | 19:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC) - Let's analyse your quotes:
- The CIA is a very fiable source, I must say. However the quote seems to be misunderstood: they talk about "ethnic groups of France", not the French ethnic group. So you can take away the Slavs, Arabs (North African), Blacks (Sub-Saharan African), Indochinese, and Basques; plus the overseas Blacks, Whites, Mulattos, East Indians, Chinese, and Amerindians. Now notice how they put "Celtic and Latin with Teutonic" as one single item: this is because they have blended to the point that they are indistinguishible, ie. they are the homogenous French people.
- This view is supported by the U.S. Department of State which says that the Celts, Latins, and Franks have "have blended over the centuries to make up its present population": ie. it is these three population stocks that have homogenized (homogeneity one of the criteria for an ethnic group) to form the French people. It then goes on to say that the presence of other ethnic groups in France is a result of immigration (plus slavery which brought the Blacks to the West Indies [present in the source since it is administratively part of France]).
- Encyclopædia Britannica also reinforces the fact that France has had a lot of Immigration. On top of that it simply talks about "the French [population]" not the French ethnic group, and so is perfectly justified in saying that the French population is not unified (but the French people are).
- So you can see that even your sources draw a clean line between the French population (ie. all inhabitants of France) and the French people (ie. the French ethnic group)
- As a final note I would like to draw your attention to the article English people and its talk page. It says at the top, something I think that is leading to the confusion here, and so this debate:
- This article is about the English as an ethnic group and nation. For information on the population of England, see Demography of England.
- Which could be transposed here as:
- This article is about the French as an ethnic group and nation. For information on the population of France, see Demography of France.
- Plus on their talk page there is no crying out because such people as Shaun Wright-Phillips aren't present on the page; I dare you to try to add this name there, see how long it lasts. I attribute the hypocritical point of view here, claiming that people that obviously aren't ethnically French are (tho no doubt about their citizenship), to the fact that this page is by nature exposed greatly more to this weird, typically French, point of view. However I still know Blacks who altho they were born in France and have lived all their life here, don't consider themselves French. You must know this: haven't you ever seen a typical French, 2nd generation immigrant, racaille proudly and overtly showing their support for Algeria? I even had a guy in my class whose family has had French citizenship for five generations but feels overwhelmingly more Algerian than French! So you must have a hard time imagining Zidane as ethnically French.
- Sorry for not replying earlier but I was too busy in real life, ChrisDHDR 17:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
So how do you define the "french ethnicity" ? And who is and isn't of "french ethnicity" ? Without forgetting that had a load of european immigrant in the past. I wait your answer. Minato ku (talk) 11:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC) - And here it is (did you wait to long?). The French ethnic group is, by definition [of an ethnic group], a homogeneous group of people sharing a common origin, culture, and beliefs. Now the French are a mix of Franks, Celts, and Latins, who have mixed over the years till they now are indistinguishable. If one day the Arabs, for example, mixed with the French population till the point that they were indistinguishable from each other, then you could count them as [ethnically] French. However at the present day that is not the case: they do not have the same origins (their ancestors were from Africa), their culture is still very Arab influenced (cf. example above), and they do not have the same beliefs (you must watch the news a little to know what I'm talking about). Over the generations they are slowly integrated into the French, and so maybe in 50 years we can call them French. Untill that time they will have their own articles at Beur (or Afro-French, etc.).
- "Ethnicity is a minefield" (from WP:ETHNIC), so just think logically and take it case by case. That's the way you do it.
- I think the reason you have such a problem with this issue is that you can't accept the fact that you have French nationality but not ethnicity (Vietnamese I guess, am I right?).
- ChrisDHDR 19:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
-
- Chris, I'd like a source for your definition. I've never seen it this way (especially called a "homogeneous group").--Ramdrake (talk) 22:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
OK but how do you do with the french of eastern european descent ? They are numberous. How do you count them ? You should admit that in your mind "ethnic french" just mean "white french", it does has nothing to do with a so called ethnicity but with a skin color. France doesn't reconize any french ethnicity and doesn't do racial stat, it will be hard to create a subjet about it. No stat, no possible claim... So we don't have any other choise that to use the official definition of french : people with the french nationality, like it or not. Minato ku (talk) 22:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC) - So you've just said that the French ethnic group doesn't exist, so shouldn't this page just be deleted then?
- And of course not, stop making racism claims just as a lame argument. If you're a White (lets say a Ukrainian like a friend of mine), and you live in France, that doesn't make you a Frenchman. If you ask her she will ardently say she is a Ukrainian, and never a Frenchwoman.
- Oh well I'm tired of you making us turn in circles like this (I guess it's since the status quo suits you fine), so I'm opening a RFC. Maybe we can get some POV on the matter. ChrisDHDR 19:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
[edit] RFC: Definition of the Ethnically French Are such people as Zinedine Zidane and Josephene Baker ethnically French? Ie. does this article apply to the whole of the French population or only those that are ethnically French? Please see previous discussions at #Picture, #Josephine Baker?, and the archives (unhappiness with this article has been around for quite a while). ChrisDHDR 19:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC) - It seems to me that it's best if the article doesn't take a position on what qualifies as a "real" French person. Include people who fall under the more inclusive definition and specify their ethnic heritage or whatever other information can make them arguably not French (perhaps under a section called something like "French nationals of foreign descent", though I'm not officially endorsing it). I think people are approaching this question the wrong way. The reader can decide for themself, if they care in the first place, whether the person is truly French. --MQDuck (talk) 15:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- It's also somewhat contentious and POV in my opinion to decide that there is such a thing as "ethnically French". The European French persons I know would be flabbergasted by the idea that an Alsatian, a Gascon, a Norman, and a Marseillais would be considered members of the same ethnic group. You'd have to find good reliable sources saying that there is such a thing as "ethnically French", and then you'd need good sources to state which individuals should be included in that category. Remember that 200 years ago most people living within the boundaries of modern France didn't even speak French as a first language, and 500 years ago (a short time when it comes to ethnic identity) what we now know as France was a number of independent countries. --NellieBly (talk) 23:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Several issues with Chris' proposition. First, as pointed out by NellieBly, the French are in fact a heteregeneous group, ethnically speaking. Second, this article is about the French people as per those who were born into or have adopted the French identity (language and culture). And while it is true that recently there has been some erosion of the French identity, this doesn't negate its existence. Limiting the French people to some definition of the French ethnicity (how far back do your roots have to go in France to qualify? Are only the descendants of Celts, Latins and Teutons qualify? What about the Basques, who are really neither? Are they not French (at least for the French part of the Basque country)? That's why this article makes much more sense if it hinges on the French identity rather than an ill-defined "French ethnicity".--Ramdrake (talk) 00:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Yeah, I understand you points of view. I'm actually very lucky and recently went to a political sciences class where the subject was the definition of a nation, and I think I'm coming to agree with you, there is no French nation. However this now makes the existance of the French people a non-lieu. I therefore propose that this page's content be merged with that of Demographics of France or be changed to something like Nationality in France: the current title makes that there is a homogenous French people, when in fact there is none. ChrisDHDR 19:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Still, I don't agree with a merge or a rename. There is a French people, it's just not defined by a single ethnicity, but rather by a linguistic and cultural identity. In that, it differs from possibly a majority of other "national peoples" around the planet. But so what? They still define themselves as a people, just not through ethnicity. I see nothing wrong with that.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Nationality, ethnicity and race are all imaginary concepts. But they are meaningful to the extent that we collectively attribute meaning to them. "French" is a concept people have, and there's nothing wrong with having a list of people who might fit in that concept. Along with this article's size, the fact that it's a relatively meaningless concept is good reason to keep it out of an article on the relatively much more meaningful concept of demographics inside the French nation-state. --MQDuck (talk) 21:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
- So now "there is no French nation'"? Listen Chris, maybe you should keep studying a little more and read the talk page guidelines "This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject" - Wikigi | talk to me | 06:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- I assumed he was using the first two definitions of "nation" given to us by Wiktionary: "A group of people sharing aspects of language, culture and/or ethnicity" and "A historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture". --MQDuck (talk) 14:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) I agree with those that consider French people to be a heterogenous group, that can include any type of Franch national. I don't think the title is a problem, as most readers understand "French people" to mean "People of France" in the broad sense, and there must be an article to be writtewn about that. The demographics article could have a large overlap, but would be a subarticle of this (along with history, media represenation, etc). Simply presenting the information with the different viewpoints allows the reader to decide. The article makes no claim that the people covered are "ethnically" French, as the lead makes clear.YobMod 16:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC) - There is no such thing as an "ethnic french", so we can't have an article on them. We have french people as defined by France government, and the article expands that definition to include people like the Gauls, the Franks, etc. I remember that the issue of french people popped up a few months ago in these pages, and that there were no reliable sources talking of a French race or anything similar, so there wouldn't be a RS base to make an article about it. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- This article is simply a great melting pot of different topics, and claims the resulting slush is a "French ethnic group" (for those who claim this article doesn't consider the French an ethnic group, then why is there {{Infobox Ethnic group}} at the top?). We should get things in order and merge the sections into their respective articles: Demographics of France and French nationality law (for "Notable expatriates", "Nationality, citizenship, ethnicity", and "Legal residents and citizens"), French diaspora (for "Populations with French ancestry"), Languages of France (for "Languages"), and History of France (for "History"). ChrisDHDR 10:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- Even simpler: leave it as is, but remove it from the Ethnic Groups category. The French people do form a people, just not on ethnic grounds.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, and also rename it Population of France — the "people" suffix is used for ethnic group articles — remove the Category:Ethnic groups in Europe and {{Infobox Ethnic group}}. ChrisDHDR 17:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
- No, please understand: these are a people just not ethnic grounds (rather on the grounds of a shared culture and language).--Ramdrake (talk) 17:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
- I've also raised the issue on WT:ETHNIC.--Ramdrake (talk) 17:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
- I know, it's just that "... people" is most often used for ethnic groups, and since such a convenient alternative exists (Population of France), alors pourquoi se casser le tête?. ChrisDHDR 17:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- [Obviously this page really tient à cœur, it's on 116 watchlists!]
- The thing is, the French really constitute a people, just not on ethnic grounds. So, French people is indeed appropriate.--Ramdrake (talk) 17:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- What do you mean by "people"? "People" is either the plural of person or a synonym of "ethnic group". The French definitely aren't one person, nor an ethnic group (a previously decided). "Population" works just fine, and in the interest of everyone gets rid of any ambiguity. ChrisDHDR 11:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- A "people" can be defined by mean other than ethnicity. I'll just repeat one of the definitions written earlier in this section: "A historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture". The French definitely share a territory, a culture and a language. They do form a people. Shared ethnicity usually goes with that, but not in all cases. This is one of those exceptions. "People" isn't an exact synonym of "ethnic group". Please see an interesting discussion on the use of "people" on Wikipedia here.--Ramdrake (talk) 15:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- The current article doesn't treat something "historically constituted", including people in France whose ancestors where in France since roughly ever, and those whose ancestors only arrived after the Second World War. Please Population of France suits everyone, lets not argue for nothing. ChrisDHDR 18:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- It's you who's arguing for nothing. The French are a people, united by a culture and a language, period. It would be unwise to deny that. I don't see anyone else here but you having a problem with the title of this article. Please let it be.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- United by a culture and language?!? So now that everyone realizes that they don't have a common origin, there's still work to be done! Haven't you ever realized the way the French justify their existence as a nation? Reading Le Tour de la France par deux enfants (or maybe it's Asterix satire) would give you the answer. It simply is that "We are all different, and that's what makes us the same". Take a peek in one of the two and you'll see how they go from region to region seeing the different cultures of France, the different foods, the different languages. Is it not in France that every substantial town and region is the capital of something? That they are overly proud of this and will never buy Camembert other than that of Normandy, nuts except from Grenoble, nougat unless it's from Montélimar. They all know these differences, and then pretend that this diversity is what makes them a homogeneous nation!
- That isn't cultural homogeneity.
- And can I remind you that when Molière went on his nation-wide tour, he had to tell his actors to over-emphasize their gestures, since the words weren't important, no one being able to understand them? And that is was not till the bringing of public education with Jules Ferry that a Parisian could speak, and be understood, in most parts of France. And even now, after Georges Pompidou declared that "there is no place for the regional languages and cultures in France" and French was deemed in the constitution "the language of the Republic", they are still alive! The délégation générale à la langue française et aux langues de France, a government agency, states that "26 % des adultes vivant en France avaient pratiqué dans leur enfance une langue autre que le français ", including, but not limited to, Alsatian, Occitan, Arpitan, Oïl languages, Breton, and Catalan. It then includes a list of 82 languages spoken in France (plus Parisian patois).
- That isn't linguistic homogeneity.
- ChrisDHDR 21:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- I said united by culture, not "of a homegeneous culture". For example, I'm a Quebecer, proud of my culture, but my nation is Canada. And even if a sizable portion of the French people spoke some other language as children (as first language, second, third language, colloquial dialect?). The French people can very much still be a nation while being proud of their regional differences. It does not need anything like the Great American Melting Pot.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- In any case, this RfC is already closed and the consensus is against you. Please let it go.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Don't you just tell me what to do. I'll adopt the same attitude: out of everyone that was against the motion, you're the only one left, so please let it go. And the tag was removed by a bot, which is, by no means, an authority.
- Now, if you don't have to have a homogeneous culture to be "united by culture", by what are they united? They're not unified by language (which you just admitted to with "a sizable portion"), not unified by origin (admitted in 6th paragraph with "just not defined by a single ethnicity"), not unified by culture (just admitted with "not of a homegeneous culture") - but then for you that still means "united". Very weird idea, by just what are they actually united? An un-united culture? The same country? The will of a Wikipedian? None of them justify this article's existence. You haven't even proven it, given just one source - do you think that blurbing it out enough will make it true (a bit like the Big Lie you know)?
- With all this I ask you to create the article South African people. It has all the traits of this one: no unified language, no unified origin, no unified culture. It would make just as much sense tho, and you could use this page as a source:
| 1. | ^(English)Since the page French people exists, even tho they have no united culture, language, or origin, I guess this one should too. Hope you understand me, 'cos no one else can. | - And your nation is not Canada - your country is. This confusion between country and nation is most notably shown in the word international - if you believe it then when I am dealing with a Zulu, it is an international deal (I'm from the English South African nation, and him from the Zulu nation). But of course not! it's just that the word should be something like "intercountry". Try to find out the difference between the words nation, people, ethnic group, inhabitants, citizens, and nationals, and then come back
- Please, you obviously don't know a hoot about what you're talking about. You're making a fool of yourself.
- ChrisDHDR 15:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- You seem to be confusing regionalism with a lack of national identity. And please, don't tell me what my national identity should or shouldn't be. The others have stopped contributing to the talk because they spoke their mind, which is the point of the RfC, not because your arguments swayed them. It looks obvious that nothing will convince you. So be it. I'm just asking you to respect the consensus as expressed in the RfC and leave the article alone (or at least not do anything drastic with it such as the name change you were pushing for). Thanks.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- Erm, Chris, this thing of "out of everyone that was against the motion, you're the only one left", as Ramdrake says, I already commented above, and I didn't feel the need to go at it again. Idem for other people commenting here. There is a "French people" as defined by the French government, and this article expands it to cover people that has lived in the territory. And I have no problem with that. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
- It's not about whether you've got a problem with it or not, it's verifiability that's important, one of the core concepts; and obviously this debate has moved on from the simple RFC that started this section. It has been proved that the French are not united by a language[1][2], nor united by an origin [3][4]. Although not even a single source was ever given for the point of view that the French are an ethnic group (which is constantly called a "people" here), its belligerents have continued on the single fact that they still have a united culture, the last of the three criteria for a people. Well I don't agree, and decided to go and interview 10 random people on the street to see what they think. And the results were a landslide: out of the 10, 9 said that the French were not united by culture. I tried to put the video on YouTube but that for some reason didn't work, and one guy half-jokingly said he didn't want his photo published, so anyone who wants a copy can just email me, and I'll sent it back.
- Finally what is this nonsense that the French are a people, just not an ethnic one. The current convention is that the "... people" suffix be used for ethnic groups, which this has been proved beyond doubt to not be. Just look at American people: no one's pretending that they are a people, or even a non-ethnic one. It's just a disambiguation page for different articles on the population of America. Maybe we can take a few lessons here. The same situation is in France with all the ethnic minorities, so why do you still cling onto this page being called French people? The French use peuple français as much as the Americains use the American people - have an article on this particular phrase if you want, but don't pretend something is something it obviously isn't.
- Even the French government doesn't know exactly what the French people are: haven't you heard about the Grand débat sur l'identité nationale, where they're trying to find out exactly what Frenchness is - and a good portion of the French population doesn't even see the point, saying there isn't a French people, so why try to find one. So where is this "French people"? No one, not even the government or the French population itself, know exactly what it is. ChrisDHDR 21:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- You are twisting facts in a bad way, Chris: even though a sizable percentage of the French population spoke one of the colloquial languages as a child, doesn't mean the French aren't united by a language: they all speak French. They all share the French culture, which has its regionalisms like any other culture. I am not sure why you are attacking the French identity as you are, but please cease and desist. You're not going anywhere with this argument. The editors here have spoken their mind and have agreed for the most part that they see the French people actually do form a people. You're the only one who disagrees. What are you going to do about it?--Ramdrake (talk) 22:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, and BTW American people is a disambiguation page because the article on the American people can be found at People of the United States. There you go.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
The French speaking people in Switzerland are not ethnic Frenchmen. There are in no way 1,350,000 French people in Switzerland. Indeed, they speak French, but they have never been part of France. And about 50% of the French-speaking population are of Swiss-German descent. Primusinterparem (talk) 13:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC) - See! This page is riddled with mistakes: it takes not only those who are ethnically French, but all those who have even the remotest French descendants like the Cambodian and Vietnamese métis. I don't see the Cape Coloureds at Dutch people - because their Dutch origins are now too small to be counted, and they've now got a new culture and language. Even you say you don't consider yourself French, so why does the article talk about 8 million Frenchmen in Canada? And then it puts people who just speak French like the Swiss - they have neither the same origins (but then what are French origins?) nor culture. I'd like to see you make them swallow the you-are-French pill! And then finally it includes all inhabitants in French territory, including a lot of EU-27 immigrant workers who can't even speak French! This is in fact 4 articles in one!
- Secondly, do you know that Wikipedia is not a democracy? You debate, discuss, argue till the verifiable truth is found. It's not just a question of 5 against 1 so 1 looses. If those 5 are for 1+1=3 and 1 guy is for 1-1=2, plus with sources (which you haven't given yet), then his motion would be accepted.
- Now I'm very happy you brought People of the United States to the debate - it should be an example here. Note the introduction and the rest of the article which should be used as a model for the new Population of France article:
-
The people of the United States, U.S. Americans, or simply Americans or American people, are citizens or nationals of the United States [Note not "ethnic Americans"]. The United States is a multi-ethnic nation, home to people of different ethnic and national backgrounds. As a result, some Americans don't take their nationality as an ethnicity, but identify themselves with both their nationality and their ancestral origins. [bolding changed for the case of this example] - Thirdly, I thought you would say it was OR. But the video is not original research. Those people over their lives have formulated their own opinions on the matter, and that information already existed in their brain. All I did was record it. To research, you go and do experiments, find information, compare, analyze, deduce, and publish your result. I just recorded what already existed, not at all the same.
- Finally I am not attacking the French identity, and I definitely don't have Francophobia. As the video shows the French don't even think they have a common identity. I'm simply trying to bring to light the French accepted truth. As by the famous speech Qu'est-ce-qu'une nation? by Ernest Renan, a quotation present in this article and accepted by the French since it's in their curriculum,
| “ | Une nation [...] se résume pourtant dans le présent par un fait tangible: le consentement. [...] L'existance d'une nation est (pardonnez-moi cette métaphore) un plébiscite de tous le jours. | ” | | —Ernest Renan, 1882, Conference faite en Sorbonne, 11 March 1882 | - So please, why are you trying to force the French to be an ethnic group, when even they don't want to be one?
- ChrisDHDR 19:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- Again, this article is not about an ethnic group. It is about a people. Why would you not bat an eyelid about one article being named People of the United States (which is a multi-ethnic nation, but very much a nation nevertheless), but insist that French people be renamed to Population of France? To me, that smacks of "deux poids, deux mesures".--Ramdrake (talk) 19:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- I'll also note that there are quite a few books discussing the identity of French people[5], and those are after filtering for university presses. Adding "quebec" to the search restricts it to books talking about "Quebecuois" identity in Canada, like this one[6] (pags 117-118, and also 113), and there I see a few talking of how muslim in France as perceived by some as not being French people, despite being legally so, how identification as "French" evolved in absolutist times, etc.
-
-
- In other words, there are many sources discussing the existance and the limits in time and space of a separate "French people" group inside France and outside of France. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Okay, how about this as a solution:
- "French people" moved to "People of France" with the intro stating that the article is about all inhabitants of France and all French citizens, and not about an ethnic group
- "French people" changed into a disambiguation page with the main link being to "People of France" but also with links to "French nationality law", "Demographics of France" and "French diaspora"
- "Population of France" changed to redirect to "People of France"
- {{Infobox Ethnic group}} and Category:Ethnic groups in Europe removed (consensus that the French aren't an ethnic group)
- I think this should work. ChrisDHDR 15:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- I guess I can assume that the fact there are no comments shows a general agreement. ChrisDHDR 17:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I've unarchived this discussion so that it might be closed by an uninvolved editor. This was the outcome posted by ChrisDHDR: click "show" to view - The result of the debate, due to the sudden lack of response, was to adopt the measures proposed by ChrisDHDR, available at the bottom of this section.
-
-
- It should also be noted that this page, People of France, is not about an ethnic group, but about the inhabitants of France; and that an article about a French ethnic group, if properly sourced and justified, can be independently made in the future.
- ChrisDHDR 16:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
An absence of further discussion does not render the points of view previously expressed moot, and I'm not sure the outcome described is an entirely representative summation. Skomorokh 23:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC) - My read on the consensus is while it's agreed there's no "ethnically French" people there's not a consensus to rename the article. Gerardw (talk) 01:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks Gerard. Chris, as the RfC has concluded the question of French ethnicity, perhaps a requested move discussion might be helpful. Skomorokh 05:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
!? The people of France is the French people, don't you get it? As for the use of a ill-named infobox, ask yourself if the infobox itself should be renamed to cover a wider spectrum or if another infobox bearing a different name should be created, with probably the exact same parameters.. - Wikigi | talk to me | 08:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC) [edit] Need a correction there is a problem or maybe two: 1) why for "French people" do you include immigrants in the population of France and it doesn't happen for any other country? 2) even if you include immigrants, the TOTAL population, as in the article, reaches 105 million, not 130! why this false number?FrankVonPedro (talk) 10:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC) - I totally agree with you, it's very uncorrect to include immigrants in the Frech people while doesn't happen for any other country.
--Conte di Cavour (talk) 20:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC) [edit] Requested edit {{editprotected}}As per the now closed debate above could you please move this page to People of France. Thanks, ChrisDHDR 17:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC) - While I agree with the rationale for the move, I do not see consensus in the above discussion for it. I'd advise against closing RfCs you've taken a position in; it seems here as if you are trying to play prosecutor, judge and jury all at once. Skomorokh 23:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
|
