This is an informal vote. The goal is to produce a single image with a great number of individual pictures. We need to make a difficult choice among a large panel of French influential men and women from all periods of France history.

It seems that as many as 30 images can be fit in the infobox but it can also be done with only 8, 12, 18, or 24 pictures... Pick the names of your choice in the list (from 1 to a maximum of 30 - you can add names if you wish, but remember they must have a free non-copyrighted picture available) and mark them with (just copy and paste next to the name) the following :   ((vote-for)) ~~~

The 3 tildes will provide your username. In order to vote, you will need to log-in since an IP address can't be considered as valid given the possibilities of multiple votes from a same contributor.
Wikigi | talk to me | 22:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please no vote ((vote-against)). The names with the most positive votes (((vote-for))) will be picked. Thanks - Wikigi | talk to me | 15:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Abbé Pierre File:Dessin-abbe-pierre.jpg or – social activist ((vote-for)) SalomonCeb (talk) - ((vote-for)) Ludo29 (talk) ((vote-for)) Gdgourou (talk) ((vote-for)) Med (talk)
2. Albert CamusFile:Camus NYWT&S.jpg - author ((vote-for)) Epf (talk) ((vote-for)) Aaker (talk) ((vote-for)) Dingy (talk) ((vote-for)) Clio64 (talk) ((vote-for)) Ramdrake (talk)
3. Alexandre Dumas, père – writer ((vote-for)) The Ogre (talk) ((vote-for)) Epf (talk) ((vote-for)) SalomonCeb (talk) ((vote-for)) Kimdime69 (talk) ((vote-for)) Med (talk)
4. André Breton, writer ((vote-for)) DocteurCosmos (talk)
5. André-Marie Ampère physicist ((vote-for)) Dingy (talk) ((vote-for)) Med (talk)
6. Arthur Rimbaud - poet ((vote-for)) Dukenn (talk) ((vote-for)) Gdgourou (talk) ((vote-for)) Med (talk) ((vote-for)) Hercule (talk)
7. Auguste Rodin - sculptor ((vote-for)) The Ogre (talk)
8. Blaise Pascal – scientist and philosopher ((vote-for)) Epf (talk) ((vote-for)) Aaker (talk) ((vote-for)) _{El Greco}^(talk) - ((vote-for)) Ludo29 (talk) ((vote-for)) Dingy (talk) ((vote-for)) Med (talk) ((vote-for)) Bsm15 (talk) ((vote-for))Remi Mathis (talk) ((vote-for)) Rama (talk)
9. Boris Vian File:Boris Vian sepia.jpg– polymath ((vote-for)) The Ogre (talk) ((vote-for)) Dukenn (talk)
10. Brigitte Bardot – actress ((vote-for)) Epf (talk) ((vote-for)) Wikigi (talk) ((vote-for)) Kimdime69 (talk) ((vote-for)) Dingy (talk) ((vote-for)) Med (talk)
11. Camille Claudel - sculptor ((vote-for)) The Ogre (talk) ((vote-for)) Rama (talk)
12. Charles de GaulleFile:DeGaulle cropped.jpg – President and politician ((vote-for)) Epf (talk) ((vote-for)) Aaker (talk) ((vote-for)) _{El Greco}^(talk) ((vote-for)) SalomonCeb (talk) ((vote-for)) Stef⁴⁸⁵⁴((vote-for)) Kimdime69 (talk) ((vote-for)) Gdgourou (talk) ((vote-for)) Dingy (talk) ((vote-for)) Lilyu (talk) ((vote-for)) Med (talk) ((vote-for)) Hercule (talk) ((vote-for)) Alun (talk) ((vote-for)) Ramdrake (talk)
13. Charles de Secondat, baron de Montesquieu - social and political commentator ((vote-for)) The Ogre (talk) ((vote-for)) Aaker (talk) ((vote-for)) _{El Greco}^(talk) ((vote-for)) Med (talk)
14. Claude Debussy – composer ((vote-for)) Dingy (talk) ((vote-for)) Med (talk)
15. Claude Louis Hector de Villars - commander and Marshal of France ((vote-for)) Epf (talk)
16. Claude Monet – painter ((vote-for)) Epf (talk) ((vote-for)) Dingy (talk) ((vote-for)) Med (talk)
17. Colette – writer ((vote-for)) The Ogre (talk)
18. Denis Diderot File:DiderotVanLoo.jpg- the encyclopedian ((vote-for)) Aaker (talk) - ((vote-for)) Ludo29 (talk) ((vote-for)) Gdgourou (talk)((vote-for)) Dingy (talk) ((vote-for)) Med (talk)
19. Didier Deschamps - footballer ((vote-for)) Epf (talk)
20. Edgar Degas - painter ((vote-for)) The Ogre (talk)
21. Édith Piaf File:Edith Piaf 1915-1963.jpg– singer ((vote-for)) SalomonCeb (talk) ((vote-for)) Stef⁴⁸⁵⁴((vote-for)) Kimdime69 (talk) ((vote-for)) Gdgourou (talk) ((vote-for)) Med (talk) ((vote-for)) The Ogre (talk) ((vote-for)) FFMG (talk) ((vote-for)) Ramdrake (talk)
22. Émile Durkheim - sociologist ((vote-for)) The Ogre (talk)
23. Émile Zola écrivain ((vote-for)) Dingy (talk) ((vote-for)) Aaker (talk)
24. Eric Cantona File:Eric Cantona.jpg – footballer
25. Eugène Delacroix - painter ((vote-for)) The Ogre (talk) ((vote-for)) Epf (talk) ((vote-for)) Med (talk) ((vote-for)) Rama (talk)
26. Évariste Galois File:Galois.jpeg- mathematician ((vote-for)) The Ogre (talk) ((vote-for)) SalomonCeb (talk) ((vote-for)) Med (talk) ((vote-for))Remi Mathis (talk) ((vote-for)) Rama (talk) ((vote-for)) Lilyu (talk)
27. François Couperin – composer
28. François Mitterrand File:Mitterrand.gif– President and politician ((vote-for)) Alun (talk) ((vote-for)) Wikigi (talk) ((vote-for)) Stef⁴⁸⁵⁴ ((vote-for)) Dukenn (talk) ((vote-for)) Rama (talk)
29. François Rabelais doctor, writer ((vote-for)) Dingy (talk) ((vote-for)) Med (talk) ((vote-for))Remi Mathis (talk) ((vote-for)) Aaker (talk)
30. Frédéric Bastiat - economist ((vote-for)) _{El Greco}^(talk)
31. George Sand writer ((vote-for)) Dingy (talk) ((vote-for)) Med (talk) ((vote-for)) The Ogre (talk)
32. Gilbert du Motier, marquis de La Fayette – military officer ((vote-for)) The Ogre (talk) ((vote-for)) Wikigi (talk) ((vote-for)) Dingy (talk) ((vote-for)) Med (talk)
33. Gustave Eiffel – engineer ((vote-for)) Epf (talk) ((vote-for)) _{El Greco}^(talk) ((vote-for)) SalomonCeb (talk) ((vote-for)) Stef⁴⁸⁵⁴ - ((vote-for)) Ludo29 (talk) ((vote-for)) Kimdime69 (talk) ((vote-for)) Gdgourou (talk) ((vote-for)) Lilyu (talk) ((vote-for)) Med (talk)
34. Hector Berlioz – composer ((vote-for)) The Ogre (talk) - ((vote-for)) Ludo29 (talk) ((vote-for)) Dingy (talk) ((vote-for)) Med (talk)
35. Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec – painter ((vote-for)) Wikigi (talk) ((vote-for)) SalomonCeb (talk) ((vote-for)) Gdgourou (talk) ((vote-for)) Med (talk) ((vote-for)) Alun (talk) ((vote-for)) Ramdrake (talk)
36. Henri Matisse – artist ((vote-for)) Epf (talk) ((vote-for)) Wikigi (talk) ((vote-for)) Gdgourou (talk) ((vote-for)) Med (talk)
37. Hugh Capet – 1st king ((vote-for)) The Ogre (talk)
38. Jacques Cartier - navigator and explorer ((vote-for)) Epf (talk) ((vote-for)) SalomonCeb (talk) ((vote-for)) Stef⁴⁸⁵⁴ - ((vote-for)) Ludo29 (talk) ((vote-for)) Med (talk) ((vote-for)) Rama (talk)
39. Jacques Derrida File:Derrida at Jorge Luis Borges´ home in Buenos Aires, 1985.jpg - philosopher ((vote-for)) The Ogre (talk)
40. Jacques-Yves Cousteau - explorer, ecologist, scientist, researcher ((vote-for)) _{El Greco}^(talk) ((vote-for)) Wikigi (talk) ((vote-for)) SalomonCeb (talk)((vote-for)) Kimdime69 (talk) ((vote-for)) Lilyu (talk) ((vote-for)) Nominoe66 ((vote-for)) Med (talk) ((vote-for)) Epf (talk)
41. Jean-Baptiste Say - economist ((vote-for)) _{El Greco}^(talk)
42. Jean-Jacques Rousseau philosopher ((vote-for)) Dingy (talk) ((vote-for)) Med (talk)
43. Jean-Paul Sartre File:SartreLOC1964.jpg – philosopher ((vote-for)) The Ogre (talk) ((vote-for)) Aaker (talk) ((vote-for)) SalomonCeb (talk) ((vote-for)) Dukenn (talk)
44. Joan of Arc – saint and military comander ((vote-for)) The Ogre (talk) ((vote-for)) Epf (talk) ((vote-for)) Wikigi (talk) ((vote-for)) Aaker (talk) ((vote-for)) Dingy (talk) ((vote-for)) Med (talk) ((vote-for)) Dukenn (talk) ((vote-for)) Ramdrake (talk)
45. John Calvin – theologian ((vote-for)) The Ogre (talk)
46. Josephine Baker – singer and dancer. ((vote-for)) Alun (talk) ((vote-for)) Wikigi (talk) ((vote-for)) Kimdime69 (talk) ((vote-for)) Med (talk) ((vote-for)) Rama (talk) ((vote-for)) Ramdrake (talk)
47. Jules Verne - Novelist ((vote-for)) Wikigi (talk) ((vote-for)) _{El Greco}^(talk) ((vote-for)) Gdgourou (talk) ((vote-for)) Lilyu (talk) ((vote-for)) Med (talk) ((vote-for)) Bsm15 (talk)
48. Léon Blum File:Blum.jpg – politician ((vote-for)) Stef⁴⁸⁵⁴((vote-for)) Kimdime69 (talk) ((vote-for))Remi Mathis (talk)
49. Léon Walras - economist ((vote-for)) Aaker (talk)
50. Louis Blériot – aviation pionner ((vote-for)) ((vote-for)) SalomonCeb (talk) ((vote-for)) Gdgourou (talk) ((vote-for)) Med (talk)
51. Louis Braille – inventor of the braille reading system ((vote-for)) The Ogre (talk) ((vote-for)) Epf (talk)((vote-for)) Kimdime69 (talk)
52. Louis de Funes , actor ((vote-for)) Nominoe66 ((vote-for)) FFMG (talk)
53. Louis Pasteur - chemist and microbiologist ((vote-for)) Wikigi (talk) ((vote-for)) Aaker (talk) ((vote-for)) _{El Greco}^(talk) ((vote-for)) SalomonCeb (talk)((vote-for)) Kimdime69 (talk) ((vote-for)) Gdgourou (talk)((vote-for)) Dingy (talk) ((vote-for)) Lilyu (talk) ((vote-for)) Med (talk) ((vote-for)) Alun (talk) 07:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC) ((vote-for)) Ramdrake (talk)[reply]
54. Louis IX of France Saint and King ((vote-for)) Matthieu (talk)
55. Louis XIV of France – king ((vote-for)) Epf (talk) ((vote-for)) Wikigi (talk) ((vote-for)) _{El Greco}^(talk)((vote-for)) Kimdime69 (talk)((vote-for)) Dingy (talk) ((vote-for)) Lilyu (talk) ((vote-for)) Marc Mongenet (talk) ((vote-for)) Med (talk) ((vote-for)) Bsm15 (talk) ((vote-for))Remi Mathis (talk) ((vote-for)) Ramdrake (talk)
56. Marcel Proust - writer ((vote-for)) The Ogre (talk) ((vote-for)) Aaker (talk) ((vote-for)) Gdgourou (talk) ((vote-for)) Med (talk) ((vote-for)) Dukenn (talk) ((vote-for)) Rama (talk)
57. Marie Curie – Polish-born scientist ((vote-for)) Alun (talk) ((vote-for)) Wikigi (talk) ((vote-for)) Kimdime69 (talk)((vote-for)) Dingy (talk) ((vote-for)) Lilyu (talk) ((vote-for)) Med (talk) ((vote-for)) Dukenn (talk) ((vote-for)) Rama (talk) ((vote-for)) Aaker (talk) ((vote-for)) Ramdrake (talk)
58. Marie-Antoine Carême – chef
59. Maurice Ravel File:Maurice Ravel 1912.jpg composer ((vote-for)) Dingy (talk)
60. Maximilien Robespierre ((vote-for)) Dingy (talk) ((vote-for)) The Ogre (talk) ((vote-for))Remi Mathis (talk)
61. Michel Platini File:PlatiniJospin.jpg footballer ((vote-for)) Dingy (talk)
62. Molière - ((vote-for)) Dingy (talk) ((vote-for)) Kimdime69 (talk) ((vote-for)) Gdgourou (talk) ((vote-for)) Lilyu (talk) ((vote-for)) Med (talk) ((vote-for))Remi Mathis (talk) ((vote-for)) Dukenn (talk) ((vote-for)) Aaker (talk) ((vote-for)) Ramdrake (talk)
63. Napoleon I of France – emperor ((vote-for)) Aaker (talk) ((vote-for)) _{El Greco}^(talk) ((vote-for)) SalomonCeb (talk)((vote-for)) Kimdime69 (talk) ((vote-for)) Gdgourou (talk)((vote-for)) Dingy (talk) ((vote-for)) Lilyu (talk) ((vote-for)) Marc Mongenet (talk) ((vote-for)) Med (talk) ((vote-for)) FFMG (talk)
64. Olympe de Gouges – feminist ((vote-for)) The Ogre (talk) ((vote-for)) Aaker (talk)
65. Paul Bocuse – chef ((vote-for)) The Ogre (talk)
66. Paul Cézanne - painter ((vote-for)) Gdgourou (talk)((vote-for)) Dingy (talk)
67. Pierre-Auguste Renoir painter ((vote-for)) Dingy (talk)
68. Pierre Bourdieu File:Pierre Bourdieu.gif – sociologist ((vote-for)) The Ogre(talk)
69. Pierre de Coubertin – founder of the modern Olympic games ((vote-for)) _{El Greco}^(talk) ((vote-for)) Gdgourou (talk)((vote-for)) Dingy (talk) ((vote-for)) Lilyu (talk) ((vote-for)) Med (talk)
70. Pierre de Fermat – mathematician ((vote-for)) Alun (talk) ((vote-for)) Med (talk) ((vote-for))Remi Mathis (talk) ((vote-for)) Rama (talk)
71. Pierre Mendès-France File:Pierre Mendès-France's.jpg – politician ((vote-for)) The Ogre (talk)
72. Pierre Trudeau File:PierreTrudeau1980.jpg - French-Canadian politician ((vote-for)) Epf (talk)
73. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon - printer and political philosopher ((vote-for)) Alun (talk) ((vote-for)) The Ogre (talk) ((vote-for))Remi Mathis (talk)
74. Pope Urban V – well… Pope ((vote-for)) The Ogre (talk) ((vote-for)) Epf (talk)
75. René Descartes - philosopher ((vote-for)) Epf (talk) ((vote-for)) Alun (talk) ((vote-for)) Wikigi (talk) ((vote-for)) Aaker (talk) ((vote-for)) _{El Greco}^(talk) ((vote-for)) SalomonCeb (talk)((vote-for)) Kimdime69 (talk) ((vote-for)) Gdgourou (talk)((vote-for)) Dingy (talk) ((vote-for)) Lilyu (talk) ((vote-for)) Med (talk) ((vote-for)) Bsm15 (talk) ((vote-for))Remi Mathis (talk) ((vote-for)) Rama (talk) ((vote-for)) Ramdrake (talk)
76. René Levesque File:René Lévesque election night Oct 1973 (crop).JPG- French-Canadian political leader and activist ((vote-for)) Epf (talk)
77. Robert Doisneau - photographer ((vote-for)) The Ogre (talk)
78. Samuel de Champlain - cartographer, navigator and explorer ((vote-for)) Epf (talk) ((vote-for)) Med (talk) ((vote-for)) Bsm15 (talk)
79. Simon Arnauld, marquis de Pomponne ((vote-for)) Remi Mathis (talk)
80. Simone de Beauvoir – philosopher ((vote-for)) The Ogre (talk) ((vote-for)) Aaker (talk) ((vote-for)) Dukenn (talk) ((vote-for)) Rama (talk)
81. Victor Hugo – writer ((vote-for)) Epf (talk) ((vote-for)) Wikigi (talk) ((vote-for)) Aaker (talk) ((vote-for)) SalomonCeb (talk)((vote-for)) Kimdime69 (talk) ((vote-for)) Gdgourou (talk) ((vote-for)) Dingy (talk) ((vote-for)) Lilyu (talk) ((vote-for)) Med (talk) ((vote-for)) Rama (talk)
82. Voltaire – philosopher and writer ((vote-for)) Epf (talk) ((vote-for)) Alun (talk) ((vote-for)) Wikigi (talk) ((vote-for)) Aaker (talk) ((vote-for)) _{El Greco}^(talk) ((vote-for)) SalomonCeb (talk)((vote-for)) Kimdime69 (talk)((vote-for)) Dingy (talk) ((vote-for)) Med (talk)
83. Wilfrid Laurier - first French-Canadian Prime Minister ((vote-for)) Epf (talk) 02:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
84. Zinedine Zidane-footballer - ((vote-for)) Kimdime69 (talk) ((vote-for)) Dingy (talk) ((vote-for)) FFMG (talk) ((vote-for)) Alun (talk) ((vote-for)) Aaker (talk) ((vote-for)) Ramdrake (talk)

Hello everyone! I see someone has added Jean Moulin to list. He was, given his enormous importance, in the original list I proposed, but the fact is that there is no free non-copyrighted picture of him! Therefore he can't be in the list, since there is no way to portray him (the picture in his article can only be used to illustrate a specific article about him - see the copyright at Image:JeanMoulinPhoto.jpg).

In my original list there were also other people, besides Moulin, I had to remove due to the same problem - they were: Alain Delon, Auguste Escoffier, Alfred Dreyfus, Antonin Artaud, Claude Lévi-Strauss, Jacques Tati, Jean Cocteau, Jean Renoir, Jean-Luc Godard, Léo Ferré, Louis Aragon, Marcel Duchamp, Michel Foucault, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Simone Weil and Yves Saint-Laurent.

Please! Do not add names that have no public domain copyright-free pictures!

Thank you! The Ogre (talk) 16:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that someone has added René Levesque to the list - I oppose it, because he is not French, but Canadian (from Québec)! What does everyone think? The Ogre (talk) 16:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it should be removed. Jean Moulin too (unfortunately) if no pic is available - Wikigi | talk to me | 16:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I strongly disagree (which is obvious since I added it) because this article is not just for French citizens, but also for those who are ethnically and culturally French. Rene Levesque is a "Quebecois" or "Canadien" nationality-wise but was 1) ethnically French (culturally and by descent) 2) the main voice and leader of French nationalism in Canada and 3) was the recipient of the title "Grand Officer of the French Legion of Honour". If you oppose it then don't vote for him, but do not remove him from the list since myself (and possibly others) are in favour of its inclusion. Just as Nelly Furtado, a proud Portuguese-Canadian is in the photos for Portuguese people, so can Rene Levesque (or Pierre Trudeau) be included in the photos for French people. Epf (talk) 06:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with Epf, allow French Canadians, but don't vote for them, or even vote against if you feel that strongly about it (I assume we can vote for or against?), I think enough of a case can be made that many French Canadians do identify as French, though whether French people in France or people from other parts of the world view them as French is another matter. Identity is such a complex thing, it's not set in stone and many people will see nuanced differences between people with similar cultures, but it's usually best to be as inclusive as possible. Any great opposition to the inclusion of French Canadians will automatically resolve the issue anyway. Let's see what consensus is. Having said that I don't personally think French Canadians are French, but i can express my opinion by voting rather than trying to exclude anyone. Alun (talk) 08:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is a good idea to start voting "Against" as the reading of this poll might get difficult if that sort of vote appears for several names. So far, The Ogre, Alun and myself are against. - Wikigi | talk to me | 10:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• To Epf ; 1) As was discussed before, I still challenge the concept of a French ethnical identity. 2) Rene Levesque was not "the main voice and leader of French nationalism" (leave that to far-right French expletive! Jean-Marie Le Pen) but rather a leader working actively for the independence of Quebec. 3) Vladimir Putin is Grand-croix de la Légion d'honneur, Quincy Jones Commandeur de la Légion d'honneur and Clint Eastwood Chevalier de la Légion d'honneur, does that make them French? As for Nelly Furtado, she appears to have dual-citizenship (Canadian and Portugese), pretty much like Marie Curie which you removed on many occasions from the infobox, once with the following comment "removed photos of non-ethnic French from ethnic group box; Curie and Baker were not even born in France, let alone of French heritage/descent". You have got to make up your mind...- Wikigi | talk to me | 10:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is a problem in voting against the mere inclusion on the list of candidates, which is not the same as voting for or against the "election" - at least in this stage. Regarding the French-Canadian question, I do believe that Rene Levesque is not French but from a different national group altogether, that of the people from Québec in Canada, even if the immense majority of Quebecois have their remote origins in France and speak French (image if I tried to aplly that rationale to Brazilians - most of them would "become" Portuguese!). The case of Nelly Furtado is completely different - both her parents are Portuguese and she also holds Portuguese citizenship. And there is no territorially grounded ethnic divide of Portuguese-Canadians - these are just a diaspora of Portuguese into the Canadian society that dilutes itself with the passing of time... Portuguese-Canadian, for the most part, just means Canadians that are of, at least, partial Portuguese ancestry or heritage. French-Canadian is altogether different, as it means a continuing differentiated ethnic or national identity in Canada (and many desire to be separate...). There is not such type or demands from Portuguese-Canadians! Still... let us wait and see what the relative consensus is. No need to really argue this at this point - it's just one person, and even not conting the votes against, it has only the vote of Epf. The Ogre (talk) 20:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You may (erroneously) disagree all you want but the fact remains that an indigenous French ethnic group does exist and is recognized by many. This article includes this definition as well and is not only for French citizens or nationals. Rene Levesque indeed was the main voice of French nationalism in Quebec and wanted a state separate from Canada that put French langauge and culture first above anything else. Mentioning Jean-Marie Le Pen just discredits your argument by associating French ethnicity automatically with some extremist. The combination of his French ethnicity (culture and French descent), language, efforts to preserve French identity and culture as well as his recognition by France contribute to his inclusion. By the way, being French-Canadian does not simply mean you only speak French or are only from Quebec, French-Canadians are also dispersed across Canada, but mainly in Ontario and New Bruncwick. They ARE ethnically French and not only speak French, but have traditional French culture and French descent indigenous to France. Not all French-Canadians have origins that are distant to the first colonists of New France either and there was a steady migration to Quebec and Ontario from parts of France in the 19th and early 20th centuries. In any case, this article includes the ethnic aspects of French identity as well, and this includes groups like French-Canadians who though different in some ways, are also very similar and obviously very related to ethnic French in France (but obviously much less so to foriegn ethnic minorities in France). I figured very notable French-Canadians like Rene Levesque who had a very proud connection with France and French identity should be included (especially compared to someone like Marie Curie who is ethnically Polish and born/raised in Poland. As for Nelly Furtado, she doesn't merely have dual citizenship, she is ethnically Portuguese as well, with descent indigenous to Portugal. As for Brazilians, Ogre, that again is a generalized and ambiguous statement you make since "Brazilian" is a nationality and we are talking about ethnicity. Brazil is a multi-ethnic nation, including millions who have mainly or partial Portuguese descent. Many Brazilians have a stronger Portuguese identity than others (especially those who are of full and more recent Portuguese descent). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Epf (talk • contribs) 21:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Epf. Let's wait for the end of the vote to see if there even is a question to be discussed. All may be settled by then. Regarding Brazilians, my friend, have not doubt at all that they are a state, a nation and and ethnic reality, with all the internal diversity of course they have! Cheers! The Ogre (talk) 21:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, we shall see Ogre. As for Rene Levesque's award of "Grand Officer of the French Legion of Honour", that is the second-highest rank of the Legion of Honour while all of those people Wikigy mentioned were granted a less prestigious rank. Vladimir Putin was not offered the most prestigious title of Grand Cross (reserved for only for a small few), but was in fact offered the rank of Chevalier (Knight}. This goes to show the regard with which Rene Levesque (again, who was also ethnically French, via descent and culture) was received, and just how much his efforts were for French langauge in culture outside of France. I just figure that if we are being so inclusive in this article (especially by including Marie Curie and Josephine Baker) then there is no justification for those who are ethnic French abroad to be excluded. Epf (talk) 21:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong again, Putin was offered the Grand Cross (an outrage to many people), see here. As for Rene Levesque, or Pierre Trudeau, which you added since, we have yet to see them on French banknotes, unlike Marie Curie (image of 500 Francs banknote) - Wikigi | talk to me | 10:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Really ? From what I read he was not offered that rank of the Legion of Honour, but if so then we can both agree that definitely merits an outrage ! Marie Curie may be on a bank note of the French Republic, but she is also highly revered in Poland (her birthplace and ethnic homeland). Pierre Trudeau was one of the greatest Canadian Prime Ministers of the 20th century, and both him and Rene Levesque (as well Wilfrid Laurier, the first French-Canadian Prime Minister) are held with very high esteem by not only French-Canadians, but to most other French in the diaspora who have also had to fight to protect their culture, ethnic identity and language such as the Cajuns and other French-Americans. I also should note that Quebec and French-Canada have always had a very close ethnic connection with the French homeland, as was evidenced when Charles de Gaulle visited Québec in 1967 and gave massive support to the Quebec sovereigntist movement with his infamous Vive le Québec libre speech. Epf (talk) 16:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This article isn't about french ethny, but french people. Marie Curie is not born french, but she became french ; Rene Levesque may have strong cultural links with France, but he's not french, neither are the french-speaking belgians or other (french belgians have much more in common with France - at least some parts of France - than the french canadians). Ethnicity is only one constituant of french people among many others. Moreover, I wouldn't call "french ethny" a "reality", since France is a multi-ethnical country and I don't even speak of recent migrations or oversee territories: historically, France was populated by several ethnies (celtic with the Gaul, germanic with the Franks, latin) and there are also a few regions which had a proper ethnical identity until very late (like Bretagne, Corse or Alsace, to mention only the most well-known). The whole history of Europe is made of migration and exchange between ethnies, so I'm not sure that french, german, italian, polish ethnies or what ever make much sense anyway. Greatings. Polletfa (talk) 18:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, actually this article is also in part about those of French ethnicity since when you speak about "people", you involve ethnicity. Marie Curie became a French citizen and national, she didn't "become French". She was ethnically Polish, born there and lived there till she was 18. Rene Levesque WAS French and he did not simply have cultural links, he had French heritage, culture and descent as well as growing up and living in the French-Canadian community. Remember, French-Canadians are ethnically French, they are not merely French-speaking Canadians or Francophones. French-Belgians are a minority in Belgium and are distinct from the Walloons. If you meant to say Walloons well then in many ways they are not as similar to French-French as French-Canadians. Historically the French are largely descended from the Gauls with the largest non-Gallic cultural influence coming rom the Romans. The cultural impact of the Franks was much less. Bretons, Corsicans and Alsatians are ethnically distinct from the majority ethnic French and have always seen themselves as such. In terms of Europe's migration history, no, there hasn't always been mass exchanges between ethnicities and the boundaries have been defined, some stronger than others. The people have overall each maintained fairly homogenous identities and descent. In addition, not all European countries have been as lax or liberal as France has been with more recent immigration. France is alone in that respect and is also the only one which does not collect official data on ethnicity. Italians, Polish, Germans, etc. all have their own ethnic group articles. France is the only one that includes merely nationals and citizens as well as not defining openly its French ethnic group. Epf (talk) 03:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion is already going on at Talk:French_people, there I wrote:

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

The Gauls were not French, and their legacy is almost nothing compared to the Roman's. Hence the French culture is based on the Latin culture, not on the Celtic. The French state is funded by the Francs. Genetically the French are mostly Mediterranean-European. The Gauls were just one of many tribes - the rest is a myth. Aaker (talk) 23:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Gauls were not specifically "French", but their culture was a large impact on what became French culture. The culture of France is not specifically or solely Latin, otherwise it would be almost the exact same as Romanian, Italian, Spanish or Portuguese cultures where the Romans also left large cultural impacts. The Gauls obviously had a strong influence on the Latin culture that was present in France, just as the Basques and Iberians did in Iberia, the Ancient Italic peoples in Italy and the pre-Latin culture of Romania. If this were not the case, these cultures would be much more similar than they are today. In terms of descent, the French are by and large mainly descended from the pre-Gallic (Paleolithic, like Cro-Magnon, and Neolithic tribes or settlements as well as (to a much smaller degree) Gallic and Frankish elements. Epf (talk) 04:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware that the Franks, not the Gauls, are the main reason why the French culture is different from other European Latin cultures. French is widely recognized as the most "Germanicized" of all Romance languages, for a reason. --Ramdrake (talk) 11:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You should in fact be aware that both the Franks AND the Gauls are the main reason why French culture and language is distinct from other Latin European cultures. The pre-Gallic element is the largest component of the French population so clearly it would also have had some impact on the development of culture. The Celtic Gallic influence is quite noticeable on French and the Latin spoken in Gaul was already differentiated significantly prior to the arrival of the Franks, who's linguistic impact was actually much smaller. Again, [[French]Language]] is organized under Gallo-Romance, not "Germanic" or "Frankish" romance. Epf (talk) 00:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see Epf voted "Against" Marie Curie. This is exactly what I wanted to avoid when I said earlier it was not a good idea to start voting "Against". If everyone starts to vote Against on top of voting For, this is going to be very complicated. I suggest we remove all vote Against (or discount them altogether) - Wikigi | talk to me | 10:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that all "Against" votes should be removed and simply let people vote "For". I also suggest not to remove any on the list and if you don't agree with an inclusion on the list, then simply don't vote for it. Epf (talk) 16:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok.To simplify things and give time its time to work, I'll remove my against vote. The Ogre (talk) 15:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Then I guess we should remove the 2 others. Epf already agreed and if Alun opposes it I guess he will let us know here. - Wikigi | talk to me | 15:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are now more votes against... Should we make a "policy" of no votes against (at least in this stage) and remove them all? The Ogre (talk) 16:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done, it was getting very confusing. There seems to be a clear consensus against Rene Levesque though. - Wikigi | talk to me | 16:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So we can't vote "against" because it's "too confusing"? Blimey, what's so confusing about it? Isn't it standard wiki procedure, when we vote for admins we can vote against, it's a simple thing to count votes for and votes against and it helps to get an idea of what the consensus is. Epf has as much right to vote against Marie Curie as anyone else has to vote against another candidate. It seems to me that this decision is based on Epfs vote against Curie, but that is not a good reason, it amounts to "I don't want people to vote against one of my preferred candidates so we won't vote against anyone". Although I think this position is plain daft I will of course accept the consensus, I just wanted to note my amazement that such a simple concept is considered "confusing". Alun (talk) 06:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Alun. I believe that at this stage, against votes are not necessary. At the end we will have many "candidates" tied between each other. At that stage I believe we can vote against if some contention still exists. Cheers. The Ogre (talk) 06:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'd just like to point out that Pierre Elliot Trudeau was French-Canadian through his father, and Irish Scottish through his mother. And for the record, it is ludicrous to consider French-speaking Canadians as ethnically French. Would you consider Americans as ethnically British?--Ramdrake (talk) 23:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• That reasoning does not make any sense to me. I should also mention Trudeau's mother's side was Scottish, not Irish, as far as I know. "Americans" are a multi-ethnic society and no one is only "American" in terms of ethnicity. I think it is ludicrous not to consider including some notable French-Canadians and other notable ethnic French in the diaspora. I am not simply talking about "French-speaking Canadians" (Francophones), but I am talking about ethnically French-Canadians of French heritage, culture and descent (indigenous to France) who also speak French. Epf (talk) 02:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are right as to his mother's side being Scottish, not Irish. However, let me assure you that you would offend most Quebecers by calling them ethnically French. The Quebecois identity is distinct from the French identity. Besides, the Quebecois nation is now more and more multi-ethnic (like most nations).--Ramdrake (talk) 01:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Ramdrake, again you need to specify between Quebecois, Francophone and French-Canadians (which includes not simply French-speakers in Canada, but those whose ethnicity or ethnic origins are French; it is also not simply French-Canadians in Quebec, but also Acadians, Franco-Ontarians, etc. and all, I assure you, would specify themseles as ethnically French or French-Canadian. Being from Quebec, you should know how people distinguish between Quebecois who are ethnically French (of French descent) and those who are of various other origins, eg. the Italians and other variety of groups in cosmopolitan Montréal. Epf (talk) 04:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • The point is, René Lévesque and Pierre Trudeau both were Quebecers. One would strongly identify as Québécois (René Lévesque), the other as Canadian, or French-Canadian. Neither would identify as ethnic French, despite their sympathies and affinities with the French people. I still reiterate that most Quebecers today would identify themselves as part of the Quebecois nation and not as ethnically French. The two ethnicities diverged some centuries ago. If ethnicities didn't diverge, we'd all still be ethnically African. Think about it.--Ramdrake (talk) 11:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I would also ask everyone to vote not just according to the specific individual worth each one of us thinks a specific "candidate" has, but also to look at the overall picture, that is to say, to try and have some diversity of individuals, namely historically, occupationaly and by gender. This is, obviously, a mere request! Thank you! The Ogre (talk) 20:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, when voting type only 3 tildes, in order to prevent the date and hour from appearing - it just gets confusing! Thanks! The Ogre (talk) 16:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the final "product", the picture mosaic, all pictures should be cropped - we don't need to show the whole body or the sorroundings, etc. The Ogre (talk) 17:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good one CQui! You made me laugh. However, I must oppose, you see:

• Asterix is not, unfortunatelly, a real Person.
• He is not French, but a Gaul.
• Is image is not copyright free (which kills any ideas about representing him, the image may not even be shown here I think- see copyright at Image:Asterix the gaul.jpg).

So, I'm striking from the list and removing the picture. Cheers! The Ogre (talk) 00:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Asterix. The Ogre (talk) 02:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Moulin shouldn't be a problem anymore since I found a picture of him that is older than 70 years (site claims that it was taken in 1930). It is availible here. What do you think??? ChrisDHDR 17:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry, but below the image it is stated "This picture is for viewing purposes only. No reproduction or distribution rights are granted." and the image itself bears the logo of the site. Besides, copying is disabled... The Ogre (talk) 18:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know this article is about all "French" persons, not just ethnic French (those peoples indigenous to France or the langue d'oil and langue d'oc peoples), but I thought I'd just say that Zinedine Zidane is already included in the photos for Berbers (which, like 99 % of the other people articles, is about the ethnic group).

In addition, how can you guys vote for Zidane and not Didier Deschamps ??? Deschamps was actually French and captained the team for both the World Cup 98 and Euro 2000 triumphs. Epf (talk) 02:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

because he does not compare with the other persons in the list, been a good footballer is not enough (Kopa would be in the list). Dingy (talk) 03:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does not compare but Zidane does ? Deschamps was one of (if not THE) best defenders in the history of French football. Epf (talk) 03:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But Zidane is much more famous. I don't follow football, but I've heard of Zidane, never heard of the other chap. The only other French footballer who I can think of who is as famous as Zidane is possibly Eric Cantona. All of the players who have ever played football for France have a great deal of notability, we cannot include all of them, this is why we are having the vote is it not? You are quite within your rights to include additional people in the list, but you do not have the right to tell other people how to vote. Alun (talk) 06:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Take it easy. I was only discussing Zidane's inclusion and reminding people that Deschamps was also on the list and that Zidane was in the photos for Berbers just as Marie Curie is in the photos for Poles. Epf (talk) 06:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What strikes me is that most pictures here are White males, therefore they do not accurately represent French society. Half of the people selected should be women, and ethnic minorities should be represented. Why not pictures of Yannick Noah, Gaston Monnerville, François Cheng, Henri Salvador, Rachida Dati, Django Reinhardt, Félix Eboué, Zao Wou Ki, Marie-José Perec, etc. Godefroy (talk) 13:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree at all. The sex, the skin colour or anything along this line should not be taken into account at all in the selection, it would be discriminatory. One could then wonder if a given person has been selected only thanks to his/her sex and colour. However i think someone like Félix Éboué should be selected based not on his skin colours but purely on his merits and on his actions for France. Med (talk) 14:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Affirmative action" does indeed generate problems. It can amount to racialism and discrimination, and might weaken the contributions of people by weighting them by arbitrary criteria; also these criteria are bound to reflect categories relevant in different times and places than those in which the subject lived. For instance the concept of "Latino" as USAyans know it would be completely odd in a French context. Rama (talk) 14:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What the heck are "USAyans", Americans !? - Wikigi | talk to me | 15:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Technically a Chile citizen living in Tierra del Fuego is an American too. Using American to designate the citizens of the USA is ambiguous. I guess it is the reason why Rama has used this term. Med (talk) 15:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What does "affirmative action" has to do with this?? If you intend to portray French people in pictures, then you have to reflect the gender and racial diversity of the country as best as possible, that's all. Otherwise your pictures are not about French people, they are about some famous French White males mostly. If we select pictures of felids, we're not going to select pictures of lions and tigers only, just because lions and tigers are the biggest and most powerful, we're going to select a broad variety of felids (pumas, leopards, lynx, cheetah, ocelots, and so on) to reflect the diversity of the family, and that has nothing to do with "affirmative action". Godefroy (talk) 16:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly affirmative action, you want to pick people based on their sex and on their skin colour. And the question here is not to pick a given number of people based on their sex or colour (based on what by the way? racial statistics are forbidden in France for obvious reasons). The aim is to pick famous French people. If most are white males, so be it. France history is 1500 years long, give more time for more French who happen to be yellow/black/pink/green/whatever to become famous worldwide. Picking someone because of his/her skin colour is racialism. Med (talk) 16:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Godefroy, you are illustrating my point nicely. "you have to reflect the gender and racial diversity of the country as best as possible" reflects a racialist mode of thinking (all French people are of the same race, Homo Sapiens) and arbitrary selection of criteria. Why didn't you mention sexual orientation, for instance? You answer is an excellent example of why your idea, however well-meant its motivations, is impossible to implement cleanly. It is intrinsically dated and USA-centric. It's a fad. Rama (talk) 16:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The French population, like any human population, is made up of half men, half women. This is a perfectly documented fact. So you have no excuse not to have at least half women in your pics (and there are plenty of famous French women, past and present, so please don't use the excuse of "fame"). As for ethnic minorities, I'm not gonna go into controversies, but using the excuse of non-existing French ethnic censuses, or the fact that we're all Homo Sapiens Sapiens, sounds troublingly similar to the arguments used by the Far-Right to deny the visible minority issue. Godefroy (talk) 17:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please calm down. You're the one who brings so-called "races" in the matter, and I'm not making wild guesses as to your political opinions.

As for the rest, I feel that Jeanne d'Arc or Marie Curie are both sufficiently famous to be featured, but their gender does not come in the equation. I don't feel that it is necessary to have a "fame-light version" for women. And would you be doing about post-gender issues? Rama (talk) 17:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fame-light? I don't think women such as Madame Roland, Olympe de Gouges, Marquise de Sévigné, Marguerite Duras, or Catherine Deneuve have a "light" fame. Godefroy (talk) 17:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I forgot probably the most famous French woman in the world after Joan of Arc: Bernadette Soubirous. Godefroy (talk) 17:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yet their twin X genes don't make them more famous that Napoléon, Louis XIV, De Gaulle or Victor Hugo. The point is not that the women you cite are not famous, it is that I am not going to pretend that Marie de France is as famous as Victor Hugo just because of some arbitrary criteria like gender. Because doing so would be an insult to women. Rama (talk) 17:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be strongly missing some culture about French history and French politics. First of all you should know that most women have been restrained until recently to subaltern tasks limiting their visibility. I do not say there are no famous women, and it is only a consequence of the cultural pressure put on women in the past, but they were not given any opportunity to become famous for most of them. Then you should know that affirmative action in France strongly divides within parties, both right ones and left ones. It is interesting that you invoke far right idea as you should know that last time the kind of racialism you advocate has been applied in France was by the far-right governments of the Vichy regime. And it is exactly the reason why racial statistics have been forbidden since. You should also know that anti-racist organisation like the MRAP are against racial statistics. Does that make them far-right proponents? Med (talk) 17:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Med, je suis français pour ton info. Et je connais très bien l'histoire de mon pays. Donc merci d'éviter les leçons. None of the above is an excuse to not having half women and some people from visible minorities in the selection of pictures. Other Wikipedians please have your say. Godefroy (talk) 17:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you know French history and politics as well as you pretend, you should at least try to avoid definitive and erroneous statements. I do not know how to express better than Rama did how wrong you are. We want to pick famous people this is the only criterion. Racist or sexist criterion have to be excluded. We pick famous people not famous women, not famous men, not famous black people, not famous yellow people, not famous white people, etc. Do you get it? We do not care what is the distribution of skin colours of French people today. We just pick famous people in French history. Cultural pressures and migrations history make that most of the most famous french people are white men when integrated over the last 1500 years. This is something noone can chance. If we vote once again in 100 years the situation will have hopefully changed but we vote today on the most famous French people, not on the average minorities proportions in France. Besides they are not all white men. Marie Curie is one of the most famous, she got picked. Joan of Arc is one of the most famous, she got picked. Josephine Baker is one of the most famous, she got picked. Now if you are unhappy you should have listed more people at the beginning of the votes. Do not accuse other people of not having done this work, they did the best they could. There are some people in your list i would have voted for. Med (talk) 18:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And should one have to note that: Marie Curie was Polish born; Édith Piaf had an Italian-Algerian mother; Josephine Baker was an United States born black american; Marcel Proust was Jewish; Zinedine Zidane is of Algerian ancestry; Albert Camus was a Pied-Noir of partial Spanish ancestry; Alexandre Dumas (père) had an Afro-Caribean grandmother. So it is not true to say this list is one of white/european man... The Ogre (talk) 19:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This poll has been opened since February 19, if no more votes are coming in I suggest we close it and proceed to the making of the picture - Wikigi | talk to me | 11:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Agree. Let's list he first 30 candidates. If there are ties, shouldn't we proceed with with a new vote regarding just those? The Ogre (talk) 15:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These are the results (hope I counted correctely!). There are 30 places to fill. There are no ties until the 27th position. There are ties for the last 3 positions. The Ogre (talk) 15:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. René Descartes - 15
2. Charles de Gaulle - 13
3. Louis Pasteur - 11
4. Louis XIV of France - 11
5. Victor Hugo - 10
6. Marie Curie - 10
7. Gustave Eiffel - 9
8. Voltaire - 9
9. Molière - 9
10. Napoleon I of France - 9
11. Blaise Pascal - 9
12. Jacques-Yves Cousteau - 8
13. Édith Piaf - 8
14. Joan of Arc - 7
15. Évariste Galois - 6
16. Josephine Baker - 6
17. Jules Verne - 6
18. Marcel Proust - 6
19. Jacques Cartier - 6
20. Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec - 6
21. Zinedine Zidane - 6
22. Pierre de Coubertin - 5
23. François Mitterrand - 5
24. Albert Camus - 5
25. Denis Diderot - 5
26. Brigitte Bardot - 5
27. Alexandre Dumas, père - 5

1. Charles de Secondat, baron de Montesquieu - 4
2. Eugène Delacroix - 4
3. Gilbert du Motier, marquis de La Fayette - 4
4. François Rabelais - 4
5. Abbé Pierre - 4
6. Henri Matisse - 4
7. Jean-Paul Sartre - 4
8. Hector Berlioz - 4
9. Arthur Rimbaud - 4
10. Simone de Beauvoir - 4
11. Pierre de Fermat - 4
12. Louis Blériot - 3
13. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon - 3
14. Samuel de Champlain - 3
15. Léon Blum - 3
16. George Sand - 3
17. Maximilien Robespierre - 3
18. Louis Braille - 3
19. Claude Monet - 3
20. Camille Claudel - 2
21. Émile Zola - 2
22. Jean-Jacques Rousseau - 2
23. Paul Cézanne - 2
24. Claude Debussy - 2
25. Olympe de Gouges - 2
26. Louis de Funes - 2
27. Pope Urban V - 2
28. Boris Vian - 2
29. André-Marie Ampère - 2
30. André Breton - 1
31. Auguste Rodin - 1
32. Claude Louis Hector de Villars - 1
33. Léon Walras - 1
34. John Calvin - 1
35. Jean-Baptiste Say - 1
36. Colette - 1
37. Louis IX of France - 1
38. Maurice Ravel - 1
39. Paul Bocuse - 1
40. Hugh Capet - 1
41. Didier Deschamps - 1
42. Pierre Mendès-France - 1
43. Pierre-Auguste Renoir - 1
44. Wilfrid Laurier - 1
45. Michel Platini - 1
46. Jacques Derrida - 1
47. Pierre Bourdieu - 1
48. Edgar Degas - 1
49. Simon Arnauld, marquis de Pomponne - 1
50. Pierre Trudeau - 1
51. René Levesque - 1
52. Robert Doisneau - 1
53. Émile Durkheim - 1
54. Frédéric Bastiat - 1
55. Marie-Antoine Carême - 0
56. Eric Cantona - 0
57. François Couperin – 0

How shall we proceed: With a new vote for all the candidates that were not chosen in the previous one, or should we shorten the list to just those that had 4 votes. I proppose to open the list to all those excluded, that is, the list in the immediate last subsection. What do you say? The Ogre (talk) 15:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I know we can put up to 30 in the infobox, but most similar articles I've seen have 8-12 pictures only. I believe we might want to reduce the number further, not enlarge it. I, for one, would think 30 images in the infobox would make them tiny enough as to be barely recognizable - not the point of this exercise. Just my tuppence.--Ramdrake (talk) 17:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean... But I think that will provok another discussion and battle all over again... And probably a vote on the number of pictures to include. That is way I initially propposed 30 - I believe they would be visible (check the experiment at the begining), even if the image has to be a bit bigger in px terms... The Ogre (talk) 17:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with Ramdrake. Why don't we cut the number down to 24. Put the 6 names with 5 votes (Pierre de Coubertin, François Mitterrand, Albert Camus, Denis Diderot, Brigitte Bardot and Alexandre Dumas) to a new vote for the 3 spots available? - Wikigi | talk to me | 17:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like a reasonable proposition. 30 seems a bit too much but i perhaps we would like to see how it looks likes with 30 images compared to 24 images first? Med (talk) 17:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, it seems that Blériot only got 3 votes, there is an unsigned "Vote-For". - Wikigi | talk to me | 17:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should we remove the vote, wor was it someone who forgot to sign? The Ogre (talk) 17:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should be removed. I found the problem. I am the culprit as SalomonCeb didn't place the tags properly and I had to correct that (see : here), I added one too many ((vote-for)) tag, sorry .... - Wikigi | talk to me | 17:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. The Ogre (talk) 18:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do we do? Proceed with a 2nd round? Regarding whom? The Ogre (talk) 23:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I suggest a second round of voting because I personally felt that it closed too soon. Obviously there are some choices which have the largest numbers of votes and would most likely merit inclusion (eg. Descartes). I am also advising you that by including photos of Marie Curie, Josephine Baker and Zinedine Zidane, you are only going to provoke a slew of debates and edit wars from anons or other users (as was already seen before), in part because of the confusing nature of this article. Two of these people are already included in the photo selection for two other articles (Marie Curie: Poles and Zinedine Zidane: Berbers). In addition, these other "people" articles deal specifically with ethnic groups as was the original intention of this article when it was created until it was bombarded with uncited material from a couple of users who had problems with French ethnicitiy merely because of legal concerns regarding citizenship and nationals of the French Republic. If this selection continues as is, it will be the only amalgamation of photos not based on ethnicity, but based on citizenship or nationality. According to the current definition, we could add anyone who simply has lived in France long enough to gain citizenship. This was a great process to select the photos, but many of you are turning a blind eye to the actual issues surrounding this whole article. Considering the strong issues surrounding this, especially in France (which has by far the largest immigrant and foreign-population in Europe), you are going to only further complicate matters. This is why I advised against creating a photo selection in the first place as it was not needed, especially with regards to the current status of the article. Epf (talk) 04:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We had a vote, you lost, take it like a man. Alun (talk) 06:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Epf, it's about time you realize you are alone on that. Because you are the only one who voted for the French Canadians you added to the list you come and pretend now that we should reconsider the whole process and start over? You have brought up this matter again and again and many contributors have taken the time to respond to you at length here, as well as on this article discussion page and on your talk page. You have to know when enough is enough... You are getting annoying now.
As for the poll, I gave my opinion above, I would go for 24 - Wikigi | talk to me | 07:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not saying you should reconsider the process, only that the time allowed for voting be extended, especially now that the image is being proposed for deletion because some of the pictures do not have a proper licence. I may have been alone in terms of those who voted at this time, but I feel that others will vote for them (famous French-Canadians, especially Levesque) once another one takes place. I also feel that some users here may in fact want to vote for them, but simply did not because of the discussion or response that would follow (which the brunt of I personally tried to deal with). If I am being annoying to you personally, well that is not my fault and I am only excercising my valid opinion here. As for Alun, why are you getting so personal ? I'm just stating the controversy behind this article and these images. My point has been made though and there is probably not much more I can do, for now. Be prepared for many complaints from those at issue with the inclusion of Zidane, Baker and Curie though (again how they can be included and not French-Canadians, who are ethnically French, is beyond me). I know at least two users here, Ramdrake and Ogre, who agree with at least some of my points. For example, on the Spanish and Portuguese articles (both dealing with ethnicity), all the images are of ethnic Spaniards and Portuguese, not simply people who were born there or gained citizenship. One thing is for certain, this article is unique in what it entails. I am currently working on creating a French people article though (along with valid references which this articles does not have) specifically for the French ethnic group, similar to the Dutch (ethnic group). Ciao, Epf (talk) 06:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record, I don't believe I agree with any of your positions related to this article.--Ramdrake (talk) 16:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you did agree with me on a few aspects, but you clearly did not disagree with me on the same grounds that Alun has. Epf (talk) 00:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. The image is not beng considerd for deletion, the licenses have been sorted out.
2. We need to end voting at some point, we do not extend voting indefinately just because you think there is the chance that a few people might come here and support your position.
3. It is clear that you are in a minority of one. You are being infuriatingly tenacious. Seriously you have pursued your personal agenda for some time, and it has had no effect except to piss everyone else off. You need to learn when to be gracious if things don't go your way. Alun (talk) 06:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It is not clear I'm a "minority of one" as I already stated previously. As for the images, Ogre said below they were nominated for deletion. I have not pursued a personal agenda whatsoever (everyone has a different viewpoint, so I don't follow what you mean here) and if it happened to "piss" some people off (so far, only you), that is not my problem. I already have been "gracious" as I have stated above. Oh, look at the recent change to the article [1], someone (who was not me, especially since I know Iberians had no presence whatsoever in ancient Gaul) has already entered a statement about the composition of indigenous ethnic French. I am re-creating the French people article from scratch to avoid furhter disputes and focusing on French ethnicity. Those who wish to be constructive and help, feel free to let me know on my talk page. Ciao, Epf (talk) 07:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not only me, Wikigi has warned you to stop. You need to understand that no one agrees with you. Of course everyone has a different point of view, the trick is to understand that when there is a consensus against you, you have to accept it. It's called being a grown up. The fact is that you keep complaining about the same thing, and no one does agree with you. And what are "indigenous ethnic French"? It is a concept you appear to have made up yourself, that's original research. The indigenous people of the geographical region now called France are descended from many ethnic groups. Ethnicity is about identity and not ancestry, to be ethnically French one has to identify as French and also to be identified as French by others. Ethnic groups have porous boundaries and do not form discrete clearly demarcated objective groups. Ethnic groups are subjective, if an individual identifies as part of a group and is so identified by others, then that individual is part of that group.[2] Ethnicity does not mean the same as "race", there is no "French race" and it does not mean "only people of French ancestry", you are the only person I know who has ever used this definition of ethnicity and I've read several anthropological works that discuss ethnicity. Clearly Zidane is identified as French by other French people, and as French by non-French people. The only people who do not identify him as French would be supporters of the National Front, about the only group who seem to agree with you. On the other hand "indigenous" has an even more fluid meaning. France is a nation, the people are a nation and nations have an even looser association than ethnic groups do. You confuse creation myths with reality, indicating a poor grasp of anthropology. You persist in using a non-standard definition of "ethnicity" and "ethnic group" that appears to have no academic or anthropological support, I don't know why you keep doing this, but it is clear that ultimately you are pushing a personal point of view and not expressing anything like an reliable academic definition of ethnicity. Looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ethnic_groups#Ethnic_groups_and_the_burden_of_evidence I don't think you have a leg to stand on to demand that your criteria for what constitutes an ethnic group has greater relevance than either the academic mainstream or the Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups. Alun (talk) 11:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You need to also understand that no one agrees with what much of the claims you are making. No one else has disagreed with me on matters similar to how you have. It's amusing how you talk about being mature in this matter when you yourself make false claims to support your arguments. There is no consensus against me and again it is not known what you are talking about. Wikigy has not "warned" me to stop and only mentioned that the matter is closed (according to him) as pertaining to this actual article. No one here has disagreed about the existence of the indigenous people of France and that is not made up by me whatsoever. They only have disagreed as to which or who constitutes the indigenous ethnic French because of ethnic cleavages within France (Occitans, Bretons, Basques, Alsatians, Normands, etc.) If you want to read up on some other articles regarding this issue, see Indigenous or European ethnic groups. The indigenous peoples of France are those groups which have the longest collective habitation of the land which is now called France and yes there are some varied ethnic origins, but they retain many common cultural and ancestral ties. Yes, ethnicity is about identity, but identity based on various diacritics such as culture, religion, behaviour, language, history, biological traits ("Race") and of course, common descent (read [3] for example). No one is denying this, only you. The identity of ethnic groups is complex and although their identities can be porous, it does not go to say that they have no boundaries at all. How rigid these boundaries are varies between different groups, locations and time periods, as well as being influenced by the politics involved in each. The boundaries of such aspects can often be objective (hence identification by others) as well as subjective (Ronald Cohen 1978 "Ethnicity: Problem and Focus in Anthropology"). You are clearly not understanding the complexities of ethnicity and are only portraying your own misinformed, biased understanding while refuting aspects you personally disagree with (common descent as well as cultural and behavioural traits). Alun, you also need to stop relying on this quote from Jonathan Marks, since you are not properly understanding what it means. You are only twisting it to support your own POV. Someone who is ethnically French (not what most of this article is focusing on which most other users here will agree with) involves being identified as such from those various diacritics by himself or herself as well as by others within that group and from without. Ethnicity is not the same as race, but the two are related in that they can share some concepts (eg. common descent)(Abizadeh, 2001) . I did not speak of a French "race" which is based on a strictly demarcated set of phenotypic and genotypic characteristics that everyone in the group has in the same or very similar proportions. I also did not say that French ethnicity only incorporated ancestry, but that is an integral part to the vast majority of ethnic identifications. You need to realize that common descent and ancestry does not equal "race" or solely the biological traits (geontypic and phenotypic) that can be associated with common descent. Clearly Zidane is identified as French in some respectes (by both French and non-French) such as by nationality, but is also identified as a Berber. How he is "French" is distinct from those who are indigenous ethnic French, with aspects of common French ancestry, heritage and culture they would have but not share with someone such as Zidane. The national front may have a few similar arguments to my own, but I find it offensive you associate their extremist viewpoints with mine. I am not confusing "creaton myths" with reality and you make ridiculous and false accusations to support your unsupported viewpoints because you have a very small grasp in anthropolgical issues that is not based on any objective, scientific neutrality whatsoever. In terms of the nation, that is not even being debated here so I don't understand why you brought that up. Nationality can be based on various factors, but I find it interesting you point out how it is more loosely defined than ethnicity. You yourself therefore admit the more rigid and complex issues involved with ethnic identification. I am the one who has been using a standard definition of ethnicity with the most amount of support from anthropological sources (read that article). You are the one who in fact has no support and are manipulating definitions to suit your own extremist viewpoint, omitting or disregarding anything which contradicts it. I am not claiming my personal definition has more relevance than the academic mainstream and it is in line with such, though this can not be said about your personal viewpoint. Looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ethnic_groups#Ethnic_groups_and_the_burden_of_evidence it would appear that you are the one who does not represent much of what it entails since you ignorantly refute much of that which it involves. I am simply tired about debating these issue with you because you rarely approach things from a neutral basis, only from your extremist views. I am one of many contributors to have encountred such and your false accusations in discussions towards myself do not help your unsupported argument whatsoever, so I suggest you stop it and start learning to discuss matters solely based on the subject matter and facts. Ciao, Epf (talk) 23:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you don't know what I'm talking about. Maybe you should go and study some anthropology. I don't think I have ever denied that ethnicity can be based on culture, religion, behaviour, language, history and I don't deny that it can also include a subjective belief in a common origin. The point is that ethnicity is not always based on all of these things combined. For example most French people are Catholic, but there are French protestants, there are people who speak French who are not ethnically French. None of these factors by itself defines ethnicity, it is you who are claiming that "ancestry" in and of itself is a defining factor for ethnicity, but you yourself state that many more markers of ethnicity exist. Ultimately ethnicity is a subjective belief in group membership taking into account various social and cultural factors, as such ancestry is only a single part and is often more perceived than real. No one knows their ancestry past a few generations because there are no records, so belief in one's ancestry must ultimately be subjective. I havent relied on any quote from Jonathan Marks above, but at least I am able to quote from a reliable source who actually is an anthropopogist. It is you who seems to be hopelessly confused. The subjective belief in common descent is a small part of ethnicity and may be on no importance at all. You believe that ethnicity is about descent, justt about every anthropologist disagrees with you. Shall I take the view of a recognised expert or you? That's a no-brainer You have been pushing your nonsense point of view that ethnicity = common descent for some time and it is not supported by any reliable source. I have drawn the conclusiont hat you either are so hopelessly biased that you reinterpret every work that contradicts you as if it supports you, or you just have a zero understandingh of the basics of anthropology, or most likely a bit of both. I'm surprised that you find it offensive to be told that you hold the same views as the National Front, you have expressed those views, so has the National Front, that's just a fact. Clearly this article is about French people, and the French people are a nation, to claim therefore that this article is not about a nation is just wrong. I wish you'd back up your claims, you just resort to ad hominem attacks and saying I'm "wrong" without providing a shred of evidence that I am wrong. If the best you can do is insult me, cal me an extremist and ignorant, then it's clear that you don't have anything like a coherent argument. Personally I think we need a guideline on Wikipedia regarding what an ethnic group is, that way we can stop your constant attempts to redefine what ethnicity is on Wikipedia once and for all. Alun (talk) 06:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Alun, believe me when I say that YOU are clearly the one who needs to read some anthropology. Perhaps you should start by reading some of the links and information I entered above. We both know that most include a presumed common descent, both objective and subjective (again read the ethnic group article) with its associated traits and massive role in ethnic cohesiveness. I did not say that it is always based on all of those things combined, but in many cases the ethnic identification includes most of those traits since so much of such is correlated with aspects of common descent. Actually Alun, some of those markers can identify an ethnic group by themselves, especially when the concept of ethnicity can be both so complex and so vague. One thing few anthropologists will deny though is the important association descent has with most of those other diacritics of ethnic identification (especially its role in cohesiveness). I have nowhere (as far as I know) claimed that descent alone is the only marker of ethnicity and I believe this is where we may be misunderstanding each other. I do however notice that you sometimes deemphasize it completely which to anyone involved in the study of ethnology or anthropology would be ridiculous. The identification or membership of a group is again both objective and subjective (you really need to read into this more, start with the Cohen article I cited) and the ancestry is most often actual since it is based on factors stronglyy correlated with it (ancestral records, traditions, history, culture and of course physical appearance). Based on these factors from both the individual's perspective and that of others, clearly the descent is most often also objective. I should note as well that many (if not most) people have records and history going back more than a few generations, especially in modern times with records of people's descent going back centuries. I was able to trace my own family surname back to the Norman conquest via historical records. Even in terms of my closest family history, I have known most of it since I was young, going back to my great-great-grandparents along with the traditions and customs passed down through my family. How strong ethnic identity is maintained tends to vary from person to person, group to group and location to location. Jews are a great example of how a people have retained their culture, descent, heritage and distinct identity despite being expelled and removed from their homeland for numerous centuries. Even after so much, they still ended up (rightfully) reclaiming their original ethnic homeland. You continue in your discussion with ad hominem attacks and false accusations with no basis whatsoever. You did mention aspects of a quote by Jonathan Marks again in your view of ethnic boundaries being "porous", but Marks nowhere denies the importance of descent like you have or ever wholly attributed it to subjective identity alone. I have made solid references above which you need to read before you keep on this ridiculous tirade (you really need to read the sources from the ethnic group article, starting with Weber and Cohen). I again do not stress that ethnicity = descent alone, but only recognize the obvious fact that descent is a major part of ethnic identification along with those other traits we have mentioned. No one else has disagreed with this notion apart from yourself and no one has made assertions similar to your own about ethnicity (including as I said the person you often quote, Jonathan Marks). I have no association with the views of the national front and just because a small amount of my views, or that of anthropology in general, have been used in a twisted manner by people like Jean-Mare Le Pen does not make his views the same or even close to mine (or most anthropologists) whatsoever. Alun. I have clearly demonstrated time and time again my accurate and supported knowledge in anthropology and ethnology, but you have not demonstrated this. This does not matter since Wikipedia is for everyone, but you continue to misunderstand much of what I discuss and label groundless accusations. I have not denied that the French people are a nation but this article about French people does not include, or includes very little, aspects about French ethnicity as other uses have time and time again mentioned if you would have noticed. This article is about Frnech nationals and citizens mostly, with little references or verificiation and little attention to the French ethnic group and culture, indigenous to France (though originally this was not the case). As I have shown here, some of your views are extremist and I am not resorting to ad hominem attacks, though clearly you yourself have. I have nowhere said plainly you are "wrong" and honestly, judging from your claims in this latest "argument" of yours, you really need to read up on some anthropology and wake up to reality. Ciao, Epf (talk) 08:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Please note further that the article you propose to create represents a pov fork. It essentially represents an attept to "thumb your nose" at everyone who disagrees with you. Just because they do not agree with you you think you have the right to create the "proper French people article". This article will be liable to speedy deletion. If consensus is against you you accept it, Wikipedia is not a free for all, you cannot go and create your own article whenever a decision goes against you. Alun (talk) 11:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It is not an attempt to "thumb my nose" at everyone who disagrees with me and so far you are the only user at odds with such a proposal. As long as the article is accurately referenced and from a neutral viewpoint of users involved, there is no problem with it (which can not be said about this French people article). I DID NOT say I was creating the "proper French people article", only that I was creating one focusing on the French ethnic group, that is all. I am again sick and tired of you putting words in my mouth. Get a grip Alun. This proposal for the creaton of another article is mainly due to the differing (and confusing) nature of this article and the little attention or focus of it on French ethnicity. For further information about the basis for the the new article's title, see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ethnic_groups#Article_naming Ciao, Epf (talk) 00:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Epf, your contention that there is a French ethnic group doesn't hold water. If you go back as little as 50 years ago (and still today, to some extent), there were a number of different languages (belonging to the same family) being spoken in France, which should attest to the existence of multiple ethnic groups in France, (e.g. Bretons, Basques, etc.) There is no single French ethnic group. There certainly is a French national identity that unites all those (local) ethnicities, but having ancestors going back several centuries in France can mean totally different things whether your ancestors were from around Paris as opposed to, say, Marseilles. I would strongly suggest that, before you start your own article (which, I agree with Alun, is a POV fork as far as I'm concerned), you find references that support your position. So far, you haven't provided any references to support your position in this discussion; therefore, no matter what you say, your credibility in this matter is low. Should you be able to supply references supporting your position, then the situation can be reexamined.--Ramdrake (talk) 13:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I have not doubted the ethnic cleavages among the indigenous peoples of France: Bretons, Corsicans, Occitans, Basques and Alsatian Germans, but the people who are the langue d'oil speakers are very closely related in terms of language, culture, history and have a common descent (pre-Gallic and Gallo-Roman with Frankish as I already stated repeatedly). These people would be the core French ethnic group, though clearly many Occitans would also identify with such group based on many similarities from the same aspects already mentioned with the langue d'oil people. The Germans include many distinct micro-ethnicities all indigenous to Germany (Bavarians, Swabians, Saxons, etc.) but are also clearly closely related in most aspects hence why they are collectively part of the German ethnic group. Just because France didn't go through the nationalist movements like the rest of Europe, doesn't mean their indigenous ethnic group does not exist. The Bretons, Basques and Corsicans however did go through (and have) such movements and clearly distinguish themselves from the main indigenous peoples of France (the langue d'oil and langue d'oc peoples), so again there is more evidence. I have actually already provided references to some of my points, including the one with Alun above (if you would read closely) and on the Talk:French people page with just one example from the US Department of State. I will find references for the new article on French ethnicity, unless the ethnic group aspect is itself re-incorporated more into this article. I would say my credibility is not "low" like you claim and you again should read the sources I stated above from the ethnic group article as well as those posted on the discussion page for French people. Epf (talk) 08:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Epf, you have to realise that talking about “French ethnicity” makes absolutely no sense in France. Only french far-right and perhaps some racialists try to spread this kind of idea. Stop trying to put people into little categories. You have a deep misunderstanding of France. You should know when to stop. Your troll about this subject has been going on for months and now has to stop. Med (talk) 16:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually it makes very good sense to many people in France, especially those French who are actually ethnic French and indigenous. I have not been trolling for months (in fact I've been quite unactive over the past few months) and I am not "putting people into little categories", only stating what actually exists. Most ethnic French in France distinguish themselves from other ethnic groups and minorities, not just the far-right extremists. Epf (talk) 08:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear me, claiming that you "know" how "most ethnic French in France" think is just nonsense, you no evidence for such a claim, it's just your usual weasel words. Alun (talk) 09:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Again you fail to read the fine print: I said many ethnic French in France, not "most". Come back when you actually take the time to read and understand what I say. Epf (talk) 10:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What? This is the direct quote of what you wrote Most ethnic French in France distinguish themselves from other ethnic groups. The word you use is most and not many. I can actually read Epf. I have highlighted the word above for you. Alun (talk) 10:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, I see what you mean and I admit to making that mistake. I was only making that comment based on my own knowledge (from various sources) and experience with ethnic French from Canada, France and from those here on Wiki. For once, you actually did take the time to read what I said. Epf (talk) 11:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• For those wondering, User:Dionix below has also agreed with me on the exclusion of Marie Curie and Josephine Baker from the photo selection. Also, here is what the French people article was originally about before it was taken over by other OR and POV from users like Lapaz, Rama and Med: French people - it was about the French ethnic group, indigenous to France, in line with the other articles part of the Wikipedia ethnic groups project. Ciao, Epf (talk) 08:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So now there's two of you. Big deal, you both had the opportunity to vote. We had a vote, you lost, you cannot lose a vote and then attempt to change the criteria for selecting the candidates a postiori. There was a clear majority in favour of keeping these three people as candidates, and there were votes for all of them. If there had been a consensus for not including these people, then no one would have voted for them at all, so there is demonstrably no support for your claim that the majority of people support your point of view. Your constant carping is extremely tedious, Wikipedia works by consensus and not by "the law according to Epf". You do not have greater authority here than anyone else, when there is a clear majority against you then you should accept it. Your intransigent attitude is damaging to the project and the community and is not in the spirit of Wikipedia. Given your inability to accept that any other point of view can be correct except your own you should take a look at WP:TEND, I also suggest that you take this to dispute resolution. You should also take note that your recent contributions to talk pages could be seen as trolling and that your threat to start a French (ethnic group) article can be viewed as disrupting Wikipedia to make a point Alun (talk) 09:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Why not ? Who says we can't, you ? What position do you have that gives you the right to claim such ? This is why I wanted to re-open the vote before since I felt there wasn't enough time given. There is nothing that says we can't change the current selection. Wikipedia does not work by the "law of Alun" either, so wake up. Some of your views, remarks and edits are also in fact damaging to the Wikipedia community and I have not denied that there was a majority of those who voted to keep the Curie and Baker photos. I only made a request for another vote or for these inclusions to be reconsidered. I have not made a "threat" to create another article, only a proposal. My edits have not been trolling, are not tendentious (for the most part, I admit at times they have been) and you are the only one who clearly has a problem with such, mainly because you misunderstand what I discuss. Clearly you are on some unique, personal tirade against myself, and this is very much not in the spirit of WIkipedia, so give it a rest. Get a grip. Epf (talk) 10:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you want to you would need to have a consensus for it. We just had a vote, it went OK and we now have a picture that represents the views of quite a number of people who voted. I think it is just stupid to have another vote just after one has closed. And by the way you did have the opportunity to vote and many people did vote for the candidates you do not want. You cannot ignore the votes of the people who voted for these candidates just because you do not agree with them. Alun (talk) 10:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not ignoring them, but only suggested (but not really anymore if I end up creating an article specific for ethnic French) that they reconsider their vote and the inclusion of those pictures. I also suggested more time or another vote for others to be given a chance to shows their choices. Only 14 (out of so many users on Wiki) or so users casted votes over a short period of time which I felt was not enough, and I wanted to have more time for those to here me out about the inclusion of ethnic French, and the exclusion of non-French. In any case, this vote was only for the image file itself, not for the inclusion in the infobox. Ciao, Epf (talk) 11:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Let's stay with 24 persons then. 21 are already decided. We need to choose 3 more pictures for the last 3 positions, among the ones that got 5 votes. The Ogre (talk) 07:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC) [reply]

So, This is a new vote and the 6 candidates are...:

People, before continuing with the vote (which may of course continue...!), do let me try a 27 mosaic image to see how it looks like. :) The Ogre (talk) 09:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Piaf and Zidane have very bad pics, but they were the best free pics I could find. Whenever better free pics are available, we can change it. What does everyone think? The Ogre (talk) 09:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Infobox could look something like this. Is it okay? The Ogre (talk) 09:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

French people Français(es)
1st row: Joan of Arc • Jacques Cartier • Descartes • Molière • Pascal • Louis XIV • Voltaire • Diderot • Napoleon 2nd row: Victor Hugo • Alexandre Dumas • Évariste Galois • Pasteur • Jules Verne • Eiffel • Coubertin • Toulouse-Lautrec • Marie Curie 3rd row: Proust • Charles de Gaulle • Josephine Baker • Cousteau • Camus • Édith Piaf • Mitterrand • Brigitte Bardot • Zidane
	French citizens	French speakers	French ancestry/ethnic origin claimed
France	64,473,140 (includes overseas territories and foreigners living in France)[1]
United States of America	116,438[2]	~2,000,000[3] (including creoles and local dialects such as Cajun)	9,651,769[4] (not including 2,240,648 of French Canadian ancestry and 114,399 of Cajun ancestry)
Canada	78,785[5]	6,777,665[6]	5,188,685[7]
Belgium	132,421[8]	~4,200,000[9]
Switzerland	73,500[10]	1,485,100[11]
Luxembourg	25,200[12]	430,000[13]
Germany	104,085[14]
Spain	100,408[15]
United Kingdom	94,178 French born people were residing in the during the 2001 Census[16]		Around 400,000 people are of French descent[citation needed]

Great job. Looks perfect to me - Wikigi | talk to me | 11:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll post then. Cheers! The Ogre (talk) 13:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page should be moved to an archive of its own, by the way. The Ogre (talk) 13:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! I see it's already done. Good job everyone! The Ogre (talk) 13:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ogre, first I'd like to thank you for all the work and trouble you went through here. However, I must say that at 27 pictures on a width of 350 pixels, I find that a number of pictures are recognizable only with difficulty (to my eyes) due to their size. Am I the only one with deficient eyesight, or could we stand to pare down the number of pictures some more? Just a thought.--Ramdrake (talk) 15:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ramdrake, yes that could be discussed and done, but first of all we have to deal with the question of the incompatible licenses that threatens to delete the image, since we don't konw, and the user in the Commons that propposed it for deletion hasn't told us, which of the licenses is incompatible! Do you want to come to The Commons and help the discussion? Thanks! The Ogre (talk) 15:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just put in my tuppence. I'll check back next chance I get.--Ramdrake (talk) 15:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about shortening it to the top 6??? This would bring the pictures down to what seems to be the most followed amount regarding articles of the like (see links at Hyphenated American). ChrisDHDR 20:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would provoke a full scale war... And there are many other articles of this type with more pics than that, even if not so many, granted. Let's wait to see what is the problem with the licenses and then decide on such issues. Cheers! The Ogre (talk) 20:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Wikigi, let's use 24 pics and have an additional round to choose three pics from the six pics that have five votes each, it seems like the easiest and most sensible solution. Alun (talk) 06:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately we should end up with 8-12 pictures. Anything more than that, the who collage will become so big that you won't be able to tell who's in the image, when you view it on the main page. _{El Greco}^(talk) 20:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That Édith Piaf picture has to go. It's a bad picture that just stands out. And I think the image is a little too big. _{El Greco}^(talk) 20:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Évariste Galois does not belong to this selection, it took a few individuals who have a deep interest in mathematics to have him here. Here is one to have in view for a reduction to 24 pics. Dingy (talk) 02:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why your personal opinion should take precedence over the opinion of many other contributors? Med (talk) 03:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

because soùe would like to reduce the number of pictures and 5 does not represent many, if you had submitted tis list to the french wikipedia you would have had Many more views. Dingy (talk) 06:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we need to reduce the number of pics. It looks fine to me. But if there is a consensus to have less pictures, why not have 16, that would be 4x4. Alun (talk) 06:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no complaints other than the fact that Zidane and especially Josephine Baker and Marie Curie be removed. At least Zidane was born and raised in France, even if he is a Berber. Epf (talk) 06:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we know, you keep telling us, and it is still the case that no one agrees with you. You're like a stuck record. Alun (talk) 06:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Lol, to you maybe. Epf (talk) 07:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read the entire discussion, but there are two points I'd like to make- 1) The number of French citizens with foreign origins is generally thought to be around 6.7 million [4] according to the 1999 Census conducted by INSEE, which ultimately represents one tenth of the country's population. This means 90% of the French are ethnically French and this should be reflected in the template shown to the upper left. 2) If by French people you mean Ethnically French, then I agree with Epf, Zidane, Currie and Baker are not appropriate. Dionix (talk) 00:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed, including some of the information provided from INSEE. I am proposing to create a separate article in the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups for the French ethnic group. Epf (talk) 00:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • PLEASE! The article French people IS ABOUT THE FRENCH ETHNIC GROUP. ie: Zidane, Curie and Baker do not belong here as they are not of French blood. Why was Zinedine Zidane even allowed to be on the list in the first place? He is openly not French (Berber in fact) and therefore cannot be included on an article about ethnically French people. He is present on Berber people so how can he be in both? To put it in perspective, imagine putting a picture of Martin Luther King Jr. in Irish American, it would instantly be removed as vandalism. ChrisDHDR 09:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• What is "French blood"? Is it different to blood from other people?
• Do you actually mean "ancestry"? What is "French ancestry"? How do you define it? How long does one's family have to have lived in France for them to be of "French ancestry"? How do you prove it (very few people know their ancestry past a very few generations, I don't even know the names of my great grandparents, for example)? Is there any evidence that the putative "French ethnic group" shares a greater degree of ancestry with each other than they do with any other ethnic group? What is this evidence? Can it be supported with a citation from a reliable source?

Well in some respects, the "blood" (as in genetics) would be different from other populations in terms of various criteria, mainly frequency of certain markers. This is not the only characterisitc of common descent however. How do you define ancestry ? Well, we need references to define such, what common descent is. That is, lineages that people in a population have in common based on various criteria, both objective and subjective. Such common descent manifests itself in other traits which may be related to it: societal, cultural, biological, behavioural, etc. "How long" is one of the boundaries such identification based on descent includes, but genereally refers to a common population group, not merely a timescale. You may not know the names of your great-grandparents Alun, but alot of people do (I disagree with you and would say most) and there are various historical records for tracing descent as well as traditions, customs and family history passed down from your ancestors. Other factors showing common descent: commonalities in physical appearance, memories of settlement and colonization, common behavioural traits which may or may not have genetic origins, but deemed as part of your ancestry. There is also other evidence for such, the most recent of such being population genetics (early in development), which can state that the majority of an ethnic population are closer to each other in terms of markers of descent than other groups. The common descent however does not need to be measured in such a manner as in terms of how close they are to each other than to neighbouring populations. Epf (talk) 05:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No Epf, blood would not differ in frequency of any "markers" in French people, there is no specific "frequency" of any markers that is unique to the blood of French people, this claim is just plain ignorant, one cannot know from which part of the world a blood sample comes from based only on marker frequency. I didn't say "how do you define ancestry". I said what is "French ancestry"? Pay attention. We are discussing French people, so address your remarks specifically to the question at hand. How do French people identify each other based on "ancestry"? Where is the evidence? What studies support this contention? Alun (talk) 06:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• * Actually, as someone who has discussed population genetics studies with me in the past, you would know that the frequency of markers would (and does) differ in the French compared to other ethnic groups and populations, just as is the case for other groups (eg. between the Irish and the English or the Basques and the rest of Europe). I did not say there were markers unique to the French, but there is a frequency distribution which is. There is nothing ignorant about this and I'm actually quite surprised your are even disagreeing with this fact. One can make an inference based on genetic markers about what region an indidvidual's ancestry most likely comes from just as you can in terms of physical appearance. This is evidenced more in the "Race" article. Look at me for example: as long as I've known people look at me and think I was Scottish or at least British. What a coincidence, those are the majority of my ancestral roots. Very few population geneticists would deny that numerous ethnic groups have unique patterns and distributions of genetic markers (eg. one example regarding only Y-Chromosomes, are the Basques, Welsh and the Irish, who have the highest frequencies by far of R1b compared to any other groups). Again I know we need sources for the descent aspects of French ethnicity, but you also need sources for specifically the French nation and the current article in general, which is almost entirely POV, OR and material unrelated to the aim of the article. Epf (talk) 09:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Can we cite a reliable source that claims that to be part of the "French ethnic group" one has to have deep "French ancestry"? What is this source? Where is there a definition of "ethnic French" that says this? How does one "prove" deep ancestry in France?
• How old is the French ethnic group? When did it start to emerge? We know it did so in historical times. What were the groups that formed the French ethnic group? There are groups that are now considered French that we know at one time were not considered part of the French ethnic group. For example the Occitians were certainly not "French" in the thirteenth century, how and when did they become French? Should we include them as French. Are Bretons ethnically French, what is their relationship to the French ethnic group? If we want to identify people of the "French blood" then the people who belong to it are different depending on the period of history we are looking at. When we speak of excluding some people because they are not "ethnically" French, then how do we decide when and where "anyone" became "ethnically French"? This appears to be an arbitrary distinction. Many Bretons may not consider themselves "ethnically" French even today. On the other hand they certainly are French, that have French nationality and they live in a region of the world universally recognised as under the juristiction of the French state. So how arbitrary do you want to be?

Many Bretons would not classify themselves as French, even in terms of a nation (see Breton nationalism) and the same can be said about Basques, Corsicans or any other ethnic minority in France, indigenous or foreign. If you want to gain a quick understanding of the ethnic "picture" among the indigenous peoples of France, this ethnolinguistic map helps massively: Langues de la France Epf (talk) 05:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you don't have any sources specifically about the French ethnic group and how it identifies itself then? Without one I fail to see how you can support your claims. Alun (talk) 06:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• We've been over this. It is in the works. Epf (talk) 08:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Epf, now for your own good please, stop. You obviously have never put a toe in France in your life and you only show you have no clue about what you are talking. I know many, many Bretons, 100% of them consider themselves French. Breton nationalist parties get at most few percent of the votes at local elections (by the UDB which is rather regionalist than nationalist and which often allies to more prominent parties such as the Greens to try to get votes). Regional languages are spoken by a very small part of the population and as a second language at best. Med (talk) 06:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree very strongly, especially as someone who fundraises for the Celtic League and therefore for Breton ethnic and cultural rights in France (which are practically non-existent) as well some aspects of Breton nationalism Epf (talk) 08:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you admit that you are pushing so strongly your POV for political reasons. I am not surprised. You should know that it is against Wikipedia rules. The problem for you is that you are still completely wrong, which makes things worse. I happen to have lived a very very long time in a place part of historical britanny. What you are trying to push is pure nonsense. Oh and there is not need for “cultural rights” in France as you should know that all French are equal. I suggest you to take a plane ticket for France next summer so you could realise by yourself how ridiculously wrong you are as you do not want to believe native people who know France infinitely better than you will ever know. Med (talk) 13:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From Ethnic group:

An ethnic group or ethnicity is a group of human beings whose members identify with each other, usually on the basis of a presumed common genealogy or ancestry. Ethnic identity is also marked by the recognition from others of a group's distinctiveness and by common cultural, linguistic, religious, behavioral or biological traits.

Therefore the French people are those that speak French, have a French origin/ancestry among other things. Zidane, Baker and Currie therefore cannot be included since they do not have a French ancestory. About the Bretons, Occitans, etc. they can be included as sub-groups since they now share almost all of the above characteristics and have merged due to widespread intermarriage. ChrisDHDR 13:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all i find very funny that someone who thinks he can decide who is French and who is not is not even able to see Epf is a user here and not a famous French. Then, Curie (only 1 r, mind you), Baker and Zidane identify thenselves as French. Try to find even one quote of them saying they do not feel French. About your quote, there are several problems. The first one is that it does not exclude at all Curie, Baker or Zidane from being French. The second one is that this kind of definition makes absolutely no sense on France. It tries to apply an anglo-saxon view on France, which unfortunately does not work at all and this is obvious for anyone who even has the most basic knowledge about France or is not a far-right sympathiser. Finally you try to apply the quote in a racist way. Perhaps this seemed fit in South Africa but mind you France is not South Africa. Anyone who has the French nationality is considered to be French. French do not count how many of one's ancestors were born French or not. The skin colour, religion, etc. has absolutely no importance at all for being French. Everyone in France consider Curie, Baker and Zidane to be French (well, except far-right, you know the only ones talking about “Français de souche” which does not mean anything). Stop trying to put a square plug in a round hole. Med (talk) 14:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The French people are a nation, this can be thought of as a type of ethnic group. But nations have a much more culturally and socially heterogeneous membership than smaller ethnic groups. What is the difference between a nation and a smaller ethnic entity? Usually it has something to do with a defined geographical region, nations also have creation myths associated with them. The French nation is clearly of heterogeneous origin, groups were included that would certainly not previously have identified as "the same blood". In the book "Language and Nationalism in Europe" edited by Stephen Barbour it states

  In many, perhaps the vast majority, of modern nations there is likewise no evidence that in defending the nation one is defending one's own genetic material; the notion that the citizens of modern nations are kinsfolk, while the citizens of (potentially) hostile neighbours are aliens, makes no sense in view of the highly varied genetic make-up of most modern populations... we can postulate that the need to belong to a community of some kind is a fundamental human characteristic, and that nations have arisen to fulfil this need, as earlier more primary communities-local, *tribal*, and religious- have lost their significance through economic and social change."

  He then goes on to cite Anthony D. Smith, giving his definition of a nation

  a named human population sharing an historic territory, common myths and historical memories, a mass, public culture, a common economy and common legal rights and duties for all members...nations, in the modern sense can only be relatively recent phenomena.

  Finally on the distinction between nations and smaller ethnic identities (ethnic groups if you will, though a nation can be seen as a type of ethnic group)

  nations often develope from ethnic groups....ethnic groups and nations often share names...The clearest difference is territorial; both in earlier times, and in certain areas today where a nomadic economy prevails, ethnic groups can be scattered across vast territories, interspersed with other groups, and can practise a shifting lifestyle, occupying no clearly defined area...
  What is an ethnic group? Ethnic groups pre-date nations in the modern sense by millennia, a situation confused by the fact that the English word 'nation' and it's cognates in other languages are often used to refer to ethnic groups as well as to states and nations. Unlike a nation, an ethnic group need not occupy a territory. Also, unlike a nation, it's 'common myths and historical memories' may be much more plausible; since ethnic groups may be much smaller than moder nations, the often quite implausible myths of common descent that nations espouse (and they may have been created or radically adapted by modern propogandists) can have much more credible equivalents in the case of ethnic groups. And, rather than 'mass, public culture' uniting disperate elements, there may be a high level of shared cultural norms; and there is usually a shared language.

  So France is a nation.

According to your own cited material here, ethnicity and nation are disinct concepts which is clearly true in most cases. They often coincide (especially amongst ethnonationalism) and at the same time often do not, as is the case in most countries nowadays who grant citizenship for example mainly via jus soli ("right of territory") rather than (or addition to, like Italy and Israel) jus sanguinis ("right of blood"). Epf (talk) 05:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quite, so the French are a nation and not an ethnic group according to my source. The Franks may be considered one of the founding ethnic groups for the nation, and are certainly the ethnic group that gave their name to the nation, but the modern French group is a nation and not an ethnic group, if one uses the concept of ethnic group that my source uses. This makes sense from the point of view that France is large and heterogeneous. Alun (talk) 06:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• According to your source ? Is it dealing specifically with French ethnicity or the French nation ? No. Does it specify the disinct concepts of ethnicity and the nation ? Yes. Do you have any evidence proving the non-existence of the French ethnic group ? No. Epf (talk) 08:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• If you want to claim that only people of "French blood" can be "ethnically" French then you need to do several things.
  • Find a reliable source that specifically claims this. ie a source that states what "French blood" is and that only people with it can claim to be part of the French nation/ethnic group.

It is not simply about just French "blood" Alun, and as I explained on the Wikiproject:Ethnic groups talk page, descent is more than just the biological aspects. Epf (talk) 04:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry Epf but user ChrisDHDR claims it is, this comment was directed at him. See above where he states "Zidane, Curie, Epf (sic) and Baker do not belong here as they are not of French blood". Alun (talk) 06:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Well as is mentioned in the definiton for ethnic group, biological aspects can be part of ethnic identification, but aspects of common descent (which can include biological, cultural and other aspects, but varies from group to group) is more commonly the case for most groups. Epf (talk) 08:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Find a source that claims that the "French ethnic group" is not a nation, or is different to the French nation (not French state or French citizenship but nation).

No, there is no need to have any source that says they are "not" a nation since the concept of nation is distinct in many ways from that of ethnicity, as is mentioned in your own sources used above. All we need is sources regarding the French ethnic group, whether we create a new article or re-incorporate it into this one. Epf (talk) 04:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have misunderstood me. I am suggesting that you need a source that states that this French ethnic group is distinct from the French nation, ie that the nation and the ethnic group are not the same thing. Without a reliable source that examines French belief systems and identity that supports what you are saying, then you don't have a leg to stand on. Alun (talk) 06:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I will use the source you yourself provided as just one example which specifies how nations and ethnic groups are distinct. We don't need to specify how specifically the French nation and ethnic group are distinct, only provide sources for the aspects of French ethnicity alone, either if it remains in this article or if there is a separate one. Epf (talk) 08:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Make a realistic case that people with French citizenship who do not have "French blood" are excluded from the "ethnic group" or "nation".

Again there is no need for such and no one is mentioning French "blood", only all the aspects associated with French descent. Epf (talk) 04:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See above, Chris did mention "French blood", and he is certainly not "no one". Don't dismiss the comments of others as nonexistent. Alun (talk) 06:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't notice such but again you don't need something literally mentioning "French blood". Epf (talk) 08:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Find a reliable source that clearly shows that French people all share a common ancestry with each other that they do no share with other ethnic groups. Or failing this a reliable source that states that French people overwhelmingly believe that they share a common descent with each other that they do not share with other ethnic groups, of course you might have to exclude Bretons and Basques, in which case these people would need to be excluded from the "ethnic group" article.

I've already stated one source about the common elements or origins of the ethnic French population and there is no need for sources regarding how they are or are not related to other groups (other Europeans). All is needed is the information on the aspects that constitute French ethnicity, common descent and others. Epf (talk) 04:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you need to show that a sense of exclusive common descent is important to French ethnic identity and that the group belief system excludes people that do not conform to this exclusive common descent. You also need to show that this concept of descent does exclude people like Zidane and Baker because descent/ancestry do not have to have a basis in biological reality for ethnic groups. Somke groups believe they share a common descent from a god or from a totem for example, something hard to claim is "biological reality" Alun (talk) 06:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I know I need to show valid sources for the aspects of common descent (how "exclusive" or "inclusive" is besides the point) and associated traits in French ethnicity. We have gone over this several times. The definition of ethnic group itself centers around such so we already have that as one source for support to begin with. If the concept of descent refers to people indigenous to France of Gallo-Roman and Frankish origins (in both the biological/ancestral and cultural sense which are often inter-related) then all we need to shows is how Zidane is a Berber or how Baker is an African-American and therefore not of this French descent. Epf (talk) 08:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • What are the rules governing membership of this group? Ethnic groups all have different concepts of membership/descent/kinship/identity, there is no universal defining rule for membership of an ethnic group, rather these rules vary from group to group. Shared descent does not have to have any basis in biological reality from the point of view of ethnic identity. What are the specific rules adopted by the French ethnic group or do any specifically French rules regarding descent exist? We need a reliable source, preferably from an ethnographic study, that specifically states what rules govern concepts of shared descent and kinship in the French ethnic group. Without these specific ethnological observations it is hard to argue for the exclusion of people simply based on some vague idea that they are not "indigenous ethnic French". The burden of proof is on the people who want to exclude these individuals as per Wikiproject ethnic groups.

What entails the inclusiveness and exclusiveness of the group will be dealt with in the referenced material that defines what the French ethnic group is. There may be no universal rule or standard (though some disagree), but there is a definition amongst the ethnic French and from others when regarding them. Those people that are not indigenous French being distinct is not vague whatsoever, especially when people like Zidane and Curie are still identified strongly as Berber and Polish respectively, something indigenous ethnic French (or French-French) do not share. You are right though that the burden of proof is on those who want to create this article. Reliable sources are needed and the aspect of common descent again most likely includes some sort of biological basis (since descent istelf is marked from a biological phenomena) as well as other traits 9eg. cultural) that can be associated with it. Epf (talk) 04:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What defines the inclusivness or exclusivness of the French group will be the point of the article. If the article is about a "French ethnic group" then it has to draw heavily of French ethnological studies. People you claim as "distinct" such are Zinane and Baker need to be identified as distinct by the group itself and not by you. To do this you need to show that there are specific beliefs within the group, universally held, that define the group in such a way that people like Currie, Baker and Zidane cannot be members and are universally not seen as members by the group itself. If you cannot do this, then there is no basis for your claims, they revert to merely being your opinion, and not based on solid ethnological research. Alun (talk) 06:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • The image that the Ogre produced is in use at the French Wikipedia, (fr:Peuple français) and it appears that a picture of Josephine Baker has been in use on that page for some time.[5] If these people are acceptable to the good people at the French Wikipedia, then I find it really quite strange that there is a bone of contention here. Might I suggest that they have a greater insight into this subject att he French Wikipedia than editors here do?
  • If you can find reliable sources for all of this it still may not be convincing because there are bound to be sources that contradict these claims, and we need to include all points of view. Alun (talk) 12:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once credible sources are found, there is no justification for not having the article. Even if there are sources contradicting some aspect, the article is not a forum and just because there may be some opinions who disagree with the article, doesn't merit not having it at all. The opinions against it, if even found, can be entered in the article to give another viewpoint or in another one such as this one. Epf (talk) 04:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So far you have provided no credible sources whatsoever. I suggest you get cracking. Alun (talk) 06:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I feel I should remind you that there is barely any credible sources and a great deal of OR in the current French people article. Indeed we do need to "get cracking" but I honestly don't have time to do such right now (the next two weeks in particular), create the new article or re-enter more ethnic information into the French people article. I myself will have to more of this a latter time. Epf (talk) 08:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems obvious that the man has a political agenda and keeps pushing it whenever he gets a chance. I believe WP would be better off if Epf's delusional debate wasn't fueled at length as we see here, it would be enough to keep an eye on his contributions. Just my 02 cts. - Wikigi | talk to me | 15:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he has admitted he has a political agenda, quoting Epf: “I disagree very strongly, especially as someone who fundraises for the Celtic League and therefore for Breton ethnic and cultural rights in France (which are practically non-existent) as well aspects of Breton nationalism.”. I think i will follow your advice. Med (talk) 15:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. My apologies, possibly I have been feeding the troll. Alun (talk) 06:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have a problem ! The new infobox 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)[reply]

At the risk of being accused of making this "too complicated" again, I suggest that we first decide how many pictures we want for the article (say 8 or 16). Then we use the 27 top pictures from the first round and have a preferential ballot. Instead of every vote each of us casts counting the same, everyone needs to give a preference to each picture. So everyone has a first choice and a second choice etc down to a 27th choice. It is not necessary for everyone to vote down to their last choice, if you only like six pictures, then you only need to give preferences for the six you like. Then we can either redistribute the votes of those candidates at the bottom of the list (based on first preference votes) until we have reached a required number of pictures (Alternative vote), or if we want to be fancy we can use the Single transferable vote to rank the pictures by preference. I suggest that although this involves a bit more work we will get a much better idea about what the consensus is. Unfortunately it does mean another round of voting. Alun (talk) 06:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My propposal, quite obviously, is that for the image to stay as it is! Of course I'm willing to accept the consensual decision, whatever that may be... Cheers! The Ogre (talk) 23:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After taking a look at a number of people articles, I found that they use somewhere between 4 and 18 images, with the 12-18 range being most frequent. I would suggest a number within that range (12-18) as most suitable. I'm thinking 27 images makes the component images too small for easy recognition.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a strong opinion about changing the picture personally. I can see the point of view that 27 makes the images very small, whether it makes them too small is a question of personal preference, and of course the size of screen one is viewing the article from. If we get a lot of people wanting fewer pictures then we can trim the number down, if there is not great feeling that 27 is too many then let's just keep it as it is. Cheers, Alun (talk) 06:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this thing definitly needs less pictures. The pictures should also show people of different "areas" (science, politics, litterature, etc.) and so I propose a version including De Gaulle, Descartes, Pasteur, Louis XIV, Victor Hugo and Eiffel (note how this list uses people famous for different things). ChrisDHDR 09:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Btw, there is now three users against the inclusion of Marie Curie, Zinedine Zidane and Joesephine Baker. I also believe that the current selection contains too many photos. Epf (talk) 04:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still less than the number of people that voted for Zidane alone (6) in the vote, let alone Zidane, Curie and Baker together (22). Small beer Epf. Alun (talk) 06:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• How'd you know that I drink I beer ? lol. Epf (talk) 09:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a common enough idiom. "Small beer", adj. Trivial; unimportant. [6] Alun (talk) 12:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Had to change the Mitterrand pic because the source is target for deletion due to bad license. The Ogre (talk) 02:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No matter. My vote is for none ! We don't need any celebrity picture. Ericd (talk) 01:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]