From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Feedback on sidebar

I am working on a "series of articles"-type sidebar in my drafts section:

It is a inspired by Template:African American topics sidebar, Template:Hispanic and Latino Americans and other similar ones.

Now would be the time to give me some feedback. Merci beaucoup! :-) -- Mathieugp ( talk) 00:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC) reply

what's with the * in the title of the article

re "Franco American*" was the * a mistake or what? Rjensen ( talk) 13:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC) reply

I agree; * looks awful and does not conform to Wikipedia naming conventions.-- Jeanne Boleyn ( talk) 14:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC) reply
That's pure non-sense. And it does not conform to Wikipedia naming conventions. -- Mathieugp ( talk) 14:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC) reply
where is the discussion and agreement justifying this name change in the first place? Hmains ( talk) 03:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC) reply

I have undone the move. There was a) No consensus for this and b) it was badly executed, as the person who did the move put a random * character in the title. Please discuss and arrive at a consensus BEFORE moving again. -- Jayron 32 04:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC) reply

And he did it again. See WP:ANI for a discussion regarding this. -- Jayron 32 05:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC) reply

I have lived in New England all my life, and not once did I hear someone say that they were French American. They say they are Franco-Americans because their ancesters came from Canada, and not France, between 1840 and 1930. To put it in perspective, it is like saying that Americans who immigrated to another country one hundred years ago, are no longer of American descent, but of British, German or whatever. Time has changed, and people, languages, cultures and civilisations as well. There is now a greater difference that separates French Canadians with Frenchmen than Frenchmen with Germans. Too negate all that is too say that none of us are truly american in the sense of the word. If the majority, who are of French Canadian or Canadien descent cannot be called by their rightful name, Franco-Americans, then I suggest that there be two sites, one for the Frenchies, and one for the descendants of Canadiens and Acadiens.-- Chnou ( talk) 05:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Furthermore, the asterisk is there because I could not move it to Franco American without it. I would have preferred not to have it.-- Chnou ( talk) 05:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC) reply
That;s because Franco American was already a redirect to French American. Furthermore, you need to discuss controversial moves before they are made. I'm going to return this to the prior status quo. Please start a formal discussion and seek input from other editors and get consensus before doing it again. WP:RM describes how to start a formal move discussion. -- Jayron 32 05:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Just because the article started on the wrong foot by calling it French American, which is politically incorrect, does not mean that it has to continue that way. Take the Iraq War, because France refused to participate, the word French became a dirty word. Even French Fries became Freedom Fries. Today, no one in the United Sates wants to be labeled with this word. One has to keep up with the times. The Soviet Union no longer exists, and now it is Russia, and they are Russians, Ukranians, etc. You cannot force a word down people's throats and expect them to accept that. If you are not British or Indian, no one can force you to be so. Pakistanies were once part of India, but they would not like you to call them Indian. The rift between French Canadians and Frenchmen took place a long time ago, even General Montcalm back in 1759 did not like the Canadians. That tells you how time creates differences. Furthermore, many have been mixed with native americans, further causing a separation. But when you mention discussion here, I know what will take place, in the end, the administrators will win and you will lose. You already proved it by reverting back to French American. If you took a vote from the common reader of wikipedia, Franco American would win by a landslide. I have already discussed this with several people, but for many, it's a waste of time dicussing it. Maybe I am foolish for doing so, but if there is a wrong and no one speaks up, it will continue that way.-- Chnou ( talk) 06:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC) reply
I'm not arguing with your points; you may end up being right here. The problem is not in chaning the title, its in doing so without reaching consensus to do so. What you need to do is find some metric to determine what the most common english phrase is. For what it is worth, "French American" returns 664,000 pages at Google: [1] while "Franco American" returns 461,000 [2]. Before contested changes to the existing status quo are made, there needs to be consensus to do so. I am neutral as to which particular title this article is under, either would be fine to me. What I care about is that the proper procedure is followed to make sure that we get it right. "Trust me, I know" is not enough to make the change. Find sources, make a case, provide evidence in the form of reliable sources. -- Jayron 32 06:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC) reply

the fallacy in using Franco-Americans is that it privileges the Quebeckers who moved to New England and call themselves Franco-American's, while ignoring other groups. It especially ignores the older group of Acadians in Louisiana refer to themselves as French Americans. For examples see their scholarly journal The French-American review. it furthermore ignores other French-speaking immigrants to America from France, Belgium, Switzerland and Haiti. Rjensen ( talk) 06:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC) reply

I read the intro. It's pretty clear to me that this is about French-Americans, meaning everybody and anybody whose ancestors where speaking French. It would be interesting to dig up the exact question which led to File:French1346.gif. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 07:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Why is the term French-American politically incorrect? The term means anyone who is an American with ancestors who originated in France; whether they arrived prior to 1789 or after that date is absolutely irrelevant. What's wrong with the title then?!-- Jeanne Boleyn ( talk) 07:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC) reply
It is clear that we are talking about two groups of people, those who want to be French Americans and those who want to be Franco-Americans. It's like forcing the Belgians to become French, and the Austrians or Swiss to become German. There clearly needs to be two sites, not one. You cannot force shame and wrong labelling on one group to please another.-- Chnou ( talk) 07:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC) reply
It should also be noted that, commensurate with the title move, User:Chnou began rewriting the article to change the focus of the article from all French-ancestry Americans to one that focuses more on French-Canadian Americans. See this dif which shows the cummulative effect of his recent changes, including making a distinction between French Canadian (Quebecois) ancestry and all other French-American ancestry. -- Jayron 32 07:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Many people who came to Canada in the 17th century came from countries other than France, Germany for instance. They became Canadian, learnt to speak French, and moved to the US in the 19th century. They consider themselves Franco-Americans, not French Americans. The same with naitve people; they lived in Canada, spoke french and came to the US, they don't consider themselves French Americans.-- Chnou ( talk) 07:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC) reply

By the way Chnou, can you show a reliable source where Americans of French Canadian descent feel shame in being called "French American" rather than "Franco American"? I only ask because 7 of my 8 great grandparents were born in Quebec. The other was a metis who was 3/4 First Nations and 1/4 Quebecois. All 4 of my grandparents were born and lived in New England, and them and all of their decendants have lived in French Canadian communities in New England. My father's first language was French, though both he and his parents were all born in the U.S. My maternal grandmother and her sister regularly conversed in French, and I am the first generation of my family who didn't learn a workable Quebecois French in the home growing up. I've never experienced this shame you speak of. Everyone in my family always said they were "French". If it was necessary to clarify, we'd say "French Canadian", but no one ever used the term "Franco-American" and no one ever felt shame at calling themselves of "French" decent. And its a big family. I'd love to see a reliable source where it says that French-Candian-Americans are ashamed to be called French-Americans. -- Jayron 32 07:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Because 80% of Franco-Americans are of French Canadian descent. There was very little immigration from France, look carefully and you will see that. Furthermore, the article was unclear and I separated it. I actually wrote a lot more about Louisiana and the Houma indians that you neglect to mention.-- Chnou ( talk) 07:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Find sources that use the term Franco-American over French-American or that clearly declare or demonstrate that the term Franco-American is the prefered term to describe Americans of French decent. -- Jayron 32 07:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC) reply
No one used the term Franco-American, then you are not one to say that, because I went to school with Anglo-Saxons, and they used the terminology French. But when I went to school with Franco-Americans, they all said they were Franco-Americans and not French Americans, If you truly lived in Manchester like I have, as well as Lewiston, Maine, you would know that the associations are called Franco-Américaine and not French American. Furthermore, both my grandparents were born in Claremont, New Hampshire, and they always referred to their ancesters and to themselves as Canadiens, not French-- Chnou ( talk) 07:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Why don't you do that. I lived it with experience, seems that you did not. They built Little Canadas, not Little Frances. Furthermore, the word franco is an abreviation for francophone, and it includes everyone who speaks or has a notion of french, whether canadien french, parisien french, belgian french, swiss french, acadian french, or cajun french. Also, why call yourself Cajun if you are of French American descent, because they are truly of Acadian descent! -- Chnou ( talk) 07:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC) reply
So now we're getting personal? Maye you step away from this a bit... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Because what he is doing is called harassment, not dialogue. He is also anti-wikipedia in spirit, because he fails to include other peoples thoughts and beliefs. He himself says that "French American" returns 664,000 pages at Google: while "Franco American" returns 461,000. So Franco American is also substantial. I suggested having two sites, which others I talked to also suggested, but he keeps coming back that it has to be French American.-- Chnou ( talk) 14:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC) reply
I agree with Jayron. Changing French-American to Franco-American would be like changing the English-American article to Anglo-American or the African-American article to Afro-American. While I have obviously heard the term Franco-American, people who originate from France are not called Franco rather they are called French.-- Jeanne Boleyn ( talk) 18:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Since the article begins with the sentence: "Franco Americans or French Americans are Americans of French Canadian or French descent.", what difference could it possibly make whether the article is named one way or the other? -- Mathieugp ( talk) 20:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Well, Mathieu, you see I agree with you 100%. The article recognizes both terms. However, Chnou has, without any documentation, claimed that the term French American is shameful. That's his term, not mine. As someone who is rather proud of my French Canadian ancestry, I wasn't aware that I was supposed to be ashamed (Chnou's term, not mine) of my French heritage. He keeps claiming that the phrase "French American" itself is shameful (Chnou's word, not mine) and politically incorrect (Chnou's word again, not mine). All I am asking for is some documentation to show this to be the case. He misrepresents my statements on this as well. He says I refuse to include other people's viewpoint. No, what I am asking for is documentation of the viewpoint. I think, if there is a distinction between French American and Franco American communities, that should be something Wikipedia covers. The unique experience of French Canadians in New England is not to be misrepresented, and I agree with Chnou 100% that this article should accurately represent that. However, he has so far done nothing to establish that the term Franco American is preferred overwhelmingly to describe all people of French ancestry in America. He even goes so far as to claim that the term French American is shameful (his word, not mine). All I am saying is if that is so, someone else wrote this fact down. Is there no reliable source, no book, no scholarly journal which states that as an American of French Canadian ancestry, I am to be ashamed of the term French American, and proud of the term Franco American? All I am asking for, is that he follow Wikipedia's rules of verifiability and citing ones source. That's it. Until he presents a source to justify making a change, I don't see why a change is needed. -- Jayron 32 21:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC) reply

The problem lies with the way people and associations present themselves. If most associations present themselves as Franco-American, there is a reason for it. Here are but a few examples and I can give you more when I have the time.

The Curry Guide titles their articles this way; Franco-American (French American) Unlike other immigrants who came directly from Germany, England, Italy, Spain, etc, the majority of Franco-Americans came from Canada. Nice to know that you are proud of that Jayron, so am I. But, two things to consider: 1) France was not the country it is today and was known as the Kingdom of France where different people lived. When they came to Canada, they were Normands, Britons, Picards, etc. This is well documentated by Canadian historians. (see Jacques Lacoursière for example). If that was not the case, why do we have Scottish-Americans, Irish-Americans, Welsh-Americans and English-Americans. Why not put them all together as British-Americans. Because they come from the United Kingdom? 2) It's also a well known fact that France did nothing to defend, protect, and keep Canada and Acadia. Later, they even sold Louisiana for not much. So, except for Saint-Pierre-Miquelon, they are no longer in America.

For them to come back today and try to pretend that all the people who in their eyes are of French descent are French, is bullshit! I had a heated argument with Paul, who is in charge of the Franco-American Association in Manchester. He replaced Saint-Jean-the-Baptist Day on June 24th, which I celebrated with my parents when I was young, with the Bastille Day. Wow, what is the relationship? Our ancesters were not a part of it, since they were in Canada, or the American Mid-West, or Louisiana. What they did during 25 years of terror and murder is very shameful. Having guillotined three hundred thousand innocent people, including King and Queen is shameful. (75% were poor farmers) When I lived in Los Angeles, and then in Boston, those I met and spoke to, I felt I had little in common with. I feel more at ease with Germans. So, in all due respect, where is the relationship with these people. Not much!-- Chnou ( talk) 22:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Good deal. Our cases have been presented. Lets see what other people think before proceeding. We know so far that you are in support of a move, and I am ambivalent, as apparently is Mathieugp. A few other editors seem to be opposed. We do not seem to have a clear consensus yet to do anything. Let's start a formal Move Request discussion, and see if an open discussion among active Wikipedians who are interested in this area generates a formal consensus. Give me a few hours (I'm not on my regular computer) and I will get the ball rolling on a discussion. -- Jayron 32 01:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC) reply
(Something philosophical for Chnou to chew on: You don't want to be called French because "they" guillotined three hundred thousand innocent people. Does that mean those who call themselves German-Americans are all connected to the gassing of 6 million? Or would you call them Teuto-Americans? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 13:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)) reply
Another thing we might want to consider: in the 1960s I remember a food company advertised on television which was called Franco-American. Readers may happen onto an article by that name expecting the food company only to discover it's about French-Americans. French is more appropriate-and encyclopedic than Franco which is also a male name here in Italy.-- Jeanne Boleyn ( talk) 16:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC) reply
It's sad! You don't seem to understand. By being called French Americans, you fall in the same category as German Americans, Italian Americans, Russian Americans, etc. It looks like you just got off the plane from France, when in fact for many of you, your ancesters were here for more than four hundred years. You are thus exposed to being called Frenchie, Frenchman, French, Frog, etc.
Franco-American makes you unique, not like the others. The Black-Americans or Afro-Americans have understood this. You don't see themselves being Congo-Americans or Nigerian-Americans. Mexicans speak Spanish, but you could not call them Spanish-Americans. They are unique and 90% are of Aztec descent. They have gone from Latinos to Hispanics, and their numbers now represent 50 million Americans. They too have been on the continent for a long time. You see, French is a political term. Makes you look like a citizen of France. This doesn't take into account whether you are of Normand (Viking) descent, who were the first people to colonize Canada, or of Briton descent, from Brittany, who had their lands seized by the French, as was the case for Normandy. They have had a hard struggle to maintain their identity in France. Scots, Welsh, and Irish from Northern Ireland have faired better under the British system. Even in Canada, 66% of Quebeckers place Canadian as their descent in the last census. By far the highest percentage of any province. Look at Hawaii, they are proud to be Hawaiian descent. They would be insulted if you called them Japanese-Americans. So it is with us. At one time, are ancesters held half the continent. But we did not have a good ally in France. Canada, had a better ally with Great Britain. Americans burnt York (Toronto), and the British replied by burning down Washington D.C.. I have lived all my life being called French, Frenchman, Frog, and I hate it. That is why New Englanders have undertood that by being Franco-American, it makes you unique. You can be a winner, or you can be a loser, it's up to you.-- Chnou ( talk) 23:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Can we at least agree on the fact that our personal preferences are not relevant to the decision? If we are to follow Wikipedia's rules, we need to name the article according to usage in this field of study. Chnou has begun providing evidence that at least some important contemporary institutions of Franco/French minorities in the USA use "Franco-Americans". The works I am familiar with (The Franco-Americans of New England by Yves Roby and The Franco-Americans of New England by Armand Chartier) also use "Franco Americans", but these works are almost entirely concerned with the immigrants from Quebec. I think "Franco Americans" is used to designate all Franco/French minorities, but as far as I know it tends to be that in Louisiana they do not use it, while in Northeastern United States it is used almost exclusively to refer to the diaspora from Quebec. Yet, I have seen written the expression "Northeastern Franco-Americans" which suggests that at least some scholars want to use "Franco-Americans" to refer to other groups as well (those outside the Northeastern zone). No doubt that "French Americans" is also used to include all groups, not just those straight from France. Usage is certainly inconsistent, as is often the case with almost everything. Which name is most prevalent in this field of study? I wish I could assert, decisively, which one it is, but the fact is I am not sure myself. -- Mathieugp ( talk) 00:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC) reply
So why not do what other sites have done, use Franco-American (French American). Nothing wrong with having both in the title; or split them, have two sites. Because I had this discussion before at the beginning of the year, and several people I spoke to suggested splitting them. I am sure if you had a vote, the New England Franco-Americans would vote overwelmingly for Franco-American. Louisiana has the Cajun identity which relates to their Acadian cousins in the Maritime provinces. The Mid-Westerners still have ties to Canada, even though theirs were broken two hundred years ago. Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, and Missouri especially. They know who their ancesters were, and they were the same as Franco-Americans in New England. I don't think that they would have trouble with the name. It's the French in New York the obstacle, because they came from France not too long ago, and still have ties with France. But, they are the minority.-- Chnou ( talk) 02:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC) reply

State names?

The article is about people of French origins not the names of states. So I reduced a long rambling unsourced section that tells us very little -- it has even suggested that Delaware and New Jersey had French origins based on English words many centuries old (much of the English language is based on French of course). All this trivia takes up too much space, and we need to pay more attention to the main theme of the article, which is the history and culture of the people in America with French connections. Rjensen ( talk) 13:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC) reply

The paragraph begins: Most of the names were bestowed by early French explorers who were not permanent residents of the area that became the U.S. Those explorers were of French decent, and we are talking about people. If you want to save space, one just has cut off the immigration from France between 1827 and 1868. Stop vandalising this site! If you have something against French Americans, write a book, if you really have a PHD. Take your racism and bigotry somewhere else!-- 66.254.43.184 ( talk) 18:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC) reply

French participation in Revolutionary War and War of 1812

There is nothing about the French-American participation in the Revoltionary War and War of 1812. In The Battle of New Orleans there was a huge amount of French combatants.-- Jeanne Boleyn ( talk) 08:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Sounds great Jeanne, maybe you and I should write about it, since I know that the pirate Jean Lafitte and his men participated on the American side, even though the British had offered him money and Lordship. Without him and his men, it is probable that Andrew Jackson would have lost, since the British had 3 times more men. Did he make the write decision or not? Remember that the US government went after his island, seized his ships, and plundered his treasures. Did you ever watch the movie with Yul Brynner in The Buccaneer (1958 film)? Great movie! I always loved this actor and he does a magnificent job portraying Jean Lafitte. Happy Thanks Giving weekend!-- Chnou ( talk) 21:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Thank you. Some of my French ancestors from Louisiana fought under the Spanish General Galvez in the Revolutionary War as Spain was an ally of the US colonies. The list of those who served under him can be found on Internet.-- Jeanne Boleyn ( talk) 06:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Population section

Would the Population section be better represented with a table, perhaps with the Top 10 states in terms of percent of the population and persons? As is it seems rather arbitrary- for example, if we're going to list states with more than 4% French population, then why not for more than 3%, so on and so forth. A table would also get rid of the excessive amount of white space that exists as of now. Minnecologies t, c 22:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC) reply

State names given to American states

One way to make French Americans look stupid is to make wildly exaggerated claims about them--such as the claim they named numerous states. The people covered in this article did not do that and so the section on "State names given to American states" is not encyclopedic. Rjensen ( talk) 14:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Would Beyonce be an example as well?

She is under Category:American people of French descent. Bleubeatle ( talk) 07:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC) reply

I added Matt LeBlanc

I knew he had to have French ancestry, his last name being "LeBlanc". I searched him up, his dad is of French-Canadian. He's pretty prominent, leading role in one of America's most-watched sitcoms. PacificWarrior101 ( talk) 22:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)PacificWarrior101 reply

Yeah, of course. Before we start another edit war, nobody knows where LeBlanc even lives. He's born in the United States, that makes him American by nationality. PacificWarrior101 ( talk) 22:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)PacificWarrior101 reply

Francophone Canadians

Political controversies aside, Shouldn't there be a separate article to distinguish Francophone Canadians, or (emigrants from other French colonies in the New World) who emigrated to the United States (i.e.Quebecois, cajuns, etc.) from immigrants who came to the US directly from France? Francophone Canadians have a very distinct culture, dialect and heritage from citizens of France proper, to lump these groups together as "French-Americans" is perfectly ridiculous - its as absurd as referring to Mexican-Americans or Colombian-Americans as Spanish-Americans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:5B0:2CFF:1EF0:0:0:0:3B ( talk) 18:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC) reply

But all the groups you mentioned are referred to as Hispanic Americans. I think it's okay to have "French American" as an umbrella term, while acknowledging that there are distinct sub-groups within it. 108.254.160.23 ( talk) 06:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC) reply
I strongly recommend this idea too. People who emigrate from Quebec are NOT necessarily of French descent - many were actually English, Scottish, Metis, Jewish, etc. Like the US, Canada has been a society of immigrants for hundreds of years. Many who ended up in Quebec were from other parts of the world. Wikimandia ( talk) 02:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on French Americans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC) reply

IP edits of cited info

@ User:2604:6000:9680:7200:E86C:B9CD:FF00:11D4 has repeatedly replaced a cited value in the "religions" info with an inexact and uncited description. It may be justified, but I haven't been able to get this user to respond here or to talk page messages. I don't want to get involved in an edit war; does anyone want to render an opinion here? NewEnglandYankee ( talk) 02:47, 29 September 2017 (UTC) reply

The book currently being cited is ISBN  978-0-307-78036-2 (page 120), and it is long standing content. While I don't have access to the text in question, to my knowledge it has not been challenged, therefore the WP:BURDEN is on the IP removing the referenced infobox content to provide a reliable source to back up their contention (which is entirely WP:OR at this point in time). -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 01:37, 30 September 2017 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on French Americans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:51, 7 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jungermane.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 21:51, 16 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Franco-American (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 04:33, 25 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
To merge, on grounds of short text, context and as an alternative to deletion (provenance disputed). Klbrain ( talk) 10:18, 16 July 2023 (UTC) reply

I propose merging Franco-American Flag into French Americans, because the Franco-American Flag page is a small stub, and would not cause this article to be too long. Thank you! 你好... Community Centre 23:59, 10 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Oppose Small indeed, but still significant enough to warrant its own article. James Ker-Lindsay ( talk) 11:19, 15 January 2023 (UTC) reply
Oppose. Article size should not be a factor in determining merges. Libcub ( talk) 05:58, 21 January 2023 (UTC) reply
Support. The information about the flag would be better placed within the context of the French American population. Joyous! | Talk 19:23, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Support. Can very easily have its own section in the French Americans article and its size and notability does not meet requirements for its own article. Yeoutie ( talk) 00:06, 4 April 2023 (UTC) reply
Support At least from my own knowledge in New England, I have serious doubts that this particular flag is real. Earlier versions contained different flags that were personal initiatives, which made more sense. That's because in reality, there's no one single flag that would represent the entirety of the Franco-American community. Now, it might be the case that out of personal ignorance, I haven't seen any of the flags that had been mentioned, but at least for me and most people, the flags that had been shown over time in Wikipedia would count as "fantasy" flags. In that case, a merger would be better, as long as it's emphasized that there's no single flag (hence deprecating the existing flags and relegating the other designs elsewhere in Wikimedia Commons. 108.34.188.84 ( talk) 16:45, 10 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  checkY  Merger complete. Klbrain ( talk) 10:18, 16 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Does Eugene V. Debs count? Should Alsatian Americans have their own page?

Does Eugene V. Debs count? Both of his parents immigrated from Alsace. Should Alsatian Americans have their own page?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_V._Debs 2603:6011:A400:8A82:9023:C912:3CB4:169F ( talk) 17:19, 10 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Huguenots

This makes no sense:

"Huguenots and their descendants would immigrate to the Massachusetts Bay Colony and the Provinces of Pennsylvania and Carolina due in large part to colonial anti-Catholic sentiment, during the period of the Edict of Fontainebleau.

Why would a group of Protestants immigrate somewhere because of "anti-Catholic sentiment"? The Edict of Fontainebleau revoked the Edict of Nantes which was a policy of tolerance for Protestant French. So it was an anti-Protestant edict that forced them to migrate to pro-Protestant states and colonies. Jonathan f1 ( talk) 01:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:French_Americans&oldid=1207300903"