Talk:Brittany/Archive 1

Archive 1

question

Heres the response to a question I asked - worthy of a wider audence, I think.

Andy, in response to your question, "Is this right? Domnonia & Cornouaille sound very like Dumnonia and Cornwall - part of the Brythonic culture but not part of Brittany." -- tres bizarre, but true! My source is Myles Dillon & Nora Chadwick, The Celtic Realms, but I've seen these names of the Breton kingdoms in other places. If I understand the scholarship correctly, this has spawned disagreements over the origins of these names: were they Medieval English (i.e., the Sassons from beyond the River Tamar & River Severn) coinages, or derived from earlier, prehistoric Celtic names, or perchance the Breton kingdoms borrowed the names currently in use from beyond the Channel? The only certainty in this dispute is that there are far more opinions than evidence. -- User:llywrch 04:43, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Andy G 18:28, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

That Domnonia & Cornouaille sound like Dumnonia and Cornwall isn't surprising since the Bretons are settlers who migrated from Dumnonia and Cornwall and even after they settled retained close (trading) links with their ancestral kingdoms.-- DZ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.123.19.248 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 4 February 2004

I agree. The Channel was first a way of communication, not a border. For instance, an abbey in Côtes d'Armor, l'abbaye de Beauport owned four parishes on the Continent and two in Devon, England, until George the VIIIth ; the monks built a harbour to cross over frequently. "Devon" comes from "Domnonae", the eponym of an ancient kingdom in North Brittany. And Cornwall is close to the Breton Cornouaille, even more in their respective language (Kernew in cornish and Kernev in Breton). Gwalarn — Preceding undated comment added 20:06, 12 October 2004

Historical region or administrative region ?

There's an ambiguity in this article which should be resolved. Is it about the historical region (which includes Loire-Atlantique) or the administrative one (excluding Loire-Atlantique) ? _R_ 12:28, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I vote in favour of the historical region, including Loire-Atlantique. (1) Loire-Atlantique has existed only since 1790, and only gained its present name in 1957, whereas this article on Brittany is concerned also with its pre-Revolutionary history. (2) Loire-Atlantique's coat-of-arms is that of Brittany with waves of the Atlantic superimposed. (3) As I understand, its inhabitants regard themselves as Breton. (4) Nantes, the capital of Loire-Atlantique, similarly identifies with Brittany. Zoetropo (talk) 03:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Prehistory

I feel the section on prehistory is getting too long with respect to the rest of the article. IMHO its content should be transferred on an appropriate page with a sum-up here. _R_ 12:36, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Origin of the term 'Great Britain'

In the article I read between the lines that 'Great Britain' was at first just 'Britain'. Then 'Little Britain' was created and as a consequence the original Britain recieved the name 'Great Braitain' to make the distinction clearer. Right? DirkvdM 07:48, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Quite right. The name of Britain followed its people in Armorica (named New Britain or Little Britain, then Brittany). The name of England erased this of Britain (if not in latin) till the XVIIth century.

In breton (Breizh), italien (Bretagna), spanish (Bretana), french (Bretagne)... there is no difference between the name of the island and the one of the peninsula. Le gludic 01:52, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

In Latin, the island was called "Britannia major" while the peninsula's name was "Britannia minor". In relation with those names, some people state that, in English, "Brittany" is a diminutive of "Britain", an other way to say "little Britain". Is that right ? Gwalarn 20:10, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Not likely -- Brittany AFAIK is an anglicization of the French name. If you spelled the premodern pronounciation of Bretagne according to English phonetics you'd get something like Brettanye. Both English and French no longer pronounce most terminal schwas (written <e>)... Brettanye could easily become Brittanye by contamination with Britain (referring in English to insular Britania. Tkinias 18:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought Great Britain came from it being the largest (greatest) island in the British Isles which also constitutes the bulk of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? Mammal4 11:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Reference Question

Does anyone know the name of a waterway that is two words long? Each word is five letters so _____ _____ The name will most likely fit these letters _i_e_ r_n_e

Lotsofissues 05:13, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Rance River or River Rance? Man vyi 08:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Infobox

Copied the infobox from Wales. - FrancisTyers 13:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Please Man vyi do not change the spelling of my anthem: Bro Gozh Ma Zadoù is its only correct spelling. I know a few things about my country, and this is one of them. The "no-toll roads" reason is just a legend, which tends to prove that Brittany is "land of legends" just like Wales is "land of songs". Broladre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.90.203.65 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 16 February 2006

Pipe the link to Bro Goz ma Zadoù if you want and make it Bro Gozh Ma Zadoù, just don't break the link. Man vyi 18:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I have deleted the infobox. FYI Brittany is neither an independent country, nor a federal or administrative entity (unlike Wales). There is already an infobox at Bretagne for the administrative région of Bretagne. Brittany as it is presented in this article is only an historical and cultural entity, it has no official or administrative recognition. Hardouin 01:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Quite personal

The sentence "The origin of the name Brittany is Dutch; fur traders from Holland settling in France named the region" has been removed. It seems to be a personal belief only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.90.203.65 (talk • contribs) 12:58, 12 March 2006

Good call, anon. Tkinias 19:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Breton langage

how about line about the breton wikipedia ? polo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.210.80.81 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 23 April 2006

What about the Vannetais language( Golfe du Morbihan)?... The Cornwall and the Gallo languages are not the only ones . Thomas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.180.202 (talk • contribs) 07:40, 21 May 2006

Vannetais is most often considered a dialect of Breton. _R_ 16:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Added some info on the rate of decline of the Breton language in the last 50 years (down by 1 million speakers). Jefight 11:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Crêpes etc.

I deleted the random in the section about crêpes. As there are no sources cited anywhere else in the article that one implies that there is something debatable about crêpes being Breton. I've not been to Bretagne, but in Paris it seems to be taken as a given that crêpes/gallettes are a Breton thing. Tkinias 19:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I've seen that connection being made in Belgium too. A source would be good however. Piet 19:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the {{fact}} referred to the distinction between crêpe de sarrazin and galette de sarrazin. I'm Breton and I can't tell whether this lexical distinction has a sharp or a diffuse boundary, nor where this boundary lies precisely, nor whether it's tied to differences in the recipe. I'll put it back in. _R_ 16:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I've been all over Brittany, "Crêperies" are everywhere 81.153.161.222 14:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course, "crêpes" are a native specialty of Brittany. In fact, the French noun "crêpes" derives from the Breton "krampouzh". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.46.113.190 (talk) 04:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

"Citation needed" template removed again. I think any further re-appearance should be treated as mild vandalism. ---Vernon White 22:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vernon39 (talk • contribs)

Ridiculous, the French word crêpe does not share anything with the Breton word for it krampouezh. Crêpe (Old French crespe) comes from Latin crispus because of its appearance. The idea that the crêpe are from Brittany is wrong, only the krampouezh ed du or gwinizh du are typical Breton.Nortmannus (talk) 20:17, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Privileges

I removed the following from the article:

However one privilège remains to this day. When the Duchy passed into French hands one condition was that "no toll shall ever be levied on either road or bridge." The E-50 highway from Paris to Brest is comprised in part of the expensive A11 and A81 motorways as far as the Breton frontier, which is the last toll booth before the road continues on to Rennes as the Route Nationale 157. The A84 motorway from Caen in Normandy to Rennes is likewise a toll free road.

If the Act of Union really still applied, the A11 would be toll-free between Ancenis and Nantes, which is not the case. It's true that all roads are toll-free in the administrative région Bretagne, but this particularity arose in the 60s, not in 1532. _R_ 16:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a common misconception, unlike Alsace and Lorraine, Brittany doesn't have any exceptions to the French Law in the current republic. The reason why there are hardly any toll roads in Brittany is because there are no motorways managed by private companies but instead an extensive network of expressways that differ from motorways, as speed is limited to 110 Km/h instead of 130 Km/h, these roads can have traffic lights, intersections and roundabouts and are entirely managed by the state and the local authorities. The tax exemption was on the gabelle which was a tax paid with salt and was never established when Britanny was attached to France as it was part of the treaty. The gabelle was abolished during the French Revolution, therefore the distinction does not exist anymore. Blastwizard (talk) 14:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Is this article a good idea?

I'm really not sure I like the idea of an article about current day France based on purely historical borders. So much of the information here would be better off at Bretagne. In particular, grouping "sights" in Brittany is a poor idea: sights are necessarily either in Bretagne, Loir-et-Atlantique, etc. What is gained by keeping them here? The section on languages is similar: it makes more sense to discuss which languages are spoken in which regions, rather than in which historical duchies...Discussing the modern day climate of a historical region is similarly bizarre, it's like discussing the climate of Van Dieman's land, of the USSR or of Gaul. How did this come to be this way? Stevage 06:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

As a French, I think an article about historical Brittany is relevant, because while provinces have been replaced long ago as administrative territorial divisions, the concept is still alive and widely used in France. When we say "I'm spending my vacations in Bretagne", we think about the province, not the region.125.225.69.173 01:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Post-Roman history

This:

"With the collapse of the Roman empire, Britton troups from across the Channel moved to people Armorica, emissary in the area, in the process granting him power over the Marches of Nantes and Rennes. At the emperor's death, he was crowned king and his decendants ruled Brittany until the Viking Invasions."

does not make a great deal of sense and appears to disagree with the History of Brittany article.
=== Vernon White (talk) 22:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I have tried to improve this part. Siswrn 21:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me that the whole history section of the article is a mess. It jumps back and forth chronologically, and nowhere is it firmly stated that Brittany's origin can be traced back to immigrants from what is now south west England and Wales fleeing the invading Saxons. It was after all known as Armorica until around that time. 1812ahill (talk) 13:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

External Links

Mindnet 13:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC) Mindnet There are already some links on the page for accommodation in Brittany. I think adding www.gites-brittany.com would be beneficial as it has many gites and B&B's throughout Brittany that are all privately owned. I'm sure many people reading up on Brittany are interested in finding accommodation for their holidays etc.

I can't see that commercial links for property/holidays have any encyclopaedic value whatsoever. Linkspam > delete. Man vyi 13:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I am quite unsure of how this all works but I am guessing that no-one has yet noticed the rather obvious vandalism under the trivia sub-heading (e.g. - Brittany Adair of round rock texas: is a spoiled brat). Inasmuch as I don't know procedure for editing or reporting I will trust that my adding to this page will trigger someone's attention who is familiar with procedures... from A WP fan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.10.198.28 (talk • contribs) 05:20, 23 January 2007

There is persistent spamming of this page (and at least 17 others) by an unimportant Wiki that fails to satisfy WP:EL. The comments regarding open Wikis at Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided #13 should be followed, and this linkspam put to an end. That the site is "non-commercial" does not qualify it for inclusion (and it is actually commercial, since it carries Google ads), and there are many factors that disqualify it and its brethren. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.202.167.98 (talk) 11:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Nonsense. In fact nothing on WP precludes the inclusion of a site which offers good information, is properly and regularly maintained and, ideally, increases the learning scope of the project. Quoting policy is missing the point - FYI there are no "rules" on WP - despite what some people chose to believe - only recommendtions or policy advice. And in this case, the advice is that open wikis are not generally to be included; and rightly so as they tend to be empty and all too often neglected or even abused. However, in this case, should you take the time to review one of these sites you will see they offer good information of both a practical and educational nature; they are GOOD external links. I would not have included them otherwise. I do NOT spam Wikipedia and - again FYI - I have edited it continually without doing so for several years. Now we can discuss this rationally or you can continue to visit WP just to delete these links. What is your REAL motivation for doing that I wonder? Marcus22 (talk) 18:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The sites are not "properly maintained", contain almost no content of any value (certainly not "practical and educational") and include at least one quite spectacular libel. You are spamming WP with links that don't come close to matching the guidelines and have been called on this by several people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.202.37.235 (talk) 06:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Really? Well as I, personally, have visited two tourist sites I found on those sites - and only on those sites - that self-evidently contradicts your claim that they have no educational value. And how have you decided that they contain no content of any value? I can assume then that you are not English and living in rural France? For if you were, and you spoke no French, I think you would find the English businesses invaluable. May I also ask why you bandy words around like spam? I've edited Wiki for over 4 years, made several thousand edits and I have never - willingly - added "spam". You, by contrast.. I see that all of your edits to Wikipedia consist of deleting these links and re-instating a link to 'Anglo-Info' on the Brittany page - hmmm... do you happen to have a vested commercial interest here? I suspect so. Hence the passion to delete and rubbish perfectly good links. Marcus22 (talk) 16:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I have also made several thousand edits to WP over several years. I, however, choose to enjoy WP's embrace of anonymity (and the joys of a dynamic IP address) and see no need to have a profile (thus you have no idea what "all" my edits look like). I reinstated the Angloinfo link becase your removal of it was rampant vandalism (replacing the URL of an existing EL with your pet URL rather than adding a new link - which would still have been spam, if less egregious). As the pre-existsing link is clearly a) full of relevant information not on WP and b) had been accepted for many months, I reinstated it. I have not added it to any of the other articles you spammed, even though it is arguably relevant to some of them. The only person with a suspect commercial interest is you - do you get the revenue from the Google ads, or is it someone else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.202.37.235 (talk) 17:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Lesser Britain?

Was Brittany once called "Lesser Britain" as stated in first para.? In English? The names for Britain and Brittany in some languages, e.g. Scottish (Celtic) and Cornish, literally translate as "big" and "small" B. but I'm not sure about this usage in English and perhaps this sentence should go. Siswrn 20:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if "lesser Britain" is stated in English, but I am sure for Latin (Britannia minor) and French (petite Bretagne) in the middle-age, only called "Bretagne" nowadays since there is a "great" Britain which makes the difference. It will be interesting to assure when the isle of Great Britain acquires its present name, and to see if it was simultaneous to the French disuse of "petite Bretagne". Gwalarn 22:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems clear in Great Britain#Use and nomenclature Gwalarn 22:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Brittany was once called Lesser Britain and that is where the name Great(er) Britain comes from. In French the derivation is more apparent because the French called Great Britain (Grande Bretagne) and Brittany, now, just Bretagne. Marcus22 (talk) 23:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

History Section is a Mess

I can't figure out what the second sentence of the first paragraph under "History" thinks it's trying to say:

Although much is remarked of Brittany's ancient Celtic links with Britain and for the sake of its western population, Brittany's modern or political history is stereotyped as merely a French, or "Gallo-Romance" matter.

It is then promptly followed by foaming-at-the-mouth editorial commentary:

This is a horrible misconception, since the Gallo section (part of Latin Europe) of Brittany reforged links with Britain in the first place, albeit as Normandy's "sidekick"

I'm not disputing the facts, as I came here in an attempt to learn them. Instead I'm distrusting what I read because of poor writing and obvious bias. Wikipedia's Achilles tendon shows itself once again.

Krampouz and cidre to all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.28.232 (talk • contribs) 14:26, 22 June 2007

I agree. I also have a problem with the next paragraph:

While the 1066 conquest of England gave control of that kingdom to Normandy via Normans in London, Brittany was imbued with junior status in Northern England via Bretons in Richmond. The relative positions of the Norman Dukes in London to Breton Dukes in Richmond during the Mediaeval period, was not unlike the Primacy of Canterbury above the Province of York, itself formerly superior to Scottish bishops (until cancelling the Treaty of Falaise disestablished York's control in Scotland, except Whithorn).

I mean... what is that telling me? why should I have to know about the relationship between the primacy of canterbury and york, and scotish bishops and the treaty of falaise just to understand Brittany's history? It then says:

As the Normans encroached upon Wales, Bretons would simultaneously be influential in Scotland

Why is that? It is very unclear. Also the next section jumps back almost 700 years to the time of the vikings. Perhaps we could put the history section in chronological order? And is it could be written in a way that saves a reader from having to open 10 - 15 new tabs of further research just to understand three paragraphs.

It's a real jumble of material, largely not directly about the history of Brittany itself but external matters with sometimes tenuous connections. Have removed some of the most obviously off-topic material and tagged it for clean-up. Mutt Lunker (talk) 08:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Celts

This culture, which has influenced literature, farming, navigation and so much of European life, for 4,000 years, and covers places as diverse as Portugal and Asia Minor, would be worthy of its own project. Modern areas still Celtic include Brittany, Cornwall, Ireland, the Isle of Man, Scotland and Wales. Please weigh in at the proposal Chris 04:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Why separate articles on Bretagne and Brittany?

I strongly suggest merging the two under Brittany (just as the Normandy article covers all aspects). A redirect from Bretagne to Brittany could be used if necessary. If we start including the national names of regions, there will be no end to it. What about Russian regions? Do we include the Russian forms of all the oblasts as separate articles?!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ipigott (talk • contribs) 07:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Bretagne is the name of an administrative region of France, like Haute-Normandie and Basse-Normandie. Brittany, like Normandy, is a historic and cultural region/country which covers more territory than the modern regions of the French state. Man vyi 08:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Man vyi, its a question of historic and cultural name for the entire region, and the administrative name. The same concern is apparent when one is confronted by the Kingdom of Gwynedd, verses the principle area of Wales Gwynedd.Drachenfyre (talk) 22:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

This would make sense, OR the Brittany section should be heavily edited to refer only to the past. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.216.18.34 (talk) 08:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

This discussion seems to have come to a halt without a conclusion? I've just attempted to tidy up the article but gave up in despair! Some of the text appears to make no sense whatsoever? Has a French article been passed through the Google French-to-English translator and simply pasted here? It needs a complete re-write, and preferably by someone fluent in English, or as suggested above, a merge! This is the English-language Wikipedia and no English speaker ever uses the term 'Bretagne'! This term need only be mentioned as an 'aside'. -- Maelor  16:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm no expert on this, but I'd say two separate articles are needed. But the content of both are overlapping at the moment, but with slightly different information (both possibly correct of course).

The Bretagne article should contain information only about the administrative setup of the region, while the Brittany article could cover more about history, culture and politics (I'm sure I've read that various Breton nationalist parties take part in elections on various levels, and some call for the regions of Bretagne and Pays de la Loire to be merged for instance).--Rhyswynne (talk) 20:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

translated?

The first paragraph reads like it was written by a non English speaker, all those weird clauses and odd sentence endings; possibly its been translated from French by a bot. Could someone fix this up a bit? ---ag mckinty — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.190.33.151 (talk • contribs) 13:24, 5 July 2008

Similarly the section under the second subheading, History, needs to be worded in a more succinct manner, it reads as if it is written by someone who wishes they were writing a text book, but actually wrote a VCR instructions booklet. Its far too roundabout and flowery. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.80.50.140 (talk) 22:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Celtic nations

A discussion is taking place at Celtic nations regarding whether Brittany is actually a Celtic nation, or not. Editors are invited to participate. Daicaregos (talk) 09:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikistalking by User:Ghmyrtle

Example: [1] Following on the tail of arguments and disputations at British Isles and British Empire, in which this editor was trolling me in conjunction with User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ([2] and [3]), this editor further followed me in order to engage in disruptive editing with User:Snowded, against my attempts to counter vandalism on English people: [4] and [5]. I had felt like retiring a second time, but thought if I steered away from the articles in question, they would leave me alone. I am not so sure now. Ghmyrtle, actions speak louder than words. If you keep claiming it is a mistake, or innocent filibustering of my edits, then you will simply reveal your hand. Do not provoke more edit wars with me. It's not what I'm here for. You would rather drive me off the Wikipedia for good, or stay away from any and all articles which may interest your nationalistic activism, having to do with anything "British"? That's not a lot of room for me, for you follow me to France! LutetiaPetuaria | 09:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

This is not the place for personal allegations against editors - if User:Catterick wishes to pursue them I suggest he uses a more appropriate forum. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle is now wikilawyering me again. Red Hat told him to not "feed" me, as if I were the troll, but look what he is doing here. Policies, policies...only exist to serve the one edging to force the other one into submission. It doesn't even matter if the policy applies, such tendentious editors will make it twist into application for their perverse purposes of harrassment. LutetiaPetuaria | 10:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Now another Welch friend of theirs, User:Daicaregos, has joined in the bullying game. Incidentally, the article already has tags at the top of the page. Furthermore, I do not believe that the Anglo-centred historical links section in question, necessarily needs to be the only part of Breton history. In fact, it belongs elsewhere. Somebody make a proper history section. I will remove the data. LutetiaPetuaria | 19:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

No one is bullying you Catterick. The uncited/unreferrenced information you added to this article is controversial, at best. The article is already tagged 'This article needs additional citations for verification.' and any further unverified text does not improve it. If you can provide WP:RS references for your edits, I will support their inclusion. Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 19:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

History section

I have tagged this section, as in my view recent edits have added to, rather than removed, the already existing biased POV nature of the text. Personally, I have no idea whether or not the text is correct and justifiable - if it is, it needs to be justified, by verifiable references. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The history section is utterly bizarre, since it seems to be less interested in Brittany than in Britain, Scotland and France, as if some point-scoring agenda about "British", "French" and other national identities is at issue. Frankly, this is silly. We need a potted summary of the actual history, not a mini essay on how British or French they are. Paul B (talk) 21:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure you're right. For a start, it would be helpful if an editor with sufficient knowledge of the subject, and independent of the more eccentric interpretations that some people place on it, could produce a potted summary of the History of Brittany article (if it's reliable - I've no idea) for incorporation into this article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Well yes, I have quite a few books on the subject. I will see what I can do. Paul B (talk) 00:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Paul, I almost forgot to do so, considering it was I who made the request for your assistance in the first place. It is a great job. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 12:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Hogdys?

"Hogdys" is/are mentioned in the "Gastronomy" section of the "Brittany" article ("Some hogdys are also produced") and in the "Breton cuisine" section of the "Breton people" article, where the word is simply listed, with no hint in either article as to what hogdys is/are (or what a hogdy is, if hogdys is plural as it appears to be treated in the quoted sentence). A Google search seems to turn up only these two articles and sites that quote them, which leads me to wonder is this a word fabricated by a vandal. I'm posting this in both articles, in hopes a Breton can verify whether hogdys is/are genuine Breton food or drink and, of so, what it/they is/are.--Jim10701 (talk) 22:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Map

Shouldn't the present map of Brittany be moved down to the history section, and replaced with the commonly used map-type that shows Brittanys position in Europe? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.136.63.144 (talk) 18:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Map as of 2015

Shouldn't the map that currently shows Brittany's position in Europe, also have a map that shows its position within the nation of France? The current version of the map in Wikipedia requires that Wikipedia users obtain an outside source of Brittany's map in France... Stevenmitchell (talk) 11:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Photo Gallery

Why not move down a few of the photos from the secion "Sights", and create a small photo gallery at the end of the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.136.63.144 (talk) 10:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Celtic nation

I reverted this edit to the long standing version because I think the new one doesn't make sense. Here's why: if there are Celtic nations, there are six of them and Brittany is one of them. Brittany is not "sometime" one of them, or "sometime" a Celtic nation. You may dispute the existence of Celtic nations (issue that you should perhaps bring to the Celtic nation article) but in any case, you cannot exclude Brittany from them. I'm pretty sure there are no source claiming there are 5 or less Celtic nations. Laurent (talk) 11:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

UltimaRatio's edits are clearly from a French nationalist perspective. There are three main changes: the Celtic nations; the Pontcallec conspiracy and the language issue. There is no doubt that Britanny forms one of the "Celtic nations". That's simply a given to the concept. As for the Breton language issue, that's a complex matter of debate and social development over the 20th century. There is no doubt that the French state actively discouraged Breton, but it's also true that it was an almost inevitable evolution due to the move from a majority illiterate to a majority literate society, and the expansion of social mobility. There was no way that all the technical, historical and other books needed for education were going to be published in Breton. It wasn't practical to publish everything from academic texts to manuals for car machanics in such a small minority language. You had to learn French to get an education. The historical issue re the Pontcallec conspiracy is similar. The change is intended to de-emphasise Breton nationalism. Both descriptions were correct, but the new one is slanted one way, just as the old one was slanted the other way. Paul B (talk) 11:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

After re-reading my edit, I agree it was not neutral. I've rewritten a part of the sentence and hopefully made it more neutral. Laurent (talk) 13:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not obvious that Britanny forms a "celtic nation". It's a quite new conception about Britanny, promoted by the nationalist celtic league. Thus, it's a point of view. Without official recognition and without objective definition, this point of view must be attributed, contextualized and not be presented as a timeless pure fact.

About the disappearance of Breton, it seems to me that it is a very complex subject, whose reasons are multiple. Maybe the prohibition in the schools had an influence, but there were major structural reasons like the evolution of the Breton society from an agrarian traditional society to a mass media society. Thus there is no reason to point out the anecdotic prohibition of the dialects in schools as the main cause.

About Breton nationalism during pontcallec, it cannot exist in the 17th century as nationalism does not exist before the 19th century.

UltimaRatio (talk) 13:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Nationalism can certainly be said to have existed in the 17th century, or even further back. Witness the "declaration of Arbroath" for example. The idea that a distinct ethnic history was related to claims for political independence is quite old. 19th century nationalism is distinct, for sure, since it has a different basis to earlier models and somewhat divergent claims. In any case the word "nationalism" was not used with regard to Pontcallec. It's a question of interpretation, since the Pontcallec rebellion arose from claims about the distinctive legal identity and constitution of Brittany and the legitimacy of defending them. As for the language issue, I agree that the loss of Breton was virtually inevitable. It was even promoted by some Breton separatists/autonomists in the 1900s on the grounds that it was necessary to create the conditions for economic and political independence, by liberating Bretons from illiteracy, poverty and submission to the aristocracy and clergy. As for the Celtic nations, this is simply a phrase in English for a grouping of Celtic-speaking areas. It's not in dispute that this concept includes Brittany. It isn't "sometimes" included. It always is. It is not a claim that Brittany is a "nation" in any legal sense. Paul B (talk) 14:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Considering the Fronde style revolts, such as the Pontcallec conspiracy, as nationalist mouvements is a bold point of view... The current depiction of the Pontcallec conspiracy in the article is much more neutral.

Do we have an early consensus about not pointing out that prohibition of dialects in French schools was the main cause of the loss of Breton ?

Such a misleading and controversial assertion as "Brittany is a celtic nation" shouldn't be so affirmative. Can we contextualized that ? Would you agree with something like that : "Considering its Celtic language, Brittany is regarded as a Celtic nation ?

UltimaRatio (talk) 14:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The word "nationalism" is just that, a word. It can be used in several different ways. If you pre-define it to mean only 19th century models then you are creating a self-fulfilling - ie circular - argument. The fact exists that claims linking ethnicity to constitutional independence have a long and complex history. Since the Pontcallec Conspiracy article was entirely made by me, I'm glad you think it's neutral. I'm perfectly happy to rephrase the reference to the Celtic nations. Paul B (talk) 15:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with rephrasing the statement too but in my experience a Celtic nation is defined by more than just its language. I would suggest something like "Due to its Celtic language and cultural traits, Brittany is regarded as one of the six Celtic nations". Laurent (talk) 16:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Why not simply: "Brittany is one of the six "Celtic nations"....." - with the parentheses, and with the Celtic League ref, but without any explanation (which would inevitably either be a partial explanation, or excessively detailed in the context).  ? Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree that too much explanation would be unhelpful. Anyone who wants to look up the concept can click on the link. There are other matters that seem to have go rather out of hand in the history section. There is a really rather confusing and rambling section on Camp Conlie, which I doubt should be there at all, otr maybe just reduced to a single sentence. Paul B (talk) 16:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with shortening the sentence, however I don't think the quotes around "Celtic nations" are necessary here. A Celtic nation is not a made-up concept - there's no question that they exist and it's well known what territories are part of it. If the term "nation" is the problem, perhaps we should then make it clear that it's being used in the sense of a shared culture and language and that it doesn't necessarily mean these nations have a special legal status. Laurent (talk) 16:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The BBC specifically note Brittany as one of the Celtic nations (without the scare quotes) here. The quote is "Unlike other Celtic nations such as Ireland, Scotland or Brittany, who have a vibrant community based music tradition, Wales is not known for its "ceilidh" culture." That could be used as a reliable source. Daicaregos (talk) 17:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

And loads of refs here too. Daicaregos (talk) 17:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The BBC quote isn't a WP:RS because it's simply quoting a couple of people who have set up a local music group. Obviously there are plenty of other RS for Brittany as a CN in many senses of those words, but the wording of the lead to an encyclopaedia article needs to strike a balance. I'd be quite happy with, for example, "Brittany is widely considered as a Celtic nation", with refs. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the proposition of Ghmyrtle.UltimaRatio (talk) 10:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I think we would be back to square one with this proposal. If we write that "it's widely considered..." it still implies that sometime Brittany is not considered to be one of the Celtic nations, which I think is misleading. Again, no reliable source, as far as I know, considers that there are only 5 Celtic nations or less. If anything, I think the earlier phrasing proposed above by UltimaRatio was more accurate. Laurent (talk) 11:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that the word "nation" has more than one definition, and simply linking to Celtic nation so that those words are blue rather than black is, in my view, an insufficient explanation. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The definition of a nation on Wikipedia is "a group of people who share common history, culture, ethnic origin, and perhaps most importantly language", which is exactly what the Celtic nations are about. Perhaps we could clarify that "nation" is not be understood as a synonymous for "country" by rephrasing to: "Brittany is one of the six Celtic nations, though unlike Scotland or Wales it does not have any special legal status in France"? Laurent (talk) 13:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

As it is obvious that there are plenty of other RS for Brittany as a CN, there is no WP:NPOV reason for it not to be defined as such. BTW neither Scotland nor Wales have the legal status of Celtic nation. They just are. Daicaregos (talk) 21:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't dispute in any way at all that Brittany is a Celtic nation. The question is whether simply stating "Brittany is a Celtic nation" is adequate for the lead, or whether an alternative form of words is possible which would give a clearer explanation to the general reader, without having to resort to a detailed explanation of what that terminology means. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think saying that is "sometimes" included or "widely considered" to be is useful, because it simply is included within the category (and though it's true that Wales and Scotland have distinct devolved status in the UK, Cornwall does not). Of course there are no doubt people who think the whole concept of "Celtic nations" is nonsense. Fine. But the concept exists and Brittany is part of it. I go with a shortened version of WikiLaurent's line: "Due to its Celtic language, Britanny is regarded as one of the six Celtic nations". Paul B (talk) 15:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

In the end I just went for "characterized as one of the ...". I've made a few more changes to the history section for readability. Paul B (talk) 18:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Map size

This map is really very nice, but for this article, it would be nice if it could be more close up, without the need to click for higher resolution. It's hard to see the two greens as distinct because they are so small. 98.82.196.213 (talk) 23:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

You know, like maybe just a map of France, instead of the whole continent of Europe. 98.82.196.213 (talk) 23:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Good suggestion, I changed it to the map used on Wikipedia FR - it has a zoom on Brittany. Laurent (talk) 09:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Kentoc'h mervel eget bezañ saotre

Shouldn't this be translated into "Death before Dishonor"? /Erik EriFr (talk) 17:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The US Marine Corps saying "Death before Dishonor" may indeed be a translation from the motto of Brittany, which has long been famous for producing great soldiers and sailors (as both Julius Caesar and Napoleon acknowledged) and for its support for individual freedoms (which has, since Roman times, occasionally been criticized as eccentric). People of Breton descent played a significant role in the development of the British navy as well as in the settlement of America (e.g. Boston) and in the American Revolutionary War (e.g. George Washington), and among the French officers (e.g. Charles Armand Tuffin, marquis de la Rouerie) who supported the American rebels against the government of King George III of the United Kingdom. Zoetropo (talk) 10:00, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Incidentally, in the French Revolution the Jacobin Club, "the most radical and egalitarian group in the Revolution" (so styled by the Wikipedia article on them), had originated as the Club Breton, formed at Versailles from a group of Breton representatives attending the Estates General of 1789. Zoetropo (talk) 10:00, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Sport

Is sport in Brittany worthy of a mention? There's Stade Brestois and Stade Rennais football clubs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.207.138 (talk) 07:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I think so. It was enough worthy of a mention for Grant Jarvie to write about it in his book Sport in the Making of Celtic Cultures.

In the top-level of French football, there are actually much more than Stade Rennais and Stade Brestois. There are also FC Lorient (playing in the League 1), FC Nantes (several times French champions) and En Avant de Guingamp (the 2008-09 Coupe de France holders).

/Erik EriFr (talk) 18:36, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

List (and category) of Towns and Villages

I wonder why no one has bothered to list these? Llywelyn2000 (talk) 15:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The main towns are listed. A full list of all "villages" would have to be a separate article - and its content would depend on how you defined a "village" - including all hameaux in communes would make it very long indeed. Paul B (talk) 15:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Image changes

Hello, I have removed a few images and changed location of others. The article looked terrible, there were far too many images. The images I have removed can be found in related and linked articles such as the one about the history of Brittan and the article about Roscoff.

Best regards/Erik EriFr (talk) 07:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Notice about Change

I have made changes in the first paragraph of "HISTORY", because all that was written was wrong, very bad informed; a biased choice historically totally stupid (still learnt at school). The terms and the names are wrong; example: "Armorica" is a word from latin dead jargon, not borned from a breton word; about the 17th century this word comes in a reformed Néo-Breton, never under the roman's invaders, when all peoples talked the Welsh language in Gallia and in all Eurasia. There are 3 "armoricus, -cis, -cum", granaries of vegetables; it's not a name of one country but one roman designation for quartermaster stores in Latiolys (Only Latium language deads in +5th century; Latin-jargon = +7th century). That was just right for celtomaniacs and churchies, holly-joe or others uncultured neo-bretons. By example: "Gaul" is a term from the 16th century invented by bad copists, jesuites, priesthoods or litterates = clergy (= not laity, never seculars); the right name is Gallia, Gallie, Country-of-the-Galli, Gallois, Galli; People Galles, Guelsh, Velches (Helvetians), Welsh (Cymri), "High-Wales or Great-Wales", "Grande or Hautes-Galles" in French, "Bro-Gall [vro-'gæl]" in Breton; a name from the old-Welsh verb "gallus". GALLIA, GALLIË spells in gallic letters, not greek nor roman, by VAΛΛHE ['gæll-ië] during the 3rd century that we find again in cyrillic). The french language is also a welsh language, and the pseudo "Francs" is confused with the "Vrinks", from "Vry, Fry" = free; the "Liberated", new name of the old Tongres, liberated from the Romans. they was called by others gallic peoples (PEOPLES and not "tribes") to help us to expel the roman's invaders. Thes Francs or Vrinks are amalgamated by the Churchies, with the Saxons = Enemies of Galles, but Saxons allies with roman's Sect. So, the history is very clear, the writes of the members of Sects also; for the sectators of any sect the true is not important, they don't care of it, just the big propagandas are good for the business. If you don't know the old french that named "Gaulois" by the writers = clergy and not "Gallois (Welsh)", that goes to be hard to understand all that is writen in "Pig-Latin or Macaronée" by the copyists or hoaxers bishops, often just a form of actualisation of one old language always with 2 centurys late. Yes, the "Conan, Conus, Canus Meriadus, dos, dec, is a 100% Roman; and "Brython" in Welsh = Trade-Soldiers or Professional-militaries; it's not a race, nor a name for people. Well! here is my changes.

The peninsula that came to be known as Brittany was a centre of ancient megalithic constructions in the Neolithic era. It has been called the "core area" of megalithic culture.[6] It later became the territory of several Gallic peoples, of which the Veneti are known in romans's writing, to have lost a notorious battleships. After Julius Caesar's conquest of Gaul, the area became known to the historians as Armorica (in fact, LLydaw or Kernou), from the Latin jargon term for "granary of root crops or vegetables" (Too often confused with Arvorigh, "maritime area; Region-On-Swell"). Its transformation into "Brittany" occurred about the tenth century, first named "Bret" [brɛt, brɛz, brɛss] a long time after the establishment of pseudo Romano-British settlement in the area. The history behind such an establishment is unclear, but medieval Breton and Welsh sources connect it to the Roman invader known as Conan Meriadoc, sanctified by the religious sect of Roma. Welsh literary sources assert that Conan came to Llydaw ("Armorica") with the Roman usurper Magnus Maximus, who took his British troops to Gallia to enforce his claims and settled them in Arvorigh county ("Armorica"). Regardless of the truth of this story, Brythonic (Professional soldiers from Prydein or Britain) settlement probably increased gradually during the Anglo-Saxon invasion of Britain in the 5th century. Scholars such as Léon Fleuriot have suggested in 1980, a two-wave model of migration from Britain which saw the emergence of an independent Breton people and established the dominance of the Brythonic Breton language in peninsula of Llydaw (uncertain latin "Armorica").[7] Over time these "Armorican British" will stay localised at the tip of peninsula after to have paid a tribute to the peoples already installed. Then after many infightings between domestic tyrants, a group of petty kingdoms which were later unified in the 840s under Nominoe in resistance to Frankish Saxon control.[8] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.13.40.43 (talk) 13:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

You need to produce sources, not simply state opinions.v----Snowded ^TALK 14:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The idea that "Armorica" derived from the Latin for "grain store" is not one I've ever heard of, nor ever seen mentioned in any source. Your arguments seem to come from an extremist anti-Breton POV, with bizarre claims that the apparently utterly marginalised Bretons "paid tribute to the peoples already installed". It's all very intriguing. I'd love to know where this stuff comes from and exactly what the motivation for it all is. I'm thrilled to discover that French is a form of Welsh. BTW, what on earth are "Frankish Saxons"? Paul B (talk) 10:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

A note, for clarity, to the person who posted this: (1) Your command of the English language is poor, so it is difficult, if not impossible, to understand what you are trying to say. (2) The opinions you set out seem to be based either on original research - which should not be included on Wikipedia - or on other, unnamed, sources. Please read this on verifiability, and all the other available guidance on how to contribute to Wikipedia. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Religion

The Religion section starts with Christianity. I realize not much may be known about the Celtic/Pagan/Pre-Christian religion(s) in the area, but I would like to read about what little is known. If nothing is known, at least a sentence to that effect. Additionally, there are sources which refer to the fairy faith in Brittany, which was still practiced up until at least the early 20th century. "Fairy Faith in Celtic Countries" by Evans-Wentz covers this topic in more detail. The line between "religion" and "folklore" is blurry there, nevertheless, it deserves a mention. If some remnant of this faith still exists, I would love to know about it. lunaverse (talk) 19:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps a link to Celtic polytheism in the article would be useful. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd want to see some references. As I remember it Brittany was settled by the Romano-Celts, so post Christianity. Yes folk religion would persist as it did as an integrated part of the early Church, but its not a distinct religion by that point. I may well be wrong on my time line here, but I would like to see a reference or two. ----Snowded ^TALK 19:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The British settlement was post-Christian, yes, but of course there were already people there, and had been since Neolithic times at the latest. It's just difficult to characterise specific beliefs. But there's certainly no doubt that the pre-Christian peoples were Celts. Paul B (talk) 20:15, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Brittany = French colony

This is not a forum for discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Brittany is not part of France, it is a Nation that has been occupied and colonized by the French for centuries. The fact that it is a region in France is irrelevant, its status is actually not different from the status of Algeria before independence and the Bretons have limited rights (they are under the authority of the Préfets who are nominated by the French government). The breton language is banned from all administration (a person in Brittany cannot even address the administration in his language !) Despite centuries of colonization and oppression, there is still a very strong feeling of a different identity in Brittany, and the desire for independence, for freedom, keeps growing stronger with the years. The situation of Brittany today is comparable to Algeria before independence, or even more to the Irish Republic. The French propaganda should not be considered as neutral and the oppression and the cultural genocide that is still going on in Brittany should be stated as it is, regardless of all nationalistic lobbying that occurs on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.171.203.250 (talk) 22:28, 13 September 2013 (UTC) Right, and this isn't "nationalistic lobbying" then? Paul B (talk) 17:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC) I propose to expell all the illegal Breton immigrants or those known of Breton descent from Normandy right now. For exemple : the mayor of Rouen Yvon Robert, the former president of the Haute-Normandie region Alain Le Vern, the former president of the Basse-Normandie region René Garrec and about 50 000 inhabitants of Le Havre and 40 000 of Rouen, because they have tried or are still trying to turn Normandy into a Breton colony.Nortmannus (talk) 18:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC) That's because it was once part of Greater Brittany, and still truly belongs to the Bretons! Paul B (talk) 18:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments: (1) A fairer comparison than France's relationship to Algeria is that of Austria and Hungary, a Dual Monarchy: recall that under the ancien regime, Breton aristrocrats were classes as Princes étrangers (foreign Princes); it was only the French revolution (paradoxically initiated, in a variety of ways, by Bretons) that deprived Brittany of its legal status as a separate nation. (2) in 1091, during the time of William II of England and of Robert Curthose when he was Duke of Normandy, Rouen's economy and municipal government were dominated by Breton merchants, led by Conan Pilates. The Norman dukes themselves had more Bretons than Norse in their ancestry. (3) "Norman French" was always a minority language even in Normandy, as a dialect of Gallo which in the middle ages was the principal language of Anjou, Maine, eastern Brittany and most of Normandy. (4) I counter-propose that we expel the Frankisch interlopers back to the Main river in Germany and thus restore the good name of Transalpine Gaul, and that we re-establish the pre-Roman Gallic language as the first language of the nation; it, thankfully, was much closer to Brythonic than to Latin. (I'm not serious about the last point, even though it might be an improvement.) Zoetropo (talk) 13:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Broom

no mention of the Broom as the official flower/plant/medicine of Brittany — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.212.175.30 (talk) 14:51, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Ermine

Ermine is also an emblem of the Virgin Mary, for her purity. The Breton sovereign house claimed a descent from the apostle Saint James the Greater, so maybe that's a connection. Zoetropo (talk) 13:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Merge

When was decided to separate Brittany from Brittany (administrative region)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinukin (talk • contribs) 23:17, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't know, but I suggest that "Brittany" should be transformed into a disambiguation article while its content should be transferred to an article called Province of Brittany; "Kingdom of Brittany", "Duchy of Brittany" and "Region of Brittany" could be kept this way.Blaue Max (talk) 07:44, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

A territory on one hand, an institution on the other hand. Like France and French Fifth Republic, Tibet and Tibet Autonomous Region. Having two articles make sense, especially when you have a look at what is published these days. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 08:43, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Brittany (administrative region) changed from a redirect page to Brittany, to its own article which was created in 2005. Is there any evidence of a problem? If so, to whom, and does it need fixing? Daicaregos (talk) 09:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Do you think this is WP:COMMON and WP:PRIMARY? My first five pages of google don't even return something vaguely related to here. Vinukin (talk) 11:07, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Woah, hold up. I took the time and trouble to answer the question posed at the start of this thread. Then asked three questions. Without thanking me for responding to you and providing you with the answer, you ignored each of my questions and and instead asked me some of your own. btw, the link given to WP:PRIMARY is to "Primary, secondary and tertiary sources". I assume you meant to link to the article naming guideline WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. And yes, I do think this is the Primary Topic. Google page hits, while useful, are not the main determinant. A Google book search for Brittany turned up thousands of examples, the vast majority of which relate to the subject of this article. Now, please answer my questions, namely “Is there any evidence of a problem? If so, to whom, and does it need fixing?” Daicaregos (talk) 13:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Cape Breton, Nova Scotia

I think there needs to be some mention of the Celtic influence on the Maritime provinces of Canada. Cape Breton, a large Island of Nova Scotia, is named after the Breton settlers who were the first to arrive from Europe. Nova Scotia itself is translated to New Scotland, and all three provinces, especially Newfoundland, have a very large Irish population and cultural influence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.224.198.102 (talk) 11:39, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Brittany/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Brittany has its own flag and coat of arms, which are both black and white

Last edited at 18:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC). Substituted at 10:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

German article / Link

Why there is not article in the german Wikipedia or link? RIMOLA (talk) 00:03, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

That's because the article doesn't exist.

The only article is about de:Bretagne, the political region or territorial collectivity created in 1956. There is article on DE about the cultural/historical entity. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 07:46, 20 May 2017 (UTC)