Talk:Bretons

message: The Bretons shared a culture and language very similar with the people of Britain at the time of the Anglo-Saxon advance into that island.  The Bretons are not primarily descended from the few people who migrated across to Brittany.  There was no great migration.  As for the idea that the people came from Cornwall, that is a laugh.  Those that did migrate to Brittany would have come from all over south western Britain. Enzedbrit 04:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Descent

message: We can certainly debate whose photos would be best for this article. A lot of other articles on ethnic groups are illustrated with famous members of those groups, so I thought why not. I picked René Laennec, Jacques Cartier, and Anne de Bretagne to give some regional, linguistic, professional, and gender variety:
# Laennec – a scientist, male, a (second-language) Breton-speaker born in Quimper
# Cartier – a sailor, male, a Malouin (an important region because of its distinctive character)
# Anne – a stateswoman, female, born in Nantes.
As for the ethnic identity of these people – okay, Anne spent most of her life incarnating in her own person the autonomy of the Duchy of Brittany. Laennec, well he's from Quimper and at least cared enough about lower Brittany to learn the language and use it. And Cartier is one of the most illustrious representatives of Malouins as a sub-group of Bretons (traditionally known for their maritime orientation). Anne, by the way, is maybe the most famous Breton in history, alongside Bertrand du Guesclin (but none of our photos of the latter look very good). QuartierLatin1968  23:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Photos

message: The image :Image:Ile-Longue-3.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --23:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:Ile-Longue-3.jpg

message: What do the Bretons call themselves in their own language? 76.119.245.141 (talk) 21:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Breizhiz /ˈbreizi/ or Bretoned /breˈtɔ̃net/. The singular is Breizhad /ˈbreizat/ or Breton /ˈbretɔ̃n/. Mind you, for the majority, "their own language" is French: Bretons /bʀəˈtɔ̃/. Q·L·1968 ☿ 16:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: What do the Bretons call themselves in their own language?

message: The Bretons are, first and foremost, a linguistic minority in France, numbering about a quarter million people.
The fanciful number of "6 to 7 million" is pulled out of thin air and appears to include anyone with a vague feeling of "Breton roots" in some corner of the family a few generations back. --dab (𒁳) 09:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to disagree, although admittedly 7 million does seem too high and needs to be sourced. But the Bretons are those who consider themselves Breton, and are considered by other Bretons as such. That includes everybody with strong roots in Brittany, whether bretonnant or gallaisant or (nowadays) neither. The population of Brittany is more than 4 million people, and while there are many non-Bretons living in Brittany, there legitimately are many Bretons outside of Brittany. Shall we limit the word 'Irish' to those who can speak Irish, or 'Scottish' to those who speak Gaelic, or 'Welsh' to those who speak Welsh? Perhaps the population figure should be broken down into several figures – an estimated number of Breton speakers, the population of Brittany, and some estimation of the size of the Breton diaspora? Q·L·1968 ☿ 15:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Numbers and definition

message: I've added some tags to the article, and deleted a mass of irrelevant, unreferenced and highly POV text added by blocked User:Catterick.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irrelevant / POV text 

message: As you can see I have done a major overhaul of the article. It was quite bad before and I think some bits has been directly translated from French judging by a few of the punctuations marks and the word order etc. 
*I have expanded the article as much as I can using referenced wikipedia material. I have cut down the material to the basics and tried to find references where there were none. 
*There are a lot of red links, I am working on them, checking the spellings in French and Breton respectively. 
*I have tried to broaden out the sections and I took the bold step of scrapping the Breton history text that was there before, it was full of inacuracies and vague non-refences. 
*I have quite a lot of paper sources on Brittany and Breton but most of it's in French and some in Breton, so it might be a problem to cite- please advise.
As usual comments and suggestions welcome!
Kenavo!!!!Brythonek (talk) 19:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Major overhaul of article

message: "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) 22:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Hogdys?

message: The issue of inclusion of English as a related ehtnic group to Bretons has been raised again by Brough87 whose attempts to include the English have been reverted by a number of editors including myself only to be reverted ourselves by Brough87. I have asked Brough87 to cite reliable sources for his contention that the English as a whole are a related ethnic group to the Bretons as per the consensus reached in the discussion above. The only related ethnic group I can see are the people of Devon (Devonians) who along with the Cornish are responsible for the Breton county names and have sought a regional Celtic identity to some extent. Are there English school textbooks for example that state that the English are Celtic or do they still conform to the Germanist school ?Jembana (talk) 00:12, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Tell me, what is your justification for claiming that the Cornish, Manx, Scottish, Welsh, Irish and even the French and Galicians are related and yet the English are not. The English do not exist in some bubble outside of these groups (if you could call the Cornish a seperate group anyway). The fact of the matter is this, if these groups are inter-related to the extent that you claim, can you explain why the English are excluded in this? Brough87 (talk) 08:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia goes by reliable sources (RS), not one's personal opinion or deductions. Include it if you can find a RS, otherwise leave it out. Jim1138 (talk) 08:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It's surely not in dispute that Breton culture derives from the Welsh and Cornish migrations - see History of Brittany#Early Middle Ages. If Brough87's arguments have any validity at all, it is surely that genetically - rather than culturally or in terms of language - much of the English population is descended from the pre-Saxon inhabitants of the islands, who are genetically the same as (or closely related to) the Welsh, Bretons, Cornish, etc.  That is, they are British people who adopted Anglo-Saxon culture, rather than genetically Anglo-Saxon. On that basis, the Breton people are also largely descended from the pre-Romance populations of what is now France.  However, we are guided by sources, and most sources use terms like "ethnic group" primarily on the grounds of culture, language and shared identity rather than genetics. Equally, I don't see any reliably sourced basis at all for adding "Devonians".   Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:54, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The classification of the English has become an incredibly controversial issue due to the rise of nationalism in the "Celtic Nations". Editors on Wikipedia who have an interest in this subject do on occasion make edits that border on WP:NOTHERE. A number of sources that I have seen on this subject refer back to the classifications used by the Celtic League; an organisation that despite my attempts at contacting them, are yet to give an explanation on how on they determine that one nation is "celtic" and another is not. In this regard I think it should be determined by community consensus. I must there pose the questions to those on the opposite side of this discussion: How do you determine what makes a nation "Celtic"? For if it is solely through language and culture, can we assume that prior to Henry Jenner's revival in the late 1800s to the early 1900s, Cornwall was not a "Celtic Nation"? Brough87 (talk) 09:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not relevant.  The onus is on you, Brough87, to find reliable sources that state that, in terms of the definitions generally used on this site for "ethnic groups", the English people are related to the Breton people. You haven't done that.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it is relevant, there must be clear guidline in which they determine how these groups are related. If the community accepts that the English are related to the same groups in which the Breton's got their culture, then by extension the English and the Bretons are two related groups. Brough87 (talk) 09:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If you'd like to propose that the whole categorisation of ethnic groups in infoboxes should be abandoned, I'd support you.  But, until that happens, we stick to what sources say.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Brough87 is now proposing that the the whole categorisation of ethnic groups in infoboxes should be abandoned. I note that the German people page has a similar infobox where English people are included for instance.Jembana (talk) 23:48, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Jembana as I have said, until such a point in which this matter is decided, the inclusion of a "related ethnic group" should not be included. Now as I have said already, the Galician people does not include the Scots, Welsh, Irish, Breton or Manx people as related ethnic groups. However, the Scots, Welsh, Irish and Manx people pages on wiki do include English people as a related ethnic group. I recommend that you continue this discussion at the correct place (at the bottom of this page). Brough87 (talk) 23:57, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't try to cover over what you said by changing tack. You are changing your arguments at our whim. You reverted my edit supplying reliable sources on the basis that the whole issue of including a related ethnic groups section is yet to be decided thus taking up Ghmyrtle suggestion. He said he would support you on this so I have flagged this topic on his talk page and on the Germans page since that page includes the English as a related ethnic group both specifically and also as a Germanic people and because that page will be affected by any decision made on whether related ethnic groups sections should remain on pages relating to ethnic groups.Jembana (talk) 00:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Jembana I have not changed my position at all. At 09:58 (UTC) on the 16th October 2013, I removed the "related ethnic group" section infobox for this discussion to take place properly. The German people page will not be affected by this discussion. As I have said to you at least four times: the Scottish people page, the Irish people page, the Welsh people page, the Manx people page and the Cornish people page describe the English as a related ethnic group. Furthermore, the Galician people page does not list the Scots, Welsh, Irish, Manx, Cornish or Breton as related ethnic groups. The English people page itself does not even have a section of the infobox dedicated to "related ethnic groups". Do you accept this? Brough87 (talk) 00:35, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Brough87 Point taken about the Galician people's page - it is a more tenuous relationship these days but being revived (having been renewed many times in history already) so we can leave them out. I accept what you are saying about the inclusion of the English on the other Celtic peoples's pages so I will support that if you include a reliable source. Just to be clear we are including the Cornish, Welsh, Manx, Scots and Irish (which together with the Bretons make up the traditionally accepted Celtic peoples by all genuine Celtic organisations as a core) reliably sourced by the 3 other citations I supplied along with the English sourced by your own citation. Do we have aggreement ?Jembana (talk) 01:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Jembana I am trying to find out how you (and these organisations you mention) determine what a "Celtic Nation" even is. How do you determine that one Nation is "Celtic" and another one isn't? I have contacted a number of the organisations related to this discussion in recent days, and while they have been prompt in asserting that Brittany, Scotland, Ireland, Wales, Cornwall and the Isle of Man are Celtic, they seem to be less interested in explaining how. This is an important part of the discussion and must be settled Brough87 (talk) 10:58, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly, it is not up to me, the definition is given in the 3 sources I cited (actually only Karl's source is needed) but I can summarize the definition of Celtic for you. This definition is well known on the Wikipedia. I cannot explain why the Celtic organisations you claim to have contacted have not just given you the definition - that is part of YOUR investigation for the ENGLISH. Secondly, before I write the definition down here and discuss how it applies to the various ethnic groups including the English, are you intending to apply any decision here to the other ethnic group we listed ? If so, we should widen the forum of this discussion to be inclusive. You also have not answered my question: do we have an agreement ? I will wait for a reply before continuing.Jembana (talk) 23:21, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Once we have a definition, it should be put towards the community Brough87 (talk) 10:08, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

text: The definition has already been accepted by the community after much debate on the Modern Celts and Celts pages.Jembana (talk) 23:34, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the wider issue is also about the fact that "related" can mean all sorts of things and about why we should privilege the focus provided by "Celtic" studies and activism, whether academic or not. We could easily end up, for example, with the assertion that Scots and Bretons are related while Scots and English are not. Regardless of one's politics – and regardless of whether we are talking about culture, genes or some broad mix of those two and all sorts of other things as well – that's pretty untenable from any modern perspective. N-HH talk/edits 10:39, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The Germans page seems to have a "Germanic" studies focus in its related ethnic groups section that has been so privileged as you say and I could do the same for at least some other major ethnic groups, why are the Celts especially to be treated differently to those other major ethnic groups ?Jembana (talk) 22:13, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: And where did I say anything about the Germans page or offer approval for how things are done there? In fact of course, more generally, I've argued for removing these categories. And as it happens the Germans page includes the "French" as a related people. AFAIK they are not usually classified as Germanic, but the relationship is obvious; if anything, the Germans page as currently constituted provides an example of where we are more inclusive in this category. N-HH talk/edits 08:21, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

text: You appear to be asking Brough87 to raise this issue again on a wider forum. The whole issue of related ethnic group infobox sections has been discussed to death before as Ghmyrtle says on his talk page (see the link to it there). It is now moribund and so we have the status quo we have now with Germans, French, Celtic peoples (except only for Bretons due to Brough87's reverting of my reliably sourced list). Either one of you please either continue the wider discussion on the wider forum he has suggested or let me restore the page so it is consistent with those for Germans, French and the other Celtic ethnic groups. The discussion on this and the definition of Celtic ethnicity have already been done to death on the Modern Celts and Celts pages. If you want to reopen those discussion go ahead also on the wider forums of those 2 pages but in the meantime we should restore the existing consensus after all you had your opportunity then to contribute and it appears either chose not to contribute of were unaware of those discussion. So, gentlemen, what's it to be ? Please tell me.Jembana (talk) 23:53, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I do think the infobox category in question needs wider discussion, and in my view probably removal, since there's no clarity or consistency and is never likely to be (and btw discussions on WP are never "moribund" and conclusions never set in stone – consensus and agreement can always change). However, there was also a more focused point in my comment, as to: "why we should privilege the focus provided by 'Celtic' studies and activism". For some unaccountable reason, although your contribution history and user page could be said to offer some clues, you have not addressed that point yet continue to blithely take it as assumed. The point is not simply about how "Celtic" or not certain groups are, although that is an issue in part, but whether purported "Celticity" is the sole basis for establishing relatedness in the first place. N-HH talk/edits 08:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Jembana, the topic of "what makes a Celt" has never been answered; not on Celts(Modern) or the Celts page, nor on their respective talk pages. Brough87 (talk) 23:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yes it has. I need say no more. The evidence is on Modern Celts and Celts pages for all to read and has been for a long time.Jembana (talk) 02:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I'll give you a hint, look in the "Definitions" section and lede respectively in those 2 articles.Jembana (talk) 02:46, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Jembana, that "definition" (if you can truely call it that) would mean the English are celtic Brough87 (talk) 13:24, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Brough87, please point out what parts of the definition apply to the English then we can make headway in resolving this to our satisfaction.Jembana (talk) 22:16, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

text: OK, thanks then I will leave it to you and Brough87 to discuss and come to a consenus. Over to you two to work it out between you.Jembana (talk) 21:37, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, Brough and I seem to broadly (if not entirely) agree on most things here. A third editor has also expressed some support for the specific point about removing the category entry from the infobox on this page, which has now been done. You're the one disputing various aspects with everyone and avoiding questions, eg as to why we should privilege "Celtic" connections over any others that pertain between different people. Anyway, it's moot for now, given that the section is currently empty. N-HH talk/edits 08:21, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

text: Reliable sources have been supplied. You had no justification to delete the section that has been in this article a long period of time.Jembana (talk) 23:28, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

text: You posted a talk section on this topic on Ghmyrtle talk page and have not replied to my reply there so this discussion is not finished yet and yet you preemptively engage in edit warring again by removing the whole related peoples section. I am restoring the related peoples section with those related ethnic groups as outlined in a peer-reviewed academic source that I will attach to the restored section.Jembana (talk) 23:51, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

text: However, it is good to see that you have agreed with the Wikipedia policy requiring the provision of reliable sources. Note that provision of non-reliable sources will be challenged.Jembana (talk) 00:08, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see where in the source now cited the relationship is asserted. More generally, I agree about the unsatisfactory nature of treating the modern people of northwest Europe as if they live in discrete "Celtic" and "Anglo-Saxon" bubbles as well as with the impossible vagueness of defining "related ethnic groups" in most cases. Linked by what: historical – and often rarely manifested – culture and language? Modern political and cultural links? Genetic history? And how closely related? Ultimately we're all related after all. Sure we can all pick sources that might flag up and be used to justify the specific point we might wish to make – although, as noted, this hasn't even been done here yet – but I'm very wary of relying on activist-slanted analysis and presumptions. N-HH talk/edits 09:07, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

text: Considering that this whole issue of "related ethnic groups" is contentious anyway, why do you care? Ethnicity is based on how you see yourself.  English people have the same ancestors overall as anyone else in Britain and Ireland.  "related ethnic groups" - a pathetic classification.  The reason why you don't find reliable sources for this category is because it's all make believe!!!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.17.184.175 (talk) 12:55, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: English people

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Bretons. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080827175242/http://malikzidi.ifrance.com/ to http://malikzidi.ifrance.com/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090509092940/http://allanv.microopen.org:80/ to http://allanv.microopen.org/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060712111135/http://www.francenet.fr:80/~perrot/breizh/dicoen.html to http://www.francenet.fr/~perrot/breizh/dicoen.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090418085455/http://antourtan.org:80/radio_fr.html to http://www.antourtan.org/radio_fr.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090327053620/http://www.ramsisle.com:80/celtic/webradioblog/?p=6 to http://www.ramsisle.com/celtic/webradioblog/?p=6
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090629054017/http://www.breman.org/ to http://www.breman.org/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:45, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Bretons were just as likely to have left from what is modern day Sussex, Surrey, Kent and Hampshire, as they were from Devon or Cornwall.  Worth mentioning, that as Saxon shore forts fell, Bretons/Britons fled west, or to Brittany.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.224.32.138 (talk) 15:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bretons - origins 

message: Surely the number of Canadians of Breton descent is much greater than that - Brittany was a major source of emigrants to New France. 2602:306:CFEA:170:2CBA:9DCE:40B7:2E26 (talk) 01:21, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  14,000 in Canada? 

message: — Assignment last updated by MLB0121 (talk) 21:18, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Digital Public History

message: I've reverted the addition of this article to :Category:Indigenous peoples of Europe as that categorisation wasn't supported by a reliable source in the article, which doesn't mention anything about the Bretons being considered an indigenous people. If there are reliable sources supporting the categorisation, they can be discussed here. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:24, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a bit confused as to what relevance a comparison in the level of disadvantage/vulnerability has to a discussion on whether it's legitimate to refer to the Bretons as indigenous. As we covered in our back and forth, the word 'indigenous' "...is derived from the Latin word indigena, meaning sprung from the land, native""indigene, adj. and n." OED Online. Oxford University Press, September 2016. Web. 22 November 2016., therefore how are you (seemingly) coming to the conclusion that what makes a group indigenous is dependent upon whether they face some form of oppression or societal disadvantage? Alssa1 (talk) 15:31, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not. The appropriate standard, per WP:V, is whether reliable sources describe them as an indigenous group. What are your sources that state that they are? Cordless Larry (talk) 15:50, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The reliable sources say that Bretons are native to Brittany, and the article you referred to previously says that indigenous is synonymous with native. Alssa1 (talk) 17:50, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You still haven't provided a source (and it needs to describe Bretons as an indigenous people). Cordless Larry (talk) 17:55, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

text: Searching for further sources, I found this useful explainer of Europe's indigenous peoples. Note that Bretons aren't included. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:33, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Well there's this, where Bretons are listed by the University of Northern Kentucky in The Survival of Indigenous Peoples as such. There's this, where Bretons are listed in their World Directory of Minorities and Indigenous Peoples - France : Bretons. In addition to this, I remind you that indigenous and native are synonyms of one another. Your own source states "...there is no universally agreed definition of what it means to be indigenous". Alssa1 (talk) 12:18, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The second source covers minorities as well as indigenous peoples, and doesn't make clear which Bretons are included as, so that leaves us one source describing them as such (and several saying they're not an indigenous people). Native might be a synonym for indigenous in a broader sense (not that the native description is sourced), but indigenous peoples has a more specific meaning. Even if there's not a single, authoritative definition, those definitions that exist tend to include that the group has been subject to colonisation. For example, the ILO defines them as "peoples in independent countries who are regarded as indigenous on account of their descent from the populations which inhabited the country, or a geographical region to which the country belongs, at the time of conquest or colonisation or the establishment of present state boundaries and who, irrespective of their legal status, retain some or all of their own social, economic, cultural and political institutions". As Grote notes, the term isn't much used to describe minority groups in Europe, except on the northern and eastern fringes (e.g. the Sámi). Cordless Larry (talk) 13:25, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indigenous peoples categorisation