Talk:Duchy of Brittany

message: Having just been reading through some Brittany history, I thought I'd voice some concerns about this article. Firstly, its expanded a lot in the last few months, but almost none of this is referenced. Indeed, some of it just seems really odd; there's only one reliable source in the entire article (which confines itself to a single page talking about the 11th century). Secondly, a huge amount of the new material is pre-937, which the article itself argues marks the beginning of the duchy. While some preamble or background is always good, in some cases we've whole sections on pre-Roman history for example, which surely belong in the relevant historical articles on Brittany (there are similar "period" articles covering the earlier zones). Thirdly, the last part of the article lapses into long lists which might better belong as their own list articles linked from here.
What I'd like to propose is a) pruning the lists at the end to form their own list articles where appropriate; b) pruning pre-937 material back and putting any sourced material in the relevant article, summarising briefly; then c) working through with a couple of reliable historical volumes and making sure that we've then got is consistent with the sources. What do others think? Hchc2009 (talk) 19:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good idea. I had noticed some IPs adding information and the lack of sources. I think your proposals are fine. If I have the time, I would be willing to search for and add sources once you have finished pruning a section. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've left a message on the IP editor's talk page as well. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: hi. I am the person who has taken the time to expand the article over the past two months. This is a work in progress. The reason that the article has expanded but appears currently without reference but with extensive lists in the latter part is that we are trying to tie together all the other article related to the subject, and in the process address the discrepancies we find therein. The original source material at this stage remains embedded in the articles that you can link to, for example Anne of Brittany. As time permits we will move the original references from the supporting articles to the central article Duchy of Brittany. We also plan to take parts of the Duchy's article that were expanded to verify history and remove them to a new supporting article (for example, the Roman and Brythonic periods, the role of the Church, etc, the list of the Saints and certainly the work on the House of Penthievre, the last list in the article as it exists currently). This approach takes quite a lot of time and we are trying for a cohesive and historically supportable result. If you could support this approach we would appreciate it. What I can suggest is that if you would like to send me your proposed changes at my email address I will happily catalogue them and move them into the articel as soon as possible. If we depart from this approach then some of the historic work performed in the last two months may be lost or will be expensive to re-create. We hope this approach will be acceptable and enjoyable to all. My email address is lleguyad@aol.com. talk  —Preceding undated comment added 00:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly, welcome to Wikipedia! I'm very glad that you're keen on improving this article. In terms of the process, the wiki uses Talk pages like this for comms; you may want to set up an account to make comms easier still, as it means that you would have a permanent talk page of your own. The main problem with the approach at the moment is that it makes it very hard for other editors to work on the article as well; at the moment, it is impossible for others to see which parts of the article might have sources and which don't, for example. Could I suggest two options? First, would you consider updating the article as it stands with the sources you're using ("Catching up" with that bit of the process?) Alternatively, if you created an account, you could do this work in a User Sandbox, which would mean that you could work at your own pace while allowing others to still work on the article? This would allow you to draw up lists etc. as an editing method, without the impact on the article that is visible to the public. Hchc2009 (talk) 05:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice to read your comments. The Catching Up process is the one I was trying to communicate I would be using from here. And I have set up my account, Breizhtalk, as you will. Please feel free to identify yourself and send more detailed editing or source material suggestions via my email address, above, or here.  Breizhtalk (talk) 21:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

text: I am very pleased there is acknowledgement for the need to source various aspects of this article, and to thoroughly prune the article and fork-off various sub sections onto their own pages.  I can not stress how important that is for a trustworthy, accessable, and readable article. A comment, it is much easier to source the material when you first add it, then it is to go back and catch up later. Especially if there is various sources, [as one would hope]  I welcome you Breizhtalk to wiki but implore you to source material first, when you first add them.  I have a great fondness for Brittany, so will have an interest in the article. ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 11:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done some initial pruning and fork-ing. If this proves stable, I'll then cut/fork the article back to the historical period of the duchy, and the begin to source, using Everard and a couple of other academic authors. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:19, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, would anyone object if we moved the references onto a sfn template or something similar? Hchc2009 (talk) 09:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved the references onto a consistent format; if folks feel a different format is appropriate, shout and I'll convert to the consensus. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

text: I am writing to document the intended goal of the current work around January 15 2013 ...a work  in progress for sure. When the substantial edits were performed in 2012 to shorten the ORIGINS section tremendous jumps in history appeared (at one point before the 2013 additions, over three centuries were lost). Critical information was deleted. The current work is to add back, in a more current form with citations that will be seen as suitable with the hopes of recounting and documenting at least three themes: (1) the role of folklore and legend - see the new subsection in its preliminary form; (2) the organization of the Duchy of Brittany around the major Counts is an evolution from the tribal territories found by Julius Caesar and where that is true and can be supported by suitable citations the tribal history is being restored - the tribes give rise to the various Counts and their various cities and they compete to become Dukes etc etc. ; (3) geography - the region of Armorica evolves into the geographic territory of the Duchy - some of that evolution occurs before 939 and depends on the tribal geography organization and its interaction with the Carolingian era efforts to rule the area - territory that could have been in the Duchy is lost and territory is added that remains in the Duchy - we are at this date mid way in at least sketching these geographic changes in the Origins section - with at least a first round of suitable sources. A fourth them is planned but will be set out before a proposed implementation. 96.224.73.113 (talk) 15:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

text: Hi Maeldan. If you haven't already, it's worth reading through WP:RELIABLE for the sorts of sources to use on the Wikipedia (secondary academic sources being typically used etc.); provided they're supported by cited sources, I'd recommend either making some of the changes above directly, or where you're proposing a different balance of focus, perhaps proposing the changed text and citations here on the talk page. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concerns about a lot of the material in this article... 

message: Over the past weeks Hchc2009 and I have been editing the ORIGINS section of the Article which is my current focus and we have had a continuing, and productive, discussion on Sources of Materials, Citations, the Riskiness of Reliance on Self Published sources (without evidence of some suitable qualification), etc. 
I am going to delete one of the pointer to the webpage by Marek, Miroslav. "Genealogy of the Dukes of Brittany". Genealogy.EU. It is self published and while I have tried, I have found no biographic information on Mr Miroslav, except for a great picture. The deletion is in the interests of moving the body of reference material in this article to authoritative citations. Please discuss if you feel this should be reinstated. 
In the Bibliography section I have been systematically adding a link to a wikipedia page on the bio of the named author, where one exists, after checking for independent verification of their existence and qualifications. Where possible I have also added a link to a source facility for any reader needing to acquire the work cited for any reason (so far most of that has been limited to amazon or google books or another commercial vendor but where a free online version of a work is available - that is if the work falls outside of copyright protection due to age - then that link is provided. Comments invited. Contributions to the Bibliography section to perfect citations to published works requested. 96.224.73.113 (talk) 20:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Note and Discussion on Sources of Material

message: New Footnote Section
We have been editing, and adding, some needed material in the form of Footnotes and now a Footnote section, with the relevant material moved out of the Reference section. (Thanks whomever helped with that format change.) 96.224.73.113 (talk) 15:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal for New Sections

message: [We had written a large part of this expanded section over a year ago.] In about two days from January 16 2013 we are proposing to delete the portion of this subsection after the phrase " Brittany's possessions in Richmond passed indisputably to England when Francis II, Duke of Brittany, surrendered his rights to Henry Tudor, 2nd Earl of Richmond (1456–1509)." The surrender of rights coinciding with the process of personal union of Brittany to France seems the right stopping point. Comments anyone ? 96.224.73.113 (talk) 17:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to check - when you say "we", do you mean "I", or are there several people editing from the same IP address? Hchc2009 (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: "We" means me and whomever contributed to this section before the current round of discussions and edits. Happy to answer as a courtesy to you. We still do not know your background (academic, historian, etc) and it is relevant for everyone's appreciation and understanding of some of your contributions and edits. That info would be helpful to the collaborative effort even if that is all the characteristics you wish to share.96.224.73.113 (talk) 14:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Failing to see an objection we are moving ahead with truncating this subsection as suggested. And will return to it for improvements in the near future. Thanks all. 96.224.73.113 (talk) 14:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheers - I'd been assuming there was a single editor, and that does clear up any confusion. Thanks! Hchc2009 (talk) 16:26, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Subsection Richmondshire

message: A new subsection "Folklore and Legends" has been created within the final section of this article. 
Some of the material concerning the 4th to 7th centuries, including "contentious" sources has been removed from the Origins section and placed in this section. This implements the previous suggestions most editors and contributors have participated in from December 2012 to the current date. 
In one passage the phrase from the original edits to the most recent version of the ORIGINS section contained the phrase "proven to the mythical" - Since that is problematic, the phrase has been replaced by a more supportable description of the cited authors' discussion. 
Proposal for sources in this section: Regarding sources, since this section's purpose is to address the "folklore and legends that remain based in other than historically provable fact" citations from non-authoritative chroniclers, and other non-accepted older sources is consistent with Wikipedia policy, up to but excluding self published data that has no basis in either authoritative or more folkloric sources (I.e, this is not the section to be creating folklore about the Duchy, as there is ample folklore from its own history). Comments invited on this proposed source approach. 96.224.73.113 (talk) 17:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: New Sub Section Folklore and Legends

message: Rather than a continued debate on the validity of keeping folkloric sources in the Origins section (a debate that will continue through the time to come on work on the article, I propose to establish a new section near the end of the article on the subject in the mentioned title. I intend, if this idea moves ahead, to incorporate the material on the Arhurian legends here as well as the short list of pre-Morman rulers of Brittany that apparently find superior support in legend than modern received scholarly work. Proposed time frame for this is within the next two days, unless there is a substantial objection requiring discussion, which I would be happy to do. Comments needed, especially from Hchc229. 96.224.73.113 (talk) 20:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good idea to me. My advice on the section title (bearing in mind the MOS guidance) would be something like "Folklore and popular culture". Hchc2009 (talk) 12:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This change was implemented. The folklore section will be prioritized for work later in the calendar. It contains only the information that was moved out of the ORIGINS section with one or two minor addition. 96.224.73.113 (talk) 15:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: New Subsection under Consideration- tentative title: Folkloric Precedents for the title Duke of Brittany 

message: There was an ending paragraph in the ORIGINS section on these topics that seemed out of place and disjoint. However the topics are very relevant and so an new subsection has been created near the end of the article and some preliminary amplifications, unsourced for now, have been added. This will allow careful treatment of these topics and make the Origins section improved. 96.224.73.113 (talk) 16:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: New Subsection = working title Languages and Economy

message: The section is being revised and rewritten to reflect information provided in the origins section, especially on Dol. The portion of this passage that I had written in Jan 2012 or thereabouts that deals with the period after the end of the duchy has been deleted to bring the article into better focus. 96.224.73.113 (talk) 17:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Subsection on the Holy Roman Catholic Church in Brittany

message: Images have been swapped out to emphasize the emergence of the Breton War of Succession and the House of Montfort. 
The following images were replaced
Will gladly discuss people's preferences for further adjustments or reversions to the image swap. 96.224.73.113 (talk) 04:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: 14th Century

message: Some of the dating as to the origins/end of the Duchy were inconsistent. The dates have been brought into regularity and footnote explanations provided as to the support for the dates displayed. The text and the infobox are now consistent (they were not before this edit). 96.224.73.113 (talk) 16:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Editing of Lead in to Article and Info Box

message: Please do not continue to delete material added without a thorough discussion. 
In a most recent comment explaining a deletion the comment is made that the section becomes too long. However the material was added because the early history of the Brittany region does not jump simply from "the Roman Empire" to "Charlemagne." It is the nature of the transition that is historically relevant both to the population of the region and the subsequent explanations of emigration from the British Isles. The substance is a necessity. Please restore the information that you removed.  96.224.73.113 (talk) 20:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I can only see Stenton there. Stenton's work dates from 1943, and while they were a leading historian at the time, as the Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain#Historiology article itself notes, interpretations have changed since the 1940s. (Incidentally, I can't see the cited fact on Stenton p.30. Pg 31, though, gives some useful insights into the probems of interpretating primary sources though). Have a look at, for example, Robin Fleming's "Britain After Rome", one of the staple current texts, chapters 2 and 3 for a current, mainstream interpretation of this issue.Hchc2009 (talk) 07:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

text: No-one, as far as I can see, is "acting... against" Conan or Riothamus. Both sets of material require reliable secondary sources, however, including for claims such as Conan "emerges as Brittany's first ruler" and "Riothamus represents a critical precedent for the future Dukes of Brittany in coalescing the region's military strength and striking out against Euric of the neighboring Visigoths". A 6th century Roman writer is not a reliable secondary source for these claims, as explained below. Indeed, how a 6th century writer could be commenting on the future actions of the Dukes of Brittany at all is unclear. The duty is on you, as the editor inserting the material, to provide these sources. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

text: The relevance of the points to the formation of Brittany does need to be referenced, and many of those sentences aren't adequately referenced below. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

text: Worth taking a look at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. For any article on the medieval period, reliable academic sources are essential. Occasionally popular histories are useful, but typically an editor will need the specialists. For earlier medieval periods, and relatively niche topics such as the Duchy, the field of authoritative historians narrows slightly further; there just aren't that many specialist medieval historians around the world on the Duchy of the 10th century, for example! This can make some judgements fairly easy (gauging the relevance of the opinion of a non-specialist writer to a French medieval specialist, for example). As a rule of thumb, more recent academic commentaries will carry more weight than older ones (as in any field), but care needs to be taken in applying that judgement. If an article is considering the early medieval period, for example, an academic in 2013 will have a wealth of archaeological information that was simply unavailable to a mid-20th century academic, who would have had to rely much more heavily on chroniclers; in turn, that 20th century academic had statistical records unavailable to his 19th century predecessors, and so on. In some fields (for example in this instance, analysis of Arthurian myths) there are more divergent opinions in the field than in some other areas, and again this needs to be factored in. Some academics are known as authorities on particular themes - to take an instance from this article's bibliography, Jean Delumeau has a strong reputation in medieval religious intellectual history, for example; if one was looking at theories of power in medieval France, though, someone like Martin Aurell might be a more reliable source. A wiki article needs to reflect the range of academic views, while still reflecting the best sources available, and avoiding undue weight or original research. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:12, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

text: I have asked before and I will ask again to Hchc2009: some of your decisions needed to be supported by a statement of credentials - yours. We have now benefitted in the TALKS page from your statements of preference ( for example, more recently as immediately above Delumeau contrasted to Aurell). But we need to avoid immediately acting on replacing a reputable source with another reputable source in the case where it is only a statement of preference, one editor/contributor over another. Please provide credentials. That said, suggestions are welcome, we are sure, from everyone's perspective. 96.224.73.113 (talk) 21:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Let us all be careful and respectful.....Wikipedia has not designated any single contributor, certainly for this article and subject, as an contributor/expert or as more of an expert than another contributor/editor. We are still waiting for some material that was deleted and then will take that restored information with parts of the modern ORIGINS article - today's date 13 Jan 2013 - into a new Folklore section. But we do need the material restored for efficiency's sake. 96.224.73.113 (talk) 21:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I can only really refer you again to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, and the need for material being added to an article to be supported by reliable sources and references, with the onus being on the editor making the addition to provide the source. My advice below on how and why to avoid self-published sources etc. probably stands. If you're after some guidance on good bibliographic material for the Duchy, though, I'd certainly recommend the reading lists and commentary in Patrick Galliou and Professor Michael Jones's bibliography in "the Bretons" (esp. pp.288-289; Galliou taught at Brest and Rennes, Jones at Nottingham, both with specialisms in Brittany) or Elizabeth Hallam and Judith Everard's bibliography in "Capetian France" (esp. p.436 in the 2nd edition; both are medieval French specialists, at London and Cambridge respectively, if memory serves).   Hchc2009 (talk) 22:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

text:  I can join Hchc here and point out that Wikipedia policies require secondary sources ... which medieval chroniclers or self-published websites such as Early British Kingdoms or Medieval Lands are very clearly not. Also - historical articles are written in the past tense, which I've done some copyediting to make it consistent. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes the policy is clear. And thank you for reverting to the past tense, which I had been using. I am not sure were the changes of tense had come from. Oops forgot to sign. Doing that today 96.224.73.113 (talk) 15:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The policy on sources was not the topic of the discussion. The issue is rather entering into a debate about the superiority of one recognized source over another, without stating or displaying ones credentials to do so. For example, the "most recent to publish" is an extremely weak criteria. Also the corpus of the article is not the location to display or provide a debate or compare contrast analysis between various writers. See today's edits of the ORIGINS section concerning the debate on explanations for the migration. The lengthy debate section has been summarized in one sentence and the actual debate has been moved to the Footnote/Reference section of the article. This is consistent with academic practices as well as Wikipedia practices as evidenced by many other articles that are rated higher than the current state of this article. 
This said, retaining some reference to widely read and much older sources is also acceptable within Wikipedia policy....right along side the more modern, and hopefully more factual sources, with an appropriate qualification or bridge as is needed. 96.224.73.113 (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

text: NB: when using the sfn templates, remember to add in the year of the work, else you'll find the automatic linking doesn't work (as in Booton). You'll also need to remember to add the page number (as in Chesnel or The Columbia Encyclopedia), else it will be hard for anyone to find the citation concerned. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:06, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Noted. Will need time to go back and add the missing info. Will do. 96.224.73.113 (talk) 00:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing to the ORIGINS section of the article circa January 2013

message: Contentin Peninsula
Here is the text of the note that was inserted.  
Interesting point to be debate, within or outside of Chesnel, but that is not the point I was trying to make. To address the remark I have: (1) simplified in order to focus the reader on the geographic evolution of the tribal lands that did, or in this case, could have been but did not become, part of the Duchy's territory, and (2) I deleted the interesting info about the Carolingian evolution of titles, which belongs more in a history of Normandy and maybe Mt St Michel.The tag is deleted. 96.224.73.113 (talk) 21:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion of Tribal History within the Origins section

message: At end of article this now has a tag for lack of references.  I propose to reduce this list to the principal titles, and place those in the SEE ALSO section with links to the supporting articles. The individual articles on the Dukes and Duchesses now are also more systematically capturing their subordinate regnal titles for those wishing the track the history of those titles (that represents some significant contribution and editing work on my part and that of many others in Jan - Febr 2013. The way I built the list appearing in this duchy article,  starting Winter of 2011-2012, was to list the various Count and Viscounts as the histories I read presented them and notes here their titles and interesting/relevant information. The detailed reference work on each title, if it exists has been done, also in part by me as well as many others in the supporting articles. If we can obtain agreement on this major edit I will try to execute it during the week of Febr 24 2013, moving info from the list here into the supporting article if it has already not been moved into that article. Feedback please ! Breizhtalk (talk) 16:48, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If you haven't already, its worth reading through WP:ALSO and the guidance on not repeating links which appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:59, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: PROPOSALS List of Vassals

message: The continual use of the Mont-Saint-Michel image by the Bretons (tourist information and so on..) is quite boring. This rock with a benedictine abbey does not have anything to do with the religious history of Britanny that has something typically Celtic. Mont-Saint Michel always depended religiously on the Frankish church without exception. The extension of the Benedictine order has something to do with the kings of the Franks and then with the dukes of Normandy, nothing to do with the dukes of Britanny. The religious community of Mont-Saint-Michel was founded by monks from Normandy (Seine Valley, Evreux) and Mont-Saint-Michel always remained included in the bishopric of Avranches, depending on the archbishopric of Rouen. I supressed the image of the Mont-Saint-Michel that support this usual confusion, due to Breton ignorance, jealousy or insincerety.Nortmannus (talk) 20:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, well, well, where shall I start? The histories that this article refers to and the histories that the related separate articles refer to on the individual Dukes of Brittany lay out the "breton" affiliation of Mont St Michel to Brittany. The original lands were granted by breton, not norman, nobles. The original monastery lies archaeologically below the current Norman Gothic style monastery you see to the current day. This area and to the east and north the Avranchin and Contentin peninsula fell back and forth in the early history of Brittany as sometimes clearly breton, sometimes clearly norman (of course after Rollo gained contol) and frequently better understood to be part of the demarked area known as the Breton March or the breton portion of the March of Neustria. But the imperative for breton history of including Mont St Michel is based in the early times of the Duchy of Brittany on two historical facts: (1) at least one Breton Duke is buried in the monastery (would a Duke plan his burial in a monastery of a rival?) and (2) in the dual marriage ceremonies that were meant to bind the Breton Ducal and Norman Ducal families at least one of the marriages (and possibly both) occurred at Mont St Michel. See the appropriate section of the Duchy of Brittany section on this history, unless it has been suppressed already. The image of Mont St Michel was originally located in this article on the DUchy to coincide with the early period in the Duchy where the Mont figured prominently. Let's see, "...Breton ignorance, jealousy or insincerety....." NO, I do not see any indication of this in the attempts to include the Mont in this particular history in an historically correct way. I would say that your comment suggests something more about you are an editor than about any of the number of people who collaborated within the better spirit of wikidepedia for an enjoyable, informative and historically correct article. With this sort of out of place comment I can only assume that .... you have not one ounce of Breton Blood, mate. Breizhtalk (talk) 04:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: A breton duke can be buried here, it does not matter and it is absolutly a minor event. Mont Saint-Michel was always located in Avranchin, that was the terroritory of the Gaulish Abrincates tribe, that was itself a minor people probably related or clients of the Unelli of the Cotentin peninsula. The Roman principality of Ludunensis II was based on these associations of tribes and their territories and corresponded about to what is now Normandy (Haute and Basse) and the different bishoprics were created using this ancient territorial frame, that is to say Avranches with the Mont. The story of the Mont is associated with the city of Avranches and its bishop Aubert. Avranches always depended on the metropolitan bishop of Rouen, never on Tours like Britanny, and then of the archbishop of Rouen, never on the bishop of Dol. During the Viking invasions, the king of the Franks, unable to defend the borders of his kingdom, gave the Cotentin and probably the Avranchin (but it is mentioned nowhere) to the duke of Britanny and this short Breton period lasted for only 70 years, that's the only time it was owned by the Bretons and certainly not "sometimes" clearly breton. During this period the Breton domination was purely theoretical and the Breton never settled in the Avranchin. Some Breton specialists looked for Breton toponyms in Normandy and proposed dubious explanations, that are clearly rejected by the modern specialists. The symbol of Mont is religious, before being political, and, is Benedictine and the Benedictine order, after having been encouraged by the Frankish kings to limit the influence of the Celtic monks in Neustrie, accompanied the later development of the Norman duchy and was dominated by the Norman dukes who controlled it, not of the Breton one. There are facts. "The original monastery lies archaeologically below the current Norman Gothic style monastery you see to the current day" : not true, the abbey church keeps a significant Romanesque (Norman) portion. Sure, there are remains (an unique underground chapel : Notre-Dame-sous-Terre Xth century) of the Pre-Romanesque (Norman) monastery and the style is similar to the style of the caroligian churches at that time. The Pre-Norman monastery was founded by Neustrian monks too, not Breton. Charlemagne chose Saint-Michel as a protector of his empire in 800, because of the Mont and Saint-Michel was never the patron saint of Britanny. The stone of Mont is from Normandy. The facts are quite clear. There is absolutly no connection between the Mont and Britanny except a vague Breton duke that was impressed by the place and wanted to be buried here and wanted to prepare a future annexion of it. This attitude never changed until now, because Britanny continues to use the image of the Mont for touristic purposes (there are not enough sites in Britanny ?) and tries to "anschluss" Lower-Normandy in collusion with some Lower-Normandy corrupted politicians and its prefet de Region who is a Breton and the Prefet de Region Haute-Normandie who agrees because he is Breton too. I believe all the articles about the Mont are printed with the Breton ideology with the selection of dubious sources to justify what cannot be justified.Nortmannus (talk) 20:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is about the Duchy of Brittany focused principally on its emergence as a Duchy post a period when it was a Kingdom or a combination of early kingdoms. In the early period prior to the conquest of western normandy by Rollo and his successors Mont St Michel was both within Brittany and the primary demarcating or boundary marker between the two Duchies. That a Breton Duke chose to be buried there is both not minor and of historical consequence because, as I recall the history, he had endowed the monastery and chose to be buried in grounds he had enabled. Later in the early history of the duchy as recounted in this article the Mont is selected as the place of marriage between a breton duke and the daughter of a norman duke, a critical choice of place in both the history of Normandy and Brittany (in its Duchy phase). WIkipedia is meant to be collaborative. Without this spirit, extensive and difficult article projects like this collapse. Within that better spirit on matters of history the writer and the editors need as best as possible to be objective even if modern issues such as political movements of their day invade their thinking. Nortmannus is unable to act in a detached, objective, nonpolitical manner and in the earlier set of comments has raised pejorative commentary about the breton culture or people or whatever that have no place in this attempted project. The Mont St Michel image with an appropriate caption can be all means be placed back in the article and I thought its location near relevant events was appropriate. My request of Nortmannus is if you cannot adopt the collaborative and polite posture needed to continue looking at this page then perhaps it would be more comfortable for you neither to visit it nor to participate in further editing. Breizhtalk (talk) 15:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You are certainly not the one who can judge me, because you do not know me. Who are you exactly ? The Breton attitude towards the Mont-Saint-Michel and the use of its image in articles about Britanny has a pure ideologic background that prints many article of WP in French, in English and in German. De nombreux idéologues bretons sévissant sur WP cherchent à instiller leur idéologie fumeuse panceltique dans les pages de WP en déformant les faits historiques et en grossissant exagérément les faits qui les arrangent. You can check for exemple a typical discussion lead by these fanatics about "nothing important" to understand this attitude http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion:Bouée_(Loire-Atlantique). Pejorative commentary about the breton culture or people, certainly not ! I point only these ideologists. My attitude in this particular case just reflects the one of some Breton contributors, who try to use WP as a tribune for their nationalist ideology of a big Celtic Brittany. This does not have anything to do with a detached, objective, nonpolitical and collaborative attitude. Concerning the Mont-Saint-Michel, when you use its picture in an article about the duchy of Britanny you use it as a political symbol, without understanding that the Mont is first of all a religious symbol, that cannot be simply used this way without further information. Mont-Saint-Michel is much more important than you believe and not a simple rock with a castle at the border.Nortmannus (talk) 19:17, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite surprising : rather than using a picture of Mont-Saint-Michel, nobody thought to add a picture of the Château des ducs de Bretagne or other important fortified cities and castles on the Breton border like Fougères... Nortmannus (talk) 09:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Good points. I favor including Mont-Saint-Michel because the original donation came from Duke Conan who is buried there, even though it was finally lost in battle to the Duke of Normandy. Other locations in western Normandy require a similar discussion, especially the peninsula to Cherbourg. Quite right, Fougeres belongs in the article considering the Dukes' attitudes towards the French crown, and despite their losses to it, as in the case of their relations with the Dukes of Normandy and Mont-Saint-Michel. And I agree again with the suggestion concerning the Chateau des ducs de Bretagne. All three should be included. There are several other fortifications that should be included due to the Dukes' military histories, for example, something about Brest. Perhaps there can be a discussion about that. I've opened a section below to this end. And perhaps time will permit editing to this effect, after a brief spell to see comments from others. That way these exchanges on politics or ideology can give way to some progress, hopefully.I see this dialogue has been silent for some time. Let's move on maybe and add some new and different players while Nortmannus and Breizhtalk consider participating. 96.224.64.101 (talk) 04:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mont-Saint-Michel 

message: This section is to discuss which fortifications should be pictured in the article. In mu opinion, the fortifications need not be in modern Bretagne and could have been lost to other rulers before the end of the Duchy as long as they were controlled at a time by the Duke and his/her forces and figure prominently in the history of the Duchy. From the discussion above, the Mont St Michel, the Chateau des ducs de Bretagne, and Fougeres in my opinion need all to be included. Comments, discussion, suggestions, please. 96.224.64.101 (talk) 04:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Fortifications of the Dukes of Bretagne