Talk:Bretons

Celtic Bretons

The use of Celtic as an ethnic term is incorrect. Celtic pertains to language and family. The people living in Britain at the end of the Roman conquest were referred to as Romano-British due to 400 years of Roman influence on the British life, language and culture. Due to this, even less so the people of the time could be referred to as Celts. Enzedbrit 04:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Despite having incorporated some latin words, the Romano-British Brythonic was still a celtic language and so technically they were still Celts.--81.158.16.192 (talk) 13:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

They were, they are not today, for the most part. The ones who still speak Breton are Celtic, the rest are French people calling themselves Bretons.

These are different things, regardless of what they choose to believe or how they wish to be identified and perceived. 92.7.131.41 (talk) 07:11, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Descent

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)

Catholicism and related ethnic groups

Even though Catholicism used to be strong in Britanny, it declined considerably. The younger generation goes to Church at great occasions (marriage, baptism...) or "to please grand'ma".

I removed English in the related ethnic group section. There is nothing in the local culture to support this and nobody in Britanny, whether nationalist or not claims a special relationship with England. I added Manx (obvious) and Galician as their claim of being celts is more or less accepted despite their speaking a romance tongue User:Arskoul

Good point regarding Catholicism.

Regarding the English, I'm certainly not going to revert you on it. However, although Bretons might not claim any special affinity with the English, the reverse isn't always true: there are now plenty of English people who consider themselves closer to the Brittonic, pre-Saxon inhabitants of England than to the Saxons. QuartierLatin1968 16:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting if not strange position you both have. The only links that the Bretons would feel to Scotland or Ireland for example would be through nationalist ideology and that's hardly a credible linkage for a whole people on which to base an identity. The Bretons claim that many of their ancestors came from south west Britain during the time of the Teuton advances into the British isles. Also, that the people of Britain and that part of France were culturally and ethnically related before this time. The Britons of England weren't wiped out; they're still there, although now they speak English and are English. You've both left Scottish and Irish as related peoples. Why them and not English? Because of the Celtic cultural connection? It's not an argument on which to base anything. As for adding Galicians, that's very strange indeed. The links between the 'Celtic peoples' and Galicia are even further removed. The Manx do possess a Celtic tongue, spoken by a few hundred people in a country more strongly influenced by Teuton/Scandinavian culture, but when it comes to Celtic culture, England is far more so in the play than Galicia; England, where traces of Celtic are still even spoken. Enzedbrit 02:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, first, I am breton and what I state is not a personal opinion but a general consensus. Breton identity is territorial and cultural, while ancestry may play a role at the personal level (mostly if you are of breton origin and live outside the country), most people aggree that it is irrelevant when it comes to define what we bretons are as a collective. Far right extremists may disagree, of course, but they definitely are in the (tiny) minority. Britanny elected a MP born in Togo [[1]] and the main nationalist party has presented arab candidates.

• That’s fine, and I’m not denying or negating that.

So what about the links. Scotland, Ireland, Wales, Cornwall and Man Island have a celtic culture so they have strong links with us because culture is what matters. Again, that's not a personal opinion but more or less "accepted facts" in Britanny. As for Galicia, their claims certainly did meet resistance at the beggining, but the fact ist they have gained some acceptance. They are invited, as a country, at the Lorient Interceltic Festival, and they are more or less considered as a kind of "country cousin" even if nobody can tell what our relationship exactly is. You may be sceptical and I certainly was but in matter of identity, it is the general opinion which decides.

• These countries are identified as Celtic countries because of language. Associated culture is thus associated because of the existence of Celtic languages. Nobody is denying here that there are the six Celtic nations. Bretons are not connected to the English because of language but for historical reasons. Most Scots do not speak the Gaelic language. Most Cornish or Welsh do not speak a Brythonic language either. The people of these areas are connected to Brittany in the same way that the English are. For culture, the way of life in Brittany is vastly different to that in Britain. I say Britain, because there is no difference to life in the British isles at relative points of society (farmers to farmers, city dwellers to city dwellers, what’s eaten for breakfast, lunch, dinner, etc.). There is an understanding though of a Celtic identity, but even this has been greatly fostered over the years. I understand that Galicia claims a Celtic heritage, has bagpipes and a tartan, but so has England. My claim isn’t to negate Galicia’s identity, but I don’t think that too much should be made of it. Galicia is a Romanic nation, not Celtic. It speaks a Latin language. If there is a Celtic awareness in Galicia, this will have been especially fostered in recent times and will not doubt gain momentum as people find something new and different with which to associate. For Celtic traditions in England, or rather, traditions that have been attributed to what is Celtic (as in the rest of the Celtic countries), these have always existed. People are now looking beyond the Teutonic language English to find the pre-Anglo-Saxon identity that has always existed. You say England's not Celtic, but if England were broken down into regions as Galicia is of Spain, then some of these regions would be more readily accepted as 'Celtic'. However I do think that too much emphasis is placed on things Celtic, because there was a culture before the Celts and who's to say what parts of our identity are from the Celtic era or the pre-Celtic era, and even post-Celtic? If anything, being Celtic isn't really about culture at all, but about protest.

Now England... if you mean a rebuildt celtic identity in such regions as Devon or Cumberland, why not, if it gathers a significant following, which it has not so far. As for England proper... I don't remember the point being even raised. It's just "obvious" we are not linked in any meaningful way with it (again general view). Of course the britons of England weren't wiped out but that doesn't matter. The Gauls weren't either and neither were the Helvets or the Galatians. The English culture is not celtic and doesn't claim to be (atleast nobody reasonably meanstream does) therefore the English are not Celt. You may disagree, of course, but that's the general opinion in Britanny. Note, however, that most breton militants don't take too kindly attempts to define celticness on anything amounting to race, that's why claims of austrian or padanian celticness are not very popular at the UDB for instance. I doubt the english claim would be better accepted (again, just an assessment based upon my knowledge of how Bretns define themselves). You say the cultural connection is nothing to base an identity on, that's your right of course, but that's exactly what we base ours on.

--Arskoul 18:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• I don’t one can say rebuilt at all, regarding the identity in Devon or Cumberland as you say. How is English culture not Celtic and that of Wales, for example, Celtic? Besides the language, what is there? Music? Dance? Mythology? Besides the eisteddfod, what you see in England you also see in Wales. English culture has many facets from the Celtic era, just as Welsh culture from non-Celtic eras. The idea of an “English” or “Welsh” culture too is artificial, because these are terms that have been applied to large areas based purely on modern national boundaries. England, as all of Britain, is composed of many different regions each with its own identity and peculiarities in myth, small customs, dialect, and etcetera. In time, as has been seen in recent years, English Celtic identity will be more and more brought to the fore. Whereas Galicia will find more favour when it trumpets its Celtic identity because it’s smaller, can be seen to be oppressed by a larger Spanish state, shown as a minority, England is a larger country in which is contained the power base for the whole UK (although large parts of England regard themselves as small nations, like Galicia, that see very little of the spoils of London). In this respect, being Celtic as a country or being allowed to embrace a Celtic identity is more about national politics than it is about any actual Celtic history or living remnants from that period.
• I don’t say that the cultural connection is nothing to base an identity on, but rather I say that nationalist ideology. If Bretons were to link to Scotland and not England because of nationalist ideology, that is not something healthy upon which to make a cultural link. Enzedbrit 20:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• What you fail to see is that all of this is irrelevant. I readily admit the notion of Celtic people is a recent one, like all similar concepts all over the world, but that doesn’t mean it is illegitimate or not operative in the world today - or you wouldn’t make that claim about England. The definition is fuzzy, as it should be - we don’t want to exclude that Togolese guy, do we - but it is generally agreed upon that the existence of a Celtic tongue is important. You may disagree, of course, but that’s the majority position and in mater of identity, majority rules.

No, I totally agree. The existence of a Celtic tongue is the foremost criteria for being a "Celtic" country. That is why I find it difficult to accept more agruments now for Galicia.

• I am fully aware that Galicia doesn’t fit well in the picture, but the hard fact is that their claim is somewhat accepted and that translates into actual cultural relationships. I suppose that their basing their claim upon cultural practices rather than upon “ancestry” made it more acceptable than the “Padanian” one. You may not like it, but that’s just a fact of life in today’s Brittany.

Which is why I see a conflict. England has said cultural practices, more in some regions, fewer in others. When looking at that country as a whole, the Celtic element can't be denied.

• As for England, I won’t interfere in the English’s self-definition and if some of you define themselves as “Celts”, that’s their own business. If you say, however, that Bretons are linked to English, I’ll say, as a Breton, that I am sorry but I have never heard of such a link, historical or otherwise. If you say we are linked because of a common ancestry, of a few standing stones, of some folk tradition in your countryside, of the odd loanword or, - God forbid - of neo-druidism, I’ll say, still as a Breton, that all these things certainly exist but are irrelevant. We don’t base our identity on these, and since we are the ones who define what we are and what we are not that pretty much settles the question.

What I'm saying is that the links between the Bretons and the English are no different to the rest of the British.

• Note we, as a people, hold no grudge against England - at the present time at least - and neither do I as an individual. Your claim won’t be considered outrageous , more probably outlandish if not downright weird. We’ll have no problem, however, with your doing them as long as you don’t try to interfere with our own identity, which you do by linking us with England.

Why would the Bretons have a grudge agains the English (and not against Welsh or Scots)? Where would there be bad blood between England and Brittany? I can't recall ever hearing anything bad spoken of the Bretons, and I can assure you that many people in England know that there is a difference between France and Brittany.

• As for the - quite accepted in mean stream opinion - links with Ireland and Scotland being unhealthy… well, I suppose we are unhealthy.

--Arskoul 21:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, you are deliberately distorting what I have said. I am saying that if you are basing these links on nationalist tendancies then that is unhealthy. Don't forget, in the case of Scotland, that their Brythonic identity went the way of England's and was greatly reduced, and that the Gaelic traditions of Scotland are being fostered now in a way that England's Brythonic traditions are being fostered. I fail to see how a link can be embraced to Scotland yet denied to England. Not all Scots would see themselves as 'Celtic', even if they didn't know the definition of Celtic. If being Celtic really is a way to snub England and France, then that's a whole other matter. I don't believe it is. I believe that identity from the Celtic period should really be embraced and remembered so that we do not distort future history, and if that means Breton people understanding that there is a wealth of it in England, then that shouldn't be a problem or a sore spot. I'm from Cumbria. I speak with reason and passion on this. Enzedbrit 21:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

My question is for Enzedbrit. When you ask how people can deny England's Celtic roots (I'm paraphrasing) or say that the modern national identities are just artificial constructs, are you speaking for yourself or describing a sourceable POV? Because we can debate these questions indefinitely – I have my own opinions on these matters, and strong ones too – but for the purpose of Wikipedia, we should get citable evidence for Celtic England. Saying that "English Celtic identity will be more and more brought to the fore" suggests to me as though you're trying to spread your own idea here. A good idea it might be, but Wikipedia's supposed to report upon POVs that are already well established. Please be assured that I'm not trying to accuse you of doing anything unethical or anything like that, just asking for clarification. QuartierLatin1968 19:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I see your point. I have developed my views on this through reading, as one can only do, about the past. I think another claim for POV is the idea that England isn't Celtic and would like to see citations where a weaker claim to Celtic identity in England can be proven. It's only natural, isn't it?, that England has seen a greater awareness of its Celtic past in recent years, with all that has happened elsewhere in the UK. A lot of it is 'new age'. I've seen Celtic patterns used on logos for organisations and in popular culture (Northumbrian tourist board), in gift shops and on shirts (Shropshire and Avebury in Wiltshire), the festivals which still exist (Cumbria), massive efforts (Rheged), and an awareness among the people (from North East England speaking about their Celtic ancestors, presumably meaning ancient Britons). I approached this history thinking that I was an Anglo-Saxon because I was from England, even though I know that my family come from all over Britian and that my mam's dad was Welsh speaking. Now I'm getting so frustrated with what I see as a deliberate attempt to really remove England from the equation and foster a new mind-set among the Celtic nations (and to include Galicia in this no doubt) which is artificial and nationalist, rather than really endeavouring to tell the truth about Celtic language, culture and tradition. Enzedbrit 21:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Photos

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:

1. Laennec – a scientist, male, a (second-language) Breton-speaker born in Quimper
2. Cartier – a sailor, male, a Malouin (an important region because of its distinctive character)
3. 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)

Image copyright problem with Image:Ile-Longue-3.jpg

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)

What do the Bretons call themselves in their own language?

What do the Bretons call themselves in their own language? 76.119.245.141 (talk) 21:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

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)

Numbers and definition

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)

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)

Irrelevant / POV text

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)

Major overhaul of article

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)

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) 22:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

English people

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Once we have a definition, it should be put towards the community Brough87 (talk) 10:08, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Jembana, that "definition" (if you can truely call it that) would mean the English are celtic Brough87 (talk) 13:24, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

As of yet there has been no reliable sources that declare that the Breton people are related to the Scots, Irish, Welsh, Cornish or Galicians. As far as I am concerned a reliable source would be one that would offer some explanation as to how they determine the relationship between these ethnic groups, and as of yet nothing like that has been presented. Now the community (on the respective pages) have concluded that the Cornish, Welsh, Scottish, Manx and the Irish are related to the English so the question remains: Why are the English not included in this? Brough87 (talk) 12:50, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I agree with you N-HH, we are still recieving assertions about a supposed link between these ethnic groups, rather than a demonstration of the link. The source now cited by Jembana does not prove their (what I believe) ideology-based editing correct; all it does is make reference to a supposed Celtic history in what is now Galicia. If history is the sole determination of what makes a particular nation "Celtic", England should be included in that. Especially seeing as the conclusion in the source declares that Galicia is "Celtic" because of an "abundance of Celtic placenames, the numerous Celtic hill-forts (castros) with round houses, representations of têtes coupées, gold torques and stone heads wearing torques, inscriptions, dedications to Lug and other Celtic deities", all of which occurs in England still.

Jembana I did not start "edit warring" again, two days had passed since your last edit and there was no valid source supporting your position. I therefore removed the "related ethnic group" section of the infobox entirely, I did not re-edit the page in line with my position again. Brough87 (talk) 09:58, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

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)

Related ethnic groups in Infoboxes

Brough87 is now proposing that the the whole categorisation of ethnic groups in infoboxes should be abandoned and has reverted my reliably sourced edit on this basis. I note that the German peoplepage has a similar infobox where English people are included for instance. You said you would support him in this effort. I am posting this on the Germans talk page so that we can have an inclusive discussion on this because they will be affected by your proposal.Jembana (talk) 23:58, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Jembana Please see this discussion on: Talk:Breton people Brough87(talk) 00:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

My view is simply that, as with anything else, the inclusion of "related" ethnic groups should be based on what reliable sources say rather than what editors believe to be true; and also that the definition of "related ethnic groups" in infoboxes needs to be tightened up. If that proves too difficult, I'd have no objection to that parameter being removed. Really, this whole issue should be discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups - where it has been discussed on previous occasions - rather than being scattered over different talk pages (although, if that WikiProject is as moribund as it seems, discussion might get other editors involved). Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I have just found the following reliable source which says "Just a look at a map showing Brittany, a peninsula jutting out into the English Channel and the Atlantic Ocean, gives a hint that this region's population stands apart from other ethnic groups in France. The Bretons are a Celtic people, with ties to the British Isles dating back to migrations that occurred between the 3rd and 5th centuries A.D. Over the years, numerous invasions thwarted their attempts to remain independant, and in the early 16th century their land was annexed to France. Provisions for some autonomy, however, and distance from the state administration in Paris served tom isolate and insulate the Bretons, preventing their assimilation into the Franch nation until well into the 19th century.". At the top of this RS it says "Language family: Celtic". The RS is Book of Peoples of the World, 2007, pages 225-226, Edited by Wade Davis and K. David Harrison, published by the National Geographic Society, ISBN 978-1-4262-0238-4. On the basis of this RS I will reinstate the Related ethnic groups section to the infobox mentioning all these relationships both linguistic, cultural, political and genetic descent.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links 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 {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:45, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Bretons - origins

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)

14,000 in Canada?

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)

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Digital Public History

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2023 and 1 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MLB0121 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by MLB0121 (talk) 21:18, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Indigenous peoples categorisation

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)

This source contrasts Bretons with indigenous peoples, and this one states "The Bretons, from Brittany, do not stand on the same vulnerable and disadvantaged plane as indigenous peoples". Cordless Larry (talk) 14:36, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

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", 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

References

English people - related ethnic group (again)

A editor removed English people from the related ethnic groups in the infobox, was reverted and removed it again[2]. I reverted that but I see that 10 years ago it was a matter of some controversy. It shouldn't be. The Celts in England didn't go anywhere when the Saxons came. We know that from genetics. Their language was replaced so they cannot be linguistically defined as Celts, except the Cornish, who seem to have merited their own mention here. And actually that infobox is a bit of a nonsense, as Bretons are surely as closely related to the French as they are to the Scots or Irish (if not moreso). The real problem here is that the infobox is not a summary of anything in the page on this. At least, not a good summary. The Breton migration came from England (including but not limited to Cornwall) and Wales, as well as parts of what is now Scotland. But what does related ethnicity even mean here? Certainly not that those who may have come from the Old North are related to Gaels who migrated in there. I think related ethnicity here should simply be removed. It is not adding any useful and unambiguous information to the reader. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:17, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

And to add, I have made a bold edit per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. The only summary information that can be supported by the main text is that Bretons are related to Celtic Britons. I have thus made a bold edit to that effect. Should anyone wish to revert it, please first read INFOBOXPURPOSE. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:28, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Before I answer the initial point(s), let's be clear about procedure: you're making a bold change to a long-standing version, we have a process for this: WP:BRD - a bold change is made, it's reverted, and then we discuss. You don't make multiple bold changes before we have had an opportunity to come to some dispute resolution via a discussion.

On the point about linguistics, we're not talking about language, we're talking about people and only people. It is true that there is a Cornish language, but most Cornish people don't speak Cornish, so there's no reason to talk about language when it comes to this 'relatedness' point.

I think the reason for the original inclusion derives from a point about ethnogenesis; namely that the Cornish, Bretons, Welsh and English entirely (or in part) descend from the same historical ethnic group(s), and that is proved by both the history and genetics (particularly in the English case) - very happy to provide the sources to support this if need be.

The point about the infobox is a bit of a weird one, the Template:Infobox ethnic group has decided to include a related groups section and I don't quite see how the current version of the Bretons page conflicts with the purpose of that specific section. Alssa1 (talk) 11:13, 22 December 2023 (UTC)