Talk:Duchy of Brittany

Former countries B‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article has been marked as needing an infobox. An editor has requested that a flag image be added to this article and placed within the infobox.

Middle Ages B‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I've left a message on the IP editor's talk page as well. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Okay, I've taken a stab at summarising the material on the region before the creation of the duchy in 936 and linked to the main articles on these periods; I've also added references, as most of it was unreferenced. If people feel I've been too bold, please feel free to revert these changes and discuss further here. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Origins Section Boonton and Chesnel references - In the Bibliography I have corrected the link to Boonton and added a link for Chesnel so that both links open into the actual readable ebook age. 96.224.73.113 (talk) 14:30, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Morman through Erispoe Paragraphs - source and citation verifcations in progress at this date. 96.224.73.113 (talk) 15:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography/References Section

Please try to join in discussion here. Emphasis is on finding links to live/interactive e-book formats for references as possible. 96.224.73.113 (talk) 15:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

[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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Some edits made on the precise state of the new Region of Brittany under the modern French Republic. 96.224.73.113 (talk) 16:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some edits made concerning the vote of the Estates of Brittany in 1532. Most of the dating in the lead in paragraph now seem both accurate and supported by acceptable citations. Comments please 96.224.73.113 (talk) 20:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some touch ups on translations from English to Breton (and maybe soon into French, as time permits)in the INFO Box. Translations based on Hemon. 96.224.73.113 (talk) 20:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Linguistics and partial summary of the regions's Economy: Is this section necessary or properly placed in ORIGINS?Italic text The last paragraph in this section as of January 12 2013 is reproduced below: By the end of the 9th century, Brittany had its own languages: Breton and the old form of Gallo, a Romance language. The use of Gallo tended to be concentrated in the eastern part of duchy. The local strong culture of independence survived despite everything.[17] The north and western parts of the territory relied on a pastoral farming economy; the south-east enjoyed warmer weather and conducted mixed-arable and pastoral farming, based around small holdings.[21] Comment - PLACEMENT and EXTENT OF ANALYSIS> the analysis is incomplete and possibly misplaced in so far is the topics introduced might better form a new subsection at the end of this article. The topics are valuable if expanded a bit: linguistics supports the claim by some of settlement from Wales and Cornwall, preceding the Duchy; the economy was also maritime - a summary of the economy answers at least two critical questions - was the Duchy an economic prize for England and France? how much did the Duchy and its nobles depend on war or to what extent was the duchy's resources exhausted by war from time to time - the questions are relevant to many germane histories written by others. We would expand the analysis introduced here. Let us discuss. Comments please. 96.224.73.113 (talk) 19:39, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the passage on the decline of the Roman Empire in Britain and the Anglo Saxon invasions. I have provided references, James and Stenton, and so removed the comments ^{[better source needed][dubious – discuss]} In longer terms, what the remark being added here is that the geographic region of at least the southern portion of the main isle of Britain and most the entirety of what become the Duchy is influenced by the vacuum created by the withdrawal of Rome which in time line appears to partially overlap with the Anglo Saxon invasions of the main isle of Britain. The celtic Britons lose battles and/or emigrate from the main isle to Brittany, thus creating the peoples that are the next evolutionary step as Armorica becomes Brittany and the main isle Britons become early Bretons. We are trying to make this critical contribution succinctly citing recognized so called modern historians as well as some older material. Comment invited. 96.224.73.113 (talk) 02:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

On Conan Meriadec and possibly other named and folkloric rulers of Brittany prior to 937: Note that the short sentence on Conan Meriadec clearly identifies him as folkloric and the same is used to describe the lists of pre-937 breton rulers because some are, correctly, more folkloric than historically certifiable. When this article was significantly revised and expanded by me around Dec Jan 2011 much of the material concerning Arthurian legends was removed to a separate section, to improve the historical continuity of this ORIGINS section and to delineate folklore's role in the Duchy more clearly. Then someone aggressively edited the ORIGINS section. Prior to last week there was a three century period in ORIGINS after editing that jumped from Roman Armorica to pre-Duchy Brittany - and that jump was too much. The three century period is associated with much of the folkloric tradition of Breton history. The relevance of folkloric leadership to the Duchy is critical. It is the folkloric leaders in part who, through folklore (sorry for that redundancy) form a continued oral tradition in Brittany concerning independence as well as the process where a waring ruler (chieftain, warlord, Count, descendant of a Duke, proxy of a King etc) establishes a role that eventually becomes that of Duke of Brittany - an oral tradition that remains in the theme of independence in many Breton families today. And most Dukes (as the article describes after many additions also by me) act to preserve this independence - the central Ducal theme ?- while also working to maintain their rule and/or the unity of the Duchy. In my readings of the histories of the celtic nations, most if not all evolve from a pre-10th century period which has is unfortunately described, and maintained in oral tradition, from folklore or writings that would not constitute 'academically suitable' sources in the modern period. I believe it is a valid claim that this folkloric basis needs to be documented, however briefly, so long as items that are folkloric, including people, are clearly described as such. I hope you will remove several citations needed and better citations needed requests after readers are able to consider this argument, and participate in the discussion in due time. The contributions of Riothamus in war against Euric form this period also need to be restored as they set out the independent military capacity of the future Duchy, with some suitable language about "folklore v historical verifiabilty" I would hope for a discussion before acting further against the Conan Meriadec or Riothamus material. 96.224.73.113 (talk) 02:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

The edit/modification is interesting in that the word "proved" ("proved to be mythical") conveys a very strong claim indeed. Isn't the message the same and stated more succinctly by describing this figure as "folkloric" or "largely folkloric" without making a potentially unsupportable claim (however strong the literature) of a "proven myth"  ? My concern now is modified.... we may not wish to enter into an analysis of the literature and its progression over time, at times debating it within the article. I like the analysis, but the end goal of the article is ultimately, it seems to me, is not to discuss the evolution of historical citations (though it is very interesting). May return to the "ponderability" of a "proven myth" after pondering it more. 96.224.73.113 (talk) 23:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Regarding "citations needed" request following last sentence of paragraph one in Origins as of January 9 2012 Italic text: I added this sentence as a summary of some of the major events or currents that are discussed in the paragraphs that follow - where citations exist, have been recently added or will be added as time permits. Because it is a summary (it ends with "see below") that points implicitly to the other string of citations, an independent citation here is not needed. If you agree please remove the request. 96.224.73.113 (talk) 03:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Trying again - the sentence was added as a summary of paragraphs and sections to follow after those sections were written ! If there are improvements to be made in the citations the right place is in the detailed subject areas, not a lead in sentence that introduces the flow of what is to come. Still now sure why were you unhappy with it, and removed it. 96.224.73.113 (talk) 22:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• More generally, if you'd like some advice on the specialist literature of the period for early medieval Brittany, I can advise on some of the works you'll probably need to consult. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, since you feel that would be productive and you'd like to provide it, we'd be happy to think about any list you might suggest. We might then be able to discuss more completely, using your vantage point, if needed. (And we remain curious, could you possibly be one of the noted historians or decorated academics yourself ? It is possible !! 96.224.73.113 (talk) 22:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through and updated the text based on some recent historical work, using two of the more reliable French and English academics on this area. I've also corrected the Fouracre reference (the work was actually written by Guy Halsall).Hchc2009 (talk) 18:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the comparison and relative quality of various source documents and requests for additional informationItalic text: How do we judge the reliability of one academic over another (this is starting to happen)? Is it systematically preferable to replace a writer from, say, the middle of the 20th century with an author's work from, say, the turn of the millenium, a more modern colleague (this trend is emerging) ? If contributors feel a rule of thumb exists the earlier we can display and discuss it the better the work will proceed on the entire article. 96.224.73.113 (talk) 22:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I've replaced the "better source" needed and "self-published source" tags. As noted when they were inserted, Geoffrey of Monmouth is a medieval chronicler, not a reliable historian. Using him as a source for lists of Brittany kings, and the fact of there being multiple lists/histories, is unsafe, and needs support from a reliable secondary source. The Early British Kingdoms website appears to be self-published. If you think that this interpretation is wrong, could you discuss here before removing again? Hchc2009 (talk) 17:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I disagree with the interpretation. I'd be very pleased to undertake a collaborative approach to further improving this article. As far as I can tell I've only added, not removed, references and citations. I hesitate to write out a comment, and if you like you can reach me at "lleguyad@aol.com" - more suitable for such a discussion. From my point of view, if a comment you inserted was addressed then I understood that the comment requesting an action should be removed. I would prefer to be more open to new info of this type and flexible in accepting it. Various wikipedia contributors can afford to be open in accepting the contributions of others until they can be "improved" by suitable subsequent contributions, maybe by another. For example, Geoffrey of Monmouth ("G of M") is a widely accepted author, with known limitations, and the elsewhere, the display of G of M as a source in most works is sufficient to allow readers to understand the writing and its source accordingly, and if necessary, to propose the "better fact" with a "reliable source" - if available. On the other hand I can see an instance in what you request in this context may not be achievable and so the comment< i felt, qualified to be removed, at least from my point of view. For example, many historians might agree that an entirely reliable and factually correct 'list of kings' supported by reliable secondary sources is an unattainable goal, given the state of primary source documents from the time. If that is the case, then the request for "better source" could be discussed here - in the hopes of sharing understanding of the "doable" - rather than through the "tagging process" of the page itself. 96.224.73.113 (talk) 03:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you haven't already, have a look at WP:VERIFY, which explains how the system works more generally, and WP:PRIMARY, which gives guidance on how the wiki uses primary and secondary sources. Interpreting a medieval chronicler is a specialist task for an historian; the type of reference you need to be looking for is a specialist historian who talks about the period, and who can then be cited. They might in turn have used a chronicler, but we are then trusting their specialist judgement in how to balance and interpret the source. Self-published sources can't usually be used, as they haven't been subject to the scrutiny of the academic community. This is particularly important for (e.g.) the 10th century, as the sources invariably have to be heavily interpreted. The wiki, btw, isn't a reliable source! :)

When citing, remember to give the year of the work. If its an edited work like Delumeau's, you'll need to give the individual author and chapter.

When citing a non-English source, it is well worth bearing in mind WP:NONENG, and potentially adding in the quotes being used in advance.Hchc2009 (talk) 08:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The comment I was trying to make is to ask how you, or anyone, arrive at categorizing such a widely referenced source of information such as Geoffrey of Monmouth ... by categorizing this highly quoted source, dismissing it and then removing the material, I fear the actions detract from the quality and the ultimate goal of this particular section of the page. ... unless of course we have misunderstood the removal as the action of an academic historian acting in that capacity (could that be the case?)......96.224.73.113 (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have another look at the links above. Geoffrey is a medieval chronicler, not a modern academic. As per the policy pages, articles require reliable secondary sources such as "peer-reviewed journals; books published by university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses". You need to identify such books etc. and cite them to support additions to articles, not going back to the 12th century medieval Latin original and interpreting its veracity and implications yourself. Hchc2009 (talk) 21:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it helps, try thinking of it this way.

Geoffrey of Monmouth sits down in the 12th century, and helpfully writes (in Latin) "There are several histories and folklore accounts of the Breton Kings, and some of these kings in the 4th to the 6th century include Erich, Budic II, Hoel Mawr, and even Tewdwr."

Why can't we just use this to justify the statement that "After Hoel's rule, Breton Kings from the fourth to the sixth century in some histories, and folkloric recountings, include Erich, Budic II, Hoel Mawr (Hoel the Great), and even Tewdwr."? Well, many chroniclers were just plain wrong. Some did research and reflected the wider consensus at the time, others didn't. Perhaps this reflects the histories and folkloric accounts available in the 12th century; perhaps it doesn't. His work was never reviewed! Understanding how much weight should be given to Geoffrey as opposed to other chroniclers is a judgement call. You often have multiple different versions of the same text. Translating the Latin can be problematic. Historiographies of the chroniclers involves a lot of detailed work.

Someone ("John Doe") publishes their own website (or posts on a newsgroup etc.) and says "As Geoffrey of Monmouth noted, after Hoel's rule, Breton Kings from the fourth to the sixth century in some histories, and folkloric recountings, include Erich, Budic II, Hoel Mawr (Hoel the Great), and even Tewdwr."

Why can't we just use this? Because John Doe isn't necessarily a reliable source. 12th century history is specialised, and there's no evidence that John Doe is a specialist in the historiography and folklore of the period.

An academic ("Professor John Smith") publishes a weighty book ("the Historiography of the Breton Kings") and noes that "As Geoffrey of Monmouth noted, after Hoel's rule, Breton Kings from the fourth to the sixth century in some histories, and folkloric recountings, include Erich, Budic II, Hoel Mawr (Hoel the Great), and even Tewdwr."

Why can't we now directly quote Geoffrey and forget about John Smith, the middle man? Because the reliable source is Professor John Smith; it's his status as a reliable secondary source that gives this interpretation and selection weight. The reliable secondary source ensures that we're not giving this undue space in the article, and that we're using it properly.

The right thing to do? Cite John Smith, as per the policy guidelines. For an example of this all done really well, try William the Conqueror, a Featured Article, where User:Ealdgyth has ensured that every single statement is backed up by a solid secondary source. Have a look through, and it should give a sense of how it's done. Hchc2009 (talk) 22:43, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Contentin Peninsula Here is the text of the note that was inserted. ^{[dubious – discuss]} 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)[reply]

Beginning a contribution on Vikings and Brittany which will be an amendment to the Origins section around the time of Nominoe, more or less and spilling into the 10th century section through the time of Alain II. The article at January 20 does almost nothing to explain the actions of the Vikings and the Breton interactions with them outside war in the development of the Duchy's area and the emergence of their early Dukes, or some of the relevant details of the Carolingian interaction with them. The reference from Price is added as a starter. Comments on the reception of the Price work and additional citations welcome and hoped for 96.224.73.113 (talk) 16:07, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why has the tag "Dubious-Discuss" been added here when the statement is referenced from the work of an acknowledged historian and expert on the topic? Failing a qualified discussion this discussion tag will be removed in two days. Breizhtalk (talk) 16:46, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The tag was added by Nortmannus, with the edit comment "well known fact : half of the army was Norman not Breton".

• the reason I am raising the question here is that we have one of our fellow contributor/editors placing a comment, but as you, Hchc2009 have pointed out for something to "stick" it requires suitable references.
• The article contains a suitable reference. for the point being made. The point being made is NOT that half of the army was not Norman (the opposite of Nortmannus' concern). Rather it seems to me that what Keats Rohan is trying to point out, is that among the various non-Norman "minorities" (if we can use that word) the Bretons were the largest grouping. Properly read it does not mean that the size of the Breton contingent was larger than the Norman contingent, but I take it to mean that among the non-Normans, the breton contingent was the largest. Agree ? If so then the well meaning comment by Nortmannus, which should have been in the TALK page rather than as posted, is not relevant to this article which is about Brittany and the Bretons. If we can agree on this then it would be time to take Nortmannus' comment out. Agree? Let's see if others wish to discuss Breizhtalk (talk) 00:32, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The article currently states that "William the Conqueror successfully invaded England using an army whose most significant component was a contingent of Breton nobles and Hawise succeeded her brother Conan II as hereditary Duchess. William the Conqueror's invasion army was culturally more diverse than is generally understood: about a half of the army was Norman and the other half was Breton, Manceau, Poitevin, Fleming and even Anglo-Saxon elements. The Bretons represented the most significant single contingent [dubious – discuss] but where not necessarily a cohesive group. The presence of the Bretons itself is surprising because the dukes of Normandy and Brittany were enemies."

• perhaps then a more careful way of stating this is that William's [invasion army]...who most significant non-Norman component was ....." the right thing to do is to add non-Norman.....would that do it ? Breizhtalk (talk) 00:32, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• If it was reliably referenced, yes. But the Keats-Rohan reference doesn't actually say that. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This material is cited to Keats-Rohan 1991, p. 1 in several places. I'm guessing that this is a typo for Keats-Rohan (1992) (PDF). "The Bretons and Normans of England 1066-1154" Nottingham Medieval Studies, which is in the bibliography.
• Assuming that I've got the right source, Keats-Rohan states on pg 1. that "The non-Norman element [in the Norman conquest of England] has generally been regarded as too small to warrant more than isolated comment. No more than a handful of Angevins and Poitevins remained to hold land in England from the new English king; only slightly greater was the number of Flemish mercenaries, while the presence of Germans and Danes can be counted in ones and twos. More striking is the existence of the fief of the count of Boulogne in eastern England. But it is the size of the Breton contingent that is generally agreed to be the most significant." I can't see much else in the first couple of pages relevant to this topic.
• I think, therefore, that the editor who added the original material may have misread Keats-Rohan slightly. Keats-Rohan's stating that, of the non-Norman elements, the Bretons were the most significant in the post-invasion order - not that they were necessarily the most significant contingent in the invasion itself or in William's army. I can't see that Keats-Rohan states anything about the most significant component of the army being Breton nobles; half the Army being Norman; having Anglo-Saxon or Manceau elements; or the presence of Bretons in the army being surprising. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I think we agree, don't we? To sum it up, the reliable sources say the Breton contingent in the invading army were the larges non-Norman contingent, but no contingent was larger than the Normans themselves. Post-invasion, the breton nobles were the most significant holders of land etc among the nonNorman contingent. I've checked the other articles on Ralph De Gael, the Earls of Richmond and the early Earls of Cornwall and cannot find contradictions to that conclusion. Do we agree ? Should the one word non-Norman modification proposed above go ahead and remove Nortmannus' comment? Breizhtalk (talk) 00:32, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You need to find reliable sources saying that the Breton contingent were the largest non-Norman element; as per above, Keats-Rohan doesn't say anything about the size of the contingents in the Army and so can't be used as a source for that statement. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest consulting a few more sources before assuming that Keats-Rohan's views (which were published in 1992) have gained wider currency amongst scholars of the Conquest. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A sensible suggestion. I'd also highlight that Keats-Rohan focuses on the English social and political order, and doesn't say much (if anything) about the Duchy of Brittany - the subject of this article. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

As the result of recent editing activity the current article as of March 29 2013 contains 45 footnotes of which 23 are either Jones or Gaillou and Jones ! Recent edits to this article have also removed substantial sections in entirety and eliminated both reliable source in line citations and meaningful footnote comments. The resulting article as of March 29 2013 is overly dependent mostly on one documented source, the works of Jones, whether Jones alone or Galliou and Jones. There are three consequences to this recent widespread editing using this style: (1) the article may be in contravention of well accepted international copyright standards (when one quote one source line by line it is inefficient - why not just ask the reader to go find that source and read it in its entirety, but at the same time line by line citation is a very awkward attempt at circumventing copyright rules if they apply., (2) the article is advancing principally the work of Jones, (3) information from other reliable sources is lost. See the VIEW HISTORY tab for a record of this editing activity. Breizhtalk (talk) 16:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well - this edit removed a self-published unreliable site as a source - Early British Kingdoms isn't reliable. This edit, while removing some sourced material, was needed to get rid of extraneous details not relevant to this article - which is supposed to be about the Duchy of Brittany. As such, we don't need large amounts of detail on pre-duchy times or situations. Many of the other removals are also of information that was unsourced - every bit of information added to the article needs a source attached to it, that's wikipedia policy. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:25, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Breizhtalk, in terms of the three points you've raised:

* I can't see any evidence of copyvio in the article as it stands.

* You may have miscounted the number of footnotes - duplicate footnotes appear as multiple letters on the left hand side; there are roughly 95 in total, with (by my rough maths) Galliou and Jones making up 20, the Brittany Genealogy 17, Jones 10, Crouch 10, Price 8 etc. Although I'm not aware of Michael Jones being particularly contentious in this area, but, to take a particular example (e.g. footnote 21), if other reliable sources argue that Alan didn't use a network of defended towns etc. to push back the Viking advances, then of course that view should be included, provided it is backed by suitable sources. I'd repeat comments made earlier on this page, though, about the importance of using reliable sources - and using them accurately - and not relying on unreferenced assertion or original research.

* In terms of the intro, this article is about the Duchy of Brittany. As such the article needs to focus on that topic. As referenced in the current version, several academics have drawn out how parts of Brittany's earlier history influenced the shape of the Duchy, and it's useful to pull this thread out - but we don't need a detailed history of the previous thousand years to do that. See WP:SUMMARY for why. The material might well belong in the articles on those periods, or in the History of Brittany article. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:14, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)`[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]