Talk:Brittany (administrative region)

Five départements
The complicated reasoning advanced here for the mutilation of Brittany by the Pétain government in 1941 is highly tendentious and should probably not be considered at "encyclopedia" material. Recent public opinion polls in the Loire Atlantique département all show a significant majority in favour of reunification.--Boulet rouge (talk) 18:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC) Though I see the value of keeping the article on the modern French région distinct from the history of Brittany, I think this article should be at Brittany, as that's its most common name in English. There is some precedent for this, e.g. Munich (not München) and Germany (not Deutschland).

I think if I told someone "I'm going on holiday to Bretagne" I could not expect to be understood except by somene with some knowledge of French. Most likely "Bretagne" would be misunderstood to be "Britain". --Saforrest 15:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Sometimes it is the language and other times it is the culture, and sometimes it is both. Much depends on whether you are speaking to a French speaker/or person conversant with French culture primarily who is familiar with the distinction between Bretagne and Grande Bretagne, or an English speaker/non-French culture person who is accustomed to Brittany and Britain (meaning not only the main British Isle but the United Kingdom) and may never have heard of the word Bretagne, alone or in the UK context. The further one is from the Continent or away from a French Speaking culture, the more likely that Brittany works more clearly. Anyway, since this article is in English, Brittany is the better term - and a parenthetical indicating "the same as Bretagne in French" would be appropriate. Breizh would clear all up, and be recognized only by a person conversant in the details of Celtic Culture. You may, for example, find a breton born in France but living in an English speaking country such as New Zealand use the terms Breizh, Brittany and Bretagne interchangeably when conversing within a group of bretons there. I favor "Brittany" for this English language article. 96.224.73.113 (talk) 01:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Er, on rereading, the fact that historical Brittany is divided between two régions makes me reconsider. Though I think we might consider rewriting the introduction.  Arguably "Brittany" is the English version of "Bretagne" the peninsula / cultural area / historical duchy, but Bretagne the région has no English name other than Bretagne. --Saforrest 15:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * From what I can tell, many people in Loire-Atlantique would consider it part of "Bretagne", despite the fact that the Vichy government dislocated from Brittany.


 * Despite the different extents of the historical province and the modern region, I would really be in favor of referring to them both as "Brittany". (Perhaps the two articles could be called "Brittany (province)" and "Brittany (region)" or something similar.) But the current Brittany-Bretagne distinction seems quite contrived and arbitrary to me, and if we were to extend this logic it would lead to absurdities. --Lazar Taxon (talk) 20:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Prior to the 2012 French Presidential election, incumbent President Sarkozy had been asked why his administration was not doing more to reunite Brittany and/or why it was standing in the way of reunification (a common misconception). You can find this on You Tube. He responded that the Constitution of the Vth Republic as amended permits a plebiscite to consider questions such as the reorganizations of Departements and eventually Regions. He acknowledged the strong pro-Breton sentiment in and around Nantes. To date no effort at a plebiscite has been attempted. 96.224.73.113 (talk) 01:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Asterix
I would like the origins of the comic book asterix and obelix to be added somewhere in the history. It's a great book about the history of the area from a fun light hearted perspective and is a world known book translated into many languages. It talks about the romans fighting the Gaules or Gaulois because, like romans do, they wanted to take over France and the Gaules were the main force existing that would fight against them.


 * See Armorica. Paul B (talk) 18:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Regions of France
Ime puzzled by the phrase "the 26 regions of France". At the foot of the page, I counted 22 regions. Are there 4 more or is there an error? ` Froggo Zijgeb 04:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah got it: there are 4 over-seas regions. ` Froggo Zijgeb 04:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Bretagne and Brittany
I see no reason whatsoever for maintaining separate articles on Bretagne and Brittany. If this logic were to be continued, there would also be separate pages on Normandie and Normandy. In fact, the only article is Normandy. I strongly suggest that interesting items from the Bretagne article be incorporated in the one on Brittany, with a redirect from Bretagne to Brittany. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ipigott (talk • contribs) 07:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You'll notice that this article corresponds to fr:Région Bretagne and Brittany to fr:Bretagne. Normandy of course covers, among the other Norman territories, the two regions of Haute-Normandie and Basse-Normandie which like Bretagne have separate articles and are titled according to French administrative nomenclature. Man vyi 07:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * But this is the English Language version of Wikipedia and the name 'Bretagne' is not used in English! The articles should be merged, with two sections, or renamed Brittany (historic) and Brittany (modern). -- Maelor 10:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * We have similar pairs in Bourgogne and Burgundy, Picardie and Picardy. On the other hand, there's Limousin (region) and Limousin (province), Lorraine (region) and Lorraine (province), Île-de-France (region) and Île-de-France (province). To add to the inconsistency, the region of Corsica is not titled in the French form. Of course if English forms should predominate for regions of France, then Bretagne would logically be Brittany, Basse-Normandie would logically be Lower Normandy and so on. Man vyi (talk) 11:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I changed the wording on the Alan Stivell article from "the small town of Gourin, Bretagne" to "the small town of Gourin, Brittany" because, to an English speaker, the term 'Bretagne' would not be understood. If we buy a travel guide in the UK/USA/Australia etc. it is titled 'Brittany' and that is the only name we have in English for the country. -- Maelor 19:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Quite right - geographically the country is Brittany. For encyclopaedic purposes this article about the smaller administrative region is titled Bretagne. As I point out the titles of the region articles are not currently consistent. On the guide book question, the most up-to-date guidebook to Brittany in my possession is indeed a guide to Brittany as it includes Nantes etc. Man vyi (talk) 06:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This should be determined by common usage. The fact is that the modern administrative unit (région) is never referred to as Bretagne in English. English language guides in Breton Tourist Information offices refer to it as "Brittany". Other régions are referred to by their French name, because there is no separate English one ("Pays de Loire" is hardly ever referred to as "Loire Country", for example). This inconsistency is normal. It's just how language works. We have a distinct English name for "Firenze" (Florence), but not for other towns. We used to call Livorno "Leghorn" in English, but that usage is obsolete, so the Wikipedia article is called "Livorno", not Leghorn, but the article on Firenze is called "Florence". Ideally I think this should be called Brittany (region of France) or something similar. At the moment the naming is causing all sorts of confusion, due to some editors insisting on using the word "Bretagne" in other article spaces, while others insist on Brittany. See the recent edit war on the Tri Yann article. Ironically, these über-Breton folkies come from Nantes, which is not even in Région Bretagne, so the whole edit war was based on the misapplication of terminology. The problem extends to categories like musicians from Bretagne and composers from Bretagne. Tri Yann are absurdly listed in the former category. Obviously, as exponents of Breton music it's the only category they can sensibly be put in even though it's clearly wrong. It would be far more sensible for it to be called "musicians from Brittany", then it could logically include pre-1941 musicians, as well as modern musicians who self-identify as Bretons and who reside in the historical territory of Brittany. After, let's not forget that Brittany had no legal existance at all from 1789-1941, but that did not stop people being Bretons. Paul B (talk) 10:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well said Paul! I'm in full agreement. -- Maelor 11:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you're incorrect; I use refer to the modern administrative unit as Bretagne in modern English (so you cannot say it is never referred to as such in modern English). I use "Brittany" to refer to the historic, cultural, or even geographical region.  I use Bretagne when discussing Brittany as a région within the French government, comparable to Basse Normandie, etc.  The Jade Knight (talk) 08:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Your personal usage does not make me incorrect! You could refer to Brittany as by the name of your childhood teddy bear for all I know. What matters are published and public usages. You need to show that the normal English-language usage, especially in reliable sources, makes a distinction between "Bretagne" and "Brittany" that corresponds to the distinction between the administrative region and the duchy. In my experience (and I live there for part of the year) they never do. If not, the naming policy is to use brackets to identify a distinction where needed. Paul B (talk) 09:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * My personal usage does indeed make you incorrect if you are claiming such a general absolute ("...never referred to as Bretagne in English.") If you need published sources showing that I'm not the only person in the English-speaking world who does this, a quick Google search turns up many:, , etc.  This does not mean we should change the article, however (and I'm not arguing that the article must be kept as Bretagne, simply that your statement is incorrect, which might imply [particularly considering that you stand by it] that you misunderstand the facts of the issue).  The Jade Knight (talk) 03:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I cannot be expected to know your personal usage, so the point is really rather silly. It can be taken as read that the "never" refers to public usage. As I said, you might refer to Brittany by the name of your teddy bear for all I know. If someone suggested changing the article name to "Bubbles" and I wrote "Brittany is never called "Bubbles"" this would not be incorrect in any meaningful sense if that person replied "I call it bubbles". I very much doubt I misunderstand the facts of the issue, since your google examples do not prove what you say. They simply show people using the French name in English texts. You just as easily show some examples of people writing "Firenze" instead of "Florence". What they do not show is that Bretagne is used for the region in contrast to the duchy. Neither of your examples do that, and it is just as easy to find webpages that use "Bretagne" to refer to the duchy, which suggests that you misunderstand the facts of the issue, or have not properly researched it. Paul B (talk) 10:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Paul Barlow can hardly expect to use sweeping statements like "never referred to as Bretagne in English" without someone pointing out that this is not the case - and the statement was not qualified as referring only to "reliable sources", so I can't see any reason for frivolous arguments. Back to topic: appeal to reliable sources leads us to the situation whereby the naming of articles is inconsistent (as I've pointed out before) - reliable sources for individual régions are not necessarily consistent about the régions as a whole. So we have Basse-Normandie instead of Lower Normandy, but Brittany (region of France) instead of Bretagne, and Picardie links to the région but Picardy to the province. Since we disregard common usage elsewhere in favour of consistency, I can't see why consistency should be chucked overboard in this case. I argue neither for French nor for English, but that either all should be titled per French or all per English. Man vyi (talk) 11:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The frivolous argument is to refer to odd examples of people using the French name in English texts which are identical to people using "Deutschland" or "Espagne" or any number of other cases in which you can find the original language name of a place inserted into English. You know and I know what the real issue is. It is frivolous of The Jade Knight to say that he makes a distinction in English between Bretagne and Brittany and then to support that with a couple of web-pages that make no such distinction. Where else do we disregard common usage for consistency? Not typically in place names. The guidelines are quite clear about that. I have already addressed the point about consistency. The name in English is the name that is used. If "Pays de la Loire" is called that in English-language publications we can't choose to "translate" it into English, anymore than we translate "Mur-de-Bretagne" into "Mur-of-Brittany", because it is never called that. Mur-de-Bretagne in English retains the French form, as does the department of which it is a part . As I said above, it is inconsistent because language is inherently inconsistent. It's the nature of language. It is not our job to create a false consistency that does not exist outside of Wikipedia. Paul B (talk) 11:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The frivolous argument is to claim an absolute which cannot be defended; you're welcome to hedge and qualify all you like, but it's quite clear, despite all your protestations, that people do use the term Bretagne in English. I don't hear you moaning about people calling the capital of China Beijing, and not Peking; yes, Beijing is used by most English sources now, but this was not always the case—and there is a trend in English currently to nativize placenames (Beijing, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, etc.).  It is not absolute, but it is particularly common with less-well known names.  BTW:  The websites were simply to illustrate that people use Bretagne in English, not that these websites make the same distinction I do (some people distinguish semantically between "grey" and "gray", as well.  I do not).  As Man vyi and myself have both pointed out, Bretagne is "used" in English (albeit less commonly than "Brittany"); why does it irk you so much that this should be so?  The Jade Knight (talk) 03:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No the argument was not remotely frivolous, but you are contradicting youself to the point that this is no longer a meaningful discussion, since you seem to have no argument. You seem to be so keen on "winning" over a totally irrelevant point that you are ignoring the actual evidence and policy. You first stated that you make a distinction between "Brittany" and "Bretagne", and now you appear to be arguing that we should use native place names because of a "trend" to do so. Well that's self-contradictory. Why on earth would you ever use "Brittany" then? It's certainly not an argument for using the English word for the duchy/province and the French one for the region. That's absurd. No doubt you will also be arguing on French Wikipedia that they should change "Grande Bretagne" to "Great Britain", "Angleterre" to "England" and "Allemagne" to "Deutschland". The context of my original statement was clear to anyone who is not interested in petty point scoring. It was about never using Bretagne for the region to distinguish it from the duchy/province. It's obvious to anyone from the surrounding sentences that that's what it meant. Pointing to the fact that sometimes the French term is used in English is as irrelevant as pointing out that I used "Bretagne" in this very sentence, or that I said that "Mur-of-Brittany" is never used in a sentence in which I used it. It would be rather childish point-scoring that just evades the issue. If you want to change policy over use of English names in English Wikipedia, and French names in French Wikipedia then raise that as a policy issue. It cannot be a point on this page, especially as it completely contradicts your earlier argument. Your comments about "Beijing" just show that you miss the point entirely. I have already stated several times that the policy is to use the name that is used in English, whether it is different or identical to the native usage (hence the examples of Firenze/Florence, Livorno/Leghorn, Mur-de-Bretagne/Mur-of-Brittany etc). The reason it irks me is that it is nonsensical and wholly contrary to WP policy to invent a distinction between "Brittany" and "Bretagne" that does not exist outside Wikipedia. It has a number of knock-on effects which I have already explained in detail. That is why I linked to a webpage that talks about "Mur de Bretagne, Cote d'Armor, Brittany". The town and the department retain the French form, but the region does not. There are obvious historical reasons why English has a distinct word for this particular area (and also why there is a vowel difference between "Briton" and "Breton", even though etymologically it is the same word). I might just as well ask you why you are "irked" by the use of the English name. Paul B (talk) 07:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * So, when in doubt, claim that opposing points are a) "frivolous", b) "contradicting", c) "irrelevant", d) "no argument", and e) "absurd"? You still haven't addressed my point.  I am stating that I distinguish between Brittany and Bretagne.  I am not however, arguing that we should use native names.  I was simply stating the fact that there is a trend towards nativization in English usage (not necessarily on Wikipedia).  It is a straw man to assign arguments to me which I'm not holding; I never once claimed we should nativize this article; leastaways because of that trend.  I am decisively neutral on that issue (the name of this article).  The reason I use Brittany is to distinguish it from Bretagne, obviously; if I am talking about historical or cultural Brittany, I'm talking about a region similar to, but not exactly the same as modern Bretagne.  This is similar to how I say "Normandy" for the region, but "Basse-Normandie" and "Haute-Normandie" for the régions.  Capisce?  I am not saying you have to make such a distinction, though I find it quite useful.  It is hardly absurd to want to distinguish between multiple senses of an otherwise vague word, I think.  Your statement about what I think the French Wikipedia should do is another straw man which ignores a few important points:  a) I have said nothing at all about what Wikipedia should do; b) I have said nothing at all about French usage; c) I have never suggested English should nativize all names.  For the record, I don't consider your uses of "Bretagne" (etc.) to be nativized use; it seems somewhat childish to me that you would assume I would do otherwise.  I have never once stated here that I'm interested in changing Wikipedia naming policy.  The argument I have made is not self-contradictory; though perhaps the arguments I haven't made would be (a pity for you I have not made them, eh?).  My comments about Beijing were simply to illustrate a point: it's no hard thing (such as you apparently think it is) to have a language start nativizing, as is happening with Bretagne.  And your particular examples have nothing to do with why I distinguish between Bretagne and Brittany: it is to disambiguate.  I can see no like gain in disambiguating between Firenze and Florence, or Mur de Bretagne, etc., for example.  And it is no new invention, but is a quite natural part of semantic change having parallel in many other places in the English language (least of which include the Normandy-Normandie distinction).  Perhaps you would like to take a course or two on Historical Linguistics, and learn all about it?  I am not irked by the use of the English name.  I use it.  BTW, Briton and Breton actually have distinct etymologies, though they share a similar root, somewhat parallel to the etymological difference between chase and catch (though in this case there was additional reinforcement, similar to the etymology of the English word "mug").  That's why there's a vowel distinction.  Cheers!  The Jade Knight (talk) 21:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

(reset indent) The fact that you are wandering off on irrelevant tangents in order to sound knowledgable merely reinforces the impression that you have no pertinent argument (and you characteristically miss the point of the Breton/Briton comment). And yes, it's perfectly reasonable to point out that arguments are a) "frivolous", b) "contradicting", c) "irrelevant", d) "no argument", and e) "absurd" when that is what they are. When someone contradicts themselves, ignores the real issues and provides evidence for a naming distinction in French geography by linking to a Japanese restaurant called "Cafe-Creperie Le Bretagne" then these seem entirely appropriate words. It's true that you did not directly advocate using native terms, but you suggested that it is somehow relevant. I simply pointed out the absurdity of the position that would follow from that suggestion - that's without mentioning the fact that the native name is actually "Breizh", so this argument would even argue against itself. The overwhelming evidence is that no such terminological distinction exists outside the world of Wikipedia editors. It is one of the core policies of Wikipedia that it does not create new meanings, it reports on them. You have provided no evidence that a terminological distinction exists. You assert that such a distinction is evolving ("And it is no new invention, but is a quite natural part of semantic change having parallel in many other places in the English language"), yet you provide no evidence for this claim whatever and you never have had. Of course the Bretons themselves, who have the greatest stake in the distinction (it matters not one jot to most English speakers whether Nantes is in "Brittany" or not), make no comparable terminological distinction. The independent existence of this distinction is a fantasy as far as I can see. It is also unsustainable, for the same reason. "Bretagne" is inevitably used for the province/duchy too, because that was its name. Capisce? Perhaps you would like to take a course in historical linguistics to learn why some terminological distinctions emerge and others do not. The other points you make have already been made and replied to elsewhere on this page. Paul B (talk) 07:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not the one inventing straw men and assigning them to others! If anyone appears to be missing the point, my dear Paul B, it is you. I dare say I quite got the point of your Briton/Breton comparison, but please feel free to correct me and tell me what the real point of that comment was. My point (which you seem to have missed) was that the reason we have two words is because they are two different things, like, say, the Franks and the French, or the Dutch and the Germans. Or maybe like Brittany and Bretagne, perhaps? [bit of sarcasm self-censored] I'm afraid I find your comments a tad uncivil, Mr. B. Would you mind cranking up the respect a notch, please? I have in no place contradicted myself (and you've yet to demonstrate any contradiction, apart from your own inventions which do not represent at all what I have said), and I've linked to a few things. So what if one of them happens to be a crêperie in Japan? I've never suggested we should use native terms, directly or indirectly. However, English does frequently (but certainly not always) adopt native terms. This is a well-documented fact, and I am pointing it out that it is no sin if such were to happen in this case when it provides a useful disambiguation. That is why it is relevant. The absurdity is that you think we should nativize all words! The very thought of it is wonderfully ridiculous. Ah, you make me smile. Now, yes, the native name is Breizh in Breton, true. But that's not the native name used by the majority of the speakers living in Bretagne (or Brittany), as most of them speak French and not Breton. Another native name for Brittany is Bertaèyn, don't forget. But language change has never been big on following reality or political preferences; we do call Deutschland Germany, after all, and those who live in the Netherlands the "Dutch". You can complain about the fact that we call them Dutch all you want, but it won't change that fact. Nor will it stop like changes that are going on. But let's not be rude—to say that Breizh is the native name for Brittany ignores its other quite-native language, as well as the four million or so people who speak French and not Breton and call Brittany Bretagne in their native language. If most Bretons happen to think Brittany is called Bretagne instead of Breizh (or Bertaèyn, to be fair to the Gallo-speakers), do you really expect Americans or Englishmen to do better? What evidence shows that the distinction absolutely does not exist outside of Wikipedia? I don't think anyone here is saying that a majority of individuals make the distinction. But some individuals make it. And without question some individuals use the term Bretagne instead of Britanny. Do you deny this still? And do you think that Bretons don't care one jot whether Nantes is in Brittany or not? Have you not read this or this (I am assuming you can read Breton and French, given your comments)? It seems that the Breton community does indeed care whether or not Nantes is in Bretagne. And if the Bretons care, why shouldn't I? You might find it interesting that for many years, English made no distinction between the Normans and the French (or their languages); some people (including, and I hate to say this, some professors of History and Linguistics) still don't make the distinction (guess what? I do! So does Man vyi, I'll warrant). Ironically, the French word for "Norman" to this day is also used to mean "Viking" . Goscinny may not make the distinction, but educated English speakers now do. Despite the fact that French historically made no distinction between the two, the distinction is now made by many (certainly not all) of the French—through the use of a borrowed term, "Vikings" (oh how the Académie must cringe). Without borrowing this (or another) term, the distinction would be impossible in French. Just as without borrowing the term "Bretagne", the distinction would be impossible in English. And yet, voilà, there the distinction and borrowing are in French. And, for some speakers of English, there is the distinction as well, which, for those speakers (who care), is quite useful. And, frankly, nothing you've said so far has shown me why I shouldn't care. And thank you for the recommendation; I've actually taken several courses on Historical Linguistics; I received a minor in the stuff, specializing in English. Now, if you happen to hold a degree in English Language, please do tell me and I'll change tack—I'm not used to those with Linguistics training to be so very prescriptivist. Please remember that I am decidedly neutral as regards to the titles of this article. My initial (short) post was simply to point out that your absolute claim was incorrect. It still is. I do hope you'll respond so we can continue this pleasant discussion. The Jade Knight (talk) 08:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * As usual you have no argument, only sneering. As usual you have provided no evidence. As usual you misrepresent what I say, since clearly I never advocated using all English or all native terms, as I have stated repeatedly. I pointed out the contradictions in your argument. It's called reductio ad absurdam. Some of your comments represent a level of incompetence in reading what I wrote that it has become evident that it is impossible to engage in meaningful discussion with you. This is a particularly spectacular example "And without question some individuals use the term Bretagne instead of Britanny. Do you deny this still? And do you think that Bretons don't care one jot whether Nantes is in Brittany or not?". Yes, sometimes the word Bretagne is used. I've never denied that any more than I'd deny that the word Espagne sometime appears in English. It's supremely irrelevant. But that is not an argument for using the word in Wikipedia to distinguish the duchy from the region. You have provided no evidence whatever that this is ever done. NONE. About Nantes I wrote, "Of course the Bretons themselves, who have the greatest stake in the distinction (it matters not one jot to most English speakers whether Nantes is in "Brittany" or not), make no comparable terminological distinction." You transmute this into "And do you think that Bretons don't care one jot whether Nantes is in Brittany or not?". If you can't even understand plain English there is no point in discussing anything with you. Paul B (talk) 08:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * My assignment of your statement was intended to be a joke which you failed to get. I apologize for not making that clear enough; the point of the joke was to show you how ridiculous it was for you to assign that viewpoint to me, because I don't hold it any more than YOU do.  Capisce?  I believe I have made my argument clear several times, and I protest your use of rude terms (such as "sneering") to describe my efforts to pleasantly (instead of rudely) portray it.  You have pointed out no contradictions in my arguments, but rather (as I have already stated), you have invented arguments which are not mine and then assigned them to me.  This sort of straw man attacking you are using would be called "lying" by some.  Others would call it incivility.
 * You say here: "Yes, sometimes the word Bretagne is used"
 * But you said above: "The fact is that the modern administrative unit (région) is never referred to as Bretagne in English"
 * And then you claim that "I've never denied that"
 * Forgive me, but this strikes me as a bit of a contradiction. How am I supposed to know that you've never denied it given your statement that it is emphatically never used in English?  It's not irrelevant at all, because this one issue is the one point I initially made!  (Out of curiosity, does Espagne ever get used in English by fluent speakers?  I've never seen it, and would be fascinated to see it in context.)  Once again, my point is not that we should use Bretagne as the title of this article!  You accuse me of not reading what you say, but you seem to have missed my explicit statement (made more than once) that I am decidedly neutral about the article title.  So please stop assigning that argument to me!  That is irrelevant.
 * Your statement was that Bretons have the greatest stake, well, yes, I agree! But then you say English speakers don't care a jot.  The implication I read into this (which I don't think is all that far-fetched) was: "The Bretons, to which this matters most, don't care whether Nantes in Brittany, so why should English speakers?"  Your choice of juxtaposition seems to create a parallel between Breton speakers and English speakers.  Logically, you are saying, a) Bretons do not make the distinction between the concepts, and b) English speakers do not care whether Nantes is in Brittany.  Given the fact that you placed clause b) inside of clause a), is it so terribly unforgiveable that I associated the two?  I will apologize for the fact that I misunderstood the implication of your sentence: you clearly did not intend to associate the two, though you did so rhetorically.  I will say, however, that if Bretons care such a great deal about whether or not Nantes is in Brittany, do you really think they do not make the distinction?  I would guess that they do, but that they do not use a single word to express the distinction, but rather a phrase.  I'll ask my Breton friend about this next time I see him online.
 * At any rate, you are portraying yourself as superbly hostile and rude right now. I highly recommend you take a break from this for a while, and come back when you're ready to reconsider your attitude.  Please, think about what you're saying (If you need an example of where you've been rude, consider: "can't even understand plain English".  Is there any way this could possibly be interpreted which is not rude when stated to a man with a degree in English?)  The Jade Knight (talk) 09:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, my Breton friend (who is not native, and speaks only French, not Breton or Gallo, but who has lived there several years) tells me that most do not distinguish, though some do. Those who do distinguish talk about Bretagne historique vs. Bretagne actuelle (or other like terms), etc.  The Jade Knight (talk) 17:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I should note that I ceased responding since this "debate" had become nothing more than an excercise in petty point-scoring. However, since there has been some renaming, I still think it is important that the same word be used for the Region and the Duchy, just as it is in French. It is important to use the same word precisely to emphasise that we are describing the same place with the same name, but with two geographical limits. It also corresponds to policy regarding naming. Paul B (talk) 01:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

____

As I've noted elsewhere, the issue I see is that "Brittany" has two different meanings in English: when used in the geopolitical sense, it means Bretagne, but when used in the cultural sense, it means Bretagne and the département of Loire-Atlantique in Pays-de-la-Loire. It's consequently an ambiguous term. However, the geographic meaning does have another name, while the cultural meaning doesn't. As I noted on Paul B's talk page, as important as WP:ENGLISH is, it's a guideline which does permit exceptions where necessary. YMMV, I suppose, but I see this situation as one of those necessary exceptions because I don't see any other viable way to resolve that ambiguity — the only way to do it while using only the name "Brittany" would require complex parenthetical statements along the lines of "Brittany (administrative region)" and "Brittany (cultural and historical region)". Category names simply shouldn't ever be that complicated if there's a simpler solution. That's my $0.02, anyway. Bearcat (talk) 21:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * These are not, as I see it, "two different meanings". They are simply evidence that borders have changed. That's true of the borders of lots of counties, states, provinces, counties and nations over history. We do not use several different words for "Scotland" simply because the border has changed over time. There are some specific contexts in which it might be important to differentiate between the Région and the province/duchy, but most of the time references to Brittany are just to Brittany. The odd need to disambiguate does stop French Wikipedia getting on perfectly well with Région Bretagne and Bretagne. There is abolutely no need for "Brittany (cultural and historical region)". That would just be Brittany, as in French Wikipedia. This model is repeated by other Wikipedias, while the English model has sown further confusion in other languages. Wikipedia policy strongly implies that we should do the same as the French, especially as the French government itself uses the word Brittany in English language publications on the Région. Why should Wikipedia create a linguistic distinction that does not exist in any context outside of Wikipedia? It is very very rare that a non-English name should be used as a normative form. It just creates confusion. I have come across several examples of people turning Bretagne to Brittany, on the grounds that English should be used, without understanding why the French word was being used in such cases. Equally user:Rama has inappropriately changed Brittany to Bretagne on several occasions, while clearly not fully understanding the actual distinction, creating more confusion across pages. The nonsensical coinage "Duchy of Bretagne" also appeared in the Brittany article - until today! The central problem is that the current usage is not self explanatory, whereas the use of a bracketed component creates an explanation for any reader/editor who comes across it. If you just see "Bretagne", you think "why is this not in English"? If you see Brittany (administrative region) you know where you are and why the bracketing (which would normally be hidden from view, but visible if you clicked) is there. Paul B (talk) 15:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * We have Kingdom of Scotland which is seperate from Scotland, and Province of Canada which is seperate from Canada, so why not Brittany and Brittany (province) / Province of Brittany? --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 16:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, we already have Duchy of Brittany as a separate article on the specific issues of Ducal history. Spin-off articles are normal practice. I think it would have to be called "administative region" rather than province, because province has another connotation in French history (Provinces of France). Paul B (talk) 16:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see Scotland as a valid analogy here; despite its border changes over the centuries, there's no place outside of the current boundaries of Scotland that still regularly gets referred to or thought of as being in Scotland. It's not just a border change situation, because Loire-Atlantique is still considered culturally part of Brittany even though it isn't politically part of Bretagne. The term "Brittany" simultaneously encompasses two different sets of boundaries, depending on whether the context is political or cultural, whereas "Scotland" doesn't. And Berwick-upon-Tweed doesn't disprove the point, either, because while it is culturally identified more with Scotland than England, nobody ever refers to it as being in Scotland, whereas people do still refer to Nantes and the rest of Loire-Atlantique as being in Brittany (witness, frex, the preponderance of Nantes-related topics and people in the Brittany categories.) Yes, there was a border change, but it was a border change that left a much larger ambiguity of meaning in its wake than such changes usually do. Bearcat (talk) 17:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have the most recent edition of the Dorling Kindersley Eyewitness Travel Guide to Brittany. On all of the maps included within the book, Brittany is defined as consisting of Northern Finistere; Southern Finistere; Morbihan; Cotes D'Armour; Ille et Vilane and Loire-Atlantique. The chapter on the Loire-Atlantique begins "Both in historical and geographical terms the Loire-Atlantique is assuredly Breton".
 * Rather than compare the situation in Brittany to that in Scotland or Canada, perhaps a better comparison would be to that in Cyprus? -- Maelor 15:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There have been many border changes in Breton history. Nantes was not itself part of the area ruled by the early Breton leaders (who were variously styled princes, kings and dukes). It was became part of Nominoe's realm, but was apparently not part of Conan I's, so there's always been to-ing and fro-ing. Other rulers contriolled Nantes, but not other areas. The central point is that we are not dealing with two separate places (like, say, Georgia (state) and Georgia (country). It's the same place, but the extent of the territory varies over time and according to usage. The two Georgias could also be de-bracketed by calling the country "Sakartvelo" (the local name), but that would be contrary to commonsense and Wikipedia guidelines. This is the central point. No-one is disputing that distinctions should made. The issue is how they should be labelled in conformity with style guidelines, commonsense and legibility. Otherwise we get gibberish like the sentence that currently graces the opening of Duchy of Brittany ("It [the duchy] largely corresponded to the French region called Bretagne, historic Brittany, a region with strong traditions of independence"). The word "region" in that sentence is used in two separate ways, at the beginning and end, and there is no meaning to the phrase "Bretagne, historic Brittany". Paul B (talk) 15:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed! I shall still be using Brittany for any links within articles and I feel that the article on Bretagne needs only to be an addendum to that on Brittany. Also, a more obvious comparison would be with Wales where the eastern county of Monmouthshire was claimed by the English for centuries! -- Maelor 15:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note that in French, there's only one word "Bretagne" for both areas (the historic province and the current administrative region, which may change in some near future, if a new adminsitrative division of France reduces the number of régions: in this proposal, Bretagne would be nearly reunified). There's also noly one name "Breizh" in the Breton language, and a single name also in the Gallo, Maraichin, Poitevin, Saintongeais modern dialects of the old Oil language (from which French wasalso created).
 * You should also know that the historic duchy of Bretagne (before the integration in France) covered some areas that are now in other departments: there are some areas (since the French revolution that created the departments) now in the west of department of Mayenne (current région Pays de la Loire), and areas (known as the "Marais Breton") that are now in the North of the département of Vendée (région Pays de la Loire) and in the North of the current département of Deux-Sèvres (current région of Poitou-Charentes), as well as areas round Dol and Mont-Saint-Michel now in the départment of Manche (in the current région of Basse-Normandie): our historic Britanny is then split between FOUR régions (not just one or two !), and NINE départments (not just four or five!).
 * This occured when the old duchy of Bretagne became a province of France, long before the Revolution that cancelled all past provinces of the kingdom of France. Régions were created much later, by just grouping the existing départments created by the Revolution, without taking into account the historic provinces of France or the older countries. So, Britanny has completely stopped existing as a political entity between the Revolution and the late creation of régions: during that time, it was only a cultural area, that has still survived up to today, and is the main erason why most people in Bretagne want the reunification. (But the main problem with reunification is the problem of its capital: obviously, Nantes would become the largest city, but remember that, in the old Duchy of Britanny, there were no capital: it was moving across seasons between several cities, depending on the domain of politics and religion. In the old Duchy of Bretanny, the subdivisions were completely different from today's departments and other cities were more important than what they are today (notably the cities of Saint-Malo and Dol-de-Bretagne, now both in Ille-et-Vilaine whose capital is Rennes (also the capital of the current région). The Dukes of Britanny alternated between Rennes and Nantes (where the main castle of Britanny Dukes is located). Other cities had also more importance like Quimper (located in today's départment of Finistère, whose capital is Brest, the third largest city in Bretagne).
 * If Bretagne gets reunified, the question of its capital will have great importance, Nantes would want to keep a status of capital of région, because it is the largest city, but the problem is that it would be less central than Rennes that is recognized since long as the capital of today's région). This is the main factor that would finally prohibit the reunification, unless there are more important administrative reforms that would allow sharing the respondabilities between the two cities (just like when Britanny was an independant Duchy). This problem resurfaced when it was the question of deciding where a larger airport for Nantes (currently saturated also because of the maritime traffic in the harbour of Nantes-Saint-Nazaire on the Loire River) would be located: it was finally decided that it woudl be located midway between Rennes and Nantes, so that the two current airports in Rennes and Nantes would close and would be relocated there (but the project was recently abandonned in favor of a better and faster railway link between the two cities). It is now a fact that both cities are now developping together with common activities, and that the two regions have interests in the area between Rennes and Nantes, around Redon which could have become also another department covering areas currently in two departments of Bretagne (Ille-et-Vilaine and Morbihan), and in the départment of Loire-Atlantique in the région of Pays de la Loire.
 * For all these reasons, even the French Wikipédia had to create two separate articles (the historic province or duchy has a very long history spanning now nearly two milleniums, much more than France itself). Today's région is quite new in history, and is significant only administratively. (But the historic définition of Britanny still has a legal importance, for its governance, because of the terms of the international treaty that linked the Duchy to the Kingdom: this treaty is still valid today and fixes some conditions that must still be respected, notably in terms of taxes and in forbidden tolls on roads linking all cities within Britanny: that's why the highway between Rennes and Nantes is toll free, and thus not named "autoroute" under french law, despite it would ba an autoroute under the European definition).
 * When questioned, people in the région of Pays de la Loire don't feel it is a representative region: there's tilltle in common between Loire-Atlantique (in Britanny) and the north of Vendée on one side, and départements of Mayenne and Sarthe. On the opposite, the area near Redon really needs such reunification (the current adminsitrative status really complicates everything for managing this critical area along the natural link that joins Rennes to Nantes and along the Vilaine River), even if the more recent creation of administrative "Pays" facilitated the collaboration between régions.
 * The question of reunification is also present in Normandy (that was split quite arbitrarily). verdy_p (talk) 01:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree to merge. The article on the administrative region is so irrelevant compared to the main one. It can become a header under "Politics" or "Government" or something similar, but it makes no sense to keep these two separate. Gryffindor (talk) 13:50, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Flag and coat of arms
quick question here, but why is the seal of the region being shown and not the flag and the coat of arms like every other region in france

Scu ba (talk) 02:41, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi - Good question. It might be because this is the article for the present-day administrative region, as opposed to the cultural region, which has a separate article (Brittany). But the other administrative region articles—except for the recently created regions—tend to have both a flag and a coat of arms in the infobox. So this may be something that wants attention in the interest of consistency. Eric talk 03:41, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:37, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Bro gozh ma zado -O Breizh ma Bro- (Version orchestre).ogg

1789/2022 map of Brittany
, I undid your insertion of that map graphic because it does not have any legend to explain what is being depicted (e.g. significance of colors used or line weight of boundaries). I went to the file on Commons and see that it could use some help there as well. (Note: fr actuel = en current; but we should use the year instead). Eric talk 13:40, 26 December 2022 (UTC)