Talk:Britonia

Interesting

I thought this article was very interesting and informative. I had no idea that the Bretons settled in Spain as well as in France. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.210.255.251 (talk • contribs)

Britonia is in Galicia

The British settlement was established in North Galicia near the city of Mondonhedo. there was founded the bishopric of Britonia, origin of the province of Mondonhedo, one of the seven provinces of the former Galician Kingdom. Bishop Maeloc of Britonia took part in the 572 A.C. Concilium of Braga where he signed as such. Bibliography : Simon Young (Britonia, Caminhos Novos. Ed. Toxosoutos in Galician-Portuguese language) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.110.181.125 (talk • contribs)

"conversion to Roman Catholicism"

An integrated Catholic Church, understood as under the authority of the Pope, did not exist at the time in the Iberian Peninsula. The Fourth Council of Toledo was an Iberian concern, with the objective of uniformizing liturgy and practice throughout the peninsula. The authority of the Pope was not yet recognised in Spain, merely his honourifical precedence. Celtic Christians also aknowledged the honourifical precedence of the Pope (although this had little or no significance in practical matters then).

Christian practice in Europe then was mostly decided localy, in Spain as in Britain and Ireland. Indeed the Council of Toledo sought precisely to unify practice under the Iberian Rite (also known as Mozarabic Rite). Roman centralisation and imposition of the Latin Rite only occured later. Indeed there is no evidence that any Irish, British or any other "Celtic Christian" ever considered their Christianism as different, or opposed to the Christianism practised in the Continent. To speak of an unified Celtic Church versus an unified Roman Catholic Church is absurd and sounds like POV rewriting of history to justify the three "Branch theory" of modern Anglicanism. 84.91.78.42 (talk) 20:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Britonia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070806110332/http://www.britonia.fsnet.co.uk/ to http://www.britonia.fsnet.co.uk/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:42, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Language

This area is so called because it was settled by speakers of Brythonic-Celtic. See the article Brittonic languages for a map to show that it happened. The form of Brythonic spoken by these settlers (essentially a Breton- or Cornish-like language / dialect) died out, tho. However, said extinct form of Brythonic (Britonian, is the name suggested by the article Southwestern Brittonic languages) should be discussed in relevant articles. When did it die out? Did it survive long enuf to justify calling it a separate language, rather than a dialect of Breton / Cornish? Is Britonian attested in any written records? See also:

• Celtic nations: it mentions that northwesternmost Spain (Galicia et al.; Britonia is part of this area) is sometimes considered Celtic nation(s).
• Galicians: these people and their area ar sometimes considered Celtic.
• Cumbric: another Brythonic language that died out.
• Western Brittonic languages: Welsh and Cumbric; contrasts with Southwestern Brittonic languages (Cornish, Breton, and Britonian).

--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 16:54, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Translation of name

Pepperbeast has changed "Britonia (which became Bretoña in Galician)" to link to the ancient Gallaecian language instead of the modern Galician language. This seems to me incorrect. The phrase is about the later name for Britonia, but Gallaecian is the earlier language spoken 2000 years. ago. However, I am doubtful about the original version. Bretoña is the name of a modern village, and putting Britonia in google translate for Galician yields Britonia. I suggest deleting the phrase unless someone has a reliable source for the name of the exile settlement in modern Galician. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:15, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Recent revert

Celtoi 1. You say that you have copied from Sabelfeld, but there is no such article and copying from another article is not a reason for retention as many article have text not supported by reliable sources. 2. I do not know what template you are talking about. 3. Two out of the three changes you have made are unreferenced. 4. The book by Young is apparently in Catalan, so few readers will be able to check it, even if they could get a copy. It does not appear to be available from any online bookseller. 5. There is no evidence of the reliability of Young's book. 6. No page number is given in the citation.

I will revert your edit. Please discuss here. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:48, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

The article by Simong Young, (Addition to Fleuriot toponyms) is not in Catalan, what do you mean? The information about Ceidon, Cei, Lancara and Abres are taken from Sabelfeld, but it indeed isn't a published article, so I think we can delete the info. Bretona, Bertona and Bretal are refereced by Simon Young in other different articles and should be left there. The language extinction date is also pretty much supported by known information, also by Sabelfeld.

You just revert the whole edit for some reason, despite there no longer exist the merging article, and the initial paragraph information I added form there is completely sourced and normal, I believe.

Also, you requirements are... beyond imagination. No one should give exact page, English language source and "evidence of reliability" aside from Young being a credited scholar.From Alba, Celtoi, (talk) 12:59, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

I should have written Galician, not Catalan. That was my error. You do not cite the article. You cite Young's book, which appears to be in Galician according to WorldCat at . I have checked on Young and I see he is a reliable source, but it would be much better to cite the article if it supports your first edit (the one to the lead).

You should provide a page number(s). You cannot expect readers to search through a whole book to check a reference, and page numbers are standard in Wikipedia, where applicable (not on a web page). See, for example, Wikipedia:Citing sources#Short and full citations. Wikipedia even has an error message if it is missing .

You say early 6C. The next paragraph has late 5C and early 6C. You need to make sure the article does not contradict itself, by either clarifying that the second dating is an alternative view or deleting it if it is and error.

Your 2nd and 3rd edits (to the ecclesiastical history and language sections) are unreferenced. They need to be referenced or deleted. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:55, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

I was referencing "Addition to Feluriot's Toponyms" and it isn't in Galician... You're seem to be talking about a different source. But even in that way, there is nothing wrong with Galician language; I also don't speak it but I translate the text and read it manually, like everyone else does.

And what exactly is unreferenced? Everything in Ecclesiastical history is sourced properly, especially if you're talking about "Biortos". The date of extinction as 700-800 AD comes from Sabelfeld's article, mentions of Simon Young (900-1200 AD), and later disestablishment of the diocese in 900, likely linked to the final fall of Brythonic influence.

5 and 6th centuries AD aren't an error - our first mentions come from 6th century, but there is a possibility of an earlier migration, since by 6th century the settlements were only recognized, and we know that Britons fled from Anglo-Saxons -> thus, they could've arrived earlier.

If you insist though, I can add some pages with information, specific for a topic discussed in the paragraph. From Alba, Celtoi, (talk) 15:13, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Please re-read your edits. You cite Young's book, not "Addition to Feluriot's Toponyms", and you provide no citations for your edits to later sections. You say that you take other information from Sabelfeld's article, even though you do not cite it and you say that it is unpublished. This is not valid referencing. Tim riley can you take a look at this if you have time. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:57, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

I DO cite Sabelfeld's article, if we are talking about "language" section. And I cite this article of SImon Young (if we are talking about the language section!). I think we just misunderstood each other)

The "Britonia: camiños novos", which you were talking about, was mentioned on the page about Celtic migration to Galicia, which I turned into a redirect and merged some text from it here. If you think there is something wrong with this information, then we can remove it, I suppose. From Alba, Celtoi, (talk) 11:40, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

I was not referring to the whole article when I wrote that you do not cite Sabelfeld. You object to my reversion of your edit at , and only sources which are specifically cited for this edit are relevant. You mention Sabelfeld and the Young article in defending the edit on the talk page, but you do not cite them in the edit. The only source you cite is Young's book for the edit to the lead, and you cite no sources for the edits of the other two sections. Please look at the edit which is under dispute, not other edits which are not disputed. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:38, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Okay, then, the problem is that those sources are cited in the first sentence of "language" section, and other sentences are free? There is nothing wrong with this as far as I am aware, the information about etymologies and everything that goes after is derived from these two sources, which you can see as "ref name=":0" /><ref name=":1" these. I do cite them, they re just listed after the first sentence, if that is the problem. :::::::I cite Young's book in the first section, yes. What is the problem with this information in the first section, exactly? We can delete it if you believe the reader cannot check it or something. :::::::Then comes a small line about [[Miro (Suebian king)|King Miro]], also from merging articles. It doesn't need any sources, I believe? He was the one who held Second Council of Braga. <b>From Alba, Celtoi, (talk) 12:10, 9 April 2026 (UTC)