This
level-4 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
On 27 June 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved to Norman Conquest of England. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
|
|
"All of England was divided into administrative units called shires, with subdivisions; the royal court was the centre of government, and royal courts existed to secure the rights of free men." (emphasis mine)
I assume "royal courts" refers to courts of justice? I think this ought to be made clearer. Waltham, The Duke of 08:12, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
The Norman Conquest is often written of as the Norman Conquest of England. But it was really the conquest of all Britain. It took a while, but it also included Scotland and Wales. The conquest of Scotland for example was completed by William's son Henry I and his protege, the Scottish usurper David, whom Henry appointed 'King of the Scots'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.74.239.77 ( talk) 10:40, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
It is quite odd. Scottish histories for example very often refer to the Normans as simply being 'invited' into Scotland. Yet this is quite untrue. A Norman army nominally under the leadership of King's Henry's protege and brother-in-law David, nominated as 'king of the Scots', invaded northern Britain i.e. Scotland and thus completed the Norman Conquest. Those northern lands subsequently became 'detached' from England only as an unforeseen consequence of the Norman civil war known as 'the Anarchy' which followed Henry's death. For the next two hundred years the 'Scottish' aristocracy spoke French and described themselves as 'Frenchmen' i.e Norman. The facts are quite clear and can be read on the various Wiki pages relating to Henry and David. Cassandra — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.166.91 ( talk) 16:47, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
I was told that this edit (earlier submission) was "not needed". The edit I display here shows exactly why it is needed. The following revert merely told me to come here per BRD but did not otherwise specify why the revert was being made. At this stage, I have nothing to add which was not given in the summary. -- Coldtrack ( talk) 21:20, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Where I come from originally, Ukraine, we have Tatars, a Turkic people. They too in many areas have "adopted our culture" 100%. But we still know who is ethnic Ukrainian and who is ethnic Tatar. In Normandy you do not have this with Normans and French, and have not had it since the 10th century (900s) according to the sources. -- Coldtrack ( talk) 21:40, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
−
Is this any better? Just asking. -- Coldtrack ( talk) 22:18, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
The lead of the article summarizes the body of the article. No history emphasizes that there were a few "Aragonese, Apulian, and German soldiers" in the mercenaries in William's army. This fact isn't even important enough for the body of the article, much less to be given in the lead of the article - the way the sources state this makes it clear that the "Aragonese, Apulian, and German soldiers" were outliers. This isn't important and doesn't need mentioning at all in the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:54, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
These edits are disputed. They are undue, remove sourced information and nuance, contain information that is not needed here, and are sourced to a tertiary source. Please read the links left on your talk page and stop edit warring. -- Ealdgyth ( talk) 16:12, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
i do think 'norman french' needs to be added here. otherwise, most readers without basic knowledge of linguistics or relevant history may mistake it for an independent language. besides, it must be stressed that norse influence on norman french is limited or people would think it's a hybrid of norse and french.
regarding siege of chartres, this is the decisive incident that directly led to rollo's acceptance of treaty proposed by the franks. if rollo had not been defeated at Chartres, he would not agree to be baptised. i therefore consider it necessary to mention it as the main article. Berserk Kerberos ( talk) 15:38, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
In regards to this edit - is the source discussing the Norman dialect of the Normans in the 11th century or is it discussing the modern Norman dialect of French? I can't tell and the source is also lacking page numbers. The exact text inserted (which is "As a dialect of Old French, Norman French still preserves a large number of Ancient French vocabularies which have disappeared in Modern French. It also preserves approximately 150 words from Old Norse of Old Dane.") sure seems to be discussing modern French, which does not actually have any relevance to the conquest of England in the 11th century. We should really not be putting in this level of detail (as discussed above) and should be using a stronger source than a dissertation. This level of detail is unneeded in an article on the conquest of England - because it's about the effect on ENGLAND, not on French dialects. And as final tiny niggling details - there are grammar issues and formating issues, but I'm not going to fix them because I do not think the addition belongs. -- Ealdgyth ( talk) 15:45, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian ( talk) 16:19, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Norman Conquest → Norman Conquest of England – Current title not specific enough Titus Gold ( talk) 11:55, 27 June 2022 (UTC) I've reverted the recent move from Norman Conquest to Norman conquest of England; per WP:RM, potentially controversial moves should be discussed first. This is a featured article so it's clear multiple editors think it's at the right place already so any move should be discussed. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 19:20, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
In the article Harold's forces are referred to with the adjective "English". Should they not be referred to as "Anglo-Saxon"? Or is that needless complication Shrimpeyes1 ( talk) 17:23, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
If I'm being honest with you, the title and the way the lead is written really bothers me. The Normans weren't just in England, but also in Italy and other places. But I do not think that this article properly clarifies this as what the Normans were doing in England, especially as the editors here favour the wording "or the Conquest" in a more general sense rather than England only. I tried to move this page to "Norman conquest of England" but it was reverted. I then tried simply updating the lead and clarifying that only in England rather than more generally would people refer to this as simply "the Conquest." Again, it was reverted. Try and tell me that this article is in the right place as it is!! I understand the principle of good faith, but the activity on this article against my attempts to edit it is really saying something to me. It doesn't come across as neutral to me, but rather comes across as Anglocentric/lack of historical knowledge to me (and I say that as an Englishman.) And it's annoying me, I've got to be honest with you. I do want what this article describes to be more clarified and more neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GOLDIEM J ( talk • contribs) 09:33, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Most war pages have a quick facts. I would expect to see this here, atleast regarding the initial invasions of William and Harold (excluding the harrowing).
This would provide a useful jumping off point for people to compare army sizes, look up the commanders, realise that William was leading a coalition of Norman/French/Breton nobles, had papal support ect. rather than discovering this information in the text.
Happy to begin the process if there is no disagreement? Pistol92 ( talk) 12:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Norman Conquest is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 14, 2016. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This
level-4 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
On 27 June 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved to Norman Conquest of England. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
|
|
"All of England was divided into administrative units called shires, with subdivisions; the royal court was the centre of government, and royal courts existed to secure the rights of free men." (emphasis mine)
I assume "royal courts" refers to courts of justice? I think this ought to be made clearer. Waltham, The Duke of 08:12, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
The Norman Conquest is often written of as the Norman Conquest of England. But it was really the conquest of all Britain. It took a while, but it also included Scotland and Wales. The conquest of Scotland for example was completed by William's son Henry I and his protege, the Scottish usurper David, whom Henry appointed 'King of the Scots'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.74.239.77 ( talk) 10:40, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
It is quite odd. Scottish histories for example very often refer to the Normans as simply being 'invited' into Scotland. Yet this is quite untrue. A Norman army nominally under the leadership of King's Henry's protege and brother-in-law David, nominated as 'king of the Scots', invaded northern Britain i.e. Scotland and thus completed the Norman Conquest. Those northern lands subsequently became 'detached' from England only as an unforeseen consequence of the Norman civil war known as 'the Anarchy' which followed Henry's death. For the next two hundred years the 'Scottish' aristocracy spoke French and described themselves as 'Frenchmen' i.e Norman. The facts are quite clear and can be read on the various Wiki pages relating to Henry and David. Cassandra — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.166.91 ( talk) 16:47, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
I was told that this edit (earlier submission) was "not needed". The edit I display here shows exactly why it is needed. The following revert merely told me to come here per BRD but did not otherwise specify why the revert was being made. At this stage, I have nothing to add which was not given in the summary. -- Coldtrack ( talk) 21:20, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Where I come from originally, Ukraine, we have Tatars, a Turkic people. They too in many areas have "adopted our culture" 100%. But we still know who is ethnic Ukrainian and who is ethnic Tatar. In Normandy you do not have this with Normans and French, and have not had it since the 10th century (900s) according to the sources. -- Coldtrack ( talk) 21:40, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
−
Is this any better? Just asking. -- Coldtrack ( talk) 22:18, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
The lead of the article summarizes the body of the article. No history emphasizes that there were a few "Aragonese, Apulian, and German soldiers" in the mercenaries in William's army. This fact isn't even important enough for the body of the article, much less to be given in the lead of the article - the way the sources state this makes it clear that the "Aragonese, Apulian, and German soldiers" were outliers. This isn't important and doesn't need mentioning at all in the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:54, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
These edits are disputed. They are undue, remove sourced information and nuance, contain information that is not needed here, and are sourced to a tertiary source. Please read the links left on your talk page and stop edit warring. -- Ealdgyth ( talk) 16:12, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
i do think 'norman french' needs to be added here. otherwise, most readers without basic knowledge of linguistics or relevant history may mistake it for an independent language. besides, it must be stressed that norse influence on norman french is limited or people would think it's a hybrid of norse and french.
regarding siege of chartres, this is the decisive incident that directly led to rollo's acceptance of treaty proposed by the franks. if rollo had not been defeated at Chartres, he would not agree to be baptised. i therefore consider it necessary to mention it as the main article. Berserk Kerberos ( talk) 15:38, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
In regards to this edit - is the source discussing the Norman dialect of the Normans in the 11th century or is it discussing the modern Norman dialect of French? I can't tell and the source is also lacking page numbers. The exact text inserted (which is "As a dialect of Old French, Norman French still preserves a large number of Ancient French vocabularies which have disappeared in Modern French. It also preserves approximately 150 words from Old Norse of Old Dane.") sure seems to be discussing modern French, which does not actually have any relevance to the conquest of England in the 11th century. We should really not be putting in this level of detail (as discussed above) and should be using a stronger source than a dissertation. This level of detail is unneeded in an article on the conquest of England - because it's about the effect on ENGLAND, not on French dialects. And as final tiny niggling details - there are grammar issues and formating issues, but I'm not going to fix them because I do not think the addition belongs. -- Ealdgyth ( talk) 15:45, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian ( talk) 16:19, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Norman Conquest → Norman Conquest of England – Current title not specific enough Titus Gold ( talk) 11:55, 27 June 2022 (UTC) I've reverted the recent move from Norman Conquest to Norman conquest of England; per WP:RM, potentially controversial moves should be discussed first. This is a featured article so it's clear multiple editors think it's at the right place already so any move should be discussed. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 19:20, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
In the article Harold's forces are referred to with the adjective "English". Should they not be referred to as "Anglo-Saxon"? Or is that needless complication Shrimpeyes1 ( talk) 17:23, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
If I'm being honest with you, the title and the way the lead is written really bothers me. The Normans weren't just in England, but also in Italy and other places. But I do not think that this article properly clarifies this as what the Normans were doing in England, especially as the editors here favour the wording "or the Conquest" in a more general sense rather than England only. I tried to move this page to "Norman conquest of England" but it was reverted. I then tried simply updating the lead and clarifying that only in England rather than more generally would people refer to this as simply "the Conquest." Again, it was reverted. Try and tell me that this article is in the right place as it is!! I understand the principle of good faith, but the activity on this article against my attempts to edit it is really saying something to me. It doesn't come across as neutral to me, but rather comes across as Anglocentric/lack of historical knowledge to me (and I say that as an Englishman.) And it's annoying me, I've got to be honest with you. I do want what this article describes to be more clarified and more neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GOLDIEM J ( talk • contribs) 09:33, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Most war pages have a quick facts. I would expect to see this here, atleast regarding the initial invasions of William and Harold (excluding the harrowing).
This would provide a useful jumping off point for people to compare army sizes, look up the commanders, realise that William was leading a coalition of Norman/French/Breton nobles, had papal support ect. rather than discovering this information in the text.
Happy to begin the process if there is no disagreement? Pistol92 ( talk) 12:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)