Talk:Norman invasion of Wales

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Wales High‑importance

	Wales portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wales 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.WalesWikipedia:WikiProject WalesTemplate:WikiProject WalesWales articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Middle Ages Mid‑importance

	Middle Ages portal 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: British / European

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	British military history task force
	European military history task force

Normandy Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Normandy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Normandy 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.NormandyWikipedia:WikiProject NormandyTemplate:WikiProject NormandyNormandy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

European history High‑importance

	Europe portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe 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.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Magnus

"Magnus, who had earlier indirectly hurt the Welsh's chances against the Normans with his losing battle against King Harold II of England in 1066" - seems to be referring back to the previously-linked "King Magnus III of Norway (Magnus Barefoot)".

Given that Magnus wasn't actually born till 1073, and Harold II had defeated Harald Hardrada, this seems to be a bit astray? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.235.203.96 (talk) 23:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That text was obviously incorrect, so I've removed it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:49, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated text; seems oddly organised

I'm not a historian, so I am not confident of fiddling around with the text, but this article seems to have problems.

The last paragraph in the opening section is repeated word for word at the end.
The opening sentence seems really unhelpful as to what the Norman invasions were and when they happened.
The order of events as described is difficult to follow.

I had a quick look at the article in other languages, and eyeballing it, the French, German and Russian pages all look to be in far better shape. This is odd for an article on British history.OsFish (talk) 04:58, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strangely written, biased

The opening especially seems pretty strangely written and almost biased. 'heavy and humiliating defeat' for example, inaccurate assertations of routed armies instead of an ambush of a detached force, referral to the Welsh as Britons (technically true of course but given everything else, it sticks out) , all makes it sound like this article was written by a Welsh nationalist. Needs attention. Alooulla (talk) 04:05, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have edited out some of the more egregious examples, judging by the writing it was a single author doing most of it. But the article is still quite sparse. Alooulla (talk) 04:15, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree totally. The summary is still a poor understanding of the early Normans in Wales. Alooulla has done well to remove some clear bias but phrases like "the invasion of Wales was not undertaken with the fervour and purpose of the invasion of England", while not exactly biased, are wildly subjective and makes no mention of the Normans in Hereford prior to the invasion of England.

The article as a whole is pretty short and it sections are simple summaries of each Plantagenet king's relationship to Wales, while the sourcing suggests most of the body of the text is a rewording of Davies' History of Wales.

Aside from not mentioning any of the Norman activity in Wales prior to 1066, the article also seems to choose an end date of 1163 as its endpoint (a year that the Princes of Gwynedd and Powys temporarily swore fealty to the Norman king) as the date when "Welsh resistance (was) exhausted"

I remain unsure exactly what the purpose of this article should be, or what it's timescale should be. Maybe a total rewrite is in order? Cymrogogoch (talk) 14:48, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]