Talk:Normandy

message: I'm sorry, but this map of Normandy is not very indicative of where Normandy is in relation to the rest of France. I think it should be swapped with a more appropriate map detailing the location of Normandy, and I would change it myself if I was more wiki- proficient, but I am not. And so I beseech those savvy enough to correct articles to implement this change. Unfortunately, I'm not even sure if this is the right place to voice my querry, so I apologize in advance if this is the incorrect method of requesting map of Normandy changes.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.240.174.232 (talk) 20:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: And now it does. Man vyi 07:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Your picture was not deleted. It was moved, as stated, to an article where it is clearly pertinent. Is this picture pertinent to this article? As it stands, without context, it is simply a photo of something in Normandy, rather than anything specific to Normandy itself or explanatory of anything in the article. If the picture is helpful and illustrating text of encyclopaedic value, then it is unlikely to be shifted. The picture itself is very small and unreadable (even for those of us who are Francophone) - to improve the encyclopaedic value of the picture, I'd suggest a larger size and also providing an English language translation of the text on the poster to illustrate your point more clearly. Hope this helps. Man vyi 20:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The edit summary stated that the material was moved to Front National (France) - I recognised it as a Le Pen poster. It is currently still there. I wikilinked Normandy so that it would link back to this article. Man vyi 06:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

text: IP 132.162.208.117 was acting in accordance with guideline Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox. This article lacks a section on politics of Normandy, but that's partly because politics is currently covered, or should be dealt with, in the article on the constituent territories. Why not try writing something encyclopaedic about politics of Normandy and thereby placing what you want to say in context? Be aware though of the guidelines of Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not. Hope this helps. Man vyi 11:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

text: No doubt the situation about your house is factual (but is it verifiable?). However Wikipedia is not a soapbox and Self-promotion is against the guidelines. I'm sure all of us who live in Normandy could include pictures relating to our houses or links to our own external sites about our houses, but they will be judged as to whether they are a) encyclopaedic, b) notable. And if your beef is with the Front National (for whom I hold absolutely no brief whatsoever), you might, just might, find it easier to make a case for your situation being pertinent in that article. So far, you have failed to make a reasonable case for highlighting your home in an article about Normandy. Man vyi 15:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Map

message: Do normans have scandinavian traits (blond hair) or do they have the more latin-european traits (dark hair)?
:I don't know who asked this, as they did not log in or sign off. However, the question itself demonstrates a rather large helping of naiveté. Although fair skin and hair are found in a large number of scandinavian people, there are also a large number who have dark hair. My mother was 50% Swedish and 50% Norwegian, and she had fair skin with black hair. Her sister had light brown hair. My father and his brother, who were of French ancestry, had almost white blond hair as young boys, but their hair darkened as they grew older. My sister is blond, and my hair, which was blond is now dark brown. My name is Pierre Normand. PGNormand (talk) 16:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  How do normans look like? 

message: The text includes this rather dubious statement - "Normandy was the home of the Normans in the early Middle Ages, the last people to successfully invade England." In 1485, England was so successfully invaded by the Franco-Welsh forces of Henry Tudor that nobody was allowed to say it had happened! (RJP 23:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the passage should be changed to: "The last people originating from outside the British Isles to invade England" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.67.66 (talk) 10:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Invasion of England

message: What is the story behind the Norman Nordic Cross?  Where is it used?  When was it invented?  Why is it preferred over the two leopard flag?  Why is it not preferred?  This could probably warrant its own article, but I'm very curious about it.  The Jade Knight 20:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Norman Flag 

message: reverted user:Inge´s edit back.
There are two theories in who Rollo of Normandy is. And it´s well explained on Rollo of Normandy. So claiming that Gange Hrolf -(from the icelandic saga) WAS the Rollo, is not acceptable. --Comanche cph 14:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  gange hrolf 

message: I believe that the history of Normandy should be a seperate article. The paragraphs on this subject found in this article are good enough for a summary, but they appear to be all the information that can be found on the English Wikipedia. I went to the French Wikipédie and found an excellent article on La Histoire de la Normandie. I have set up a History of Normandy page and am working on translating the French article. I would like to request that anyone here who knows something about the topic help out, and that anyone who can read French help me with the translation (I've only been studying the language for a couple of months). Galanskov 00:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of Normandy 

message: :Image:HNlogo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:HNlogo.gif

message: This edit comes mostly from the Wikipedia page : History of Normandy, permanent link : 201400298 Lynntoniolondon (talk) 20:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit of History of Normandy on the 13 April 2008. 

message: why does it say that the animal on the flags of Normady is a leopard when its clearly a lion? to hell with it im changing it anyway!--Almightysock (talk) 00:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: See Leopard (heraldry). Equendil Talk 15:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lion / Leopard 

message: They were under the Norman dukes domain but not part of, the legally speaking, duchy of Normandy (if they were, then the kingdom of England 1066-1204 was part of the duchy as well). Thus I removed all references of the Islands as part of Normandy. I kept the section which explains why some people still regards the Islands as part of Normandy.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barokunda (talk • contribs) 11:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Reverted to allow discussion. Consensus has maintained that the Islands (l'Archipel normand, or les Îles anglo-normandes) are part of Normandy, and indeed as Norman-speaking territories there is little evidence against such consensus. On the point of the monarch's title as Duke of Normandy: evidence of such a claim goes back well before the current monarch. Man vyi (talk) 18:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This page is supposed to treat the former French province "Normandy". It doesn't have a page unlike Channel Islands and have nothing to do with the channel Islands. I created the Normandy disambiguation page that refers to the Channel Islands. Which goes in line with other wikipedia articles; to treat different parts of the "same territory" under different page if they are under different sovereignty. That's why the article about French Flanders does mention Belgium Flanders but doesn't go beyond that, like this one do.--Barokunda (talk) 10:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure how you contend that the article is supposed to treat exclusively the former French province. Flanders actually covers the various Flemish territories including French Flanders and the Flemish Region of Belgium. And we manage to rub along with Ireland and Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, which seems a similar situation. The French state does not recognise continental Normandy as an administrative entity, in any case. As a cultural space, Normandy is currently covered by a number of territories - and the article makes a fair stab at explaining the situation, I'd have thought. Man vyi (talk) 12:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: All of your examples further strengthen my point; they "COVER" each other but don't OVERLAP each other in either articles. This article however doesn't just mentions but treats "continental Normandy" and "insular Normandy" in the same article, when there already another article that treats "insular Normandy". And Normandy is a geographical region, not "administrative entity". None of these or any other article overlap each other, like describing their economy, demography etc. But this one do? Why? Because of your own personal taste not to any law/fact or even common sense, since all of these make clear Normandy is Normandy. A former French province now divide into departments. If your so into insisting that channel Islands are part of Normandy, crate another article that says so, but don't inject the channel Islands into the Normandy ( the region) article other than their past/history and maybe the fact that channel islanders and French regionalisms, like you, have the view that channel Islands are or should be part of Normandy. Anyway I won't argue further anymore. You can have your own way.--Barokunda (talk) 13:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not my own way. :fr:Normandie follows more or less the same pattern. I just don't see your argument that because there's an argument on the Channel Islands, therefore Normandy shouldn't include them. Following that logic, the existence on articles on Upper Normandy and Lower Normandy should exclude those territories too - which would leave Normandy pretty empty really. Thanks for the discussion - there's certainly pleanty of debate about Norman identity, particularly with the ongoing debate on reunification of Upper and Lower Normandy and the closer political ties between the bailiwicks and the départements and régions. Man vyi (talk) 19:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You are active on the French Wikipedia too, and you, or someone else have edited the channel islands in that too. And again, channel Islands are not part of Normandy because they are under British sovereignty and not French. And again, that is enough for them to have two articles treating "different" 'Normandies' JUST LIKE ANY OTHER ARTICLE treating regions or territories that have same/similar name or shared history/past. You didn't prove me wrong of my statement as of your last reply, because you can't. Fact is this article is politically and ideologically biased. This article is the perfect example that further the "Not even Wikipedia trust Wikipedia". I won't go further because again, you are guarding this article with your feelings and opinions and not fact or guidelines of Wikipedia. Thats why I said I won't argue anymore but I really felt I needed to say this. Anyway Good luck to you and your Normandy :)--Barokunda (talk) 11:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: One could say that a statement that the "channel Islands are not part of Normandy because they are under British sovereignty and not French" could be described as showing political and ideological bias. The way we try to resolve such conflicting biases is by discussing them and coming to a consensus. So far, consensus seems to be to treat Normandy as including all the territories that claim to be Norman. Of course, both here and on fr: that might be because of systemic bias in that those people who are most interested in editing articles on Normandy and its culture are those who are most interested in the cultural and historic unity of Normandy. On the other hand, they might just agree with Victor Hugo's writings concerning the normannité of the Islands. Man vyi (talk) 21:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Channel Islands are not part of Normandy 

message: This article doesn't mention in what present countries is Normandy. Eugenika (talk) 17:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The first paragraph states that the continental territory is in France and the insular territory is made up of the bailiwicks of Jersey and Guernsey. Clear enough, I'd have thought. Man vyi (talk) 08:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  In what countries is Normandy? 

message: It obviously wasn't called Normandy prior to the Northman settlement, so what was it called?Axeman (talk) 19:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, the Roman name was "Lugdunensis Seconda".  And that remained the name used for the province of the Archbishop of Rouen during the ecclesiastical organization of the early Medieval Christian church (encompassing eight old bishoprics - the sees of Rouen, Avranches, Coutances, Evreux, Lisieux, Sées and Hiesmes.  Or, if your prefer their Latin names:
* 1. Rouen = Rotomagus (old capital of the Vellocasses Celts)
* 2. Avranches = Ingena (old capital of the Abrincatui), 
* 3. Bayeux = Augustodurum (old capital of the Bajocasses)
* 4. Coutances = Constantis 
* 5. Evreux = Mediolanum (old capital of Aulerci Eburovices)
* 6. Lisieux = Noviomagus (old capital of Lexovii)
* 7. Sées = Saii (old capital of the Essui)
* 8. Hiesmes = Oximum
This ecclesiastical province remains to the modern day (with diocese of Hiesmes since united to Sées).
In political terms, in 476, Normandy (Lugdunensis Seconda) was part of the Gallo-Roman successor state of Neustria of Syagrius, before it fell  to the Franks a decade or so later.  Not sure if they gave it any different name.  With the exception of marchlands, the Carolingians did not tolerate large entities, and broke everything up into smallish counties reporting directly to the Frankish monarch, so I don't think Normandy as a whole would have had a distinct name or title in the Frankish hierarchy (although it did remain Lugdunensis Seconda in the Church hierarchy). At the time of the Scandinavian invasion, a "March of Neustria" was created in the 860s, which may have encompassed all or part of the Norman counties. It was only definitely reconstructed as a single entity in 911 for Rollo as the "Duchy of the Normans". Walrasiad (talk) 21:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  What was it called before the Scandinavian invasion? 

message: The info box states under 'Country' France and United Kingdom (Jersey and Guernsey) yet those islands are crown dependencies. The Wikipedia article on Crown Dependencies states that "they are not part of the United Kingdom" (2nd paragraph). Is there a way to deal with that contradiction?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.31.217 (talk) 07:21, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the UK flag in the infobox. Liam987 talk 09:31, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Countries: France / UK 

message: Now that Normandy will became a region, there's no sense to keep two different articles about the same thing. Vinukin (talk) 23:08, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: This edit was done a while ago, but I am opposed to this (see below). The cultural region of Normandy and the French région are two separate things. The article is now confusing as it is talking about both a "region of France" while including parts of not France. Tumericiangovernment (talk) 23:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Normandy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080501135826/http://195.7.104.1:80/normandy/gb/01bienv/index.html to http://195.7.104.1/normandy/gb/01bienv/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: i'm so confused. that's exactly what i'm writing isn't it? an editor keeps deleting my paragraphs. i hope nothing is personal Berserk Kerberos (talk) 18:18, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: This is about Normandy.  It is not about Rollo, it is not about Odo, it is not about the Siege of Paris, or Paris, or Ile de France, or baptisms or anything else.  Thus, that it was Odo who forced Rollo to abandon the Siege of Paris is not really relevant to an article about this region of France.  Anyhow, as I have expressed to you elsewhere, when you have tried to insert text into an article, and the propriety of that addition has been disputed, one should reach consensus on the question first, rather than trying to stay one step ahead of the dispute by adding it to a bunch of even less relevant other pages without first addressing the criticisms. Agricolae (talk) 19:30, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  too much details of a region in france? 

message: I'm still confused as to why British crown dependencies are listed under the "Country" section of the infobox - they are not independent countries. As to their degree of some independence, they are already listed elsewhere in the infobox where appropriate, under "French Departments and British Crown Dependencies."
I feel like it's not correct to list dependencies as countries even if they are independent to some degree. Seungri400 (talk) 20:01, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Listing them as the United Kingdom would be incorrect since neither of them are actually part of it, the word country can have several meanings, it does not only mean fully independent states, it can be regions with various levels of autonomy as well such as these crown dependencies. TylerBurden (talk) 10:17, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I just saw the notes you added to this and I think that makes for a pretty simple solution to this. TylerBurden (talk) 11:43, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Listing of British Crown Dependencies as countries