Talk:Viking expansion

Return to a perennial question
I find it hard to see how the parameters of this article are distinct from the parallel articles on Vikings and the Viking Age. Perhaps the difference should be that the Viking Expansion article discusses Scandinavian activities outside their homelands during the Viking Age, while the Viking Age article talks about the situation within Scandinavia itself. If so, the title of the latter needs to be changed to Viking Age Scandinavia, and the entire thing needs to be rewritten. At the same time, it is not clear why there should be a separate article that talks about the Vikings. There's a conceptual circularity here. It's the activities of Vikings that defines the notion of a Viking Age, whether in Scandinavia, or outside it. Yet the popularisation of the terms Viking and Viking Age, means that the noun Viking is now regularly applied to all Norse-speaking people who originated in Scandinavia in the whole period 700/750-1050/1100, and the related adjective is equally applied to all aspects of the culture connected with these people in the same period. The problem is then compounded by the additional presence of an article on Norsemen.

In general a consensus seems to have emerged that it's a good thing to have separate entries for the people and the history of their activities. But I would note that there is no similar distinction made on Wikipedia between 'Romans' and the history of their activities and cultural institutions in the articles on ancient Roman civilization and the Roman Empire. Personally, I think a great deal of muddle would be avoided by having a single article, so that the difficulties inherent in the use of noun and adjective Viking can be made absolutely clear, and an appropriate historical perspective developed in identifying who these people were. Otherwise the alternative articles (all of which are still marred by partisan, incomplete, or non-authoritative contributions) will continue to overlap, repeat one another, as new contributors add information to one without seeing that the others exist. The present articles either need to be massively re-edited, or else merged.

This comment is cross-posted on all three of the most relevant pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dala-Freyr (talk • contribs) 10:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The best solution here might be to merge Viking Age and Viking expansion, since they are practically identical. The Viking article could then refer to these briefly (as it already does) but be developed by concentrating more on cultural matters than the strictly historical. So one could have more on social structure (law, the role of women, and slavery), houses and settlement types, production and exchange, weapons and warfare, religious belief and practice in the pagan period and the early Christian era, language, art (including skaldic poetry). This would mean the merged Viking Age / Viking expansion article could concentrate more on historical processes and events, from the causes of the Viking Age to the reasons for the cessation of these activities, and the two resulting articles would be mutually supportive rather than repetitive. But the pages on the [Viking Age]] and Viking expansion should definitely be merged.CubeDigit (talk) 16:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

why is there not a section on norman italy and particularly norman sicily, the most spectacular of the norman kingdoms ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.56.90.132 (talk) 22:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Vikings in Georgia
The notability of Vikings visiting Georgia doesn't appear to be notable enough for its own article, but it would be a good addition to the Eastern Europe section of the Viking expansion article (especially if the offline source can be verified). Ahecht ( TALK PAGE ) 14:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * It's a good ideia. Ruddah (talk) 13:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Let's merge it. -- BCorr | Брайен 01:26, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Raid on Portland
The details of the raid on Portland at the end of the 8th century were cited to the Oxford Illustrated History of the Vikings, p. 3. but the details are not in my 1997 copy of the book, so I have revised. The citation was given as 3rd edition in 2001, but according to Worldcat there has only been one edition and the 2001 book is just a re-issue, so I have deleted 3rd ed. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:34, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Use of Military infobox
Let's try talking it out here rather than merely accusing one another of being unhelpful. Here are a few reasons why I do not believe a military infobox - or an infobox at all - would be an appropriate addition to the article: Overall, the subject of this article is simply too complex to be covered by one infobox of any kind. I would love to hear your opinion on this matter. Morningstar1814 (talk) 15:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The infobox isn't a very good summary of the key features of the subject. It feels rather long and quite bloated - while infoboxes serve a better purpose with less information (WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE). Many items included cannot be found in the article itself and seem to come from one particular map that is mostly unsourced and subject to numerous factual accuracy disputes.
 * The criteria for inclusion is sort of inconsistent - there are parties that had no doubt participated in military conflicts, but there are also ones that were simply geographic concepts and explorers. Iceland, Greenland and Vinland were merely settled (to a point, where conflicts with natives were occasional - or that natives were non-existent); Leif and Erik did not really went to war in this context. Describing many of these concepts as "belligerents" or "commanders and leaders" would be misleading.
 * Following the previous point and reiterating the point I made in my edit summary - the Viking expansion was violent, but not necessarily military enough to warrant a military infobox. It's worth noting how the process is described in the lede - that it involves not only looters and mercenaries, but also traders and colonists.
 * Many of the graphic features you used are inappropriate or anachronistic. We've rarely used a Viking ship icon to formally denote the Varangians, the Jomsvikings or anything on Wikipedia. The Kingdom of Norway, it appears, might not have started using the lion coat of arms until the 13th century, and so might have been the 12 stripes of the Icelandic Commonwealth. The Triquetra cross wasn't used as emblems of Francia and Lotharingia in a formal capacity. The three-chalice coat of arms of Galicia was attributed and might not have been historical. The Caetani coat of arms wasn't used to denote Gaeta and Benevento. The five-cross flag belonged to the medieval Kingdom of Georgia, not the Duchy of Kldekari which did not appear to use one.

Requested move 26 March 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 01:56, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Viking expansion → Norse expansion – Correct ethnical demark; Norse being the people that expanded and settled, viking designating a seafarer (often a temporary raider) in Old Norse. Chicbyaccident (talk) 11:29, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Purpose of "Viking" is to communicate that the vikings were expanding, not the ethnic group as a whole. Also per WP:COMMONNAME, as viking expansion is 21 times more popular than norse. (10,800,000 hits vs. 498,000 hits.) -- Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  12:58, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Norse expansion would not convey anything to most readers of English. It should also be noted that many books and TV programmes have opposed the idea that the Vikings were just raiders and discussed their trading, art and culture. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:04, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It was the ethnic group as a whole that expanded, not only the irregularly formed bands of pirates (vikings) of this said ethnical group. Of course the Norse pirate bands (vikings) could be studied as for their culture in their temporarly formed raiding bands, but as for their culture in the common sense, they were of Norse culture, religion, language, etc. (there are no such to be designated as "Viking", since that is not an ethnical demark). Discussions about nuancing the activities of the Norse expansion being about more than merely the pirates (the vikings) by implication support the notion of Norse influence and settlements beyond the very pirate (viking) activities. The first picture in the article says "Scandinavian settlements" which is kind of an odd choice of adjective since it covers settlements beyond Scandinavia. Talking about a "Viking expansion" arguable only covers the green areas on that map (area subject of recurrent raids). Compare the general topic Norse activity in the British Isles, and the subtopic Invasions_of_the_British_Isles. A more precise designation for the expansion overall would be "Norse". For instance, this image is correctly named "expansion of the Norse" in German. Chicbyaccident (talk) 14:07, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I will note that regardless of the merits of the entire group expanding, as opposed to a vanguard group of sort expanding, COMMON NAME dictates that Viking must stay, because it is 21 times more used than Norse. -- Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  14:12, 27 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose However inaccurate, English seems stuck with "Viking" as the most widely-understood term for these upstanding Nordic folk (women & all). See previous discussions ad infinitum. Johnbod (talk) 14:37, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Although "Viking" is certainly pejorative. The English version of it, was probably a 19th century revival, the word being linked to Old Norse although the meaning is not the same. Checking various scholarly sources the English meaning is not well defined however it is used as a general term for raiders from Scandinavia and Iceland rather than any specific country. We have already had problems on naming conventions in other articles as to where people originate from, eg: Danish v Norwegian v Sweden etc Wilfridselsey (talk) 16:05, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. "Viking" is a 19th century creation, the "controversy" is settled.  It was the Norse people who spread across the north of Europe, and other places in lesser numbers, and much of the spread was not in the form of war-boating pillaging horned helmets conquest.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:28, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I am inclined to Support the move on the grounds that accuracy should trump common usage (which usually reflects the past rather then present understandings). However, there is the possibility of a compromise - which is that this article sticks to its title and the opening sentence "Viking expansion is the process by which the Vikings sailed..." and all the references to genuine Norse expansion are removed. I realise that there are grey areas here but for example in the section on Scotland the para that refers to the Earls of Orkney reads as if they were perhaps Vikings. In fact the earldom came about through the removal of Vikings who had settled there and were (apparently, according to the Jarls' Saga) making life miserable for the settled Norse. An article title is one thing. Perpetuating myths is quite another. Ben   Mac  Dui  08:19, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. I do not agree that Norse is more accurate. 1. Norse expansion would cover emigration over a much longer period than is covered in the article. Thus History of Scandinavia has a section on the Viking age between the eighth and eleventh centuries. If I say that the Vikings reached Constantinople, I need to qualify it by saying that they did so by trading and emigration, not by invasion. If I say that the Norse reached Constantinople, I could be referring to an emigration in the thirteenth century which would be outside the scope of this article. 2. The Oxford Dictionary of English says that Norse can mean Norwegian, and it is often used in that sense by historians of Anglo-Saxon England, who distinguish between Danish and Norse Vikings. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:48, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have included a note in the article with a definition of the modern English word "Viking". As we have discussed what we understand by it here! Wilfridselsey (talk) 08:51, 1 April 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Spinning off the Iberian section
Just to say that I'm working through the section on the Vikings (so-called) in Iberia, integrating references to the new(ish) study by Ann Christys, Vikings in the South (London: Bloomsbury, 2015). But even without these edits, this section is rather long (it's much longer, say, than the one on the Vikings in Frankia, even though there was a lot more Viking activity in Frankia). So I'm planning in due course to spin out the Iberian stuff to a new article, and leave a more concise summary in the present article. I hope that sounds OK to people. Let me know if not! Alarichall (talk) 20:26, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I have now created Vikings in Iberia, building on the material here, and linked it as the main article from the Iberian section of this page. Next I'll trim the Iberian material on this page. Alarichall (talk) 01:19, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Job done. I also tidied up the Italy material. I may have a go at the material about the Eastern Mediterranean... Alarichall (talk) 09:58, 18 July 2018 (UTC)


 * And I have reverted it all. Do not make major rewrites of articles without a clear support from other editors, especially not when the rewrite, as in this case, involves wholesale removal of sourced content. Not getting any comments within a day or two does not equal support (it's mid-July and a large number of regular WP-editors are on vacation...), and a carte blanche to do whatever you want on the article. Your edits also involved more than just editing the Iberian section of it. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 14:51, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Dear Tom, as I've explained already in this section, the sourced content has not been removed: I've just moved it to what is now the main article. (Except where the sources are primary rather than secondary, which is the case for a lot of the references you've reinstated: in these cases I've provided secondary references.) Being bold is inherent in Wikipedia, and I'm not aware of a community concensus that edits should be undone simply because they haven't been discussed on a talk page first. I'd appreciate informed, critical engagement with my edits, rather than you reverting them out of hand. I'd be grateful if other editors would have a look at my last revision and see if they might be reinstated. Alarichall (talk) 15:02, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi there Tom! Can we come back to this? I've explained in detail below why the page as it stands is not satisfactory (including that it contains a lot of primary-source references). I'd very much like to improve it, but obviously don't just wish to provoke you to revert it again. Any chance you would be so good as to offer a view on the edits outlined below? Thanks! Alarichall (talk) 23:09, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Seeking review of some edits re Iberia and the Mediterranean
As the previous section indicates, I made a lot of edits to this article. Personally I didn't view them as controversial (and provided clear edit summaries), so I was bold, but Thomas.W thought it better to undo them all because I hadn't got permission here first (which is of course his prerogative). So, with apologies if this is a bit long-winded, I wonder if I could get a view on edits regarding the following three sections? I've listed the least controversial first. Thanks! Alarichall (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Fixing erroneous claim about Ibn Fadlān in the Levant section
The text says 'In particular, Arab scholars such as Ibn-Fadlan recount Norse trade expeditions to Baghdad, a major center of the Islamic world'. This is straightforwardly wrong: Ibn Fadlān says nothing of the sort! Unsurprisingly, the reference here is not to a scholarly source, and the link is broken. I suggest we delete this line.

Moving and correcting the Italy section
I suggest:
 * 1) Renaming the 'Italy' section to 'Italy and Sicily', since both are covered there.
 * 2) Moving it after the Iberia section, so that the order of the page runs geographically from Frankia through Iberia to Italy and then to the Eastern Mediterranean.
 * 3) Adding a link to the main article Norman conquest of southern Italy (which also covers pre-Norman Viking activity there).

I also suggest some copy-editing to consolidate the slightly scattered summary of the Norman Conquest, improving the references, and removing the stuff about Dudo of St Quentin, because this is unlikely to be historical (but noting that there is a proper discussion of this in the main article, which people will find if they choose to dig deeper). Therefore I suggest the following, improved (though still far from perfect) text: Around 860, Ermentarius of Noirmoutier and the Annals of St-Bertin provide contemporary evidence for Vikings based in Frankia proceeding to Iberia and thence to Italy.

Three or four eleventh-century Swedish Runestones mention Italy, memorialising warriors who died in 'Langbarðaland', the Old Norse name for southern Italy (Langobardia Minor). It seems clear that rather than being Normans, these men were Varangian mercenaries fighting for Byzantium. Varangians may first have been deployed as mercenaries in Italy against the Arabs as early as 936.

Later several Anglo-Danish and Norwegian nobles participated in the Norman conquest of southern Italy. Harald Hardrada, who later became king of Norway, seems to have been involved in the Norman conquest of Sicily between 1038 and 1040, under William de Hauteville, who won his nickname Iron Arm by defeating the emir of Syracuse in single combat, and a Lombard contingent, led by Arduin. Edgar the Ætheling, who left England in 1086, went there, Jarl Erling Skakke won his nickname after a battle against Arabs in Sicily. On the other hand, many Anglo-Danish rebels fleeing William the Conqueror, joined the Byzantines in their struggle against Robert Guiscard, duke of Apulia, in Southern Italy.

Trimming the Iberian material
This is probably the most controversial step. Here is my rationale:
 * As I described above, at the moment it's disproportionately long given that there was actually little Viking activity in Iberia compared with, say, Francia.
 * It's also quite disjointed because the main known raids affected both Christian Spain (including Galicia) and Al-Andalus, but the section separates these regions, making it harder to understand the events. (This is partly because, about a year ago, the Galician material was merged from another page without many changes.)
 * Moreover, the section draws heavily on primary sources (which Wikipedia entries aren't supposed to do). This may not be obvious at first sight, but all the references to Jón Stefánsson 1909 are actually primary source references (his article is a collection of translated primary sources).
 * The first monograph study of the Vikings in Iberia since the nineteenth century was published in 2015 so it makes sense to edit the material to reflect this major new analysis (Ann Christys, Vikings in the South (London: Bloomsbury, 2015)). Inter alia, it demonstrates that a lot of the late primary sources that are the basis for much of the material here are unreliable.
 * Partly for all these reasons, and since the subject is clearly notable in its own right, I've made a new Vikings in Iberia page. This can be linked as the main article from the Iberia section in Viking expansion, meaning that the Viking expansion coverage can be more concise.

Here is my suggested revised text for the Iberia section of Viking expansion: Compared with the rest of Western Europe, the Iberian peninsula seems to have been little affected by Viking activity, either in the Christian north or the Muslim south. Our knowledge of Vikings in Spain is mainly based on written accounts, many of which are much later than the events they purport to describe, and often also ambiguous about the origins or ethnicity of the raiders they mention. A little possible archaeological evidence has come to light, but research in this area is ongoing.

Viking activity in the Iberian peninsula seems to have begun around the mid-ninth century as an extension of their raids on and establishment of bases in Frankia in the earlier ninth century, but although Vikings may have over-wintered there, there is as yet no evidence for trading or settlement.

The most prominent and probably most significant event was a raid in 844, when Vikings entered the Garonne and attacked Galicia and Asturias. They then proceeded south, raiding Lisbon and Seville. This Viking raid on Seville seems to have constituted a significant attack.

859–861 saw another spate of Viking raids, apparently by a single group. Despite some elaborate tales in late sources, little is known for sure about these attacks. After unsuccessful raids on both northern Iberia and al-Andalus, the Vikings seem also to have raided other Mediterranean targets—possibly but not certainly including Italy, Alexandria and Constantinople−and perhaps over-wintering in Francia.

Evidence for Viking activity in Iberia vanishes after the 860s, until the 960s-70s, when a range of sources including Dudo of Saint-Quentin, Ibn Ḥayyān, and Ibn Idhārī, along with a number of charters from Christian Iberia, while individually unreliable, together afford convincing evidence for Viking raids on Iberia in the 960s and 970s.

Tenth- or eleventh-century fragments of mouse bone found in Madeira, along with mitocondrial DNA of Madeiran mice, suggests that Vikings also came to Madeira (bringing mice with them), long before the island was colonised by Portugual.

Quite extensive evidence for minor Viking raids in Iberia continues for the early eleventh century in later narratives (including some Icelandic sagas) and in northern Iberian charters. As the Viking Age drew to a close, Scandinavians and Normans continued to have opportunities to visit and raid Iberia while on their way to the Holy Land for pilgrimage or crusade, or in connection with Norman conquests in the Mediterranean. Key examples in the saga literature are Sigurðr Jórsalafari (king of Norway 1103-1130) and Røgnvaldr kali Kolsson (d. 1158).

Thanks for your patience!
Sorry that was such a long set of queries. (For avoidance of doubt, personally I would rather encourage editors to be bold than run everything through talk pages, but I recongise there are differences of opinion!) It would be helpful if people could either signal which changes seem acceptable, or offer suggestions. Thanks! Alarichall (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'm implementing these changes. I'll do them in ascending order of controversialness though so that if any reversion is going to happen, it isn't wholesale. Alarichall (talk) 21:41, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikilink to North Germanic peoples
At the moment this article begins 'Viking expansion is the process by which Scandinavian warriors, known in modern scholarship as Vikings, sailed most of the North Atlantic...'

User:Krakkos has suggested changing this to include a wikilink to North Germanic peoples: 'Viking expansion is the process by which North Germanic warriors, known in modern scholarship as Vikings, sailed most of the North Atlantic...'

This edit has been reverted by User:Thomas.W, but a wikilink to the North Germanic peoples article seems unobjectionable to me. That article is indeed about the people most associated with undertaking Viking raids. We could always link to that article but keep the phrase 'Scandinavian warriors' as the text: 'Viking expansion is the process by which Scandinavian warriors, known in modern scholarship as Vikings...'.

Rather than get into an edit war with Tom, I thought I'd post here and see what the feeling is. Alarichall (talk) 16:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Krakkos has gone on a POV-spree today changing every mention he could find of Scandinavia/Scandinavians into a link to their own POV-fork, North Germanic peoples, so it's not only this article that is affected. Scandinavia and Scandinavians is what is in common use among native English speakers, not "North Germanic peoples", so I see no reason for changing it. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 16:17, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * but I can't see anything wrong with this article linking to the well-developed North Germanic peoples page, not least because we can keep the word Scandinavians in the text here. It's a well developed article that's an informative destination for a wikilink. Whether or not the title of the article best reflects common use, I don't see a good reason not to link to it. Can you give one, apart from not liking the title? Thanks! Alarichall (talk) 16:29, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter how "well developed" the article is if the name is wrong. "North Germanic peoples" is not the common name in English, and that's what matters (see WP:COMMONNAME for what we go by when naming articles). That's why it was proposed to move "North Germanic peoples" to "Scandinavians". - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 17:20, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, as you know, there's an ongoing debate about what the best name for the North Germanic peoples article is, and I can't see a clear consensus. That doesn't mean we can declare that the title is "wrong"! I can see that Krakkos has been linking to that article in some quite idiosyncratic places, and that some of your reverts make sense. But for some the linking seems perfectly sensible, and I think Viking expansion is such a place. Again, if you want to oppose my putting a link back in, could you cite a substantive reason why we shouldn't link from Viking expansion to North Germanic peoples? Thanks! Alarichall (talk) 17:29, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Norsemen is obviously the more specific and relevant article, and the link should probably pipe to there, and perhaps show "Norse". Johnbod (talk) 17:44, 10 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Using anything other than the common name (i.e. the name that is most prevalent in reliable sources) is wrong here, as you can see if you follow the link I provided above. And "North Germanic peoples" is most definitely not the most prevalent name in English for the Germanic peoples of Scandinavia. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 17:46, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The common name is not determined by which Google search yields the largest amount of hits. The common name is determined through reading reliable sources. As i, Alarichall, Bloodofox and other users experienced in the topic have pointed out, North Germanic peoples is a term commonly used by scholars for speakers of North Germanic languages. Scandinavians is an ambiguous term with multiple meanings. According to WP:COMMONNAME, ambiguous titles are to be avoided, no matter how common they are. Krakkos (talk) 18:05, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * though you might go easy on replacing the word 'Scandinavians' with 'North Germanic peoples' in the texts of articles :-) Alarichall (talk) 18:09, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. Unfortunately, certain powerful editors have been misled by the misrepresentations of Thomas.W and Johnbod into considering me some kind of boogeyman. In case you have the courage to perform the edit you suggested, here is a source you can use:
 * E. V. Gordon, An Introduction to Old Norse: "The later expansion of the Scandinavian nations in the Viking Age may be regarded as the final wave of North Germanic migration." Krakkos (talk) 18:20, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Which would give anyone with a clue a hint about where in time the different terms (North Germanic peoples, Norsemen, Scandinavians) fit in. Describing the expansion of the Scandinavians in the Viking age as the "final wave of North Germanic migration" says exactly what I told you at WP:RSN about North Germanic peoples being the preferred term for Migration Period and earlier Scandinavians, but not for time periods after that... - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 18:34, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * When Gordon says that the Viking expansion was the "final wave of North Germanic migration" he means that there were no more North Germanic mass migrations. To interpret his statement as meaning "North Germanic peoples being the preferred term for Migration Period and earlier Scandinavians" is clueless. In any regards, this is yet another of your red herrings. What is supposed to be addressed here is the content of this article, not your grievances over failed attempts to change the title of other articles. Gordon clearly states that the Viking expansion was a migration of North Germanic peoples, and your removal of such information is therefore obviously unjustustifed and disruptive. Even a person without a clue would understand that. Krakkos (talk) 13:06, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh dear, I think we can manage without a recapitulation of the debate about naming North Germanic peoples here. I'll see if there are any other comments on this for a day or two and then see about putting a link back in if that seems appropriate! Alarichall (talk) 18:49, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Citation needed.
Does anyone have a reliable source or sources for the following "Citation needed" from 2007?

Motivation for expansion - "It is also possible that a decline in the profitability of old trade routes drove the Vikings to seek out new, more profitable ones. Trade between western Europe and the rest of Eurasia may have suffered after the Roman Empire lost its western provinces in the 5th century, and the expansion of Islam in the 7th century may have reduced trade opportunities within western Europe by redirecting resources along the Silk Road.[citation needed] Trade in the Mediterranean was at its lowest level in history when the Vikings began their expansion.[citation needed] The Viking expansion opened new trade routes in Arab and Frankish lands, and took control of trade markets previously dominated by the Frisians after the Franks' destroyed the Frisian fleet.[citation needed]" Jerry Stockton (talk) 21:32, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

About the ridiculous SVG map...
The orange area for Normandy is way too large (Normandy never extended to French flanders) and the yellow section makes no sense whatsover as 11th century Normans weren't vikings in any way (they spoke French, were christians and fought and lived like the French). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.241.175.56 (talk) 02:42, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Content fork
This article is essentially a duplicate of the articles Viking Age and Vikings. Content forking is to be avoided at Wikipedia. Per WP:OVERLAP, i think the parts of this article concerned with settlements should be merged to Viking Age, and the parts about raiding merged to Vikings. Krakkos (talk) 11:07, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Odo of Paris and Robert I of France
it's weird that someone deleted the whole paragraph regarding both historical figures who in fact fended off viking attacks. nothing is controversial. there're separate pages regarding them respectively. a particular editor is deleting my works on different pages. i hope nothing is personalBerserk Kerberos (talk) 18:14, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

"the latter known in modern scholarship as Vikings" is wrong and history falsification
The text "the latter known in modern scholarship as Vikings," is false. Historican John H Lind at Copenhagen University is truly belonging to "modern scholarship" and he writes:


 * The term ”Viking” appears in Anglo-Saxon or Norse sources in the so-called Viking Age. Here it simply denotes pirates, no more, no less. It had no geographic or ethnic connotations that linked it to Scandinavia or Scandinavians. By contrast, in these sources we find it used anywhere about anyone who to an Anglo-Saxon or a Scandiniavian appeared as a pirate. Therefore we find it used about Israelites crossing the Red Sea; Muslims in Galleys* encountering Norwegian crusaders in the Mediterranean; Caucasian pirates encountering the famous Swedish Ingvar-Expedition - John H Lind, Vikings and viking age

In the primes sources, the term viking IS used, but not about the Northmen, the term viking is in the sources used for Caucasian pirates, attacking the northmen.

Dan Koehl (talk) 07:39, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, we discussed this on svwp and even the Swedish Riksantikvariatsämbetet writes vikingar (but knows very well they during that time was called svear, jutar, götar... One "modern scholarship" says one thing, and a lot of others says the other. So it is not false. Adville (talk) 13:04, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed - it might perhaps be truer to say "modern English-language scholarship", but, as you have been told countless times over several years, this is the English Wikipedia, and we are primarily concerned with how terms are used in modern English, not Anglo-Saxon or Norse. Johnbod (talk) 14:01, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Etymology online suggests that Viking is historians revival based on the Old Norse vikingr this is cognate on the Old English wic and Old Frisian wicing. The connection between the Norse and Old English words is not clear. They were not referred to as vikings when the annals were created, the ASC for example calls them Danes or Northmen. Wilfridselsey (talk) 16:58, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

from abt year 200-1400 the latin pirate was not translated to pirate in several west european languages, the word pirate became in us first around 1400. Guess which word was the translation of pirate during those 1000 years, before it was replaced by pirate? Dan Koehl (talk) 21:01, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

The word can be found in the only written source about Ingvars voyage, the Icelandic Yngvar Saga. You can read it here, https://www.snerpa.is/net/forn/yngvar.htm where you will find the word. The word, however, is not used about Ingvars fleet, and his countrymen, it is used to describe the attackers on Ingvars fleet, local pirates. In the source, the word is never used about the Scandinavians, only about their enemies.Dan Koehl (talk) 21:08, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * And modern schalars, historians? We write according to the modern use of the Word. You know That words change meaning sometimes over time? Like “gay” me too happy not long ago, now it is homosexual… what about 1000 years? There are multiple sources for the modern use of the word viking, both in Swedish and English. Adville (talk)|

The article is not about the use of a word, its about historical persons, vikings. People dont primarly want to read about personal ideas about vikings they search for relevant about the real vikings, not what "modern" people wo never bothered to read prime sources, believe. Misnderstanding about the word could be described in special section, but should not form the main content of an article that should describe vikings, not misunderstandings, or local interpretations of the word. especially, an article about vikings should not upto 80% describe Not-vikings. Dan Koehl (talk) 08:44, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Please dont bring my person into this discussions, and my intentions is not trying to make Wikipedia into an opinion forum, so I want follow up your personal view on Scandinavia. I only refer to sources. Its intersting to read which different ideas persons have about medieval Scandinavians, but it only sources that count, and give a reliable text, to develop articles with. Dan Koehl (talk) 05:59, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

NPOV
On a second note, regarding the NPOV template, it refers to regardless if this article is written in English language, its content should reflect an Internernational view. The article should be focused on the subject, historical persons who were documented as vikings in the sources, not misunderstanding about a word since 1850, by british people. This misunderstanding can be described and explained as a side note, but a misunderstanding and misinpretation of a subject, should form the main content in an article. Even if some english and american people belive, that vikings could be traders or explorers, this misunderstanding should not be the main function of the article, contrary, the article should explain what the sources says, that this was never the case. If northmen discovered America, they should be described and mentioned as Northmen, not as vikings, becasue of undeducated peoples beliefs. Furthermore, an article about vikings, should be an article about viking, and focus on REAL vikings, not about Not-vikings or Norse people. Norse people should be described in the article about Norse people. It is, when reading the article, pretty clear, that the article has been abused in that sense, someone has included a lot of content which refers to Norse people in general, while as an example the first two historical instances when some were referred to as a viking in prime sources, is not mentioned at all. Out from a logical point of view, what I mean with this, the article vikings should describe vikings, The article vikings should not describe Not-vikings as vikings, or enemies of vikings as vikings, or nations which had a documented organized defence against vikings, as vikings, since then its not an educational material anymore, if the article becomes a mixture of facts, not facts, antifacts, fantasies about a word, etc. Especially the last part is important. Te article should not primarly be a description of the word, or what any laymen has belived since 1850, it should describe the real subject, the vikings, and the persons which the sources describes as such. I may also add, an error, doesnt become truth, just because many people repeat the error. And it doesnt become a consenus either, and concenus is not a product of scientific method.If I can give an evidence for, that in medevial time Icelandic people very clearly made a difference beteween tradesman (kaupferðum) or pirate (víking) this is an evidence, and it doesnt matter how many thousand people BELIEVE that vikings could be traders, and claiming they have a consensus about that. Dan Koehl (talk) 06:35, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

All ethnicall groups peoples have a right to be respected and mentioned with the correct name.
Apart from what I have written above, I want to remind you that its a no-no to call people from Africa negroes, even if this was maybe common in the past. Its likewise not correct to call all germans Nazis, or call all Americans rednecks or Hilly-Billies. '''Using pejorative terms about other people, can never be defended by the argument of name conventions. it may, in fact, even be illegal, and Wikipedia should not be involved in criminal activities. '''All groups of people should be respected, and be called with not pejorative terms. Britain as an example was attacked and invaded by numerous tribes and "nations" and in all instances they are correctly described by the correct name. When Saxons attack, even if they are pirates and referred to as vikings in some sources, they are mentioned as Saxons, not vikings, When Friseans attack Britain, even if they also were pirates sometimes, they are described as Friseans. So if Norwegians or Danes attack Britain, why should they suddenly be described as vikings, especially if the sources doesnt mention the word viking, instead mention them as Northmen? Wikipedia should not support fabrications of words, misunderstanding of words, and Wikipedia should not support myths and history falsification. This what I mean with that is extremely unpolite, uneducated, and very incorrect, to name my ancestors as pirates, instead of Swedes. Especially since Sweden only have two documented vikings during

thousands of years, and at least on one rune stone, mention a viking guard, protecting Sweden from Vikings. The article doesnt seem to describe at one single place that Sweden, Norway and Denmark had an organized defence against vikings, called Landvärnsmän. Instead, on some articles the kings who inititated this are described naively as "viking-kings" or "viking-leaders" Many years Harald Hairfair was described as a viking-king, while the truth is, according to the sources::Harald I of Norway At last, Harald was forced to make an expedition to the West, to clear the islands and the Scottish mainland of some Vikings who tried to hide there.. (the original text says in english translation::King Harald heard that the vikings, who were in the West sea in winter, plundered far and wide in the middle part of Norway; and therefore every summer he made an expedition to search the isles and out-skerries (1) on the coast. Wheresoever the vikings heard of him they all took to flight, and most of them out into the open ocean. At last the king grew weary of this work, and therefore one summer he sailed with his fleet right out into the West sea. First he came to Hjaltland (Shetland), and he slew all the vikings who could not save themselves by flight. Then King Harald sailed southwards, to the Orkney Islands, and cleared them all of vikings. Thereafter he proceeded to the Sudreys (Hebrides), plundered there, and slew many vikings who formerly had had men-at-arms under them. -King Harald would never agree that he was a viking-king, he was, like probably 99% of scandinavians were, fighting vikings.The article viking should be up to date with what one of the more well known experts on vikings and viking time, John H Lind from Copenhagen University writes::''The term ”Viking” appears in Anglo-Saxon or Norse sources in the so-called Viking Age. Here it simply denotes pirates, no more, no less. It had no geographic or ethnic connotations that linked it to Scandinavia or Scandinavians. By contrast, in these sources we find it used anywhere about anyone who to an Anglo-Saxon or a Scandiniavian appeared as a pirate. Therefore we find it used about Israelites crossing the Red Sea; Muslims in Galleys* encountering Norwegian crusaders in the Mediterranean; Caucasian pirates encountering the famous Swedish Ingvar-Expedition, and Estonian and Baltic pirates attacking Scandinavians in the Baltic Sea. Thus the term was never used to denote Scandinavians as such. Therefore, if we wish to maintain Viking-Age studies on a scholarly level, we must stop acting as an appendix to the tourist industry by using the term Viking as if it was synonymous with Scandinavian and Scandinavians.''AND, WHY are all the documented vikings missing in the article, which instead tells a lot about Not-wikings? if people come to Wikipedia in order to read about vikings, and learn more about them, Where can thy find the true information about true vikings, if the article about vikings to 80% is about NOt-vikings, and doesnt even mention the true vikings? What logical argument can possible defend that Wikipedia presently is a source of desinformation, because a small number of users defend myths and desinformation, and want to "own" the article, and doesnt allow users to submit true and well sourced content about people wo really were vikings? Dan Koehl (talk) 07:04, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Graphics
Some graphical material has generously been uploaed to Wikimedia, and inserted in the article viking. But theres several problems, almost none of the graphics has anything, what so ever, to do with vikings, as far as we know. The very first picture with Norse people sailing, may as well be ledungs people, who attacked vikings, we dont know who they were, and we shoulndt fabricate things. Dan Koehl (talk) 08:44, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Viking is not an English word
, claims above that viking is an English word, and therefore his personal definition of the word should have priority, before what prime sources say. This is, however, not true. AFTER the word viking was used in Oldfrisean and other languages, it was used by Orosius in Oldenglish.

But the first time it was used in modern English 1807, second time 1827, and experienced a broader spreading after 1840s during the National Romantism. I guess theres a point of highlightning the fact that a lot which was "common knowledge" during the National Romantism, has turned out to be false and wrong, and today corrected, and the errors in details described. Except for vikings, which survived as some sort of relict from the romantic days. The intention with Wikipedia is not to argue the validity of claims during romantism epochs, but only to describe them, and describe how and why people misunderstood and misinterpreted things. And like I wrote above, te claim that any certain kind for priority of english speaking peoples ideas about vikings, with the claim it was an english word, is unvalid. Its not an English word, and also the en-wiki, should be kept in an neutral, international frame. Dan Koehl (talk) 08:54, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Sharon Turner, in his "The History of the Anglo-Saxons" first published in 1799 refers to the vikingr in his text. It is this interpretation that the modern English version of Viking is probably based. Wilfridselsey (talk) 10:03, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I read that it was written by Turner in 1841, not 1799, but I cant read the content where the word viking is mentioned, what does it say? Dan Koehl (talk) 15:49, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the confusion, his book was originally published in 1799, I couldn't find a first edition online, so linked to the 6th? edition. Anyway the main point is what he said about Vikings although he uses vikingR rather than viking. I think that there is a better version on Internet Archive here. Wilfridselsey (talk) 16:32, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Great, thanks a lot, Im reading and realizing that the english speaking view on vikings seems very much origin from Turner, and sadly enough, hasnt really developed much since then. , would you agree, that Turner doesnt actually use the english word viking, but the Icelandic masculinum WikingR, which was a description of an activity, piracy, and not a description of anykind of people? Dan Koehl (talk) 17:16, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , I think that the Victorian historians used Turner as a source for their description, hence why in English Viking means Scandinavian pirate. In English texts the viking-r form seems to have been used mainly in the first half of the 19th century. The first use of the "viking" form I can find was in 1840 viz "I was a Viking old!" in Skeleton in Armour   by  H. W. Longfellow'. After that the "r" seems to have been  dropped, probably as it would not fit comfortably with conventional English syntax. Wilfridselsey (talk)


 * , I agree with you after reading Turner, its pretty clear to see, that the english and swedish Wikipedia is defending a description, with origin from Turner in 1799. Sad, very sad. See also Talk:Vikings. Dan Koehl (talk) 22:22, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that the English use of the word Viking is not precise and is different to the Icelandic and Scandinavian usage. The English version is Scandinavian pirate. Usually, if an invasion or adventure is sponsored by a  king say Cnut the Great or Harald Hardrada they are referred to by the country  they originate from (Denmark and Norway), and not as vikings. However you will probably find some texts that say "Cnut the viking", which imo would be an incorrect use of the English version of "viking".  How would you define "pirate", a person operating outside the law perhaps? But in various conflicts pirates were used as mercenaries, particularly in the Hundred Years war and Elizabethan times.  Sometimes these state sponsored pirates were known as "privateers", and would often have Royal Navy officers aboard, so are they still pirates?? The use of viking in English is now as much by  convention developed over a couple of hundred years, rather than by dictionary definition in English or other languages. Wilfridselsey (talk) 08:15, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

It comes to great complictions to repeat Turners mistake 1799 today. The story about Ingvar, being attacked by vikings which is exactly what the Saga says, becomes pretty confusing, if Ingvar meanwhile gets described as viking, although not one single source name him as such.Dan Koehl (talk) 08:48, 17 July 2021 (UTC)


 * The Word viking is used in modern English. It is a word borrowed from other languages. What is the problem with that? That it might have changed meaning too durin 1000-1500 years of use is not strange. We still write modern English here, with borrowed words. You also got an answer from an archeologic professor on svwp in this matter. Adville (talk) 10:09, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Really, a professor in Archeology, what is that? If you mean Archaeology, I always though that history and Archaeology is two different disciplines. The problem, is that the word viking, when mentioned in the source about Ingvar, is never used about him, or anyone in the Norwegian fleet. The word viking is only used about the Caucasian (maybe Byzantic, since they used Greek fire) attackers on Ingvar in his fleet. This I added to to the Swedish article, and you know what? The truth can not be handled on the Swedish Wikipedia, it was removed, with the motivations, that 1. it may confuse the readers and 2. Readers are not interested to read that. And when the truth is removed on a Wikipedia, because the truth may confuse the readers, while someone promptly want to stick to a false interpretation in an an article which not one single source in the entire world backs up, that is when that Wikipedia starts to take the steps into something very sad, when people remove the truth, and stick to the lies. It is normally referred to as censorship, and is a path which leads to something very, very destructive. It is NOT the best way of improving an encylopedia. And anyone can read the word pirate mentioned in the source https://www.snerpa.is/net/forn/yngvar.htm, because the admins on Swedish Wikipedia cant change history, and you cant change the prime historical sources. You can burn books, you can censorship articles, you can block people from editing, but you cant change the reality and the truth. You can state that you know "what people want to read" and remove from a page about greek fire, an intersting text describing the only time in history it was used against Swedish people. This way of managing a Wikipedia will never be a winning concept as anyone can see when people leve the project and you get less and less contributors, after you took power of the project. Dan Koehl (talk) 16:26, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know if I shall cry, or laugh at your way of trying to master me. It is pathetic. You very well knows that I am from Sweden and English is my second language. Why the h**l do you then try to make fun of me when I misspell a word. Are we here to discuss the subject or who is best speller? The only thing that is good with your mocking me is that it really shows even here on enwp why you were blocked for three years on svwp: Not because of the word Viking, but because of your way to make fun of users that oppose what you are writing. We follow the code of conduct on svwp, and do not want to loose new wikipedians because of this kind of mocking. All your last part above is a way to try to say "some people have censored you and try to change the truth. That is wrong Here is the motivation for your block.
 * And back to discuss the real matter: You know whom I meant in my last post that gave you an answer, when I wrote a professor. He even has an article on enwp: Martin Rundkvist ("Martin Rundkvist is a Swedish archaeologist and associate professor at the University of Łódź in Poland. His research focuses on the Bronze, Iron, and Middle Ages of Scandinavia"). He wrote this on svwp (translated by me): "Only the first paragraph under the part 'Discussion' was about Lind. By the way, his opinions are very rare and should not have any focus in the article. We shall write the scientists consensus, and not present every opinion ever said by scientists in a subject".
 * This means that he thinks just like the rest of us: Viking has a new meaning in the modern language. It is not wrong to mention that they did not call themselves Vikings, or mention the first written use in an Anglo-Saxon source of the word in a translation of the bible (I think you wrote). That is interesting and a fun fact, but still: in modern English and Swedish they are called Viking kings, Viking expansion et cetera. We still writes modern English in the articles. Adville (talk) 23:02, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Adville, I think its pretty transparent why you are here. Its very easy to read, and see WHO tries to stick to the subject and WHO tries to discuss me as a person. Anyone who can read will notice this. Dan Koehl (talk) 09:51, 17 July 2021 (UTC)


 * "Archeology, what is that?" - well, it's the American spelling of Archaeology, that's what. Johnbod (talk) 02:36, 17 July 2021 (UTC)


 * , do you defend the 1799 name "viking king" as "modern"? if you read this, do you really think its very bright to call this person a "viking -king"?


 * Harald I of Norway At last, Harald was forced to make an expedition to the West, to clear the islands and the Scottish mainland of some Vikings who tried to hide there.. (the original text says in english translation:
 * King Harald heard that the vikings, who were in the West sea in winter, plundered far and wide in the middle part of Norway; and therefore every summer he made an expedition to search the isles and out-skerries (1) on the coast. Wheresoever the vikings heard of him they all took to flight, and most of them out into the open ocean.  At last the king grew weary of this work, and therefore one summer he sailed with his fleet right out into the West sea.  First he came to Hjaltland (Shetland), and he slew all the vikings who could not save themselves by flight.  Then King Harald sailed southwards, to the Orkney Islands, and cleared them all of vikings.  Thereafter he proceeded to the Sudreys (Hebrides), plundered there, and slew many vikings who formerly had had men-at-arms under them. 

Dan Koehl (talk) 09:14, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the mistake from Turner has been repeated since 1799. Theres many mistakes made by people since 1799, but mostly on Wikipedia, readers get information that there were errors made. Its kind of history falsification to claim, something or almost everything, on the page viking, which ALL primes sources tell us a total opposite story about, between year 500 AD-1850. Countries having a documented, well organised defence AGAINT vikings cant logically be called viking countries. Its not intelligent. Dan Koehl (talk) 09:09, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

It comes to great complications to repeat Turners mistake 1799 today. The story about Ingvar, being attacked by vikings which is exactly what the Saga says, becomes pretty confusing, if Ingvar meanwhile gets described as viking, although not one single source name him as such. I fail to understand how adult people dont understand this history falsification becomes very much exposed, when you tell the real history. Errors from 1799, by some people here referred to as "modern" becomes very clear. Dan Koehl (talk) 08:51, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

The word "modern" has been used in this discussion, referring to descriptions dating back to 1799. I reply that that is not modern, but THIS is modern:

The Vikings are a mythical group of people. Especially during the days of national romanticism in the 19th century, this myth-making took off. Among Swedish archaeologists, it is mainly the Historical Museum's Fredrik Svanberg who in recent years has taken the lead in "demytifying" the late Iron Age Scandinavians by seeking to show where the archaeological facts end and national romanticism begins. The Danish historian John H Lind at the University of Copenhagen is also one of the authorities who questioned populism that affected the word viking, and what consequences it leads to generously using the term when describing Viking-era events, although the sources have not mentioned any person as a Viking, even in the case of Scandinavian attacks in England, or on the continent. He believes that the portrayal of the "Viking Age" in the media is: [10] "Consistently populist and more meets the needs of the tourism industry than living up to the historical science's requirements for methodology: the Danes, like the other Scandinavians, were not Vikings, they did not perceive themselves as Vikings, but they could, like non-Scandinavians, choose the Viking position and draw on looting trains, as humans have always done and still do. Dan Koehl (talk) 09:44, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I cant see any other reason, except for biased opinions, and ownership of the article viking. Would anyone think that it would be accepted, if I cite one of the most famous experts on viking time, and his scientific article, less than 15 years old, do anyone belive that the owners of the article will allow me to submit anything from a modern expert like John H Lind, at Copenhagen University? Does anyone here have the courage to sumbit this text into the article viking, which is upto 80% about Norse people, which is maybe hte reasons for that the article about my trye ancestors, the Norse, is almost empty.

Are you allowed to submit this info, or are you also victims of the censorhip, by the woners, wo are against that anything recent scientific is submitted into the article?

''The term ”Viking” appears in Anglo-Saxon or Norse sources in the so-called Viking Age. Here it simply denotes pirates, no more, no less. It had no geographic or ethnic connotations that linked it to Scandinavia or Scandinavians. By contrast, in these sources we find it used anywhere about anyone who to an Anglo-Saxon or a Scandiniavian appeared as a pirate. Therefore we find it used about Israelites crossing the Red Sea; Muslims in Galleys* encountering Norwegian crusaders in the Mediterranean; Caucasian pirates encountering the famous Swedish Ingvar-Expedition, and Estonian and Baltic pirates attacking Scandinavians in the Baltic Sea. Thus the term was never used to denote Scandinavians as such. Therefore, if we wish to maintain Viking-Age studies on a scholarly level, we must stop acting as an appendix to the tourist industry by using the term Viking as if it was synonymous with Scandinavian and Scandinavians.'' -John H Lind

Source: https://www.academia.edu/8906219/_Vikings_and_the_Viking_Age

Dan Koehl (talk) 09:44, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Discrimination
To others than Dan: lets keep the discussion together on one page. Its easier to see consensus then. Adville (talk) 11:14, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I thought it was forbidden to discriminate other people on Wikipedia, so why is discrimination of Scandinavians supported? Why is all the information about my ancestors the Norse people, their culture, religion, shipbuilding etc, moved to a page about their enemies the vikings, which they had a well documented defence against, known since before viking-time? Why must Scandinavians accept that our ancient kingdoms, are described as "viking territory"?

Why is ot accepted to discrimate Scandinavians, and simplify their heritage and history, because Turner did so 1799? Why only Scandinavians? Other people like Saxons are not discrimanated like this,and even if, and when they attacked England, at least they are named Saxons. Dan Koehl (talk) 09:18, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Too hard to follow this discussion and the other. Let just have this on the talk page for viking. It is exactly the same discussion and that last answer are there. Adville (talk) 11:00, 17 July 2021 (UTC)


 * yes, I noticed that you omitted my question to you above, although I pinged you. Dan Koehl (talk) 11:05, 17 July 2021 (UTC)


 * it was Winston Churchill who said "History is written by the victors." Don't forget that you are reading English history written by the English, although that is an oversimplification. The Normans were the more recent conquerors and they did not give the Saxons a particularly good press. A term that has gone out of fashion for the time between the departure of the Romans and the arrival of Christianity was "The Dark Ages", this was a derogatory term. The Anglo Saxon Chronicle commissioned in the 9th century was the source of a lot of the attitudes to what they usually described as the men from the North or the Danes (not Vikings!). A lot of earlier historians saw the ASC as being factual however modern scholarship is far more nuanced see Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain for example. Turner would have based his thesis on the ASC and as his book ran to many editions and is still in print today it is not difficult to understand why some attitudes persist. You may be right that it is unfair to judge a whole civilization based on the activities of a few. All the Anglo Saxons would have seen was these people coming over killing peaceful monks and stealing their treasures. Plus many other extortion rackets. The cultural museum in Oslo have a large collection of Anglo Saxon coins, and Norway probably has more AS coinage than England. The ASC also does report the excesses of the Saxons, for example the West Saxon king  Cædwalla has been accused of what we would call ethnic cleansing on the Isle of Wight, an accusation alleged  by some modern historians. I do not think that you will be able to change the use of the English version of the word Viking. It is a modern invention and has little to do with the Scandinavian and Icelandic words that seem similar, however I think that there is a much more open attitude to understand why did the Anglo Saxons and others arrive on Englands shores? The annals tend to report that it was for heroic purposes however I suspect that the migrants in those days came over for similar reasons to modern day migrants? You obviously have a great knowledge of history. However trying to change the English usage of the word Viking will just cause you pain. Wilfridselsey (talk) 13:26, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

yes, and lately its pretty populair not to follow the rules on Wikipedia. Or follow them, when they suit your agenda, or bias, but pretend they are not exisiting in other cases. Like this rule:

English Wikipedia seems to have '''an Anglo-American focus. Is this contrary to NPOV'''?

''Yes, it is, especially when dealing with articles that require an international perspective. The presence of articles written from a United States or European Anglophone perspective is simply a reflection of the fact that there are many U.S. and European Anglophone people working on the project. This is an ongoing problem that should be corrected by active collaboration between Anglo-Americans and people from other countries. But rather than introducing their own cultural bias, they should seek to improve articles by removing any examples of cultural bias that they encounter, or making readers aware of them. A special WikiProject for Countering systemic bias has been set up to deal with this problem. This is not only a problem in the English Wikipedia. The French Language Wikipedia reflects a French bias, the Japanese Wikipedia reflects a Japanese bias, and so on.''

if someone wants its just to ignore the rule. if someone puts up a NPOV template on a page, its just to remove it.

While Wikipedia seems to become slowly more and more governed by a small group of people, sometimes acting like dictators, its also becoming more and more lawless. Admins can abuse their tools without any risk, and if you report them you may be victim of threaths.

Its not OK to discriminate people from africa, but Scandinavians you can discrimanite and falsify their history, and noone will move a finger.

Most attacks attacks during 300 years btw, seems to have been on Scandinavians. This will never be told to people reading the article viking.

It seems pretty easy, snap your fingers, close your eyes for facts, and just remain with desinformation, as if its the best way to make wikipedia better.

Dan Koehl (talk) 14:52, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Concerning the Sicily addition
This edit has been reverted by several editors now, and since no attempt has been made to discuss it on the talk page I though I would start a discussion. The material is poorly sourced to a single questionable source and is based on primary sources and original research. There are specific issues with the wording as well: Thus defining the genesis and descent of the Kings of Sicily from Odin for example is an extraordinary claim that would require extraordinary sources. The Norwegian sovereign stayed for a long time at Roger's court in Palermo is too vague; was it a year, ten years, fifty? What is "a long time"? There are issues with the wording and per WP:BRD and WP:ONUS this needs to be discussed before being added to the article. - Aoidh (talk) 00:31, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * First of all, the discussion has not been opened because the reasons for each intervention (viewable in the history of the page ) clarify the doubts: “wikipedia pages of "Norwegian Crusade" and "Sigurd the Crusader" are full of reliable secondary sources talking about this in detail.” So this is not original research based on primaries sources. Regarding some highlighted points: Snorre's Heimskringla talks about the dynasties of Sweden, Norway and Denmark starting from Odin; It is based on this lineage, but it is specified that it is the source of Snorre. This is the motivation for this detail. Obviously, as regards the times of residence, the sources show one year (1109–10); therefore for a long time (not a "quick" passage as happened for other characters who passed through the island on their way to the holy land).--2A02:B123:10:F690:307D:AFCA:3F92:3C89 (talk) 08:37, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Linking to other articles does nothing to verify the information added to this one, and an WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim based solely on an interpretation of a saga is problematic for various reasons, not least of all because claiming that a line of Sicilian kings are literal descendants of a Norse god as a statement of fact is not something even similarly situated Wikipedia articles do. That type of attestation is on par with Fjölnir being the progenitor of the Yngling kings, and neither Wikipedia nor modern reliable sources attempt to assert a divine origin of the Yngling dynasty in their own voice. What was added to this article may to an extent be something that is attested in the Heimskringla, but even ignoring the the questions surrounding the historical reliability of the Heimskringla, and even if the divine Norse origin of the Sicilian kings was omitted from the added text, what remains still needs better sources than just that singular 13th century saga. - Aoidh (talk) 11:41, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * But Wikipedia's interventions must be justified: you can't reverse the changes like a game. OK? The articles cited ("Norwegian Crusade” and "Sigurd the Crusader”) present very detailed SOURCES on the topic. It means that the Articles are provided with detailed Sources on this topic (so check the secondary sources cited in these two articles). It's not a free interpretation, okay? The problem seems to me to be connected to the lack of argumentation. We report the whole text:
 * “In the spring of 1109, as reported in Snorre Sturlason's Heimskringla and in the Morkinskinna, King Sigurd I of Norway aka "The Crusader" and his entire entourage of Vikings arrived in Sicily (Sikileyjar), where they were welcomed by Duke Roger II of Hauteville in his castle in Palermo, who was only 13-14 years old at the time. The Norwegian sovereign stayed for a long time at Roger's court in Palermo. On this occasion Sigurd enthroned Roger, proclaiming him King of Sicily. Thus defining the genesis and descent of the Kings of Sicily from Odin, progenitor of the Scandinavian dynasties. About 20 years later Roger II was again proclaimed and invested as king, with the foundation of the Kingdom of Sicily in 1130, and in the same year Sigurd died.”
 * The question of Odin concerns the work of Snorre. It can be consulted online and the work begins with Odin. But be careful if this point (concerning Odin's descent) may be debatable or in any case creates disagreement, it is not a problem to replace it by simply writing "Therefore, the creation of the Kingdom of Sicily was influenced by the Scandinavian dynasties”. The question relating to the "long duration" of the stay in Sicily (one year) is resolved. So what are the questionable points?--2A02:B125:12:D130:75EB:AE37:B7CC:B493 (talk) 15:45, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You need better sources than a questionable 13th century saga for the claims being added. What sources, if any, do you have? - Aoidh (talk) 00:17, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * As written in previous posts, the two articles ("Norwegian Crusade” and "Sigurd the Crusader”) have reliable secondary sources on this topic. It is not difficult to consult them and in any case it is not difficult to report them here:


 * The source can be consulted online on the site (ResearchGate) and in particular to consult pages 133-134 for the topic of this discussion.--2A02:B121:10:3AB9:3971:468:A5D3:E806 (talk) 15:46, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Those sources do not verify the claims being made in the added text outside of what is already mentioned in the article, especially claims of divine origin. What the sources show at best is Sigurd stopping through Sicily at some point, which is not in any way important within the context of Viking expansion. - Aoidh (talk) 16:42, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Your interpretation is not a Wikipedia source. Wikipedia is based on sources. The sources are cited here. Reread it carefully. Wikipedia is not a blog or a video game. Even the Encyclopedia Britannica in its concise article reports that Roger became King and you define it as "stopping". The previous source defines this event as crucial for the history of Norway and beyond. From this event we can deduce the greatness and importance assumed by a Scandinavian Viking ruler in the Western world of the time. The source is academic.--2A02:B121:10:3AB9:3971:468:A5D3:E806 (talk) 17:27, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a blog or a video game. I'm glad you understand that. The sources you cited do not support the content you're trying to add, I interpreted nothing. From this event we can deduce that is interpretation of a source and is WP:OR. You pointing to a Britannica article about Sigurd has nothing to do with the Wikipedia article on Viking expansion. The Wikipedia article on Sigurd the Crusader does mention Roger II of Sicily, so it's mentioned where it is relevant. It is not relevant to this article, which is about Viking expansion. What you added is not an example of Viking expansion, as Roger I of Sicily proceeded him; Roger II was, as the name implies, not the first of anything and is not an example of any expansion of any sort. None of this is relevant to this article, and that's not even getting into the still unaddressed extraordinary claim and other details; even though the content does not belong here, those would be problematic on any Wikipedia article. - Aoidh (talk) 23:07, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You continue to ignore the content of the sources: what can be deduced from this discussion and that you have no formal training in this topic. The posts are readable and visible to all. Isn't Wikipedia a video game or your personal blog. Okay? Is it based on sources? You continue to ignore the content of the sources for your personal ideas and interpretations (POV, read this Neutral point of view); i.e. your personal point of view. But you fail to understand that your personal point of view (POV) is not source for wikipedia. Clear? Or are there doubts? Here we are all anonymous users; reporting the contents based on the sources. Okay? Your interpretation or fantasies are no more reliable than the world of academia or the Encyclopedia Britannica itself. Clear or are there any doubts? The problem is behavioral in nature. You have obstructed without preparation on the subject and it is evident from your first posts on Snorre's work (which you did not know); You don't know how to consult academic sources online and I was forced to report every single link for you to consult. You continue to deny what academic sources and even the Encyclopedia Britannica report. Roger II is the first king of Sicily, his father Roger I was not a king. From what you write in your previous posts it is clear that you have no expertise in this topic. The Viking ruler Sigurd gave the royal title to Roger. At the center of the Mediterranean (the center of the world at the time). The previous source defines this event as crucial for the history of Norway and beyond. From this event we can deduce the greatness and importance assumed by a Scandinavian Viking ruler in the Western world of the time. You have denied all content from all sources calling it all just "stopping". Is there any doubt about the importance of these events on a page that covers the details of the Viking expansion? Maybe you didn't understand that the historical sources that reported these events are VIKINGS. Okay? Is it clear or not? Are there any doubts???--2A02:B121:8013:418E:402D:42AE:7D06:223C (talk) 06:08, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Given the sum of your response I don't think this discussion is going to be productive given the continued incivility. You do not have a consensus for the content you want to place in the article, which remains both problematic and outside of the scope of this article, and without a consensus the material will not be in the article given the previously mentioned issues (WP:ONUS). I am not going to engage with you further unless you drastically change how you choose to communicate. - Aoidh (talk) 08:39, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You still don't understand that your personal point of view is not a source for wikipedia. You cannot hide your total ignorance on the topic being discussed by accusing others of incivility. Every post of yours is a disaster; everything and under everyone's eyes. Your failed attempt at denigration is clearly evident. The problem is not simply finding a consensus but the total lack of arguments to discuss. Be careful not to confuse consent with censorship, they are two different things. From the discussion it can be seen that the contents are the most appropriate for this article and that they are well founded both on an encyclopedic and academic level. I noticed that you have difficulty with an academic field and I have done everything I can to help you understand (complete with links and pages for reading the sources). I took your points into consideration and explained why certain choices and the possible alternatives to certain sentences. On your part I only found a wall built of ignorance devoid of argument. Based on all previous posts, what do we need to discuss?--2A02:B127:8014:9AD:121:D999:CAEC:277C (talk) 10:06, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * what do we need to discuss? Given the continued nature of your comments, we have nothing further to discuss. I will not be responding further, but if you reinsert the disputed content without a consensus, those edits will be reverted due to the unaddressed issues with the content. - Aoidh (talk) 10:56, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * EVERYTHING IS UNDER EVERYONE'S EYES. From what you write it is difficult to assume the so-called "good faith"(wp:GOODFAITH). You continue to denigrate academic and encyclopedic sources by labeling them with this File:Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement.svg. Don't forget that wikipedia is based on sources and your personal point of view is not a source for wikipedia. I advise you to read this article carefully (wp:RELIABILITY) and (wp:OPINION). Based on previous posts, please find a good topic to discuss; read these guidelines (wp:TALKPAGE).--2A02:B127:8014:9AD:121:D999:CAEC:277C (talk) 11:47, 28 September 2023 (UTC)