This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Anglo-Saxon KingdomsWikipedia:WikiProject Anglo-Saxon KingdomsTemplate:WikiProject Anglo-Saxon KingdomsAnglo-Saxon Kingdoms
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norway, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Norway on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NorwayWikipedia:WikiProject NorwayTemplate:WikiProject NorwayNorway
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwedenWikipedia:WikiProject SwedenTemplate:WikiProject SwedenSweden
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Denmark, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Denmark on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DenmarkWikipedia:WikiProject DenmarkTemplate:WikiProject DenmarkDenmark
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medieval Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Medieval Scotland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Medieval ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject Medieval ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject Medieval ScotlandMedieval Scotland
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norse history and culture, a WikiProject related to all activities of the NorthGermanic peoples, both in Scandinavia and abroad, prior to the formation of the Kalmar Union in 1397. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Norse history and cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Norse history and cultureTemplate:WikiProject Norse history and cultureNorse history and culture
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)[reply]
First of all, the discussion has not been opened because the reasons for each intervention (viewable in the history of the page [1]) 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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:
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)[reply]
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 ([3]) 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)[reply]
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 deducethat 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 Crusaderdoes 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)[reply]
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 Wikipedia: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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Vikings actually archaeologically the most noticeable were in Kyiv, but Kyiv is not shown on the map at all, while the lands shown are much further east, where nomadic Turks dominated, and the Vikings were just not present there :) Map is totally wrong on the part of Eastern Europe and anti-historical.
Modern day Ukraine, Belarus, Poland have many more Viking excavation artifacts, but map doesn't show it, meanwhile for russian state nationalistic propaganda very important "Nordic myth" so this map show significantly more and overestimated presence of Vikings in modern days russia, lol. Those who created this map should at least look how route from Varangians to Greeks looked. It was via modern day Ukraine. Not modern day south russia. 85.114.196.99 (talk) 14:06, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just happened on this article because it was linked in today's Mainpage "On This Day". I was looking for a rough time period for the "Viking expansion". Not only is there no hint of a time period in the article lead, there doesn't seem to be anything in the body of the text giving such dates. I'm imagining this to be roughly late 8th century to mid-11th century (at least in Western Europe), but this really seems like it should be stated in the lead. I don't feel knowledgeable enough on the subject to do a drive-by insertion in the lead, however. CAVincent (talk) 01:31, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
