Talk:Cnut's invasion of England

Norwegian participation

Hello user:GusGusBrus.

I do not agree with this reversal.

An infobox is determined by the text in the article itself, which ideally is based on reliable sources (i.e. Sources → article → infobox)

First off, the article's text doesn't use "Dano-Norwegian" or similar, it uses "Danes" and "Danish", therefore the infobox should include the same (see H:IB)

Now, to clarify that the article cites the sources correctly, you have to see each individual source. I have already done this and can confirm the sources used for the article are cited correctly (see WP:CS). So to conclude, it is wrong to use "Dano-Norwegian", when the article (and thereby also the sources) doesn't use it to describe the invasion.

Now you may counter with "But Norwegians were just as much a belligerent", which would not change anything. Norwegians clearly mustn't have been of enough importance for the historians to use, and so shouldn't we. Notably, Eiríkr Hákonarson has been described as a "military commander of Cnut" by Timothy Bolton, which further diminishes your argument. Tinkaer1991 (talk) 18:15, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

It was a seperate fleet sent in support of the Danes invading? The text doesnt need to use "Dano-Norwegian" or similar as they were two seperate participants. The previously Norwegian king Eiríkr joined Cnuts invasion in hopes of later becoming a sole ruler of Norway. The army consisting of Danes and Norwegians were victorious and this is what the result in the infobox should reflect. The use of the combined demonym "Dano-Norwegian" isnt neccesarily used in the sourcing, but both Danish and Norwegian participation is sourced and written about in the article. You also went on to use the argument that a "patch of Norwegians shouldnt change the victory" showing that you mix up your own personal opinions in this, and you should maybe reconsider your reasoning. Hope to hear from you soon! GusGusBrus (talk) 16:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

First of all, please don't chnage the original result (Danish) before we have come to a conclusion here?

Second of all, there is not really much you can do, that will help you here.. if the sources say "Danish" invasion, "Danish" army, and "Danish" victory, then so should the article and thereby also the infobox. There is no arguing here.

If the Norwegian participation was so big, that it needs a spot in the result, then it must always have been so big that historians and others, who write about the event, would have used "Dano-Norwegian" when written about the event. However, this is not the case in any texts i could find, and therefore should also not be the case in the infobox. Again, no arguing here.

I will for the fifth time, revert your edit back to the original "Danish", as per WP:DISPUTE Tinkaer1991 (talk) 10:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Edmund’s surrender

I’m not sure claiming edmund surrendered is entirely correct, the two kings signed a mutual treaty dividing England between them. It doesn’t sound to me like a surrender. 2A02:9B0:3D:A789:1D5B:8673:DD6B:DEF1 (talk) 12:43, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

More battles

There’s 3 more battles fought that aren’t listed, penselwood, sherston and atford. There’s also 2 more only mentioned in the knutsdrapa, a battle west of the Ouse and a battle in the forest of dean. 37.43.251.169 (talk) 18:22, 19 September 2024 (UTC)