Wikipedia

Talk:Norse colonization of North America/Archive 2

< Talk:Norse colonization of North America
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Carlstak in topic Title
Archive 1 Archive 2

Requested move 10 December 2018

Latest comment: 5 years ago116 comments20 people in discussion
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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus. (This is in response to a request at the notice board.) See strong opposition to the proposed title with several alternative suggestions. Also see strong support, so there appears to be no general agreement below to rename at the present time. As is usual with a no-consensus outcome, editors can further improve their args and try again in a few months to garner consensus for renaming this article. Kudos to editors for your input, and Happy Publishing! (nac by page mover) Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  00:22, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Norse colonization of North America → Norse exploration of North America – Hesitant about whether scope meets the criteria for colonisation in this case? A title rename would be per consistency with Template:Norse exploration of the Americas as well as recent longstanding "exporation" consensus of the main category Category:Viking exploration of North America (although the main category was speedy renamed recently to conform comme-il-faut). Chicbyaccident (talk) 22:23, 10 December 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 12:18, 18 December 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. SITH (talk) 15:42, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Support I agree with the proposed new title. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:19, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I also agree with the proposed title. Jerry Stockton (talk) 03:25, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Parks Canada, L'Anse aux Meadows National Historic Site: "... Norse expeditions sailed from Greenland [to L'Anse aux Meadows], building a small encampment of timber-and-sod buildings … and why the Norse chose to abandon their encampment." Parks Canada does not call L'Anse aux Meadows a colony, they call it a small encampment. As this was only a small encampment, that only lasted a few years, I do not see how this qualifies as Norse colonization of the North American mainland. The Norse explored the North American mainland, they did not colonize it with one temporary, small encampment. Jerry Stockton (talk) 00:18, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Correct. And if this can be called colonisatiion, then just about anything can, as pointed out below. Chicbyaccident (talk) 17:15, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Colony - "A colony is a place controlled by another country. The metropolitan state is the country that owns the colony." Bold added. Simple English Wikipedia [1] Jerry Stockton (talk) 23:20, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support It's a logical move and retitling. I still see the logic in a move and retitling, but I'm reversing myself. looking at articles for other European nations' moves into the Americas, they're all titled as "XXX Colonization of the Americas", so oppose on the grounds that Greenland was colonized and to keep the titles somewhat parallel. Carter (talk) 03:30, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
@Tcr25: Now that we have explained how this settlement fail the criteria of being a colony "of a European nation", would you care to reconsider the WP:CONSISTENCY argument? Chicbyaccident (talk) 19:26, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Sigh, again, your argument focuses on a single definition of colony, while ignoring a second commonly used and understood definition ("A settlement of emigrants who move to a new place, but remain culturally tied to their original place of origin") that fits what's in the article. It's time to close this due to a lack of consensus. Carter (talk) 19:35, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Alright. Thanks for your answer. Chicbyaccident (talk) 19:44, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I don't know why we've left it as it is so long! Thanks. Doug Weller talk 13:39, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Exploration often includes colonisation, so I'm failing to see the problem noted below. This article is about more than colonisation. Doug Weller talk 16:27, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  • It's about more than exploration, too. Srnec (talk) 00:30, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If we keep the current content both titles are equally wrong, since Greenland is part of North America, and was colonised, not just explored, while what today is Canada and the United States was explored but not colonised. So instead of being moved it should be split into Norse colonization of Greenland, an article dealing only with Greenland, and Norse exploration of North America, or "continental North America", an article dealing only with Norse exploration of what today is Canada and the United States. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 13:54, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
@Thomas.W: @Randy Kryn: Now that we have Norse Greenland (to possible extend from a disambiguation page if you wish), would support a rename to Norse exploration of continental North America? Chicbyaccident (talk) 19:26, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Thomas.W who makes a good point. Best to leave this as is, no reason to change a stable accurate title. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:20, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Randy, "Norse colonization of North America" is not an accurate title. The Norse did not own any colonies in North America. A colony is owned by another country. The Norse were not another country. When referring to the Norse in North America the word "colonized" is far too ambiguous and should not be used in the title. WP:NAMINGCRITERIA Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. […] When there are multiple names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others." Jerry Stockton (talk) 03:32, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Thomas.W and Greenland. Plus L'Anse aux Meadows seems enough of a colony, if a small and possibly single one. Johnbod (talk) 16:15, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
This is why I believe that when referring to the Norse in North America the word "colonization" too ambiguous and should not be used according to WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. You see the eight sod buildings at L'Anse aux Meadows as a colony. I see England's Colony of Virginia as a colony. If we are using this same word to describe both of these places, it is too ambiguous of a word to be part of the title. Simple English Wikipedia "A colony is a place controlled by another country. The metropolitan state is the country that owns the colony.​" The #1 definition of a colony at Wiktionary is "Governmental unit created on land of another country owned by colonists from a county". Eight sod buildings are not a "Governmental unit" and the Norse are not a country. ​​Colonization is correct when referring to England's colonization of the Americas, colonization is wrong when referring to the Norse in North America. Jerry Stockton (talk) 15:49, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
At least that would be an improvement. Chicbyaccident (talk) 19:26, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Still oppose. There was a Norse colony in Vinland, now in Canada. Is this not well known? Srnec (talk) 01:44, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Continue to oppose. While Greenland has strong cultural, economic, and political connections to Europe, it is physiographically a part of the continent of North America (as the Greenland article notes. The North America article, despite the quote pulled above (which also excludes Central America and the Caribbean from the definition of "North America"), is clear that Greenland is part of the continent of North America. Carter (talk) 02:26, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Unnecessarily wordy, and misleading. Greenland is part of N. America, despite certain peoples mistaken assumption to the contrary. WP has no mandate to cater to people's misconceptions. Colonization was the primary intent of the explorers, and the Greenland and Vinlnad colonization efforts were closely interrelated. Mediatech492 (talk) 02:51, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Okay, good points. But still, even with that, the current title is problematic. Maybe it's just the "of", because that's what makes it sound like all of NA was colonized by the Norse. What about, Norse colonization in North America? --В²C ☎ 02:31, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
That is a logical fallacy. Does British colonization of the Americas imply that they colonized all of it? Of course it does not. Same with the Norse. Mediatech492 (talk) 02:52, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Maybe it's just me, but that one bothers me too. British colonisation of India and British colonisation of Australia make sense; but regarding NA I think it should be British colonization in the Americas. At least it's a redirect. --В²C ☎ 03:14, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
I keep coming back to parallelism and other article titles. If we have Scottish colonization of the Americas covering a handful of mostly failed settlements in North America and at the point where North and South America meet, then Norse colonization of North America, given the failed settlement in Vinland and the extended settlement in Greenland, seems reasonable. I was willing to support the name change until I started looking at other article titles, and the current one best fits with the rest of them. Carter (talk) 12:09, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Still support changing to Norse exploration of North America, but also support changing to Norse exploration of North America and colonization of Greenland. Jerry Stockton (talk) 02:43, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
The Norse settled Greenland, they did not colonize Greenland. Jerry Stockton (talk) 19:09, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
I suggest a main article at Norse Greenland, and dramatically cutting down the material on the above three pages. With that done, retitling this page to Norse exploration of North America would make more sense. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:00, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Agree. Srnec (talk) 00:30, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
SmokeyJoe and Srnec: I also agree with retitling this page "Norse exploration of North America." Any additional historical information about Greenland can be added to the current pages History of Greenland and/or Greenland. No new pages needed, just some editing. Jerry Stockton (talk) 15:04, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Disagree, Jerry. I only support the proposed "exploration" title if a page on Norse Greenland is created. As it stands, this page is about the settlement/colonization of Greenland and Vinland and attached exploratory ventures. The centuries of Norse presence on Greenland deserve an article. And that's the issue: centuries of settlement are not mere "exploration". Srnec (talk) 15:54, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, you said "Agree" and I don't see where SmokeyJoe suggested the creation of a new page. It appears to me that he is suggesting including the history of the Norse in Greenland at History of Greenland, at least that is how he linked it. So SmokeyJoe, what is it you are suggesting? Jerry Stockton (talk) 16:33, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Isn't the key concern here the charged, often very negative connotations of the word "colonisation", and if those apply? C.f. History of colonialism: "Modern state global colonialism, or imperialism, began in the 15th century with the "Age of Discovery" [...]". While colonies perfectly and accurately describe settlements of ancient polities - and perhaps even the Norse settlements in Greenland and Newfoundland - where these really carrying out colonisation? Couldn't you argue that colonisation pertains to modern era industrial resource plundering from local peoples, broadly speaking? Even so, perhaps Roman Empire carried out colonisation of Ancient Egypt etc. But does these connotations really apply to what limited crews of Norse settles did in Greenland and Newfoundland? Chicbyaccident (talk) 13:23, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
This sounds like Revisionism. Just because someone attributes negative connotations to a word does not invalidate its use in the correct context. Mediatech492 (talk) 15:02, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Did Indians colonise the Americas (Settlement of the Americas)? Did humans colonise Eurasia? Homo sapiens sapiens Africa? Chicbyaccident (talk) 15:18, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
No, Native Americans did not colonize the Americas, because just like the Norse, they were not controlled by another country. If you are not controlled by another country, you are not a colony. Simple English Wikipedia​ :"A colony is a place controlled by another country. The metropolitan state is the country that owns the colony. ​Native Americans lived on Newfoundland for thousands of years, but they were not a colony because no foreign country owned their land. Jerry Stockton (talk) 04:23, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Alternatively, no, Native Americans did not colonize the Americans because (unlike the Norse Greenlanders), they did not remain culturally tied to their original place of origin (see colony). Based on the Sagas, the Greenlanders (and those Greenlanders who ventured into what is now Newfoundland and, presumably, other nearby parts of North America) considered themselves Norse and part of a culture that spread from Scandinavia across the North Atlantic. Even if Norse colonization of North America was not a state-directed effort (in the modern sense of a nation state), it still aligns with one of the commonly understood definitions of colony/colonization and is an appropriate word to use in the context of European settlement/colonization of the Americas. Carter (talk) 12:31, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
*There're valid reasons to question the implications of the word "colonization" (and to consider reframing the article as Norse Greenland as SmokeyJoe suggests), but I think that's part of a broader discussion of the title of the whole range of "XXXX colonization of the Americas" articles. Clearly, some of them (Spanish, French, British, Dutch, Portuguese) fit the bill better than others (Scottish, Couronian, Danish) that were failed efforts or came after prior European colonization/settlement activity. Carter (talk) 14:25, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
What has success or failure of a colonization effort got to do with the issue? The Greenland colony existed in the Americas for nearly 5 centuries, while British colonization lasted slightly more than 3 centuries. So which was the more successful? Mediatech492 (talk) 15:13, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
In terms of how the articles are named? The success/failure (and what the metric for either is) shouldn't matter, which is one of the reasons I think the current article name should stand.Carter (talk) 16:20, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
@Johnbod, Krakkos, and Srnec: The Canadian Encyclopedia states that "L’Anse aux Meadows was not a colonizing site but a base for exploration and exploitation of resources desirable in Greenland: lumber, furs, and luxury food such as walnuts and grapes. The Norse were interested in the Strait of Belle Isle — noted for its strong, multidirectional currents — as a navigation route. Barns and other livestock structures normal on settlement sites are missing, and there is no evidence of grazing. The location is exposed, further hinting that the Norse did not intend the site to be a normal farmstead."[2] It also seems to have been a ship repair base. It's original research to decide to call it a colony, and of course its article doesn't. There's also no evidence of a colony anywhere else other than Greenland. Doug Weller talk 20:34, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
No idea why farming is considered necessary for a colony - the Vikings didn't farm in Dublin, nor the British in Singapore etc. Johnbod (talk) 21:58, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Sorry Carter I failed to ping you. What failed settlement in Vinland? Again, without reliable sources, this seems original research, not something that should determine an article title. I'd prefer either the omnibus title suggested or 2 separate articles. Doug Weller talk 20:40, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Doug Weller Greenland is part of North America, and the other articles about European colonization/exploration/settlement use the title XXX Colonization of the Americas, so the parallel would be to keep this article as is or even to change it to Norse colonization of the Americas (the Hospitaller colonization of the Americas article involves a handful of Caribbean islands, but is still titled "colonization of the Americas"). Whether L'Anse aux Meadows was a colony, a settlement, an outpost, or whatever (and I'm not trying to argue what it is or isn't), makes a little difference here. It seems the main argument against keeping the name as it is is that Greenland isn't really North America, so the article title shouldn't parallel similar article titles about European colonization/exploration/settlement of the region. Carter (talk) 20:57, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
On and on, people here a making parallells to Modern era colonisation, which is partly what seems to concern those who opposes this terminology as anachronistic. Would you rather have Settlement of the Americas renamed to "Asian colonisation of the Americas" as well? If not, where do you draw the line? Chicbyaccident (talk) 21:14, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Since it looks like you've addressed this to me, Chicbyaccident, I'd say the Norse colonization of Greenland (part of North America) does fall into the same category as the later Spanish, French, British, et al., colonization of the Americas; they sought to settle and establish control of an area already inhabited by indigenous people, which is a notable difference from your "Asian colonisation of the Americas" example. These Norse efforts are part of the European colonization of the Americas series template/infobox, and while the Norse Greenland settlements appear to have died out by or before the early Modern Era, they still have more in common with later European settlement of the Americas than the Paleolithic migrations from Asia to the Americas. Just so I'm understanding your concern, are you arguing that Norse settlements in Greenland shouldn't be referred to as colonization because they were on a smaller scale or were less successful than Spanish, etc., colonization efforts 500 years later? If you feel exploration is a better word, can you explain why long-lived settlements would be considered exploration? Carter (talk) 22:19, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I'd support a change to Norse colonization in North America, but otherwise the current title is fine< & I'm not pursuaded by any of the arguments above. If Greenland is not part of North America, what continent does it belong to? It's not Easter Island. Johnbod (talk) 22:02, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Johnbod: Without question Greenland is in North America. The problem is that only countries can own colonies. England owned colonies in the Americas (The Thirteen Colonies), France owned colonies in the Americas, Spain owned colonies in the Americas. The Norse were not a country and did not own any colonies. The Norse might have settled in Iceland and Greenland, but those were not colonies that belonged to the Norse. The title "Norse colonization of North America" implies that the Norse owned colonies in North America, they did not. Simple English Wikipedia [3]​ :"A colony is a place controlled by another country. The metropolitan state is the country that owns the colony. Wiktionary: colony (plural colonies) [4] 1. Governmental unit created on land of another country owned by colonists from a county.​ Jerry Stockton (talk) 18:01, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Better than the precurrent, yes. Chicbyaccident (talk) 22:46, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Every other article in the series uses "of" not "in". I'm not opposed to the idea of changing the preposition, but it should be discussed within the context of the full series, not just the Norse article in isolation. Carter (talk) 00:23, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
The difference might be that the Norse colonization ended, so "in" rather than "of" the land involved has an accuracy factor. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:13, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
British, French and Spanish colonization of the Americas has also ended, so there is no difference on that point. Mediatech492 (talk) 03:47, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Norse in North America. Both “colonisation” and “exploration” are extraneous. This article covers the Norse in North America no matter what they were doing or why. Cut extraneous detail especially when not quite correct. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:54, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
*Such a change breaks the WP:NAMINGCRITERIA guideline that article titles should be "consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles." There's a whole series of articles covering European colonization/exploration/settlement activity in the Americas, and this article should remain in line with them. Carter (talk) 13:43, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
    • That's not bad at all. By the way, I have no doubt that Greenland is part of North America. But to most readers it will read "Norse colonies in mainland North America" and it seems that some here believe that there were such colonies, or at least one. Doug Weller talk 08:28, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
It is only your WP:OR assertion that anyone disassociates Greenland from North America. There is no basis for that other than your own unsupported opinion. We Mediatech492 (talk) 14:28, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
  • It's too stark for me and, again, deviates significantly from the related articles about European exploration/settlement/colonization of the Americas. As the point that some readers won't think of Greenland as North America, shouldn't Wikipedia work to educate them as to extent of the continent and not play into the idea that Greenland may not be geographically part of North America? Carter (talk) 11:28, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
That would be better, at least. Then perhaps also Norse activity in the British Isles could be renamed to "Norse in the British Isles". Chicbyaccident (talk) 18:16, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
No - please give us all a rest from from your incessant ill-considered move proposals over the holidays. Johnbod (talk) 19:38, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose all proposal put forward other than the one that involved creating an article on Norse Greenland. There is nothing wrong whatsoever with the present title. It is not confusing or misleading in any way. Vinland was (or had) a colony. Leif Ericsson was not an 11th-century Henry Morton Stanley. Srnec (talk) 03:36, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
  • We can't base our decisions on original research (your claim that Vinland was or had a colony which isn't backed by sources or Vinland. Doug Weller talk 11:41, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
  • What OR? Jared Diamond calls it a colony. You have Google, too, Doug. I do not wish to argue over the meaning of 'colony'. Vinland had at least one Norse settlement with houses. And it probably lasted longer than the Darién project. There is an essay on Vinland in Contact, Continuity, and Collapse: The Norse Colonization of the North Atlantic (Brepols, 2003). This topicalization is not OR. Srnec (talk) 15:23, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
  • @Srnec: Jared Diamond is not a reliable source for this. I'm sure there is a minority that refers to Vinland as a colony but there is no actual physical evidence for this. The Norse settlement (which seems to have been most likely a seasonal base and had no evidence for agriculture iirc) you are referring to is L'anse au Meadows and that's been discussed here. Doug Weller talk 16:28, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
  • The author of the Canadian Encyclopedia article you cited has a paper in the Brepols volume I cited. She says, p. 227, "The L’Anse aux Meadows settlement was intended for year-round occupation as shown in the building construction. All the structures were regular buildings with permanent roofs, not the booths with temporary tent roofs found on seasonally used sites." And here is how she quotes a line from the Greenland saga: "for it was their intention to colonize the country [Vinland] if they could manage it" (p. 214). It was not a seasonal base and physical evidence isn't the only kind. Wallace in fact seems to concede that her view (that it was not a colonizing site) is in the minority: in this paper from 2009 she claims that "everyone has taken for granted that the Vinland voyages were a colonizing venture." Srnec (talk) 19:39, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Greenland is part of North America. There is nothing wrong with the current title based on WP:NAMINGCRITERIA: It is recognizable, natural, concise, and consistent with all of the other articles about Europeans coming to the Americas. (It was more consistent prior to the 2015/16 decision to move from Norse colonization of the Americas to Norse colonization of North America.) The case about whether the article meets WP:NAMINGCRITERIA's goal of precision seems to rest on the borderline-semantic distinction of whether l'Anse aux Meadows was a colony or a settlement or an outpost. That point is pretty much irrelevant given there's no question that the Norse established a colony in Greenland, and Greenland is part of North America. Carter (talk) 13:43, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Norse settlement in North America (or settlements) gets a lot of google scholar hits, and is WP:COMMONNAME for the various settlements: colonisation gets fewer hits, and has overtones of colonialism, as well as a misleading implication that the the Norse colonised the whole of North America. . . . dave souza, talk 18:00, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. That's a new proposal. There has been other alternative suggestions but none has met much acclaim. However, regarding the unaltered original proposal, would you give it a support or an oppose? Chicbyaccident (talk) 20:03, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
None has refuted those of us who oppose the connotations of colonialism on anachronistic grounds, but keep in comparing with colonial era polities. Chicbyaccident (talk) 20:36, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
I addressed this above (22:19, 19 December 2018 (UTC)). It also seems to be primarily your concern alone, Chicbyaccident, as most all the other arguments seem to hinge on "Greenland ≠ North America." You haven't made a compelling case as to why your concern about the word colonization (in my mind a misplaced concern) should overrule WP:NAMINGCRITERIA and deviate from the titles of other articles in the series. The colonization article even cites Norse settlements in Greenland as an example of colonization in the Middle Ages. Again, my first thought was a change in the title made sense, but the more I looked at it in the fuller context of European interaction with the Americas, the more I see that first thought as misguided. Carter (talk) 21:53, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Well, you might be uncertain whether this fits in a series precisely if you hesitate about whether colonialism connotations is anachronistic verbiage here? Couldn't you argue that it would be as much or more WP:PRECISION to talk about how Asians colonised the Americas than to apply that wording to a couple of buildings that stood for some years up the east coast during the Middle Ages? And what about the homo sapiens sapiens in Euroasia for that part? Quite some material for post-colonial studies there. Chicbyaccident (talk) 22:20, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Again, that's a straw man argument that I've already addressed. Carter (talk) 22:29, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose because of the above arguments about Greenland. Also, I think half of Iceland is technically on the North American tectonic plate, even though the island not generally considered to be part of North America. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:08, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Did the Norse colonise North America?
“Over the years, various accounts have placed Norse colonies in Maine, Rhode Island and elsewhere on the AtlanticCoast, but the only unambiguous Norse settlement in North America remains L’Anse aux Meadows.” https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-vikings-a-memorable-visit-to-america-98090935/
That doesn’t really matter, what matters is whether the topic of Norse colonisation is a topic. It is. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:50, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Note that the Smithsonian article does it state that Greenland or L'Anse aux Meadows were colonies of the Norse. As the Norse were not a country, by definition, they can not have colonies of their own. How can the Norse have "colonized" North America without any colonies? The Norse explored, they populated, but they did not colonize. The title "Norse colonization of North America" is very misleading and should be changed. Jerry Stockton (talk) 17:51, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Also, sorry, but the Smithsonian Institution and its publications doesn't have the last word on this topic. Chicbyaccident (talk) 18:14, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, as pointed out, Norse was not a political entity so it would be if not anachronistic at least undisputedly misleading to refer to it as colonies. Those sources that still do - seemingly misleadingly and anachronistically putting the settments in a modern, colonial era context - may be presented in the article content with explanation for their terminology. Another possible option for another discussion could be Norse activity in North America per WP:CONSISTENCY with Norse activity in the British Isles? Chicbyaccident (talk) 14:33, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Did the Norse colonize North America? No, the Norse did not own any colonies in North America. Greenland was never a colony of the Norse. Newfoundland was never a colony of the Norse. L'Anse aux Meadows was never a colony of the Norse. "A colony is a place controlled by another country. The metropolitan state is the country that owns the colony." Bold added. Simple English Wikipedia [5] Still support changing to Norse exploration of North America Jerry Stockton (talk) 16:28, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
  • That's an overly prescriptive application of one definition of the word. The second definition of colony, "A settlement of emigrants who move to a new place, but remain culturally tied to their original place of origin," fits the Norse in North America regardless of what political connections and control were or were not maintained with the broader Norse world. If you're requiring that sort of lens to every instance of the word, should we look at retitling Colonization of the Moon, Colonization of Mars, Colonization of the asteroids, etc., too? Carter (talk) 19:44, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Are they really comparable? The linked examples Colonization of the Moon, Colonization of Mars, and Colonization of the asteroids are all subjects of (either factally or hypothetically) determined and well-confined expeditions, officially sent, endorsed and maintained by determined, well-defined, well-organised, ultimately politically conformed sender entities/polities. Thus meeting the criteras of colonies and colonisation, whereas the Norse in North America arguably were not. At least not more so than the Norse activity in the British Isles, right? Note the latter being called "activity" instead of "colonisation" despite arguably geographically closer, quantitatively larger, chronologically longer and politically more well-connected with at least later more well-defined polities than what the Norse carried out in North America? Chicbyaccident (talk) 22:59, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Wiktionary: colony (plural colonies)[6]

1. Governmental unit created on land of another country owned by colonists from a county​
2. A settlement of emigrants who move to a new place, but remain culturally tied to their original place of origin​
3. Region or governmental unit created by another country and generally ruled by another country.​
Bermuda is a crown colony of Great Britain.​

From above, Simple English Wikipedia [7]​

"A colony is a place controlled by another country. The metropolitan state is the country that owns the colony." Bold added to above.

The Norse were not a country. Greenland was not a colony of the Norse. Iceland was not a colony of the Norse. Newfoundland was not a colony of the Norse. L'Anse aux Meadows was not a colony of the Norse. Still support changing to Norse exploration of North America Jerry Stockton (talk) 00:32, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Relisting note: much of the discussion here relates to whether Greenland is a part of North America and whether the actions undertaken are best described as exploration or colonization. In order to get as much input from editors who may know more about the subject, I'll leave a message on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Greenland, although the project is semi-active. SITH (talk) 15:42, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Don't bother and don't relist This is a clear no consensus close. Johnbod (talk) 18:06, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Relisting thrice is not unseen - especially when consensus seems unclear, and especially in active discussions. The discussion have been significantly updated since the first relisting, with new arguments and newcomers. Chicbyaccident (talk) 18:45, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Proposed title is absolutely more concise and neutrally presents the subject. "North America" as a continent is too big and the term "colonization" does not fit at all. Shashank5988 (talk) 15:34, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The current title is consistent with others, such as British colonization of the Americas. The arguments for moving aren’t persuasive enough to justify moving the page, per WP:TITLEVAR. Calidum 18:07, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm puzzled by how opposers are so prone to hoover on the surface of this discussion and drop the WP:CONSISTENCY argument with these modern era entities, who indeed did carry out colonisation, as opposed to the Norse as explained. I have hard time to seeing how this argument makes sense. Chicbyaccident (talk) 18:49, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
The fact that you do not understand the argument is simply your own WP:POV, and irrelevant. Mediatech492 (talk) 19:05, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:NAMINGCRITERIA The five characteristics: Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Conciseness, and Consistency. "These should be seen as goals, not as rules." Consistency is just one of five goals when naming an article. As the Norse did not own any colonies in North America, the title "Norse colonization of North America" is not even close to being correct. The title "Norse colonization of North America" is both ambiguous and inaccurate as the Norse did not own any colonies in North America. "Editors should also consider all five of the criteria for article titles outlined above. Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. […] When there are multiple names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others." There is definitely a problem with the title "Norse colonization of North America." Jerry Stockton (talk) 20:04, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

The claim that "the Norse did not own any colonies in North America" is utterly fallacious. The Greenland colony lasted for 5 centuries. Greenland is part of North America, no matter how much you try to separate them. Mediatech492 (talk) 20:10, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
As it appears you did not see this from earlier - Without question Greenland is in North America. The problem is that only countries can own colonies. England owned colonies in the Americas (The Thirteen Colonies), France owned colonies in the Americas, Spain owned colonies in the Americas. The Norse were not a country and did not own any colonies. The Norse might have settled in Iceland and Greenland, but those were not colonies that belonged to the Norse. The title "Norse colonization of North America" implies that they owned colonies in North America, they did not. Simple English Wikipedia [8]​ :"A colony is a place controlled by another country. The metropolitan state is the country that owns the colony. Wiktionary: colony (plural colonies) [9] 1. Governmental unit created on land of another country owned by colonists from a county.Jerry Stockton (talk) 20:20, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
False Calidum 20:24, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Not false - Merriam-Webster:[10] "a body of people living in a new territory but retaining ties with the parent state." The Norse were never the parent state of Greenland. Jerry Stockton (talk) 20:48, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Pendantic. Per History of Greenland, there were trade relations with Norway and Iceland, which were ancestral homes of the Greenlanders. There were continued cultural linkages, including a Catholic diocese at Garðar and eventual acceptance of the sovereignty of the King of Norway. That all adds up to "A settlement of emigrants who move to a new place, but remain culturally tied to their original place of origin," per Wiktionary's second definition of colony. Carter (talk) 21:15, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, that would make Greenland a colony of Norway. Being that Norway is a country it can have colonies. Whereas the Norse, not being a country, can not have colonies. Jerry Stockton (talk) 21:50, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
No, it shows the cultural affiliation and socio-political connections of people spread across a wide area but who retained culturally tied to their (or their ancestors') original place of origin. Carter (talk) 22:24, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
No, what this proves is that when referring to the Norse in North America the word "colonized" is far too ambiguous and should not be used in the title. Jerry Stockton (talk) 23:57, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
This was well before countries as modern states, but it makes little difference. The word we are talking about is "Colonization" which our article on the subject defines as "a process by which a central system of power dominates the surrounding land and its components." There is no dispute the Norse, as a system of power, did dominate a relatively small part of North America for generations. Jonathunder (talk) 21:56, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
That's a negative, I'm afraid. The Norse people were far from a coherent or confined "system of power", much less a "central system of power", as suggested. Chicbyaccident (talk) 22:03, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
As Jonathunder notes, the idea of nation states for the Norse at this point it time was a bit squidgy, but they are still an identifiable cultural group indigenous to Europe expanding their influence and activity (and everyday lives) to North America. The title Norse colonization of North America fits any reasonable understanding of the situation circa 1000 CE within the content of European exploration/settlement/colonization of North America. Carter (talk) 22:16, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
I still think "in" North America is a better title and it has support from some of those who don't like the current name. Jonathunder (talk) 22:25, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Greenland is geographically part of N. America and the Norse had longstanding colonies there. This article purports to be about more than Greenland, however. What is wrong with calling it Norse colonization in North America? Is it a compromise we can get a consensus for? Jonathunder (talk) 20:33, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
When referring to the Norse in North America the word "colonized" is far too ambiguous and should not be used in the title. Some editors claim the eight Norse buildings at L'Anse aux Meadows prove it was colonized by the Norse, while the primary definition of a colony is commonly shown as being under the control of another country. The Norse are not a country. WP:NAMINGCRITERIA Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. […] When there are multiple names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others." Jerry Stockton (talk) 23:14, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Your argument then is on the basis of the claim that it is ambiguous and inaccurate. It is neither, so your argument is false. Mediatech492 (talk) 16:09, 28 December 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.

Title change to 'Norse settlements in North America'

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I think the title should be changed to 'Norse settlements in North America' because this is a much more accurate reflection of general scholarly opinion and current research. To say the Norse colonised North America is a massive over-statement, in terms of scope of settlement, and I think to make it in the title devalues the other accurate information in the article; it just sounds completely unrealistic based upon available evidence. Even on the 'History of Greenland' page the Norse section is titled 'Norse settlement'. Additionally, to say that the Norse settlers were acting as colonists in the sense that they were under the power and authority of a foreign mother country I think is also dubious. Another reason is that 'colonization' is a politically charged phrase which, based upon relatively limited evidence, is arguably needlessly contentious.RickyBennison (talk) 19:03, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

You should probably read the rather large move request section above this one. Now, you could re-visit that conversation, but I doubt the consensus has changed in 2 years. Heiro 19:10, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Indigenous Peoples

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Some information could be added, as there is not enough specificity in regard to the challenges that indigenous peoples faced as a result of Viking settlement in North America. I know that the article mentioned "hostility" when discussing the relationship between indigenous peoples and the Norse peoples as they established their settlement L'Anse aux Meadows. However, there is much more than mere "hostility." After Leif Erikson's brother was struck with an arrow, Vikings captured two indigenous children and attempted to kill three adults, although the adults escaped. [1] Additionally, there are subtle biases in the diction used throughout the article as the land is portrayed as being discovered by the Vikings, when that is false. Indigenous peoples had long discovered that land, and by claiming otherwise, one is reinforcing the erasure of indigenous peoples by trivializing their experiences with the land prior to European powers. --Peterpietri (talk) 02:59, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

You cited a book with the dates 1492–1800 in the title. This does not strike me as obviously RS for the topic of this article, however reliable it may be for a later period. Written sources for the Vikings in North America are scarce and we need to use top-shelf secondary sources to make sure we get it right. Srnec (talk) 00:58, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
The article could potentially say more about the interaction between the Norse and the people they encountered in North America. But the only sources on this are the Saga of the Greenlanders and the Saga of Eric the Red, both of which are legendary stories written centuries after the purported events. They tell of monopods, for example. The only slaves mentioned in there are Norse.
There's no need to shoehorn the indigenous people here into some victimhood narrative about violence and slavery. About the only thing we know about their interactions with the Norse is that the Norse lost! I agree with Srnec that a book on the period 1492-1800 which mentions the Norse in passing is not an appropriate source here. Haukur (talk) 09:28, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Here's a paper we could cite that tries to get at the historicity of the sagas: [11] Wallace thinks the story of the two Skræling boys could be authentic - but also cites other scholars who take it to be an invention. We could write something about this, summarizing or quoting this part of the saga and then relaying what scholars have made of it. Haukur (talk) 09:45, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
I concur with Srnec and Haukurth. If we are to have a section about conflict and enslavement, we may also include a passage on the 1379 Inuit attack documented in Gottskalk's Annals. In this attack, 18 Norse are said two have been killed, while 2 Norse children were enslaved. Krakkos (talk) 17:21, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Weaver, Jace (Summer 2011). "The Red Atlantic: Transoceanic Cultural Exchanges" (PDF). American Indian Quarterly. 35 (3): 418–463. Retrieved 09/10/20. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

Fish in Greenland

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Jared Diamond in Guns, Germs and Steel says that the Greenland Norse didn't eat fish in spite that fish is today a main export of Greenland. He is still saying that. Shouldn't it be mentioned in the article, including replies from other scholars if any? --Error (talk) 23:14, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

No need ....we have lots of evidence that they did. In general we should be worried about that book for statements of facts.Moxy-  23:26, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Scheckelse. Peer reviewers: Allencr10.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Colonization vs. exploration

Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

I know this has come up before but I'm interested in standardizing the terminology between this article and other supporting templates. As an example, this article is currently titled "colonization" but the lede introduces the topic as "exploration". Also, the {{Norse colonization of North America}} navbox uses "exploration" in its own top title, and so that shows up at the top of this article too. I see that from the previous discussion (which didn't establish consensus) there was a view that because Greenland is considered part of North America and the Norse did establish permanent colonies there, that "colonization" is an appropriate term. I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other, I'd just like it to be consistent. What do others think? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:47, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: I actually do have a strong opinion. I did a bit of a rewrite of the lead towards that (discovering that a fringe book added as the first reference ever, but without being used to cite text, had ended up as a citation in the lead!). Only Greenland was ever colonized. Even if L'Anse aux Meadows was used for decades, there's no evidence it was actually a settlement rather than used for ship building and repairs and perhaps acquiring wood for Greenland. In fact no evidence for year around use.
Also, most of the article seems to be about the sagas, which at times seem to be treated as accepted history. I think we need a new title via an RfC. Doug Weller talk 13:39, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
These are good points; simplest would be Norse in North America, or possibly Norse presence in North America which ties in with the current disambiguation line, but may suggest they're still present.
Agree that the description of L'Anse aux Meadows as a "settlement" looks questionable, it may have been more like a shieling as seasonal dwellings and workshop buildings for temporary use. . . dave souza, talk 20:34, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Yes, either of these last two titles would be better. Johnbod (talk) 20:41, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Yes, it didn’t have the facilities for a year around settlement as I recall. Doug Weller talk 21:12, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Drought

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Info added sourced to Zhao, Boyang; Castañeda, Isla S.; Salacup, Jeffrey M.; Thomas, Elizabeth K.; Daniels, William C.; Schneider, Tobias; de Wet, Gregory A.; Bradley, Raymond S. (25 March 2022). "Prolonged drying trend coincident with the demise of Norse settlement in southern Greenland". Science Advances. 8 (12). American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). doi:10.1126/sciadv.abm4346. ISSN 2375-2548. The link to this came from Hambling, David (5 April 2022). "Drought may have forced Vikings to leave Greenland, says study". the Guardian. Retrieved 5 April 2022., which also links Why did Greenland's Vikings disappear? | Science | AAAS and Folger, Tim (23 February 2017). "Why Did Greenland's Vikings Vanish?". Smithsonian Magazine. Retrieved 5 April 2022. – these don't seem to be used in the article. . dave souza, talk 09:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Artifacts section removal

Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments3 people in discussion

So, I'm wondering to what extent the 'artifacts' section should be included on the menu thing on the top right of the page. It adds absolutely nothing as there isn't a single artefact that's been accepted as such by the academic community, and at least one of them is a known hoax. To be honest I feel that this undermines the integrity of the page as a whole and has a detrimental effect on the narrative. I really think it should be removed, or at least the title should be modified to reflect the communis opinio that none of these artefacts can be authenticated as legitimately having originated from Norse settlers in North America, and the one or two that are known hoaxes should absolutely be removed.

Vindafarna (talk) 14:30, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

You're right that none of these so-called "artifacts" have been proven to be actual artifacts of the Norse colonization of North America, but those are listed at the Template:Norse colonization of North America, where they can be removed by editing that page, but I think they might serve an actual purpose in alerting interested readers who click on the links to the WP articles can see that they are bullshit.:-) I have added some info about actual Norse archaeological artifacts found at L'Anse aux Meadows to the Historiography section. Carlstak (talk) 01:10, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
I've probably made a mistake, but I changed it to Alleged artifacts. Maybe another section on Confirmed artifacts? Doug Weller talk 11:47, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Seems fine to me. Simply calling them "artifacts" when they aren't actually does seem misleading; if someone has a problem with it, I'm sure we'll hear about it.;-) Carlstak (talk) 14:01, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Title

Latest comment: 1 year ago13 comments5 people in discussion

Has this been questioned before? It sounds somewhat grandiose to say the colonisation of North America when at best it was a handful of coastal settlements around the NE coast. How do sources describe it? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:49, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

@Roger 8 Roger Greenland is considered part of North America. There aren't any real settlements on the mainland, just a probably winter base in Newfoundland. Doug Weller talk 15:48, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
My understanding is that the "Norse colonization of North America" is a concept that may or not have been a fait accompli, but it does exist, as a concept, apart from the "Norse discovery of America" in academic discussion; Helge Ingstad and Anne Stine Ingstad, excavators of the L'Anse aux Meadows site in Newfoundland, themselves mention the idea of Norse colonization, therefore, even if it's not something that actually occurred, and there were only small ephemeral Norse "camps" in North America, it should nonetheless be noted in an encyclopedia. Carlstak (talk) 15:57, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. I had not considered Greenland which would make the settlement more substantial. Nor had I considered the conceptual nature of the statement. A quick look on google scholar gives limited sources for that exact phrase and even then two are the same research paper. If it were changed I suppose something like 'Norse settlements on the North American coast would be more accurate. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:56, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
That seems too unwieldy for a title. Maybe "Norse settlements in North America"? Carlstak (talk) 21:56, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
I think (in my humble opinion) the current title is fine because of the aforementioned topic as a concept, as well as the actual colonisation of Greenland. TylerBurden (talk) 02:01, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm sticking with "Norse colonization of North America". The more I read on the subject, the more I'm convinced that this is a valid title to describe the concept. If a cited text discusses the Norse in the context of that people establishing a colony or colonies in Vinland, we can safely consider it under the purview of the concept "Norse colonization of North America", even if it's not expressed in that exact string of words. Carlstak (talk) 17:50, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
@Carlstak there's no archaeological evidence of even one colony in "Vinland", wherever that might have been. No colonies at all on the mainland. Doug Weller talk 13:38, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm talking about the concept of colonization as something that might have happened, even if evidence is lacking. The idea of it is real and discussed in academic literature, regardless of whether or not it actually happened. I don't see why we shouldn't have an article that addresses the notion by that name, even if the consensus of modern scholars were that no Norse colonization of North America happened. Carlstak (talk) 17:13, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
PS: For instance, there is Else Roesdahl's paper, "Walrus ivory and other northern luxuries: their importance for Norse voyages and settlements in Greenland and America". pp. 145-152 in Shannon Lewis-Simpson (ed.): Vínland revisited: the Norse World at the Turn of the First Millennium. Selected Papers from the Viking Millennium Symposium, 15-24 September 2000, Newfoundland and Labrador. St. John's, Newfoundland, which I'm trying to get hold of. I intend to add some information to the article about Christian Keller's proposal that the Norse colonization of Greenland was motivated more by mercantile considerations than by a desire to expand the pastoral communities of Iceland, which suggests an economic motive for the possible expansion of Norse settlement, including in North America. He writes, "It is hardly accidental that the Norse houses at LAnse aux Meadows in Newfoundland were erected within the same generation as the initial settlements in Greenland. It is tempting to see these activities as expressions of the same, i.e. efforts to establish a supply of exotic commodities for export to Europe, from the edge of the Arctic world." Carlstak (talk) 17:39, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: @TylerBurden: Note: I've moved discussion about L'Anse aux Meadows to Talk:L'Anse aux Meadows per editor's suggestion. Carlstak (talk) 16:16, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
I came back to this page having thought that 'North colonisation in North America' would be better, only to see you have already suggested that, and then un-suggested it. I am still leaning towards a change being preferable but that preference is mild. 'of North America' to me implies what happened in the 19C. with wagon loads of people staking claims and swarms of people off loading in NY harbour, not a few people setting up camp on a couple of off sure islands. I know Greenland is regarded as NA but to me that is borderline in common understanding of the term. Ultimately it should depend on what sources say. And thanks Vaulter for bringing up the 2018 discussion. I'd forgotten about it despite having contributed! Roger 8 Roger (talk) 11:09, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Norse_colonization_of_North_America/Archive_2&oldid=1138115738"