Talk:Vikings/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Where did the Vikings originate from, and when did they arrive in Norway/Sweden/Denmark/Finland?

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The Vikings didn't just spontaneously appear out of the ether in the 700s, and whomever was on the land they took over didn't just spontaneously combust. But beyond that, I have no clue how they came to be, when they came from, when they came to what we traditionaly regard as Viking land, and what happened to the natives that occupied that land before the Vikings. Enlightenment appreciated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.190.119 (talk) 18:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Please see Germanic peoples. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:53, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Since even a Macedonian king, Filip II, father to Alexander the great, was labelled viking in the old english translation, it should be pretty clear, that theres no sense to mix the word viking, a translation from pirat, and nothing else, with no connection to any specific country or land, and ask from where they came, or claim that they were only of scandinavian origin?

Dan Koehl (talk) 11:53, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Article title as plural?

Latest comment: 10 years ago18 comments7 people in discussion

Does anyone know why this article's title is in the plural? It is unencyclopedic, and I think we should move the article to "Viking" unless there's some compelling reason not to. I'll watch here for a bit before moving it. Eric ^talk 16:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

From a "most common name" perspective, the plural is correct. Changing the first sentence, for instance, to "The Viking were seafaring people..." would be awkward and run against the most common usage. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 16:33, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Huh? I'm a native speaker of English, and so would not propose to write such an opening sentence. No serious reference work lists entries in the plural. Look it up--you will not find "Vikings" as an entry in any other encyclopedia or any dictionary. Eric ^talk 17:04, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Look at the references in the notes on the page. The vast majority use "Vikings." Also, the page was only recently moved from Viking to Vikings by an admin, so you may want to raise the issue with him before reverting the change. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 17:14, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed; title needs to go to singular. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:11, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah, didn't catch the Feb 14 move when I initially looked at the history. The mover cites that good old Wikipedia editor rationale "this is how it's done on other articles". I don't have the energy to campaign for bringing all those articles' titles to the standard of a professional reference work. Have to remind myself regularly that it's the encyclopedia that anyone can edit... Eric ^talk 19:08, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

The plural is also, notably, what's used for articles like [[Germans]] and [[Finns]] and [[Russians]] and [[Danes]] and [[Swedes]] and [[Norwegians]] and [[Icelanders]] and even [[Americans]] ... -- i.e., collective plural nouns used as labels for ethnicities or groups of people. [[Vikings]] fits into that paradigm quite nicely. When looking for an article about the people, I wouldn't think to go looking up [[German]] in the singular any more than I'd think to look up [[Viking]] in the singular. Not least as that's also ambiguous usage for the adjective.

As such, please keep this article at its current location: [[Vikings]], with the s. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 06:33, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

You most certainly would look up those terms in the singular if you'd ever become accustomed to using reference material before Wikipedia. You might even want try it: go to the AHD, OED, or Encyclopedia Brittanica and search for entries like Germans or Vikings. Spoiler alert: you won't find them. Citing sloppy habits Wikipedia editors have adopted--such as titling articles in the plural--as a reason for how things should be done on Wikipedia is not going to convince people who were using encyclopedias before there was Wikipedia.

If we want to make clear that an article is about a people, the Wikipedia format I would suggest is "Viking (people)". Eric ^talk 14:38, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Viking isn't an ethnicity. This is a specific term for a specific group of people who were simply part of the North Germanic peoples during the Viking Age. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

"VIKINGS. A term of convenience applied indiscriminately by modern scholarship to the inhabitants of the Scandinavian countries (Denmark, Sweden, and Norway), before and after they achieved separate or more distinctive identities, and to the men, women and children of Scandinavian extraction who at various times left their homelands in search of a better or more exciting life overseas (whether the Baltic, the North Sea, or the Atlantic Ocean). … " (Simon Keynes, in Lapidge et al. (eds.), The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Anglo-Saxon England, Blackwell, 1999, p. 460 (ISBN 978-0-6312-2492-1)) Nortonius (talk) 16:33, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Would anyone like "History of the Viking"? No? You know, things change. Spellings change. Unless you are in France of course. Keep it Vikings. Dougweller (talk) 18:31, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
"Vikings" feels much more natural; I'd advise keeping it plural. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:19, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Good book title: "History of the Vikings". No argument. But Wikipedia ain't no book. They, for the time being, anyway, still have professional editors. Times change, rules decay, and pretty soon we'll all be saying "awesome" for anything that's mildly acceptable, and using "incredible" to mean "excellent". We'll be living Idiocracy soon enough, dear colleagues--please let's not hasten it. And by the way: Vive l'Académie!
Reference works list entries in the simplest form--the singular. Why is the WP article Dog instead of Dogs?...Cherokees?...Eskimos? ...Chairs?...Airplanes? Do we put the article names in the plural for any noun that represents something that there has ever been more than one of? To follow through on some of the arguments put forth here, it seems you guys have a lot of redirects to re-direct. Eric ^talk 20:19, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

- Not sure if you noticed I wrote "History of the Viking", not "Vikings." Also, the plural form of Cherokee is Cherokee. The plural form of Eskimo is Eskimo. Why are you suggesting otherwise (yes, you can add an s to both and make it plural, but you don't have to). Dougweller (talk) 20:47, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
@Eric, I'm not sure if you're aware, but your posts here read as if you're busy calling everyone that disagrees with you an "idiot". This is not very politic, nor very mature. If you don't intend to call all opposing viewpoints "idiotic", I'd recommend that you rework your verbiage. If you do intend to call all opposing viewpoints "idiotic", I guess I'm done here. (Apparently then, I'm in the wrong room.) -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 02:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Doug: Yes, I noticed. It was my apparently clumsy attempt to briefly both clarify that I had not said--nor meant to imply--that I would propose titling anything "History of the Viking"; and agree with you on what I saw as your implication--that "History of the Vikings" would be a good title--though, in my opinion, for a book, not an encyclopedia entry. And I sure hope you never have the misfortune to hear someone utter: "I had a nice conversation about plural forms with two Cherokee and three Eskimo".
Eirikr: Take it easy, and don't look too hard for opportunities to feel offended. You might follow the link I made to the movie article. It's about a future world where Americans' language skills have greatly diminished. Meant to be funny. I don't beat around the bush. If I am going to call someone idiotic, I will be quite direct. And on maturity: Believe me, when I find myself trying to promote good use of English on Wikipedia, I feel like I'm a thousand years old. Eric ^talk 03:23, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't say "2 Cherokee", but I would say "the Cherokee" when I meant the people called the Cherokee. But I would never say "the Viking" when I was referring the group known as the Vikings. Dougweller (talk) 12:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. Neither would I. I'm obviously not getting my point across. Eric ^talk 13:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

A common misconception - Kievan Rus (today's Ukraine ) legacy misappropriated by Muscovites.

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

A small but significant change has to be done.

I will be deeply grateful for someone with an ability to edit this page to make it. Thank You for paying attention.

founding the Kievan Rus, the original Russia needs to be changed to founding the Kievan Rus,the original Ukraine.

The sources are as follow: 1. "Pelenski....directs his major criticism against the prevalence in modern Russian and western historiography of the theory of Kievan-Muscovite continuity to the exclusion of Ukrainian claims..In the final analysis Pelenski accords Ukraine greater claim to the Kievan inheritance than Russia (p. xxii)." Jaroslaw Pelenski. The Contest for the Legacy of Kievan Rus'. Boulder, Col.: Columbia University Press, 1998.

http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=2866

2.This one deals with the manipulation of history the USSR was and todays Russia is so good at,with the hard-to-note the one-letter difference between RuSian - of Rus, and ruSSian - of Putinland.

"Hrushevsky was by far the greatest of modern Ukrainian historians, the author of a monumental ten-volume History of Ukraine-Rus which documented the history of the Ukrainian people from Kievan Rus to the dawn of the modern era."

http://www.historytoday.com/thomas-prymak/hrushevsky-and-ukraines-lost-history

3.This next article,alas,has the redundant "s" in the "mother of all Rusian cities" - that is Kyiv (Kiev),the capital,and today's capital of Ukraine.

"The relations between Kievan Rus and Scandinavia were particularly strong during the grand duchy of Mstislav Vladimirovich (1125 – 1132).

......in the XV-XVII centuries Norway continued to be in fact a separate state with its own economy and merchant class which pursued their own interests. At the same time, it should be noted that over the mentioned period of time there were practically no relations between the Ukrainian and Norwegian lands.

http://www.norway.com.ua/Embassy/info/Ukraine_Norway_History/

Eristyneisyys (talk) 16:13, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Please discuss your changes first. Vaca tion 9 03:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Let's not involve modern politics, especially Putin. Still, deeming that modern Russia is the sole successor of Kievan Rus is wrong. In fact, this statement is a remnant of century-old Russian propaganda. The predecessor of today's Russian state wasn't even called "Russia" until 18th century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.44.221.46 (talk) 12:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Viking And German DNA - http://www.gotlandsresor.se/en/english/about-gotland/the-islands-around

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Incorrect History of Viking expansion

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Viking expansion map depicts vikings reaching Portugal and Spain but this is incorrect. The Vikings invaded Galicia in Poland not Galicia near Portugal and the Vikings invaded Iberia - modern Georgia which was also known as Iberia in ancient times. Complete fabrication of Viking presence in Portugal, Galicia or Spain regions. The Canada new world is just a joke really. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Longbeardsleftleg (talk • contribs) 02:04, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Vikings and Denmark

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

This piece states that the Vikings were descended from the Danes, implying that all Vikings were Danish. While the Danes were unquestionably in the majority, the piece overlooks the well-documented Norwegian and Hiberno-Norse settlements in the Cotentin peninsula. [1] MarmadukePercy (talk) 05:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

But there was no such thing as "Norway" at that time (the viking-age). Actually, this site shouldn't even state that there were Norwegian and Swedish vikings. Because the only country that existed at that time, was Denmark. Quite weird actually... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.199.177.197 (talk) 23:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Harald I of Norway was the first King of Norway from 872 to 930. MarmadukePercy (talk) 11:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The viking-age or more presicely the end of the ironage in scandinavia was a panscandinavian periode. the curante nations of scandinavia was founded during this epoch. Fore an updated history of the vikings please read " Else Roesdal : World of the wikings" 2012 ed, this book will keep most people up to date with curant science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hafnia72 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Article implies Sami were Viking? Also, unclear definition of Norse

Latest comment: 10 years ago15 comments4 people in discussion

Which is false, obviously.

From the last paragraph of the Etymology section:

"During the 20th century, the meaning of the term [Viking] was expanded to refer not only to seaborne raiders from Scandinavia, but secondarily to any Scandinavian who lived during the period from the late 8th to the mid-11th centuries, or more loosely from about 700 to as late as about 1100. As an adjective, the word is used to refer to ideas, phenomena or artefacts connected with Scandinavians and their cultural life in these centuries, producing expressions like Viking age, Viking culture, Viking art, Viking religion, Viking ship, and so on. The people of medieval Scandinavia are also referred to as Norse, although this term properly applies only to the Old-Norse-speaking peoples of Scandinavia, and not to the Sami.":

Note especially "any Scandinavian who lived during the period" [is a viking] vs. [Norse are] "Old-Norse-speaking peoples of Scandinavia, and not to the Sami." I would change/shorten that last sentence just to

"The people of medieval Scandinavia are also referred to as Norse due to their shared language of Old Norse, which was used from around the start of the Viking Age until the 14th century.":

(see linked wikipedia page). If it is mentioned that Norse are defined by their language, then the Sami should just be left out of it: mentioning them just serves to confuse matters, as they're not Norse, Viking or even "Scandinavian" if you take the latter in it's cultural and/or linguistic sense as opposed to purely geographical (in which case, they inhabited large areas outside Scandinavia as well, and thus at the very least are not purely Scandinavian).

A change such as the above would also help clarify the difference between Vikings/Norse and the Viking/Norse ages. Assuming Norse are defined by the language, like the text claims even now (haven't checked any other sources or even wikipedia pages on this), then Norse can refer to any (culturally) Scandinavian from the 8th to 14th century (=Medieval era), at least, whereas Vikings and the Viking Age etc. are specifically stated in the article to be a 8th to 11th century concept. My point is, the Viking Age was a specific time period in the late Early Middle Ages, whereas the "Norse era" should either be synonymous with the Viking Age, or begin with the Viking Age and continue at least throughout the High Middle Ages and probably into the Late Middle Ages, if it is defined through language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesihvone 22:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

That's a good point. I'd also like to add that the Danes of that time, were what we would now call Vikings ...yet Denmark isn't part of Scandinavia. Not to mention Iceland.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 04:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

There's more to being Norse in that era than language though. It also implies sedentary settlement and agriculture, particularly when contrasted with the Saami. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 08:18, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Zarlan, I think you may confused the Scandinavian Peninsula (which Denmark isn't a part of) with Scandinavia (which Denmark is a part of). --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

True, but besides the point, unless there were nomadic, non-farming Vikings and/or Norse? Jesihvone 10:35, 29 January 2014

There is a difference? Even if that is so: That is no defence of the current language. It's still misleading and confusing.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 11:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't have an easy solution for how to best clarify this for/include Danish/Icelandic(/Faroese etc.) Vikings. Maybe remove some of the mentions of Scandinavia, or change them to more explicitly refer to Scandinavian culture instead of the geographical area. For the record, I'm Finnish, so the slightly-but-not-completely-separate Nordic vs. Scandinavian confusion in English is all too familiar for me too (but Nordic isn't an appropriate term here either, since Finns are even less relevant to the subject than Sami). Jesihvone 10:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I can see you are familiar with the confusion. Denmark is actually part of Scandinavia (see my reply above). --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I was wondering about that, but didn't get around to checking what the "official" stance is. To some degree, the point remains for the Viking settlers in the Faroe Islands, Greenland, the British Isles, and elsewhere. But I think it will probably make for the clearest article if we don't go into that level of detail, i.e. just use the word Scandinavian to mean Danes, Norwegians and Swedes. Jesihvone 10:50, 29 January 2014

So you're solution is to write in a knowingly erroneous, and misleading, manner? I don't agree.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 11:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

That's not really what I intended, but ok, how about something like: "...seaborne raiders from Scandinavia and other regions settled by those raiders (such as Iceland and the Faroe islands), but secondarily to any member of the culture(s) that produced said raiders, who lived during the period..." or something to that effect. I'm assuming that the Faroese and Icelandic Vikings maintained the "Viking" culture the best, and the Norse/Vikings who settled in e.g. Normandy and British Isles adopted a more peaceful lifestyle quicker. However, as the suggestion uses Iceland and the Faroe islands as examples, it leaves the meaning open to other places too. Other changes required would be "connected with Scandinavians and their cultural life" to "connected with those peoples and their cultural life", and changing my original suggestion for the last sentence to: "The people of medieval Scandinavia and their colonies/diaspora/[suitable word here] are also referred to as Norse due to their shared language of Old Norse, which was used from around the start of the Viking Age until the 14th century.": — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesihvone 17:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

It could do with a bit of modification, to get a more clear and flowing language, but... That sound fairly decent.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 22:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The difficulty of forming a clear, flowing and precise passage was why I suggested sacrificing some precision. It's a "pick two out of three" dilemma, to an extent. Should I do the edit or will you? --Jesihvone (talk) 21:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Well as it is your suggestion: By all means, you do it. The flow of the language will be fixed with time, as others edit it, to make it flow better.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 08:43, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, I finally found the time and energy to return to this and combine all the changes I suggested just above, but the Vikings page is semi-protected, and I haven't done enough edits on wikipedia to have permission to change semi-protected pages. Could Zarlan/someone else swap out the last paragraph of the Etymology section with the following, which should have all the changes agreed to above:

The word Viking was introduced into Modern English during the 18th-century Viking revival, at which point it acquired romanticised heroic overtones of "barbarian warrior" or noble savage. During the 20th century, the meaning of the term was expanded to refer not only to seaborne raiders from Scandinavia and other places settled by them (such as Iceland and the Faroe islands), but secondarily to any member of the culture that produced said raiders and who lived during the period from the late 8th to the mid-11th centuries, or more loosely from about 700 to as late as about 1100 (see Viking Age). As an adjective, the word is used to refer to ideas, phenomena or artefacts connected with those peoples and their cultural life in these centuries, producing expressions like Viking age, Viking culture, Viking art, Viking religion, Viking ship, and so on. The people of medieval Scandinavia and their colonies are also referred to as Norse due to their shared language of Old Norse, which was used from around the start of the Viking Age to the 14th century.

Thanks! --Jesihvone (talk) 18:26, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I made the edit, though I made some changes. One example is that I removed the whole "Norse" bit, as Norse refers to any (native) speaker of the Norse languages, and/or the culture it is connected to. It doesn't really seem relevant.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 18:44, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Yea, I noticed the edit and was wondering about the change, since it seemed to me from the revision differences that the last sentence should still have been in there, but it wasn't showing up. However, the section is clearer without it, and even though this means that the Norse thing gets left out there, it probably does come up in some other part of the article, if not several times. Thanks for the edit & for clearing things up. --Jesihvone (talk) 20:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Viking was an Activity, not a People

Latest comment: 10 years ago14 comments7 people in discussion

To go Viking was an activity. No one who stayed home and farmed or worked a craft was a Viking. Even those who went Viking were not Vikings when they were at home. They were whatever ethnic group or nation they were members of, not Vikings. Not only that, non-Norse people sometimes went Viking, certainly the Wends did and probably others. This stupid page is capitalizing Viking whenever I type it. That is not my intention. 19:47, 2 January 2014 (UTC)65.79.173.135 (talk)Will in New Haven65.79.173.135 (talk) 19:47, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Your point is already covered in the 'Etymology' section of the article....Gabhala (talk) 22:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

...and it should also be noted that Viking was (past tense) an activity. The word has since come to refer to the people. You may feel that it's wrong that the word has changed in such a way, but it cannot be denied that it has. Viking was an activity ...but now it is a people.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 01:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, Will, get with it! Don't you know that once a certain percentage of people no longer know what a word really means, the ones who still do know are now wrong? Man, you probably still think that incredible means unbelievable, when everyone knows it really means excellent. Modern American English speaker 1: "At the end of the day, he's an incredible real estate developer." Modern American English speaker 2: "Absolutely." Now stop trying to preserve knowledge in an encyclopedia, okay? Eric ^talk 14:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I sense great sarcasm in your comment. There is nothing wrong with noting the historical usage of a word, in an encyclopaedia ...as long as it is presented as exactly that: It's historic usage. It would, however, be utterly wrong to present it as the the "current", or "correct" usage. It hasn't been, for many centuries.

In modern English, Viking is a noun, describing the Nordic people in a certain era. Thus the article on "Viking", in the (modern) English Wikipedia, must reflect that.

If it doesn't, the article may as well be written in Old English (English as it was, during the Viking Period) which would mean that practically no one could read it (Old English#Text samples) ...or why not Old Norse, which was the language of the Vikings? (this site has a few text samples)--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 21:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I would disagree with Viking as the article name, and suggest "Norse (people)" as the established Wikipedia term currently in use for the majority of articles. The current usage of the word "viking" is a bunch of raiders, not the Norse people as a whole. When people think Vikings they think horned helmets and longboats, not farmers, craftsmen, or shamanic practitioners - because that's what a Viking is, a raider, and that was only a small slice of their culture, which was much more than that. Also a problem is that there is already a perfectly good modern English word for the culture, which is Norse. Was something wrong with this word, that it was changed? Does "Norse" not represent the culture more correctly and broadly than "Viking"? Will we now decide to change all of the Norse-related articles to use "Viking" instead of "Norse": "Norse mythology", "Norse paganism", "Norse art", "Norse activity in the British Isles", and so on? Using "Viking" as the article title is a poorly considered idea with little real justification. 75.156.153.74 (talk) 20:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

No sorry, but you're wrong:

1. "Norse" is not the "established Wikipedia term currently in use for the majority of articles", concerning the Nordic people of the Viking Age.

2. Vikings did not have horned helmets ...and actually people do use "Viking", for the farmers, craftsmen, and shamanic practitioners of those peoples, from that time.

3. Norse does not describe those people, of the Viking Age time. A modern day Dane is Norse ...but they are not a Viking. Norse and Viking (as the term is used in this article) are two very different things.

Thus you are wrong on all points.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 13:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

As Zarlan stated to some extent here, and I did below, in the current widespread wikipedia usage, Viking (the age/people) refers to a more specific time period than Norse. Vikings may be Norse, but not all Norse are Vikings. --Jesihvone (talk) 21:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC) (signed in and swapped in my actual username sig instead of the IP one)

Yes. Also Norsemen usually refers to Vikings before the christianization of Scandinavia, whereas Vikings covers 'The Norse' from the Nordic Iron Age to the Middle Ages including the years after chr. RhinoMind (talk) 09:59, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Eh? Norse covers people in the Nordic countries, all the way up till today.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 18:13, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Yea, I'd also (continue to) argue that it's the Norse that are the more limited term in terms of the time period covered. The Viking Age probably would extend to the early days of christianity in Scandinavia, but it ends about the same time as christianity is properly established in Scandinavia, since this is also when all the raiding etc. stopped, more or less. And yes, Norse extends from before the Vikings until the Middle Ages. However, beginning in the Early Modern Age, due to the rise of separate Swedish/Danish/Norwegian/etc. languages, cultures and national identities (even during the Kalmar Union they were separate states under a personal union), the term "Scandinavian" and eventually after WWII, "Nordic" (if you're including Finland as well as Scandinavia, Iceland, the Faroes and Greenland), become more appropriate than "Norse", even if they didn't necessarily replace it entirely. --Jesihvone (talk) 18:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

There are several sources that would seem to disagree with the notion that modern Nordic people aren't "Norse":

Wiktionary, The OED, Merriam-Webster's Dictionary, thefreedictionary.com...--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 20:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I wrote Norsemen. With regard to the term Norse, I exactly used it to cover the geographical region, rether than a specific time period. Please comment on what people write and not what you think they write.

Anyway I dont understand why it is so hard for some to accept the term Viking. It is what scientists and archaeologists have settled for, so why can't Wikipedia? As I see it from this talk page it is because the article is missing more info on the everyday life of the Vikings. They had a common culture, social order, craftsmanship, religious beliefs and practises, language, architecture and even genetics. In fact I dare to say that Scandinavia in the Viking age was a lot more cultural (and of course genetically) homogeneous than today. Yes Viking was an activity, but that exact word has also been used to describe a specific culture.

Tour-de-force: Before the Viking Age there where several independent cultures in Scandinavia like the Danes, Geats, Swedes and Gutes to name a few. In the Nordic Iron Age they used to raid and battle each other, when resources became scarce, but at some point they began raiding further away (to go viking' as mentioned) and unite (because of necessity, because of domination from a more centralized power (based around Roskilde primarily)) and they emerged as what we now call "Vikings". For the people in Scandinavia, the Viking Age was an age of centralization and a movement towards a more homogeneous culture than they was used to. This Age eventually transitioned towards defining the three Kingdoms of Norway, Sweden and Denmark.

In relation to this interesting culture/people/identity debate and "problem" I can recommend the book "The Vikings - a very short introduction" by Julian D. Richards a series from Oxford University Press. Very good, especially with regard to the questions discussed here. RhinoMind (talk) 05:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

"I wrote Norsemen. With regard to the term Norse, I exactly used it to cover the geographical region, rether than a specific time period."

Ah, so you used Norsemen as separate and distinct from Norse? It seems I mistook your meaning, then.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 18:04, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Scholarly debate on sources vs. Readable presentation of the overall conclusions and understandings that have emerged.

Latest comment: 10 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

I think the article as it is now, emphasizes excessively on the credibility and nature of the sources to what the Vikings were all about, rather than presenting the interesting conclusions we can and have extracted from these sources already. Of course the credibility and nature of our sources to the Vikings are important, but it is not everything and it is mostly of scholarly interest, something you can pursue when you feel inspired and ready to dive in. I hope for and will work for providing more information on the overall conclusions and understandings of the Vikings and their culture that have emerged from the sources we have and at the same time present it in a readable and enjoyable way.

I write this post mainly to document my intentions, but you can of course join in below, if you feel for it.

RhinoMind (talk) 17:58, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Interesting, since your own additions are mostly unsourced and at times create conflict with other passages on the page, while adding charged language that invites dispute -- e.g., "the Vikings sometimes went berserk." We are guided by what the sources provide, and discussion of the merits of available primary sources is entirely appropriate and necessary. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 21:36, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

An example of a conflict is your addition that the Vikings "were generally a non-literate society and culture," which conflicts with the runestones section that says, "Viking peoples could read and write and used a non-standardized alphabet." Both statements are unsourced and in direct conflict. (Further, other parts of the intro you added to the sources section are redundant with what is already discussed in the sub-sections.) Founding "overall conclusions and understandings" in reliable sources is a far more important imperative on this page at present than downplaying debate on the credibility and nature of the primary sources. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 21:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for your input. I realized early on, that this article is badly sourced all together. There is so much more we know about the Vikings today that contradicts some of the statements in the text and adds a lot more than is revealed here. I started writing, but it became clear that the task was overwhelming in a single edit-session at least. Much of the misinformation and missing information is spread out or omitted on several pages, so it is not enough to correct it here, even with the necessary references. I will return later with proper sources and elaborate on some of the things that should be corrected and added. The two subjects you take up, ie. the "to go berserk" and about being generally illiterate, will be amongst these subjects. As an appetizer I will point to the fact that if they were literate, we would have had written sources from themselves, as paper or parchment should not have been foreign to them at all. Because 2-3 in a village might be able to make a runestone, doesnt mean that the vikings were literate. To the majority of the population, runes had a magical meaning and was not used to express thoughts or ideas on any larger scale. I take your reaction as an indication, that it needs to be explained in the text, since it might not be obvious to everyone.

Yes, some of what I wrote at the head of the section "Sources" might seem redundant at a hasted glance, because what I was trying to do, was to collect this information in a single place, a place where it belonged and made sense. You are most welcome to join and work on fulfilling this job.

I am not trying to downplaying the importance of good sources or the debate about that either, I even explain that in my post (read again). My goal is indeed to start contributing with extra stuff, stuff that are readable and interesting and of course well documented. RhinoMind (talk) 01:27, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Some of the difficulty stems from an earlier editor, whose English was rather cryptic, who insisted on adding the statement that the Vikings were literate. I agree that further elaboration on the topic is warranted, particularly with proper sourcing. I'm also not opposed to an introductory statement at the beginning of the Sources section, but it should introduce the entire section as opposed to concentrating on a couple of points. I've worked on this myself, in fact, by forging an introduction for the Archaeology sub-section and reorganizing the Sources section as a whole. Again, however, as you note, a better foundation in good sources is necessary throughout the article, and in the Sources section in particular. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 01:38, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Good. agreed. I sense you have experienced a lot of trouble, with different editors on this important page? :-) Well, all people cannot agree 100% on everything of course, but I at least dont see my self coming here and erasing stuff and make it "my" page. I would like to contribute and I can see that we at least agree, that this is indeed what this page needs at the moment. Btw. I intentionally used the word "non-literate" ,as opposed to the word "il-literate". With non-literate I just mean that they didnt produced any literary legacy. As said it needs a more thorough or better explanation. Im off for now. RhinoMind (talk) 02:00, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Agree with all the points being made here; high quality sources are essential, but the result also needs to be readable and accessible to the layman - rarely easy! I've removed a couple of bits which have been challenged with citation needed tags for the last few years by the way. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:14, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

About the Rus', Russia and Belarus.

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There have been some historical dispute as to how influential the early Viking settlements in Russia actually where, with regard to the formation of the Kievan Rus' federation and the names of 'Russia' and 'Belarus'. Two ^[who?]-tags were inserted to expose this dispute.

I have elaborated a bit on the text, inserted a couple of refs and a number of wiki-links. After this, I have decided to removed the ^[who?]-tags, since the disputes are explained in the detailed discussions on those wiki-pages. If there are any objections, please comment below.

RhinoMind (talk) 14:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Not enough information on Viking/Nordic culture

Latest comment: 10 years ago25 comments7 people in discussion

I'm perceiving that the information on Viking/Nordic culture is very sporadic on Wikipedia. The little information available is scattered across pages and many subjects remain unaddressed. 84.198.53.190 (talk) 16:13, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is written by unpaid volunteers about things that interest them personally. If you think there is a gap in the information you find the best thing to do is to carry out some research and contribute something yourself to fill the gap. If you're not able to do that yourself try requesting an article at Wikipedia:Requested articles, however, you will need to be more specific than just saying "many subjects remain unaddressed". Richerman (talk) 16:51, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I think what the first writer is trying to say (I agree) is that there needs to be more on social structure, and more – if it exists – on ways of life. A list of foods hardly qualifies. Theonemacduff (talk) 07:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

What I said above still applies. Richerman (talk) 19:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

On this "list of missing information" I would also like to add the artwork and stylistic styles of the Vikings. RhinoMind (talk) 08:58, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I might put something up myself (see Viking Age art), also about the social structure (I have already written preliminary stuff on it in my Tissø article). But however it turns out, lists are good. They can inspire. RhinoMind (talk) 08:58, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Viking was not a nordic culture. the erliest decsribed viking, in english language, was Phillipus II of Macedonia, the father of Alexander the great. Viking has noting to do with any ethnic culture of people, its an activity. Dan Koehl (talk) 20:26, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

...

I am doubtful, to say the least, about the accuracy of that statement. Source please.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 01:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

@Dan Koehl. Please see the discussion on this particular issue in the section below ("Viking was an activity, not a people"). As is also explained there, Viking is the named used by arcaeologists and scientists to desribe a particular culture. The activity of going viking in the viking Age shaped them to a homogeneous culture, from several relatively independent groups/peoples. This is the primary reason for using the term Vikings today. If we could go back to this era and talk to people, they would probably not understand the term Viking as we do and some would - as you point out -, try to explain that viking was an activity and not necessarily a people. Probably. Every different culture of that age had their own perceptions of the Vikings, depending on how they interacted with them. But, however people of those ages may have perceived this, it is not how we look at it today in (scientific and popular) hindsight. We use the word Viking to describe a particular culture/people.

PS. I sense that many British, have a hard time grasping the Viking term. I highly recommend to study and investigate more about present day Scandinavian (and Nordic) culture and how things came to be as they are now. the Scandinavian countries and their culture (and some would include Faroese Islands and Iceland) are living witnesses and cultural windows to whatever happened to the Vikings, their culture, etc.. I believe it is very hard to grasp, if you do not leave the anglo-saxon culture behind for awhile and experience it for yourself abroad. RhinoMind (talk) 04:12, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I see that you are in fact Swedish and even involved with the Wikiproject: Norse histroy and culture. I cannot believe this, unless you are trying to pull a joke or something? If we are not to call the culture and people in Scandinavia (and associated areas) during the Viking Age for Vikings, what name do you suggest then? RhinoMind (talk) 04:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Just because someone has a certain nationality, education and/or engaged in a certain project, doesn't mean that they are competent ...and even competent people are not immune to being ridiculously wrong about a certain issue.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 17:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

No. Im sorry. I didn't mean it in a condescending way, I was just a bit amazed. RhinoMind (talk) 13:44, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't complaining that you were condescending. On the contrary: I'm saying that you are giving people too much credit, just because of nationality.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 19:21, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I have tried to make the introductory lines more clearer now and hope it does the job. RhinoMind (talk) 04:53, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

"Vikings ... are the name given by scientists and archaeologists, to the Norse culture during the Viking Age." This construction suggests that the name was bestowed during the Viking Age, which clearly conflicts with the discussion here. And the verb-subject agreement is incorrect. I suggest examining how the cited sources and other encyclopedia entries treat this sort of defining statement -- for instance, the previous version was developed from EB. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 05:20, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello. This is simply not true. The text indeed informs that the name is bestowed/given by scientists and archaeologists! How can you possibly read it otherwise? Sorry, but this is ridiculous. I support your suggestion though, but I haven't had the time yet myself. In this regard, I does not suggest using British Encyclopedia or sources alone, as British sources have a sad tendency to be fairly poor and narrowminded in their descriptions of Vikings. No offence, but this is the bare truth. They rarely desribes them from a universal angle, but primarily as seen from a purely Bristish angle. This is one of the reasons, this page is so poor as it is. RhinoMind (talk) 06:42, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I was a little tired, when I wrote my post above. Eventhough it requires quite a bit of historic ignorance, I think I can see your point. I should have discussed the phrase here, before editing the page. "Vikings (from Old Norse víkingr) is the name used by scientists and archaeologists, to describe the Norse culture during the Viking Age.", should be more resistant to misinterpretations. RhinoMind (talk) 13:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

The suggestion I note stems from poor word choice ("during"), not "historic ignorance." Your version further emphasizes the wrong aspect of the term for the definitional statement. What is most important for the opening sentence, to describe the people the term refers to, or to emphasize that it is a historiographic term? The page is primarily about the people. Discussion of the development of the term is appropriate, but not as the opening line of the entry. I urge looking at other sources to see how others deal with this issue, not to push a particular source. But basing the entry on reliable sources is simply what Wikipedia does; if you do not agree with those sources, find others. But if you do not agree with following "sources alone," you are pushing WP:OR, which is inappropriate, especially in the opening line of the entry. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 14:56, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

"During" can only refer to the Norse culture, as there were no scientists or arcaeologists in the Viking Age. This is completely obvious and goes without saying, and that is why I used the harsh words "ridiculous" and "historical ignorance". It can hardly be misunderstood. Nevertheless, I follow you as said already. What I did though, was try to fix a recurring problem quickly and painless, until a better page is written altogether. I see no problem in opening with a phrase like the one I inserted, it solves a lot of misunderstandings and quickly moves on to define and describe what vikings are, so it is not emphazing historiographic details all in all. The historiographic details are still elaborated on in the Ethymology section. If people insist, the phrase could of course be moved to another section, but then I think we will be here again and again to deal with readers claiming "Viking is just an activiy and not a people", etc. etc. ... Anyway Im all open to other solutions that does the job, I was just putting something up quickly. About usng non-British sources (hopefully written in English): If we want to copy-paste phrases from sources directly in order to describe and define what Vikings were all about, I still suggest looking for non-british sources, for the reasons I explained. It is just a suggestion, and is not violating any rules per se. I'll be back later, hopefully with proper on-line sources. Cheers. RhinoMind (talk) 19:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

If your problem is the word "during" (and I agree with RhinoMind: There is no way in which that could refer to anything other than the people of the culture), then the solution is extremely simply:

Change "the name given by scientists and archaeologists, to the Norse culture during the Viking Age." to "the name given by scientists and archaeologists, to the Norse culture of the Viking Age." The meaning remains the same, and your complaint is dealt with. Problem solved. (not that I can see that there is a problem to begin with, but...)

"But if you do not agree with following "sources alone," you are pushing WP:OR, which is inappropriate, especially in the opening line of the entry."

Certainly, everything on Wikipedia needs to be verified by reliable sources (and nowhere has RhinoMind argued otherwise), but...

Wikipedia editors are not advised to copy paste every sentence of Wikipedia articles, straight from the sources. Thus your complaint makes no sense.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 17:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Adding quick fixes and generalizations without the guidance of sources is the root of the trouble with the page. As for the opening sentence, I encourage you to review MOS:BEGIN: "the first sentence should give a concise definition: where possible, one that puts the article in context for the nonspecialist." This is what the previous version did. The lede section could certainly use a summary of the Etymology discussion to establish the derivation of the term, but the first sentence is not the proper place for that. A second paragraph outlining these issues would be preferable. And with the issue heavily disputed on the talk section, precise language with the guidance of sources is essential, not a quick fix. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 20:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Very well, you are most welcome. What I put up, hardly needs any specific source, as all scientific and archaeological sources are using the term Vikings, making the statement self-evident. Specific sources are only needed (in this situation), if one insists on copy-paste phrases from a single source. Not my choice, but others might of course think of it differently. Anyway I believe what I wrote, is exactly following the guideline you are referring. All that said, please put up something better, Im backing up. RhinoMind (talk) 21:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Nowhere in MOS:BEGIN does it state or imply that you should include a summary of etymology nor can I imagine any good reason to include it.

Nor does MOS:BEGIN (or WP:RS) suggest, or even imply, that you should copy the phrasing from a dictionary, another encyclopaedia or other source (whether this be a pure copy-paste, or a copying with some further modification is irrelevant) ...except in the case of the occasional direct quotation ...which are usually to be avoided in the lead section and especially the first sentence.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 17:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

What's your point? Who are you directing your post at Zarlan?

If it was at me and what I put up here is my answer: What I wrote is within the guideline stating that: "the first sentence should give a concise definition: where possible, one that puts the article in context for the nonspecialist.". In addition I exactly avoided copy-paste referencing, because I dislikes it in general and it is not needed in this situation. As I said to Laszlo Panaflex, I would be happy if someone could do a better job than I did in the two minutes it took me. RhinoMind (talk) 18:15, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

"What's your point? Who are you directing your post at Zarlan?"

The answer to that question is fairly obvious: There is only one single person I could be directing it at.

"If it was at me"

...then I would have used one more level of indentation, now wouldn't I?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 18:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

List of famous vikings doesnt include famous vikings, but includes non vikings

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The list of famous vikings seems to list persons who was not documented vikings. Like 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.

Furthermore, real, documented vikings are missing, like Bjørn Farmann who obviously was a viking now and then: Egil Skallagrimsson tells this of Bjørn: Bjørn var farmaður mikill, var stundum í víking, en stundum í kaupferðum; translated into English: Björn was a great traveller; sometimes as viking, sometimes as tradesman. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B8rn_Farmann#Egil_Skallagrimsson) So, according to the source, written in english language, the english language makes a difference, when Björn is a trader, and when he is a viking. So the english langauge does not, as some may argue, mix those terms up.

Finally, in the article vikings are often compared with norse people, and its claimed that vikings means norse. This is not correct; norse actually means norse and not viking. And viking actually means viking, and not norse. Those are two different word, with two different meanings.

Dan Koehl (talk) 18:15, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The claims you make here, overlap greatly and/or are dependant on the claims you make in the "Redirect of Norseman and Northmen" section. Thus it is pointless to bother with this section, until that one is dealt with.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 23:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Errors in the intro

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

In the intro is written: In Old English, the word wicing appears first in the Anglo-Saxon poem, Widsith, which probably dates from the 9th century. In Old English, and in the history of the archbishops of Hamburg-Bremen written by Adam of Bremen in about 1070, the term is synonymous with pirate and a Scandinavian.

I argue this, and ask for that the word first is removed from the sentence the word wicing appears first, as well as that the last sentence (and a Scandinavian') has to be removed, because:

1. Widsith is not the oldest or first source mentioning vikings

Apart from Oroosius mentioned above, theres at least one older source than Widsith mention the word viking, that is Lex Frisionum, which (citing wikipedia) was recorded in Latin during the reign of Charlemagne, after the year 785, when the Frankish conquest of Frisia was completed by the final defeat of the Frisian king Radboud: Therefter cas Magnus thine fifta kerre and alle Fresan an sinne kerre ien, that se nene hera fordera an here[ferd] ne volde folgia, than aster ti ther Wiser and wester ti ther Fle, up mittha flode and wth mittha ebba, truch that se thine ower wariad deis and nachtis with thine Nordkoning and thine wilda witzing and this ses flod mit tha fif wepnum: mit suerde, mit scilde, mit spada, and mit forca, and mit etkeres orda.

2. Widsith doesnt mention origin of the vikings Widsith writes about wicinga cynn without specifying from where they came, or if this really means vikings. He continues with Ic wæs mid Hunum ond mid Hreðgotum, mid Sweom ond mid Geatum ond mid Suþdenum. Mid Wenlum ic wæs ond mid Wærnum ond mid wicingum, where its easy to see that the mentioned groups are SEPARATED, not joined together, and nothing is mentioned about the origin of vikings.

Source: http://www8.georgetown.edu/departments/medieval/labyrinth/library/oe/texts/a3.11.html

3. Adam doesnt mention origin of the vikings

Adam writes: Aurum ibi plurimum, quod raptu congeritur piratico. Ipsi enim piratae, quos illi Wichingos as appellant, nostri Ascomannos regi Danico tributum solvunt.

Adam specifically writes "those prates, who the natives call Wichingos, we call Askomanns". Adam is therefore very clear, that the vikings does NOT belong to the natives. And he makes a big thing about that they actually pay tax to the king of Denmark. If they would have belonged to the rest of the population, he wouldnt have had a reason to be surprised about that.

Dan Koehl (talk) 21:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I once again highlight the error of redirecting Norseman to viking, and listing Widsith as the oldest known source of documented use of the word viking.

I suggest:

separating Norseman from viking, and transfer the relevant text about norsemen from article viking to norsemen.
listing the oldest sources of when the word viking was documented, Orosius and an explanation why a macedonian king was regarded as a a viking. Since the text "are the people of the Norse culture, during the Viking Age. They were a seafaring people of north Germanic descent, based in Scandinavia," is therefore wrong and an error, I suggest that it is removed, and replaced with a text that more precise defines which activity viking was, and which people were refered to as vikings, making it very clear that this was never an ethnical group, or that vikings only were norsemen.

Dan Koehl (talk) 01:48, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Climate and MWP

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

"The newly established Christian church was subjected to the Vikings’ robbery, but the reasoning for excursions was the necessary expansion, which was natural for their swidden culture in a time of climate deterioration.[8]"

There is no basis for the claim of a deteoriorating climate, as the Viking age began together with the MWP, making the growing season and yield in Scandinavia longer and hence improve harvests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.130.167.194 (talk) 14:20, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello. It was/is not just a question of overall climatic conditions. In the Nordic Iron Age, much of the former forest cover of Jutland was cut down and the extensive agricultural practices deteriorated the land. Heathlands spread and nutrients washed away. Sands started drifting and agriculture became more and more difficult. It was a major reason for the Jutes to immigrate from Jutland and it made it relatively easy for the Germanic Danes to invade and settle. This was just how things developed in Jutland, but similar stories can be told from many other places. The agricultural practices of the time was destructive and it was not sustainable at all. RhinoMind (talk) 03:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I can recommend the articles Thy National Park and Tisvilde as examples. RhinoMind (talk) 19:23, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

human skulls as drinking vessels

Latest comment: 10 years ago12 comments7 people in discussion

Personally I can not remember ever seeing a Viking portrayed drinking from a human skull. Maybe some weird Orc/Viking/Dwarf hybrid from a Dungeons and Dragons-esque game but nothing that was attempting to portray Vikings (historically or fictionally). In fact I did some searching and I could not find any pictures of Vikings drinking from human skulls. I did see a number of pages that seem to regurgitate this misconception. I hate to say it but I think we have a great example of citegenesis on our hands.

I think the fact that a quick google image search does not provide any examples of a Viking drinking from a human skull means that the claim about the extent of this misconception should be toned down. I would think I would be able to spot this "common motif in popular pictorial representations" after scrolling through 100 or so viking cartoons/paintings/drawings. Furthermore I am inclined to remove this section entirely there is no evidence of the existence of this misconception.

Can anyone provide references/citations for the existence of this common misconception. Bonus points if the evidence is alder than 7-8 years (This is around the time the edit that introduced this misconception was made. I do not feel comfortable identifying the editor for something that happened in good faith so many years ago.)DouglasCalvert (talk) 00:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree. It is nothing more than a misconception. The oldest reference I could find on Google was from a forum in 2006. Original European ^(talk) 02:14, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Your use of the word "portray" may provide a clue as to what happened in the article, but i haven't seen the original edit. Perhaps someone originally meant "described in words" (as opposed to the current claim of described pictorially), for which i did find a reliable source: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0017026 --Espoo (talk) 05:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Hmm... as it says "Similar traditions were described for China in /.../ and for Viking tribes by Mágnus Ólafsson in the Krakumal written in 1636.", the validity of the information is rather questionable. Certainly it's a source of this idea that pre-dates any Wikipedia edit, but as the information is from several centuries after the Viking Age, it is most probably a myth, IMO. An older myth than DouglasCalvert and Paleolithic_Man thought, but still a myth.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 12:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I too can't recall seeing Vikings being portrayed as drinking from human skulls; I've deleted the section; it can always be added back if someone finds citations for it. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:00, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

While I don't necessarily believe this section belongs in the article, (below) is a source that at least suggests the existence of a misconception — And it proffers an explanation that differs somewhat from the article (now deleted). ~Eric:71.20.250.51 (talk) 01:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Glover, Ted (Jun 27 2010). "What does 'SKOL' mean?". Daily Norseman. SB Nation; Vox Media. Retrieved 27 February 2014. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Lets be honest as far as wikipedia articles go that is hardly "a source." When I got to the following sentence I was shocked that you even bothered to include it:

"And if it is just a myth, as many claim, well, it's one hell of a myth, and until someone can prove to me they DIDN'T drink from the skull of a vanquished opponent, then By God, they did. Because until then, it's just opinion, and I like this side of the story a lot better, because it's totally badass."

But I digress, the "skull/toast" explanation sounds similar to the secondary explanation that was previously in the article:

"There may also be some confusion between "skull" and the Norse/Icelandic word for a drinking cup, skál. This is a common toast in Scandinavian countries." DouglasCalvert (talk) 02:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

That's the whole point —this is about a myth— not a verifiable fact. And, about "misconceptions" which implies perception of non-factual information. However, I personally recommend not restoring this "common misconception" to the article simply because it isn't particularly suitable (IMO). ~E:71.20.250.51 (talk) 07:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

No. I'm sorry, but that is simply not the point of the article. The article presents as fact, the notion that Vikings drank from skulls

...and to defend this against any notions that it's a myth, it uses The Rule of Cool, which is hardly a valid principle in the study of History. Furthermore, the article isn't just not a generally Reliable Source, but it isn't even a Reliable Source for the mere idea that the myth exists, or is common. (not to mention the logical inconsistencies in the explanations given in the article)--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 19:11, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

While I agree in general, the deleted section included: ...ahistorical ... legend ... allegation ... ~E:71.20.250.51 (talk) 21:20, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Well if the myth were widely known/believed, then it should be mentioned, true or not (note the "Common misconceptions concerning the Vikings" section), but... I've never heard of it before. I've never seen anything to point to this. I do not believe that it is a myth that is notable enough to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. If you can provide Reliable Sources that show otherwise, then I am all for putting the section back, and improving it.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 23:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the source of all this comes from someone reading the Eddaic poem of Wayland the Smith, noting his revenge on king Nidud? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayland_the_Smith — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.202.48.157 (talk) 12:08, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change all intances of "watercrafts" to "watercraft."

Thank you.

173.228.112.135 (talk) 19:42, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Done by Cannolis in this edit. —Mysterytrey 21:58, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

TV Series

Latest comment: 10 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

Rfischer8655: As three editors have reverted this addition, my reversion was hardly arbitrary. The wiki page for the TV series notes that its historical accuracy has been questioned, and even the producer of the series says they took liberties with the facts for entertainment value. Regarding the comic, Thor is the Norse god; does the comic depict him as a viking? If not, should that be here? Should all depictions in popular culture be included, without regard to accuracy? For I doubt that vikings actually sang about spam, but that's a pop culture depiction, shouldn't it be here too? Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 22:13, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, including a 'Popular Culture' section is always dangerous, for this very reason. Historical accuracy is obviously next to irrelevant e.g. True Blood, a show about modern-day vampires, fairies and werewolves, makes the cut but the 'Vikings' TV series about Vikings set in the times they lived in, and based on the sagas (historically inaccurate in their own right) of Ragnar Lothbrok doesn't? And what about the 13th Warrior? Popular culture by definition tends to be fictionalized, so placing these references in a 'Depictions in Popular Culture' section at least highlights that these shows/novels/songs are partly (or more) fiction. Gabhala (talk) 23:42, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

The additions in the "Popular Culture" section has no requirement of being historically accurate. Please note that it is a section about Vikings in popular culture, not historically accurate depictions in popular culture.

The reason that the accuracy is relevant here, is that Rfischer8655 claimed that the show was accurate. That is demonstrably untrue, and that is one of the reasons why I removed it. Another significant one being the utter lack of any sources for any statement that he made, in the paragraph.

As to the question "Should all depictions in popular culture be included, without regard to accuracy?"...

All depictions in popular culture should not be included, but the accuracy is not relevant.

What is relevant is notability and space. If we were to include all depictions of Vikings, that have ever been made in popular culture, then that would take up several pages of the article. It would be the majority of the article. That would be rather silly and ridiculous, and it wouldn't really add anything of value. The depictions in popular culture should be a selection of some examples that are fairly typical and/or notable ...with plenty of horned helmets and other historically inaccurate nonsense, as that is commonplace among depictions of Vikings in popular culture.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 00:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

@Rfischer8655: Please refrain from WP:Edit warring. Your insistence and personal conviction that you are right, does not give you the right to have your content included, nor does it give you the right to revert with impunity. If your edit gets reverted, please try to discuss the matter, rather than repeatedly re-reverting it. Please heed the advice in Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle.
What you are doing at the moment is more in line with Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, revert, revert.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 00:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I can't see that there is anything particularly notable, in terms of the Vikings article, in the short-lived Tales of the Viking series. I would expect to see it reflected in secondary sources if there was (i.e. books or articles on the Vikings would mention it, because it was relevant to the general topic, e.g. they might say that "the modern popular perception of a Viking has been influenced by the US "Tales of the Vikings" 1959 TV series" or something like that). Similarly for the History Channel series; I note that the commentary on this series' accuracy is similarly unreferenced. Hchc2009 (talk) 03:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Again, where do we draw the line? How is a supporting character's supposed Viking heritage in True Blood (part of the back story, rather than a direct plot element) more notable than a series that is actually about Vikings? I'm not saying that every depiction needs to be included, but to include a incidental backstory over a couple of dedicated TV series is clearly not right. Gabhala (talk) 09:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

You make a good point about True Blood. I do not agree that a TV series dedicated to Vikings necessarily has to trump a mere supporting character, though. It depends. Nevertheless I notice that there are no references in the "popular culture" section and a lot of the mentions don't seem all that good, and I get the feeling that there are a lot of other works that deserve being mentioned a lot more. It seems in need of a lot of improvement.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 12:29, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

If you fancy a starting point, try the collection of essays on "The Vikings in Film"; Google has some of it here. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

on the list of "Known from Viking Age sources"

Instead of:

Halfdan, pillaged in England conquered London and Northumbria, later remembered as a son of Ragnar Lodbrok

it should be linked to:

Halfdan_Ragnarsson, pillaged in England conquered London and Northumbria, later remembered as a son of Ragnar Lodbrok

The proof is in wikipedia itself, since Halfdan was a king of vikings, while Halfdan_Ragnarsson was son of Ragnar Lodbrok

Thanks

Luchazopedia (talk) 15:03, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Done Sam Sailor ^Sing 19:33, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

The English inspired Vikings to build cities

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The English inspired Vikings to build cities. For more info. Komitsuki (talk) 12:56, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah the whole concept of culture exchange in the Viking Age (with Vikings and connected cultures) is very interesting and should be elaborated on throughout this article. The nationalistic mindsets we are accustomed with today (which can be rather narrowminded and limiting IMO), were not around then and the Viking in particular were very skilled in assimilating other cultures, practices and technologies. This is one of the reasons they got the upper hand in their part of the world during their time. I might engage in this effort myself, when I find the time. RhinoMind (talk) 19:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Criticism - Etymology - Widsith

Latest comment: 10 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

Ended Discussion

http://www.southampton.ac.uk/~enm/widsith.htm

To me it looks like Lidwicingas and Wicingas, in the old English poem Widsith are ethnic groups and can't refer to the mythological creatures called "Scandinavian" vikings. All Nordic groups are mentioned elsewhere in the same poem and Sea-Danes are the only ones who are mentioned in connection with seafare.

Widsith:

"19 Attila ruled the Huns, Eormanric the Goths, Becca the Baningas, Gifica the Burgundians. Caesar ruled the Greeks and Caelic the Finns, Hagena the Holmrycgas and Henden the Glomman. Witta ruled the Swaefe, Wada the Haelsingas, Meaca the Myrgingas, Mearc the Hundingas. 25 Theodric ruled the Franks, Thyle the Rondingas, Breoca the Brondingas, Billa the Waerne. Oswine ruled the Eowan and Gefwulf the Jutes, Finn, son of Folcwalda, the Frisian race. Sigehere for many years ruled the Sea-Danes, 30 Hnaef the Hocingas, Helm the Wulfingas, Wald the Woingas, Wod the Thuringians, Saeferth the Sycgan, Ongentheow the Swedes, Sceafthere the Ymbran, Sceaf the Langobards, Hun the Haetware, and Holen the Wrosnan. 35 Hringwald was called the king of the Herefaran. Offa ruled the Angles, Alewih the Danes.

48 I was with the Huns and the glorious Goths, with the Swedes and with the Geats and with the South-Danes. I was with the Wenlas, the Waerne and the Wicingas. I was with the Gefthan, the Winedas and the Gefflegan. I was with the Angles, the Swaefe and the Aenenas. I was with the Saxons, the Sycgan and the Sweordweras. I was with the Hronan, the Dean and the Heathoreamas. 65 I was with the Thuringians and with the Throwendas and with the Burgundians: there I gained a torc. There Guthhere granted me splendid treasure as reward for my song; that king was not tight-fisted. I was with the Franks, with the Frisians and the Frumtingas. 70 I was with the Rugians, the Glomman and the Romans. I was in Italy with Aelfwine too: of all men he had, as I have heard, the readiest hand to do brave deeds, the most generous heart in giving out rings 75 and shining torcs, Eadwine's son. I was with the Sercings and with the Serings. I was with the Greeks and Finns, and also with Caesar, who had the power over prosperous cities, riches and treasure and the Roman Empire. 80 I was with the Irish, with the Picts and the Lapps. I was with the Lidwicingas, the Leonas and the Langobards, with the Haethenas and the Haelethas and with the Hundingas. I was with the Israelites and with the Assyrians, with the Hebrews and the Indians and with the Egyptians. 85 I was with the Medes and the Persians and with the Myrgingas, with the Moabites and Ongendmyrgingas and with the Amothingas. I was with the East-Thuringians and with the Ofdingas, with the Eolas and the Philistines and with the Idumeans. And I was with Eormanric throughout his reign." Finnedi (talk) 15:28, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from, but it's tenuous. AFAIK, it's the general consensus among scholars that 'wicing' referred to raiders and pirates. See for instance: 'wicing'-Bosworth-Toller Anglo-Saxon Dictionary. To say otherwise is -literally- arguing semantics, and without being able to consult the author, it's fairly pointless. Given the consensus that exists, it's far more likely that the translation simply results in more ambiguity than the original, or that it was written in an ambiguous manner. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. However, there's no consensus on the matter: [2]. "The word is a historians' revival; it was not used in Middle English, but it was reintroduced from Old Norse vikingr." The norse sagas, of course, were constructed much later, in the 13th and 14th centuries [3]. Thus, the claim that Wicingas and Lidwicingas are a proof, or an "early mention of the Vikings", is tenuous at best. What makes the theory even more tenuous, is that Widsith may be a fictitious account from an earlier period than the so-called "Viking" era. It's worth knowing, too, that the earliest Nordic historian Saxo Grammaticus (who is considered a reliable source) doesn't mention "Vikings" or "vikingr". [4] [5]

Other names

The current article also says that "the Varangians were Scandinavians". However, the Primary Chronicle clearly states that the Rus' were not Swedish or Normans and the Varangians were either not at all, or exclusively from what we call today "Scandinavia". ("Scandinavia" appears in the literature first as late as in the 16th century.) In light of this knowledge, the claim that the "Vikings" were the same as the Varangians is seriously tenuous.

Direct quotes from the Primary Chronicle:

"In the share of Japheth lies Rus', Chud, and all the gentiles: Merya, Muroma, Ves', Mordva, Chud beyond the portages, Perm', Pechera, Yam', Ugra, Litva, Zimegola, Kors', Let'gola, and Liv'. The Lyakhs, the Prussians, and Chud border on the Varangian Sea. The Varangians dwell on the shores of that same sea, and extend to the eastward as far as the portion of Shem. They likewise live to the west beside this sea as far as the land of the English and the French."

"For the following nations also are a part of the race of Japheth: the Varangians, the Swedes, the Normans, the Gotlanders, the Rus', the English, the Spaniards, the Italians, the Romans, the Germans, the French, the Venetians, the Genoese, and so on."

"They accordingly went overseas to the Varangian Rus': these Varangians were known as Rus', just as some are called Swedes, and others Normans, English, and Gotlanders, for they were thus named."

[6][7]Finnedi (talk) 22:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The link I gave you isn't the only one. here's an academic source, here's another dictionary, here's a third, and so on and so forth.

I'm not arguing that wicing was an Old Norse loanword in Old English, I'm just saying the word was used to describe the vikings. Your source only addresses the etymology of the modern word, and doesn't say anything about the usage of the OE word, except to confirm (in contrast to your OP in this section) that it was used to describe the vikings. Remember Occam's razor; it's less of a stretch to imagine an OE speaker hearing 'viking' and unconsciously or deliberately parsing that as 'wicing' than it is to imagine that every use of 'wicing' to refer to the vikings was an error. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 01:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I know this is a tough subject, but please note the difference between the words "wicing" and "Wicingas". What I'm saying is that Lidwicingas and Wicingas in Widsith do not seem to mean what we call today the "Vikings". Even a Swedish etymological dictionary states that Wicingas, the name, means Heathobeards [8]. As for wicing, [9] "Old English wicing and Old Frisian wizing are almost 300 years older than the earliest attestation of the Old Norse word, and probably derive from wic "village, camp", related to Latin vicus "village, habitation". Another source confirms that the Wicingas meant the Heathobeards[10]. Heruli = Wicingas qui et Heathobeards. Third source: Eoford-wicingas = Yorkists, people of York[11]. Fourth source: Wicingas = inhabitants[12].Fifth: Wicinga existed in the West Germanic langugages before the Viking era[13].Sixth: Wicingas was applied in later times to the Scandinavian freebooters[14]. Seventh: It is not probable that Wicingas is the plural of OE wicing 'pirate'. It is rather derived from a short-form of names like Wicbeorht, Wicfrith, or from OE wic in one of its senses. Malone takes the Widsith Wicingas to be 'people from Bardowiek' [15].Finnedi (talk) 15:07, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the difference between 'wicing' and 'wicingas', see this for the suffix itself, and here for the basic use of suffixes in OE. Note that it's the same as the Modern English -s, as evidenced here. Your argument that the words are not related just doesn't hold up in the face of the fact that 'wicingas' referred to vikings. The connection of 'wicingas' to the Heathobeards is irrelevant; The Heathobeards could well have been vikings, and even if they weren't, there could easily be some confusion.

A homophone in Swedish having a different meaning doesn't change the meaning of the Old English word. That it was used to describe the vikings is well established. That it was related to the word 'vikingr' is debated, but irrelevant. The article is about vikings, and if OE speakers called them 'wicingas', then that deserves mention in the etymology. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:51, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I collapsed the above discussion because there were only two editors involved, the other editor is highly unlikely to continue the discussion, I don't believe any new editors will want to continue it and it will take months to automatically archive it. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)