Talk:Viking activity in the British Isles

	Scottish islands portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scottish Islands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of islands in Scotland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Scottish IslandsWikipedia:WikiProject Scottish IslandsTemplate:WikiProject Scottish IslandsScottish Islands articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Neutrality

See the article Viking Age and its associated talk page. Allens (talk) 17:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"British Isles"

The Vikings never used the term "British Isles", which is a British imperialist invention that can be dated no earlier than a John Dee tract in 1577 that claimed Ireland for the English crown. Does the person who wrote this article, and who has started articles across Wikipedia with the political name "British Isles" in the title, have any evidence for Viking use of this term? Of course not. Britopedia 1; Creation of a historically-accurate npov article: 0. 79.97.64.240 (talk) 13:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Vikings never used the words England, Ireland, Scotland or Invasion either. However the article includes Ireland so British Isles is a collective term for those islands. Canterbury Tail talk 14:44, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As creator of this article (and part of the international Irish diaspora), I should specify that on a personal level I too dislike the term "British Isles", given its imperialist connotations and the manner in which it labels both Ireland and the Isle of Man as "British". However, the term is nevertheless internationally accepted as the geographically appropriate term for referring to those particular islands off of the coast of North-Western Europe, and for that reason is appropriate for use on Wikipedia. If an appropriate alternative is developed and becomes widely recognised (i.e. Atlantic Archipelago), then I would be more than happy to champion its use here on Wikipedia in articles like this. But, I should point out, the Norse themselves wouldn't have used Atlantic Archipelago either. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:12, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am totally in line with Midnightbueowls post. There was a similar (and quite extensive) discussion on the page Vikings and I expressed similar views. As a curiosity, I would like to add, that it would be interesting to know what the Vikings (to use that word in the broadest sense) actually called these isles? Perhaps there is an Old Norse word for it? Perhaps the Sagas use some specific word for it? If anybody happens to know, it would be interesting to add this info. RhinoMind (talk) 21:38, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Navbox merger

The navbox associated with this article, Template:Norse activity in the British Isles has been decided to be merged with Template:Viking Invasion of England. It seems to me like quite a lot of things aren't directly relevant and wondered if anyone here that is more knowledgeable about the subject would like to help out with the merger. -- Trialpears (talk) 11:42, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 4 December 2019

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.

It was proposed in this section that Norse activity in the British Isles be renamed and moved to Viking activity in the British Isles.

decision:
Moved per general agreement below. Kudos to editors for your input, and Happy Publishing! (nac by page mover) PI Ellsworth ed. ^put'r there 13:08, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Links: current log • target log

This is template {{subst:Requested move/end}}

Norse activity in the British Isles → Viking activity in the British Isles – Template:Norse activity in the British Isles has been moved from Norse to Viking and the article should be too. See Template talk:Viking activity in the British Isles#Requested move 25 November 2019. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:13, 25 November 2019 (UTC) Dudley Miles (talk) 15:46, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRECISION. Krakkos (talk) 10:27, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 02:49, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Agricolae (talk) 03:08, 11 December 2019 (UTC) Explanation for change: When I voted I was thinking Norse was generally used as meaning Norwegian and not all Scandinavians, as encompassed by Vikings. While I still think that is the case, I decided I am not familiar enough with scholarly usage to base a vote on the distinction. Agricolae (talk) 13:02, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~^{unsure SmokeyJoe (talk) 19:53, 13 December 2019 (UTC)}. Viking for Norse is a recent neologism that promotes inaccuracy. The rename would necessitate a ~~substantial~~ rescoping of the page. In 1066, England was not conquered by Vikings, but by the (some) Norse. William the Conqueror was not a Viking, but a Norman, aka Norse. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:29, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In scholarship the term Norsemen is generally restricted to Viking Age Norwegians.[1][2] This article also covers Danish activity in the British Isles, and the title "Norse Activity" thus fails WP:PRECISION.

As shown in the sources used for the article, "Viking" activity or "Scandinavian" activity are more commonly used terms, and are therefore more suitable per WP:COMMONNAME.

William the Conqueror was a Norman, who were a people wholly distinct from Norsemen. This article only dedicates two sentences to the Norman invasion of England. Rescoping the article, if deemed necessary, would not require much work. Krakkos (talk) 07:57, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Krakkos, you may be right. You appear to be saying that the Danes were not Norse. Is that standard terminology. I thought I understood Norse to be synonymous with the (later created) term “Viking”, and that it broadly covered all the northern seafaring peoples, which included the Danes. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:25, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Historians of Anglo-Saxon England generally use 'Norse' to mean Norwegian as opposed to Danish Vikings. E.g. According to the translation of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle by Dorothy Whitelock, among the people who submitted to Edward the Elder in 920 were "all who live in Northumbria, both English and Danish, Norsemen and others" (pp. 67-68). See Talk:Norsemen/Archive 1#The common name for the Old Norse-speaking peoples of Viking Age. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:37, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I read it. Very interesting thank you. Not to disagree with anything written there, but I’m reading an anachronistic distinction between Danish/Swedish/Norwegian speakers of Old Norse. I believe these Vikings were all the same people, connected by their seafaring. The Danish/Swedish/Norwegian distinction may be English POV (anachronistic or not), as opposed to the POV of the Old Norse speaking seafaring people. That said, it may not be a problem, if that is what the best sources do. I think I am leaning to supporting the rename. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 19:51, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Danelaw seems to present a challenge to the notion that the Norse Viking conquerors were not Danes. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Danelaw affirms that Danes were among the Viking conquerors of England. Danes are/were however a distinct Scandinavian ethnicity/nationality, just as Swedes and Norwegians. In the sources "Norse" generally refers strictly to Norwegians, to the exclusion of the Danes.[3] As the term "Viking" cover both Danes and Norwegians, it is more appropriate for an article like this, in which Danes figure prominently. The term "Viking" is also more frequently used in the sources. We should follow the sources when applying titles to articles. Krakkos (talk) 10:58, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Eric Christiansen is to be believed. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:33, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:33, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Lead looks strange

I just came here from "On this day" on the front page, so I am not an expert, but the lead looks wrong. The lead currently reads:

Viking activity in the British Isles occurred during the Early Middle Ages, the 8th to the 10th centuries, when Norsemen from Scandinavia travelled to Great Britain and Ireland to settle, trade or raid. Those who came to the British Isles have been generally referred to as Vikings,[1][2] but some scholars debate whether the term Viking[a] represented all Norse settlers or just those who raided.[4] [b]
At the start of the Early Medieval period, Norse kingdoms in Scandinavia had developed trade links reaching as far as southern Europe and the Mediterranean, giving them access to foreign imports such as silver, gold, bronze and spices. These trade links also extended westward into Ireland and Britain.[5][6]
In the last decade of the 8th century, Norse raiders sacked a series of Christian monasteries located in what is now the United Kingdom, beginning in 793 with a raid on the coastal monastery of Lindisfarne on the north-east coast of England. The following year they sacked the nearby Monkwearmouth-Jarrow Abbey, and in 795 they attacked again, raiding Iona Abbey on Scotland's west coast.[7]

The 2nd and 3rd paragraphs look to me like they belong in the body of the article, but I do not know enough to know where to move them to. But the lead should be a summary, not an introduction, which is what the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs look like at the moment. Adpete (talk) 01:59, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]