Talk:Vikings/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Territories significantly affected by Viking expansion

A couple of days ago I amended the sentence in the introduction section covering the territories significantly affected by Viking expansion. I naturally left Scandinavia in first position, but placed all the other listed territories in alphabetical order. I assumed that it would be obvious why this is preferable - the order could otherwise be taken as indicating a greater or lesser weighting of Viking influence on the territory concerned, which of course is something open to much debate. I also noticed that the British Isles was uniquely bracketed to make it an active link, which was unnecessary. On this moreover it is a recognised fact that the Vikings who arrived in Britain were overwhelmingly from Denmark ('Danes'), while those arriving in Ireland were from Norway (not 'Danes' - a commonly made naming error). 'British Isles' is recognised as a contentious term and not accepted by the Republic of Ireland. I am not suggesting battling over the page with that title (as many others have done), but it is really unnecessary here. Britain and Ireland, being two physically separate islands, are best denoted as such here in my opinion. I would welcome further discussion on any of this here on the talk page, but let's not make further changes (for perhaps a week) until others interested in this are able to present their view. I know there are some other contributors from Ireland. Wikifiveoh (talk) 10:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

The terms "Britain" and "the British Isles" are not synonymous. Britain is the commonly recognised name of a political entity that didn't exist at the times of the Vikings, and so can't be used, while "the British Isles" is a universally accepted geographical term for the entire archipelago, and not a term that is "recognised as contentious" as you claim. We use the common terms/names for things here on Wikipedia, and certain elements in Ireland not liking the term "the British Isles", for political reasons, is no reason for us not to use it. Thomas.W ^talk 09:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

The island of Britain was an expression used at the time. King Æthelstan claimed to be "king of the whole of Britain". I do not see any logic in Thomas W's objection. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:52, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

@Wikifiveoh: The geographical name of the main island today is Great Britain, not Britain, so that alone is reason not to use "Britain". Because Wikipedia is written for people of today, not people of a thousand years ago. And even using "Great Britain and Ireland" would exclude all the other islands in the archipelago, about 600 islands ranging from the Shetlands and islands off Scotland to the Isle of Man, all of which were to a greater or lesser extent settled by Norsemen. So you edit is totally wrong... Thomas.W ^talk 09:57, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

@Dudley Miles: No it wasn't. "Britain" at that time meant what is today the southern half or two-thirds of England, and included neither Wales nor Scotland (or the northern part of England for that matter). It was not a name for the entire main island. Thomas.W ^talk 10:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I have inserted an additional colon in front of the last input of Thomas.W to separate it from the input of Dudley Miles. To Thomas.W I humbly submit that I believe you are incorrect in what you say. I am surprised at the forcefulness of your input and also it's exclusive focus on 'British Isles'. My original input was led by the reordering of territories in the listing, which had seemed rather random to me. To address the specific point you make, I do recognise that 'Britain' and 'British Isles' are not synonymous. Small islands around Britain and Ireland here are naturally included - they are not excluded as you argue, no more so than islands around and obviously associated with Russia or Sicily. 'Britain' is a geographic term, while 'United Kingdom' and 'Great Britain' I understand are political terms. The term 'British Isles' on which you focus is unquestionably contentious - please see the Wikipedia reference on this. It is shown that the term is without 'official status' and is not used by the Government of Ireland. Clearly, depending on political perspective (especially in Northern Ireland), people are as keen on the term as others are against it, but let's just not go there. I still firmly believe that having 'Britain' and 'Ireland' is most appropriate for this article - as I outline above - and this I believe should be the deciding factor. I ask Thomas.W to keep discussion on this page now, rather than my talk page. I thank Dudley Miles for his input; what do other people think? Wikifiveoh (talk) 11:18, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Why don't you look things up before writing about it, and making edits changing things? British Isles: "The British Isles are a group of islands off the north-western coast of continental Europe that consist of the islands of Great Britain, Ireland and over six thousand smaller isles.". Great Britain: " It is the largest island of the British Isles, the largest island in Europe and the ninth-largest island in the world. With a population of about 61 million people in 2011, it is the third-most populous island in the world, after Java (Indonesia) and Honshū (Japan). It is surrounded by over 1,000 smaller islands.". Which means that some 5,000 islands, including the Shetlands, the Orkneys and many others (with both the Shetlands and the Orkneys being colonised by Norsemen) aren't included in your version. But they are included in my version of the text. That's why I so "forcefully" oppose your edit. Thomas.W ^talk 10:42, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Just a little addition here - did the 'Battle of Britain' not involve Scotland or Wales? I think with some confidence that Britain is now generally understood to be the whole island. Wikifiveoh (talk) 11:34, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes it did, in the modern political meaning of the term Britain. You're comparing apples and oranges, clearly showing that you don't understand the difference between a political term and a geographical term. Thomas.W ^talk 10:42, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

When Æthelstan conquered Northumbria in 927 he claimed the title of King of England and he is regarded by modern historians as the first King of England. He also claimed the title of King of Britain on the basis of the submission of Scottish and Welsh kings. That claim is regarded by historians as aspiration rather than reality, and it shows that geographically Britain was the whole island at that time. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:57, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I beg to differ, but even if it did include the whole island there are still thousands of other islands that weren't included. As I mention above. Thomas.W ^talk 11:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

This is evolving into a needless to-and-fro. To Wikifiveoh I suggest that for page contributions after this you put an edit notice and explanation in the talk page at the start - especially if the edit is to the intro which, being concise, is rather more sensitive to changes. To Thomas.W I suggest toning down the heat in your responses, which appear to have more of a political motivation than one borne out of a passion for geographical precision (might you perhaps be a member of an Orange Lodge?).

I agree with Wikifiveoh and Dudley Miles that the change to the land list is better for the page. 'British Isles' is highly objectionable to one of the two sovereign nations in these islands, that's a plain, unquestioned fact. Separating the main islands is more suitable here. On the 'Britain' vs 'Great Britain' point I am not so sure. I personally identify the island geographically as 'Britain' and see 'Great Britain' as the union of England and Scotland (since 1707). The Wikipedia page says 'Great Britain' geographically and this does not appear to be challenged. Perhaps Thomas.W would be calmed by putting 'GB' in place of the 'B'. Let's please stop the page edits for the moment until things calm down. pconlon (talk) 12:20, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you pconlon. My main point was on having the islands of Britain and Ireland - as two very distinct lands masses - separated in the relevant text on this Viking page. My understanding is also that the long island is simply called 'Britain'. Maybe the Scots will help us with this understanding in September. The small islands point of Thomas.W doesn't help things, as I don't think anyone would assume that Vikings could visit the big islands and avoid the small ones - the small islands are included implicitly. Taking the same principle to other small islands would require us to include the Channel Islands and others explicitly, which would be taking things too far. I did by the way wonder about an undeclared political influence on use of 'British Isles'. Wikifiveoh (talk) 12:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

@Pcconlon: No, I'm not a member of the Orange Order, and have in fact no connection whatsoever to either Northern Ireland or the Republic of Ireland. And my edit is not political, my only concern is having a factually correct intro. Thomas.W ^talk 11:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Thomas.W, I for one would find this easier to read if you put an extra colon in front of your responses, so they stagger correctly. Regarding the Irish (state) perspective - which is certainly of at least equal importance here given the huge influence the Vikings had on Ireland (possibly even greater than on Britain) - their non-recognition of the 'British Isles' term should also be recognised and accepted as fact here. Placing 'Britain' and 'Ireland' distinctly here is factually correct and moreover is more appropriate as I have explained above. Your small island point doesn't challenge this, as also countered above. Shall we return to this tomorrow morning to see what other arguments may join this rich discussion? Wikifiveoh (talk) 14:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

That's not how it's done. Your reply should be put one stop to the right of the post you reply to. So two posts that are replies to the same previous post use the same number of colons in front of them (as can be clearly seen here). So stop changing my indentation. Thomas.W ^talk 13:39, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Quote from Wikipedia: 'Good indentation makes prolonged discussions easier to read and understand' - hence my well-intetioned adjustment. Doing it the way you wish actually makes it harder to read, not easier. I think you misinterpret Wikipedia's intent here. Look at the flow...it's clearly better to have each response one step to the right of the previous one! This should not 'irritate' you (as you declare in my talk page). Wikifiveoh (talk) 17:43, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

No, it's not clearly better, as you would have known if you had been a bit more experienced. And you're the one who tried to lecture me, not the other way around, even though you clearly don't know anything about how things are done here. Thomas.W ^talk 19:13, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

@Wikifiveoh: What you write about Danes and "people from Norway" is a troubled path to walk (see the section: "A worrying development..." above for explanations). If you need to view the issue from this angle, the correct descriptions would be: "people from the area we now call Denmark" and "people from the area we now call Norway", but really I dont see the point of it being discussed n the first place. So what's the point? RhinoMind (talk) 20:04, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

@Wikifiveoh: Btw, the order you introduced was not reverted (for the reasons you give), so there is no reason to talk about that here. RhinoMind (talk) 20:28, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Im the one who initially reverted Wikifiveoh's change of The British Isles to Britain. I think pconlon sums up the issue. Except perhaps about the politics: As I see it, foreigners not from The British Isles, don't care much for the political correctness of the terms, but about the geographical correctness. This should of course not be used to trample the political sensitivities of the residents and I recognize, that the term "The British Isles" can have unwanted political associations. I therefore urge Wikifiveoh (and others interested in the naming dispute), to find another term for the same geographical area that is universally accepted. Until then, I believe The British Isles is the best descriptive term we have. If "The British Isles" is not acceptable in any way, I think first that it should be debated on the page The British Isles and not on this talk-page. And second, that we must list all the areas in the region, that was settled by the Vikings. This would be a rather lengthy list, if all the local political sensitivities should be respected, but you have my blessing to do so, as long as the list is complete. RhinoMind (talk) 19:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

RhinoMind, why do you ask others not to be involved in an 'edit war' and then YOU make fire another shot in the conflict? There is a discussion here and, clearly, five contributors have so far contributed to it - three including myself agree with my edit, one (you) indicate something of a middle ground position and only one is ThomasW is adamant in support of what was previously in the article.

@RhinoMind, why did you so quickly reinsert 'British Isles' while this discussion is ongoing, when you have indicated an aversion to an editing war and when you also indicate that political sensitivities should not be trampled upon?

@Wikifiveoh: Hello. The reason is obvious: Because the original text was changed. If anyone wants to change anything anywhere, this talk page is the place to discuss it. Before changes are made, not after. You were encouraged to use this talk-page from the very first revert, but chose to ignore it. If you do not know what an Edit War is, you should take a few minutes to read about it, please. (WP:Edit warring)

Btw. Changes to texts are not made on a simple voting for or against. It is made on the grounds of solid arguments and verifiable knowledge. This is an encyclopaedia, not a discussion forum. RhinoMind (talk) 07:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

@Thomas.W, your 'experience' in Wikipedia does not make your opinion count any more here than anyone else's. I know how things are done in Wikipedia just fine thanks. You did not only lecture me, but straight told me to NOT make edits! What I see as your aggressive attitude is being reported to moderators above your level and you can explain yourself to whoever is assigned to look into my complaint.

I am now inserting 'Great Britain' and 'Ireland' in place of 'British Isles' here. 'British Isles', even for this who accept the term, doesn't include the Channel Islands - the small islands inclusion argument defending 'British Isles' really does not hold water. Wikipedia having a much-fought-over 'British Isles' article does not indicate an accepted geographical term, quite the reverse in fact. I do not want to waste time fighting in that conflict. I personally also do not see 'Great Britain' as being a geographical term (rather a political one), but Wikipedia currently has it as such and I do not see unnecessary contention in using it here. Wikipedia only works by having contributors listening to others and being open to compromise. Wikifiveoh (talk) 14:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

You are quite a diplomat Wkifiveoh. I agree on the compromise now in place. RhinoMind, your earlier revert was not helpful. pconlon (talk) 15:20, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Get real, dude. I haven't even mentioned my experience here, only pointed out to you that you make the typical newbie mistake of coming to Wikipedia and trying to lecture others, firmly believeing that your way of doing things is the correct way. And continuing to claim that you're right, even though I've pointed you to WP:Indentation, a page that clearly shows that you're wrong and I'm right. I have reverted your edit, BTW, since there's no consensus in favour of your preferred version. Thomas.W ^talk 14:13, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Your desire to achieve 'consensus' appears to mean 'doing what Thomas.W wants'. Consensus is not always possible, so argument accepted as reasonable by a majority wins (that is what happened in the British Isles article - I don't think that consensus could be claimed there). You are the only person here demanding 'British Isles'. There are three others here disagreeing with you. Accept this please and also accept that your opinion is not always best. One more thing - we other contributors are allowed to make edits and do not need your prior agreement to do so. Also watch your colons, as you were hiding the prior contribution from pconlon. Wikifiveoh (talk) 14:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Thomas.W, you are out of order. You are seeking to impose your view despite the arguments of several other contributors who out number you. Please stop your reverts and let's see what others say on the 'GB' and 'Ireland' compromise. pconlon (talk) 15:35, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

@Wikifiveoh: "The British Isles" is what the intro has said for a very long time, then you show up and change it, without any discussion. You're reverted, and pointed to WP:BRD, but learn nothing from it, instead continuing to change the intro to your preferred version. Since your edit was opposed you can NOT change it again without a clear consensus in favour of your new version, which there isn't. That's how things work here on Wikipedia, and what you will have to learn to live with, or find something else to do. And stop messing with my indentation, it's becoming clearly disruptive. Thomas.W ^talk 14:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

@Pconlon: Out of order? It's not my version, I'm just defending a version of the intro that has existed for a very long time. Thomas.W ^talk 14:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

It is genuinely remarkable that Thomas.W has once again reverted to his preferred inclusion of 'British Isles'. He has no authority to tell me or anyone else what to do and what not to do on Wikipedia - the reason for this I will come to shortly.

I would first like to draw people's attention here to the fact that, in my view (which I can state here as it is relevant to this article), the sole interest of Thomas.W here is on keeping 'British Isles' on this page (and many places elsewhere). I can see no other contributions to this Viking page from him. He claims that his concern is that no island in the region is omitted - but doesn't seem to mind that 'British Isles' leaves out the Channel Islands. I suppose that he'll argue that the 'and beyond' part of the sentence covers them (but wouldn't cover the other small islands). Does anyone else also wonder why only 'British Isles' is made an active link with the square brackets, but that all other geographic specifics are fine without being active links? Perhaps Russia is too small to qualify for an active link. Can he really be so obsessively focused on geographic precision (notable holes notwithstanding)? I do not believe so. I believe that, despite his protestations to the contrary, that he only cares about the term 'British Isles' for political reasons. This is why use of the term is so heavily promoted and protected by Thomas.W and likeminded people on the loyalist side of the division in Northern Ireland. You may like to say otherwise Thomas.W, but I do not believe you.

I am not going to revert again now, as Thomas.W would inevitably change things back and cover his action with something along the lines of 'that's how things work on Wikipedia'. What I am going to do is remove the square brackets from around 'British Isles', so that it matches how all the other geographic terms are here (and have been ever since being put there long long ago). How much time do we think will pass before 'British Isles' is back in square brackets, explained away somehow by Thomas.W that it is a Wikipedia necessity. An hour maybe?

I now come to what is really the most important point in all of this here - which is why I inform Thomas.W that he has no authority to tell me or anyone else what to do/not do on Wikipedia. A very basic principle in Wikipedia, which is obvious to the most inexperienced user, is that each contributor should have and use ONLY ONE ACCOUNT and associated identity. Thomas.W and RhinoMind however ARE THE SAME PERSON. I now have no doubt about this, nor do YOU Sir. I know you are of advanced age and I do not want to give you a heart attack, but this is in no way acceptable. In time, Wikipedia will be confirming this and you will then face the appropriate consequences. This does by the way rather make a mockery of Thomas.W/RhinoMind's claim to support the 'consensus' approach to amendment making here, facing the rest of us. I am assuming that Dudley Miles, pconlon and myself are genuinely separate contributors. Wikifiveoh (talk) 21:48, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

@Wikifiveoh: A) I haven't reverted you, your edit was reverted by Ishdarian, B) I have never pushed for the term the British Isles on any other article here on Wikipedia, and it wasn't me who added it here, I'm just defending a long-standing version of the intro, and C), accusing someone of sockpuppetry without a shred of evidence is regarded as a serious thing here on Wikipedia, and frequently results in sanctions for the accuser... Thomas.W ^talk 21:33, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

It is not desirable to decide whether "British Isles" is an appropriate term to identify a region in a single article. Anyone wanting to make a change should consider other articles that use this term, then make a proposal at a relevant wikiproject or WP:VPR, perhaps followed by an WP:RFC. I have put a list of relevant articles here (permalink). That list shows over 9000 articles using "British Isles". Johnuniq (talk) 02:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Johnuniq, thank you for your input. Wikipedia is a medium for reasonable argument about pieces of information, but not a place for a user to take an intimidatory approach when their argument no longer holds up to scrutiny (see my talk page and some inputs above). Johnuniq, the fact that 'British Isles' is used in other places has validity in this discussion. Other arguments from Thomas.W clearly do not have validity - as I point out above, he straight denies hard facts (e.g. the 'British Isles' term is contentious) and holds positions that do not make logical sense (e.g. insisting on use of a particular term on grounds that some small islands might be left out, but in doing so more specifically leaves out others such as the Channel Islands).

Thomas.W/RhinoMind, the sockpuppetry accusation regarding your appearances in this discussion is nonetheless made and made on very solid grounds. Accusing anyone anywhere without solid evidence is a serious thing, that is obvious to any fair minded person. The accusation made and related above is also a very serious matter in the world of Wikipedia. You can defend yourself in the proper way when Wikipedia completes its investigation. I am not going to be the judge, so you do not need to defend yourself to me. The Wikipedia judge will also decide on the sanctions to be applied (to you) if he finds you guilty. I only note from what you say above that you have not denied the accuracy of the accusation. Wikifiveoh (talk) 02:36, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Article talk pages are not available for commentary on users—no more please. Johnuniq (talk) 04:57, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Outside comment: This debate was brought to my attention through watching talkpages. I'm interested in history and I'm Scandinavian myself, but I haven't been involved in Viking-era topics in any major way before. I'm suggesting a compromise with the following wording:

"...Scandinavia, the British Isles (including Ireland)..."

I'm not sure where I personally stand on how contentious "British Isles" is, but I see no harm in stressing that Ireland is an important part of this concept. Stating the obvious seems quite applicable here.

Peter ^Isotalo 06:20, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

To Johnuniq, I firstly agree that anything I thought that needed to be said here has been, so I am now just happy for the Wikipedia Police to do their stuff. Secondly, I would also point out that the contributor commentary previously made was necessary in my opinion as the accused activity was having a direct impact on this discussion (and the article by extension of course).

To PeterIsotalo, my thanks for your input. Being an outsider to the geographic area, your perspective is most welcome. The crux of the situation is this - we Irish fight the British for ages, eventually win our freedom (in 1922), become the Republic of Ireland and - quite understandably - make it official state policy to not recognise the term 'British Isles' and its implication that we are a 'British Island'. The British you understand are those people on the island next door (Britain) and in territories that state still controls. Attempts by Irish and friendly non-Irish contributors to change the title of the 'British Isles' Wikipedia page to something less offensive (such as 'Britain and Ireland') only brought endless battles, in which uncompromising and far more numerous British people refused to budge. Often the term 'British Isles' is used and so that the words 'Ireland' or 'Irish' do not appear - as is the case in this Vikings page introduction. Putting 'Britain' (or 'Great Britain') and 'Ireland' in here would not hurt I think. But no, we are not to get a mention and moreover observe a term we passionately do not accept. Your compromise of 'British Isles (including Ireland)', though very well intentioned, in my opinion would not ultimately be acceptable to either 'side'. I think that the only alternative to 'British Isles' worth talking about is 'Britain and Ireland' or 'Great Britain and Ireland'. I was not trying to change the world, only the geographic reference here so that Ireland appears. The uncompromising British may do what they usually do; I am quite content with the fair play outcome I am taking away. I am naturally interested to see what you and others think further on the topic. Wikifiveoh (talk) 07:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

@Wikifiveoh: To spell it out in capitals: Your proposal(s) leave out the Shetlands, the Orkney Islands, it (probably) insults the Scots for not mentioning Scotland and some of their larger islands. It still include Wales - which was not settled by the Vikings - and Cornwall (was Cornwall settled?). I am not even aware if the channel Islands were settled (are you? and can you source it?). The term "The British Isles" was chosen to exactly avoid such an awful painstaking accuracy of which areas was settled and which was not. You were encouraged to write up such a painstakingly precise list to solve the issue you raise yourself, so why not get to work? Personally I would have proposed Peters' suggestion of "The British Isles including Ireland" as a compromise, instead of "Britain, Ireland, Scotland, Shetlands, Orkney, not Wales, etc. etc.". RhinoMind (talk) 08:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Back again. Having thought about it: Is there an article up on the precise Viking settlements and raids in The British Isles perhaps? If so, it would be great to link to such a page. This could probably mend the mind gaps somewhat and also direct to details that are to lengthy to fit in this article. Just a suggestion. RhinoMind (talk) 16:22, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

"British Isles" is the most commonly accepted term for the islands of Ireland, Britain and the minor ones surrounding them. It's common that geographical names like this aren't always neutral in their naming, like English channel or Sea of Japan. Questioning this term is not relevant on account of mere Irish-British animosity since it gives your argument undue weight. The vast majority of English-speakers, and just about all other languages, refer to them as the "British Isles". The concept is much broader as a geographical term than "(Great) Britain and Ireland" and is therefore much more appropriate in this context.

Peter ^Isotalo 09:20, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Peter Isotalo, you could (as I have learnt) indent your comment one step to the right of the comment above that you are responding to. Makes it easier to read in my opinion at least - your choice of course.

Besides what you say above, you did not relate anything here in your talk about you intending (or actually enacting) removal of 'and beyond' and inserting links on all the geographical terms in the article introduction. Given the existence of this discussion and its ongoing nature, you might constructively have mentioned it here first and waited for comment. The poor old Channel Islands (among others) are now out in the cold.

Non-neutral names of bodies of water are not nearly as problematic as non-neutral (and actual misunderstanding-inducing) names of land masses - where people actually live on sovereign territory. The Irish government rejecting the term is very significant, which might encourage our good neighbors to the east to agree to some mutually agreeable alternative, but alas they seem to be quite bound at present by archaic institutional constraints and decline the opportunity. 'British and Irish Isles' would be fine to me. Some may say that alternative is too long, but that is what I think about 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland' and 'Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia' (which is actually a third shorter than the former example). I am not going to change the world on my own (unless I access nuclear weapons -joke!), but the world does change over time...

Perhaps more words could be made active links in the article introduction. We could make the whole article a sea of blue text, which would give additional security for keeping the 'British Isles' term on as many active links as possible. What if the term is ultimately officially changed one day by inter-government agreement in these islands? The active links would actually greatly facilitate the quick and easy replacement of British Isles by the agreed alternative. Wikifiveoh (talk) 11:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikifiveoh, all I can say is 'Bravo', your pretty much single-handed defence of Ireland here makes me proud to be Irish too. I would suggest that 'Irish Isles' be used in place of 'BI' from this day onward for the next 700 years - to redress the historical bias - and then a neutral term be adopted. You are not going to get rid of 'BI' here in this article now (as I guess you already realize), facing these other 'neutral' contributors, but by God you have fought well for Ireland's corner. pconlon (talk) 12:53, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "Beyond" had absolutely nothing to with the discussion here and it has no precise meaning (WP:WEASEL), which is why I removed it. If you wish to keep it, explain how it makes the article better.

I don't encourage you to repeat this type of Irish activism again, but I generally agree with pconlon: "British Isles" isn't going away. It's simply too common to be considered contentious, especially in an article like this. There are simply no policy-based arguments against its use.

Peter ^Isotalo 13:41, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I can't of course be bothered to read all this, but I can't see that anyone has linked British Isles naming dispute or Terminology of the British Isles. None of the many attempted alternatives have caught on, or are understood even by those living locally. Johnbod (talk) 13:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

non-literate?

I don't understand this:

• "Although they were generally a non-literate culture that produced no literary legacy, they had an alphabet and described themselves and their world on runestones" If they were an alphabet, then are they not a literary legacy?

IceDragon64 (talk) 21:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi. This issue has been debated intensely above. I dont blame you for not reading everything on this very long talk-page though!

Some help: Read the words very very carefully a few times and it will all become clear. Non-literate means that you dont produce any literature. il-literate means that you are not able to write. The Vikings had an alphabet and used them for their runes, but they have not left any literature for future generations. Just runestones and stuff like that, and runestones are not considered literature. Hope this helps you?

RhinoMind (talk) 00:46, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, a few of the runestones have literary inscriptions: the Gripsholm stone is probably the most well known. There are also other surviving poetry that is dated to the Viking era. However, this is nothing specific to Vikings but rather Norse people in general.

Andejons (talk) 16:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Wow. Do you have some link or refs to this "Norse poetry"? Sounds very interesting. Besides, it would be great if we could document, that some of the the Vikings runic inscriptions, are viewed as literature. RhinoMind (talk) 18:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Old Norse poetry - but beware, as the manuscripts (where it's not stones) are generally much later, & the dates given the actual poetry may be rather speculative. Johnbod (talk) 19:22, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Germanic tribe

Vikings are not just Norsemen, they are first and foremost Germanic peoples. This should be added. And they did not "assimilated into the French culture" but of course into the western Franks (West Francia) culture. -- 91.66.15.17 (talk) 01:56, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, no, there was NO people called vikings. It was just the germanic word for pirates, before the latin word pirate started to get assimilated into the germanic language. There were DOCUMENTED vikings which were arabs, and the very first documentation mentioning a viking in the old english language was Philip II, king of Macedonia, father of Alexander the Great. Dan Koehl (talk) 08:58, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

A clarification. The Norse of the Viking Age (what many simply refers to as Vikings today), were descendants of North Germanic tribes. In particular the Danes and the Swedes. You might have a point about Franks, can you fix it? RhinoMind (talk) 05:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

The Norsemen did not 'assimilate' into Frankish culture. On the contrary - the reason there is a distinct Scandinavian culture is that the Frankish expansion was stopped at the river Eider in what's today Northern Germany. erik.bramsen.copenhagen 193.169.154.65 (talk) 07:16, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I think User:91.66.15.17 is talking about the Normans? That was how I read his comment. But it should of course be clarified what he was referring to exactly. RhinoMind (talk) 10:32, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Were the later Danes any different from the earlier (Saxons, Angles and Jutes = Anglo-Saxons), or just all in the same ongoing process?

Another aspect is that the Saxons, Anglesand the Jutes were of Danish/Germanic tribes on Jutland and todays Holstein (united with Denmark until 1864), whom settled in large parts of Great Britain in the early Middle Ages and formed the the merged group of Anglo-Saxons that would eventually carve out the first united Kingdom of England. Hedeby that was the centre of the danish Vikings is located in Angeln and a major question is if the Vikings and the Anglo-Saxons were any different, just like cousines. It could be seen and just different waves of the same process that wnet on for some hundreds of years? The major difference was rather who should be the boss and who writes the history? The Normans establishing in Normandy is a much different issue. If not a mellenium, because the ability for Ceasar to take Gaul and later most of Great Britain was to prevent Germanic tribes to take over such Celtic areas, where the Celts in fact prefered the Romans. The Danes (Saxons, Anglesand the Jutes) were pushing on Britian already then. It is a accurate quation if there were any difference or just an ongoing process of waves and just different personal management? Zzalpha (talk) 06:01, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

@Zzalpha: Hello. Yes, this is very interesting stuff! Yes as you describe it, the Vikings raids and settlements can be viewed as a continuation of the migration period, but they travelled much further than before and their raids and settlements were much larger in scale as well. The Vikings were also different from the Angles and the Saxons. They had different religions, different Gods, different language, different cultures and they were in conflict with each other. The Vikings were neither Jutes nor Danes, as these tribes came before the Vikings and their culture, but the was Jutish and Danish genes in the Vikings no doubt. RhinoMind (talk) 20:45, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I think a problem in this theme is that the labels Angels, Saxons, Juts, Danes, Vikings are made after their existence and they just looked upon themselves as tribes and "business" enterprises/risk investments to use modern terms. The Angels, Saxons, Juts were originally all having the same religion as the Vikings later, but became Christian in England, and were pretty different when the Vikings came from what they were arriving 400-500 years earlier. So are we compared to our 17th century ancestors and especially people in the US are quite different from our ancestors moving there 100 years ago. My grandpa had 6 brothers and sisters and 5 went over and he when later back. But I think they were of the same bloodline, and modern DNA studies would be interesting to see? After the Viking age national states were forming in their area and Southern Jutland Holstein is today Germany and Schleswig is shared by Denmark and Germany since 1919. But the Dukes of Holstein (House of Oldenburg)became the kings of Denmark from 1448 and still is in power, and Holstein was an integrated part of the Danish reign even though Holstein was a part of the Holy Roman Empire. Angeln is a specific area and they spoke old Low German and the difference between that and old Danish North Germanic languages were most likely not bigger than they could understand each other. Question is if we can distinguish old Jutes (settled in Kent) being related to Danes or Germans, I think there were no exact definitions in those days? I think the only major difference between the Anglo-Saxons were only arrival time. There were old and new Vikings fighting about power in Alfred the Greats time, and the Celts were there seeing them all arriving in different waves. In fact Ceasar most likely stopped them from taking over Britain and France already 50 BC, that was according to Ceasar the reason of his intervention in France. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzalpha (talk • contribs) 00:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 December 2014

Georgia Herron and Amber Gurdler have proof that vikings were real ily Georgiaeditalot (talk) 02:59, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 03:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Review and new ratings

Hello everybody. I think it is time for new reviews of this page and perhaps new rankings? A lot have changed and been added since it was last examined. I am not sure if the page will get any better rankings, but a new review would be appropriate nevertheless. Whatever the outcome, the page could greatly benefit from a solid formulation of what needs to be done in order to make it more Wikipedia-like. I am not necessarily thinking content, but more style issues.

However, I dont know much about how to attract qualified users to make reviews, so perhaps some of you had suggestions for how to proceed with this?

Cheers.

RhinoMind (talk) 12:33, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

• Topic: the use, origin and meaning (etymology) of the word Viking.

Its a good initiative, and I agree that it would be good if the page could be rewritten for new rankings.

The problem though, as I see it, is that the article is not consisting, contrary to the german article its unclear about what, who, or which the article describe. The real vikings, a present misinterpretation, etc. I object very much to be described as descendant to vikings, the sentence the term frequently applied casually to their modern descendants gives a picture to what I mean. Theres no evidence whatsoever that Im a descendant of vikings, while of course Im am a descendant to Norsemen. If noone starts to cleanup from the beginning, with a definition on what the subject for the article is, it will suffer from a major handicap. Dan Koehl (talk) 02:25, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

This is now on the "to do" list then. The issue has been raised and discussed thoroughly in several previous threads on this talk-page. I advice new readers to dig and read up on this, before commenting on this specific issue here.

The (reffed) info I have put up, is talking from the POV that "Vikings" means "the people of (or originating from) Scandinavia during the Viking Age". This POV/definition can also be equalled to "the Norse people during the Viking Age", to incorporate the broader term Norse. Here Norse mean the people of Scandinavia, without any specific historical era in mind, although it is sometimes limited to the people of Scandinavia originally practising the Norse religion only. Reading a few of the refs and surces that are up now, will make it clear.

Nevertheless it is of course important to discuss, that outside Scandinavia itself, "Vikings" traditionally defines "raiders and settlers originating from Scandinavia". This should be explained in a section dealing with the meaning of the term and name Viking. I think it is up already? As you Dan (and others) have pointed out, "Vikings" has traditionally even been used as a general term for raiders, without regard to their ethnic or geographical origin at all. This should also be explained of course. There are many meanings apparently, depending upon the context and the worldview of specific authors. RhinoMind (talk) 18:53, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes and no @RhinoMind: (thanks for your efforts to increase the quality of this article), I wouldnt say it has been used even as a general term for raiders, without regard to their ethnic or geographical origin, it was never used for anything else than that until some fifty years ago. And it was until fifty years ago never used as a term for traders. I have argued for that Viking was the old-english translation of the latin word pirate. The word pirate was never used in any literature from this time. And as I have verified elsewhere, Alexander the greats' father, Philippus II of macedonia, was the first to be mentioned as viking, the oldest documentation of the word viking, that I have found in any medevial document. Philippus was of course far away from living, or being born in Scandinavia. But he did commit piracing for some two years, according to the sources. Latin: Piratae= Oldenglish: viking. Dan Koehl (talk) 02:17, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I would like to add that an important step for the future of this article could be an effort to globalize the article. Regardless if some british and US people presently believe that vikings were a tribe of people with ancestry from Scandinavia, this is not the case for millions of asian, african and southamericans that user the english language version of Wikipedia. For them the present article invent vikings from Scandinavia, while they would probably benefit much more from a neutral point of view, where the prime sources are given the emphasis describing and explaining who vikings were, rather than a populistic and highly commercialized interpretation since the fifties. I belive all articles should be globalised? Dan Koehl (talk) 20:16, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

The extensiveness of the term 'viking' concerning ethnicity

The subject of defining the term 'viking' is treated in a recent book, "Fibula, Fabula, Fact - Viking Age in Finland" in which the relevance of its appliance to solely Scandinavians is questioned. The book focuses on Finland and it is asked whether or not the Finns of the late Iron Age can be labelled vikings. The same concerns, I suppose, e.g. the Baltic and Finnic peoples inhabiting the Baltic Sea region and largely having a shared cultural sphere with the Scandinavians. Of course, borderline cases raise questions but may therefore be of special interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.33.47.87 (talk) 16:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Interesting point. As far as I know the Finnish culture was distinctively different from "the viking culture". And the same applied to the Slavic cultures of the eastern and southern regions of the Baltic sea. Of course cultures also mixed in those days, but I am still confident that many cultural distinctions would have been obvious. Such as language, art work, religion, gods, social structures and even to some degree genetic distinctions (much more so than nowadays). But our knowledge and understanding of the Viking Age is growing and changing day by day. There is so much going on right now. Would love to read the book. RhinoMind (talk) 17:05, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

By the way. How to interpret and use the term "Viking" has been discussed intensely above. And it appears that there is not a singular consensus on its use. RhinoMind (talk) 17:05, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

As far as I know where was no wiking culture at all. Until 1900, no prime sources ever connected vikings to any ethnical tribe, nation, country or culture. The word means pirate, and pirats may be from just anywehere. As I have stated before, the first documentaion of the use word viking is when it used for the macedonian king Philip II of Macedonia, the father of Alexander the great. Dan Koehl (talk) 17:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Yep, had you in mind Dan :-) ...and both then and now, we are all human beings living on a tiny planet. We cannot run from that fact, by putting labels on each other. RhinoMind (talk) 17:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Female Vikings?

This article contains almost no information about women in Viking settlements.(Other than a reference to jewelry, as far as I can see.)

I would be interested in learning more, especially about the supposed existence of shield maidens, and the fact that women traveled with their men.

I realize there may not be much information available, but I think at least one section of the article should be devoted to women. Malkee (talk) 06:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@Malkee:, I stand to be corrected, but I believe that history doesnt know one single female viking and theres not one prime source, that mention one, why I argue that it would be very wrong to invent or fabricate female vikings, whose existence is until now, not known or confirmed, out of political correctness. Im sure noone wants to see parts of tha article amazons filled with speculations on eventual male amazones, whose existence has never been confirmed, for the same reason. But you may actually refer to Norsemen, the Scandinavian people before the Christianisation of Scandinavia, where I find your request very relevant and also realistic. Dan Koehl (talk) 07:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I am not asking of a desire to be politically correct.I am interested in writing a novel set during the Viking era and I need information, at least whatever is available. Obviously, "Viking" females existed or there wouldn't have been any Viking men, at least in the Norse countries. What about this? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2017251/Family-affair-Viking-warriors-joined-wives-invaded-Britain.html If you're in doubt about authenticity of the study,I would ask you to look at the note by one of the researchers in the comments who apparently conducted this study. I found this under the Wikipedia entry for "shield maiden." Other articles are listed there, too. Women should get equal time in this article, and not out of political correctness. We don't know if Amazons existed, so it's wrong to equate Vikings, male or female with them when we do know Vikings existed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malkee (talk • contribs) 02:37, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Well I wouldn't put any store by anything found in the Daily Mail, it is not considered a reliable source. And no, women should not get equal space in the article, that should be decided by what can be found in the sources. The published research they referred to in the Mail article is available online here. Look instead to that for research for your book. There probably needs to be a clear distinction here between the periods of Viking raids and the period of Norse settlement. Immigrants are much more likely to bring their women with them than pirate raiders. As I understand the paper (didn't read it all), there is still no evidence of female warriors, although finding swords in female graves may be suggestive. SpinningSpark 08:14, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I am well aware of the Daily Mail's reputation. At no time did I ask for "women to get equal space" in the article. This is the reason women get frustrated in academic and employment circles, because their questions are so often taken as a demand for equality, rather than a genuine inquiry. As a former journalist, I know that mistakes are often made in news articles. But most of the time, the thrust of stories in newspaper articles and even on television is essentially correct. From what I've been able to gather from my research -- not all of it conducted on Wikipedia or through the news media -there was some crossover during the period of Viking raids and the period of Norse settlement." I'm interested in that. I'm also interested in the fact that swords in female graves may be "suggestive" of female warriors. If I was so intent on including this information in the article, I would put it in myself. But I certainly think it's something that should be discussed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malkee (talk • contribs) 07:57, 8 February 2015 (UTC) After reading almost to the end of the linked article, I thought I would add this to our discussion: "Another important implication of the osteological sexing results is that Norse women appear to have been present from the earliest stages of the migratory process, rather than, as the commonly held theory has it, arriving as part of a second wave after the great army had started to settle the homelands it had conquered. The presence of Norse women at Heath Wood and the woman in the Repton mass burial are highly suggestive of women accompanying the great army to England, as these sites are dated to the campaigning period or its immediate aftermath." No,it's not certain. But it deserves mention.Malkee (talk) 08:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)malkeeMalkee (talk) 08:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

So you didn't say that women should be given equal space? Hard to see what you meant by "[w]omen should get equal time in this article" in that case. Look, I've found the primary source for you, I don't expect thanks for that, but whatever ends up in the Wikipedia article will tell you no more than that. McLeod has not said, or even suggested, that women were Viking warriors. Only that they were present in England earlier than previously thought. All sorts of things are placed in graves. In modern times people are buried dressed in their Sunday best. That does not mean that they normally (or ever) ran around dressed like that. Queen Liz II swings a sword every time she knights someone. Doesn't mean that she is ever going to use it in battle. More direct evidence is needed before we can say women fought in Viking battles. SpinningSpark 08:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Just have to give a "thumbs up" for the Queen Elizabeth comparison! Made me laugh :-) A good example. Ceremonial weapons and armour were probably important in many situations. RhinoMind (talk) 16:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

@Malkee "the thrust of stories in newspaper articles and even on television is essentially correct." From a general point of view, I don't agree. I do not suggest skipping a serious check up on the sources said media uses, whenever you want to be certain about a particular story. If it is hard (or impossible) to find solid sources for their stories, it is most likely because they don't exist. The media makes quite a few blunders and "original research" half-true stories. Personally I indulge in mass-media anyway, because I like to be entertained sometimes.

About the mentioning of men-women ratio during raids and subsequent settlements. If it needs to be mentioned, all we can do is to explain that it is currently being researched. Personally I suggest waiting to put anything in the article, until this research has delivered some solid results for us to write about and reference to. In general Wikipedia needs a lot more info from solid sources, than more half-studied stories and perhaps-true-rumors.

Btw. I have posted some info on this whole topic on your talk page Malkee. As you I find it fascinating. RhinoMind (talk) 16:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I still think this article needs a chapter about women. I have subsequently read of Wikipedia's efforts to get more women to contribute to articles. This discussion is indicative of the problem. 98.111.253.190 (talk) 23:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)malkee

I believe your largest problem will be to identify a single woman, mentioned as wiking during her own time. But by all means, since your focus is novels, invent one, and ask the community hat she should be a part of the article. By now the article doesn't really provide scientific facts anyhow, so I guess it won't get much worse with a couple of new inventions in regard to the term wiking. I guess we have to wait to wait another 5-10 years auntil we cet a consensus that the article wiking should focus on wikings and nothing else. Dan Koehl (talk) 00:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think these are very helpful comments. The article begins "Vikings (from Old Norse víkingr) were Germanic Norse seafarers, speaking the Old Norse language, who raided and traded from their Scandinavian homelands across wide areas of northern and central Europe, as well as European Russia, during the late 8th to late 11th centuries.[1][2] The term is also commonly extended in modern English and other vernaculars to the inhabitants of Viking home communities during what has become known as the Viking Age." Of course there were Viking women, but they played no regular role in warfare. We don't have much on any aspects of Viking domestic life, & more would be welcome. Johnbod (talk) 03:17, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

maybe not helpful, but at least true. Im aware of that some english speaking people refer to ethnic scandinavian as vikings, but this is a misinterpretation of the word. Before 1800 and the romantic period, you can not find one single woman in the prime sources described as, or referred to as viking. If people, based on the present misinterpretation of the word, start to speak about female vikings, you are in fact inventing something which never existed. Dan Koehl (talk) 04:00, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello. There is new online information on Viking women here: Women in the Viking Age (National Museum of Denmark). RhinoMind (talk) 16:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

That article refers to women during the viking age, which is not the same as women who went on viking, since no women did that, according to the prime sources. Dan Koehl (talk) 04:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Probably not, but since this is the English Wikipedia, we are using the word in the English meaning of it, as described in the article lead. Johnbod (talk) 11:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Who are we? I thought that Wikipedia articles should be written with global content, then if you are using the term in English, is not the same as if everyone else would use the word in English like that. Probably, but in order to start writing about female vikings, you must find one in the sources. because if the article should be just about female Scandinavians, it would be more logical to label such a woman as a female Scandinavian, which she without doubt was. And describe who scared she was of vikings, which she most certainly was. That would be a true story, instead of an invention of something not existing, due to a habit of misinterpretation a word. Dan Koehl (talk) 11:48, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia is written in English for people who speak English, globally. Johnbod (talk) 12:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

There is no universally accepted definition of Vikings, but the Blackwell Encyclopedia of Anglo-Saxon England includes women and children who left their Scandinavian homeland in search of a better life. The Oxford Dictionary of English refers to Scandinavian pirates and traders. There is no justification for excluding women. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I think (cautiously) that in Scandinavian languages Viking remains essentially a verb, for the raiding etc activity by Norse people, and "Viking women" sounds wrong. But this is English. Johnbod (talk) 13:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, so i give you a challenge. You write a story about norse people during the viking age. Stubbornly, in the story you label them vikings, instead of Norse, although you are actually writing about Norse people, and about about vikings. They live in a village in Sweden, they are farmers, shepherds, hunters and one is actually a baker. A couple of the guys sometimes go on summer west viking, and return loaded with gold in the autumns. Now and then they come together on thing, and discuss the lawmen are solving the latest crimes in the neighbourhood, and the community also organize their defense, the defense against vikings. In this very village is one of the leidang harbours, always ready with four fighting ships, and food is stored. the ships are made for 24 men rowing, and one steering man. The four ships altogether holds 100 soldiers, and they are volunteering from the farms nearby, one from each farm, so that's why the districts is called a hundred, a term that will later become exported to England. But they also organize the peoples the village defence against viking raiders, and they put stakes in the water in order to make it difficult for atatcking ships. At least two soldiers in the village are official viking watchers, they are high ranking guys, the pre aristocracy, and they often keep guard at the top of the mountains, close to the shores, so they can identify a viking fleet approaching as fast as possible. Then we have a couple of very large farms nearby, owned by farmers who now and then build long ships, sometimes send their ships on vikings, and always to the west. Othervise they have trade routes to the east, and they suffer as much from viking attacks as do the local communities. They think, one day the vikings must have an end, they are destroying the market, the trade, and makes the seas dangerous. Theres a rumor that the new king of Norway, Harald the Hairfair, will be approved king from the pope on one condition: he must clean the shores of Scotland and Hebrides from vikings. It has aleady began, and thousand in the kings army has fought the vikings, who are now moving to Iceland instead. Some of those soldiers are staying in the Scottish communities, where now law and order gets established and a colony is being established, one the vikings are gone. Another escape for the vikings is the city of Jomsburg where outlaws can live. Most of those vikings would never get accepted if they returned to their home villages, all they know is how to fight, but they have heard about another profession, if they give up the viking, and are willing to swear an oath, they can get job as varangers in the emperors army in Cristianopel.

How do you tell this story in English? If you use the word viking for people, what word do you use for the word viking? WHY make this so confused, just out of some stubborn rule, that even if we made an intellectual mistake 30 years ago, when we started to popularize everything Scandinavian by using the word viking, and now you don't have a word for the word viking, and the present Scandinavian are pissed because you refer to their ancestors as pirates...

Wouldn't it, really be easier if you would use the vord viking for vikings, instead of using the word viking for a lot of not-at-all viking?

Dan Koehl (talk) 19:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

This isn't the place to discuss changes to the English language. Johnbod (talk) 19:48, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Johnbod, instead of reading poor encyclopedias from 50 years back, go to the oldest sources, mentioning the word. The first time when its used, is about the macedonian king Philip II, father of Alexander, he was viking for some years, according to the old-english sources, where the word viking is simply a translation of the latin word pirate. It may surprise english speaking people that Philip was not Scandinavian at all, and never, ever was their a rule that pirates must have an Scandinavian ethnically association. Next source is Beowulf, read and see how the word is used. next is Adam of Bremen, read what he writes. next is the Icelandic sagas. next is the danish sagas from Saxo grammaticus, next is from the 1700 by Holberg.

1 000 years when a viking, is just the old english word for the latin pirate.

Then in 1800 a new "viking" gets invented, but he is a false viking, with no scientific proofed existence, he is made up on fantasies, archetypes and romantic ideas by ignorant laymen that thought is was colder in the viking age, they don't even know about the climate change and the little ice age.

OK, so i give you a challenge. You write a story about norse people during the viking age. Stubbornly, in the story you label them vikings, instead of Norse, although you are actually writing about Norse people, and about about vikings. They live in a village in Sweden, they are farmers, shepherds, hunters and one is actually a baker. A couple of the guys sometimes go on summer west viking, and return loaded with gold in the autumns. Now and then they come together on thing, and discuss the lawmen are solving the latest crimes in the neighbourhood, and the community also organize their defense, the defense against vikings. In this very village is one of the leidang harbours, always ready with four fighting ships, and food is stored. the ships are made for 24 men rowing, and one steering man. The four ships altogether holds 100 soldiers, and they are volunteering from the farms nearby, one from each farm, so that's why the districts is called a hundred, a term that will later become exported to England. But they also organize the peoples the village defence against viking raiders, and they put stakes in the water in order to make it difficult for atatcking ships. At least two soldiers in the village are official viking watchers, they are high ranking guys, the pre aristocracy, and they often keep guard at the top of the mountains, close to the shores, so they can identify a viking fleet approaching as fast as possible. Then we have a couple of very large farms nearby, owned by farmers who now and then build long ships, sometimes send their ships on vikings, and always to the west. Othervise they have trade routes to the east, and they suffer as much from viking attacks as do the local communities. They think, one day the vikings must have an end, they are destroying the market, the trade, and makes the seas dangerous. Theres a rumor that the new king of Norway, Harald the Hairfair, will be approved king from the pope on one condition: he must clean the shores of Scotland and Hebrides from vikings. It has aleady began, and thousand in the kings army has fought the vikings, who are now moving to Iceland instead. Some of those soldiers are staying in the Scottish communities, where now law and order gets established and a colony is being established, one the vikings are gone. Another escape for the vikings is the city of Jomsburg where outlaws can live. Most of those vikings would never get accepted if they returned to their home villages, all they know is how to fight, but they have heard about another profession, if they give up the viking, and are willing to swear an oath, they can get job as varangers in the emperors army in Cristianopel.

How do you tell this story in English? If you use the word viking for people, what word do you use for the word viking? WHY make this so confused, just out of some stubborn rule, that even if we made an intellectual mistake 30 years ago, when we started to popularize everything Scandinavian by using the word viking, and now you don't have a word for the word viking, and the present Scandinavian are pissed because you refer to their ancestors as pirates...

Wouldn't it, really be easier if you would use the word viking for vikings, instead of using the word viking for a lot of not-at-all viking,and when writing a story when normal people and vikings meet, the word viking refers to vikings and not to not-vikings?

Dan Koehl (talk) 19:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I found a story about a woman who performed raids with ships:

According to Gesta Danorum, Alfhild, daughter of the Geatish king Siward, was a shield maiden, who had her own fleet of longships, with crews of young female pirates, who raided along the coasts of the Baltic Sea. Dan Koehl (talk) 17:39, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

There you go then. Amazing there hasn't been a movie! But when we talk in the article about Viking women we mean housewives, not that one would get into a fight with them I'm sure. Johnbod (talk) 17:50, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh, you mean that people that spoke vikingish? Dan Koehl (talk) 17:52, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Former viking

In Bósa saga ok Herrauðs is to read:

• Herraud's best friend was Bósi, the younger son of a former viking named Thvari or Bryn-Thvari by Brynhild, a former shieldmaiden and a daughter of King Agnar of Nóatún.
• Bósi was a rough boy who was eventually outlawed for maiming some other folk in a ball-game. Herraud, discontented, gained permission from his father, over Sjód's objections, be allowed to set off on a Viking expedition with five ships

There is, however, no such thing as a former Norseman, mentioned in the sources. Dan Koehl (talk) 22:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Egil Skallagrimsson saga: Björn var farmaður mikill, var stundum í víking, en stundum í kaupferðum; Björn var hinn gervilegasti maður. (english: Björn was a great traveller; sometimes as viking, sometimes as tradesman.

So, a Norseman could be a viking for some time, and he could be a tradesman (or a baker, or a shepherd) for some time. But not all tradesmen, bakers, shepherds and vikings were Norseman.

Norseman spoke norse, but norse vikings did not speak vikingish, and norse shepherds did not speak shepherdish or bakerish.

Norsemen had norse culture, but there was no norse viking, baker or shepherd culture.

I think its important to remind people today about the term Norsemen, an accepted term by historians and archelogists, referring to people from the north, present Scandinavia. This term does not have any certain time limit, the Norsemen were norse in years, 400, 500, 657, 749, 803, 950, 1066 and 1100. Norsemen is a true ethnical group, for some reason neglected on Wikipedia. Whenever the word viking is mentioned, it can correctly be replaced by the term Norsemen in 95% of the cases. Norsemen are described in other Wikipedia languages, and since the english Wikipedia should be written from a global point of view, the term Norse and Norsemen should not be treated different.

The first documented use of the word viking is made by Orosius, written in latin, and translated into old english. There is to read about Alexander the Great´s father, Philip II of Macedonia: Philippus vero post longam obsidionem, ut pecuniam quam obsidendo exhauserat, praedando repararet, piraticam adgressus est. translated into: ac he scipa gegaderade, and i vicingas wurdon. In this time the word pirat was not used in the english language, the latin piraticam was directly translated to vicingus.

Interestingly enough, theres stories in the sagas, describing arabic piates, and they were in the sagas referred to, as vikings. = Vikings could be arabs practising piracy, and vikings could be macedonian kings practising piracy, but peaceful norse farmers, and their wifes, were never, ever, described as vikings before 1900.

For over 1 000 years, viking was nothing else than an old-english translation of the latin word pirate.

A macedonian king will never, ever, become scandinavian. An arabic pirat will never become scandinavian.

But a norseman was scandinavian, and the present scandinavians are descendants of Norsemen, according to historians and archelogists.

Dan Koehl (talk) 23:14, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Your edits recently show clearly that in English it is just not true to say "Whenever the word viking is mentioned, it can correctly be replaced by the term Norsemen in 95% of the cases." You have had this explained to you several times now, and are behaving in a vandalistic way. Any more ungrammatical edits & you should be blocked. Please respect the English language. This is not an eccentricity of Wikipedia, but the clear and normal meaning of the word Viking in English, as shown by any WP:RS. Johnbod (talk) 04:46, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree that Viking, because of it's etymological equivalence with raiding and later (Victorian? Wagnerian?) association with violence and masculinity can be an unhelpful term for deeper understanding. However, Johnbod is correct that it has become the defacto English term for the period of migrations, trading, settlement and (yes!) raiding from Scandinavian peoples across Eurasia in the 8th-13th centuries. In British academia the accepted term for the occupations/interactions in what is now England/Britain is 'Anglo-Scandinavian' but this currently unhelpfully links to the Danelaw article, a much more specific, later quasi-political entity. The term 'Norsemen is equally political and doesn't help most non-expert English-speakers who would search for 'Viking' to learn about this period. The Viking age article which Dan Koehl linked to from Star Carr is more helpful/appropriate than Norsemen and might be more appropriate on Bedale? The irony with the coverage of this period on English Wikipedia is that much of the detail is great yet uses terminology academics would see as outdated or morally problematic. Not sure what the solution is but a wholesale replacement of links to Viking with Norsemen is definitely not helpful. Is there a more sophisticated approach that doesn't involve wholesale rewrites? PatHadley (talk) 12:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Anglo-Scandinavian is a good archeological term for cataloguing objects etc, but far less flexible or well-understood than Viking in other contexts (and for many confusingly close to 'Anglo-Saxon'). A short article placing A-Sc in its context would be very helpful, or it could redirect to the right section at Viking age. Johnbod (talk) 14:59, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

@Johnbod and PatHadley: it sounds like you accept the existence of the word Norsemen, but you prefer to call them vikings between 800 and 1066? May I ask you, where exactly where the Norse during that time? According to the article Norsemen:

Norsemen refers to the group of people who spoke what is now called the Old Norse language between the 8th and 11th centuries. The language belongs to the North Germanic branch of the Indo-European languages, and is the earlier form of modern Scandinavian languages.

Norseman means "person from the North" and applied primarily to Old Norse-speaking tribes who settled in southern and central Scandinavia.

How can you make this logical, that I should not be aloud to link stories about Scandinavian people to the article Norsemen, because for some reason you want everything Norse be linked to the article Viking?

1. The first documented use of the word viking is made by Orosius, written in latin, and translated into old english. There is to read about Alexander the Great´s father, Philip II of Macedonia: Philippus vero post longam obsidionem, ut pecuniam quam obsidendo exhauserat, praedando repararet, piraticam adgressus est. translated into:ac he scipa gegaderade, and i vicingas wurdon. In this time the word pirat was not used in the english language, the latin piraticamwas directly translated to vicingus.

- You complain about my english, I hope you can read your own (old-english) language above, and what it says? (I can...)

-No, Macedonia is not in Scandinavia... And in the Icelandic sagas even arabs are described with the word Viking, when they are attacking the Norse ships...

2. King Harald the Hairfair 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.

-King Harald would never agree that he was a viking-king, he was, like probably 99% of Scandinavian Norsemen were, fighting vikings.

3. Egil Skallagrimsson about Bjørn Farmann: Björn var farmaður mikill, var stundum í víking, en stundum í kaupferðum; Björn var hinn gervilegasti maður. (english: Björn was a great traveller; sometimes as viking, sometimes as tradesman.)

Only with those three examples (and theres hundreds) you will have extremely difficult to explain what a viking is, and what difference there is between vikings and normal people from Scandinavia, if you stubbornly use the same word for two different meanings.

For over 1 000 years viking was just a translation of the word pirat until the fifties, when Americans wanted to call everything Scandinavian viking. And very MUCH simplifying thing with that, and later making it complicated.

This is probably the reason why the article viking is still on start level after 13 years on Wikipedia. Because in order to get the stories there OK; a lot of facts and sources must be excluded. With this concept you will never reach a good article, it will remain pubertal comic strip "information", and people have to translate the German article about vikings to get some scientific substance.

But Im not telling you what to do, Im just saying that there is no need for a consensus that I am from Sweden, and have blue eyes, there is no need for a consensus that the sky is blue, and there is no need for a consensus, that the correct term in English for my people, their culture, and medieval language is Norse. You can't change this by voting.

So why, did you revert my links to the the page Norsemen, when I only did the links in text where it was clear that there was reference to people and a culture, and not to raiding pirates?

And please remember, its not me who use my language to call you things which is not true, so could you please give a little respect to my ancestors, and stop calling them pirates? You have stopped calling other people with different skin colors for names you used for hundreds of years, it must be possible to quit this game of "all Scandinavians ARE vikings" game?

Vikings could be arabs practising piracy, and vikings could be macedonian kings practising piracy, but peaceful Norse farmers, and their wife's, were never, ever, described as vikings before 1900!

Dan Koehl (talk) 03:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dan Koehl, I've tried to address the key issues over at the discussion on the Admin noticeboard. I hope we can reach some understanding there. Johnbod - All good points about 'Anglo-Scandinavian'. I think I'll move the redirect for now? Cheers, PatHadley (talk) 10:43, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, good idea. Thanks Johnbod (talk) 10:51, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Vikings and Sweden

Best you read Vikings by Magnus Magnusson (host of mastermind and a viking descendant of Viking royalty) 0 370 30272 9 Bodley head 0 563 17763 2 BBC publications. Look I'm descendant of Andreaus Harrikkasson (check Broberg bloodline if you want, or just ask) (proovable). Now seen you little map concerning Sweden, but as Denmark was not given automimony until Gorm, it was Swedish, same with Norway. Both were Swedish same as most as Russia... known to us as greater sweden. I just hate it when those christian cu**s try to hide their history, we went to war with them fort nearly 250 years after Charlemagne killed all the non Christians. and we still live to this day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.126.17 (talk) 00:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Grouping of translations?

At the moment the translations to native terms are grouped by individual languages: (Danish: Vikinger; Faroese: Víkingur; Icelandic: Víkingar;...) Would it not be more coherent if it was formated like: (Danish, Norwegian(Bokmål): Vikinger; ... Norwegian(Nynorsk), Swedish: Vikingar)?

What is good/common practise on this?

Torsov (talk) 11:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, done. Johnbod (talk) 12:45, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2015

Please change order of the following lines! Scandinavian-Template first, then the relevance photo!

[[:File:Wikinger.jpg|thumb|Sea-faring Danes depicted invading England. Illuminated illustration from the 12th century Miscellany on the Life of St. Edmund. Pierpont Morgan Library.]] {Scandinavia}

130.234.191.71 (talk) 20:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Looks right to me. Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Looks very wrong to me - templates should very rarely be the lead image - they should really be horizontal at the bottom of the article. Reverted. Johnbod (talk) 12:50, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Merge Proposal with Varangians

• oppose - not properly proposed & seems a silly idea. Johnbod (talk) 12:53, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. There is more than enough content in the Varangians article for it to keep its separate status. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:23, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Different terms with rather different histories. Dimadick (talk) 17:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
• oppose as per User:JohnBod above. Who authored this merge anyway? If noone has signed it, we might just as well delete it, instead of taking it serious. RhinoMind (talk) 01:02, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
• Strong oppose Agree with above - who authored this merge ? After a brief look in the Varangians article, it appears as they spoke some Slavic language, didn't come from what's today is Denmark, Norway and Sweden or Scandinavia + Iceland. The Vikings spoke Old norse which has formed the Scandinavian languages. Scandinavian languages are also a part of to the larger Germanic languages, just like Dutch, German and English. Further, in the Scandinavian counties are young pupils taught about the Vikings (or Vikinger). First came the Stone Age then the Bronze Age, Iron Age, followed by the first historical (=written down, atleast partly) era ,the Vikinger era, followed by the Middle ages etc. To suddenly get to know that our (in the sence "Scandinavian") earliest history no longer is correct makes me angry. I've never seen or heared from any scholars that the Vikings also were Varangians or the other way around. They are likely to have met each other, but that's it. I also presume ancestors of the Varangians don't want to be mixed up with an other people. Boeing720 (talk) 01:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
• Closed as Keep - tags removed. Johnbod (talk) 02:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Map of settlements

The map erroneously shows the Sicilies (Sicily and southern Italy) as well as Wessex a Scandinavian settlements. They are properly Norman principalities, and though the Normans were partly descended from Scandinavians, they aren't Scandinavian. Thus, the map doesn't show the Levantine principality of Antioch as a Scandinavian settlement. //erik.bramsen.copenhagen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.144.63.224 (talk) 11:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I don't think that map is helpful. Johnbod (talk) 13:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Just here to say that this map has been discussed previously. See Archives. Btw, anybody are free to create and upload better maps, that is how things improve. Be sure to stick to credible sources of consensus knowledge. Just saying. RhinoMind (talk) 18:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Literacy

Under Culture:

"Although they were generally a non-literate culture that produced no literary legacy..."

Under Runestones:

"The Viking peoples could read and write and used a non-standardized alphabet"

Which is it? Were they generally non-literate, or could they read and write? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SlickVicar (talk • contribs) 18:41, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi. This has been a recurring question, as an archive search would reveal. Now in the archives, its not up here on the TalkPage unless you search for it yourself, so I might repeat the answers if you like?

The problem comes down to, that not many people know the difference between "il-literate" and "non-literate". Il-literacy is when you can neither read nor write. Non-literacy is when you can not (or choose not to) write and therefore produce no literature.

Most people are actually non-literate, but they would probably react with anger if someone told them, thinking they was thought of as il-literate.

After discussing this issue, it was explained in the article explicitly that no literature was produced, hoping to solve this issue of confusion. They wrote on runestones, but this is not considered literature. RhinoMind (talk) 16:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Not entirely true: a few of the runic inscriptions are certainly literature, e.g. the Gripsholm stone. There are also other poetry that were recorded later but was probably produced in the Viking age. What we don't have any records of are narratives, beyond some terse boasts like those of Harald Bluetooth on the Jelling stones.

Andejons (talk) 20:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Great. I think that is why the word "generally" was added, if I remember correctly. The runestones were also discussed in some archived thread. RhinoMind (talk) 00:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

#TBT Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 00:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The Rune stones are written text as any, but only brief messages. The Vikings were harldy up to Shakespeare's standard... But the rune alphabet has infact been used to wright rather thick books with (200+ pages). Most of the rune-texts on paper has been lost during the second Millenium, but an example of remaining rune-text books is Codex Runicus or the Scanian Law. A copy from the 13th Century still exists. But I guess that isn't the original. Books were copied by re-wrighting the original until Guthenberg invented the printing mashine in the 15th Century, hence is it difficult to find out whether a book is the very first of its kind or a hand written copy. I believe litterature copying was a common work at the medieval monasteries. Boeing720 (talk) 02:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello Boeing720, interesting info there. I shouldn't go into a lengthy discussion here on a TalkPage, but I find it odd that no manuscripts have survived from the Viking Age then, if this (these) book(s) were copies of older works. Do you have some links or sources to these books perhaps? I would like to read more on it. RhinoMind (talk) 03:05, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Btw. I recommend you to follow Laszlo Panaflex' link and read the wiki article on these peculiar rune stones. Interesting stuff also. RhinoMind (talk) 03:08, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello. I bring some new (to me) information, that might positively revive this persistent subject: The Bryggen inscriptions. These are runic "letters" of an everyday nature, found in excavations in Bergen since 1955 and dating to 1150-1350 AD. This is strictly speaking not the Viking Age, but close enough that perhaps it should be mentioned somehow, as the definition of this historic period certainly has some blurred edges. The dating is not mentioned in the wiki article surprisingly, but here is a quick source: [1].

Another piece of interesting information, is that the Latin alphabet was officially introduced in the administration in Denmark as early as the 900s, using pen, ink and parchment instead of the former bone, wood and stone carving. It is mentioned in a scholarly book I am reading, they ref to some other scholarly books, but I am really not sure what they are referring to specifically and I haven't been able to finde something useful on the net either. Not yet.

Combined with Boing720s posts above, there might perhaps be enough important information available, that some mention would be a good idea in this article. RhinoMind (talk) 16:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Seems adequately covered by: "Writing in Latin letters was introduced to Scandinavia with Christianity, so there are few native documentary sources from Scandinavia before the late 11th and early 12th centuries.[57] The Scandinavians did write inscriptions in runes, but these are usually very short and formulaic...." Johnbod (talk) 16:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Vikings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120407050944/http://www.archeurope.com/index.php?page=the-term-viking to http://www.archeurope.com/index.php?page=the-term-viking
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110419122148/http://www.cmrs.ucla.edu:80/projects/Viking%20Mosfell%20Valley%20Medieval%20Archaeology%202005.pdf to http://www.cmrs.ucla.edu/projects/Viking%20Mosfell%20Valley%20Medieval%20Archaeology%202005.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140714132855/http://ribevikingecenter.dk/en/learn-more/food-solstice-feast.aspx to http://ribevikingecenter.dk/en/learn-more/food-solstice-feast.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140714194517/http://ribevikingecenter.dk/da/viden/mad-korn,-broed.aspx to http://ribevikingecenter.dk/da/viden/mad-korn,-broed.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:39, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Commoners forced to participate in Viking raids

It has been touched briefly (by me), that commoners among the Norse were forced to participate in the Viking raids led by the aristocracy. Here is a copy of the previous discussion so far:

Hi. Actually Dan, a lot of common people (mostly Norse, but not exclusively), were forced to participate in the Viking aristocracy's raids and plunders (mostly through the félag's). This might in fact explain why the raids stopped. People where fed up with it. There are several examples of organized raids disintegrating before they could take off and several examples of peasant uprisings in the years after the Viking Age ended also. I wanted to mention this to you for some time, so now I got the chance. RhinoMind (talk) 22:08, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

@RhinoMind:, 1. It has never in mans history existed anything like a Viking aristocracy!. 2. Source that ANYONE was forced to go viking, please! (you wrote a lot) Dan Koehl (talk) 22:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, then just call it "the aristocracy among the Norse in the Viking Age" if you will. If you cared about the subject enough, you could probably have looked for some information yourself, I was only trying to provide some clues about an issue that you appeared concerned with, in a friendly way. But never mind, I have done a bit of browsing and there is already a bit up about the whole thing on WP actually. Have a look here: Canute IV of Denmark and Leidang for example. Both articles could need some improvements. Regarding the aborted attempt on England, Canute also fined the peasants for not showing up and he was later killed along with his brother in a monastery in Odense. There are numerous accounts of peasant (and local nobility) uprisings against kings in Denmark from the era proceeding the Viking Age. It could even be argued that all of the subsequent Medieval Age in Denmark, revolved around warmongering kings that devastated the economy of the country, to the annoyance of the whole population. But that is of course not part of the Viking Age specifically. RhinoMind (talk) 13:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)