Talk:Vikings/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): BSoren17.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:42, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Barbarity

Do you people think that the fact they were raiding Christian nations could be a big reason behind the Vikings being portrayed by Christians as barbaric? Anybody got something on this? Connor Machiavelli (talk) 22:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Wikipedia is not a place to discuss interpretations, ideas or personal convictions. You should turn to other sites like Reddit for example. Having said that - in order to help a new fellow Wikipedian to not get lost -, what you have been wondering about is already in the article. And the very short answer is: "yes". Coupled with the facts that most historic material about the Vikings written in their time, stems from Christian cultures, this is perhaps the case. But they were acting horrifying barbaric, no doubt. But they were certainly not alone in this respect. Charlemagne (Viking enemy) committed ethnic cleansings and large scale mass murders in Saxony as one well descriped example. Also do some read up on why the word "vandal" came to have the meaning it now has. The Vandals were the enemies of Rome and Rome wrote the history. Same kind of story. Btw talking about "nations" is not a useful term when dealing with that age. The concept of "nations" is no more than about 200 years old. RhinoMind (talk) 22:47, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, of course. Johnbod (talk) 12:26, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
I would say depending who you mean, true vikings or just Norse people in general? Dan Koehl (talk) 17:02, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
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)


For some reason, Johnbod removed my comment below (ironically using the comment don't remove people's comments please), so I put it back again:
@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)
Learn how to read the history, Dan! You removed 2 comments by me and Rhino with your edit. Johnbod (talk) 00:32, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
@Dan I have replied in the section below called "Commoners forced to participate in Viking raids". I wasn't expecting this to be perceived as so radical, so I created a new section for this issue. RhinoMind (talk) 13:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Dan, in English, as we have discussed before, "true vikings or just Norse people" is a meaningless distinction, at least outside Scandinavia. And this WP uses English. Johnbod (talk) 12:26, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
In the early Renaissance period, as today, Vikings was a common term for attacking Norsemen, especially in connection with raids and monastic plundering by Norsemen in the British Isles and Ireland. and The word Vikings: Vikinger in Danish and Norwegian Bokmål, and Vikingar in Swedish and Norwegian Nynorsk is not used as a word for Norsemen by natives, as "Viking" is the name for a specific activity/occupation (a "raid"), and not a demographic group. The Vikings were simply people (of any ethnicity, or origin) partaking in the raid (known as "going Viking"). Source: Norsemen, (English Wikipedia, this WP, which is not a Wikipedia for English or Americans, but for the whole world, in english language).
But Viking was actually a common Oldenglish term, or translation, for the word pirates, which could origin from just anywhere: 1. Vikings, as any pirate, could origin from anywhere: 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. (Macedonia is, and was never, a part of Scandinavia, and the people there did not speak Norse.)
History does not know any pirate or Viking aristocracy.
Dan Koehl (talk) 02:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

More errors

Theres also in the article text: There is little indication of any negative connotation in the term before the end of the Viking Age. which is totally wrong for anyone who has read the prime history sources, like this one:

Harald I of Norway At last, Harald was forced to make an expedition to the West, to clear the islands and the Scottish mainland of some Vikings who tried to hide there.. (the original text says in english translation:
King Harald heard that the vikings, who were in the West sea in winter, plundered far and wide in the middle part of Norway; and therefore every summer he made an expedition to search the isles and out-skerries (1) on the coast. Wheresoever the vikings heard of him they all took to flight, and most of them out into the open ocean. At last the king grew weary of this work, and therefore one summer he sailed with his fleet right out into the West sea. First he came to Hjaltland (Shetland), and he slew all the vikings who could not save themselves by flight. Then King Harald sailed southwards, to the Orkney Islands, and cleared them all of vikings. Thereafter he proceeded to the Sudreys (Hebrides), plundered there, and slew many vikings who formerly had had men-at-arms under them.

-King Harald would never agree that he was a "viking-king" as he is sometimes Referred to by ignorant people, he was, like probably 99% of scandinavians were, fighting vikings.

Dan Koehl (talk) 02:24, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Heimskringla is from ca 1230. That is well past any reasonable definition of "Viking age".
Andejons (talk) 07:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi. I am with Dan on this issue. We do not have any written legacy from the Norse themselves from the Viking Age, so to use the Sagas here is sufficient and the best we have on how the word "Viking" was perceived in the Norse culture in those days. We also know from written sources outside Scandinavia, that the word "Viking" had a very negative connotation as well. It is a small thing (to me) though, but I agree that it should be changed. RhinoMind (talk) 12:24, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Me too Johnbod (talk) 13:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
There are several runestones that mentions Vikings, which is enough that one can at least get some idea how they were viewed (several were made in memory of people who had fallen when they were gone on Viking raids. This is at least an indication that being a Viking was not seen as particularly shameful). If one wants to analyze how the word was used in different times, equating the thirteenth century with the eleventh seems like an excellent way of making a muddle of everything.
Andejons (talk) 08:08, 11 February 2016 (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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 15:29, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Lack of info on raids

For some reason, there is no article for "Viking raids" or even a mention of their raiding practices, tactics and so forth within the "Viking raids and warfare" article. Since the raids were one of the main contacts between Vikings and other peoples, I feel like it could be expanded upon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viciouspiggy (talk • contribs) 07:41, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. But what are you suggesting here? a new article or expansion of the Viking raid warfare and tactics article? Or this article perhaps? And are you in possesion of any solid sources and useful lists that could be of any help and used to get a productive start of this project? RhinoMind (talk) 23:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Vikings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Stuff

Hi,

1 Pet Peeve
Properly, the article should open with stating something about the Norse (like, speakers of old Norse, ca. 800 - 1350) as the main culture, with "viking" as a more or less honourable occupation. While it's ok to treat vikings as traders and vice versa (to this very day, if truth be known), one should perhaps let the Norse to the migrating and colonizing.
Basically, the whole Viking and VikingAge thing is an unfortunate result of Anglo-centric historiography, since Norse raiders and more or less successful conquerors did play some part in their national history. But the history of vikings isn't limited to that, and certainly the history of the Norse is not.
It is basically "admitted" in the article, drawing out the "end" of the "viking age" about 200 years; which goes to show that it isn't that easy to set brackets for an "age" - nor for people, as in the delightful little tid-bit that "the longship allowed the Norse to go Viking" (yoy have to like Phil. of Language to find the joke funny).
"The period from the earliest recorded raids in the 790s until the Norman conquest of England in 1066 is commonly known as the Viking Age of Scandinavian history." So very nearly right ... AFAIK the more recent conclusion is that the "viking age" ebbed out; it's not like flicking a switch. M. Barefoot died a-viking in Ireland in 1103 (1107? something). Et cetera. It has been treated as such in the 1066 And All That tradition. One could soften this by hinting that it did not really end at 12 on that tuesday in April.
2. Specifics
Most of these arise from the slant described in 1.
"Geographically, a Viking Age may be assigned not only to Scandinavian lands (modern Denmark, Norway and Sweden)"
Well, the time bracket is the on when when these countries were etablished. Like, Norway, 872. Of course with some later modifications, but nevertheless, that's when the country claims to have been unified. So, if there was no Denmark, Norway and Sweden in 793, they were there 300 years later, and partly due to those 300 years. A mention of this?
(Of Normandy:) "In that respect, descendants of the Vikings continued to have an influence in northern Europe."
So, where is Northern Europe, then? I always thought Denmark, Norway and Sweden etc. were it. Lots of descendants there.
"Geographically, a Viking Age may be assigned /.../ also to territories under North Germanic dominance".

Oh, just say it: Denmark, Norway and Sweden. I know the "Norgesveldet" is something of a later romatization, but America to Norway, that is a hefty bishopric, still.

"Generally speaking, the Norwegians expanded to the north and west..." etc. Travelled and colonized, yes; raided, all over the place.
"Viking expansion into continental Europe was limited." Settlement, yes, raiding no. Whence frankish slaves?
"The Vikings soon witnessed the violent subduing of the Saxons by Charlemagne, in the thirty-year Saxon Wars in 772-804..."
All of 11 years into the "viking age"? What, they had national broadcasts? Too much telescoping.
No coinage? Olav Tryggvason struck coins in 995.
"One Viking innovation was the 'beitass', a spar mounted to the sail that allowed their ships to sail effectively against the wind" ... Methinks not. It gives a point or to closer to the wind; but it is still a square sail.
Then the whole saga/source thing (sorry). "Although they were generally a non-literate culture that produced no literary legacy ..."
I'll just list two key points... - With an extended time frame, _more_ of the sagas become "contemporary"-ish. - "Pre-literate societies, by definition, have no written literature, but may possess rich and varied oral traditions that effectively constitute an oral literature." (That's from Wikipedia, so it must be true. Or at least verifiable.) I know, there are shelves of academic polemic on this point. It's just that this article seems to go out of its way to summarize "We don't know if it is A or B" as "We don't know", although we might know that it is either A or B.
Sorry for the screed. Perhaps you have a certain target audience in mind.

T88.89.219.147 (talk) 02:46, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

We have a steady stream of baffled/angry Scandinavians to this page complaining about the usage of "Viking". But in English that's just what the word means. Attempts to substitute "Norsemen", "Anglo-Scandinavians" etc have not penetrated much beyond academia. Your other points no doubt have some merit. Johnbod (talk) 05:13, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
I understand that the term "Vikings" is basically universally known in the Anglosphere and the general reader can be expected to pinpoint roughly where they came from (of course, "Norway" is the only correct answer, technically, while "Sweden" isn't really; for "Varangians", of course, it would be correct). However, if, for example, at Portage#In Rus, the technically arguably incorrect term "Viking" in "Viking merchant-adventurers" were replaced with "Norse" or "Scandinavian", would the average reader be baffled? (Though in this case, "(Viking-Era) Swedish Norse" is another possibility that should leave no doubts open.) I see the same problem in Varangians. Even if the equation Viking = of Norwegian origin, Varangian = of Swedish origin isn't completely accurate, and it's more about where they went (west or east), the association of "Viking" with specifically sea-borne raiders, which has been present from the beginning and is still familiar to lay audiences (who think primarily of seafaring warriors when they encounter the term), makes the connection of Rus with Vikings both misleading and incorrect. In fact, the origin of the metonymic use of the term "Vikings" to mean all medieval Norse is largely due to the tendency to neglect or elide the fact that an ethnos cannot exist solely of pirates and that there must have been farmers, fishermen, etc., as well, as indeed there were in the case of the medieval Norse, although the Anglo-Saxons did not initially encounter this facet of the Norse in the 8th and 9th centuries. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 03:48, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Hmmm. The AS unfortunately "encountered" many Norse farmers in that period; just ones who were farming their land. Johnbod (talk) 15:02, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello. I am not going to comment much on all the different issues raised in the initial post, but feel that the Viking-Norse issue needs some basic information. In Scandinavia, there does not exist a term or word for "Norse" and therefore in the Scandinavian countries, when discussing the local people living there (or originating from Scandinavia and trading, discovering or raiding abroad) after the Nordic Iron Age and before the Middle Ages, the term and word "Viking" is used. Not just in casual conversations, but also in academic circles, including archaeology. In this context, "Viking" is not limited to raiding pirates, but comprise everybody living in or hailing from Scandinavia in the Viking Age. This approach and understanding of the word "Viking" has affected academia worldwide. I just feel I need to add this piece of information. The terms "Norse" or "Scandinavian" are looser terms that are not time-specific. They say nothing about what era of history we are talking about, when using them. RhinoMind (talk) 14:48, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Well that's interesting, as it contradicts what many Scandinavian editors here have said, and describes a situation just the same as in English (who needed no influence from Scandinavia to use the term in this way). Johnbod (talk) 15:02, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi. If I have to relate to this, you would have to be more spedific, as I fail to follow what you say and get the point. RhinoMind (talk) 15:28, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Usually Scandinavian editors, like the one who started this thread, object to using "Viking" for the general culture, insisting it should be reserved for the "pirates". See many other threads in the archives here. Johnbod (talk) 03:29, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Oh ,ok. Yeah we have certainly "been there" before. As I remembered the general outcome, we all felt that this article (and related) could benefit from a more elaborate explaining of how the various words and terms have been used thorughout history by various groups in various contexts. But nothing happened. People just continued to complain, but didn't add anything of value in this respect. And whenever I have been involved in this on-going quarrel, I have explained how Viking is used now in our day and age, in particualr what it means in academia, which is the broader meaning that I pointed out above. I remembered we were "on the same page" Johnbod? I don't think this complaining is a "Scandinavian thing" however. I just sense that various random people are eager to pin-point the exact meaning of the term Viking, but they are just writing here, hoping to shut down the entire page (which will not happen of course), instead of supplying valuable information to the page. RhinoMind (talk) 18:32, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
"In Scandinavia, there does not exist a term or word for 'Norse' ..." What about "nordisk" ...? Just a lurking suggestion, I have no special knowledge and don't plan on getting involved. Nortonius (talk) 15:05, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi. "nordisk" just translates as "northern" or "nordic" and is not geographically tied to any place. You are right however, that it is used widely, also in Scandinavian academic contexts. When used in relation to Scandinavia it also comprise the North Atlantic Islands (just stating). Like the word Norse, "nordisk" is not a time-specific term. "Nordisk" might perhaps be the best translation of the English word "Norse" I guess. RhinoMind (talk) 15:28, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Norsemen also contradicts what you are saying, RhinoMind (although admittedly, with citations conspicuously lacking). See also the talk page over there. Anyway, I just don't see why "medieval Norse" or "medieval Swedish" etc. wouldn't be an acceptable and technically accurate replacement for "Viking" in these cases, and underlines (and reminds the reader) that not all medieval Norse were pirates. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:16, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi. are you talking about the article on "Norsemen" or just the word and term "Norsemen"? "Norsemen" is exclusively an English word - much like the term Norse - that you don't find in Scandinavian languages. "Norsemen" is however a time-specific term and word, but it is not used by academia, and I have yet to see a solid definition of what it really means and comprise. RhinoMind (talk) 15:28, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
I am talking about the article Norsemen, specifically the section "Modern Scandinavian usage". As for the English term "Norse", anyway, I'm pretty sure you would not use it to talk about modern Scandinavians, as it is associated with the Old Norse and Proto-Norse language stages, so "Norse" is fine as a replacement for "Viking" in the sense of "medieval Scandinavian". --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:52, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the specification. I think this section lacks in referencing. But that should preferably be discussed on that articles TalkPage. At least in Danish, "nordbo" means people living in the North Atlantic Isles or Norway and Danes would not present or identify themselves as "nordbo". It is used to distinguish themselves from people living more northerly than themselves. Would be interesting to know how it is in other Nordic countries. And perhaps most interesting to know how it was used in the Sagas. RhinoMind (talk) 01:08, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Just FYI the Viking Age in Scandinavia came before the Middle Ages in this region. I am not aware of any time-specific definition of the term "Norse". Scandinavians of the Nordic Iron Age are also referred to as Norse people in English for example. As one example, Norse religion was practiced way before the Viking Age. Norse is not a fine replacement for Viking at all, as it is a broader term. RhinoMind (talk) 01:08, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. Johnbod (talk) 03:29, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Historians of Anglo-Saxon England generally treat Norse as a synonym for Norwegian, and distinguish between Norse and Danish Vikings. For example, N. J. Higham, The Kingdom of Northumbria, p. 173: "The hit-and-run raid on Lindisfarne [in 793] was probably the work of Norse rather than Danish warriors, straying from their accusomed haunts in the Faroes and Orkneys down the North Sea coast of Britain in search of easy loot. It is the first recorded instance of a Scandinavian raid on Northumbria and heralded the opening of the Viking Age." Dudley Miles (talk) 09:07, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
A few comments: the distinction between "varangians" and "vikings" is not only about east and west. Varangians were at first those norsemen who were employed by the Bysantine Emperor, while Vikings were pirates. After a while, "varangians" became a general word for norsemen in the east, but that does not mean they were interchangeable. Vikings were raiders or fighters. Egil's saga explicitly mentions people going viking in the "eastern way".
"Nordisk" does indeed mean "nordic". However, when used about people, and without any other qualifications, it means "from the Nordic countries". It can also mean "Norse". "Norsemen" can also be translated as "Nordmän" ("Nordbo" is in Swedish to quite as chronologically distinct). It is true that no one today is very likely to identify as such, but that does not mean that it is not used at all.
Andejons (talk) 11:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Per Norsemen, the term "Norse" is indeed only used for the Old Norse period, which is essentially identical with the Viking Age (starting in the 8th century, ending at some unspecified point after 1000). The use of "Norse" for the Nordic (not Norse!) Iron Age is ridiculously inaccurate as North Germanic languages did not exist yet at that point. It's as anachronistic as speaking of "Anglo-Saxon" or "French" in the 2nd century AD.
Bottom line, "viking" is and has always been a term specifically for seafarers and pirates and its use for Viking-Age Scandinavians, while popular, is wildly inaccurate (and even potentially offensive, equating a whole population with essentially criminal elements), and IMHO better avoided on Wikipedia whenever we can help it. (Material intended for children, for example, is a different matter.) In context (like in the article Portage), "Norse" or "Scandinavian" is usually enough, but the qualifier "Viking-Age" can be added for time-specificity if felt necessary. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi. This is a long on-going discussion on this TalkPage. Every time we have had this discussion it was agreed that the article needs to be more clear about these subtleties in the meaning of Viking (and related words and terms) and how it was used throughout history by various groups. But no one acted on it, no one added anything of value to the article to fill this gap. Anyway, WP is not (just) a dictionary of how various words and terms are defined or used in various contexts, it is an encyclopedia. And in the academia of our day and age, "Viking" now comprise much more than just raiders or pirates in the Viking Age. It is used in the way I described it in my first post to this section (scroll up). Just look it up in some of the many academic references in this article. I know, because I have supplied them myself, when I added much of the information. RhinoMind (talk) 18:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
About the term "Norse". I think you are extrapolating the development of the Norse language to define what the word "Norse" comprise. I don't see any reasonable argument for that. As a side-note I would like to say, that I would appreciate if someone wrote up an article on "The Norse". I am just not aware of any solid sources thoroughly explaining and elaborating on what it comprise. But if someone has all that information, then please share it and start a new article. I for my part would be happy to read more about it. RhinoMind (talk) 18:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
This will probably be my last comment on this issue in this thread. It was not my intention to fire up the on-going discussion on what the word and term Viking means in various contexts. I was posting my comment to correct some misunderstandings that had sneaked in prior to my comment. It is all in the sources and the refs, so please read them. I just pointed it out. RhinoMind (talk) 18:17, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm not talking about this article. I was talking about other articles that use the term "viking" inaccurately. And no, I'm not extrapolating anything, I'm just quoting what Norsemen says. You may think it is OK to say "Viking" when you mean "Viking-Age Norse", but that is only your personal POV and there is no consensus either here or in academia that this language is accurate. So, when the controversial "Viking" can be replaced by "Norse" or "Scandinavian", with or without the "Viking-Age" qualifier (as the context can make it unnecessary), I see no reason why this should not be done, as we can all agree that it is more accurate and NPOV. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:40, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't get your point. Why would you not use the term Viking to describe "The Norse in the Viking Age"? When mentioning or writing about "The Vikings" in the large majority of sources in this article, most of which are academic or written by academics, this is what is meant. It is not my personal POV. I believe that alone should settle this issue? I agree that in some contexts it is more informative to use the term Norse than Viking, but that would be easy to discern and change I think. RhinoMind (talk) 19:22, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
I would like to add, that there is a tendency among some editors to believe that it was only a tiny minority of Norse people in the Viking Age that "went Viking". This is not true. It was vast numbers of people. Maybe less so Norse people from Sweden. A great deal of (ordinary) Norse people participated in Viking raids at times (mainly through Felags), while farming, fishing or living lives as ordinary settlers at others. So extracting the term "Viking" from "The Norse in the Viking Age" and reserving it for a few individuals does not add up. It is misleading. I think that perhaps this is why "Viking" in academia comprise all Norse people in the Viking Age. Because it would be near impossible to settle whether certain individuals took part in Viking raids at some point in their lives or not. And perhaps even more importantly, because Viking raids was such an important aspect of the culture and economy of the Norse in the Viking Age. RhinoMind (talk) 19:22, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
There were still women, children and old people, for once. By far most Norse never went viking, only young, able-bodied men did (and perhaps a few young women). Equating Norse and vikings in the early medieval period is like equating Americans and GIs or Germans and Wehrmacht soldiers in the 1940s. It erases a ton of people. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 08:49, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes I get your drift, but still Viking raids were a decisive cultural and economic driver for the Norse and Norse culture in the Viking Age. They gave access to slaves (labor + trade). They secured the Norse control of the Baltic Sea area. They ignited fear and weakened their enemies and consolidated their power against the Slavs and the Catholics in mainland Europe. This way they could uphold their own culture, religion and way of life. They were used to conquer new land that was subsequently settled. They opened up and secured foreign trade with expensive exotic goods, which not only improved their own economy, but also secured them influence and power in all of Europe. That being said, I would also like to see an article on "The Norse" at some point in the future, providing broader and basic information about their culture, etc., but as mentioned earlier, I am not aware of any academic sources that approach the subject in these terms. Until then, I have provided much of the information in the present article about everyday life, sports, games, etc., that isn't part of Viking raids specifically. RhinoMind (talk) 17:24, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi,

I should probably report in, as the cause of this quarrellette. First of all, it's true that at least Norwegian historiography unabashedly speaks of a "Vikingtid", a "Viking era", although IIRC this term only goes back to some 19th century archaeology professor making up labels as he tried to catalogue finds stored in some museum basement.
And obviously, vikings and the viking age is something people are interested in,it's studied and written about, and is a perf. legit. subject. Not because I 'agree', but because it is so. Just to be clear.
I did the briefest of wikiwalks, and have found a number of interrelated and hence possible relevant pages.
Data first, polemics later.
Data:
"History" pages:
Generally, there is a lot of overlap, with no clear "centre" and "limit" and no clear structure.
Seemingly, this has been a TP subject on several pages for years.
One overarching theme, IMO, is reflected here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_region

If so, the "super-page" ("portal"?) should be
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Scandinavia - a summary of the history of the local nations.
This page contains the section
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Scandinavia#Viking_Age
which is, according to my bias, one good way of being channeled into the subject.
One easy thing to do would be to link to this page from all the "Viking" themed pages, as "background".
It would probably also not hurt to expand that section of the article, at least with comprehensive linking.

Next up would be
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking_Age

This is where the battle should be ... disclosure:
A similar gripe of mine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Viking_Age#Why_is_there_a_Viking_Age.3F
More on that later.

Next up would be any and all "Viking theme" pages, like
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking_expansion
and "warfare", "ships", "religion", "litterature", "sagas", "runes" etc. etc.

"Viking Age" and theme pages could also all link to History of Scandinavia.

"Language" pages:
Re "norse", one term used locally is "norrøn" ("norroen"), which covers the medieval period from 6-700 til 11-1300 in Scandinavia, including language and culture, but not so much political history.
https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norrøn

In EN Wiki, this is treated as an exclusively linguistic category, covering only "Old Norse" language.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Norse#Old_West_Norse
But based on the local use of "norrøn", and considering "Norse" its English translation, I, fwiw, see no problems using "Norse" as a generic term covering the same topics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norsemen
concerns itself mainly with the linguistic explanation of the meaning of the term, and the "who is a Norseman" question.
Interesting 2014 discussion about structure and redundancy.

Polemics:
My main grief is the time slot, with the UK history perspective giving this almost to the hour of the day "switch on, switch off" effect unknown for any other period of history.

The section "Historical considerations" opens "The earliest date given for a Viking raid is 789 AD...", which may be true for the UK, but ...

Well, the old "Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde" may be slightly out of date as a source, but still ... in the "Wikinger" article
https://archive.org/stream/reallexikonderge04hoopuoft#page/528/mode/2up
it mentions "Germanic peoples" - Goths - raiding in Greece and Asia minor 3rd + 4th century, 5th century Herule and Saxon pirates, Hugleig (Hygelac, Chochilaicus,killed on the Rhine in 515), and Danes raiding France e.g. 565. Even for the British Isles, it has possibly Norwegian pirates raiding Tory Island near Donegal and Eigg Island in the Hebrides in 617.

While argueing that these are not per se Viking raids is correct, argueing that these are not Viking raids because "they fall outside the Viking age of 793 - 1066" is obviously circular, and there lies the rub. This narrow perspective only holds for the British Isles.
While this perspective could be justified by the fact that the UK was a fringe area of Europe, weak enough to be one of the few places where the Vikings could alter history (which they didn't in e.g. France or Frisia), one could also argue for emphasizing continuity - in space and time - a little bit more.
The Vikings ran a lap in a pirate relay race, taking over (IMO) from Saxon pirates and in turn handing over the Hanse which, together with the Black Death, brought to an end the Norse culture in the form that spawned the Viking raiders.

The Viking Age comprised much better organised, much larger and much more frequent raids than seen previously. But Viking raids as you also points out, were also practised way before 793, in particular among the Scandinavians/Norse themselves. There was a technical evolution of the ships however and that is one of many factors that might have contributed to the sudden burst of large well-organised raids far away from Scandinavia itself. Info about that is up on WP already I think. Overall I dont think we are empowered to settle whether the Viking Age really started in 793 AD or not, as editors here on a WP TalkPage. But we could certainly add info about the practise and scale of Viking raids before this specific year. But isn't it already up? RhinoMind (talk) 12:56, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

IMO an overarching perspective like that is the only way to integrate the content of the various subpages while allowing a better, more in-depth presentation of major and minor facts. Now it reads a bit like a random gleaning of out-of-context sentences from each of the hundreds of "popular history" books.
Oh, and since I'm unaccounted for, I got a new whois number. Still me, though.
T 85.166.162.8 (talk) 01:42, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi. It would really help, if you made a WP account. Your IP adress might change, but your account is the same. And we could all tell if we had discussed stuff before with "you" too. RhinoMind (talk) 12:46, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi, if you follow the link to my "Why is there a Viking Age" hobby horse rant, you'll find the "old" me. :) T 85.166.162.8 (talk) 14:37, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
All I see is a User:83.109.180.48 ? Am I looking in the wrong place? RhinoMind (talk) 17:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that's my old number. The link gets you to the "Why is there a Viking Age" post, no? T 85.166.162.8 (talk) 22:10, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
I have other areas I would like to comment on in the intial post of this growing thread, less so for this last post. But maybe later. RhinoMind (talk) 12:46, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Barbarity Continued

I had removed this section from the article: Contrary to the wild, filthy image of Vikings, the early thirteenth-century chronicler John of Wallingford described a grave problem of Englishwomen seeking out Danish men as lovers because of their appealing "habit of combing their hair every day, of bathing every Saturday, and regularly changing their clothes," in contrast to local men.

It is referenced from this: Ullidtz, Per "1016: The Danish Conquest of England" publisher=Books on Demand

The content is speculative not factual and the source appears to be from a self-publishing company. WP:SELFPUBLISH material is a WP:VERIFY issue. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi, yes; however, over at John's own page, the quote is given with several refs.
The chronicle writer is nonetheless still occasionally quoted, for example his remark preceding his account of the St. Brice's Day massacre of the Danes in 1002 during the reign of Ethelred the Unready, that
"the Danes, thanks to their habit of combing their hair every day, of bathing every Saturday and regularly changing their clothes, were able to undermine the virtue of married women and even seduce the daughters of nobles to be their mistresses."
[12][13][14][15] are
[12] cf Gale ii p.547, Stevenson p.558
[13] Cited by Kristina Ambrosiani (1981), Viking age combs, comb making and comb makers, p. 161
[14] Paul Sullivan (2012), Bloody British History: Oxford, The History Press page
[15] cf also: Gwyn Jones. A History of the Vikings. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1968. p. 177.
To this day, in the Scandinavian countries the name for "Saturday" is "lørdag/lördag", from "laugardag", "wash -" or "bath day" .
T 85.166.162.8 (talk) 09:41, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Viking Age Dating

Hi,
I thought I'd break out this subject from the Great Discussion above.
A Julian D. Richards published "The Vikings. A very short introduction" in 2005 (Oxford UniPress). He makes the interesting experiment of basing himself almost exclusively on archaeological finds, leaving e.g. the sagas aside. I note, by the way, that such methodological considerations are absent from the article. The source situation is perhaps complex enough to deserve its own article. But I digress.
In chapter 1. Richards claims that the dating of the "age" as beginning from 793 cannot be upheld, as 8. century gravegoods containing Irish and English artefacts show that the contacts across the North Sea predate the viking raids.
Maybe not the end-all of references, but at least it is one, and from a Brit, no less (I couldn't ask for more).
I only have the book in translation, but perhaps someone out there knows someone who knows someone, etc.
"The Vikings and the Viking age are an aspect of a period of Norse people's struggle for consolidation and expansion (Main article: History of Scandinavia) with historical roots in the late Migration and Merovingian era, ebbing and ending with the integration of the resulting nation states of Denmark, Sweden and Norway (see "History of ...") in the wider European politics as a result of stronger central power after christianization." is what I would like to find a RS that says ... :)
"Historical sources include a variety of contemporary local chronicles and annals from the British Isles, Frisia, Francia, Russia and Byzantium, as well as Norse oral history recorded during the Middle ages. There are also numerous archaeological findings." (etc. on reliability, contradictions ...).
As mentioned somewhere else, widening the time frame also has the effect that some "later" sources become more "contemporary" sources, like the saga of King Sverre. Just a caveat.
T 85.166.162.8 (talk) 14:28, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I made a short reply in the Great Discussion (love that name!) above. I don't think precise beginnings or ends is particularly interesting, fruitful or even possible, but I am willing to sidested that view for a moment. Apart from the Viking raids in Scandinavia itself before 793, we also have the Salme ship burial in Estonia as another example of earlier possible raids. There is a WP article up about it. And if I remember correctly also an example from the south Baltic coast. But then, one could also proceed and categorize the Anglo-Saxon and Jutish invasions of Great Britain centuries before as Viking raids? I mean coastal raiding is probably as old as boats. I don't think this way of approaching stuff is going to settle anything. Terms are just human ways to impose order and structure onto a bigger reality. Models are never perfectly right, absolute and all embracing, because they can never be. And if some term or phrase is agreed upon generally in academia, that is what we use as a common reference frame until somthing else comes around. There are other places (than WP) where we can challenge established reference frames and general concensus. RhinoMind (talk) 17:50, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi, it's hard to disagree. Still, pls bear with me as I present some different thoughts. It's not to insist on anything, particularly, but to make sure that, if, say, everyone disagrees with me, it is about what I propose, and not something else.
Overall, I'm puzzled by the direction of your post, which appears to be "nowhere" - i.e. to leave matters as they are. I believe that at least the circularity argument has sufficient merit that one could try hypotheses 1, 2 or 3 before settling on the 0 alternative. As in, without having "the" answer, I still think the question is valid.
I agree that precise dates are irrelevant - but precise dates are what is given; that's more or less my point, actually. If the issue can be resolved by "embedding" the topic in a wider context, even if only by the simple expedient of adding some links, again, why not consider it _if_ it improves the article?
Wrt. fruitfulness, I think that the point on the sources is relevant here. Consider Snorri and his "Kringla Heimsins". It is argued that since he wrote after the events, he should be discarded as a source. However, Snorri did not start from scratch, he was more akin to a modern historian in that he referenced (and, of course, sometimes embellished) earlier, mainly 11. century histories. Now, _if_ it is allowed that Norse society did not undergo a sudden 180 degree change one day in 1066, Snorri's sources suddenly become more "contemporary" sources. I agree, it's a rather scholastic argument, but again, it is one.
Wrt. the model, I think the subject matter suffers for it. My impresssion of the model is not that it is abstracted from the data, but that it is imposed as an axiom, and then used to discard data that do not fit the model. Even within the narrowest time frame we are talking about 250 years of pretty rapid development in at least three countries, and many more if you include satellites and holiday destinations. Events are per def. unique, and only a goodly number of similar events can serve as a basis for extrapolating a valid model. The core of events could, by their results in the Norse countries, be summarized as what the Migration era did for Europe further south: bring to the fore the peoples around whom at the end of the Middle Ages the budding nation states would form. "Viking yarns" like the discovery of Vinland, Haardraade in Constantinople and elsewhere, or colourful characters like Eigil Skallagrimson would be incidental sideshows, while for many afficionados such stories form the high points and the spur of interest in the Vikings in the first place. Alternatively, one could of course stick with the "anglo-centric" view that the two main themes of the Viking Age are Alfred the Great and William the Conqueror.
Sorry, got carried away.
Yes, time frames may not settle things; but then, will they ever be settled?
Wrt. the litterature, I would say that the problem may not be too few, but rather too many books, written over at least a century, and with varying quality, standards of academic rigour and broadness of outlook. IMO both the "model" and the time frame issue are a result of slapping patches on the old model instead of undertaking any fundamental revision to reflect newer research results.
I do see, of course, that it is an "is/ought" issue, the - IMO - ideal ranged against reality. A lot of work, for sure.
Thx for all the patience. I hope that this at least makes clear what I think the vote is about. And may the dice fall. T 85.166.162.8 (talk) 22:57, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
There's a vote? Where, and on what? Johnbod (talk) 17:31, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Absurdity of "Genetic Race-Science" Section

There is no such thing as Viking ancestry thus conceived in terms of our notion of haplogroups of population genetics. Wikipedia should know better -

The earliest remains of Nordic-Viking types are patrilineal bearers of G-M201 - supposedly a "Hither-Asiatic" non-European grouping - how do the Nordic-primacy folks Wikipedia indulges explain the fact?

The Bure kinship is HG G - ?

The Norse-blood-bearing English Plantagenet and French, old-Norman-descended regents, again, haplogroup G variants -

Yet, the only reference is to "R" - "R" is kin to the Old-Siberian palaeo-Caucasoid ethnic nucleus connecting monogenetic unity between "Amerindians" and "White Westerners" - and genomic population excavation recently has shown, only intermixture with the "Anatolian" folk mentioned above, is what allowed the formation of the "Caucasian" "Europoid" phenotype, "white man"...

All of our old ideologically-charged, identity-politics-based regressive concepts are pitiful spooks of our own imagination and associating any variant of R unilinear-fashion with "Viking blood" is laughable!

There are only preponderant numbers, and the numbers do not statistically exist as meaningful in this case of "Viking personal genealogy" - there is I, R, but just as many G, etc., and/or "Uralic-Turkish" markers in Norse Viking old-feudal familial strains, mentioning R is simply a fossil of ignorance from popularization-oriented authors and corps prostituting science for money - haplogroups exist meaninglessly here, as in so many other cases.

Neo-nationalistic, regressive-tribal motivated excuses to prop up one's lack of self-pride, racial monomania as means of escaping one's own lack of differentiation from the mass, committed by modern consumer, plebeian-minded people - Nietzsche knew this racial disease well, and the Last Man boasts the stupidity vainly. Nietzsche said the purest blood German Teutonic would never vulgarly try to inflate themselves by these means, and the same logic applies here - these "R"-partisans do not realize "R" was anthropologically Turkish, racially as "non-Europoid" as is imaginable, before what we know as Western man came into anthropogenetic formation via the SYNTHETIC assimilation of parentage MULTIPLEX: Anatolian-"Semites", Thracians, "Pelasgians" who resembled certain N. American Indian tribes "ethnologically"; "Aryans" nothing like what moderns would consider "Aryan-like", etc.; etc., etc.

Surprisingly, Wikipedia does mention the old feudal Nordic connection to G, I just learned. You guys know about the Bure folk, I am impressed. Honestly, the oldest aristocratic families have been assayed and haplogroups none predominate in some simplistic manner, but G "Semite" and the "Uralic" are what the oldest baronial-lord stocks got chromosomally. R exists, but the type of R is not the one common in Europe and exists only otherwise in Azerbaijan and a handful of other countries European ethnic enthusiasts would not fancy.

The truth is also let known the ruling aristoi of Frankish Christendom bore paternal G - your Anglian Richard III the audience is allowed to let know was G2 - impressed again. Bold. Bravo. Letting people know the tinker-kings of modern Western society are usurpers requires some modicum of scholarly spirit, I suppose. Credit given. The type of G by the way is, again, from "Kartvelian" regions in the princely lines preserved and I am sure Nordic and Nazi-Evolian idealists learning Azeri and Turkmen resembled the old ruling caste of Europe saddens immeasurably. Only think: - who stepped in as strongmen during the early Dark Ages, late-Roman Byzantine era, as hell was breaking loose? The Imperial office was a joke, all died out there; who took power when only fist-law reigned? The "servants" of the now-deceased Imperial-Roman bureaucracy - what was their identity? HINT: Marcus Aurelius transplanted into Europe tons of elite horse-warriors of the Sarmato-Alanian blood-stock to protect necrotizing Rome's borderlands; elite skirmish guerrilla forces could not have possibly morphed into "Westerners", right? LOL. "Westerner", all of this talk is pure conceptual spookery and bigotry, in the end.

Those hired, the mercenary hirelings, by the defunct dead Roman authority, to actually do something, enforce order, were steppe nomad Caucasians of every variety - gee golly, the same people found both in modern Azerbaijan and the regional area and the same blood found in the oldest king dynasties of Europe and the first "Vikings"...

Vikings = Nortmanni = Northmen = ?

Snori Sturlson lets us know what all these words mean - we are just deaf. Gardirike, the North-land, Snori says, was not always humanly inhabited. The settlers came from the "south-lands" today we know as Azerbaijan, etc.

ASAHEIM, not some mythopoetic dream, but a real-world, mundane city stronghold, close to and associated with TROY OF PRIAMUS, of TURKLAND. TURK-LAND is where Snori relates, Odin/Wotan and his bloodstock came from to populate and create the ethnographic profile of Scandzia. TROY rightly philologically understood is a place modern fools would only understand as a coastal Turkish city not conceivably connected to "Western identity" because of their regressive racial bias - did the German excavations in "Turkey" of archeological warrior face-masks of "Greek Homeric warriors" help no one learn anything here?

Snori knew and lets know to those with ears now, just not the donkeys who believe in some sort of single haplogroup supremacy, an identitarian ideology justifying lack of personal achievement unfortunately populistic profiteers, half-merchants, half-scientists, sometimes encourage; e.g. Spencer Wells, who, hilariously, in his first book, stated "R1a" is the exclusivistic "Aryan-Kurgan-Viking" marker, basing himself on the research of cultural sociological kind of a fanatic feminist ideologue, Maria Gumbatas, when the EMPIRICALLY-TESTABLE, DISCONFIRMATION-grade, real rigorous research was only even beginning. All serious co-workers in pop. gen. laughed at these absurdities monetarily-motivated that goofball uttered.

Wells had enough conscientious scientific honesty to correct that nonsense lately, now he talks about the R1a contribution to European physiotype, introducing convoluted "Ural-Altaic" accentuations, the same stupid racial lenses of sight underneath. However he recanted, idiots like Wells made sure the damage is done; every Joe Six Pack in the West of the mid-to-upper bourgeoisie with ego self-concept issues, sent in their swabs to all sorts of corps practicing illegal research; every Joe Six Pack in the West and esp. America, thinks they are a Jarl descendent, some sort of godlet Viking Zionist mission-bound to "save" the world by Americanizing all the "racial inferiors" who are one codon away from their own genotype, like the Native Americans the new Zion heroes treated so magnanimously, so carefully making distinctions between vastly different tribal, ethnological groups. Wounded Knee is underlying Wikipedia, haunting silently unawares, dear editors.

Anyhow, some sort of mysteric numinous halo now surrounds "R" and "R1a" when the enthnophylogeny of Europe and Northern Europeans is discussed. What is funny is "Semite" "Hither-Asians" (G, etc.) technically first had "white" features, even the possibility for non-brown eye color (just look it up, no lying) and the "R" folk of Old Europe racially looked like Siberians or Native Americans until the crucial mixture from the "ALIEN FARMER EASTERNERS"... These poly-dimensional, multi-parental and opposite of simplistic ethnocentric ideology-fantasized events, of unknown layers and striatum of ethnic cross-directional "meetings", no simple scenario remotely, created "HOMO EUROPEAUS"...

White man, as Nietzsche stated in his unpublished notes, is a mixture of "Mongoloid", "Thracian-Cimmerian" (Homer's heroes - all from Cimmerian-Scythian "Asiatic" ancestry, if deeply analyzed...similarly...hmm...those straight-from-Heaven-born SAXONS could not conceivably be related to the old SAKA/SACAE of SAKASTAN in "Asiatic" Afghanistan of "non-whites"?), "Pelasgian-Palestinian", and "Norse-Teuton", among others, - the "Greek genius" only had as a catalytic springboard point of upward spiration in creative racial intermixture, not its explanation; and more complex processes of idiovariation beyond genetic materialism, made the "Greek miracle"...

Things are never simple. Either make the material about genetics honest and less racially biased, or remove it, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:B34B:A940:18DB:488A:D530:E944 (talk) 01:52, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

A word for "Norse"

Hi,
glued this together from the DA, NO and SE pages on the subject:
Norrøn [pronounciation]
Norrøn is the term for "Norse" in the Scandinavian languages, and the adjective is used to refer to the medieval society, history and culture in the Nordic countries. In a narrower sense, the term applies to Norway and Iceland from about 800 to 1319. The term is also used for the Norwegian ancestry population in the Faroe Islands, Shetland, the Hebrides, Orkney and Man in the same period.

Etymology

"Norrøn" derives from the Old Icelandic composite "norðr-", which means "north" and "-rœnn", originally "-rœnr", an umlaut form of the root "rón-" that means: «coming from, being from".
History
Around 800 CE people from Norway began to settle in the Faroe Islands, Shetland and Orkney, and a little later in the Hebrides and Man. Around 870 the settlement of Iceland began. Around the same time Harald was king in western Norway after the Battle of Hafrsfjord. This affected not only people in Norway, but also the population of the islands to the west. One might therefore argue that the Norse period began with the Battle of Harfsfjord. The Norwegian kings eventually came to dominate the island populations , both politically and symbolically. Norse culture and language were common to the entire Norse area. The end of the Norse era is often set to 1319, when the last king of Sverre's blood, Haakon V Magnusson, died, and Norway entered into union with Sweden under a coommon king.
Norse mythology describes the pre-Christian religion of the Nordic peoples.
Wrt. language and literature, Norrøn or Norse is divided into an older Norse period (700 to 1050) and a younger Norse period (1050 to 1350), also called classical Norse.
A bit too Norway-centric wrt. culture and history; that centrism is only applicable in a linguistics context. T 85.166.162.8 (talk) 13:21, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Just a few things to add. As some of the explaining text also hints at, "Norrøn" can not be used interchangeably with the word "Norse" in every situation. Norrøn is used in relation to culture-dating, not about people for example. A person can not be Norrøn, but a text or cultural aspect can. We have discussed translations of the word Norse before, lately in the "Stuff" thread not far above this section. "Norrøn" is an old-fashioned way of saying "nordisk" (which translates as Nordic), but sometimes still used when you want to emphasize that something i old, antique or dating to before Scandinavian medieval times (Viking Age + Nordic Iron Age). That is how it is used in academic contexts in Scandinavia. From the previous discussions, I think we can extract that the best translations of Norse are "nordisk" or "nordbo", but when talking about culture and historical sources specifically, "norrøn" could also be used. But doesn't this whole discussion belong somewhere else other than the TalkPage of Vikings? RhinoMind (talk) 17:25, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it does. Johnbod (talk) 17:30, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Oh, you were faster than me. I deleted that last sentence. Now inserted again with strike-through. RhinoMind (talk) 17:37, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
I wanted to delete it, because with all I said I think I was not the one to tell that this belonged somewhere else. I don't really mind it being here. But better places would probably be Norsemen? Or ... I don't know. RhinoMind (talk) 17:39, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi, the problem with "nordisk" is that it does not hav any end date. Contemporary intra-Scandinavian contexts are also "nordisk"/"nordic"/"northern", while "norrøn"/"norse" are only applied in a historic context. I don't know of many people who use "nordbo" for anything. And no, no person i norrøn, it's not a nationality, but IMO it works the same way as "Roman" or "Hellenic" - not all subjects treated as roman or hellenistic concerns Roman citizens or members of the shadowy tribe of Hellenes. Wid dem ol' Greeks, even nationality isn't enough, you have to know the city, too ...
But as for the main point, why not treat "Vikings" like "Columbus' Voyages"? Of course there will be some background, but you don't treat "Columbus' Voyages" like the history of Spain, and one would certainly not say that the Spanish lived in a "Columbus Voyages Age". IOW, one can focus the article on the raids and raiders, and do the Norse Society where that belongs, scil. in "History of Scandinavia" + "History of Nordic Country (X,Y,Z)".
There are many reasons why your proposals cannot be implemented. First, we as editors of a WP page do not have a choice, when there is already a specific concensus in academia and other scholarly circle on what "Vikings" comprise in modern day language. Second, the Viking Age was also an age of homogenization of the cultures in Scandinavia. The Danes, the Suedes and whatever tribe was living there in the Nordic Iron Age, were muddled together by the Viking activity, settlement activity and various internal power struggles. Third, it would be a very bad approach to tackle the Norse cultures of Scandinavia from a "country-angle". The countries as we partly know them today were only beginning to be formed during the Viking Age, prior to that, the concept of countries there was non-existing or at least very vaguely defined. These were tribal lands and the extent of their lands was not well settled and changed often. On top of that the cultures living in certain geographical areas at the time cannot directly be traced to the cultures occupying the same geography today. There will be a whole lot of synthesis, if this approach is followed through. Not exactly enlightening, but very messy, and as said a synthesis. PS. I would like to say, that you are of course entitled to your own perception of things (within the boundaries of reason and reality), because things are not definite, but you cannot impose your perception onto the concensus of academia. RhinoMind (talk) 12:04, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
The academic situation is fluid - a quick Google Scholar search did not yield much on just "Vikings", although it _did_ yield one source saying exactly what you say, but also one who says the opposite ( http://www.academia.edu/1499804/Viking_Ethnicities_A_historiographic_overview )- IOW, if editors were to reach consensus on either Preserve of Change, RS backing could be found for both positions. I found the latter source illuminating as to why there is this discussion in the first place: the different role the Vikings play in e.g. British history ("Them") vs. in Nordic history ("Us"); although this is of course a very brief summary of the article, to be sure.
I can't seem to find the argument in your second point. History happened in history, yes. Powers emerged or decayed, borders shifted, rulers changed. How do these general remarks relate to the issue?
Wr. your third and somewhat compound point ... a) I see no problem in having a solid section on mid-medieval history for each of the involved countries. Finding this under the page for e.g. Sweden, I don't think anyone would find it necessary to conflate moden Stockholmers and Roslagen Vikings; au contraire, the full historical background is precisely that which explains why one should not do that. b) Also, nobody thinks that while we today treat e.g. Norway as a country and nation here of Wikipedia, that Harald Haarfagre saw it the same way. Then again, he used a diffrent word for it: a "rike", scil. a "reign", a dominium or imperium, for which there were plenty of examples, not only Merovingians and KdG Franks, but also in local kingdoms writ larger, so to speak. c) as for synthesis, that doesn't have to happen, that is a matter of using the relevant RS'es. And d), even if countries are inappropriate units, there is still available the more 'holistic' use "historical region"/"History of Scandinavia".
IOW, I am not convinced by exactly those arguments presented here; perhaps thre are others. OTOH, I'm trying more for a kind of brainstorming, not really pushing any particular proposal yet - I think it is clear that something needs to be done.
T 85.166.162.8 (talk) 21:13, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Even this will leave grey areas, e.g. Norse military and political presence abroad,, with e.g. Hardraade not as a raider, but a failed conqueror, an unsuccessful claimant to the throne, much un/like his contemporary William the Conqueror; while settlements and cities and trade could still be part of the "Vikings" article. T85.166.162.8 (talk) 20:41, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
I believe it would be much more productive and constructive, if you move this attention to the articles on Norsemen, Northmen and the like. These articles are in dire need of proper referencing and sourcing. This article is not. RhinoMind (talk) 12:12, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Looked in on them; not thrilled. The problem is, AFAICS, a lot of redundancy. "Norsemen" starts with the linguistic definition, but then also tries to do a "History of Scandinavia" as well as a "Vikings". It like having sugar and salt and pepper, but instead of keeping one box of each, it's all mixed to gether and then divided into three boxes. The best outcome of his discussion would be to find a criterion for "sorting salt with salt", and then perhaps make a list of viking related pages, and gently nudge them into some semblance of sructure. I think that's true whatever The Us agree is the properest and bestest terms to use. T 85.166.162.8 (talk) 21:13, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Viking / Norse burials

The second paragraph in subsection "Burial Sites" starts "According to written sources, most of the funerals took place at sea. The funerals involved either burial or cremation, depending on local customs." - Can someone with edit rights PLEASE either add any (genuine academic) citation at all for the first sentence (though given the statement a number would be more appropriate) or else remove the sentence since this sentence along is the only one to mention sea burial with all other links referring to cremation (on land) and burial (difficult to do at sea without turning it into land or diving gear)... if only because those two sentences one after the other is good for a laugh at the expense of the contributions by all users to this otherwise relatively accurate article and make it sound untrustworthy because someone stated taht most Viking burials were at sea without a shred of evidence... (one would expect better in _this_ sort of Wikipedia article). 2016/09/21 22:57:42 *<:@) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.93.52.190 (talk) 21:58, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Vikings from Estonia / Víkingr frá Esthland

It's been confirmed by archaeologists, that also the island of Ösel / Saaremaa was inhabited by what is defined as vikings. If we define vikings by the shape of the ship, the way they carried out raids and their societal arrangement. The only difference is that those vikings were from the Finno-Ugric tribes.

Specifically, the Oeselians or "Víkingr frá Esthland", as written in the Ynglinga saga

Some more reading:

The Salme ships The Oeselians

Runes were used by the Oeselians until the 12th century — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaanMatti (talk • contribs) 19:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

In the wake of this,

1) the Oeselians should be added to the "vikings" page 2) The starting paragraph, written as "Vikings ... were Norse seafarers, speaking the Old Norse language" - should be rewritten, because the Oeselians were Finnic, not Norse

Missing comma

This period of Nordic military, mercantile and demographic expansion constitutes an important element in the early medieval history of Scandinavia, Estonia the British Isles, France, Kievan Rus' and Sicily.[3]

There clearly needs to be a comma after "Estonia."

12.154.171.180 (talk) 15:28, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. Nortonius (talk) 16:05, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Vikings from Macedonia

It seems the first person mantioned as viking was Philip II of Macedon, father of Alexander the great. He was not Nordic, not Scandinavian, and did not speak a norse language, and didnt come from Viken. It has to be repeated that this article viking, does not reflect scientific knowledge about vikings, but more the myths about vikings, that they were a tribe, a people, etc, when in fact the word viking was nothing but a translation of the latin word pirate, to the oldenglish. A Viking=pirate could come from just anywhere, Icelandic sagas describes attacking Arabs as Vikings. People with other opinion will probably argue this for some years, but they will never be able to prove their opinion. There were simply no people called vikings, the people referred to in this article is Norsemen, which is scientifically accepted term for the people from Scandinavia, and alot of content in this article should be moved to that article. Dan Koehl (talk) 11:41, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I do not know what Vikings have to do with Philip of Macedon. He is not mentioned in this article. I also do not see what is meant by saying that Norsemen is the scientifically accepted term. How and by whom? Historians of Anglo-Saxon England distinguish between Danish Vikings and Norse Vikings, meaning from Norway. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:06, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Let me then enlighten you:
As a Scandinavian, I object to that all my Scandinavian ancestors, although belonging to "Norseman" and "Northmen" during the Viking Age, are on the english Wikipedia described as vikings, when most probably 99% of Northmen were not, and reliable sources claim that at least most Swedes were defending their country against vikings..

I strongly believe that he word, and the article Viking should reflect the historical persons who were really vikings, and not my forefathers. Its time that also in the english language, the word Viking gets a modern definition, and not belong in the same box as Nigger, Nazi, and other term that people has used for groups of people. I am a scandinavian, and so were my ancestors in Scandinavia between 800 and 1066. Most probably, only a very few percent of them were vikings.

I want biased POV articles like Viking to become NPOV; so that you can read about true, documented Vikings, on the page about vikings, and not read myths, fantasies, or a lot of stuff that refer to norse people in general. Now the article Norseman is even redirected to viking article, which is not correct: Viking is an oldenglish word that means pirat, and the latin word piratae is directly translated to viking in numerous documents, during medevial time. I argue that the article Viking, should supply information about vikings and not about a late misinterpreted ideas about who Vikings were, or any fantasies people may have. I object to that article viking expands the original meaning, including more or less every Norseman during viking time; (people of north Germanic descent, people of the Norse culture, scandinavians, scandinavian kings, tradesmen, settlers, founder of cities, explorers of America), since viking has only one meaning: it means pirate. A pirate can be from just anywhere. And a Norseman, or Scandinavian person during medieval time who didnt perform piracy should not be referred to as a viking.
Vikings, as any pirate, could origin from anywhere: 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.
Vikings, as any pirate, can not be labelled as tradesmen, (or any civil profession) because tradesmen doesnt perform piracy: Egil Skallagrimsson: 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.)
Vikings, as any pirate, can never be used as a label for someone who is not viking, like a scandinavian who defend his land against viking raids, or a king who chases away vikings from his land: Harald I of Norway At last, Harald was forced to make an expedition to the West, to clear the islands and the Scottish mainland of some Vikings who tried to hide there.. (the original text says in english translation:
King Harald heard that the vikings, who were in the West sea in winter, plundered far and wide in the middle part of Norway; and therefore every summer he made an expedition to search the isles and out-skerries (1) on the coast. Wheresoever the vikings heard of him they all took to flight, and most of them out into the open ocean. At last the king grew weary of this work, and therefore one summer he sailed with his fleet right out into the West sea. First he came to Hjaltland (Shetland), and he slew all the vikings who could not save themselves by flight. Then King Harald sailed southwards, to the Orkney Islands, and cleared them all of vikings. Thereafter he proceeded to the Sudreys (Hebrides), plundered there, and slew many vikings who formerly had had men-at-arms under them.
-King Harald would never agree that he was a viking-king, he was, like probably 99% of Scandinavians were, fighting vikings.

Dan Koehl (talk) 19:03, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

While I can agree with you on some points, it's not our place to try and control, modify, alter nor enforce the English language. No encyclopedia or dictionary has ever been able to do that. If they did, we'd still be speaking Old English today. The language is determined by society. The term "Viking" is generally thought to be derived from the Old Norse, vikingr, literally meaning "one who comes from the fjords". It's similar to the English "highlander," or one who comes from the mountains, in reference to the Picts (Scots). The word "Viking" didn't enter English until the 1800s. Instead the English word for the raiders was Deniscan (Danes). I use the word "raider" because "pirate" in this context usually refers to the commandeering of vessels at sea.Zaereth (talk) 19:57, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

We have a policy against Righting Great Wrongs: "Wikipedia is a popular site and its articles often appear high in the search engine rankings. You might think that it is a great place to set the record straight and Right Great Wrongs, but that’s not the case. We can record the righting of great wrongs, but we can’t ride the crest of the wave because we can only report that which is verifiable from reliable and secondary sources, giving appropriate weight to the balance of informed opinion: even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. So, if you want to:

  • Expose a popular artist as a child molester, or
  • Vindicate a convicted murderer you believe to be innocent, or
  • Explain the "truth" or "reality" of a current or historical political, religious, or moral issue, or
  • Spread the word about a theory/hypothesis/belief/cure-all herb that has been unfairly neglected or suppressed by the scholarly community,

on Wikipedia, you’ll have to wait until it’s been reported in mainstream media or published in books from reputable publishing houses. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or original research. "Wikipedia is behind the ball – that is we don't lead, we follow – let reliable sources make the novel connections and statements and find WP:NPOV ways of presenting them if needed." Dimadick (talk) 09:46, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok, Dan is back. See Talk:Viking/Archive_5, and talk pages on related topics for much much more like this. Johnbod (talk) 13:38, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
I looked into the archive and ... wow. It just goes on and on like that. I've seen this a lot where the meaning of words change, so people try to change the word itself so that it fits in a much too literal sense. Alloy wheel is a good example, which refers only to wheels made from nonferrous alloys. People desperately argue that it should include steel wheels, because steel is also an alloy. However, steel wasn't considered an alloy until recently (sometime between the 1930s and the 1970s). The term, by modern definition, is inaccurate when taken literally, but language is rarely that literal.
The meanings of words change all the time and we, as an encyclopedia, have no control over that. We simply have to follow the language as used by society. One of my favorite examples is "gear." Originally this meant "habits and mannerisms." It wasn't until the last century that it came to mean "a wheel with interlocking teeth." In Old English, "deer" was any wild animal, whereas "cattle" was any domesticated animal, including your dog. The word "dog" itself is extremely interesting, for it has no cognates in any other European language. The Old English word for the species was "hund (hound) and "dog" was likely a specific breed, but somewhere along the line the meanings became reversed. The point is that no dictionary or encyclopedia had any control over any of this, and never will, so it's a pointless waste of time to try and alter the language we speak today. Zaereth (talk) 23:04, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
There is also the other end of the spectrum, where words are stretched beyond what is credible. Here is a recent example, related to this page: Viking Childhood. If I am to decide that page should be closed or at least renamed. RhinoMind (talk) 01:23, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
This isn't so much about meaning changing over time as the same word having different meanings in different languages. In Scandinavian languages "Viking" is not, as it is in English, an ethno-historical term like "Anglo-Saxon", but an activity - piratical raiding. So Dan violently objects to talk of "Viking women" and "Viking Childhood" (ok, a rather odd title). He has in the past mass-substituted "Norsemen" for Viking across loads of articles. But he has to accept that in the English language English-language meanings apply. Johnbod (talk) 03:20, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, it's a common problem for non-native speakers of any language to take meanings too literally or to argue that word is inconsistent with their understanding, especially when the word originated in their native language. I was kinda responding to a comment from the archives which stood out to me, but the point is that it's not our place to try and alter the language. We need to write in words that a majority of native English-speakers will understand. Facebook would be a far better forum for changing the way people speak. Zaereth (talk) 19:26, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Right. I don't deny that a gradual shift to "Norse", "Anglo-Norse" etc is in progress, and has probably mostly been achieved in academic jounals etc, but eg when the British Museum (and Museum of Scpotland) had a big exhibition last year they stuck with Viking, knowing what the public responds to. And Viking is more flexible as a noun, adjective etc, though interestingly it is not a verb in English, as it is in its original home. Johnbod (talk) 23:52, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Another reason why the British should make a British Wikipedia (the North Americans a US Wikipedia, the Australians an Australian Wikipedia and so on). This is the English Wikipedia, a Wikipedia with a global perspective, that happens to use British English. Many users with English as their first language are massively confused by this. RhinoMind (talk) 00:23, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
That's an entirely different discussion. Even within countries, dialects vary considerably from place to place. Zaereth (talk) 00:28, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Well, at least it is a great discussion with many facets indeed. But it does explain that English Wikipedia has a global perspective on things, not a culturally biased one. RhinoMind (talk) 00:32, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
No, it is culturally biased, towards English-speakers of all varieties - the English Wikipedia does NOT "use British English" - see WP:ENGVAR. Another fundamental misconception of yours. There is no difference as regards Viking between the different varieties of English. Non-native speakers just have to accept that words can have different meanings in English to the ones they are used to. Johnbod (talk) 06:27, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I hope Dan and any other wrong-righters will take this to heart: The sculpting of society has always been through the arts --never through the sciences. Go write an incredible novel that explains all of your feelings within a heart-wrenching story and you will win the world, but a simple thing like an encyclopedia will not accomplish this goal. (In the modern age this used to be Hollywood, but unfortunately corporate modeling has removed all the art from that town, so the best movies are now coming from other countries like your own.) On the other topic raised here, I will only say that unity of our language has made this the largest Wikipedia and has only helped to unite our cultures, while separating them would leave us with both far less diversity and articles than we currently have. Zaereth (talk) 10:03, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean when you say "our"? RhinoMind (talk) 00:29, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2017

correct spelling errors 81.100.69.143 (talk) 17:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done: Please be specific about the errors you want to see corrected. RudolfRed (talk) 18:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Infobox military conflict

I want to roll back my Infobox military conflict (4 hours of my work). The Vikings were warriors, not tribes or nation. The names of the nations were Norwegians, Danes, Swedes, but not Vikings. The meaning of the word "Viking" is for somebody who has gone on a "Viking" military expedition. Their raids were military campaigns and my belief is, that using infobox of military conflict is reasonable, effective and correct. I spent 4 hours to create infobox and searching for viking kingdoms and their opponents in history, and I think it was not unnecessary. − Dragovit (talk) 18:14, 28. 6. 2017 (UTC)

No, sorry, it's just much too big a subject, & the box will just confuse people. You should have consulted first. At the same time, we should have decent pics at the top of the article and get the Scandinavia template to the bottom where it belongs. Johnbod (talk) 16:37, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Please see the extensive discussions above and in archives of the Vikings as far more than those who went raiding. Sources are clear that after initial raids, they settled, brought further migrants along, and became agents of trade more than warriors. Reducing their activities simply to military conflict ignores most of the page and recent scholarship. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 16:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I felt the lead was improved with the map of Viking exploration routes. The image of the Oseberg ship also complemented the text regarding Viking ships. But now Rhinomind has removed both of those images -- and no, they are not in the body any more, as Johnbod moved them. So we clearly need to discuss what should be in the lead. The infobox is rather bare, and the map is a useful addition. I searched for other decent images of Viking ships, but the view of the Oseberg prow appears to be the best available. If it is not included in the lead, it should at least be returned to the body. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 14:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. I liked your adjustment of my changes, and that should be returned. Rhinomind seemed to be confused by the changes, from his edit summary: "remove image clutter in lede. Both images are represented in the body already". Above all, there should not be a template in the lead. Accordingly, I will revert soon, unless there are objections. Johnbod (talk) 17:17, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Just wanted to elaborate on why I removed the images from the lead. A lede should not contain images tied to specific sub-categories of a certain page. Viking ships and the Viking expansion are dealt with in separate sections in the body text and images related to that belongs there. There are even specific main pages dealing with those two issues and any extra images can go there. It is important to keep a big page like this as clean as possible, especially when there are many related main pages dealing with specialized sub-categories. If you ask me, the lede does not need any images at all, but that's just my opinion. RhinoMind (talk) 21:59, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Per WP:LEAD, the lead is a summary of the body, so it will always include images and content relevant to sections of the body. Regarding images, WP:LEAD states that "As with all images, but particularly the lead, the image used should be relevant and technically well-produced. It is also common for the lead image to be representative because it provides a visual association for the topic." A map at the very least helps illustrate the topic. An image of a Viking ship would also be associative, though the one of the prow is not great. I am restoring the map for the time being, as well as the ship images to the body that were inadvertently removed. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 23:43, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes. Rhinomind, your assertions relate to no policy or guidelines that I am aware of. Since the TOC is so huge, there should be another image below. Johnbod (talk) 16:51, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
You could make a collage then? If you want images in the lede. RhinoMind (talk) 22:08, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
No, absolutely not, they are ghastly. There are already too many double images in the article. Imo, images should be single or in mini-galleries. Johnbod (talk) 03:22, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
An example of a collage
Here is a collage (not a multi-image) that I made for WikiVaoyage some time ago. Just to explicitly show what a collage really is. With the lede image up now on this Vikings page, it looks like a copy of the Viking expansion page, which is rather confusing. RhinoMind (talk) 18:51, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Yup, those are the ones I can't stand. Johnbod (talk) 19:06, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
lol RhinoMind (talk) 20:20, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Template: Vikings

The use and topic and naming of {{Vikings}} is under discussion, see template talk:Vikings -- 70.51.46.15 (talk) 05:44, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Edit request

Please add the footer template {{Viking}} to the bottom of the page. -- 70.51.46.15 (talk) 05:30, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Done SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 06:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2017

"settlement eventually died out" can be made present tense "settlement would die out" 2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 07:33, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I have revised to give fuller information and deleted an unreferenced sentence. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:07, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2017

2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 07:30, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Not done: Flow 234 (Nina) talk 10:49, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi!

a question, why there an Italian flag in the bottom of the Page, maybe the Italian flag appears on there because the Normans were in Sicily and also they had a Kingdom on there?.AlfaRocket (talk) 14:12, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I honestly have no idea why any of those flags are there, as there is no indication of their purpose to the article. It is possible that the Vikings traveled to Italy. They most certainly got around, from as far as Canada to Arabia. While the Dutch along with the Norse are often described as Vikings, I don't think the Normans (French) were. Zaereth (talk) 17:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
oh ok!, thanks for your reply, now I understand why the Flags are on the Page! regards. AlfaRocket (talk) 19:25, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Vikings characters

The title of the page List of Vikings characters is under discussion, see talk:List of Vikings characters -- 70.51.46.15 (talk) 05:01, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

That discussion has little to do with this article, since it is about fictional Vikings. I see that is has already been closed, so I will leave this comment here. If it helps, the current title is "List of Vikings characters". Note that the term "Vikings" is in italics. Basic MOS guidelines going back over a century show that, because it is in italics, this automatically indicates a title of a book, movie or TV show, thus there is no confusion or need to disambiguate further. I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 22:54, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Biased language

In the part "In 20th-century politics", there is the sentence "political organisations of the same ilk", which is clearly a biased term. I will rectify that with the neutral "political organisations of a similar sort". The common perception of Nazis and other far-right groups is irrelevant, Wikipedia should not be biased in terms of values, only in truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.239.250.137 (talk) 22:13, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

How is "ilk" a biased word? It doesn't make much sense. Take a look here for example: Oxford Dictionary. I don't care if it is changed, but your argumentation is groundless. RhinoMind (talk) 19:57, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Map of Europe in 814

The map shows England, but it didn't exist at that time. Can this be corrected?

88.97.63.197 (talk) 18:15, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

England did not exist as a unified state, but it did as the area ruled by English people. Cornwall is wrongly shown as part of England as it was not conquered until the mid-century. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:39, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2017

Pipboy900 (talk) 19:40, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. —KuyaBriBriTalk 20:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vikings/Archive_12&oldid=1066390499"