Wikifiveoh (talk | contribs) |
|||
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 927: | Line 927: | ||
::::{{ping|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 [[WP:Consensus|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. [[User:Thomas.W|'''Thomas.W''']] [[User talk:Thomas.W|'''''<sup><small> talk</small></sup>''''']] 14:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC) |
::::{{ping|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 [[WP:Consensus|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. [[User:Thomas.W|'''Thomas.W''']] [[User talk:Thomas.W|'''''<sup><small> talk</small></sup>''''']] 14:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC) |
||
::::{{ping|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. [[User:Thomas.W|'''Thomas.W''']] [[User talk:Thomas.W|'''''<sup><small> talk</small></sup>''''']] 14:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC) |
::::{{ping|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. [[User:Thomas.W|'''Thomas.W''']] [[User talk:Thomas.W|'''''<sup><small> talk</small></sup>''''']] 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. [[User:Wikifiveoh|Wikifiveoh]] ([[User talk:Wikifiveoh|talk]]) 21:48, 24 July 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:58, 24 July 2014
![]() | Vikings is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article candidate |
![]() | This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Redirect of Norseman and Northmen
Old discussion
|
---|
The first sentence in the article reads: "Norseman" and "Northmen" redirect here. Why?
Dan Koehl (talk) 16:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
WEll ZarlanTheGreen, Itseems you still dont understand, that there seems to be an obvious fact that is not discussed here. Regardless how a word gets misinterpreted during the last 50 years, it should reflect the truth in an encyclopedia. People looking in encyclopedias, in books or digital, are looking for true explanations of terms and words, not for misinterpretations. If a word gets misinterpretated for some time, due to culture, politics, or just ignorance, it doesnt mean, that things can be corrected. I remember articles about african people, gypsies, etc, when I was a child, which most people in that time accepted, which are not accepted today. People misinterpreted things, and later they got corrected.
So, when people search for, and read the article they belive that they in fact are reading about vikings, while they are partly reading about Norse. The article doesnt define when the information is about Vikings ,a dn when it is about Norse. I belive some contributors to the article are not even aware about the difference. I can read on this discussion that every month theres people who object, and they get unpolitely treated, although they come with good arguments, and with verified opinions. This means that the article is biased by some people who hold a certain opinion, and they make it not possible for others, with good arguments, to change. Thats what makes the article POV. Whatever opinion YOU have, and whatever opinion I have, the article should follow the NPOV and reflect the neutral truth. Now the article is mixed with real facts, fantasies and misintepretations, and mixed up with other terms. A baker, an engineer, a sailor etc is not presented comepletely different on different languege sectors on wikipedia. Presntly, readers on the english wikiedpa is not clearly givenn an aexplanation that the word viking reflects vikings on the german wikipedia, and unlogically reflects vikings and norse on the english. We dont help anyone searching for truth and facts, with this childish game. An apple, a ship, a tree, a baker and a viking, should be presented ina standardized way on all wikipedias. People whoread the article viking, should read information about vikings, and nothing selse, all others concept are confuesd and leads to confusion. If youare confused regarding the meaning of viking, dont force others to become as confused. Dan Koehl (talk) 02:48, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
|
- I'm content that "Vikings" has two major meanings, the narrower meaning "Norse raider" preferred in academia, and the wider popular meaning "Norsemen", and that for practical purposes, this article uses the popular meaning, but the intro does not even acknowledge the scholarly preferred meaning. Since we have an article Norsemen, I have made Norseman and Northmen redirect there as it makes no sense to have Norseman redirect here and Norsemen lead somewhere else. If there is a widespread feeling that Norsemen and Vikings should be merged, such a merger should be discussed. On the other hand, if it is felt that the subjects should, and could easily, be kept distinct, material that does not pertain to the raiders should be removed from this article.
- I have no preference either way, but I see the problem that the meaning of "Vikings" is ill-defined. Everyone agrees that the Norse raiders deserve the designation, but whether non-Norse raiders deserve it too is unclear. Moreover, whether Norse outside their original Scandinavian homelands who did not engage in raiding and other war-related activities, but only in trading, exploring and settling, are called Vikings in the scholarly sense is completely unclear to me. Eventually, in the popular sense, Norsemen who stayed in Scandinavia and never ventured abroad are called Vikings too, but if the subjects are to be kept distinct on Wikipedia the stay-at-home Norse can obviously not be treated here.
- So, are Norsemen and Vikings to be merged, aye or nay? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- I live in a Norse country (Sweden), that has a Norse culture.
- Not a country that has, historically, had a Norse culture.
- A country that has a Norse culture now (as well as historically). "Norsemen" refers to Norse people of a certain period, as does "Viking" ...and Northmen. Norse culture refers to those people, regardless of time period. The Vikings that settled in Normandy, eventually assimilated into the French culture and ceased to be Norse, but this is not true of most of the Nordic countries. Essentially, anywhere were people speak in a North Germanic language, is Norse.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 17:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- Redirecting Norse culture to Norsemen was a compromise, to avoid edit warring. The intro should say that the Vikings were Norsemen, not people with a Norse culture, because that's what they were. If you haven't alreday done so I suggest you read Norsemen, here on en-WP. Thomas.W talk 18:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- This section is getting pretty unwieldy, we may need to archive the older discussion. But I vote nay. It's clear that while all (or at least the vast majority, if you watch that TV show) Vikings were Norsemen, not all Norsemen were Vikings. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:24, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- ????? I wrote that "Vikings were Norsemen", not that all Norsemen were Vikings. And AFAIK no-one has made such a claim. (And Norseman and Northmen should of course be redirects to Norsemen, not to this article). Thomas.W talk 18:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- I think you're getting confused over what I meant. I believe that the articles should not be merged for the reasons I gave. I wasn't trying to argue with anything you said, hence why I stated the same thing.
- "Vikings were Norsemen" and "...all (or at least the vast majority, if you watch that TV show) Vikings were Norsemen..." are equivalent. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- ????? I wrote that "Vikings were Norsemen", not that all Norsemen were Vikings. And AFAIK no-one has made such a claim. (And Norseman and Northmen should of course be redirects to Norsemen, not to this article). Thomas.W talk 18:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- This section is getting pretty unwieldy, we may need to archive the older discussion. But I vote nay. It's clear that while all (or at least the vast majority, if you watch that TV show) Vikings were Norsemen, not all Norsemen were Vikings. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:24, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
On another note, does anyone object to me collapsing the discussion before today? I think starting over fresh would be a great thing, considering that the OP's arguments are no longer being discussed. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- I don't give a rat's arse about a TV show, or whatever false impression someone might get from it. "Vikings were Norsemen" and "all Norsemen were Vikings" are NOT equivalent. At least not in English, which is what matters here. Thomas.W talk 19:51, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- You should go back and carefully re-read my posts. You're clearly not understanding me, and I don't know how I could possibly make it any clearer. I never said all Norsemen were Vikings. I did say that "not all Norsemen were Vikings." I made it clear that I oppose merging the articles. I'm not sure what I said that leads you to believe I said the opposite. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- I don't give a rat's arse about a TV show, or whatever false impression someone might get from it. "Vikings were Norsemen" and "all Norsemen were Vikings" are NOT equivalent. At least not in English, which is what matters here. Thomas.W talk 19:51, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes. That is what I wrote. That does not mean what you are claiming it means. Observe:
- "Vikings were Norsemen"
- "...all (or at least the vast majority, if you watch that TV show) Vikings were Norsemen..."
Now take out the parenthetical portion (parentheses in prosaic writing are usually used to denote clarification or a side note) and you get:
- "Vikings were Norsemen"
- "...all Vikings were Norsemen..."
Do you understand now? The two sentences are equivalent, and neither of them mean "all Norsemen were Vikings", nor were they ever intended to mean such, as evidenced by my previous statement that "...not all Norsemen were Vikings." MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- But that is exactly the problem here! What are Vikings? Are only Norse raiders, pirates and shipborne warriors Vikings, or are peaceful traders, explorers and colonists Vikings too? Are Norse warriors and kings who never ventured abroad Vikings? Are Norse peasants who never left their Scandinavian homelands Vikings, as in the broad, popular conception, where all Norsemen are Vikings?
- My hunch is that Vikings and (non-Viking) Norsemen are hard to cleanly distinguish in practice, but I agree that in theory, they should not be treated as one and the same. So this article should not be about early medieval Norse culture in general. The main article for this should be Norsemen. This article about Vikings obviously needs the Norse cultural background, and will have to refer to it. But it should not be treated too extensively here.
- For example, Norse language and literature does not belong here because it is not unique to the Vikings, but common to all Norse(men), Vikings or not. If we do this anyway, we only accomodate the common conception of all Norsemen as Vikings, but you have already indicated that you disagree with this popular conflation, as it would lead to the inevitable consequence that a merger would be necessary. Keeping distinct articles also means keeping the subjects distinct. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:42, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
- To repeat and underline: Currently, this article is a de facto duplicate of Norsemen, and does not even acknowledge the difference between Norsemen and Vikings people like you make, and even insist must be made. It says: They were a seafaring people [...] based in Scandinavia. It does not even acknowledge the existence of the article Norsemen. If you vote nay regarding a merger, all the content not referring specifically to Vikings must be thrown out. But first it must be clear what this article is about, so that it is possible to tell what belongs here and what does not. And it must be acknowledged that there are at least two different conceptions of "Vikings", probably many more. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:01, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
- From where I sit, the meaning of the term is pretty clear. "Vikings" refers to those Norsemen who left their homes to raid or trade or explore. I understand that in common use, the word refers to Norse people during the Viking Age, but I don't think that should matter. In common use, the word "Coke" refers to any caramel-flavored cola. In common use, the word "Theory" refers to any idea a person comes up with to explain something, or even any idea a person has. In common use, the word "Diety" refers to the Judeo-Christian diety. To take the last example further, the word "God" refers to the Judeo-Christian diety in common use. In none of those cases do the Wikipedia articles link to the common use of the word. I'm sure it would be trivial to collect a vast assortment of examples. Wikipedia is intended to be a collection of knowledge, not a collection of cultural memes. Therefore, I think that there should be two separate articles for Norsemen and Vikings. The article about Vikings may certain reference Norse culture, religion and way of life, because these things were part of what defined what it meant to be a Viking. Similarly, the article about Norsemen may certain reference Viking practices and history, as these were major parts of the culture. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:03, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
- Per Vikings#Etymology, the term originally referred only to violent raiders, not peaceful traders. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:38, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- I think that however this plays out, we have to accept that the terms Norsemen, Vikings etc. are used in a variety of different ways by different people - I quite like Eric Christiansen's intro to Norsemen in the Viking Age for this, not because it's necessary uncontroversial - he argues that the Swedes weren't Norse, for example, even if they were called Northmen - but because it does pull out the morass of differences in the way that the terms are used. From the perspective of an encyclopedia article, though, I would argue that some form of general article is needed that covers the theme in the way that most, non-specialists would envisage it: for most members of the public who will be searching for an article on the wiki, "Norsemen" and "Vikings" are a single historical concept - they'll be using the terms interchangeably. Such an article does, of course, would, I think, need to explain the different ways in which the terms are used and applied. I'd also argue that there is value in specialised articles on something like "Norsemen (people)" (as a discussion of a specific or imagined ethnic group or groups) and "Viking (activity)" (as a discussion of a particular historical activity) - again, both of which could go into more detail as to how the terms have been, and are, used. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:14, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
- From where I sit, the meaning of the term is pretty clear. "Vikings" refers to those Norsemen who left their homes to raid or trade or explore. I understand that in common use, the word refers to Norse people during the Viking Age, but I don't think that should matter. In common use, the word "Coke" refers to any caramel-flavored cola. In common use, the word "Theory" refers to any idea a person comes up with to explain something, or even any idea a person has. In common use, the word "Diety" refers to the Judeo-Christian diety. To take the last example further, the word "God" refers to the Judeo-Christian diety in common use. In none of those cases do the Wikipedia articles link to the common use of the word. I'm sure it would be trivial to collect a vast assortment of examples. Wikipedia is intended to be a collection of knowledge, not a collection of cultural memes. Therefore, I think that there should be two separate articles for Norsemen and Vikings. The article about Vikings may certain reference Norse culture, religion and way of life, because these things were part of what defined what it meant to be a Viking. Similarly, the article about Norsemen may certain reference Viking practices and history, as these were major parts of the culture. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:03, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Interesting discussion. But I have a few words of caution to all: Don't get lost in the briars! And what exactly do I mean by that? I exactly mean that etymology, personal views and how to define and box things from the real world, is a very exciting enterprise, but it also holds the danger of clouding the obvious. "Vikings" is used by scientists and archaeologists of today to mean the Norse during the Viking Age. And that includes all their activities independently of where they choose to settle, home or abroad. So whatever you conclude here and at the end of the day, this needs to be reflected in this article. However, it does not exclude presentation of other views or details and discussions concerning the (apparently tricky) term "Viking". Ok my words of caution. RhinoMind (talk) 01:08, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- So, should Wikipedia accept the popular conflation of Norsemen and Vikings (hence yea to a merger, and currently we're already halfway there), or should it keep the concepts distinct (hence nay to a merger, and yea to slimming this article)? Folks, you can't say both "keep them distinct" and "but let's keep everything the way it is currently". I'm not saying Wikipedia should be overly pedantic, but this is pragmatism taken too far. I see the need for a clear editorial decision, instead of muddling on. The current situation is messy, dishonest and unbearable, IMHO. It's just wrong, wrong, wrong to pretend in the article Vikings that nobody makes a distinction between Vikings and Norsemen and that the article Norsemen does not exist. In fact, the article is blatantly self-contradictory because in the Etymology section, it does acknowledge that Vikings are raiders, not a people as the intro claims. It's like claiming in the article Pharaoh that the pharaohs were a people and then go on explaining that the pharaohs were the kings of the ancient Egyptians. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:55, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- Wikipedia has a clear policy on these matters:
- Use the common name ...even if it's not the "correct" name. (as explained in WP:RECOGNIZABLE)
- This is also further confirmed in WP:Jargon and WP:TECHNICAL.
- The word Viking, among regular people and in books (both fiction and non-fiction and both academic and non-academic), movies, documentaries, tv shows and so on, all generally use Viking, to refer to the Norse people of the Viking Age.
- As to Norse people/culture... That is all those who's native tongue belong to the North Germanic languages, as I've said. Thus the Norse people have existed from about 200 AD, up until today. The modern people of Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Iceland, today, are Norse and belong to the Norse Culture. The people who lived in that area in the year of, say, 543 AD (well before the Viking Age), who also spoke North Germanic languages were Norse and belonged to the Norse Culture. Neither lived in the Viking age, however, and neither are Vikings (by any definition)
- The word Viking has, historically, meant the activity (and later, by extension, those engaging in it) of going off and pillaging (and, later, also those who engaged in trade ...or, indeed, both).
- That has, however, no bearing on what the word means today. It is relevant for the Etymoplogy section, but nowhere else.
- You might note that the Wikipedia article vagina is concerned with the female sex organ, rather than scabbards, despite the fact that this is what the word originally meant. Historically, "vagina" meant "scabbard". These days, is used rather differently.
- Wikipedia uses the modern meaning.
- This is, after all, the English Wikipedia and by English, we mean the Modern English, as it is used these days. If you want to use Old English, there is a separate Wikipedia for that. If you want Proto, Middle or Early Modern English ...or, indeed, English that is somewhere between Early Modern and that of the 21th century, then you'll simply have to make a new, separate, Wikipedia for it, just like there is one for Old English and Simple English.
- Do you think that vagina should be redirect to, or be merged with, scabbard?
- If you do, then you will first need to change some fairly fundamental bits of policy ...and you will not succeed in doing so, as it makes no sense and would just make the site confusing and go against the whole idea behind it.
- If you don't, then could you please explain why Viking should be treated differently? How is this any different?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 21:36, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- ZarlanTheGreen (talk · contribs), I understand your points and for the most part, I agree with them. However, there is a passage in the first policy you linked which addresses my concerns. To quote it: "Editors should also consider the criteria outlined above. Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources." (emphasis added)
- Consider the following links:
- "The Vikings were pirates who came to plunder and kill, and they spread terror along Europe's coasts."
- "The word Viking means a pirate, and the noun Viking means a pirate raid."
- "Many historians commonly associate the term “Viking” to the Scandinavian term vikingr, a word for “pirate.” However, the term is meant to reference oversea expeditions, and was used as a verb by the Scandinavian people for when the men traditionally took time out of their summers to go “a Viking.”"
- "With all the caricatures and stereotypes out there, there’s probably a lot you’ve never heard about the seafaring Scandinavians who raided and settled coastal sites in the British Isles and beyond between the ninth and 11th centuries."
- "1. any of the Scandinavian pirates who plundered the coasts of Europe from the 8th to 10th centuries. "
- While many of those links also address your point that the word is commonly used today to refer to the entire culture (notably numbers 2 and 3), each one also makes a point of specifically referring to the Vikings as the group that went raiding, trading or exploring. I would concede that the average person, with no particular interest in the subject and no post-secondary education in relevant history would use the term to refer to the entire culture. I would go even further and agree that the term is used by a number of historians to refer to the entire culture, as a form of shorthand. I would not, however, agree that "Norse Culture during the Viking Age" is an unambiguous and exclusive new meaning of the term. Considering the last link in particular, I would like to say that avoiding confusion seems to be the aim of your argument, but would it really avoid confusion if the page on Wikipedia is about a different subject than the dictionary definition of the word?
- Regarding your example of the word 'vagina,' I would point out that the word has no meaning in modern parlance other than to refer to female sexual organs, which is why it's title is uncontroversial. However, bear in mind that in common use, the word 'vagina' refers to a woman's external sexual organs, while the wikipedia article is about the correct use of the word. In short, it is a perfect example of what I am arguing. If I were arguing that the original meaning of the word were to be used, I would argue that 'viking' be a redirect to some page covering the navigation of rivers, as that is where the root word 'vik' originated, AFAIK. From where I sit, it seems that applying your argument to the Wikipedia vagina article, we should make it a redirect to vulva. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:11, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
- ""The Vikings were pirates who came to plunder and kill, and they spread terror along Europe's coasts."
- /.../
- "The word Viking means a pirate, and the noun Viking means a pirate raid.""
- Those are tourist inforrmation sites. They can hardly be called Reliable Sources.
- ""Many historians commonly associate the term “Viking” to the Scandinavian term vikingr, a word for “pirate.” However, the term is meant to reference oversea expeditions, and was used as a verb by the Scandinavian people for when the men traditionally took time out of their summers to go “a Viking.”""
- The reliability of that blog is questionable, but... It does not actually agree with you, or disagree with me. It says that the old Scandinavian term vikingr was used as a verb, for the activity. It doesn't, for a second, claim that the modern term Viking does, or should, mean the same.
- ""With all the caricatures and stereotypes out there, there’s probably a lot you’ve never heard about the seafaring Scandinavians who raided and settled coastal sites in the British Isles and beyond between the ninth and 11th centuries.""
- ...
- You're citing The History Channel!?
- That entertainment channel (not educational channel) is very well known for being completely unconcerned with accuracy. In fact, it is very well known for its great amounts of inaccurate, or completely erroneous, claims. There is no way that I can, or will, ever accept someone using the History Channel as a source.
- ""1. any of the Scandinavian pirates who plundered the coasts of Europe from the 8th to 10th centuries. ""
- You can't use a dictionary as a Reliable Source, on this issue! For some things, they can be Reliable Sources, certainly, but for this!?
- ...and also: "3. a Scandinavian."
- "I would not, however, agree that "Norse Culture during the Viking Age" is an unambiguous and exclusive new meaning of the term."
- ...
- I'm rather saddened and disappointed to see that you do not seem to understand what "Reliable Source", means. I suggest you go and read WP:Identifying reliable sources.
- Great! You agree that this is not a meaning that we've just made up here. You think it's ambiguous, however, which I simply cannot understand. In what way is it ambiguous? I could understand it, if you think that it is confusing or unclear, but ambiguous? How so?
- "Considering the last link in particular, I would like to say that avoiding confusion seems to be the aim of your argument, but would it really avoid confusion if the page on Wikipedia is about a different subject than the dictionary definition of the word?"
- There are a couple of problems with what you just said there:
- WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary
- Just because one dictionary says something, doesn't make it right.
- Dictionaries are supposed to reflect common usage. They are descriptive, not prosciptive. It is the common usage that is the true definition.
- Wikipedia policy clearly states that it is the common usage in Reliable Sources, that is the important issue. Not dictionary definitions.
- "Regarding your example of the word 'vagina,' I would point out that the word has no meaning in modern parlance other than to refer to female sexual organs, which is why it's title is uncontroversial."
- Tell that to a re-enactor. Also, please check a dictionary, and you'll see more than one meaning being listed. Not the original meaning, admittedly, but that's not what you said, so...
- "From where I sit, it seems that applying your argument to the Wikipedia vagina article, we should make it a redirect to vulva."
- There are cases where it is acceptable to make an exception to the rule of using the common term, but that's not an example of it, but... While "vagina" is often used to talk about the vulva, the Reliable Sources never do. Thus it's not entirely an exception.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 18:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- You're citing The History Channel!?
- Yes, I cited the history channel's website for a definition of a term. Do you have a specific reason to distrust that link? There has never been a consensus on Wikipedia that the History Channel is not a reliable source for any history subject devoid of aliens.
- Those are tourist inforrmation sites. They can hardly be called Reliable Sources.
- They suffice for establishing the common usage of the term.
- The reliability of that blog is questionable, but...
- Why? Give a reason. To simply dismiss it as "questionable" doesn't further the discussion one bit.
- You can't use a dictionary as a Reliable Source, on this issue!
- We're talking about the definition of a word. A reputable dictionary is absolutely a reliable source for the definition of a word, no matter what you may say to the contrary.
- I'm rather saddened and disappointed...
- That does not address what I stated in any way shape or form, and serves as nothing but a personal attack. Please try to keep this civil.
- Just because one dictionary says something, doesn't make it right.
- Are you sure it's just one? [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Most of them don't even give the alternate use as referring to people of the Norse culture, and those who do give an alternate use all say 'Scandanavian' instead.
- Dictionaries are supposed to reflect common usage. They are descriptive, not prosciptive.
- Are you arguing that Wikipedia is proscriptive? If not, I fail to see any point to this response. I've never suggested this article be trimmed down to a definition of the word, nor any such thing. I've said that the article should be about the same thing that the word is defined to mean.
- Tell that to a re-enactor.
- Are you arguing that re-enactors define what Wikipedia is, or what the modern definition of words should be?
- Also, please check a dictionary, and you'll see more than one meaning being listed.
- Every additional meaning is jargon. We're not discussing jargon.
- There are cases where it is acceptable to make an exception to the rule of using the common term, but that's not an example of it, but... While "vagina" is often used to talk about the vulva, the Reliable Sources never do. Thus it's not entirely an exception.
- Okay then. Now, can you find some reliable sources that explicitly state that the word is used to refer to all Norse people during the Viking Age? I've heard much of these sources, but I've yet to see one. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- "There has never been a consensus on Wikipedia that the History Channel is not a reliable source for any history subject devoid of aliens."
- I don't quite believe that.
- "They suffice for establishing the common usage of the term."
- No they do not.
- "Why? Give a reason. To simply dismiss it as "questionable" doesn't further the discussion one bit."
- That's not the way it goes.
- It's a blog. There is no reason to treat a blog post as reliable, unless there is clear evidence that it is.
- "We're talking about the definition of a word."
- No.
- As I said, this is not a dictionary.
- "That does not address what I stated in any way shape or form"
- Well no. It wasn't meant to.
- "and serves as nothing but a personal attack."
- No it does not.
- It seems you do not understand what "personal attack" means.
- It was not a personal attack, any kind of attack, nor any form of incivilty or rudeness.
- Please read WP:No personal attacks#What is considered to be a personal attack?.
- "Are you sure it's just one?"
- Do I care?
- Also, while I say that dictionaries are not proscriptive, some of them do try to be, so...
- "and those who do give an alternate use all say 'Scandanavian' instead."
- ...which is generally used synonymously/interchangeably with "Norse".
- "Are you arguing that Wikipedia is proscriptive? If not, I fail to see any point to this response. I've never suggested this article be trimmed down to a definition of the word, nor any such thing. I've said that the article should be about the same thing that the word is defined to mean."
- None of that addresses my point: It is common usage that is relevant. Not dictionaries ...and Wikipedia demands common usage (as measured by common usage in Relieable Sources), not dictionaries.
- "Are you arguing that re-enactors define what Wikipedia is, or what the modern definition of words should be?"
- No, but they do use vagina, to refer to their scabbards. Well okay, that's not really relevant. Sorry about that. Just ignore this, please.
- "Every additional meaning is jargon. We're not discussing jargon."
- How does their meaning as jargon, make those meanings any less relevant?
- Besides: Is not the meaning of Viking, refering exclusively to those engaging in the activity, also jargon?
- "Okay then. Now, can you find some reliable sources that explicitly state that the word is used to refer to all Norse people during the Viking Age? I've heard much of these sources, but I've yet to see one."
- Find me one that doesn't.
- *check my bookshelf*
- Swords of the Viking Age, by Ian Pierce
- *googles*
- http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/primaryhistory/vikings/who_were_the_vikings/
- ...
- Googling "Viking" isn't a very effetive method of finding sources...
- *checks the sources already used in [[Viking]]*
- http://natmus.dk/en/historical-knowledge/denmark/prehistoric-period-until-1050-ad/the-viking-age/the-people/--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 20:33, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
NOTE: Please read my most recent comment first. It's a short one, indented off this one.
- I don't quite believe that.
- No they do not.
If we are going to argue by fiat, then I say I'm right on all cases. If we are not, then please give me a reason why examples of common usage don't serve to illustrate examples of common usage.
- That's not the way it goes. It's a blog. There is no reason to treat a blog post as reliable, unless there is clear evidence that it is.
First off, it's not a blog, it's an online news magazine article. Second, until you can give some reason why that makes it unreliable, or give some reason why this particular site is unreliable, it's nonsensical to dismiss it.
- No. As I said, this is not a dictionary.
We're back to making arguments by fiat again? I never said this was a dictionary, nor have I implied it. We're talking about the proper name for two articles, and whether they should be merged. That makes this a discussion of the meaning of the words used in the titles of those two articles.
- Do I care?
Are you suggesting that you don't care what the word means? Your participation here suggests otherwise. Or are you suggesting that you don't care if you're factually wrong?
- ...which is generally used synonymously/interchangeably with "Norse".
And which is never given as the primary definition.
- None of that addresses my point: It is common usage that is relevant. Not dictionaries ...and Wikipedia demands common usage (as measured by common usage in Relieable Sources), not dictionaries.
We've already gone over this with regards to the vagina article. Either there are exceptions or there are not.
- How does their meaning as jargon, make those meanings any less relevant?
You're contradicting yourself. To clarify my position, I don't believe that jargon needs to be used for article titles when more commonly used terms are available, but when there is the potential for confusion, precise terms should be used.
- Find me one that doesn't.
I already have. You haven't given any reason why tourist information sites, livescience.com, the History Channel or five separate dictionaries are not reliable sources for establishing the meaning of the word. Until then, I will not accept that they are unreliable sources.
- Swords of the Viking Age, by Ian Pierce
I don't accept the sole publication from a non-notable author (who is a weapon smith, not a historian) which cannot be checked by anyone who doesn't own the book. Notice how I gave a reason as to why it's not good enough? Please reciprocate.
That does not support your assertion. From that site:
The Vikings came from three countries of Scandinavia: Denmark, Norway and Sweden. The name 'Viking' comes from a language called 'Old Norse' and means 'a pirate raid'. People who went off raiding in ships were said to be 'going Viking'.
That's one verifiable source which uses the term in the manner you describe. As I said before, I don't deny that the term may have been used as a shorthand to refer to Norsemen. If some historians use it in that manner, but the majority of common and scholarly users do not, then it's clear that there should be two separate articles. By the way, here's two more.
http://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/society/text/raids.htm
http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/plaintexthistories.asp?historyid=ab86
MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:13, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- "You should."
- I see you've found the single most positive mention of the channel on Wikipedia ...which is also half a decade old.
- That discussion seems to consider that TV programs/channels should be given the same treatment as newspapers ...and I don't think that a newspaper that has published what the History Channel tends to broadcast, would be regarded as a Reliable Source ...and I'm not just talking about the Ancient Aliens parts, but even the seemingly real stuff. Thus it does not qualify as a Reliable Source.
- Besides: It is an entertainment channel. Not one that is aimed at, or that aspires to be, a news outlet or educational channel. Thus it does not qualify as a Reliable Source.
- "If we are going to argue by fiat/.../"
- You claimed that tourist sites are sufficient to verify common usage. That is a positive claim in need of positive evidence to back it up.
- You provide none. ...and as what can be asserted without evidence, can be dissmissed without evidence...
- "First off, it's not a blog, it's an online news magazine article"
- *takes a closer look*
- True. Thanks for the correction.
- ...but the relevant bit of the article still doesn't state anything that backs what you claim, nor does it say anything that goes against anything that I've said, so the fact that it may qualify as a Reliable Source, actually works against you.
- "Are you suggesting that you don't care what the word means?"
- WTF? It seems clear that you have some difficulty with understanding what words mean, if you think that what I said, suggests anything of the kind. I've thoroughly explained why dictionary definitions are completely irrelevant to this issue. Thus the numbers are irrelevant.
- "And which is never given as the primary definition."
- Oh really? Please note Wiktionary, Merriam-Webster's, thefreedictionary.com...
- "We've already gone over this with regards to the vagina article. Either there are exceptions or there are not."
- WTF? What? Whu...?
- "You're contradicting yourself."
- How?
- Also: You didn't answer my question of how the meaning of Viking, that you propose, doesn't count as jargon.
- "I already have."
- No you haven't.
- The History Channel doesn't qualify, nor do tourist sites. LiveScience.com doesn't say that Viking doesn't mean all the Norse people of the time (just that it didn't, at the time ...and we all agree on that) and as to dictionaries... I've gone over that quite extensively, already.
- "I don't accept the sole publication from a non-notable author (who is a weapon smith, not a historian)"
- It's a quite notable book, regardless of the notability of the author ...and the relevant bit is acutally in the introduction by Ewart Oakeshott, who is an very notable amateur historian, who has gotten multiple papers published and revolutionized the study of swords.
- "which cannot be checked by anyone who doesn't own the book."
- That's not a valid reason. (see WP:V#Accessibility)
- But to quote the relevant section: "Their efficiency as traders, buisnessmen and bankers, farmers and craftsmen is celebrated in careful detail"
- "That does not support your assertion."
- Oh really? I'd say that this bit rather does (I've added emphasis on the relevant bit) "Some went to fight and steal treasure. Others settled in new lands as farmers, craftsmen or traders."
- I'd say a mention of non-travelling, non-fighting and non-pillaging Norse people, who are referred to as Vikings, rather does support my assertion.
- "http://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/society/text/raids.htm"
- I wouldn't quite count Hurstwic as historians not would I count them as a Reliable Source, for matters of what Viking means today, or how the word is used by either historians or the common man.
- They are kinda good for some things, but not that.
- "http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/plaintexthistories.asp?historyid=ab86"
- ...
- They mention that "vikingr" refered to the ones that went pillaging, but nowhere do they come close to saying anything about whether the modern term "Viking", has the same meaning or not.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 00:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- Although I'm not convinced, the truth is that I'm not vested in this issue either way. I propose a compromise. Can we agree to merge the two article under the name "Viking" and create a shorter article about the activity, perhaps named "Viking (activity)" or "Viking (pirate)" or something similar? The article, as it stands, is already predominantly about the people as a whole, rather than about the specific groups who went raiding/exploring/trading. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:58, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- I see no reason for doing so.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 00:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- It would put an end to this argument, and provide everyone who's weighed in on the issue some satisfaction. (except you, apparently). MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- I see no reason for doing so.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 00:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not at all convinced either that using Vikings in the loose sense of "early medieval/Viking Age Norse" is common scholarly usage, nor that it is really that pedantic to point out that a Norwegian stay-at-home peasant in 900 AD wasn't technically a Viking, but for reasons of pure pragmatism, a merger might not be such a bad idea. If anything, it will alert more Wikipedians to this issue. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- That's exactly how I feel. The naming is important, but in the end, less important than the content, and easier to change in the future. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:01, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- @Florian Well, "we" do not have to convince you specifically of anything. All you need to do, is to open some serious books on archeology and start reading. Not just one book, not just a book that challenge the consensus, but a broad selection of books. I really hope you will, not the least because it is a much broader subject than you would think and it is a very enjoyable process. I have suggestions if you need a starting point? Btw. If you insist on continuing this particular discussion, there is already a section for it. Look here (above): "Viking was an Activity, not a People". Regards. RhinoMind (talk) 17:11, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not at all convinced either that using Vikings in the loose sense of "early medieval/Viking Age Norse" is common scholarly usage, nor that it is really that pedantic to point out that a Norwegian stay-at-home peasant in 900 AD wasn't technically a Viking, but for reasons of pure pragmatism, a merger might not be such a bad idea. If anything, it will alert more Wikipedians to this issue. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- Hello. I endorse Mjolnirpants suggestion. The use of the term "northmen" can be mentioned in the etymology section, if anyone feels like it. In this way no information will be lost. The ideal solution for me though, would be to just keep everything on this page, as there is no good reason to split a subject in two, except to satisfy some sporadic and unsound objections from random commenters. Sorry if that hurt anyones feelings, but that is really how this has evolved.
- Btw. I don't really understand, why anybody would spend so much energy here on the talk page, arguing about specific etymological aspects, when they could just get to work and put all the information they feel is missing in the etymology section. Of course it would require some decent sources, but there is already room for elaborating more on the various aspects of the word Viking (or Northmen for that matter) in this article as it is. RhinoMind (talk) 16:58, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Mjolnirpants' suggestion seems sensible and pragmatic to me. I'd echo Rhino's point about the need to further improve the article itself, though... 2/3 of the etymology section is still uncited, for example. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:14, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
This sounds like a consensus to me. I'll get on the merging as soon as I'm able, and try to keep it smooth if anyone starts before me. I think a lot of improvements to the article will flow naturally from that. Does anyone have any suggestions for a specific title for the raiders article? I'd say that it's fine as a stub for the moment, but we do need to name it before we can make the stub. I vote "Viking (raider)". MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- I utterly disagree. Sure, take stuff from Norsemen and put it here, and then make the article into a redirect here. I have nothing against that ...but I am utterly and completely against the notion of making a separate article for the activity. There is no good reason for it, it makes no sense, and would only cause problems and complications.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 04:37, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- Are you trying to claim that the raids aren't notable enough to warrant their own article? I can prove that wrong in 5 minutes with one google search. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:18, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- No, and how you could possibly infer that, from what I've written, is beyond my abilities to understand.
- Is there one article for "Knight" (as in medieval knight) with a separate one for their activities? No.
- Is there one article for "Samurai" with a separate one for their activities? No.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 13:38, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- No. But there are separate articles for Knight and European, and for Samurai and Japanese people. Not all Norsemen went a-viking. The reason I infer that from what you wrote is that you said "...I am utterly and completely against the notion of making a separate article for the activity. There is no good reason for it, it makes no sense, and would only cause problems and complications." That only makes sense in one of two contexts:
- You think all Norsemen went on seafaring expeditions; or...
- You think those expeditions are not notable enough to warrant their own article.
- If it's the former, I can prove that wrong, too. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:48, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- No. But there are separate articles for Knight and European, and for Samurai and Japanese people. Not all Norsemen went a-viking. The reason I infer that from what you wrote is that you said "...I am utterly and completely against the notion of making a separate article for the activity. There is no good reason for it, it makes no sense, and would only cause problems and complications." That only makes sense in one of two contexts:
- Are you trying to claim that the raids aren't notable enough to warrant their own article? I can prove that wrong in 5 minutes with one google search. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:18, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- I would also like to note that the EB article does not say that the Vikings were an ethnic group. It simply uses the "(people)" disambiguation in the sense of humans (as opposed to the space probe), not peoples. It clearly presents the Vikings as a subset of Scandinavians and does not equate them. So it does not support the equation of Vikings and pagan Norse in general made in the sentence the citation is used to support.
- Another point: If Vikings = pagan Norse, wouldn't female Vikings be more than an isolated curiosity, if they existed at all? The article calls Freydís Eiríksdóttir a "Viking woman" but – per Talk:Freydís Eiríksdóttir#Reference needed 2 – there are no sources who call her a viking. Can there be an ethnic group virtually without women? -Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:44, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
On changing language and meanings of words
In reference to the above arguments: it seems to be fairly common for words to change from a generic to a specific meaning when they enter another language. "Claymore" for example just means "big sword" in Gaelic, but has come to mean two particular types of Scottish swords. In this case, it seems that "Viking" and related words were simply the generic Norse term for pirates, regardless of who they were or where they cam from, and could even be used to refer to those from as far afield as Macedonia. However, in Modern English (rather than Old English or Norse), it has the more specific meaning of "early medieval Norse pirate" or even "early medieval Norse people". While "Phillip of Macedon as a viking" might be worth noting in the etymology section, the article should stick to the standard contempory English meaning of "Norse". (Otherwise we might as well delete the article and replace it with a link to pirate).
That said, I think there is a legitimate argument as to whether this article should be just be about the early medieval Norse pirates of the "Viking Age", or all Norse people of that time. My understanding is that the former was the original "modern" meaning of "viking", with the latter is a more modern development. But from the histories I've seen or read, there seems to be a degree of push-back by historians and archeologists to say that "viking" should really only be used for the pirates (or possible the pirates and explorers/traders). I think we need to have a look at current popular and accademic use, and see if we should split the pirates from the rest of the population. Iapetus (talk) 16:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
- Just provide sources and references to you points and put them in the Etymology section. RhinoMind (talk) 21:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
- Ah... A sensible comment on the issue.
- Well at the moment, the broader meaning of "Norse people during the Viking Age" is what is used. For that to change, there would need to be a demonstration that the use has changed, in the Reliable Sources (and the use needs to be evident in "normal", popular, sources, not just academic ones), such that the "pirate-only" meaning is in the vast majority. Even if there's a push-back, that is not relevant to Wikipedia, until/unless that push-back succeeds.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 13:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
- When popular and academic use conflict, Wikipedia usually reflects academic use. Therefore, academic sources are more relevant than popular sources. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- No.
- According to Wikipedia policy, Wikipedia should reflect popular use. The article can, and indeed should, include an explanation of the academic use, but it should use the terms, as they are popularly used. See WP:COMMONNAME, WP:JARGON and WP:TECHNICAL.
- ...and I should remind you, that policy cannot be over-ridden by consensus, or even unanimity, in this talk page.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 13:23, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- ...And I should remind you that not only are you dead wrong, but you are wrong on many levels.MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:26, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- When popular and academic use conflict, Wikipedia usually reflects academic use. Therefore, academic sources are more relevant than popular sources. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
New text in intro
Pardon my frankness, but the new text in the intro, "Vikings (from Old Norse víkingr) were a number of closely related cultural and ethnic groups living during the Viking Age", is a load of BS. The Vikings were Norsemen, a single Scandinavian cultural and ethnic group, all speaking the same language, Old Norse. The split of Old Norse into Swedish, Danish, Norwegian etc didn't occur until long after the Viking age, and even today Swedish, Danish and Norwegian differ no more from each other than the different spoken dialects of the German language do, probably even less than that. So the intro went from bad to outright silly. I haven't read the entire wall of text above, but the claim that the change was made according to some kind of consensus on this page seems very dubious, to say the least, so I suggest that User:MjolnirPants self-revert. Thomas.W talk 20:58, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- Dude, just change it then. Getting confrontational doesn't fix anything. Editing does. You know what? Nevermind. I'll change it myself. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:09, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- I've changed the intro now. Thomas.W talk 21:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thomas.W (talk · contribs), your edit runs contrary to the consensus reached above. Four users have all agreed to merge Norsemen into this article and create a separate article about the seafaring raiders. Please read the discussion and consider self-reverting, because your edit isn't likely to survive very long, anyways. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:28, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- @MjolnirPants:If you want to merge Norsemen into this article you have to discuss it, and get a clear consensus for it, there, it's not something that can be done from here. And it is very unlikely that you're going to get a consensus for such a merge there... Thomas.W talk 07:17, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thomas.W (talk · contribs), your edit runs contrary to the consensus reached above. Four users have all agreed to merge Norsemen into this article and create a separate article about the seafaring raiders. Please read the discussion and consider self-reverting, because your edit isn't likely to survive very long, anyways. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:28, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- I've changed the intro now. Thomas.W talk 21:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- The vikings were no ethnic group at all, but the Norse were, which makes the article just filled with errors anyway. Its just horrible that four people actually think they are some sort of konsensus, and own the article. Except from the wrong signals the article gives a reader, its against the rules. Dan Koehl (talk) 04:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
One key problem is the impetus to cram everything into the opening sentence, leading to redundancy and tortuous wording. The latest version uses the words "north Germanic" twice, and uses the term Viking Age while also setting forth its dates, even though the term is used, linked and explained again later in the paragraph. The term Norse is linked to a disamb page, which defines them as Scandinavian, which is also used in the first sentence for good measure: A multiple redundancy word soup run-on. Most of these terminology difficulties should be treated in the Etymology section. And we may expect general readers to make it through the first paragraph; not everything needs to be in the opening sentence -- and especially not twice. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 05:22, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thomas.W (talk · contribs), show me that policy. In fact, WP:MERGE specifically states that the destination page is the most common place to have the discussion. The current talk page at Norsemen is over a month old, with no discussion of this subject. In addition, the most recent frequent editor of both the talk page and article page has also been active on this page. There's no reason to assume that frequent editors of that page are unaware of what's been going on here.
- However, if you think that people who edit there would be opposed to the merger, please go get them to come here and get involved. If we can get a consensus that the merger is a bad idea, and that the Viking article should be about the raiders, and the Norsemen article about the people, I would be happier than I am with this compromise. This is the problem with not reading the discussion: you end up not knowing what people have actually said, although to be fair, you seem to have had that problem with regards to me since our very first interaction.
- Dan Koehl (talk · contribs), before declaring by fiat that this is wrong and must be changed, try reading this:
- "Disregarding the ultimate philology of the word and the history of its use over the centuries, which has been much discussed, it is now in such everyday use by both specialists and non-specialists - however improperly - to describe the Scandinavians of the Viking Age, that it almost impossible to avoid its use in this generic sense. Although it is often appropriate and necessary to use such terms as 'Scandinavian' or 'Norse', as I have done in this book, it is often simpler and less confusing to label something as 'Viking' rather than deal in scholastic circumlocution to placate purists, however justified they may be in their arguments."
- The term "Viking"
- Quoted from Vikings in the Isle of Man by Sir David Wilson
- It may be wrong in a technical sense, but if a noted historian acknowledges the dual meaning of the term, we can as well. I agree that Vikings were raiders and pirates, distinct from Norsemen in general, however note that I do not agree that the terms pirate and viking are completely interchangeable. (Phillip of Macedonia was not a viking by any stretch of the imagination, and your arguments to the contrary fall apart under even the slightest scrutiny.) Finally, don't start hurling accusations of ownership around, especially when the person standing in front of you is demonstrably not trying to own the article. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:22, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- @Dan Koehl: Yes you've made those claims before ...and they don't stack up. The arguments you make, are not valid and the evidence doesn't really support you. You're statements that we seem to think we own the article, is no more than you simply being rude. Four editor think we have a consensus? Well yes. That's actually how it works. Go read WP:consensus, and you'll see that this is true (for example, it says: "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity").
- It's certainly better than one single editor, who somehow thinks his words count for more than every other editor in the talk page...--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 13:27, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- WP:MERGE also says that a tag should be placed on both the source page and the target page, pointing to where the discussion is to take place (before any voting on the merger takes place...), so that regular editors of both pages know that a meger has been proposed and can vent their views. Claiming that there is a consensus in favor of a merger when the editors on Norsemen haven't been properly informed about the discussion is silly. Even the entire idea about merging Norsemen into Vikings is silly since Vikings only were a subset of Norsemen. If any merger should take place it should be the other way around, with Vikings being merged into Norsemen. Thomas.W talk 22:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC) (PS. Please learn how to indent your talk page posts properly...)
- I would be open to that possibility, actually. Alternatively, Vikings could be merged into Viking Age. So are we going to have a vote? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:08, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- Not until all pages have been properly tagged so that everyone who has an interest in it has been properly notified. Thomas.W talk 22:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- I find the notion of merging Viking and Viking Age to be really bad. Those are two rather separate issues. Norsemen and Viking, however, have the same meaning. A merger would thus make perfect sense.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 13:29, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- So why haven't you put up any tags? It'd be nice to see you helping instead of just complaining... Nevermind. I'm expecting too much. Once again, I'll do it myself. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 12:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC) (PS Read WP:THREAD before complaining about indenting)
- I don't support a merger between Norsemen and Vikings, so there's no reason for me to place any tags or start a discussion. But since you placed the tags I have corrected the erors you made. See my intro to the new discussion below. Thomas.W talk 13:05, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- What errors? You mean where I pointed it to the section where the merger actually being discussed? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:36, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- Before you refer to WP:THREAD, you might want to actually read it. It states that you should respond to a comment with four levels of indentation, with one more (i.e. five). Not zero.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 13:27, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- What does it say about how to indent a response to more than one person? Nothing. Stop being argumentative. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:36, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- "What does it say about how to indent a response to more than one person?"
- Generally, you'd make two separate responses. One for one person's comment, and one for the other's ...but as both had the same level of indentation, in this case, I don't see how there is any problem in knowing what the level should be (five, in this case, that is).
- Also, it's rather ironic to accuse me of being argumentative, given what you wrote in the sentence directly preceding that accusation...--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 13:44, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- What does it say about how to indent a response to more than one person? Nothing. Stop being argumentative. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:36, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- I don't support a merger between Norsemen and Vikings, so there's no reason for me to place any tags or start a discussion. But since you placed the tags I have corrected the erors you made. See my intro to the new discussion below. Thomas.W talk 13:05, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- So why haven't you put up any tags? It'd be nice to see you helping instead of just complaining... Nevermind. I'm expecting too much. Once again, I'll do it myself. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 12:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC) (PS Read WP:THREAD before complaining about indenting)
- I would be open to that possibility, actually. Alternatively, Vikings could be merged into Viking Age. So are we going to have a vote? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:08, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- WP:MERGE also says that a tag should be placed on both the source page and the target page, pointing to where the discussion is to take place (before any voting on the merger takes place...), so that regular editors of both pages know that a meger has been proposed and can vent their views. Claiming that there is a consensus in favor of a merger when the editors on Norsemen haven't been properly informed about the discussion is silly. Even the entire idea about merging Norsemen into Vikings is silly since Vikings only were a subset of Norsemen. If any merger should take place it should be the other way around, with Vikings being merged into Norsemen. Thomas.W talk 22:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC) (PS. Please learn how to indent your talk page posts properly...)
- Dan Koehl (talk · contribs), before declaring by fiat that this is wrong and must be changed, try reading this:
Enjoy your 'irony'. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:54, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- I always do.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 13:57, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Proposal: Merger of Norsemen into existing article Vikings
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have changed the links in the merge tags on Norsemen and Vikings to point to this section since the other section was a totally irrelevant discussion about proposed redirects for Norseman and Northmen, not a discussion about a proposed merger between Norsemen and Vikings. Which is a new discussion starting from scratch... Thomas.W talk 13:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Voting
- Strong oppose. Vikings were just a subset of Norsemen, and you don't merge an article about a larger entity into an article about a subset of that entity. If anything Vikings should be merged into Norsemen. Thomas.W talk 13:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Yngvadottir's discussion
- Oppose. As recognized above, scholars still make a distinction between the profession of raiding (vikings) and the Scandinavian peoples, most of whom did not raid even during the Viking Age, and who existed before that era. Even though the distinction has been blurred in popular history, as reflected in the now general capitalization of "Viking" (something with which I must say I disagree) it's still a useful distinction for talking about early medieval Norse culture—including what the raiders did after they came back from the raids (farm and/or trade) and activities that are not so clearly raiding, such as acting as mercenaries in Byzantium or founding colonies in Normandy, North America, Sicily, and the Rus' settlements. We need a broader article about the people(s) as a whole. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:03, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- Most people use Viking, to mean the people (as do plenty of the scholars). Even the farmers, who never left their lands. Thus your argument is invalid.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 13:51, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- Then I suppose you're also in favour of changing the name of Americans to Cowboys. Because lots of ignorant people around the world refer to Americans as cowboys. Thomas.W talk 14:17, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- No, it is not the same situation. I am a Dane living in Denmark in 2014 and therefore I am also Norse. Norse is such a loose term, and it is not tied to any specific period of history. It is a term tied to geography. ZarlanTheGreen (and myself) has explained this many many times in several posts. So what about Northmen then? Well it is a better descriptive term, but it is also quite vague. It was used rather loosely in the Viking Age and then only to describe the pagan of Scandinavia. Vikings is used by todays scholars to describe the Norse people in the Viking Age and that has nothing to do with their individual activities or where they chose to settle. How the term Viking has been used through the ages and in the Viking Age itself is of etymological interest only. RhinoMind (talk) 11:28, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- I quite honestly can't see what that has to do with merging Norsemen into Vikings, which is what this discussion/vote is about. If anything it supports the continued existence of an article named Norsemen, covering a larger time period than just the Viking Age, that is the direct opposite of your vote below. Thomas.W talk 12:12, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, you are right. My "support" was quite vague, as I explained there. Maybe I shouldn't have voted altogether, but when the situation is putting the use of the word Viking to mean the Norse people in the Viking Age at stake, I would try to defend it. Or rather just put things right. I acknowledge there is controversy on the use of the word, but this needs to be reflected in the Etymology section, and should not be used to tear down an article. RhinoMind (talk) 12:21, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- My post above is relevant here though, because Yngvadottir is making the mistake of narrowing the use of the term Viking, to only mean Vikings who went on raids. This is not the issue of this section at all, I know, but I just need to counter and correct this error. I agree with her, that a much better article on "The Norse" would do good though. RhinoMind (talk) 12:38, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- @RhinoMind: From my point of view, I'm not making a mistake; I disagree with you on the issue. "Vikings" correctly refers to those who went on raids, and I see others have found scholarly citations in support of that usage. For why I believe we should preserve the distinction, see above. Further, I think you may be confusing "Norsemen" with "Nordic", as in Nordic countries. In English, "Norsemen" is overwhelmingly used for the early medieval Scandinavians (those who spoke (Old) Norse), and "Nordic" or "Scandinavian" for the moderns. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- @Yngvadottir: Hi (and thanks for teaching me about this "ping" code :-) Well for a start, this should hopefully not degrade to a debate about any of ours personal point of view, but should be concerned with how things are in scholarly circles on a broad scale. I assume you agree. Secondly: That viking meant the viking activity of going on raids in the Viking Age, might well be another etymological myth, as Dan actually pointed out in one of his posts. Noone has given any proper source, that this is what viking meant in the Viking Age. But let us just assume this is what viking meant in the Viking Age. We need to reflect what Viking means today though and this is different. You may well have stumbled across a few (in particular historians) who a reserving the word Viking for those who went on raids, but they are challenging the consensus. It would be great if this controversy was explained in the etymology section, but noone has cared for it apparently. Let us move this discussion to its proper place from now on shall we: "Viking was an activity, not a people". Thirdly: Yes All these words and their meaning is confusing me, and I have learned that I am certainly not alone! :-) There is a difference between Norse, Northmen, Nordic, etc. (actually I am not sure Norsemen is a real word. I am suspecting it is a mix of Norse and Northmen, but that is even another discussion). RhinoMind (talk) 23:18, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- @RhinoMind: From my point of view, I'm not making a mistake; I disagree with you on the issue. "Vikings" correctly refers to those who went on raids, and I see others have found scholarly citations in support of that usage. For why I believe we should preserve the distinction, see above. Further, I think you may be confusing "Norsemen" with "Nordic", as in Nordic countries. In English, "Norsemen" is overwhelmingly used for the early medieval Scandinavians (those who spoke (Old) Norse), and "Nordic" or "Scandinavian" for the moderns. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- I quite honestly can't see what that has to do with merging Norsemen into Vikings, which is what this discussion/vote is about. If anything it supports the continued existence of an article named Norsemen, covering a larger time period than just the Viking Age, that is the direct opposite of your vote below. Thomas.W talk 12:12, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- No, it is not the same situation. I am a Dane living in Denmark in 2014 and therefore I am also Norse. Norse is such a loose term, and it is not tied to any specific period of history. It is a term tied to geography. ZarlanTheGreen (and myself) has explained this many many times in several posts. So what about Northmen then? Well it is a better descriptive term, but it is also quite vague. It was used rather loosely in the Viking Age and then only to describe the pagan of Scandinavia. Vikings is used by todays scholars to describe the Norse people in the Viking Age and that has nothing to do with their individual activities or where they chose to settle. How the term Viking has been used through the ages and in the Viking Age itself is of etymological interest only. RhinoMind (talk) 11:28, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- Then I suppose you're also in favour of changing the name of Americans to Cowboys. Because lots of ignorant people around the world refer to Americans as cowboys. Thomas.W talk 14:17, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- Most people use Viking, to mean the people (as do plenty of the scholars). Even the farmers, who never left their lands. Thus your argument is invalid.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 13:51, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
MjolnirPants' discussion
- Oppose Since we're we're getting new voices in, I'd like to say that I feel that Viking is the activity and Norsemen are the people. Even in the quote I provided in the above section in which a historian acknowledges the dual meanings of the word, he mentions that using the term to refer exclusively to the raiders/traders/explorers is technically correct. I'd rather be technically correct than technically incorrect, especially when the potential for confusion is minimized, that way. Yes, I understand that I proposed the merger, but I did so in order to facilitate compromise that the other party still refuses to agree to. Since the compromise doesn't please the opposing party, I'd just as soon establish a consensus on the meaning of the terms, and edit the articles appropriately. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:18, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- What you propose is an intentional violation of Wikipedia policy. (see WP:COMMONNAME)
- Viking is the term that most use for the people, even among scholars. "Norsemen", however, is a rather obscure term.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 13:55, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- Are you really going to be as argumentative as you can while claiming it's actually me? (That's not what 'irony' means, by the way). Why not put your arguments into your vote, where they belong? Besides, we've been over this already. I've given you quite a few more examples of common use referring to the activity and those who engaged in it than you have given me of common use referring to the Norse people of the Viking Age. Besides, I proposed the merger to begin with, and you claimed that you didn't accept it. As you yourself pointed out, dictionaries are descriptive, and they all define the word to mean those who engaged in the activity.MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:05, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
ZarlanTheGreen's discussion
- Strong support. Given that they mean the same thing, i.e. the Norse people of the Viking Age.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 13:49, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- Nope, they do not mean the same thing. "Viking" is the name for a part-time activity that some of the Norse people, but far from all, engaged in. That distiction is often blurred in movies, computer games etc, but what ignorant people call it can not be allowed to dictate what the name of an article on WP should be. Thomas.W talk 14:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- If you look one section above, you will see where I quoted a noted historian on the subject of the naming controversy. While he acknowledges that there is widespread use of the word to refer to the people as a whole, he also points out that this is in error and notably, avoids all use of the term himself. This suggests strongly that there is no clear consensus, and that this historian (and perhaps others) are quite clear that the word refers to the those who engage in the activity. Combine that with the number of common usages of the term to refer to those who engaged in the activity I've previously provided you, and it becomes quite clear that Wikipedia could go either way, based on WP:COMMONNAME. Since, according to policy, there are two valid options, I don't see any reason why we shouldn't choose the one which is technically correct. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:19, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose. The determining factor in such a distinction should be reliable sources. There is ample scholarship on this subject and no need to turn to alternative sources like travel sites or TV shows. In addition, our policy should not be couched on a single scholar making an obscure argument. That argument may be noted and the controversy described, but common usage in reliable sources should dictate our overall policy. If the terms are to be treated as the same, there should be ample support in solid scholarly work. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 14:48, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose per Laszlo. The foundation of Wikipedia articles should be as scholarly as possible, not as pop-cultural as possible. Given that this article debunks the popular misconception of Viking Age horned helmets, or the allegedly barbarian culture of the pagan Norse, there is no reason to perpetuate others. Thus far, the intro at least does not even acknowledge the technically correct meaning and treats "Vikings" as an ethnic group as a matter of course. The list of well-known Vikings and Norsemen, curiously and inconsistently, does acknowledge the technical meaning indirectly. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:03, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
RhinoMind's discussion
- Oppose (changing my former 'Support', see below) My 'support' text: I could accept things as they are now, with a separate article about Northmen. I don't see it as a problem. the only problems are: 1) That the term "Northmen" is not well-defined and you cannot write a whole article based on a single text from Adam of Bremen. 2) The articles Viking and Northmen do not link well. All that said, if anything needs to merge, I strongly support merging the article of Northmen into the article of Vikings. The use and meaning of the term Northmen could be described in the section on Etymology and no information would be lost. In this regard, I support the merging. But MjolnirPants at the same time announced that a new and separate article on Viking piracy should be created. Why is this not mentioned here? I oppose this suggestion, as I see no need to separate this issue from an article on Vikings. I could live with it, but it is unsound. All in all I have voted for a support, but I feel this whole situation, is very odd. RhinoMind (talk) 11:47, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: You seem to confuse Northmen and Norsemen (i.e. the Norse people). "Northmen" is an uncommon term, and thus just a redirect, while "Norsemen", or "Norse people", is the proper term for the Germanic people, speaking Old Norse (and before that Proto-Norse), who have lived in Scandinavia since long before the Viking Age, and whose descendants still live there. The Viking raids and other activities away from their homelands, such as trading in foreign ports and lands, were only conducted by some of the Norse people, while the rest of the Norse stayed at home and managed their farms etc. And even for those who went on raids and trading journeys it was only a part-time activity. Thomas.W talk 12:06, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- Hi. I am sorry for my mixed up use of Northmen, Norse and Norsemen. I was going to edit it, but now it seems to late. Having said that, I am glad you also have realized, that Norse is a quite broad term, that is not tied specifically to the Viking Age. And therefore not specifically to the Vikings. There is no such thing as "The Norse Age", just as there is no such age as "The Scandinavian Age". RhinoMind (talk) 12:14, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- changing my support to oppose. I am sorry for the confusion of my voting here, but please let me explain. I made the stupid mistake of thinking the merging article was titled "Northmen" and I believe that the term Northmen could well be described n the etymology section on this article. Well, the correct title is clearly "Norsemen" and this is a different situation, as Norse is a loose term, that also describes the people of Northern Europe (specifically Scandinavia) in other ages than just the Viking Age. This issue is elaborated on elsewhere on this page. Norsemen is thus a broader term than Vikings and merging would not be correct. I am sorry. I could have edited this whole section out, but now the confusion is here to see for all. RhinoMind (talk) 12:32, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- RhinoMind (talk · contribs), would you mind going into some detail as to why you don't believe that viking raids don't deserve their own article? From where I sit, I don't see any reason not to. I'm not trying to instigate an argument, I'm just failing to understand this point of view, and hoping you could explain it in a way that lets me get it. I try to make an effort to let myself be swayed by convincing arguments, and while I haven't budged much yet (at least on insisting that there should be two articles, reflecting the culture and the raiding), that doesn't mean I wont. From what I've seen on this talk page, you are one of the more level-headed and thoughtful participants, and I believe that if anyone here can change my mind, it would be you.
- P.S. The creation of a second article hasn't been brought up here (by me, at least) because I figured it could wait until we decided on whether or not to merge these. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:18, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- A second article about what? There already is an article about Norsemen, even though it could need some expansion, and also perhaps a move to a better name, such as Norse people (which today is a disambiguation page). So I can't see what other article would be needed. Thomas.W talk 14:28, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Please read the discussion above, everything past your last post there is relevant. See this post for the second article me and Rhino are referring to. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:18, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- I exactly agree with you here Thomas. Norse people is a much better choice than Norsemen, which unfortunately sounds like Northmen. RhinoMind (talk) 22:49, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- Hi MjolnirPants. I am glad to take the discussion, but am also noting that this is exactly why this vote and entire subject is getting out of hand. Too many subjects are discussed simultaneously and many of them already have their own sections above. Ok, I am not against an article of this sort per se, but when I read your and several other peoples posts, it comes clear, that there is an urge to separate the activity of going viking (whatever that have meant through the ages), from the Norse people during the Viking Age. This is not acceptable and this is another danger lurking right there. Let me present a clear example: When archaeologists engage in excavations, they sometimes unearth artifacts that can be dated to the Viking Age and which belonged to or where created by the Norse peolpe during this Age. These artifact are automatically archived as Viking artifacts. To archaeologists of today, 'Vikings' where the Norse peolpe during the Viking Age. Exactly as the this article says. Yes (perhaps) viking was thought of as a specific activity in the Viking Age itself, but this is not how the term Vikings are used today by scholars in the field. Yes, it is a controversial subject, as some (in particular British historians) are starting to reserve the use of Vikings to the raiders, for various obscure reasons (IMO). I suggest this specific part of the discussion be carried out in the section "Viking was an activity, not a people" above. I hope I gave a proper answer. RhinoMind (talk) 22:43, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- So, to make sure I understand this correctly: You don't believe that there should be a separate article on the raiders because the word viking is used to describe the culture as a whole during that time period? (I feel compelled to point out that reserving the term for the raiders and explorers is not a recent phenomenon, but an academic one which -apparently- has in the past few decades, fallen out of favor.) MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:39, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- @MjolnirPants: Hi. 1. What cannot be accepted is to separate the act of raids, exploration and the like from the Norse people during the Viking Age. For many reasons, some of which is presented on this talk page. It was important activities to their culture, the development of their society - maybe their survival even - and how we understand this culture and these times today, however few engaged in the violent parts of it. To separate this from the Norse during the viking Age (ie. what we call Vikings today) is not acceptable. Having stated that, an article on the meaning on the word viking, the act of going viking (some used to lie in viking) throughout history and its relation to piracy etc., could perhaps do some good. I would support such an effort. IMO the article could explain the etymological aspects of the word, its origin, how it was used, who it was reserved for, etc. etc.. Maybe this was exactly how you imagined it? I was just worried, that it would imply a clean-cut separation of the act of Viking from the article here on the Vikings.
- 2. About the last part of your comment. Yes, the meaning of the word and concept of Viking changes with time and is constantly challenged. It would be great to describe these varying views in this article (and source them), but instead people have just put all their energy into complaining here on the talk page :-). Bad management in my eyes. Actually my idea was, that it was gaining favor to reserve 'viking' for those who raided (ie. the opposite of what you describe)? Anyway, the confusion just shows, that it would be great to state that there is, was (and will be) controversy on how to apply the word Viking, depending on the context and circumstances. I could explain a lot more about why I believe there is controversy, but it would be rather lengthy. I can try to give a short example though: In previous times, history (and archaeology) was almost exclusively interested in describing the extremes: the extremely wealthy, the extremely powerful, the dramatic, issues that fuelled the imagination or supported who was in power at the time of the description. Interest in the everyday life and "ordinary people", was almost non-existing. This changed from the 1960ies onwards and since these days, we have gained more and more insight into what life was like for the majority of people in the Viking Age fx.. The term Viking was continued to be used, even for the large majority, who perhaps never was engaged directly in the activity. This is the source of this specific controversy, summed up in very compressed form.
- PS. Thanks for the link. It would actually work as a source of what I am trying to get across. I might add though, that the Swedes was perhaps not "the saints of the Viking Age" as it is often believed. They were pretty brutal in the Baltic states, as evidenced by the recently excavated Salme ships and Grobiņa fx.. RhinoMind (talk) 22:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- Hey, Rhino. I'm going to go point by point for clarity. I think we're of a very like mind on this, so I'll try not to be too verbose (though I can't help myself sometimes).
- Having stated that, an article on the meaning on the word viking, the act of going viking (some used to lie in viking) throughout history and its relation to piracy etc., could perhaps do some good. I would support such an effort. IMO the article could explain the etymological aspects of the word, its origin, how it was used, who it was reserved for, etc. etc.. Maybe this was exactly how you imagined it?
- That is not far off the mark. What I envisioned when I spoke of a separate article was a top-level section in the main article on the Norse people (whatever it's called) about their practice of traveling far and wide for a variety of reasons, and to have this section start with a Main Article: Vikings (seafarers) link, that would give much more information. I do not see a division between the Norse and going Viking in nay means. In fact, if you look at my most recent response to Dan below, you can see where I criticized him for minimizing the importance of going viking. I agree completely that going viking was very important to the Norse during the Viking age. I'm simply asserting that it was important enough to them (and to the rest of Europe, North Africa and the Near East) to deserve its own article.
- Yes, the meaning of the word and concept of Viking changes with time and is constantly challenged. It would be great to describe these varying views in this article (and source them), but instead people have just put all their energy into complaining here on the talk page :-). Bad management in my eyes
- I agree completely. I've made a new section to try to trim the fat from these discussions, but so far I have no takers. Perhaps you'd be willing to go down to that section and seed the pot, so to speak?
- This is the source of this specific controversy, summed up in very compressed form.
- I would tend to agree with that as well. I wish we could get more agreement on the subject. One thing I would like to point out. If you carefully read that link, the author (a noted historian and expert) says that the term properly refers to either piracy and raiding or "...the activities of the Scandinavians outside their own country in that period." I think that's an important distinction that I have always held, but that I may have failed to convey previously. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:57, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- Hey, Rhino. I'm going to go point by point for clarity. I think we're of a very like mind on this, so I'll try not to be too verbose (though I can't help myself sometimes).
- So, to make sure I understand this correctly: You don't believe that there should be a separate article on the raiders because the word viking is used to describe the culture as a whole during that time period? (I feel compelled to point out that reserving the term for the raiders and explorers is not a recent phenomenon, but an academic one which -apparently- has in the past few decades, fallen out of favor.) MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:39, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- A second article about what? There already is an article about Norsemen, even though it could need some expansion, and also perhaps a move to a better name, such as Norse people (which today is a disambiguation page). So I can't see what other article would be needed. Thomas.W talk 14:28, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: You seem to confuse Northmen and Norsemen (i.e. the Norse people). "Northmen" is an uncommon term, and thus just a redirect, while "Norsemen", or "Norse people", is the proper term for the Germanic people, speaking Old Norse (and before that Proto-Norse), who have lived in Scandinavia since long before the Viking Age, and whose descendants still live there. The Viking raids and other activities away from their homelands, such as trading in foreign ports and lands, were only conducted by some of the Norse people, while the rest of the Norse stayed at home and managed their farms etc. And even for those who went on raids and trading journeys it was only a part-time activity. Thomas.W talk 12:06, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Dan Koehl's discussion
- Strong oppose, since all sources stat the word viking as old english translation from the latin word pirate, or more specifically, the latin piraticam was directly translated to vicingus. 1. In all sources from medevial time to 1900, starting with the oldest source,(Orosius, written in latin, and translated into old english.) which names Alexander the Great´s father, Philip II of Macedonia as a viking, during his two years of piracy, until this last century, vikingr and viking never refered to any ethnical group, but to a time limited activity, based on robbery and piracy. It was often in the primes sources refered to people of Norsemen origin, but not limited to that, the oldest source mentions a macedonian viking, one source mentions vikings of arabic origin, and other mentions slavic paople from present baltic countries and Poland, why no certain language, ethnical or cultural association can be connected to the activity described as vikingr in the prime source, it was simply the oldenglish term for piracy, giving no geographical connection to the pirats. 2. Norsemen, on the other hand did belong to an ethnical group, connected by speaking the Norse language. This group, norsemen, were like any other ethnical group consisting of many professions and activities, where piracy, and going on viking, was among the less common activity. Most probably, most norse never, ever left their home countries, only a few, and then mostly in ledang, which should also not be connected to viking. 3. It should also be remembered that sources never claim that viking was a peaceful trade activity, because trade and viking was not the same: : 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. 4. Its much more educational to let the article vikings deal with true vikings, and not misunderstandings, or abuse of the term. Likevise, its much more educational to develop the article about norsemen, without focusing on less then 1% of their activities. 5. 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.. Whatever ignorant public has tried to transfer the original meaning of viking during the last 20 years, viking and Norsemen did not mean the same. Its not allowed to call all german nazis, on the wikipedia, or call all americans cowboys, even if it may be a widespread habit during shorter or longer time. It should, for the same reason, not be allowed to call all scandinavians vikings. Dan Koehl (talk) 21:13, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- Very well Dan, but The Norse was also around in the Nordic Iron Age for example. So what should we call The Norse in the Viking Age, if not Vikings? Try argue with an archaeologist btw :-). And may I add, that even in the Nordic Iron Age, Swedes attacked Eastern Jutland right where I live now. Many times! Examples: Illerup Ådal, Hedelisker near da:Løgten, Alken Enge. I do not hold any grudge (that would be pretty dumb), but it shows that piracy or the act of going viking was infecting Scandinavia itself and spared noone. It was not an activity some random psychopaths suddenly thought up and went abroad to act out. Not at all. As I have already suggested, I really hope you will write up a proper article on The Norse. RhinoMind (talk) 00:02, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- @Dan Koehl:Ok great, I see you are engaged in the right places then. Try ask them, what they would prefer to call the Norse during the Viking Age then. It would be interesting to hear. Anyway, we have been through a lot of this before in other sections. I dont necessarily disagree with your post here - neither your sourced info or your views -, I was just alarmed about your apparent frustration about the staining of your/our ancestors, by calling them Vikings. I wouldn't bother. RhinoMind (talk) 01:39, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- Dan Koehl (talk · contribs), I have seen multiple sources which explicitly state that the word 'vikings' does not descend from any Old English word. I have never seen a source which disagrees. To respond to your claims point by points.....
- The Old English word 'wicingas' is explicitly not linked to the modern word 'viking', see here for illustration of this. There was no Old English word "viking'. What you are proposing is not only original research and synthesis, but it is also an easily identifiable fringe theory that would gain no traction were it proposed by an actual historian, let alone some random wikipedian. Apologies if I come across as overly harsh, but that's the simple truth.
- While technically correct, it is obfuscating and misleading to claim that raiding was one of the least common activities. Bear in mind that this was a culture that glorified warfare to the point of having a separate afterlife for those who fell in battle.
- The way the term was used a thousand years ago is -as agreed by all here but you- a moot point. It is the way it is used today that matters.
- I agree completely.
- First off, I myself am of Norwegian heritage and I find your sentiments lacking in relevance (though common to those with whom I spoke of the subject during a vacation to Norway). It doesn't matter whether it is offensive to you, me or anyone else that the term is used in a specific manner, today. Secondly, the term is used by historians, as the best sources we have found all agree that the use of the term to refer to Norse people during the viking age has its roots in academia as much as in the public consciousness. Your remarks about the 'ignorant public' are not only off base, but belittling to a number of experts. We should all bear in mind that all of us here are amateurs, and none of us historians or acknowledged experts on the subject. We should behave in accordance with that knowledge. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:39, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Comments
As a quick comment, it might be useful if someone were to summarise, in a strawman fashion, what the articles currently are around this topic, what articles would exist after the changes, and (roughly) what their content would be. As far as I can see, the debate is around:
- The top level articles of the Vikings article, the Viking Age article, the Norsemen article and the Northmen (the last one of which redirects to the Norsemen article);
- You then have some other, fairly similar articles with related names, such as Viking expansion and Norse activity in the British Isles;
- Some lower level articles, such as Viking Age art and Norse art, which in this case both go to the same article (Viking Age art), but also articles like Viking Age arms and armour; we don't seem to have a Norse arms and armour article;
- ...and some article names like Viking gods and Norse gods which both redirect to something somewhat different, in this case a List of Germanic deities, although there are also the Norse mythology and Norse religion articles, which seem to overlap with each other quite a bit; we don't have a Viking religion article though; Viking mythology redirects to Norse mythology.
If it's helpful, the typical "entry" article for a new reader is the Vikings article, with 8,000 hits a day; the Viking Age gets around 1,500 and Norsemen 650 or so.
As noted, I'd personally certainly find it easier to discuss a change if someone were to present a rough "before and after" strawman picture of how some of this might look, particularly from a reader's perspective. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:08, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- As things stand, the article Norsemen is a shorter version of the Vikings article, with some different references. The other articles (the majority of which are redirects) are just fine. I don't think anyone has a problem with the terms "Viking Arms and Armor" or "Viking Art", but even if we are going to refactor those articles to get to some consistent naming, we need to make a decision here what we will consider "Viking" to mean. Right now we're voting on a merger of Norsemen into Vikings, but that draws some fairly clear lines about what we all think the word means. If the merger goes through, we can then ensure that using "viking" as synonymous with "Norse" in other articles is done. If the merger fails (my own preference), we can then work to ensure that other articles use "Norse" to refer to the culture, and reserve "viking" for the raiders/traders/explorers, with a special exception made for the Viking Age. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:18, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Additional Information
I went through the links presented by both Zarlan and myself, and laid them out in a table, for reference. I tried to be as objective as possible, and the majority of links still draw a distinction.
Link | Stance | Type | Summary |
---|---|---|---|
http://www.archeurope.com/index.php?page=the-term-viking | Controversial but Distinct | Scholarly | This link comments on the controversy about the word 'viking', but does draw a distinction between it and other ethnic/regional identifiers. |
http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/plaintexthistories.asp?historyid=ab86 | Distinct | Scholarly | This link uses the word 'vikings' in reference to raiders/explorers/traders, and uses ethnic/regional names when referring to specific groups. |
http://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/society/text/raids.htm | Distinct | Scholarly (amateur) | This link uses the word 'vikings' only to refer to the raiders/explorers/traders, and uses ethnic/regional names when referring to the culture in general. |
http://natmus.dk/en/historical-knowledge/denmark/prehistoric-period-until-1050-ad/the-viking-age/the-people/ | Synonymous | Scholarly | This link uses the word 'vikings' to refer to the culture as a whole. |
http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/primaryhistory/vikings/who_were_the_vikings/ | Distinct | Popular | This link uses the word 'vikings' to refer to the raider/explorers/traders. |
http://www.history.com/news/history-lists/10-things-you-may-not-know-about-the-vikings | Distinct* | Popular | This link uses the word distinctly in the opening paragraph, but also refers to 'viking women' (here meaning 'Norse women' and then re-affirms the distinction in the last paragraph. |
http://www.livescience.com/32087-viking-history-facts-myths.html | Distinct | Popular | This link uses the word 'vikings' to refer to the raiders/explorers/traders and makes a point of defining the term as meaning just that. |
http://www.vikingdenmark.com/what-is-a-viking.html | Synonymous* | Popular | This link uses the word 'vikings' to refer to the culture, but also points out that it still means 'pirate' in modern Scandinavian languages and uses the word in both senses. |
http://www.visitnorway.com/us/about-norway/history/the-vikings/ | Distinct* | Popular | This link defines the word 'vikings' to refer to pirates, but also uses the word in both senses. |
There are six links that draw a distinction between the ethnic group and the raiders/traders/explorers, two that consider the terms synonymous, and one that comments on the popularity of synonymous use, but nonetheless draws a distinction. I excluded the 5 dictionary definitions I provided (they all give the primary definition as being Norse pirates), because they were unanimous. I also left out the three dictionary definitions Zarlan provided (They all define the word 'Norse') because they also imply unanimity by not defining the word in reference to vikings. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:03, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2014
Grammar edits needed.
Issue is (was/were) subject/verb agreement.
Article:Vikings http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikings
Burial sites subheading-
The burial practises of the Viking was quite varied, ...practices...were quite varied,(might also make that Vikings) Either way it's a plural reference and needs a plural verb.
both cremation and inhumation was common. ...both...were common.
Goods subheading-
The Viking ship designs, like that of the knarr, was an important factor in their success... ...designs...were...
...feathers was bought from the Samis. ...feathers were bought...
... hunting birds was sometimes provided... ..birds were sometimes provided...
...goods was also traded... ..goods were also traded...
Artisans and craftsmen in the larger towns was supplied... Artisans and craftsmen...were supplied...
They was used... They were used...
Viking Expansion Heading-
The Saxons was a fierce and powerful people and was often in conflict with the Vikings. The Saxons were...and were often in conflict...
...the defence constructions was in use... ...the defence constructions were in use...
Reasons and motives subheading-
Raids in Europe including raids and settlements from Scandinavia, was not something new... Raids..., were not something new...
...their raids was much larger... ...were much larger...
Done. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 08:26, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
How should these articles be organized?
In an effort to try and limit some of the extensive debating going on here, I'd like to ask everyone involved to pick which of the following options most appeals to them, and to explain why. If your most preferred option does not appear, please choose the best one and the describe your preferred option in your explanation. Perhaps if we can sort out the points on which we all agree, we can at least break the debate down into just what we disagree about.
- 1. Leave everything the way it is with only minor changes (such as better sources, grammar, etc).
- 2. Leave all articles titled the way they are, but merge Norsemen into this article and organize all alternate terms (including 'Norsemen') into redirects.
- 3. Change this article to be about the raiders/traders/explorers (not just the raiders!), merge all the information about the culture and society into the Norsemen article, and organize all alternate terms into redirects.
- 4. Merge Norsemen into this article, create a new section in this article for the raiders/traders/explorers, and organize all alternate terms into redirects.
- 5. Merge Norsemen into this article, create a new article called 'Vikings (seafarers)' or something similar, putting all information about the raiders/traders/explorers into that article, and organize all alternate terms into redirects.
- 6. Change this article to be about the vikings (the real documented vikings, the raiders!), merge all the information about traders/explorers and the culture and society into the Norsemen article, and organize all alternate terms into redirects. (This option was added by Dan Koehl at 23:22, 30 April 2014 (UTC))
I will withhold my vote until everyone else has had a chance to say their piece, as I find myself more and more on the fence about the subject. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- Option 1: Leave the articles titled as they are. Some of these are titled because they are connected to the Viking Age. Some of them, such as the use of Norse mythology in writing about the religion of the ancient Norsemen, and the reliance of articles on Germanic paganism on Norse sources, have to do with the nature of sources and the historical development of the field, but that group illustrates the problem with over-generalising "Viking" - the Norsemen had a culture before they developed Viking ships, and they continued to have one during and after the Viking Age, and to do things other than viking. My objection is to the merger/renaming. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:39, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- They also had the same types of ships long before the "Viking Age", they weren't developed over night when they decided to raid Lindisfarne in 793AD (which is often seen as the beginning of the "Viking Age"). So referring to them as "Viking ships" is incorrect. They were very seaworthy ships that had gradually evolved over a very long time, as can be seen on Nordic Bronze Age (~1,700BC-500BC, i.e. predating the "Viking Age" by 2,500-1,300 years) petroglyphs, showing roughly similar types of ships. Thomas.W talk 19:04, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, but there's a reasonable historical argument that the Viking Age began only once the ships had reached a certain point in that evolution - in opposition to the theory that it was touched off by an event. Also that's the term the outsiders/victims used :-) Not disagreeing with you in essence tho. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- They also had the same types of ships long before the "Viking Age", they weren't developed over night when they decided to raid Lindisfarne in 793AD (which is often seen as the beginning of the "Viking Age"). So referring to them as "Viking ships" is incorrect. They were very seaworthy ships that had gradually evolved over a very long time, as can be seen on Nordic Bronze Age (~1,700BC-500BC, i.e. predating the "Viking Age" by 2,500-1,300 years) petroglyphs, showing roughly similar types of ships. Thomas.W talk 19:04, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- Ideal solution: 1. Create an article on "The Norse" (people,) describing what this broad term actually means. I hope proper sources exists on this issue? 2. Improve this articles section on Etymology heavily. Maybe an entire new article could be written on the word viking, as it was (apparently) also applied to "non-Norse" people. 3. Rename the article Norsemen to Northmen. It could then possibly be merged into this article under Etymology.
- I am unable to choose between the 5 options presented here, right now. What happens to the article on Norsemen is of least concern to me, but seems to be of highest concern in this section. RhinoMind (talk) 22:25, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- Option 1. And please note that you can't discuss changes to Norsemen here, it must be done at Talk:Norsemen, so this whole discussion is just a waste of time (with Option 2 being an even greater waste of time than the other options since we have just been through a discussion regarding a merger of Norsemen and Vikings, with a landslide "victory" for keeping the articles separate; so just drop the stick...). Thomas.W talk 13:28, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- I'm done. You seem incapable of playing well with others, you seem hell bent on finding strife where there need not be any and I frankly don't care enough about this article to put up with you any more. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- @MjolnirPants: I'm just telling you what the proper procedure is, i.e. that discussions regarding the content of an article should be on that article's talk page, not somewhere else, and that you can not start a new merger discussion right after a discussion about the same merger proposal has resulted in a landslide decision against the merger. So just drop the stick and find something else to do. Thomas.W talk 08:29, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- I'm done. You seem incapable of playing well with others, you seem hell bent on finding strife where there need not be any and I frankly don't care enough about this article to put up with you any more. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:54, 1 May 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)
In Eastern Europe. Was it "settled" ? More sources needed.
- 1st - Viking family (Rurik) became administrator in Veliky Novgorod. Settlement Rurikovo Gorodische was converted into the residence of the princes. This settlement was before Vikings.
- 2st - "In 882, Rurik's successor, Oleg of Novgorod, conquered Kiev and founded the state of Kievan Rus'."(from Veliky Novgorod)... Conquered. Where were new settlements ?
- And next this article say me without sources - "By 950 these settlements were largely Slavicised." Where were new settlements ? What was Slavicised ? Where ?--Мехтех (talk) 22:03, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Reference section
Is this actually meant to be further reading or were all of these used in writing the article as one would expect reading WP:FNNR? Dougweller (talk) 16:39, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
- Apparently not all of them were used as references, and those not cited one way or the other have been moved to a Further reading section. Best, Sam Sailor Sing 16:55, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello. Have you bothered to check the history of this page? It might have featured in deleted material? I dont know if that's important, but just wanted to make a note of it. RhinoMind (talk) 21:22, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
- I'm open to the possibility that publications now placed in /Further reading/ could be WP:GENREF, but I find it sligthly hairsplitting as long as they are still there. Best, Sam Sailor Sing 04:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
A worrying development...
I can see, that there is a development towards dividing the Vikings - and what English speaking cultures refers to as "The Norse" - into Danes and Swedes (and maybe other tribes and North Germanic peoples, from the Nordic Iron Age?). This is troubled waters. Let me explain why in short:
One of the "achievements" of The Viking Age was, that it homogenized the cultures of Scandinavia. In fact, the cultures were primarily homogenized up until the beginning of The Viking Age, and the Vikings/The Norse took of from this new unity and similarity and centralized both economic and military power throughout this era. In the Nordic Iron Age, there were a lot of local internal skirmishes in Scandinavia, between various clans and peoples, but with an increasing centralization of power and military might, social and economical organization and various technological achievements as well, what later became the Royal Family of Denmark, arose and settled around Lejre and Roskilde on Zealand and much of these internal clashes ceased. This was the reality in Scandinavia in The Viking Age. It was no longer Danes, Swedes, etc. that inhabited Scandinavia, it was a different and much more homogeneous and centralized culture. There were no Denmark, there were no Sweden and there were no Norway in those days, these nations and names first emerged after the Viking Age ended.
I dare to say that this situation explains why that in Scandinavia, the people of The Viking Age is known as Vikings and not as Danes, Swedes or Norse for that matter. Whatever the reason is, I strongly advice to consider how the words Danes, Swedes, Danish, Swedish is used in this article, in addition to the words Denmark, Sweden and Norway of course.
I have not had the time to change the specific wording in the article, like the image-text of the first picture fx., but for future editors: Beware! or should I say: Be aware? :-)
RhinoMind (talk) 21:48, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
>> Posted on both the "Norsemen" and "Vikings" Talk pages: As an increasingly steady contributor to Viking / Norse articles on Wikipedia, I've been intrigued to read the Talk pages for some of the more critical articles. As time passes, I'm convinced of the need for reorganisation across a number of these.
Starting with the Norsemen / Viking 'divide', for example, I'm aware there has been discussion recently as to the merits of merging these two articles. Some consensus apparently arose against a merger, for the moment at least, BUT since then nothing (or next to nothing) has been done to reorganise the articles in the manner which reflects that particular consensus. The 'Vikings' article, focusing on the raiding / piratical aspect of the word - distinct from the modern, generalised ethnic marker in English language texts - still retains much that would be better placed in a "Norsemen" / "Norse" article, not least the socio-economic descriptions of late 1st millennium Scandinavian society and economy. Such reorganisation would be the logical outcome of that consensus. Rather, it seems that the central argument to date has been over the semantics of the 'Viking / Norse divide', but with little or no responsibility then taken for rearranging the content. I would, moreover, consider it imperative - in the interests of clarity - to make more explicit the links between the two articles in their opening paragraph(s) and / or disambiguation links. A general reader, or researching student, looking up "Vikings" for example, needs to have it made clear that the Wikipedia article with that title will focus on the raider / piratical aspect of Norse culture, with the general article on the ethnic group from which the Vikings originated, the 'Northmen' / 'Norse', possessing its own much wider, more generalised article. I think the creation of a specialised "Viking" / "Northmen" / "Norse" template might assist with this potentially confusing overlap. The casual, beginning reader for example, might find it rather perplexing that we can have "Norse mythology", but also a specific article on "Viking art" - the links and boundaries between these established terms in scholarship are clear for those in the know, but could be rather confusing for the uninitiated.
Most worryingly, we seem to have a series of articles that duplicate the same material and / or present similar ideas in multiple sections. I'm already on record for questioning the organisation of the Viking Age article, for example.
I'm interested to hear what others think on this matter... This is a call for further discussion on these matters, rather than an attempt to provide solid answers. Anyone? Paul James Cowie (talk) 20:27, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- Hi. I have supplied much of the recent new info on this page, mainly concerning the Everyday Life of the Vikings.
- As you say, this is not a new discussion, and it would not be right to dismiss the thorough previous debates. However I will try to make a few points that seems to fit well in here: 1. In Scandinavia there is no word for Norse. Scandinavian people of the Viking Age are simply termed Vikings. This is important to know and it is also explained on the page Northmen. 2. The word Viking has (outside scholarly circles) and in everyday language, a rather brutal, negative and hostile meaning. Probably because of the experienced Viking raids long time ago. A bit like the word Vandal. This is not completely fair, but the reasons are discussed in many places so I am not going to list them here. Hence the word Norse is normally used in English speaking cultures outside Scandinavia, Iceland, Faeroe Islands and Greenland to describe the people of the Vikings so to speak. To separate the piracy and violence from the culture and the people for one reason. 3. I endorse starting a page on "The Norse", as I have already stated several times, but I am not going to do it, as I haven't found enough credibility of the term Norse in the sources to do so. 4. The term Northmen is different from the term Norse and as long as the page Northmen is the only alternative to Vikings, I do not approve moving any information there or any information here from there.
- Thanks RhinoMind, for sharing your thoughts. I find it interesting that in Scandinavia there is no term for 'Norse' and that people of the Viking Age are simply called 'Vikings' - that's always been my impression when visiting Scandinavia also. As regards your second point - "The word Viking has (outside scholarly circles) and in everyday language, a rather brutal, negative and hostile meaning" - I'm positive that 'Viking' is nowhere near as negative a term as you might think, beyond a relative handful of (politically correct?) scholars and commentators. After 10 centuries, I think most people are over the raids, people are quite fond of even the 'negative' Viking image, and 'Viking' appears in a huge variety of published sources and other contexts in a neutral or positive manner (children's books, educational syllabi, the British Museum exhibition, etc). Rightly or wrongly (and as a 'Viking' and Norwegian descendant I'm aware of all the arguments), it is also the term that most English-speaking people would use when referring to Norse people of the Viking Age - and even beyond! It makes me wonder how we got to this recent consensus regarding the 'Norse' / 'Viking' divide at all.... I maintain that we need to be clearer in disambiguating and explaining articles within Wikipedia that treat this subject area. Any other thoughts? Paul James Cowie (talk) 05:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- Hello. About the disambiguation: I have proposed in discussions above, to elaborate much more on the Etymology section on this page. It would be a perfect place to explain more about this messy (but real) divide and also to explain about the origins and meanings of the word "Viking" itself. People have just been complaining though, while there is plenty of room to really do something about this confusion. Besides, the Norse/Viking "problem" is also similar to problems we encounter on other subject here on Wikipedia. Indians - the natives of the Americas - for example. Maybe we can get some useful inspiration from there? Just a thought. On the general level, I believe that this issue tickles a soft spot of Wikipedia itself: Is Wikipedia a British English project? Is Wikipedia an American project? Is Wikipedia a truly international project that just happens to use English as preferred language? I think I know the answer, but finds the conflict very interesting and we can see how this can express itself here on the Vikings page as an example. This might be a bit different and general discussion, but thought I would mention it. On "Viking-hate" (a new word there :-)): I am totally with you on this issue, but believe me some people are still offended and upset about the brutalities that happened 1000 years ago. No kidding. The Vikings were pretty brutal, I am not dismissing that at all, but it is no less than a few months ago, when Britians on a serious level wanted official apologies from Denmark for what Viking invaders did in Britain.[6][7] Funny thing is, that many Brits are as much "Viking" as any Danish person in Denmark nowadays, due to the extent of the Danelaw fx.. Some people in Scandinavia (Swedish Dan Koehl who have posted a lot above fx.), are also offended when their ancestors are referred to as Vikings, because they associate the word with ruthless brutalities and they dont want and dont think their ancestors were ever part of that - which might very well be true. However, there isn't any other proper word to use in Scandinavia, other than Viking apparently. Maybe something comes up, but every scholarly text from Scandinavia is using Viking in the way I explained, just look at the references. The word Norse might also be worth to investigate here. Because actually it is a more general term, than just "the people of Scandinavia in the Viking Age". Norse culture also extends to the Nordic Iron Age fx., where Norse religion was also prevalent, although in a different form. And as I see it, Norse is just a term describing the "people of Scandinavia", without being specific about what Age and at what time. I am Norse, as I am Danish for example.
- Regarding language usage, WP:COMMONNAME states, "Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural." While noting variations in usage in Scandanavian languages may be appropriate in discussion, English language WP employs terms as used in English language sources. Also, WP:ENGVAR sets forth issues to consider regarding English variants; British English would clearly be most appropriate here. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 21:16, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Laszlo. What is your point? RhinoMind (talk) 00:29, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- I'm addressing your comments regarding which variant of English language is relevant. Also pointing out that English language WP is guided by how terms are used in English language sources. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 00:43, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Hi. I think you misunderstood my message then, with all respect. I wasn't talking about concrete choice of language, but more "(cultural) angle of view" so to speak. I believe my example with Indians was an illustrative one. Wikipedia is in need of adopting a universal view of the subjects it describes, even though the language of choice is English. It is a sheer necessity. I dont know if that is the case already, but it is an interesting issue to discuss nevertheless and I was just casually doing that. Btw. (on Vikings specifically): The scholarly texts coming out of Scandinavia itself on "the Scandinavians of the Viking Age", are to a large degree written in English as well. Maybe that was stating the obvious, but thought I would state it anyway. RhinoMind (talk) 01:07, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- I'm addressing your comments regarding which variant of English language is relevant. Also pointing out that English language WP is guided by how terms are used in English language sources. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 00:43, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Laszlo. What is your point? RhinoMind (talk) 00:29, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Regarding language usage, WP:COMMONNAME states, "Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural." While noting variations in usage in Scandanavian languages may be appropriate in discussion, English language WP employs terms as used in English language sources. Also, WP:ENGVAR sets forth issues to consider regarding English variants; British English would clearly be most appropriate here. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 21:16, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Literature review
Some time ago I set aside several links to sources, but I haven't had time to read much of them. I'll post a few of them here, and perhaps others will probe more deeply than I have. These are preview versions, but with extensive passages. My skimming does suggest support for the divide described above by User:Pjamescowie. These sources tend to distinguish "Vikings" as those who went abroad to raid or settle from "Scandanavians" as those who stayed behind, or for the origins of the Vikings. They also provide ample illustration that the term Vikings no longer carries a predominantly negative connotation in recent scholarship. I encourage others to review these sources more carefully, but I'll make a couple of notes here.
- F. Donald Logan, The Vikings in History (2005): In the preface to the Third Edition, Logan notes the explosion of scholarship in the twenty years since the first edition, and thus he provides a more finely tuned discussion of his terminology, just as we are discussing doing. He directly states that he is applying the term Vikings to those who went abroad. He notes that more recent scholarship applies the term to those who stayed behind as well, but he asserts that those people would have identified themselves as Danes or Norse or Swedes, but not as Vikings. At any rate that is how he uses the term in his well-known work, and thus provides support for us to apply a similar divide here.
- The Cambridge History of Scandinavia, Issue 1 (Knut Helle, ed., 2003): This is a dense and extensive work that I have barely cracked. I would note that it usefully divides its discussion of Vikings into chapters on Viking Expansion and Viking Culture. No matter how we end up splitting the pages, this approach should be followed. Right now we have a hodge-podge that buries the Viking Age history within the cultural discussion. (The Culture chapter is partially the work of Roesdahl, who was an early source of this page, so the chapter has some familiar language.) The chapter on Viking Expansion also appears to distinguish the Vikings as those who went abroad, applying the term Scandanavian to their origins and to those who stayed behind. Again, a deeper reading is needed.
- After some further reading: This work has chapters written by a number of different scholars, and a quick search shows that many appear to use the term 'Norse' as a synonym of Scandanavian. I don't see any discussion of the term itself, but I've only read through the chapters on the Viking period so far. This link to the search shows numerous instances of Norse, though, often in relation to language, but also referring broadly to the people of Scandanavia and the culture they brought to their settlements. The chapters on language and other cultural issues (see here) may have further discussion of those issues. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 21:15, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Angelo Forte, Richard D. Oram, Frederik Pedersen, Viking Empires (2005): Here again we see a distinction between Scandanavian kingdoms and dynasties and Vikings, which it states "should be understood as referring to a Scandanavian who participated in the settlement - peaceful or violent - of northern Europe and the Atlantic islands..." (p.4).
All these sources use "Scandanavians" as a general term, leaving open whether we might extrapolate "Scandanavians of the 8th to 11th centuries" to Norse or Norsemen or Northmen (though all those terms appear in these sources). As throughout, more detailed review of these sources would be welcome. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 21:16, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- Just a quick short comment. We dont know, and will probably never know, how the Scandinavians of the Viking Age, (living in Scandinavia) identified themselves in their own time. Because there are not many sources on it (any?), because they probably identified themselves primarily by their home town and local area more than anything. We can guess in all eternity, scholars or not. But it doesn't matter much really. Applying the term Viking to "the Scandinavians of the Viking Age" is a later habit. And what is most important is what Viking means today, and not 500 or 1000 years ago. These things can (and should) be discussed under Etymology. In this respect scientists of today have a somewhat free choice on how to use the word Viking, and many have apparently settled for it meaning "the Scandinavians during the Viking Age", unless they specifically says otherwise in their specific texts. Just saying. Will be back with more on other issues. RhinoMind (talk) 00:42, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Again, we are guided by current secondary sources interpreting these terms. It is not our position to guess at anything; doing so would be WP:OR. We apply the terms as they are used by scholars in reliable sources. Too much of the discussion here focuses on the opinions and sensibilities of editors, when the guidance we need to seek is that of reliable sources. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 00:59, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Laszlo: Do these scholars explain why they make these distinctions between Scandinavian at home and Scandinavians that went abroad? Or is it simply out of necessity? I mean when you study Vikings, you would definitely need to narrow down from the start, which specific Vikings you will study, and of course if you study Vikings in settlements (York or Dublin fx.,) you cannot automatically transfer and generalized the outcome of this research and knowledge to each and every Viking everywhere (or each and every Scandinavian living anywhere, if the word Scandinavian is preferred). I think the distinction you talk about is just out of necessity and not an argument for what Viking means or not means in general. RhinoMind (talk) 00:51, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- I have linked these works above. They are extensive and include discussion of the use of terms being applied. I cannot copy and paste from these links, and I don't have time to retype extensive passages of discussion. I urge you to read them yourself. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 00:59, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Pronounciation?
Although everyone pronounces "Viking" as if it rhymes with "liking" I read somewhere that the correct pronounciation is actually with a short "i" - i.e. it rhymes with "licking". Muzilon (talk) 08:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- Hi. Yes this is true. In modern Danish, Swedish and Norwegian Viking is pronounced like that and perhaps also in other languages? This is probably because it is derived from the word "Vik", which is still used in Norwegian and Swedish. Anyway, it is a common case, that words have different pronunciations in different languages and we are following the (British) English language here on the English WP. RhinoMind (talk) 15:05, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- No, the correct pronounciation does not rhyme with licking, it's a long "i", not a short one, so the proper pronounciation is "Vee-king" (which to a Scandinavian-speaker is obvious from the spelling; to rhyme with licking it would have to be spelled vicking/vikking). Thomas.W talk 15:15, 15 July 2014 (UTC) (Trust me, I'm fluent in Swedish and also have a good knowledge of both Danish and Norwegian...)
- We are not talking proper pronunciation here. I believe this is a settled issue, how this is properly pronounced in the English language. Having said that, I can't see that Vee-king does not rhyme with licking. Are you trying to explain, that Vee-king rhymes with seeking perhaps (in Swedish)? To me that's much closer to licking that liking. RhinoMind (talk) 20:25, 15 July 2014 (UTC) (I am fluent in Danish and have adequate knowledge of Swedish and Norwegian (nothing to be proud of, but not ignorant))
- The pronounciation is much closer to seeking than licking. And vee-king does not rhyme with licking since it has a long "i" and a very brief pause in the middle (marked by the dash), unlike both seeking and licking. You could probably get closer to the proper pronounciation if you use IPA symbols, but "vee-king" (or perhaps "vea-king"; compare "seeking" and "Sea-King") is probably as good as you can get it without IPA. Thomas.W talk 20:45, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- We are not talking proper pronunciation here. I believe this is a settled issue, how this is properly pronounced in the English language. Having said that, I can't see that Vee-king does not rhyme with licking. Are you trying to explain, that Vee-king rhymes with seeking perhaps (in Swedish)? To me that's much closer to licking that liking. RhinoMind (talk) 20:25, 15 July 2014 (UTC) (I am fluent in Danish and have adequate knowledge of Swedish and Norwegian (nothing to be proud of, but not ignorant))
- No, the correct pronounciation does not rhyme with licking, it's a long "i", not a short one, so the proper pronounciation is "Vee-king" (which to a Scandinavian-speaker is obvious from the spelling; to rhyme with licking it would have to be spelled vicking/vikking). Thomas.W talk 15:15, 15 July 2014 (UTC) (Trust me, I'm fluent in Swedish and also have a good knowledge of both Danish and Norwegian...)
Visby and Gotland trade centre? - The economic engine of the entire culture?
Visiting Gotlands Fornsal/Gotlands museum in Visby, the local historical museum, makes a totally different impression than this article, which looks to be about raiders in Saxon England?
- I added a section on the trade and I dont see this page focusing one-sidede on "raiders in England". I would appreciate more info of the kind you are also calling for though. the problem though, seems to be lack of proper archaeological evidence for the postulated trade centres on Gotland. When archaeologist have looked, there were surprisingly little evidence for it, even though several sources are pointing to this particular place as a large international trading hub. It doesn't mean it wasn't a trading center of the kind imagined, but it is hard to write much about it in an encyclopedia, when the hard evidence is still missing. The lack of sufficient evidence is interesting in itself and people are researching this. Hopefully something will come up in the future for us to write about. RhinoMind (talk) 04:24, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- Btw. Remember that when visiting various "Viking Museums" practising Living history, they are not necessarily historically accurate in relation to the specific site they are placed in. They often picks from various places and reconstruct them at their own site. Its not wrong to do that, but it can give some false impressions of course. Not all sites are like that, but many are. RhinoMind (talk) 04:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- Well you are right about museums and my view of the talk page is to find good comments and people that finds the right references if not there. I think history is a matter of weighting basic information in a world full of old very effeicient political propaganda, a hard isse. I did not collect refernces when I was there and Wikipedia did not exst at that time. I think what I wrote would be good being thougt over for some tadys and see if any other have any good comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzalpha (talk • contribs) 05:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC) Zzalpha (talk) 05:45, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- I ask myself what is proven truth and like to read comments. Arab dirhams just don't appear in masisve scale from nothing, so not the Vikings. The Gotland Museum explaination is the only I have heard that makes sense in the way it explains how the Vikings were orgaised, funded and who the paying cumstomer (the French King minted silver and wanted the dirhams) were. Nothing happens without and having a topic without is just nonsense.
- Well you are right about museums and my view of the talk page is to find good comments and people that finds the right references if not there. I think history is a matter of weighting basic information in a world full of old very effeicient political propaganda, a hard isse. I did not collect refernces when I was there and Wikipedia did not exst at that time. I think what I wrote would be good being thougt over for some tadys and see if any other have any good comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzalpha (talk • contribs) 05:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC) Zzalpha (talk) 05:45, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Zzalpha (talk) 05:46, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
One of the main impacts in Gotlands Fornsal are the massive quantetees Arab silver dirhams found in Gotland soil (the soil = Viking bank deposits), and so many more than else in Scandinavia. At first, having the perspectives of the present article all the dirhams comes as a complete surprise before getting the obvious story told. Why are there dirhams in Gotland, never heard of them before? And dirhams just don't appears of no reasons in the soil?
The key to establish Visby as the grand Market (place) is explained as, being the establishment of the transport hub in Aldeigjuborg/Staraya Ladoga and the Volga trade route to present northern Iran at the southern coast of the Caspian sea rather than the Trade route from the Varangians to the Greeks looks to have been the main slightly greyer main business engine of that time. The Volga trade route brought Arab silver dirhams and the use of them was they were demanded in Western Europe for re-coinage. The number of Byzantine coins are far fewer and the only also found in gold (paid usually for soldiers in the Imperial Varangian Guard).
In short the trade with Constantinople was far less than with the Arabs/Persians in northern present Iran. But there are many more Icelandic tails and rune stone tails about the soldiers of the Imperial guard and robberies in the West than the dull main trade with the Arbas/Persians. However we can read Runestone stories like Ingvar the Far-Travelled and scouting alternative routes to Persia could be a motive?
The basic story is that Scandinavians living around the Baltic sea and especially in Lake Mälaren and Roslagen area in particular got the message, get the silver and you can buy whatever you need. In general a farming population where the young had business adventure opportunities by this setup. Western Scandinavians and aliens (Germans, Dutch, English and French) also got the message, bring the demanded goods and you get paid in silver by weight. And Visby in Gotland Island was the trade centre for this international trade setup. This was a very profitable trade that engaged in business the entire culture of the Viking age, directly or indirectly including the Slavic people in today Russia and Ukraine.
One factor was choking the trade from time to time, the ability to pass the rivers over the steppe. Mainly the Khazars might make troubles or other tribes, which in fact slowly ended the trade at the end, before the 1300ies it became impossible. The second factor was competition, how well or rather bad the ability getting the silver trade working in the Mediterranean Sea.
The Viking age could be seen in parallel with the investments in the early industrial age in the 1800-hundreds or East India Company where more and more daring projects grow from more wealth and opportunities, kind of pure capitalism with profit shareing among shareholders in high risk good payback projects. Something started as raids in bad times for the main trade business, ends up in large scale projects like the establishment of the Danelaw, the establishment of Normandy in the style of MM enterprise in catch 22. And developed in the shape of the Normans later are still like private enterprises and so Cnut the Greats and William the Conquerors project could be seen as almost private enterprise projects. Also manpower was in increasing supply because of very good agricultural conditions in Scandinavia at the time with a massive increase in population until climate and business opportunities became worse in the early 1300 hundreds. Visby as a business hub dies and finally conquered by the Danes.
Either I am completely lost in this view, or this article is written like from the perspectives of the monetary Lindisfarne from when the Vikings showed up. Certainly If I am not wrong and there are alternative explanations of the Arab silver dirhams found in Gotland, I believe this article should have an other introduction. And the business engine should be presented. I think it would be very interesting to read some good comments here? I mean something like the Vikings just do not suddenly appear from nothing and so do not Arab dirhams?
Zzalpha (talk) 04:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- As mentioned in a comment of mine above, there is already a section up on the trade and it also directs to the main article of the trading routes you are talking about. The section is also touching on the "business engine". The silver was used as a bullion currency within Scandinavia, as there were no formal monetary currency. the Arab silver was also melted and turned into jewellery and al kinds of utensils. Silver hoards have been found in many places. RhinoMind (talk) 04:40, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- About the Lindisfarne "obsession". It is just a formally adopted date and not much more than that and I dont think the article are overemphasising it. It is important though, for various reasons. There have been an extensive debate here on the talk page about "The Norse" and I am in favour of creating such a page. Partly because it could put the Vikings in a broader perspective both historically and culturally, since the Norse culture and the Norse religion not the least was also around in the Nordic Iron Age leading up to the Viking age. Let me remind everyone, that The Viking Age is to a large degree a product of the mind, something we have created to better understand what, when and why stuff happened. There is increasing ~evidence, that Vikings were quite active in the Baltic much earlier than Lindisfarne, like the Salme ships are revealing for example. Read the article by Andrew Curry from last summer, referred on the WP page there. This is all relatively new stuff and I am sure something interesting will come out of the research in the near future. RhinoMind (talk) 04:40, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- The thing is that Lindisfarne can't be the core of Vikings but the the silverflow from Arabs/nothern Persia to France over the trade market in Visby in the Gotland Island, can. The silver trade is the engine that made Vikings possible and about nothing else. And the silver was not mainly the local businesss but exported mainly to France for French re-coinage. That is how the western part of the Viking world is connected to the core engine. And it is from this everything else runs up. But from a Viking perspective (not having any state or government) it all was a series of high risk well paid risk investments and not a structured general plan. Each project my be very well planned and each projects business ideas be based on the previous projects and wealth that came out of them. The point is the entire Vikings appearnce can't be understood without seeing them as such indívidual risk captial investment with a large number of shareholders. History aughtors never has such perspective and history is corrupted by lach of perspective and empathy for the situation. Snorri Sturluson lived for instance in the 13th century and at that time sociaty looked very different (the Norwegian king just taken over even Iceland). Zzalpha (talk) 05:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- I think Lindisfarne is the wrong startpoint, the true stratpoint is the establishment of Aldeigjuborg/Staraya Ladoga and the Volga trade route to present northern Iran. Lindisfarne come later and is a smaller private enterprise risk project that starts a series of risk projects in Great Britain, by showing good results and lower risks than feared. The reason Lindisfarne is taking place is that there were most likly a choking situation in silver supply in Visby (the Russian plans). Lindisfarne can't be a startingpoint of the Vikings topic for anyone else but for a British history writers. I think the article should start with explaining in short words the silver trade backbone of the Viking culture and Lindisfarne could start a chapter over Vikings in Britain. Lindisfarne is a result of Visby that is the result of Aldeigjuborg/Staraya Ladoga and the Volga trade route and they all form the Vikings topic. Think about describing The East India Company starting as some evil English people beating up and robbing Indians in Dehli? You woulden't, because it starts in Calcutta and Bombay and is almost all about business and trade at the beginning? Zzalpha (talk) 05:55, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- Yes you are right (ie. I agree with you :-), but Lindisfarne is just a somewhat arbitrary starting point. And we need starting points, when structuring history, athough they should not always be taken too seriously. However Lindisfarne was the first time the Viking entered written history and it was also a starting point for major raids to follow, so it is not completely random. RhinoMind (talk) 21:13, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
- A personal comment: I think that you might be in the process of realising, that one should always look behind the façade to glimpse the real truth. We can read a ton of books, but we first begin to understand, when we look behind the written word and start to think for ourselves and connect the dots. Connecting the dots is so interesting! However, we cannot state that the way we personally connect the dots, is the only way or the only truth. This is how many fights have started! :-) RhinoMind (talk) 21:13, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
To be remarked, the political history of Vikings is an entire different issue because the Viking enterprises were private business by a common Scandinavian culture. The introduction of the Papal Catholic Church lead to a (previously in practice imposisble) solution for powerful people to become kings with the support of the Pope and the Catholic Church in support, in exchange of papal power sharing. Something that in fact also made Viking private "business" enterprises more or less impossible, because the king has such exclusive rights. If Christianity was spread to meet Viking raids or to establish the Pope and Catholic Church in virgin lands before the Patriarch and the Orthodox Church of Constantinople (like the later Northern Crusades race in the Baltic states and Finland) is a completely different issue. Zzalpha (talk) 04:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- Hi. What's your point here exactly? Is anything wrong IYO on the page? Can you be more precise about your point in relation to the page here? RhinoMind (talk) 04:47, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- The point is that we normally see states making wars or political/economical projects, but the Vikings were private enterprises (like a large number of East India Companies operating simutainiously and after each other) and not governmental and should be explaind that way. Politically there was a huge change in Scandinavia by the introduction of the Catholic church and the Kingdoms that made such things like the Vikings imposisble, but it is not the main Viking topic, that is private business. This difference is hard to see if us living in todays world. We can't judge them from our perspectives today or those some hundred years after them in an entirely different political situation. Zzalpha (talk) 06:00, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- Hi. What's your point here exactly? Is anything wrong IYO on the page? Can you be more precise about your point in relation to the page here? RhinoMind (talk) 04:47, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- The point is that Vikings were quite obviously well organised and should be seen as they were from their perspectives, making risk investments made on pure business perspective like risk capitalsists today. We can't judge them as being a state or a nation. Zzalpha (talk) 06:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- @Zzalpha: No exactly. That is why the nations of Denmark, Sweden and Norway first came into existence, after the Viking Age. In fact it was this process, that ended the Viking Age as you also discuss. And as you also points out, the process is closely connected with the christening of Scandinavia and the catholic religion, etc.. I dont see, that the page says anything else? RhinoMind (talk) 21:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
- The point is that Vikings were quite obviously well organised and should be seen as they were from their perspectives, making risk investments made on pure business perspective like risk capitalsists today. We can't judge them as being a state or a nation. Zzalpha (talk) 06:05, 16 July 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)
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)
- (edit conflict) Why don't you look things up before writing about it, and making edits changing things? British Isles:
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @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?
- @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)
- 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)
- @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)