![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
BSoren17.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 04:42, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Do you people think that the fact they were raiding Christian nations could be a big reason behind the Vikings being portrayed by Christians as barbaric? Anybody got something on this? Connor Machiavelli ( talk) 22:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Theres also in the article text: There is little indication of any negative connotation in the term before the end of the Viking Age. which is totally wrong for anyone who has read the prime history sources, like this one:
-King Harald would never agree that he was a "viking-king" as he is sometimes Referred to by ignorant people, he was, like probably 99% of scandinavians were, fighting vikings.
Dan Koehl ( talk) 02:24, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 4 external links on
Vikings. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 15:29, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
For some reason, there is no article for "Viking raids" or even a mention of their raiding practices, tactics and so forth within the "Viking raids and warfare" article. Since the raids were one of the main contacts between Vikings and other peoples, I feel like it could be expanded upon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viciouspiggy ( talk • contribs) 07:41, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Vikings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi,
Oh, just say it: Denmark, Norway and Sweden. I know the "Norgesveldet" is something of a later romatization, but America to Norway, that is a hefty bishopric, still.
T 88.89.219.147 ( talk) 02:46, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
I should probably report in, as the cause of this quarrellette.
First of all, it's true that at least Norwegian historiography unabashedly speaks of a "Vikingtid", a "Viking era", although IIRC this term only goes back to some 19th century archaeology professor making up labels as he tried to catalogue finds stored in some museum basement.
And obviously, vikings and the viking age is something people are interested in,it's studied and written about, and is a perf. legit. subject. Not because I 'agree', but because it is so. Just to be clear.
I did the briefest of wikiwalks, and have found a number of interrelated and hence possible relevant pages.
Data first, polemics later.
Data:
"History" pages:
Generally, there is a lot of overlap, with no clear "centre" and "limit" and no clear structure.
Seemingly, this has been a TP subject on several pages for years.
One overarching theme, IMO, is reflected here:
/info/en/?search=Historical_region
If so, the "super-page" ("portal"?) should be
/info/en/?search=History_of_Scandinavia - a summary of the history of the local nations.
This page contains the section
/info/en/?search=History_of_Scandinavia#Viking_Age
which is, according to my bias, one good way of being channeled into the subject.
One easy thing to do would be to link to this page from all the "Viking" themed pages, as "background".
It would probably also not hurt to expand that section of the article, at least with comprehensive linking.
Next up would be
/info/en/?search=Viking_Age
This is where the battle should be ... disclosure:
A similar gripe of mine:
/info/en/?search=Talk:Viking_Age#Why_is_there_a_Viking_Age.3F
More on that later.
Next up would be any and all "Viking theme" pages, like
/info/en/?search=Viking_expansion
and "warfare", "ships", "religion", "litterature", "sagas", "runes" etc. etc.
"Viking Age" and theme pages could also all link to History of Scandinavia.
"Language" pages:
Re "norse", one term used locally is "norrøn" ("norroen"), which covers the medieval period from 6-700 til 11-1300 in Scandinavia, including language and culture, but not so much political history.
https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norrøn
In EN Wiki, this is treated as an exclusively linguistic category, covering only "Old Norse" language.
/info/en/?search=Old_Norse#Old_West_Norse
But based on the local use of "norrøn", and considering "Norse" its English translation, I, fwiw, see no problems using "Norse" as a generic term covering the same topics.
/info/en/?search=Norsemen
concerns itself mainly with the linguistic explanation of the meaning of the term, and the "who is a Norseman" question.
Interesting 2014 discussion about structure and redundancy.
Polemics:
My main grief is the time slot, with the UK history perspective giving this almost to the hour of the day "switch on, switch off" effect unknown for any other period of history.
The section "Historical considerations" opens "The earliest date given for a Viking raid is 789 AD...",
which may be true for the UK, but ...
Well, the old "Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde" may be slightly out of date as a source, but still ... in the "Wikinger" article
https://archive.org/stream/reallexikonderge04hoopuoft#page/528/mode/2up
it mentions "Germanic peoples" - Goths - raiding in Greece and Asia minor 3rd + 4th century, 5th century Herule and Saxon pirates, Hugleig (Hygelac, Chochilaicus,killed on the Rhine in 515), and Danes raiding France e.g. 565. Even for the British Isles, it has possibly Norwegian pirates raiding Tory Island near Donegal and Eigg Island in the Hebrides in 617.
While argueing that these are not per se Viking raids is correct, argueing that these are not Viking raids because "they fall outside the Viking age of 793 - 1066" is obviously circular, and there lies the rub. This narrow perspective only holds for the British Isles.
While this perspective could be justified by the fact that the UK was a fringe area of Europe, weak enough to be one of the few places where the Vikings could alter history (which they didn't in e.g. France or Frisia), one could also argue for emphasizing continuity - in space and time - a little bit more.
The Vikings ran a lap in a pirate relay race, taking over (IMO) from Saxon pirates and in turn handing over the Hanse which, together with the Black Death, brought to an end the Norse culture in the form that spawned the Viking raiders.
IMO an overarching perspective like that is the only way to integrate the content of the various subpages while allowing a better, more in-depth presentation of major and minor facts. Now it reads a bit like a random gleaning of out-of-context sentences from each of the hundreds of "popular history" books.
Oh, and since I'm unaccounted for, I got a new whois number. Still me, though.
T
85.166.162.8 (
talk)
01:42, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
I had removed this section from the article: Contrary to the wild, filthy image of Vikings, the early thirteenth-century chronicler John of Wallingford described a grave problem of Englishwomen seeking out Danish men as lovers because of their appealing "habit of combing their hair every day, of bathing every Saturday, and regularly changing their clothes," in contrast to local men.
It is referenced from this: Ullidtz, Per "1016: The Danish Conquest of England" publisher=Books on Demand
The content is speculative not factual and the source appears to be from a self-publishing company. WP:SELFPUBLISH material is a WP:VERIFY issue. - Xcuref1endx ( talk) 19:15, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi,
I thought I'd break out this subject from the Great Discussion above.
A Julian D. Richards published "The Vikings. A very short introduction" in 2005 (Oxford UniPress). He makes the interesting experiment of basing himself almost exclusively on archaeological finds, leaving e.g. the sagas aside. I note, by the way, that such methodological considerations are absent from the article. The source situation is perhaps complex enough to deserve its own article. But I digress.
In chapter 1. Richards claims that the dating of the "age" as beginning from 793 cannot be upheld, as 8. century gravegoods containing Irish and English artefacts show that the contacts across the North Sea predate the viking raids.
Maybe not the end-all of references, but at least it is one, and from a Brit, no less (I couldn't ask for more).
I only have the book in translation, but perhaps someone out there knows someone who knows someone, etc.
"The Vikings and the Viking age are an aspect of a period of Norse people's struggle for consolidation and expansion (Main article: History of Scandinavia) with historical roots in the late Migration and Merovingian era, ebbing and ending with the integration of the resulting nation states of Denmark, Sweden and Norway (see "History of ...") in the wider European politics as a result of stronger central power after christianization." is what I would like to find a RS that says ... :)
"Historical sources include a variety of contemporary local chronicles and annals from the British Isles, Frisia, Francia, Russia and Byzantium, as well as Norse oral history recorded during the Middle ages. There are also numerous archaeological findings." (etc. on reliability, contradictions ...).
As mentioned somewhere else, widening the time frame also has the effect that some "later" sources become more "contemporary" sources, like the saga of King Sverre. Just a caveat.
T
85.166.162.8 (
talk)
14:28, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
There is no such thing as Viking ancestry thus conceived in terms of our notion of haplogroups of population genetics. Wikipedia should know better -
The earliest remains of Nordic-Viking types are patrilineal bearers of G-M201 - supposedly a "Hither-Asiatic" non-European grouping - how do the Nordic-primacy folks Wikipedia indulges explain the fact?
The Bure kinship is HG G - ?
The Norse-blood-bearing English Plantagenet and French, old-Norman-descended regents, again, haplogroup G variants -
Yet, the only reference is to "R" - "R" is kin to the Old-Siberian palaeo-Caucasoid ethnic nucleus connecting monogenetic unity between "Amerindians" and "White Westerners" - and genomic population excavation recently has shown, only intermixture with the "Anatolian" folk mentioned above, is what allowed the formation of the "Caucasian" "Europoid" phenotype, "white man"...
All of our old ideologically-charged, identity-politics-based regressive concepts are pitiful spooks of our own imagination and associating any variant of R unilinear-fashion with "Viking blood" is laughable!
There are only preponderant numbers, and the numbers do not statistically exist as meaningful in this case of "Viking personal genealogy" - there is I, R, but just as many G, etc., and/or "Uralic-Turkish" markers in Norse Viking old-feudal familial strains, mentioning R is simply a fossil of ignorance from popularization-oriented authors and corps prostituting science for money - haplogroups exist meaninglessly here, as in so many other cases.
Neo-nationalistic, regressive-tribal motivated excuses to prop up one's lack of self-pride, racial monomania as means of escaping one's own lack of differentiation from the mass, committed by modern consumer, plebeian-minded people - Nietzsche knew this racial disease well, and the Last Man boasts the stupidity vainly. Nietzsche said the purest blood German Teutonic would never vulgarly try to inflate themselves by these means, and the same logic applies here - these "R"-partisans do not realize "R" was anthropologically Turkish, racially as "non-Europoid" as is imaginable, before what we know as Western man came into anthropogenetic formation via the SYNTHETIC assimilation of parentage MULTIPLEX: Anatolian-"Semites", Thracians, "Pelasgians" who resembled certain N. American Indian tribes "ethnologically"; "Aryans" nothing like what moderns would consider "Aryan-like", etc.; etc., etc.
Surprisingly, Wikipedia does mention the old feudal Nordic connection to G, I just learned. You guys know about the Bure folk, I am impressed. Honestly, the oldest aristocratic families have been assayed and haplogroups none predominate in some simplistic manner, but G "Semite" and the "Uralic" are what the oldest baronial-lord stocks got chromosomally. R exists, but the type of R is not the one common in Europe and exists only otherwise in Azerbaijan and a handful of other countries European ethnic enthusiasts would not fancy.
The truth is also let known the ruling aristoi of Frankish Christendom bore paternal G - your Anglian Richard III the audience is allowed to let know was G2 - impressed again. Bold. Bravo. Letting people know the tinker-kings of modern Western society are usurpers requires some modicum of scholarly spirit, I suppose. Credit given. The type of G by the way is, again, from "Kartvelian" regions in the princely lines preserved and I am sure Nordic and Nazi-Evolian idealists learning Azeri and Turkmen resembled the old ruling caste of Europe saddens immeasurably. Only think: - who stepped in as strongmen during the early Dark Ages, late-Roman Byzantine era, as hell was breaking loose? The Imperial office was a joke, all died out there; who took power when only fist-law reigned? The "servants" of the now-deceased Imperial-Roman bureaucracy - what was their identity? HINT: Marcus Aurelius transplanted into Europe tons of elite horse-warriors of the Sarmato-Alanian blood-stock to protect necrotizing Rome's borderlands; elite skirmish guerrilla forces could not have possibly morphed into "Westerners", right? LOL. "Westerner", all of this talk is pure conceptual spookery and bigotry, in the end.
Those hired, the mercenary hirelings, by the defunct dead Roman authority, to actually do something, enforce order, were steppe nomad Caucasians of every variety - gee golly, the same people found both in modern Azerbaijan and the regional area and the same blood found in the oldest king dynasties of Europe and the first "Vikings"...
Vikings = Nortmanni = Northmen = ?
Snori Sturlson lets us know what all these words mean - we are just deaf. Gardirike, the North-land, Snori says, was not always humanly inhabited. The settlers came from the "south-lands" today we know as Azerbaijan, etc.
ASAHEIM, not some mythopoetic dream, but a real-world, mundane city stronghold, close to and associated with TROY OF PRIAMUS, of TURKLAND. TURK-LAND is where Snori relates, Odin/Wotan and his bloodstock came from to populate and create the ethnographic profile of Scandzia. TROY rightly philologically understood is a place modern fools would only understand as a coastal Turkish city not conceivably connected to "Western identity" because of their regressive racial bias - did the German excavations in "Turkey" of archeological warrior face-masks of "Greek Homeric warriors" help no one learn anything here?
Snori knew and lets know to those with ears now, just not the donkeys who believe in some sort of single haplogroup supremacy, an identitarian ideology justifying lack of personal achievement unfortunately populistic profiteers, half-merchants, half-scientists, sometimes encourage; e.g. Spencer Wells, who, hilariously, in his first book, stated "R1a" is the exclusivistic "Aryan-Kurgan-Viking" marker, basing himself on the research of cultural sociological kind of a fanatic feminist ideologue, Maria Gumbatas, when the EMPIRICALLY-TESTABLE, DISCONFIRMATION-grade, real rigorous research was only even beginning. All serious co-workers in pop. gen. laughed at these absurdities monetarily-motivated that goofball uttered.
Wells had enough conscientious scientific honesty to correct that nonsense lately, now he talks about the R1a contribution to European physiotype, introducing convoluted "Ural-Altaic" accentuations, the same stupid racial lenses of sight underneath. However he recanted, idiots like Wells made sure the damage is done; every Joe Six Pack in the West of the mid-to-upper bourgeoisie with ego self-concept issues, sent in their swabs to all sorts of corps practicing illegal research; every Joe Six Pack in the West and esp. America, thinks they are a Jarl descendent, some sort of godlet Viking Zionist mission-bound to "save" the world by Americanizing all the "racial inferiors" who are one codon away from their own genotype, like the Native Americans the new Zion heroes treated so magnanimously, so carefully making distinctions between vastly different tribal, ethnological groups. Wounded Knee is underlying Wikipedia, haunting silently unawares, dear editors.
Anyhow, some sort of mysteric numinous halo now surrounds "R" and "R1a" when the enthnophylogeny of Europe and Northern Europeans is discussed. What is funny is "Semite" "Hither-Asians" (G, etc.) technically first had "white" features, even the possibility for non-brown eye color (just look it up, no lying) and the "R" folk of Old Europe racially looked like Siberians or Native Americans until the crucial mixture from the "ALIEN FARMER EASTERNERS"... These poly-dimensional, multi-parental and opposite of simplistic ethnocentric ideology-fantasized events, of unknown layers and striatum of ethnic cross-directional "meetings", no simple scenario remotely, created "HOMO EUROPEAUS"...
White man, as Nietzsche stated in his unpublished notes, is a mixture of "Mongoloid", "Thracian-Cimmerian" (Homer's heroes - all from Cimmerian-Scythian "Asiatic" ancestry, if deeply analyzed...similarly...hmm...those straight-from-Heaven-born SAXONS could not conceivably be related to the old SAKA/SACAE of SAKASTAN in "Asiatic" Afghanistan of "non-whites"?), "Pelasgian-Palestinian", and "Norse-Teuton", among others, - the "Greek genius" only had as a catalytic springboard point of upward spiration in creative racial intermixture, not its explanation; and more complex processes of idiovariation beyond genetic materialism, made the "Greek miracle"...
Things are never simple. Either make the material about genetics honest and less racially biased, or remove it, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:B34B:A940:18DB:488A:D530:E944 ( talk) 01:52, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi,
glued this together from the DA, NO and SE pages on the subject:
Norrøn [pronounciation]
Norrøn is the term for "Norse" in the Scandinavian languages, and the adjective is used to refer to the medieval society, history and culture in the Nordic countries. In a narrower sense, the term applies to Norway and Iceland from about 800 to 1319. The term is also used for the Norwegian ancestry population in the Faroe Islands, Shetland, the Hebrides, Orkney and Man in the same period.
Etymology
"Norrøn" derives from the Old Icelandic composite "norðr-", which means "north" and "-rœnn", originally "-rœnr", an umlaut form of the root "rón-" that means: «coming from, being from".
History
Around 800 CE people from Norway began to settle in the Faroe Islands, Shetland and Orkney, and a little later in the Hebrides and Man. Around 870 the settlement of Iceland began. Around the same time Harald was king in western Norway after the Battle of Hafrsfjord. This affected not only people in Norway, but also the population of the islands to the west. One might therefore argue that the Norse period began with the Battle of Harfsfjord. The Norwegian kings eventually came to dominate the island populations , both politically and symbolically. Norse culture and language were common to the entire Norse area. The end of the Norse era is often set to 1319, when the last king of Sverre's blood, Haakon V Magnusson, died, and Norway entered into union with Sweden under a coommon king.
Norse mythology describes the pre-Christian religion of the Nordic peoples.
Wrt. language and literature, Norrøn or Norse is divided into an older Norse period (700 to 1050) and a younger Norse period (1050 to 1350), also called classical Norse.
A bit too Norway-centric wrt. culture and history; that centrism is only applicable in a linguistics context.
T
85.166.162.8 (
talk)
13:21, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
The second paragraph in subsection "Burial Sites" starts "According to written sources, most of the funerals took place at sea. The funerals involved either burial or cremation, depending on local customs." - Can someone with edit rights PLEASE either add any (genuine academic) citation at all for the first sentence (though given the statement a number would be more appropriate) or else remove the sentence since this sentence along is the only one to mention sea burial with all other links referring to cremation (on land) and burial (difficult to do at sea without turning it into land or diving gear)... if only because those two sentences one after the other is good for a laugh at the expense of the contributions by all users to this otherwise relatively accurate article and make it sound untrustworthy because someone stated taht most Viking burials were at sea without a shred of evidence... (one would expect better in _this_ sort of Wikipedia article). 2016/09/21 22:57:42 *<:@) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.93.52.190 ( talk) 21:58, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
It's been confirmed by archaeologists, that also the island of Ösel / Saaremaa was inhabited by what is defined as vikings. If we define vikings by the shape of the ship, the way they carried out raids and their societal arrangement. The only difference is that those vikings were from the Finno-Ugric tribes.
Specifically, the Oeselians or "Víkingr frá Esthland", as written in the Ynglinga saga
Some more reading:
The Salme ships The Oeselians
Runes were used by the Oeselians until the 12th century — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaanMatti ( talk • contribs) 19:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
In the wake of this,
1) the Oeselians should be added to the "vikings" page 2) The starting paragraph, written as "Vikings ... were Norse seafarers, speaking the Old Norse language" - should be rewritten, because the Oeselians were Finnic, not Norse
This period of Nordic military, mercantile and demographic expansion constitutes an important element in the early medieval history of Scandinavia, Estonia the British Isles, France, Kievan Rus' and Sicily.[3]
There clearly needs to be a comma after "Estonia."
12.154.171.180 ( talk) 15:28, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
It seems the first person mantioned as viking was Philip II of Macedon, father of Alexander the great. He was not Nordic, not Scandinavian, and did not speak a norse language, and didnt come from Viken. It has to be repeated that this article viking, does not reflect scientific knowledge about vikings, but more the myths about vikings, that they were a tribe, a people, etc, when in fact the word viking was nothing but a translation of the latin word pirate, to the oldenglish. A Viking=pirate could come from just anywhere, Icelandic sagas describes attacking Arabs as Vikings. People with other opinion will probably argue this for some years, but they will never be able to prove their opinion. There were simply no people called vikings, the people referred to in this article is Norsemen, which is scientifically accepted term for the people from Scandinavia, and alot of content in this article should be moved to that article. Dan Koehl ( talk) 11:41, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
I strongly believe that he word, and the article Viking should reflect the historical persons who were really vikings, and not my forefathers. Its time that also in the english language, the word Viking gets a modern definition, and not belong in the same box as Nigger, Nazi, and other term that people has used for groups of people. I am a scandinavian, and so were my ancestors in Scandinavia between 800 and 1066. Most probably, only a very few percent of them were vikings.
Dan Koehl ( talk) 19:03, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
We have a policy against Righting Great Wrongs: "Wikipedia is a popular site and its articles often appear high in the search engine rankings. You might think that it is a great place to set the record straight and Right Great Wrongs, but that’s not the case. We can record the righting of great wrongs, but we can’t ride the crest of the wave because we can only report that which is verifiable from reliable and secondary sources, giving appropriate weight to the balance of informed opinion: even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. So, if you want to:
on Wikipedia, you’ll have to wait until it’s been reported in mainstream media or published in books from reputable publishing houses. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or original research. "Wikipedia is behind the ball – that is we don't lead, we follow – let reliable sources make the novel connections and statements and find WP:NPOV ways of presenting them if needed." Dimadick ( talk) 09:46, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
I hope Dan and any other wrong-righters will take this to heart: The sculpting of society has always been through the arts --never through the sciences. Go write an incredible novel that explains all of your feelings within a heart-wrenching story and you will win the world, but a simple thing like an encyclopedia will not accomplish this goal. (In the modern age this used to be Hollywood, but unfortunately corporate modeling has removed all the art from that town, so the best movies are now coming from other countries like your own.) On the other topic raised here, I will only say that unity of our language has made this the largest Wikipedia and has only helped to unite our cultures, while separating them would leave us with both far less diversity and articles than we currently have. Zaereth ( talk) 10:03, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Vikings has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
correct spelling errors 81.100.69.143 ( talk) 17:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
I want to roll back my Infobox military conflict (4 hours of my work). The Vikings were warriors, not tribes or nation. The names of the nations were Norwegians, Danes, Swedes, but not Vikings. The meaning of the word "Viking" is for somebody who has gone on a "Viking" military expedition. Their raids were military campaigns and my belief is, that using infobox of military conflict is reasonable, effective and correct. I spent 4 hours to create infobox and searching for viking kingdoms and their opponents in history, and I think it was not unnecessary. − Dragovit ( talk) 18:14, 28. 6. 2017 (UTC)
I felt the lead was improved with the map of Viking exploration routes. The image of the Oseberg ship also complemented the text regarding Viking ships. But now Rhinomind has removed both of those images -- and no, they are not in the body any more, as Johnbod moved them. So we clearly need to discuss what should be in the lead. The infobox is rather bare, and the map is a useful addition. I searched for other decent images of Viking ships, but the view of the Oseberg prow appears to be the best available. If it is not included in the lead, it should at least be returned to the body. Laszlo Panaflex ( talk) 14:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
The use and topic and naming of {{ Vikings}} is under discussion, see template talk:Vikings -- 70.51.46.15 ( talk) 05:44, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add the footer template {{
Viking}}
to the bottom of the page.
--
70.51.46.15 (
talk)
05:30, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Vikings has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"settlement eventually died out" can be made present tense "settlement would die out" 2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 ( talk) 07:33, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Vikings has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 ( talk) 07:30, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
a question, why there an Italian flag in the bottom of the Page, maybe the Italian flag appears on there because the Normans were in Sicily and also they had a Kingdom on there?. AlfaRocket ( talk) 14:12, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
The title of the page List of Vikings characters is under discussion, see talk:List of Vikings characters -- 70.51.46.15 ( talk) 05:01, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
In the part "In 20th-century politics", there is the sentence "political organisations of the same ilk", which is clearly a biased term. I will rectify that with the neutral "political organisations of a similar sort". The common perception of Nazis and other far-right groups is irrelevant, Wikipedia should not be biased in terms of values, only in truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.239.250.137 ( talk) 22:13, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
The map shows England, but it didn't exist at that time. Can this be corrected?
88.97.63.197 ( talk) 18:15, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Vikings has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Pipboy900 ( talk) 19:40, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
BSoren17.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 04:42, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Do you people think that the fact they were raiding Christian nations could be a big reason behind the Vikings being portrayed by Christians as barbaric? Anybody got something on this? Connor Machiavelli ( talk) 22:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Theres also in the article text: There is little indication of any negative connotation in the term before the end of the Viking Age. which is totally wrong for anyone who has read the prime history sources, like this one:
-King Harald would never agree that he was a "viking-king" as he is sometimes Referred to by ignorant people, he was, like probably 99% of scandinavians were, fighting vikings.
Dan Koehl ( talk) 02:24, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 4 external links on
Vikings. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 15:29, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
For some reason, there is no article for "Viking raids" or even a mention of their raiding practices, tactics and so forth within the "Viking raids and warfare" article. Since the raids were one of the main contacts between Vikings and other peoples, I feel like it could be expanded upon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viciouspiggy ( talk • contribs) 07:41, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Vikings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi,
Oh, just say it: Denmark, Norway and Sweden. I know the "Norgesveldet" is something of a later romatization, but America to Norway, that is a hefty bishopric, still.
T 88.89.219.147 ( talk) 02:46, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
I should probably report in, as the cause of this quarrellette.
First of all, it's true that at least Norwegian historiography unabashedly speaks of a "Vikingtid", a "Viking era", although IIRC this term only goes back to some 19th century archaeology professor making up labels as he tried to catalogue finds stored in some museum basement.
And obviously, vikings and the viking age is something people are interested in,it's studied and written about, and is a perf. legit. subject. Not because I 'agree', but because it is so. Just to be clear.
I did the briefest of wikiwalks, and have found a number of interrelated and hence possible relevant pages.
Data first, polemics later.
Data:
"History" pages:
Generally, there is a lot of overlap, with no clear "centre" and "limit" and no clear structure.
Seemingly, this has been a TP subject on several pages for years.
One overarching theme, IMO, is reflected here:
/info/en/?search=Historical_region
If so, the "super-page" ("portal"?) should be
/info/en/?search=History_of_Scandinavia - a summary of the history of the local nations.
This page contains the section
/info/en/?search=History_of_Scandinavia#Viking_Age
which is, according to my bias, one good way of being channeled into the subject.
One easy thing to do would be to link to this page from all the "Viking" themed pages, as "background".
It would probably also not hurt to expand that section of the article, at least with comprehensive linking.
Next up would be
/info/en/?search=Viking_Age
This is where the battle should be ... disclosure:
A similar gripe of mine:
/info/en/?search=Talk:Viking_Age#Why_is_there_a_Viking_Age.3F
More on that later.
Next up would be any and all "Viking theme" pages, like
/info/en/?search=Viking_expansion
and "warfare", "ships", "religion", "litterature", "sagas", "runes" etc. etc.
"Viking Age" and theme pages could also all link to History of Scandinavia.
"Language" pages:
Re "norse", one term used locally is "norrøn" ("norroen"), which covers the medieval period from 6-700 til 11-1300 in Scandinavia, including language and culture, but not so much political history.
https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norrøn
In EN Wiki, this is treated as an exclusively linguistic category, covering only "Old Norse" language.
/info/en/?search=Old_Norse#Old_West_Norse
But based on the local use of "norrøn", and considering "Norse" its English translation, I, fwiw, see no problems using "Norse" as a generic term covering the same topics.
/info/en/?search=Norsemen
concerns itself mainly with the linguistic explanation of the meaning of the term, and the "who is a Norseman" question.
Interesting 2014 discussion about structure and redundancy.
Polemics:
My main grief is the time slot, with the UK history perspective giving this almost to the hour of the day "switch on, switch off" effect unknown for any other period of history.
The section "Historical considerations" opens "The earliest date given for a Viking raid is 789 AD...",
which may be true for the UK, but ...
Well, the old "Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde" may be slightly out of date as a source, but still ... in the "Wikinger" article
https://archive.org/stream/reallexikonderge04hoopuoft#page/528/mode/2up
it mentions "Germanic peoples" - Goths - raiding in Greece and Asia minor 3rd + 4th century, 5th century Herule and Saxon pirates, Hugleig (Hygelac, Chochilaicus,killed on the Rhine in 515), and Danes raiding France e.g. 565. Even for the British Isles, it has possibly Norwegian pirates raiding Tory Island near Donegal and Eigg Island in the Hebrides in 617.
While argueing that these are not per se Viking raids is correct, argueing that these are not Viking raids because "they fall outside the Viking age of 793 - 1066" is obviously circular, and there lies the rub. This narrow perspective only holds for the British Isles.
While this perspective could be justified by the fact that the UK was a fringe area of Europe, weak enough to be one of the few places where the Vikings could alter history (which they didn't in e.g. France or Frisia), one could also argue for emphasizing continuity - in space and time - a little bit more.
The Vikings ran a lap in a pirate relay race, taking over (IMO) from Saxon pirates and in turn handing over the Hanse which, together with the Black Death, brought to an end the Norse culture in the form that spawned the Viking raiders.
IMO an overarching perspective like that is the only way to integrate the content of the various subpages while allowing a better, more in-depth presentation of major and minor facts. Now it reads a bit like a random gleaning of out-of-context sentences from each of the hundreds of "popular history" books.
Oh, and since I'm unaccounted for, I got a new whois number. Still me, though.
T
85.166.162.8 (
talk)
01:42, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
I had removed this section from the article: Contrary to the wild, filthy image of Vikings, the early thirteenth-century chronicler John of Wallingford described a grave problem of Englishwomen seeking out Danish men as lovers because of their appealing "habit of combing their hair every day, of bathing every Saturday, and regularly changing their clothes," in contrast to local men.
It is referenced from this: Ullidtz, Per "1016: The Danish Conquest of England" publisher=Books on Demand
The content is speculative not factual and the source appears to be from a self-publishing company. WP:SELFPUBLISH material is a WP:VERIFY issue. - Xcuref1endx ( talk) 19:15, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi,
I thought I'd break out this subject from the Great Discussion above.
A Julian D. Richards published "The Vikings. A very short introduction" in 2005 (Oxford UniPress). He makes the interesting experiment of basing himself almost exclusively on archaeological finds, leaving e.g. the sagas aside. I note, by the way, that such methodological considerations are absent from the article. The source situation is perhaps complex enough to deserve its own article. But I digress.
In chapter 1. Richards claims that the dating of the "age" as beginning from 793 cannot be upheld, as 8. century gravegoods containing Irish and English artefacts show that the contacts across the North Sea predate the viking raids.
Maybe not the end-all of references, but at least it is one, and from a Brit, no less (I couldn't ask for more).
I only have the book in translation, but perhaps someone out there knows someone who knows someone, etc.
"The Vikings and the Viking age are an aspect of a period of Norse people's struggle for consolidation and expansion (Main article: History of Scandinavia) with historical roots in the late Migration and Merovingian era, ebbing and ending with the integration of the resulting nation states of Denmark, Sweden and Norway (see "History of ...") in the wider European politics as a result of stronger central power after christianization." is what I would like to find a RS that says ... :)
"Historical sources include a variety of contemporary local chronicles and annals from the British Isles, Frisia, Francia, Russia and Byzantium, as well as Norse oral history recorded during the Middle ages. There are also numerous archaeological findings." (etc. on reliability, contradictions ...).
As mentioned somewhere else, widening the time frame also has the effect that some "later" sources become more "contemporary" sources, like the saga of King Sverre. Just a caveat.
T
85.166.162.8 (
talk)
14:28, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
There is no such thing as Viking ancestry thus conceived in terms of our notion of haplogroups of population genetics. Wikipedia should know better -
The earliest remains of Nordic-Viking types are patrilineal bearers of G-M201 - supposedly a "Hither-Asiatic" non-European grouping - how do the Nordic-primacy folks Wikipedia indulges explain the fact?
The Bure kinship is HG G - ?
The Norse-blood-bearing English Plantagenet and French, old-Norman-descended regents, again, haplogroup G variants -
Yet, the only reference is to "R" - "R" is kin to the Old-Siberian palaeo-Caucasoid ethnic nucleus connecting monogenetic unity between "Amerindians" and "White Westerners" - and genomic population excavation recently has shown, only intermixture with the "Anatolian" folk mentioned above, is what allowed the formation of the "Caucasian" "Europoid" phenotype, "white man"...
All of our old ideologically-charged, identity-politics-based regressive concepts are pitiful spooks of our own imagination and associating any variant of R unilinear-fashion with "Viking blood" is laughable!
There are only preponderant numbers, and the numbers do not statistically exist as meaningful in this case of "Viking personal genealogy" - there is I, R, but just as many G, etc., and/or "Uralic-Turkish" markers in Norse Viking old-feudal familial strains, mentioning R is simply a fossil of ignorance from popularization-oriented authors and corps prostituting science for money - haplogroups exist meaninglessly here, as in so many other cases.
Neo-nationalistic, regressive-tribal motivated excuses to prop up one's lack of self-pride, racial monomania as means of escaping one's own lack of differentiation from the mass, committed by modern consumer, plebeian-minded people - Nietzsche knew this racial disease well, and the Last Man boasts the stupidity vainly. Nietzsche said the purest blood German Teutonic would never vulgarly try to inflate themselves by these means, and the same logic applies here - these "R"-partisans do not realize "R" was anthropologically Turkish, racially as "non-Europoid" as is imaginable, before what we know as Western man came into anthropogenetic formation via the SYNTHETIC assimilation of parentage MULTIPLEX: Anatolian-"Semites", Thracians, "Pelasgians" who resembled certain N. American Indian tribes "ethnologically"; "Aryans" nothing like what moderns would consider "Aryan-like", etc.; etc., etc.
Surprisingly, Wikipedia does mention the old feudal Nordic connection to G, I just learned. You guys know about the Bure folk, I am impressed. Honestly, the oldest aristocratic families have been assayed and haplogroups none predominate in some simplistic manner, but G "Semite" and the "Uralic" are what the oldest baronial-lord stocks got chromosomally. R exists, but the type of R is not the one common in Europe and exists only otherwise in Azerbaijan and a handful of other countries European ethnic enthusiasts would not fancy.
The truth is also let known the ruling aristoi of Frankish Christendom bore paternal G - your Anglian Richard III the audience is allowed to let know was G2 - impressed again. Bold. Bravo. Letting people know the tinker-kings of modern Western society are usurpers requires some modicum of scholarly spirit, I suppose. Credit given. The type of G by the way is, again, from "Kartvelian" regions in the princely lines preserved and I am sure Nordic and Nazi-Evolian idealists learning Azeri and Turkmen resembled the old ruling caste of Europe saddens immeasurably. Only think: - who stepped in as strongmen during the early Dark Ages, late-Roman Byzantine era, as hell was breaking loose? The Imperial office was a joke, all died out there; who took power when only fist-law reigned? The "servants" of the now-deceased Imperial-Roman bureaucracy - what was their identity? HINT: Marcus Aurelius transplanted into Europe tons of elite horse-warriors of the Sarmato-Alanian blood-stock to protect necrotizing Rome's borderlands; elite skirmish guerrilla forces could not have possibly morphed into "Westerners", right? LOL. "Westerner", all of this talk is pure conceptual spookery and bigotry, in the end.
Those hired, the mercenary hirelings, by the defunct dead Roman authority, to actually do something, enforce order, were steppe nomad Caucasians of every variety - gee golly, the same people found both in modern Azerbaijan and the regional area and the same blood found in the oldest king dynasties of Europe and the first "Vikings"...
Vikings = Nortmanni = Northmen = ?
Snori Sturlson lets us know what all these words mean - we are just deaf. Gardirike, the North-land, Snori says, was not always humanly inhabited. The settlers came from the "south-lands" today we know as Azerbaijan, etc.
ASAHEIM, not some mythopoetic dream, but a real-world, mundane city stronghold, close to and associated with TROY OF PRIAMUS, of TURKLAND. TURK-LAND is where Snori relates, Odin/Wotan and his bloodstock came from to populate and create the ethnographic profile of Scandzia. TROY rightly philologically understood is a place modern fools would only understand as a coastal Turkish city not conceivably connected to "Western identity" because of their regressive racial bias - did the German excavations in "Turkey" of archeological warrior face-masks of "Greek Homeric warriors" help no one learn anything here?
Snori knew and lets know to those with ears now, just not the donkeys who believe in some sort of single haplogroup supremacy, an identitarian ideology justifying lack of personal achievement unfortunately populistic profiteers, half-merchants, half-scientists, sometimes encourage; e.g. Spencer Wells, who, hilariously, in his first book, stated "R1a" is the exclusivistic "Aryan-Kurgan-Viking" marker, basing himself on the research of cultural sociological kind of a fanatic feminist ideologue, Maria Gumbatas, when the EMPIRICALLY-TESTABLE, DISCONFIRMATION-grade, real rigorous research was only even beginning. All serious co-workers in pop. gen. laughed at these absurdities monetarily-motivated that goofball uttered.
Wells had enough conscientious scientific honesty to correct that nonsense lately, now he talks about the R1a contribution to European physiotype, introducing convoluted "Ural-Altaic" accentuations, the same stupid racial lenses of sight underneath. However he recanted, idiots like Wells made sure the damage is done; every Joe Six Pack in the West of the mid-to-upper bourgeoisie with ego self-concept issues, sent in their swabs to all sorts of corps practicing illegal research; every Joe Six Pack in the West and esp. America, thinks they are a Jarl descendent, some sort of godlet Viking Zionist mission-bound to "save" the world by Americanizing all the "racial inferiors" who are one codon away from their own genotype, like the Native Americans the new Zion heroes treated so magnanimously, so carefully making distinctions between vastly different tribal, ethnological groups. Wounded Knee is underlying Wikipedia, haunting silently unawares, dear editors.
Anyhow, some sort of mysteric numinous halo now surrounds "R" and "R1a" when the enthnophylogeny of Europe and Northern Europeans is discussed. What is funny is "Semite" "Hither-Asians" (G, etc.) technically first had "white" features, even the possibility for non-brown eye color (just look it up, no lying) and the "R" folk of Old Europe racially looked like Siberians or Native Americans until the crucial mixture from the "ALIEN FARMER EASTERNERS"... These poly-dimensional, multi-parental and opposite of simplistic ethnocentric ideology-fantasized events, of unknown layers and striatum of ethnic cross-directional "meetings", no simple scenario remotely, created "HOMO EUROPEAUS"...
White man, as Nietzsche stated in his unpublished notes, is a mixture of "Mongoloid", "Thracian-Cimmerian" (Homer's heroes - all from Cimmerian-Scythian "Asiatic" ancestry, if deeply analyzed...similarly...hmm...those straight-from-Heaven-born SAXONS could not conceivably be related to the old SAKA/SACAE of SAKASTAN in "Asiatic" Afghanistan of "non-whites"?), "Pelasgian-Palestinian", and "Norse-Teuton", among others, - the "Greek genius" only had as a catalytic springboard point of upward spiration in creative racial intermixture, not its explanation; and more complex processes of idiovariation beyond genetic materialism, made the "Greek miracle"...
Things are never simple. Either make the material about genetics honest and less racially biased, or remove it, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:B34B:A940:18DB:488A:D530:E944 ( talk) 01:52, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi,
glued this together from the DA, NO and SE pages on the subject:
Norrøn [pronounciation]
Norrøn is the term for "Norse" in the Scandinavian languages, and the adjective is used to refer to the medieval society, history and culture in the Nordic countries. In a narrower sense, the term applies to Norway and Iceland from about 800 to 1319. The term is also used for the Norwegian ancestry population in the Faroe Islands, Shetland, the Hebrides, Orkney and Man in the same period.
Etymology
"Norrøn" derives from the Old Icelandic composite "norðr-", which means "north" and "-rœnn", originally "-rœnr", an umlaut form of the root "rón-" that means: «coming from, being from".
History
Around 800 CE people from Norway began to settle in the Faroe Islands, Shetland and Orkney, and a little later in the Hebrides and Man. Around 870 the settlement of Iceland began. Around the same time Harald was king in western Norway after the Battle of Hafrsfjord. This affected not only people in Norway, but also the population of the islands to the west. One might therefore argue that the Norse period began with the Battle of Harfsfjord. The Norwegian kings eventually came to dominate the island populations , both politically and symbolically. Norse culture and language were common to the entire Norse area. The end of the Norse era is often set to 1319, when the last king of Sverre's blood, Haakon V Magnusson, died, and Norway entered into union with Sweden under a coommon king.
Norse mythology describes the pre-Christian religion of the Nordic peoples.
Wrt. language and literature, Norrøn or Norse is divided into an older Norse period (700 to 1050) and a younger Norse period (1050 to 1350), also called classical Norse.
A bit too Norway-centric wrt. culture and history; that centrism is only applicable in a linguistics context.
T
85.166.162.8 (
talk)
13:21, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
The second paragraph in subsection "Burial Sites" starts "According to written sources, most of the funerals took place at sea. The funerals involved either burial or cremation, depending on local customs." - Can someone with edit rights PLEASE either add any (genuine academic) citation at all for the first sentence (though given the statement a number would be more appropriate) or else remove the sentence since this sentence along is the only one to mention sea burial with all other links referring to cremation (on land) and burial (difficult to do at sea without turning it into land or diving gear)... if only because those two sentences one after the other is good for a laugh at the expense of the contributions by all users to this otherwise relatively accurate article and make it sound untrustworthy because someone stated taht most Viking burials were at sea without a shred of evidence... (one would expect better in _this_ sort of Wikipedia article). 2016/09/21 22:57:42 *<:@) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.93.52.190 ( talk) 21:58, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
It's been confirmed by archaeologists, that also the island of Ösel / Saaremaa was inhabited by what is defined as vikings. If we define vikings by the shape of the ship, the way they carried out raids and their societal arrangement. The only difference is that those vikings were from the Finno-Ugric tribes.
Specifically, the Oeselians or "Víkingr frá Esthland", as written in the Ynglinga saga
Some more reading:
The Salme ships The Oeselians
Runes were used by the Oeselians until the 12th century — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaanMatti ( talk • contribs) 19:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
In the wake of this,
1) the Oeselians should be added to the "vikings" page 2) The starting paragraph, written as "Vikings ... were Norse seafarers, speaking the Old Norse language" - should be rewritten, because the Oeselians were Finnic, not Norse
This period of Nordic military, mercantile and demographic expansion constitutes an important element in the early medieval history of Scandinavia, Estonia the British Isles, France, Kievan Rus' and Sicily.[3]
There clearly needs to be a comma after "Estonia."
12.154.171.180 ( talk) 15:28, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
It seems the first person mantioned as viking was Philip II of Macedon, father of Alexander the great. He was not Nordic, not Scandinavian, and did not speak a norse language, and didnt come from Viken. It has to be repeated that this article viking, does not reflect scientific knowledge about vikings, but more the myths about vikings, that they were a tribe, a people, etc, when in fact the word viking was nothing but a translation of the latin word pirate, to the oldenglish. A Viking=pirate could come from just anywhere, Icelandic sagas describes attacking Arabs as Vikings. People with other opinion will probably argue this for some years, but they will never be able to prove their opinion. There were simply no people called vikings, the people referred to in this article is Norsemen, which is scientifically accepted term for the people from Scandinavia, and alot of content in this article should be moved to that article. Dan Koehl ( talk) 11:41, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
I strongly believe that he word, and the article Viking should reflect the historical persons who were really vikings, and not my forefathers. Its time that also in the english language, the word Viking gets a modern definition, and not belong in the same box as Nigger, Nazi, and other term that people has used for groups of people. I am a scandinavian, and so were my ancestors in Scandinavia between 800 and 1066. Most probably, only a very few percent of them were vikings.
Dan Koehl ( talk) 19:03, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
We have a policy against Righting Great Wrongs: "Wikipedia is a popular site and its articles often appear high in the search engine rankings. You might think that it is a great place to set the record straight and Right Great Wrongs, but that’s not the case. We can record the righting of great wrongs, but we can’t ride the crest of the wave because we can only report that which is verifiable from reliable and secondary sources, giving appropriate weight to the balance of informed opinion: even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. So, if you want to:
on Wikipedia, you’ll have to wait until it’s been reported in mainstream media or published in books from reputable publishing houses. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or original research. "Wikipedia is behind the ball – that is we don't lead, we follow – let reliable sources make the novel connections and statements and find WP:NPOV ways of presenting them if needed." Dimadick ( talk) 09:46, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
I hope Dan and any other wrong-righters will take this to heart: The sculpting of society has always been through the arts --never through the sciences. Go write an incredible novel that explains all of your feelings within a heart-wrenching story and you will win the world, but a simple thing like an encyclopedia will not accomplish this goal. (In the modern age this used to be Hollywood, but unfortunately corporate modeling has removed all the art from that town, so the best movies are now coming from other countries like your own.) On the other topic raised here, I will only say that unity of our language has made this the largest Wikipedia and has only helped to unite our cultures, while separating them would leave us with both far less diversity and articles than we currently have. Zaereth ( talk) 10:03, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Vikings has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
correct spelling errors 81.100.69.143 ( talk) 17:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
I want to roll back my Infobox military conflict (4 hours of my work). The Vikings were warriors, not tribes or nation. The names of the nations were Norwegians, Danes, Swedes, but not Vikings. The meaning of the word "Viking" is for somebody who has gone on a "Viking" military expedition. Their raids were military campaigns and my belief is, that using infobox of military conflict is reasonable, effective and correct. I spent 4 hours to create infobox and searching for viking kingdoms and their opponents in history, and I think it was not unnecessary. − Dragovit ( talk) 18:14, 28. 6. 2017 (UTC)
I felt the lead was improved with the map of Viking exploration routes. The image of the Oseberg ship also complemented the text regarding Viking ships. But now Rhinomind has removed both of those images -- and no, they are not in the body any more, as Johnbod moved them. So we clearly need to discuss what should be in the lead. The infobox is rather bare, and the map is a useful addition. I searched for other decent images of Viking ships, but the view of the Oseberg prow appears to be the best available. If it is not included in the lead, it should at least be returned to the body. Laszlo Panaflex ( talk) 14:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
The use and topic and naming of {{ Vikings}} is under discussion, see template talk:Vikings -- 70.51.46.15 ( talk) 05:44, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add the footer template {{
Viking}}
to the bottom of the page.
--
70.51.46.15 (
talk)
05:30, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Vikings has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"settlement eventually died out" can be made present tense "settlement would die out" 2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 ( talk) 07:33, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Vikings has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 ( talk) 07:30, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
a question, why there an Italian flag in the bottom of the Page, maybe the Italian flag appears on there because the Normans were in Sicily and also they had a Kingdom on there?. AlfaRocket ( talk) 14:12, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
The title of the page List of Vikings characters is under discussion, see talk:List of Vikings characters -- 70.51.46.15 ( talk) 05:01, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
In the part "In 20th-century politics", there is the sentence "political organisations of the same ilk", which is clearly a biased term. I will rectify that with the neutral "political organisations of a similar sort". The common perception of Nazis and other far-right groups is irrelevant, Wikipedia should not be biased in terms of values, only in truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.239.250.137 ( talk) 22:13, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
The map shows England, but it didn't exist at that time. Can this be corrected?
88.97.63.197 ( talk) 18:15, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Vikings has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Pipboy900 ( talk) 19:40, 14 November 2017 (UTC)