Talk:Vikings/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Foundation of York

They founded cities such as Jorvik (York),...

But on the York page it makes quite clear that York is at least 800 years older than the Danish invasion. One of the pages must either be in error or vague. - stet 20:03, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

York was founded during the Roman occupation era, but the present name is of Norse origin. So this page is definitely in error. BjornSandberg 12:44, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Helmets with horns

I changed the section "myths about vikings":

<The people living in Scandinavia during the Bronze Age did, however, wear horned helmets during ceremonies, as testified by rock carvings and actual finds.> (Helmets with horns is found on jordbruksristningar (=rock-carvings) in Bohuslän, dated back to 900-500 B.C., long before the Viking Age, together with people having sex with each other and animals. These ristnings are still mysterius since no archeology artefacts have been found supporting this cult.)

The elder sentece (putted into <...>) contradicts what I've been learned that we don't really know why the rock-carvings tryies to say with the helmets with horns. One hypotesis could be a fertility sacrifice cult, I think.

Etymology

Quote: Even a third path is suggested, where viking comes from avviker; that is "mariners that left (avviker) from home".

Sounds interesting, but I am slightly sceptical as I believed that the 'viker' part of 'avviker', as avoiding, bending away, is related to curving, and basically related to the curve of a bay or creek ('vik'). Have you perhaps got any external sources supporting this claim? Fedor 20:24, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Besides, 'avviker' sounds like something from modern Swedish rather than Old Norse, so once again: have you got any external sources for this claim? Fedor 18:21, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

OK, I found it myself on the web in Swedish:

En intressant teori lanserades av Fritz Askeberg 1944 i boken Norden och kontinenten i gammal tid. Askeberg hävdar att ordet är äldre än den egentliga vikingatiden men trots detta av nordiskt ursprung. Han anser det inte osannolikt att viking kommer av vikja (vika, avvika) och att det kan ha betytt "en som avviker", dvs. lämnar landet eller med andra ord "en som gör en resa till främmande land".

Roughly translated: An interesting theory is launched by Fritz Askeberg 1994 in the book 'Norden och kontinenten i gammal tid'. Askeberg claims that the word is older than the actual viking era, but nonetheless of Nordic origin. He believes it is not unlikely that 'viking' comes from 'av vikja' and that it could have meant "one who diverges", i.e. leaves the country or in other words "one who makes a journey to foreign lands".

Fritz Askeberg works at the Upplands-Bro Culture-historical Research Institute.... Fedor 18:37, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The third path (avvika or av vikja) was taken from a book in history...

However, that page you showed also suggest a fourth path (do you speak Swedish, Fedor?). The writer suggest that viking was the name of the workers on the boat, or oarsmans, or actually shift-rowers, since the work was performed in shifts. (The etymology would be based on a length mesurement on sea, the length made by one rower before he was replaced by another one). And he even suggest that this shift might be the etymology for week. //Rogper 14:48, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Vikings vs. Norsemen

While the article is informed about etymology, I'm not happy with the definition, and the article title: Strictly speaking, the "Vikings" are not a people. It's true that in English use, "viking" has been extended to become synonymous with norse (but not with norman). It is therefore justified to summarise the two names in the same article. Still, I think there should be an explanation that vikings were members of these peoples engaged in piracy, and that the term was extended to refer to the entire culture. dab 09:17, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I am reverting the entirety of your edits to those of Wiglaf. I am doing this on a number of counts, not the least being the manifest and unhistorical basis for most of your edits. The vikings, as a term denoting a conglomerate of migratory Nordic peoples, and thus en soi a people, were raiders, but this was not the entirety of their economy, and was, in point of fact, wholly subsidiary to their mercantile actvities. This kind of reductionist "vikings = pirates" argument is usually squared away by people who have attained some level of being able to scrutinise documentary evidence with no more than a cursory study of the subject. Your immature version is nothing less than the mere regurgitation of the tabloid model of history, making the sensational splash, which is unfortunately contradicted by all available evidence. Sjc 09:51, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I take your comments as an indication that my formulations were not clear enough to be grasped by the casual reader rather than as a personal attack. Far from being unbased in history, my edits were to the effect that viking, as a term, first of all denotes a pirate. The nordic people were not predominantly pirates, and therefore, not predominantly viking. I am well aware, and have said so in my version, that "viking" has been extended in popular use to refer to the nordic people in general. But even in modern english, in an educated context, it is problematic to use "viking" for the culture rather than just for the raiders. Also, I hope that you are aware that even in modern scandinavian languages, not to mention Old Norse, "viking" still means "medieval pirate" rather than "medieval scandinavian culture". I believe, but I have not researched this, that the shift of the term to include the entire culture originates in precisely the (probably american) tabloid models that you reject so emphatically. Please acknowledge that my changes were well-informed and well-meaning, and included other points than the ones you object to (particularly removal the very questionable equation viking=varangian=norse=norman). I would ask you to revert your reversion and only correct the point where you feel I have been misguided. dab 10:19, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It should be added that there was even a verb, "to go vikinging", which meant precisely "to go raiding". A viking was someone engaged in this activity. We completely agree about the historical context, trading and migrating and what not. You just seem to have preconceptions about the term "viking" itself that, if assumed within this article, would require some historical exposition to be justifiable. dab 10:39, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I am afraid that your grasp of Old Norse is as slender as your grasp on historical principles. The first recorded instance of the word is from the Frankish chroniclers in c. 843 who used the term vikvejar, literally "travellers from the sea". The Old Norse word vikingr is one which can be used for any seaman.... pirate or merchantman, fisherman of bloodsoaked berserker.

In Modern English to the average Nordic historian the word viking does not mean a pirate. Nor, I am afraid, does it mean this in Modern English to the man in the street who has been successfully educated out of this outmoded perspective by television documentaries and the like. It is a conglomerate term which is spectacularly loose, but if we are going to have a spectacularly loose conglomerate term, and given the heterogeneous nature of the alliances which were forged during this period, particularly amongst the inhabitants of what is now Scandinavia, it can be nothing but, then let us at least have a value free conglomerate term which is accurately and coherently described. Introducing value into a term used to describe a conglomeration which the conglomeration was not predominantly predisposed to is not unakin to racial stereotyping, and all that goes with it. By this I mean that if we say that inhabitants of e.g. Zurich are cheese-eating clockmakers, we are doing a great disservice to the preponderance of the population who have probably never seen the interior of a clock and eat cheese but infrequently :) - the stereotype to an Englishman is mildly amusing but he would almost certainly see through it. Doing this in a historical sense is altogether more dangerous. It smacks certainly of historical revisionism. I am afraid under no circumstances can I entertain a reversion of the article to your wholly inaccurate and POV content. Sjc 10:43, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Since I am not really enjoying this argument, and since I fear that if I contradict you further, you will back up your rather unmotivated invocation of racism with even more incensing comparisons, and because I think the display of our shared ability to compile convoluted yet syntactically correct english sentences may cause hilarity in onlookers but will not contribute to a resolution, I resolve to leave this article alone, provided that you:

• change the article text to make the heterogeneous nature of the term you have just so eloquently argued clear to the reader, including mention of its original meaning, raider, possibly in the etymology section
• undertake to more clearly differentiate the various meanings of terms now seeminly used interchangeably, especially norman.

While I couldn't fix a watch to save my life, and have little love for cheese, I would not find insulting an assumption to the contrary. Nor is the etymological meaning of Zurich related to watchmaking (it is, incidentally, to banking). But you make me think twice about putting personal information on my userpage.

dab 11:20, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

seriously, though. I can accept that my version disregarded actual word use, and should have been changed accordingly. But I can see no inaccuracy and no POV in what I wrote. Never mind, I'll check back in a few days to see what you made of it. dab 11:36, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This is an article on which some individual or other happens from time to time and attempts to impose a revisionist view of history upon one which is well established and is (curiously, since getting historians and archaeologists (never mind the general public) to concur is about as rare as getting a roomfull of economists to come to a conclusion) agreed upon within contemporary historical and archaeological circles, and which moreover has been documented and discussed ad nauseam (I refer you to the earlier discussions -cf. the archived talk referenced at the top of the page).

The article serves as an encyclopedia article, not as a dictionary entry (I particularly commend to you the (complete and unabridged) Oxford English Dictionary which has a particularly neat definition of the term viking with a full etymological analysis - I would quote it to you in full to save you any further embarrassment, however I am in Denmark and consequently about 800 miles from my copy); the point being that encyclopedia entries are not works of etymology - I believe that somewhere back in the glim prehistory of Wikipedia, Larry Sanger wrote the Wikipedia is not a dictionary article which more or less has been one of the guiding principles of Wikipedia since time immemorial.

I am afraid that your argument of no POV is entirely disingenuous; to turn an entire population block at the stroke of a pen into a seething piratical horde is nothing if not POV. Sjc 03:55, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think the article could be a bit more explicit on the fact that there is a specific sense (i.e. raider/trader) and a generic sense (8th-11th century Scandinavian). Viking IS commonly used in the latter sense, even in Scandinavia. I don't think it would make the article into a dictionary. I have had to be explicit on the historical meaning of Swede in the article on Swedes in order to avoid that that well-meaning Swedes confuse English and Swedish use. I agree with you Sjc, that it should not be necessary, but otherwise the question will pop up sooner or later anyway.--Wiglaf 14:02, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

it is not enough for an encyclopedia article to simply give a dictionary definition. You need, however, to be aware of (at the very least) the dictionary definition before you can think of contributing. As long as you, sjc, do not stop and seriously consider what my changes were about, don't bother to comment on them. I have not the shadow of an intention towards historical revisionism. My sole aim was to make more clear the terms that in the present version are muddled together. For the record, the present version reads:

• The vikings or Varangians were traders, settlers, and most famously, pirates [...] Other names include Danes, Northmen, Norsemen and Normans.

(after, thankfully, Wiglaf has removed "Germanians" (!) from the list). Can we do no better than that? Is a viking a varangian, and also a Dane and a Norman? I know the relation of these terms, and I want to make it clear in more detail. I admit that my initial attempt, "A viking is a pirate...", even though followed with proper qualification, was unhappy. This does not allow you to ignore the issue.

First of all, here is Webster:

• Viking: One belonging to the pirate crews from among the Northmen, who plundered the coasts of Europe in the eighth, ninth, and tenth centuries.

So, by default, this is what this article is supposed to be about. If you do not agree with what my reference says, you are supposed to show another reference, discuss it, and then find a solution that reports both views, *not* just reverting and calling me names on the talk page.

Now, my version was not even as extreme as Webster: I recognize that Webster is a century old, and the meaning of the word has since shifted. I have here a copy of "Viking Age England" by Julian D. Richards, published in 2000 (pages 10-11):

• Contemporary chroniclers called the raiders by many names, including heathens and pagans, as well as Northmen and Danes, but one of the names used to refer to them by the English was `Viking', and this is now used to describe not only the raiders, but also the period during which they carried out their attacks. These centuries, from the ninth to the eleventh, have become known, therefore, as the Viking Age. [...] In the icelandic sagas, víkingr came to be used as a noun to refer to a warrior, or pirate, víking was used to refer to an expedition. The majority of Scandinavians, therefore, were not Vikings; only those who went a-viking could really qualify for the description.

This is how a contemporary specialist explains the term viking. So please, if I attempt to make the article more accurate in this sense, stop shooting the messenger. And if you don't agree, try to bring up some references of your own, discuss them (rather than my allegedly questionable motives), and try to find a fair and balanced solution.

to turn an entire population block at the stroke of a pen into a seething piratical horde is nothing if not POV.

I did nothing of the kind. I simply maintained that "The majority of Scandinavians were not Vikings" and (now) gave authorities for this statement. If you don't see the distinction, don't even bother to try and follow the rest of what I said. dab 09:41, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

To settle this dispute once and for all, would Sjc and Dbachmann allow me to rephrase the introduction? After my revision you can discuss it with me if you aren't happy with it.--Wiglaf 19:22, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

of course, be bold. You will notice that this is not a reversion war since I have refrained from reverting sjc's reversion (or even touching the text since then). I will be ever so glad if the article improves without my having to "get my hands dirty". btw, I didn't find these points addressed in the talk archives. I did find introductions superior to the present one buried in the article history, though. (And, in the archived talk, the fitting phrase "pro-viking proselytism" ;-) dab 21:18, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The term Scandinavians in this context is entirely inappropriate since there was then no concept of what we geographically now refer to as Scandinavia; the term Vikings both then and now, refers to a heterogeneous conglomeration of sea-farers who got up to a considerable (but not preponderant) amount of reaving as a by product of their mercantile activities and during a period of considerable social flux. The primary focal point of Viking activity was driven primarily by cogent social and demographic forces; internecine warfare and political unrest forcing emigration and large scale upheavals in population. The settlement of e.g. the Orkneys, the east coast of Ireland, the Danelaw, Normandy, being but a few obvious examples. Frankly, prefacing an article: The Vikings were pirates from Scandinavia.. is not NPOV, since it flies entirely in the face of the facts of the matter. Sjc 07:26, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Incidentally Richards, who has attracted criticism for his somewhat extreme views on Viking activity, has considerably softened his position if the following is anything to go by:

“OK, there are elements of raiding that still went on in Ireland, for example, but the majority of this was a process of colonising and settling. Nobody is going to Orkney to raid because there’s not a lot to raid.”

Unfortunately he still chose to call his TV programme "The Blood of the Vikings". 'Nuff said. Sjc 07:41, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

XP, this is entirely about the meaning of "viking". I'm not trying to paint those cuddly norsemen as raving monsters or anything. I agree with practically all you say, except when you rant against my imagined nefarious intentions. Can we agree on what a viking is, already, or do you have any conflicting evidence?

Scandinavia is geographically well defined. It's not like the continents have shifted since the viking age, you know. There were Danes, Norwegians and Swedes, nations maybe still united (proto-north-germanic) at the eve of the Viking Age, and differentiating more and more during the centuries in question. Now, will you let Wiglaf have a go at a more accurate intro? dab 07:56, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I am more than happy for Wiglaf to work on the intro, as ever. He has the happy knack of not writing slapdash POV verbiage which needs attention on a regular basis. Scandinavia during that period incidentally was spectacularly undefined with constantly fluctuating geopolitical boundaries. Was the Danelaw in Scandinavia? The East Coast of Ireland? Normandy? If so please explain how this came to be. Nevertheless these were major Viking settlements; the two concepts are not coterminous. Sjc 17:19, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'll mull it over and make a try in a few days.--Wiglaf 18:28, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I see that Sjc has reworked the intro. OK, I think I'd better stay out of this.--Wiglaf 08:04, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No, steam in Wiglaf; I just put a straw-man as a shape for a bit of balance; what we can't have is an article which completely misrepresents the historical facts of the matter as patently as the edits which I reverted by dab. The article certainly needed to deal with the piracy aspect, but to put in terms of an overall context and also to point out where the misapprehension of where this piracy is largely derived from. Sjc 10:12, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Vikings ethnicity (The factual accuracy of this article)

Where do the ethnicity of Vikings comes from; I think it is wrong to state things we do not know. Apparantly, the main ethnicities must have been Danish, Finnic and Russian, since these are the essential languages spoken today in Northen Europe. (Swedish and Norwegian = Danish). //Rogper 00:57, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

the article is indeed broken and somebody with both knowledge and patience should fix it (see "vikings vs. norsemen" above). I don't know about slavs or finns though, prepare to present some hard evidence if you want to bring up slavic and/or finnic vikings... dab 09:24, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

ok, so looking it over, it's not quite as broken as it used to be. It still gives the impression of a "viking people" though. Of course "the vikings" spoke north germanic (otherwise they wouldn't be called vikings, but something in finnic or russian): "the vikings" were scandinavians by origin, but they were not "the" scandinavians, let alone "a people". dab 10:05, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't want to come into a discussion who the Vikings were, and the meaning is today rather a synonym with Norsemen. If I have more time I will check it out, but I believe the term Viking was used for groups along the Baltic and Bothnia Sea shore, such as Pomeranians, Livonians, Curonians, etc. but also Greenlanders. There is some Russian/Slavic researchers that have tried to make their voice heard stating that Vikings were only former Russians, but that is not true either. Anyway, I therefore don't think it is good idea not to state the ethnicity of Vikings. I think it is better to write about the crusades such as Kalmar leidung than race. The best definition of Vikings I've read is like

Vikings were mariners mastering magic and whos ability to conduct warfare was proportional to colderness.

It is quite romanticized, but who care.// Rogper 17:47, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The second part I'm afraid I'm not getting at all. crusades? magic? 'colderness'? yes, the article implicitly assumes "vikings=norsemen" at the moment. That would be ok, as long as the reasons involved are stated explicitly. dab 18:23, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Rogper, I like that you have an open mind, but if the name Viking has ever been used for non-Scandinavians, it is so unusual that it is probably not worth mentioning in this article.--Wiglaf 17:04, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

you mean non-North-Germanic speakers, I suppose? Because obviously, Finns are Scandinavians too, and vikings may settle in England and still be called vikings for some time? dab 08:59, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No, Dab. Finns are usually not called Scandinavians (even though non-Scandinavians may occasionally call them so). The Scandinavians have invented the word Nordic to include the Finns. I think that the article on Scandinavia defines the words Scandinavia and Scandinavian pretty well.--Wiglaf 20:53, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

How about writing Nordic mariners, pirates, etc. // Rogper 20:43, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

ok. you'll still agree that your statement is correctly represented by replacing "scandinavian" by "speakers ot North Germanic" though? Because the different "mindsets" listed on Scandinavia make it clear that we cannot use the term geographically with any precision. And because my point was that this language is a necessary, but not a sufficient criterion for the classification of a viking. In my view, a viking is:

• in the "loose" sense, nowadays the more frequently applied: A speaker of North Germanic of the 8th to 11th centuries.
• in the "narrow" (original) sense: A member of the above group who is involved in an expedition of some kind.

"a nordic mariner (of the centuries mentioned)" sums up the 'narrow' sense nicely, as far as I'm concerned dab 13:43, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think this is the best I can do (see article).--Wiglaf 14:17, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[unindent] very nice. In my view, your version is both factually correct and elegant. I continue to take issue with:

• the This article is about the Viking people. disambiguation header. What "Viking people"? There is "the Viking culture", "the Viking age", but no "the Viking people".
• More narrowly, and originally, the names viking or Varangian refer to traders, settlers: We somehow pull "Varangian" out of our sleeves here. The capitalisation is not nice (lowercase viking vs. uppercase Varangian), and the point is that this is the original meaning of "viking", not "Varangian", which has its own etymology and its own article. I suggest we strike "Varangians" here. They are mentioned two paragraphs later anyway: "Varangians (Væringjar, meaning "sworn men")"
• , and most famously, pirates (often after unsuccessful ventures) principally from Scandinavia. the "often after unsuccessful ventures" is completely stranded in this sentences. The name "viking" refers to "pirates after unsuccessful ventures"? A viking is a failed pirate?? I imagine the "after" is left over from an earlier construction "named after". But I would ask for specification according to what sources we judge their ventures to be "often unsuccessful" anyway. I'm sticking my neck out again, and I make these changes (also, more consistent capitalisation, and more logical re-arrangement of paragraphs. No information is added or removed (excepting the "often unsuccessful" bit). If one of these changes is objectionable, may I ask for reversion of only the disputed bit as opposed to the entire edit, please dab 14:51, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You have improved the text a lot! :) --Wiglaf 14:59, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Intro

ok, the intro is structured like this now:

• loose sense: Northmen
• narrow sense: raiders
• other names: Danes, Normans, Rus, etc.
• Modern nations descended from them
• Prose bit about the Vikings being extremely skillful craftsmen, extremely ruthless warriors, extremely competent sailors and extremely adept warriors.

dab 15:11, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It is fine by me.--Wiglaf 15:15, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"dirty vikings"

I agree with all that is said in the 'myths' section, except: is it even a myth that the vikings were particularly uncleanly? is that not rather a prejudice applied to the total of the middle ages and not to the vikings in particular? Much to the contrary, the vikings in England were reputed to be dandies of excessive cleanliness. They bathed and combed their hair every week and the locals were annoyed with the success they had with their women because of that. So I am not sure the myth that is debunked here even exists. (See also Ibn Fadlan) dab 10:11, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps this is not a popular myth at all - I included it because of Ahmad ibn Fadlan and the Hagbard comics. Feel free to remove it if it adds nothing to the article.. --moliate 16:20, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I explained it all in more detail now. dab 13:26, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Capitalisation

The article randomly mingles "viking" and "Viking". We need to decide whether or not we want to capitalise the word (as opposed to just capitalising coined expressions like "Viking Age") dab 13:26, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The problem is that the article both treats Vikings as an ethnic group (cf. Scandiavian and Swede) and vikings as an occupation (cf. pirate and trader).--Wiglaf 15:19, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree. I'll try to disambiguate accordingly. It's difficult, though. viking may be an occupation, but Viking may also be a proper name, like Varangian, for people of this occupation. In the intro, we also have "population" now, followed by a pronoun "they", which should be rephrased somehow. dab 15:58, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Halfway through my disambiguation, I would like to suggest to capitalise "Viking" in both meanings. The difference is sometimes too subtle, and "Viking" as a proper noun may refer to both the raiders and the general population/culture -- what do you think? dab 16:18, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It sounds fine! :)--Wiglaf 20:23, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ok. Capitalising throughout (Viking as in Dane, and Viking as in Varangian). dab 09:41, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Non scientific article

This article is not NPOV in my opinion, and it contributes to misleading desinformation.

If you read further down, theres a lot of discussions about this articles name Wikings.

The term wiking is known from, I believe less than fefteen sources. The sources can be grouped into runstones (abt 6-8) mentioning the activity wiking (2-3), sagas mentioning persons and activity wiking, and personal name wiking (also only known from rune stones (abt 2-3)

Also the term ledung is mentioned in the article and here below. The ledung was nothing else than the royal fleet, and as for sweden at least, used actually to defend the country against wikings. Theres no evidence, no source what so ever to my knowledge, that the swedish fleet ledung was used for piratry.

Theres also a fourth group of source, speaking on runsestones as something which could be translated into wiking watcher, a guard against wikings.

Then theres Adam of Bremen, who mentions abt other things the people in north sweden with dog heads etc, not always such a brilliant source for historicans. He does mention wikings though, with the meaning of pirat.

With all respect, for how this word is used by (20-30 years) tradition in english language, it will only lead to further desinformation and misunderstandings about this word. The article doesnt concentrate on the classical wiking activities, and it mixes up normal trade people in the east, the swedish ledung fleet put to disposal at the battle of Kiev.

It must be stated that history knows between 10-20 "wikings". Some of them obviously from friesland, others from north germany. If, for any reason this article must be kept in its present form, then it would be at least correct to make also the english people, the dutch people, and the germans to wikings.

This type of generalization would of course be as stupid as the present article is, but at least it would be clear that its not more ireleveant than trying to make the only country which had proven "not wikings" (on runestones) and which had since about 700 AD (maybe earlier) organized defence unit (ledung) with the combination of the ships and the light towers "vardkase" which gave the message along the cost line that enemies wikings) approached, so the fleet could be assambled in order to protect the country and its people, against wikings to wikings!!

Even if I now and then see british people on pubs, I am not aloud to write an article about alcoholics, naming the americans or the english as the definition of this word.

This article is written as a historical article. In that case, I ask humbly:

1. Please name 1 source indicating one wiking' on the ships that went to Kiev! (And theres quite a number of sources mentioning the guys that went there, I promise, in Mälardalen theres abt 30 stones mentioning the heroes that went there...
2. Please name 1 source indicating that wikings' called themselves Nordmen.
3. Please name 1 source indicating that nordmen' called themselves wikings.
4. Please name 1 source indicating that wikings' was "the people" from sweden, norway or denmark.
5. Please name 1 source indicating that the founders of the rus-kievian kingdom was wikings'. (Haha, the daugther of the swedish king Olof Skötkonung (known to the first cristianed king of sweden), married to Jaroslav of Kiev, later named St. Ingegeärd (shes a wholy saint)
6. were they perhaps the "wikings"? Or Ingegärds earl who later became earl of Ingermanland,
7. was he a wiking?

It is written: "The modern day nations descended from the Viking population is...Sweden" etc.

I argue this very much. Please mention one source that I, my family, people in my birth town, or anyone in Sweden is a descendant of wikings. Who? name, and written source please?

Dan Koehl 14:40, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I had similar concerns in the past (see the archives), and got myself shouted at. FWIIW, this article is about the English word viking, not the Old-English word wicing, not the Scandinavian/Orld Norse vikingr. We try to make this plain in the etymology section. So, what is the meaning of the English word viking? It was re-introduced into the English language in the late 18th century referring to a romantic notion of the Old North. Subsequently, it was, mistakenly I'll agree, extended to refer to the entire medieval scandinavian culture, as in "Viking Age", "Viking culture" etc.

I agree very much that "vikings were traders and settlers", "vikings founded Rus" only perpetuates the misinformed generalization, and it would be much cleaner to have an article Norsemen or Northmen to deal with the culture as a whole, and restrict this article to viking in the narrow sense. I admit, however, that it may be argued that viking in English now includes all aspects of the culture, and that restriction of this article to aspects of piracy could be taken to endorse a distorted image. This is not so much a question of NPOV as one of editorial judgement of how to handle the word's definition, and, I may add, not one to become heated over, imho, as the facts are undisputed, as far as I see, it's more of a matter of how to present them. dab 15:39, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am sorry, I cant see that it may be right to say that modern swedes are descendants of wikings, because this is what the present english meaning of the word is. (I know this is going very far in argument, but similair arguments could be used to state that all germans are descendants from nazis...)

The meaning of viking has simply been misunderstaood and misinterpreted. I see no point of refering to misunderstandings as source for the accurance in a an article. In fact, the article must then be named to english viking or I dont know, since I can not use this article in interwiki and write about the vikings. Why should this word be treated any other way than lion, car, umbrella etc. which I can freely translate.

But even, if I would agree that the english langauage is entitled to its private, own interpetion of the word viking, and in its right to state that all swedish people are descendants of vikings, (this I suppose leaves a lot of freedom what we on the swedish wikipedia are alaoud to write about americans and english people?) if I would agree, Id be very happy to see the written sources That the english word (is it a english word??????) viking can be applied on what is stated in the article. We are not speaking about what a teenager would write, I am speaking about resepctful written sources that the english world viking includes alla livings swedes. Where can I find this source? Or, that the people that fought in the battle of Kiev was according to english language interpretion of the word viking vikings? This source must be unique!

People has been using false names about other tribes, nations, people etc throughout history, but even if they did, is this an excuse to continue. I find this argument very weak. As well as the invention of th e british word and meaning of vikings. Come on, some guys made errors, lets correct this?

It would be far enough to start the article with the statement that the english meaning of this word is based on misunderstandings, limited knowledge, rumors, and lacks any written source supporting the meaning, so the reader understands this instantly. But I really cant se the reason why anyone wants to write false things about other nations people, with the argument that even if we misunderstood, this is today our definition of swedes so we want change it?

There has been a lot of discussions here.

Where the written sources that gives the article right? Dan Koehl 16:28, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I should thank you, as you really argue my point. I was in favour as dealing with the "narrow" sense "vikings are medieval scandinavian pirates" in this article, and leave the discussion to others. However, appreciate that I have already fought to even include the distinction between the "narrow" and "loose" senses. Originally, the article read like, "vikings were cuddly peaceful scandinavians, who maybe were mistaken for pirates on some occasion by stupid english monks". Now, at least, we have this definition:

Viking refers

• in a loose sense to the North Germanic (ethnically Scandinavian) population of Northern Europe in the 8th, 9th, 10th and 11th centuries, which during this time colonized, raided and traded the lengths of the coasts, rivers and islands of Europe and the northeastern shores of North America.
• More narrowly, and originally, the name Viking refer to traders, settlers, and most famously, raiders or pirates from Scandinavia.

Now let's be specific. It seems to me that you disagree with this definition, especially the "loose" part. But once the definition is accepted (if it is accepted), the rest of the article makes good sense? In this case, we do need to argue the definition once again. I do suspect that the "don't discriminate against the vikings" pov emerged in SCA-type (American) surroundings. But, I have had to admit, at present (since recently) the term "viking" seems indeed widely applied to the entire culture. I have argued that we can acknowledge that, and then still insist on the 'correct' usage, since as an encyclopedia we do want to make sure we use the words correctly. But I was not heard, and I am reasonably satisfied with the present solution. You can of course try to disambiguate "vikings" from "Old Norse culture", and see how far you get. Make sure you always check English usage, though, as direct translation may be misleading. dab 21:12, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think that the term "viking" should reflect modern usage and not runic usage or medieval usage, and I think it does that pretty well at the moment.--Wiglaf 21:36, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am quite satisfied myself. Maybe we need to emphasize more that the meaning is disputed. It is quite ironic that on one hand, if you say, "vikings were pirates", you are accused of "revisionism" by people who take this to imply that the entire culture was dominated by pirates. If, otoh, you say "some vikings were pirates, but they were really an entire culture", you are accused just the same, by people who understand this to imply that the entire culture was dominated by vikings, i.e. pirates. There is no easy way out. dab 09:33, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't believe that there is a perfect way of writing the text, simply because we have this part-whole relationship between the pirates and the North Germanic population they came from. I also find these negative reactions a bit ironic. If you read the sagas, it is pretty clear that pillaging, looting and plundering was an honourable thing for a man to do, as long as the victims and the caught slaves were not fellow tribesmen. There were few heroes in the sagas who can not be described as blood-thirsty warlords and there is a reason why there were thousands (!) of hill forts in Iron Age Scandinavia. So I don't think it is correct to try to make Iron Age Scandinavians cuddly and misunderstood and to separate them neatly from the pirates. The democratic traditions that they had were a necessity in order to avoid the extinction of entire families (see Ting).--Wiglaf (this computer can't insert timestamps in a Wiki article for some reason, but it is 30 Nov 2004 (UTC))

exactly; on top of the terminological dilemmas, the culture was dominated by piracy during that time (plundering was Scandinavia's primary export product, so to speak). That's not to say every member of the "Viking culture" was a viking, personally, but it's not called "the Viking age" for nothing. dab 15:20, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think viking should reflect its true, defined meaning. Whatever million of people may think of germans, they can only be described out of a neutral point of view, and as scientific as possible. Whatever rubbish people may be belive about vikings is uninteresting. That might be substance for an article about myths about vikings. I give noone any right to state here that I, my nation, and my family are descendants to pirates, regardless what language this is written in, and i find it correct that an article about vikings should be as correct and NPOV as an article about bicycles, bananas, scotland, england and ireland. And uneducated peoples beliefs in myths about vikings should not dominate the article, only true sources and facts.

If a village in england demands that alla swedes, norwegians, danes, (and according to the article) friesians, germans, and englishmen are vikings, or of viking ancestry, then it should be noted that its this villages wish, or even worse this countrys wish but it can not be based as general facts which we give to a new generation. It is also not a constructive contribution to the wikipedia to implement misunderstandings and lack og knowledge as base for an article for whatever topic.

There was no viking culture, the only viking culture is in peoples imagination. We did in scandinavia have a culture, and this was more projected o defence against attacks on our country, and from this I can name thousand of sources. Our culture was NOT based on piracy. Plundering was not our main export product, show me any source describing that. We exported furs, horses, bearnstein and metal all the way down to Byzans and Rome, this was already by Jordanes described.

This article smells old viking romantic dust, combined with teenagers false view of what a viking was. You could as well write about races on the nglish wikipedia out of late 1800 and early 1900 views, with weight on frenology etc, but I suppose this is not OK?

Well I tell you the rubbish written in the article is as limited in modern view, true knowledge about vikings, and neutral point of view.

As far as I know there is 1 one, single source actually describing what a viking was, namely Adam of Bremen, and he states VERY clear what, and who they were. All the rest are speculations and a determined will to make vikings to something individuals want them to be...

I have now read articles on the wikipedia about vikings founded the Rurik family, Rus-Kiev kingdom, colonizing america and greenland and all sort of rubbish. The authors of those articles cant show one single written source that what they wrote is true, since they dont exist. The word viking is nowhere to be seen in Nestor cronicles, in the history of Kiev, or in the sparse document describing colonization of greenland and the pan-european boat trips to america.

If other articles on the wikipedia should be treated in this childish way admins would roar. Te times is over when people played vikings with horn helmets, shouting guttural words and dringing a weekand away. I want this article to be pulled up to a level where it gives neutral knowledge and information instead of feeding another generation with myths.

The first step should be to separate everything written about scnadinavian people in general, out of the article about vikings, after that we can write an article about vikings, I belive I have almost all 8 person named in the world history that was documented vikings, and another 5 who were named viking as personal name.

I do not share your satisfaction Wiglaf, when you describe me as decendant of pirates, rerdless of what you personally believe is "general ideas" and blah. If you can not proove that I am decsendant to vikings, then that article is not true, simple as that. I do not give you the right to describe me and my family in that way.

I have waited with this to see if anyone defending the present article has 1 one single written source backing it up, if not I belive, its time to start to clean it up now? As well as all links from Kiev russia, america and wherever people without a single source or indication has used the word viking, as a fruit of their personal imagination and phantasy. Dan Koehl 09:17, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I really don't see why you are so vexed about this. Do you contest the concept of Viking Age or "Viking culture"? What is your "defined" meaning of "viking"? How is ours inaccurate? As Wiglaf said, it was honourable at the time to set out and make ones fortune. Not just in Scandinavia, the Scandinavians were just particularly successful for some time. If we go back far enough, we are all descended from uncivilized brutes, I suppose. Not that the vikings were uncivilized, but what about your Ice Age ancestors? Do they not disturb you? Written sources. I admit, plunder and extortion were not the 'main product' for the full span of 4 centuries given in the intro. It certainly was, however, during certain periods around the year 1000. A written source:

• in ulfr hafir onklati * Þru kialtakat Þit uas fursta Þis tursti * Þa ---Þurktil * Þa kalt knutr

See Danegeld. 60 tons of silver, just between 1007 and 1018. hello? I think you would have to export a lot of furs to get such a sum. dab 09:48, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• I have no definition what vikings are, I can only relate to the only persons ever having one, which was Adam of Bremen and Widsith. And then theres some million people with personal definitions based on their phantasy, since those definitions are not backed up on sources. I may say YOU are viking, and your children. But since I can not back that up with a written source, its a personal view, its not history, and its not NPOV.
• Wiglaf doesnt have a clue what people thought about that, and wether it was honourable or not, or did he read a news papaer from sweden from year 670? (The islandic sagas are not objective, as well as Mein kampf. Regardless what Hitler wrote, theres no evidence a majority of the german nation shared his opinions.)
• The word honourable or similair is used on runsestones over persons though, naming their titles:
  • dräng
  • sven
  • karl
  • rink
  • thegn. All of those can be classified as honourable.
  • viking is named on runestones, but never as honourable!
• But it should be stated: IF the swedish nation had ships to defend its coastlines, and in most villages guards prepared to alarm for a wking attack (Yes viking guards, one of the other very fes sources mentioning the word viking) what do you think? That the people thought it was fun that they could be attacked, and they put that guard there in rder to show his honourable guest to the local cheifs wife, daughters and goldbox?
• Yes we exported a lot of furs and horses, so much that Jordanes wrote about it in story about the goths. He states nowhere, that our main income was robbery, piracy or whetever...
• Our nowadays criminals in sweden also get some good ammounts of gold now and then, but it doesnt make us a nation of burglers. And there may be a couple of swedish drug dealers in english prisons, but drugs are not swedens main export product.
• the name Viking refer NOWHERE to traders or settlers. show me that source!
• Ice age is not a releveant topic here, the discussion is vikings. For your information, during the ice age, the ice in sweden was 3 kilomter high. Theres very few items that can give as a clue about eventual people walking on that ice...
• I contest the article about vikings. Its not true, its full of errors, myths and false information, mentioning things which can not be beacked up with sources.
• I contest the misuse of the word viking, stating that they fought in Kiev, founded russian kingdoms etc. No source mention that those people were vikings. In the case of Kiev, it was probably the swedish royal fleet, commande there by the king, whos daughetr married Jaroslav I of Kiev. She was one of the first saints in northern europe, and her father was the first swedish christian king. You could as ell say that Kiev was founded by people from Mars, or people eating tons of bananas, and of course this can not be backed up by a written source. This is pseudo-history.
• You said:exactly; on top of the terminological dilemmas, the culture was dominated by piracy during that time (plundering was Scandinavia's primary export product, so to speak). That's not to say every member of the "Viking culture" was a viking, personally, but it's not called "the Viking age" for nothing. dab 15:20, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Where is the written source backing up your peronal view and opinion, that the culture was dominated by piracy during that time, and a source for plundering was Scandinavia's primary export product. Where can I read this?? Sources please! (Not islandic sagas, or hangbard handfaste, or Asterix or similair, historical sources, or archelological evidencies)

Dan Koehl 10:22, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

wtf? you still had Ice Age ancestors, they just didn't live in Scandinavia. I was using an analogy. dab 12:36, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Not sure what you ment. Still not are. You mentioned danegeld as evidence for piracy as dominant income in sweden. Let me inform you, denmark is not sweden, Knut den store was a danish, not a swedish king. But yes, there was swedes on those ships. I have personally found one runsteone, over Toke, who went with Knut to england. Apart from this stone, Toke is unknown in swedish history. At the same time as Toke went to england, other swedes, rich farmers and knights, made bridges over rivers, bought farm land and developed new agrar areas. This guy is well known and documented, while the Toke is only known from the stone. His gold was no base for the swedish economy or development of the country. Stating that sweden was developed throughout this time with plunder and piracy is highly inaccurate and doesnt have any support in any history documents or excavations.

If, for any reason we should try to locate differences in the scandinavian culture compared to the cultures more south, it may be stated that we wer far better organized in regrds of military defence. This has absolutely nothing to do with any vikings, it was probably the result of an effective system of ships and lighthouses, combined with an effective communication system, and a well established ting, where the defence could be planned.

But there is no reason what so ever, to belive that scandinavia could not develop the same economy character based upon farmin and later feudalism, as other countries south.

Because of our defence system , we were not invaded by roman emires or others, that stole our natural resources.

The "viking" activity, can only be indivual income, but not regarded as "major income" for the state.

Dan Koehl 14:01, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

you may want to go over to Danegeld and yell at people that they are slandering Scandinavia without giving sources. Apart from that, I agree with all you say. It's really quite easy:

• a vikingr was somebody on a viking, i.e. on an expedition. typically young men or exiles, certainly not the majority of the Scandinavian population.
• the Anglo-Saxon perceived the raids as coming from a 'kin', i.e. 'people', and they called them wicing after their own term.
• later, the same people, or their relatives, settled peacefully in Danelaw. They were not called vikings, but rather Danes.
• in the 18th century, English intellectuals became enthusiastic about Old Norse warriors, coining the romantic term viking, mostly seen in a positive, heroic, light. This usage had, as we say in the article, little to do with historical facts.
• in the 20th century, the "Viking Age" became the generic term for the era in question. In England, it is not possible to separate "Danes" from "Anglo-Saxons" archaeologically, and the period is named "Viking Age" regardless of whether the finds in question are related to actual vikings (pirates).
• from "Viking Age", "Viking culture" became current. This is the de facto English term for medieval North Germanic culture. It applies to the entire culture, not just to the pirates
• consequently, "Viking" as an adjective is now applied to anything to do with that culture. That's a fact, and we try to explain the development in the article. This is the terminological dilemma I was talking about.
• Nowhere do we say "the Scandinavians are all descended from pirates". We name the modern nations that evolved out of Viking culture, that is wholly different.
• I agree that we should use "Northmen" in the article text, and not "Viking population" or similar, just to make the distinction more clear. That doesn't change what Wiglaf said, the viking, i.e. the expeditions, played an important role in that society. If you want to dispute that, you should "clean up" Danegeld and Canute the Great first. dab 12:34, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree, though, that the article is very unfinished. Lots of historical sources should be added (do it!), and a sort of timeline needs to be drawn (and also a map). We have to be careful how we distribute the material between this article and Viking Age. Maybe this article should be cut down to the pirates after all, and most of the content exported to Viking Age? dab 12:58, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am very glad for your constructive dialogue, and together maybe we can turn this into something better. I am prepared to do this, and as You can see, I already started to gather sources.

• I agree absolutely, that the article should only contain info about vikings and nothing else.
• alla substance refering to scandinavian or norse men or whatever you want to call us, the true culture of scandinavia, needs of course its own article.
• if "Northmen" is the accurate term for the scandinavian people in your langauge, then thats the correct place to describe them.
• This article can be rich and well founded , since theres a rich material of sources describing this, compared to the totally 20 vikings ever mentioned in history of man.
• I don not agree with you that there was any viking culture at all. This is a name for something else. There is no existence of a viking culture. All descriptions of viking cultures are descriptions of scandinavian (sometimes colony) cultures.
• as well as there is no Pirat culture?
• Its better to describe this something else as neutral and accurate as possible instead of repeating sawdust which can not be supported by sources. I suppose theres articles about british colonies. Not viking colonies in India, even if the colonistst according to the viking article could be regarded as vikings.
• In the 18th century, intellectuals had all sorts of ideas including rasial research, frenology etc. They are not refered to today as facts, and defended becasue of tradition, insted there is admit that those movements were wrong, and lacked scinetifical approach. As well as there was false descriptions about black people from africa, during this period, there was obviously rubbish written about scandinavians. Its strange if this may not be cleared today 2004 because of "traditions" or whatever.
• I am presently cleaning out the pages about viking at the swedish wikipedia, which terribly enough, was translated from this english article. I hope we can reach some sort of consensus, so both articles can be compared, and may reach a state of NPOV.

Thanks for your positive approach, and that you confirm that I am coming with valid arguments.

Sorry though, after previous kilometers of discussions though, that not a single source to defend the article came up. people seem to have been waisting a lot of time here...Dan Koehl 14:24, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ok. First of all, you need to acknowledge the generic term Viking Age current in English. This may not be directly translatable into Swedish, but is a term whose existence we cannot deny on en:, even though we can explain how it is problematic. "Viking culture" otoh is far less common, and we may do without the term. Since I had advocated a split of Northemen and Viking, you'll have to try to get a consensus with others. The Viking Age article needs to stay in place, however. It is not equivalent with North Germanic late Iron Age or similar, since it refers presicely to the cultural contact of Scandinavians with other cultures (mainly Anglo-Saxon and Gaelic). We could distribute the material like this:

• Viking: The pirates, the raids, the accounts of these, and the romantic revival
• Viking Age: mainly archaeological, describing the finds in Scandinavia, Ireland, Iceland etc., including a map showing the migrations and forays of vikings and varangians.
• Northmen: a brief outline of the scructure of medieval scandinavia, including sections about vikings, varangians, normans, etc.

I don't know if this would be an improvement, but it is true that the relation of Viking Age to this article is still largely undefined (which should treat the longship technology etc.?). Also, I maintain that your criticism does not contradict the facts we present here, but you are simply unhappy with our generic use of "Viking" as an adjective designating the entire culture, i.e. it is a criticism of terminology, not of content. Regarding sources: you seem to be rather selective about which sources you accept. The importance of viking raids on England is widely recognized. Do you not recognize the Anglo-Saxon chronicle as a source? Do you dispute the numbers in Danegeld? dab 15:05, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Viking age is a term in sweden, inherited from the english I belive. We do use it, bu it has lately become more and more uninteresting since the whole medevial period is under reformation the last 15-20 years. I just saw that the saint Anna, (princess Ingegerd Olofsdotter of Sweden, married to jaroslav I of Kiev)is refered to as daughter of "the viking king" Olof of Sweden. Fun...a new thing for me, a "viking king". Olof is surely not a person considered a viking in the swedish history...

Is Northemen the correct term, not Northmen?

It's Northmen (or Norsemen), the other was a typo. "Norse" is the adjective, but it's difficult to use because it's also the adjective applied to modern Norway. Yes, I also think "Viking king Olof" is over the top. It should either be "Viking Age king", or just "Swedish king". WP is not perfect. You may remove the "Viking king" qualifier (it's not in Olof's own article, either). dab 16:54, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I did, and I wonder how many "wikings" are invented on the english wikipedia....But please dab, are you joking with me? Do you want me to use an article which belongs to the category Middle earth and to 75% includes fairy tales from Tolkien? is that a proper place to describe the 99% not vikings during the viking age in scandinavia? What is this? I can not believe that the british history is described in this way? Norsemen is redirected to vikings. This is like a sticky cream...

Lets start going through the page viking instead. is there any source you can find stating that vikings called themselves norsemen? Othervise this a first good step, to start to get out everyhing from that page that doesnt refer to vikings, or is by minorities misunderstood as vikings? Dan Koehl 17:21, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Dan, please. I am aware of the current condition of Viking, Norsemen and Northmen. I was suggesting how we might change that. Change it, see? So Northmen will not be about Tolkien anymore? We cannot 'go through the page viking' before we are clear on what we mean by "viking". Would you please stop to accept that "Viking" is a generic adjective in English, used to describe all things Nordic+Medieval? So that the adjective Viking is not synonymous with "the Vikings"?? I really don't know if you have understood anything I have told you. We may decide to make this page about "the Vikings", exclusively. However, it is not about "the Vikings" exclusively at the moment, so you cannot just clean it up with this idea in mind. dab 18:04, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• At least at history departements on your universities there must be someone discussing real vikings?
• What do you call those in english?
• why do you say that swedes sailed east?
• why is there "wikings" living upto Gävle, but noone in Finland, Estonia, and further south in the baltic states, (where "true" vikings lived, the one attacking sigtuna) and especially, the most known one the frisieans?
• where on earth did you get that map, showing where vikings lived, as they were a species?

*Could you please show me written source that viking in english means "all things Nordic+Medieval"? it sounds completely crazy

dab, for some time I believed you were interested to put this in order?

Dan Koehl 19:09, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Dan, you seem to be very determined that the medieval meaning of viking is the only correct one. The problem is that meanings change over time. I'd love to see you contribute on the Etymology part of the article, but you simply cannot turn semantics one thousand years in reverse. Today "medieval north germanic" is the main sense of viking in the minds of most English speakers, whether you like it or not, and the article must reflect this. I repeat that I encourage you to fill in on the historic meanings.--Wiglaf 07:55, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

that said, the article Viking Age is dilapidated. How do we distribute the material between the two articles? The geographical and technological bits would fit much better with the Viking Age one, leaving this one to deal more exclusively with the raids. dab 08:41, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wiglaf,

1. after two days arguing that my definition of viking is medevial, something I believe the techers at any history university would not agree with, so also not in Britain) you have not showed 1 one source shwing me you are right, and I am wrong.
2. if you are right, where is the page wehere true vikings and not the misundertstood meaning of the word is getting described? You do see thats its very confusuing to describe vikings on the same page as non vikings calling both vikings and not explaining this because you want them all to be called vikings?
3. I have guve you written sources to what a viking was, you have given 0
4. The text in the article is not only an error in its description, it contains errors.
5. It seems you treat this article as some sort of personal belonging.
6. Where may I write about the true scientific definition?
7. This is the most stupid behaviour I ever encountered on the vikipedia.
8. The goal should be to present accurate and good information, not bullshit.
9. There must be an article that also contains information about vikings, where we can link from the swedish vikipedia, or from any other vikipedia describing vikings, so we dont have to link to your page with information about non vikings, and messed up and confused information.
10. Even if your article about non vikings would be kept here, I doubt you could do it without violating the NPOV. You are accusing me of stating a medevial view of vikings, and I answer you that you make the same mstake as article about african people etc during the beginning of this century. It doesnt reflect true sources, it reflects personal views, not backed up by sources. History is history, its not a museum. And the islandic sagas mentioned, are not regarded as historical sources.

dab, thanks that you are open eyes and realises something has to be done.

Dan Koehl 08:52, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, I don't own the article, I can only point out that everyone would not agree with your less loose definition. Moreover, I am not visiting Wikipedia in order to be insulted. Go on and make the article as you want to see it, I give up.--Wiglaf 09:30, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It is not my loose definition Wiglaf,

1. it is the definition of Adam of Bremen and Widsith, the only people who ever gave a definition.
2. I have backed this definition,
3. you have until now not named one single source, wihch I dont really find insulting but of course frustating, since you state that Im wrong without validating this statement.
4. Since then there has also been misunderstandings of the definition.
5. I can nowhere on the wikipedia find that it should reflect misunderstandings of definitions, how common, or global they may be.
6. At least it should be stated in the article, that if it deals with a misunderstood interpretion of the word.

I will try to contribute, with a positive attitude to the article, if you aloud me to. I will try to point out your arguments, although I still lack 1 single written source backing them up, and after some time its my hope that you agree that the article will grow in quality and neutrality. Since Iam swedish, id especially appreciate corrections on behalf of my english.

I beg your pardon if you get the idea of trying to insult you, it is always difficult to deal with different opinions. I state that I have been correct when here, in front of the whole world, it is written that my nation is decsendants of vikings, and some people would eventually find that insulting, if they are not aload to write on that place thats its totally untrue. You can not treat people from other countries like that just because its an english vikipedia!

About the article and the map: It is maybe not bullshit, but entirely wrong. As far as sweden, those areas in green were under ting jurisdiction with elected lawmen, and governed by local kings, not vikings. Sweden never, ever were overpowered by vikings. Once Sigtuna were attacked and burned from foreign forces, but it was rebuilt in short time, and its not enough argument to say that the whole country of sweden was ruled by vikings. As I told you before, our fleets were known and described already by Tacitus, and the leidung was an effective tool to defend us againts attacks. Our system of husabyar, and viking watchmens (named on runestones), guards against attacks, as well as the communication system was probably developed just for the sake of such attacks.

That map is wrong. Especially since its focusing on scandinavia and for example not Friesland, baltic states etc. My joke about animals pecies: If you show a map where there is redfoxes, then there must be a scientific indication hat foxes are living there right? Such a map is backed up by sources, inventations showing a statistc material of found foxes withing a certain area.

You can not make map, paint some parts green, and say, here lived the vikings. Please...

Dan Koehl 10:03, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Dan, all your criticism is based on the single fact that you take viking to have its medieval/scandinavian meaning, while we use it in the "loose sense" defined in the intro. I can only reiterate this. Excuse me, but if you are not prepare to listen, maybe you would better shut up, too. dab 10:31, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

HISTORICAL sources about vikings

===Source nr 1=== Adam of Bremen, the Gesta (Some of these are assumed to have been entered by Adam himself, some by later transcribers.); Book 4 chapter 5 and 6: ( ch 6, my translation) Theres a lot of gold there, collected by piracy. Those pirats the inhabitants call Viconges, our countrymen call them Askomans

• • Conclusion: If the inhabitants, called them vikings, this was a minority, all the inhabitants were not vikings? Logical?

===Source nr 2=== Widsith, Hroþwulf ond Hroðgar heoldon lengest sibbe ætsomne suhtorfædran, siþþan hy forwræcon wicinga cynn ond Ingeldes ord forbigdan, forheowan æt Heorote Heaðobeardna þrym.(link to translation on encyklopedia Brittanica) nr 45: 'Hrothwulf and Hrothgar held the longest peace together, uncle and nephew, after they repulsed the Viking-kin and Ingeldes to the spear-point bowed down, hewn to pieces at Heorot the Heatho-Beard's army

• • Conclusion: Widsith states (right or wrong) that vikings are a kin, at least its pretty clear its a minority. Nowhere is stated that all people are vikings?

Further down: mænan fore mengo in meoduhealle hu me cynegode cystum dohten. Ic wæs mid Hunum ond mid Hreðgotum, mid Sweom ond mid Geatum ond mid Suþdenum. Mid Wenlum ic wæs ond mid Wærnum ond mid wicingum.

Translation: "with Swedes and with Geats and with south-Danes. With Wends I was and with Werns and Vikings."

Question: why is he mentioning wikings as a special group, and not giving any indication that the other mentioned groups (Swedes, Geats, south-Danes, Wends, Werns) belong to them?

Source nr 3

Jomsborg. I have not checked this myself, if it can be confirmed that Jomsborg was in fact a viking location. (In that case, most probably the only one, intersteing to note when you are discussing viking cultures above?) The text as follows:Jomsborg was a legendary Viking settlement in Pomerania by the Baltic Sea. It's generally disputed whether such a settlement existed at all, all proof coming from later times and from distant Iceland. Contemporary sources mention a city known as Julin, Jumne or Wolin, which supposedly was a home of Slavic pirates, but where Danes and other Scandinavians could also easily find refuge. It was conquered by the disinherited Swedish prince Styrbjörn Starke who later gave it to the Danish king Harold Bluetooth. Harold Bluetooth had to take refuge from his son here in the late 900s.

• • Does it sound like a refugee was a highly regarded man?
  • if it states that it was home for slavic pirates, who took refugee there, what conclusions can be made of the other people named?

However, on Scandinavian connections to Mieszko I is stated: Jomsborg, as historians (at least Polish) have agreed many years ago, is a myth. The only source that tells us about Jomsburg are Iceland sagas, from the 13th century. It's more likely that a city of Slavic pirates existed at that spot.

Sources nr 4 a 5

At least 2 Runestones in sweden telling about men who died i viking, ("in viking") letting us now this a particulair activity, not "the people of scandinavia" or likevise) Nothings is mentioned that those man were regarded as "a highly regarded man" or "honorable".

---

this must stop now

Right. I exported "Geography" and "Technology" to Viking Age, where they are just as much at home. I hope this will stop Dan from trolling this page now. A short summary needs to be re-introduced in the "The Viking Age" section. dab 10:23, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Dub, you are telling me to shut up, stop etc, when I am starting to develop the article, which you (although you are not owner of the vikipedia) gave me freedom to do before? After my changes you change again, make edit war, and remove the sign NPOV from the head of the article. You call me a troll though I am constantly backing up my arguments (apart from being a swede and intrested in historiy for the last 35 years) with historical written sources. As far as I can see my behaviour is correct, and yours is not. You are with different methods trying to hinder me to make the articles NPOV. Menwhile you are making home made maps with green areas saying that was "viking territory", although it was the country of sweden, you claim that text about boats which was existing before the viking age may only belong in the page viking age, and not where I put them in scandinavia. All those reverts could be discussed before you make edit war?

The whole meaning of the vikipedia is that many people can contribute. Its not a private home page. I have so far backed up every single argument with written sources, while you make maps, decide where descriptions of ships shall be, rechange my edits etc, without discussing in detail or showing sources. Then you ask me to shut up, and stop. Dub, it would be better to start a project about a scandinavian history or whatever and try to bring all this in order, instead of behaving like this.

And I can assure you, I do have long experience from the wikipedia too, and I am admin on the swedish since 2 years. I know its easy to call another user with other opinions a troll, but it is wrong, and supposed to be bad behaviour, and at least it should be stated, can not be applied on someone, writing on history articles with backup of history source records. Apart from that of course, it gives me a very strange feeling that you belive you have more right than me, to describe the history of my country.

Anyone should be able to realize that geography, and technology, were nothing unique for the viking age, and if the article is dealing with those human manifestations from scandinavia, I cant see what is wrong with placing them there. Especially since the boats looked the same before this area. I can only conclude that you have the opinion that this is your private pages. My only remark is, that is wrong.

If there is any place on the vikipedia where it is written that you are entitled the possession of those pages, please show me a link to that place. If not, behave like a normal user, please! Dan Koehl 13:49, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Dan Koehl 13:49, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Dirty pirates, etc...

Look, everybody knows that ancient people were dirty, that’s not at issue. I have never heard anything to suggest that Vikings were especially dirty; indeed I would assume the opposite, since they were sea faring and largely rural. As far as pirates, that’s misleading. They conquered alot of areas, and generally stayed. Dublin is a prime example of this. But Vikings in the popular understanding of large warlike bearded Wotan worshippers did in fact exist! If this article suggests otherwise, it’s only due to foolishness. These are my Germanic people to, so nobody is hurling stones, and I'll be the first to object if my ancestors are portrayed unfairly ;) [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 15:25, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please, everybody, listen: read the intro, and the etymology section carefully. The relation of "viking" and "pirate" is indeed misleading. Nobody is trying to label anybody unfairly. It is a terminological confusion, and has quite a history on this page.

• Position one: viking=pirates by definition. People using this definition (including Dan) are insulted when a Viking culture, Viking territories etc. are alluded to, because they take it to imply that all Scandinavians were pirates.
• Position two: vikings=medieval Scandinavians. People using this definition (e.g. Sam) are startled when they hear "vikings=pirates", and take that to imply that all Scandinavians were pirates.

So either way, no matter which definition we use, some people will come to the Talk page, crying "how dare you label peaceful Scandinavians as pirates summarily!". Therefore, we try to make clear the different definitions. However, if you do not read the definitions, you will not understand the problem, and (as Dan) inundate us with references nobody disputes. If the definition is disputed, let's talk about that. Nobody claims all Scandinavians were pirates at any time, ok? (Dan, I tried to reason with you. I would not have done so if I believed I owned WP. You can also see how I reasoned and compromised with other people on this page. You were not open to reason, and I gave up. I already put the article on RFC. You can add your point of view there, if you like). dab 16:10, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I for one can easilly point out that MANY germanic peoples, scandanavians, etc.. embrace the Wiking concept, and have a great deal of pride in it, even sometimes emphasizing the "wiking raiders" and other warlike aspects. Its not like the vikings were some rogue pirate culture. Rather they were the entirety of North Central europe, w women, children, craftsmen, priests, AND warriors (who sometimes raided, of course). [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 16:32, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sam, this term has been misused so much the last 20 years, so everyone believe they know what and who a viking was. It is however extremely complicated, the term is known from apr 20 sources. In fact, more sources are known about not-vikings eg, members in the ledung , viking guards, etc. Because of false information (like the article here) this psudoknowldge is spred and repeated, again and again and again. It makes it extremely difficult to talk, discuss, and write articles about vikings. Once upon a time, before our misuse of the word, there were vikings. The people that was not vikings was not vikings. Today, there is, since the sixties a pseudo world of vikings, with viking women, going on wiking wars, eating wiking food, praying to viking gods and sailing with viking ships, going home to their viking houses, in the viking village, in the viking country or viking territory, ruled by the viking king, or in the viking colony, where they lived viking lifes, and then died viking deaths and was part of viking burials. With only one little remark, they were not vikings at all. But people want them to be vikings, because it sounds more exiting. The only I have asked for here is to bring some objective part about this into the article, so a reader get the point from the very first seconds of reading, before he sinks down in the sagas, the dreams, and everything that is far, far away from archeology, history and critical treatment of medevial titles. Noone treats earls, lawmen, priests, king, dukes like this. You are not aloud to name one knight if it can not be prooved by a written source that he was knighted.

With the term viking the freedom was so big and so extended on this english vikipedia, so I found a swedish princess, being one of the first known saints in northern europe described as "viking-king"s daughter, which is a new invention. There was no viking kings. There was also not viking juppies, viking formel I drivers or viking cultures. Theres an endelss network of links from this article, where people, races, tribes and professionsare named vikings without any other reason that it was possible for the contributor to tip in viking, because the person believed this was the case.

Desinformation, is for various reasons sometimes easier to spread than correct. Especially in cases where scientists still make efforts to bring the small available knowledge into established science.

(The remark you did about their cleaniless is a good example, if you read that section, it is about varyags or rus. They might have origin from scandinavia, maybe not. Never, ever in any written source about rus or varyags is the term viking mentioned.)

Sam, do you have any written source for any priest, craftsman, child, woman that was a viking? Dan Koehl 19:03, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Note: Since all the editwars and discussions it would be wise to put extra emphasis on the recomendation on Wikipedia:WikiProject History: Verifiability is an important tool to achieve accuracy, so it is strongly encourage to check facts.

Started Wikipedia:WikiProject History of Scandinavia, Wikipedia:WikiProject History of Sweden, Wikipedia:WikiProject Vikings in order to get structure. My suggestion is to aviod humiliations, edit wars and threats, and try to focus how to bring the articles to a better quality in connection to those projects. Dan Koehl 11:41, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

other encyclopedias

britannica encyclopedia.com catholic encyclopedia The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001.

[[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 12:09, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Sam for a source! :)

I dont have them here, could you please quote the text about the priests, craftsmans, children and women that according to those encyclopedias were vikings? Dan Koehl 12:52, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

you are supposed to click on the links. your browser will open a new document which you then can read. the articles are about the change from raiders into settlers. raiders do not include women and childern, settlers do. and in this case, it is hard to draw a clear line between the two. dab 13:24, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for this most polite remark. If you however, follow your own advice, you will experience that in case of britannica its impossible to read the full article, so wherever I click, that information will remain hidden for my eyes.

My conclusion however

1. britannica: Member of the Scandinavian seafaring warriors who raided and colonized wide areas of Europe from the 9th to the 11th century.. No priests, craftsmans, children or women mentioned. Chapter Norsemen: Traders mentioned under As traders they made difficult to see if this is refering to viking, or norsemen. The article doesnt specify the connection of Norsemen and viking, but states as traders, not as vikings, which I find important to highlight. A dictator can be father and lover, a burgler can be ambassadour, but it doesnt make those titles identical. Im only prisoner when I am in a prison, not when outside. If I get a job as pilot later, and then fly an aeroplane, its not correct to say that prisoners fly aeroplanes.
2. encyclopedia.com: Scandinavian warriors who raided the coasts of Europe and the British Isles from the 9th cent. to the 11th cent. No priests, craftsmans, children or women vikings mentioned. After that the article descibes scandinavians, and norsemen.
3. catholic encyclopedia Northmen (Vikings), The article alredy in its headline mix up vikings with norsemens, whos description, I would say, dominate the article. No priests, craftsmans, children or women vikings mentioned.
4. The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001. Did the both of you read this article? It is identical with number 2? (No priests, craftsmans, children or women vikings mentioned.)

Sam, I do appreciate your efforts, and give credit to your will to ease things.

I still belive however, that the only possible way to make the article viking reflect the available knowledge and information available of this word, is to aloud people in a normal way edit this article.

Dan Koehl 18:26, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Famous vikings

There is a section of famous vikings, where among others, king Harald finehair of Norway is mentioned as "famous viking". The text in the article about old Harals says: At last Harald was forced to make an expedition to the west to clear the islands and Scottish mainland of Vikings. Numbers of them fled to Iceland, which grew into an independent commonwealth, while the Scottish isles fell under Norwegian rule.

Question: is there any source that states that Harald was a famous viking, or that the viking found him a famous viking? (Except the sagas written by the expelled vikings? (true vikings, I have no doubt.) Dan Koehl 12:49, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

NPOV banner

I am sorry to see that this article, during my 1½ year long experience of Wikipedia, has detoriated step by step. As a Scandinavian, with not much more than the ordinary school knowledge, I've never felt prepared to argue with determined contributors strongly convinced of one or another peculiar theory.

I am not sure I see any general solution to this kind of problems, that his article is not the only one to suffer from, but maybe it would be good and valuable to remember that several teories, understandings and truths can exist beside each other in Wikipedia. The important thing might be to attribute the different points to the respective authorities supporting them.

--Johan Magnus 14:11, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

it is indeed an impasse. However, to judge "deterioration", the articles Viking and Viking Age should be considered in combination (but they are indeed far from satisfying!). Regarding theories: I do not yet see any factual dispute has emerged. It is still all revolving around "who exactly do we refer to by 'Vikings'?". I think everybody agrees more or less on the historical facts, its just a question of how to present them (i.e. do we allow expressions like "Viking culture", "Viking settlements" alongside "Viking raids"). If we want to make progress, we have to clearly separate the discussion of the term "Viking" and how we define it, from any presentation of theories or facts. Unfortunately, in the past, the two issues (terminology and history) became mixed up every time a new editor joined the Talk page. We have arrived at the present solution of "loose sense", "narrow sense" in the intro. If there is a dispute about this definition of the term, we should address it first, and isolated from any other issues. dab 14:41, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

never mind, Dan has just eloquently convinced me to leave the job to his competent hand, and retire to my own petty realm of Cheese and Chocolate. Feel free to make any change you like. Heck, copy-paste the Swedish article for all I care. I am unwatching this. dab 14:55, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Dab, there are no "should"s in that sence, any article should reflect information about its topic, and hopefully as neutral described as possible. This includes the possibilty for as many people as possible with relevant knowledge, or fetching from good sources, to contribute to an article. If there is a "king" of an article, it mostly doesnt reflect all angles on its topic, that is worthy to describe. I ask to get permission to start work on this page, so theres a little bit of risk for new edit wars with dab, which is presently the reason why I quit after naming the sources above, and trying to move topics which belongs to other pages there.

A viking settlement can of course be described, ft any archologists has found one. But starting to invent such, like in the example Birka, is wrong, theres no records saying Birka was a viking settlement. (even if professor Ambrosiani in sweden had to give up, when the televison company called a film Birka-vikingastaden, against his will, since it was not, it had an impressing amount of defending soldiers dwelling in Birkas largest building, 19 meter long, and their role was to defend birka from attcks from vikings. (What you, on your map, call viking territory) (link)

So, I belive instead of inventing terms and names that never existed, its better to try to clearify its complexity, trying to limt information to such that can be validated, and leave to the reader to judge this neutral information themself.

I never tried to convince you to not contribute, I have tried to concince you that You should allow me to contribute without edit war. Dan Koehl 15:28, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)