Talk:Vikings/Archive 16

Lede pix
I have some concerns regarding the first pix in this article, with the wording "Depiction of Vikings sailing a longship from c. 1100". It is unclear where this information was derived from, and what is being depicted. If we go over to the article Guérande, we see this pix once again, however following it through to its source tells us that it is: folio 7v, "s. aubin défendant guérande" & folio 7r "flotte normande", the translation being "Folio 7v, "s. aubin defending guérande" - folio 7r "Norman fleet", which suggests that these are Normans. The Guérande article also tells us of the legend of a Viking attack on Guerande in 919, but I do not regard the cited reference as a reliable source. William Harris (talk) 11:43, 1 March 2021 (UTC)


 * You're correct, in that the original source labels the pic as "Norman fleet". See: http://mandragore.bnf.fr/jsp/rechercheExperte.jsp (type Vita S. Albini in the field marked author (auteur)). This makes sense, since it was drawn during the time of the Norman conquest, some 200 years after the supposed Viking attack on Guerande.


 * There are a few of things people have to understand about this, these drawings, medieval art and language, and this particular story. First, medieval art is highly literal in a childlike way, but with these subtle and also rather childlike elements of symbolism. You can see it in the stoic faces and the way people often seem to tower over buildings. Likewise, many of these drawings, when referring to past events, are quite often very anachronistic, in that people were often portrayed in the current fashions, styles, armor, and weaponry, etc. (A lot like relying on Bonanza as a guide to the way people in the old West really acted, or Xena the Warrior Princess for pre-medieval times.)


 * In medieval France, the term Viking was never used. Instead, tales like the attack on Guerande (and even the writings of people like King Alfred) use divisions more in terms of Christians versus pagans. Remember, religion was everything back then.


 * Now, this particular tale is about Saint Aubin (Albinus of Angers). Saint Aubin was from the fourth sixth century, and was known for preaching about the sins of incest and was said to help all who were in need, even paying ransom to pirates to help free hostages. Thus, throughout the Middle Ages he was revered as being the saint to call on when you were in need, and in fact a sort of medieval cult sort of formed around him. As such, you can find churches named after him ranging from France to Poland. One such church existed in Guerande, and the legend says that Saint Aubin came down from heaven to help defeat the pagans. This is not an unusual tale, as similar ones involving Saint Aubin exist from all over medieval Europe. (He was like the medieval version of Elvis and flying saucers; people seemed to spot him everywhere.)


 * The drawings from this particular manuscript are obviously showing Saint Aubin, and him casting out the incestuous, and then his death and funeral very early on, and the remaining drawings (like this one) are depictions of miracles he supposedly performed hundreds of years after his death, like the tale of Guerande. So this drawing is made from the imagination of some monk, based on a tale that is likely more myth than fact, using common references from his own time period (like Norman soldiers). Nobody really knows who they represent, because only fragments of the manuscript remains, and nearly all of the caption of this pic is missing. But looking at it, it doesn't look like 8th 10th century Viking garb, coloring, nor a typical longboat as much as it does a Norman ship.


 * I'd probably recommend looking for another one, but I will say that medieval pictures are not always the best for the lede, for the afore-mentioned reasons. Zaereth (talk) 23:55, 1 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Thankyou Zaereth for spending the time on such a thoughtful response, not to mention investing the time that you have to build you knowledge. This would explain it; the monks reflected what they had around them as a military model at the time of drawing (1300s), and chose the current Normans. I agree with you that this probably should not be used in the lede of this article, which is about the Vikings (putting aside the Norman's Viking ancestry - by the 1300s they were certainly their own people). Regards, William Harris (talk) 11:10, 2 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I have been bold and replaced it with an image from the Tjängvide image stone.--Berig (talk) 11:21, 2 March 2021 (UTC)


 * That is historically more accurate; plus we can all recognise "that lot" on the deck of a long ship alright! "Vilhjálmr" Harris (talk) 11:27, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, we see on their equipment what they are up to.--Berig (talk) 11:30, 2 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Just "peaceful traders" cruising around - nice job on the crop, thanks. I am surprised that this article has not been assessed for quality=GA. William Harris (talk) 11:33, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks :-). This illustration was actually replaced by the picture you discuss here. So it's actually a revert.--Berig (talk) 11:56, 2 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes. I like that picture very much. That looks like a longboat, and people with the correct armor and weapons. I spent a while searching Commons, and for a brief moment considered the Odin depiction from the same carving, but this one is much better. It would be nice to know when this was dated to. I assume it is a Viking Age carving, correct? If so, I would at least say that in the caption, because "contemporary" can mean either "from the time period" or "from the present", and in context it may be hard to tell which. Best to pin it down as accurately as possible.


 * This is a little off track, but one of the best accounts of the Vikings actually comes from an Arabian source. The problem with the Viking religion in particular (or perhaps the benefit, if you look at it in a Jungian sense) is that the Vikings never wrote stuff like this down. According to this Arab guy, Ibn Something-or-another (I can't remember his name at the moment), the Vikings were very superstitious about stuff like that (as many pagan cultures were, such as the Britons and other Celts). Runes were considered sacred and powerful objects --not to be used lightly-- so most of what we know about Vikings come from non-Viking sources. The Eddas are a great example, which were actually written by a Christian scholar (apparently interviewing some Viking kings).


 * According to this Arabian's writings, he was kidnapped by a group of Vikings and taken from his homeland to the distant north. There's an interesting novel that was written by Michael Crichton, in which he says he tries to combine the writings of this Arabian guy with "the boring story" of Grendel. I like Crichton, because he likes to combine a certain amount of good, factual research with his fiction, and in this case he adds a lot of footnotes showing that he's trying to give a "real" account of Viking everyday-life (according to the Arabian dude's account) in combination with this mythic tale. Of course, it's not a reliable source at all, but it's rather interesting, that is, if your interested in all the technical aspects Crichton likes to delve into (otherwise some might find large portions of it boring). It's called Eaters of the Dead, if anyone is interested in reading it. (There was a movie made from it, called The Thirteenth Warrior, but never, ever, ever watch the movie!) Zaereth (talk) 21:24, 2 March 2021 (UTC)


 * , wait a minute, does the source really mention the term viking, or did you fabricate that part? Dan Koehl (talk) 23:22, 12 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Also, please describe, what is a "viking source"? Fabrication? Dan Koehl (talk) 23:24, 12 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Image stones with that kind of shape (phallic) are dated to the period 700-1100, and as it is pagan, I believe 700-1000 is the best guess. As for the Arab, I believe you refer to Ahmad ibn Fadlan and he is famous for witnessing the Viking funeral of a Swedish chieftain (belonging to settlers known as the Rus' people), on the shores of the Volga, and writing about it.--Berig (talk) 22:01, 2 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, Thank you. Fadlan! It was right on the tip of my tongue. So, it's basically "Viking Age". I think it may be helpful for the reader to simply say that in the caption, that or use the numbers, to avoid a double meaning caused by the word "contemporary". Not necessary, as the word is correct, only that both meanings of it can be inferred from context. Zaereth (talk) 22:12, 2 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The previous lead image had a footnote in the caption, so how is it unclear where the information came from? And this image is the one it replaced. Srnec (talk) 01:51, 3 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I think William was concerned that the info in the caption was calling them Vikings, when the National Bibliography of France calls them Normans. As far as I can tell, the source linked in the image only calls it "folio 7r", but the place they got it from (the National Bibliography, which I linked above) calls it "7r Norman Fleet". The original caption for the picture is mostly missing, as you can see in the picture. Zaereth (talk) 02:29, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Correct, thanks Zaereth. Footnotes purport many things, as can the names that editors give to the images that they upload; we need an original reference that can be validated, and footnotes that match. <b style="color:black">William Harris</b><b style="color:purple"> (talk)</b> 09:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * In Srnec's defense, I think it was simply an honest mistake anyone could make. I'm sure people familiar with the story probably associate the invaders with Vikings (although even the source in the Guerande article (what is it, a tourist brochure?) even it notes the term is loosely used to describe pagan invaders). There is likely some truth to the story, as there is to most legends, mixed with a bit of post hoc ergo propter hoc. (ie: We prayed to this saint in his church, and against all odds we won the battle, thus the saint helped us win ... or something like that.) Who knows, they may have actually been Vikings, or they may have been Celts, or it may just be a fable. Zaereth (talk) 10:19, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The Norman/Viking distinction is inapplicable for the time period of the attack on Guérande. And in French, Normands can mean Vikings. I quote from the source I cited: "most authors associate the [siege of Guérande] with an attack on Nantes in the first two decades of the tenth century". It then cites different authorities giving the year as 919, 909 or 912. There was a major attack on Brittany in 919. Srnec (talk) 01:04, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

The spreading of desinformation in this article
The paper’s main purpose is by a detailed analysis of how the term ‘viking’ was actually used by contemporaries in the period c. 700-c. 1400: that is the period the term was in use in one or more Germanic languages mainly Anglo Saxon between c. 700-c. 1020 and in Norse between c. 1000-c. 1400. By 1400 the term was longer in general use in any language. At the time it broadly signified pirates without any ethnic connotations. Therefore we find it used to denote a broad spectrum of peoples known and described by Anglo Saxons and Scandinavians irrespective of religion, colour of skin and geographical origin. The paper goes on to show how the term ‘viking’ survived more or less unnoticed among by a small group of internationally minded and interlinked antiquarians, who began to compile dictionaries of the Anglo-Saxon and Norse languages, publish and translate texts and even in 1775 publish a first treatise in Latin on the meaning of Norse ‘víkingr/víking’. It is quite clear from these texts that the term ‘viking’ was still not linked to Scandinavian ethnicity. It is also clear from the translations that the antiquarians did not expect their contemporary readers to know what ‘viking’ signified therefore it had to be explained or translated into words like searover, freebooter etc. This all changed towards the end of the 18th century, when the nation-building ideology of Romanticism conquered the minds of the learned segments of European peoples, who went in search of their respective identities, their ‘Volksgeist’, in the often spare traces of ancient mythologies. This meant that especially Scandinavians found the origin of their ‘Volksgeist’ in Norse mythology, as it became known from the Eddas. In the process the term ‘viking’ was rediscovered and, now endowed with exclusive Scandinavian ethnicity, served as a nation-building marker for Scandinavians against the surrounding world. This happened during the first decades of the 19th century and since at least 1850 we seem to have lived in an echo chamber, where nobody, especially archaeologists and historians, doubts the Scandinavian ethnicity of Vikings. That did not change even when, in the second half of the 19th century, philologists began to publish the massive amount of Norse translation literature from the 12th to 14th century, where the term ‘viking’ is used about a wide range of other ethnicities but never Scandinavians. Had this literature been widely read, it would have shown that the link between the term ‘viking’ and Scandinavian ethnicity was false, and that is what it is: false! -former research fellow at the Centre for Medieval Studies, University of Southern Denmark, John H Lind, Copenhagen University. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/345176176_THE_'VIKING'_INVASION_OF_RUSSIAN_HISTORY_AND_HISTORIOGRAPHY — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan Koehl (talk • contribs)


 * The above is an abstract for a draft paper on Research Gate. I'm unsure if it counts as a copyright violation, but thought it worth at least pointing out in case it looks like John Lind post the above comment himself. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:47, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Dear, I informed Mr Lind, lets see if he objects, that parts of his text is copied here. Dan Koehl (talk) 23:43, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , we have a naming convention that this article needs to follow, WP:ESTABLISHED, which says that "if a particular name is widely used in English-language sources, then that name is generally the most appropriate, no matter what name is used by non-English sources."--Berig (talk) 15:53, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * What you need to do is to go to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English) and explain that the convention is wrong. If you succeed in reaching consensus there, the situation will be different.--Berig (talk) 16:18, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think that is the right approach myself. Obviously "Viking" is an English word - the question is: what should it cover? Dan has been raising this issue for years on various Viking-related pages (including Talk:Viking_expansion just now).  In fact most of his edits are campaigning on this.  The same arguments have been made time and again.  It is widely agreed that, like "Celtic", "Viking" in English is a slippery word, but (again like "Celtic") it is very firmly entrenched in the English-speaking public imagination and the alternatives (such as Norsemen) have a different set of problems.  It is most unlikely that consensus will change, but I don't know that we have had an Rfc. Perhaps that might reduce these regular appeals. Johnbod (talk) 18:08, 15 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree with both of these assessments, but will add that Dan's argument is logically flawed. That's not to be insulting, because we all make flawed arguments from time to time. It happens in engineering all the time, and it doesn't infer that anyone is stupid, because we all on occasion get too caught up in our original logic to step back and look at it objectively. We all occasionally lose sight of forest for all the trees, and need someone else to give their input. Dan is definitely very intelligent and has obviously put a lot of time and effort into it. The problem is that his argument based upon a flawed premise, or logical fallacy, called etymological fallacy. There are some other fallacies in there as well, but the very premise of Dan's argument is based upon etymology, so I'll just point out that one.


 * For those who don't know, or have no intention of clicking on the link, an etymological fallacy occurs by assuming that the meaning of a word today has anything at all to do with its original meaning. It does not. I've explained why time and again and feel continuing to do so would be redundant. It reminds me of the user that was campaigning to remove the letter "t" from borscht, claiming that "in Russian there is no "t" on the end". In Russian there isn't, but when it became an English word, we add the suffix "-t" to the end of words that are nouns. No one person or conspiracy of people decided upon this. It just happened, because that's the way we speak. Society itself --as a whole-- decides how the language evolves, and encyclopedias and dictionaries have never had any control over it, and never will.


 * This fallacy pops up a lot, in everything from scientific and technical articles to historical and religious articles. English is a language that borrows words from other languages like no other. It doesn't just borrow them, but it shapes them, twists them, molds them, and pounds them into submission. We can't go around trying to "correct" the language. We have to use it as it is commonly understood by the general public. Zaereth (talk) 18:40, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree, and I think that is a very fine analysis.--Berig (talk) 19:45, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

from abt year 200-1400 the latin pirate was not translated to pirate in several west european languages, the word pirate became in us first around 1400. Guess which word was the translation of pirate during those 1000 years, before it was replaced by pirate?

The word can be found in the only written source about Ingvars voyage, the Icelandic Yngvar Saga. You can read it here, IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE https://www.snerpa.is/net/forn/yngvar.htm where you will find the word. The word, however, is not used about Ingvars fleet, and his countrymen, it is used to describe the attackers on Ingvars fleet, local pirates. In the source, the word is never used about the Scandinavians, only about their enemies. In English.
 * , I am not sure that you have read what Johnbod and Zaereth have written above. If not, please do! I suspect that you are trying to wash away the "pirate" stamp from medieval Scandinavians, but I don't understand why. Viking Age Scandinavia was a horrible society by modern standards. It was a highly militarized society, women were malnourished compared to men and most farms had a few members of the household that were treated like cattle, i.e. slaves. Before Christianity, they sacrificed people when socially important men were buried, and they even appear to have practiced something like suttee. A peaceful farmer could be challenged to a duel by a random passing man who killed him and later raped his wife, legally. If they didn't pillage outside of Scandinavia they pillaged "domestically". It was not only socially encouraged to pillage abroad, they were slavers who captured and sold East Europeans, Slav(e)s as if they were chattel.--Berig (talk) 05:32, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Please dont bring my person into this discussions, and my intentions is not trying to make Wikipedia into an opinion forum, so I want follow up your personal view on Scandinavia. I only refer to sources. Its intersting to read which different ideas persons have about medieval Scandinavians, but it only sources that count, and give a reliable text, to develop articles with. Dan Koehl (talk) 05:59, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Almost everything I have written above you can find in Neil Price's The Children of Ash and Elm.--Berig (talk) 07:22, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Before National Romantism
All sources up to the national romanticism present the word viking in its various forms as a translation of the Latin pirate, before the word pirate began to be used in northern European languages, and the term has in none of these sources had any geographical limitation, but was used for pirates from Friesland, Scotland, Ireland, Venden, Estonia, Caucasus, Kurland, Moorish (Muslim ) Spain, Israel and more unspecified East regions. , Furthermore, not one single source before National Romantism in late 1800s, indicate any kind of connection or affiliation with the word viking, and the terms Norse, Rus, Varjagans, Varangians, not one single source. And history doesnt mention any type of "viking culture", "viking heritage", viking ships", "viking ancestry", "viking weapons" etc. All this are fabrications and history falsification, and in most cases refer to Norse people, speaking Norse language. There were never any people called vikings, speaking vikingish. All this are non-existing subjects, things that never existed, and only have origin from fantasy, myths, and uneducated people who didnt read prime sources. Almost the entire article describes Non exisiting things. While at the same theres almost zero descriptions about real, true, and documented vikings. Dan Koehl (talk) 09:20, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

All ethnical groups of people have a right to be respected and mentioned with the correct name.




When discussing things most people are very concearned about being exact. Its extremely important which month of the year a certain artist wrote a song, and if he copied any tones from someone else, in football which particulair rule has been the case, and how many gaols a player did in year 1984. Likewise if an an insect had its taxonomy name changed, and by which zoologist, and which year.

We can be very keen on presenting how certain borders changed for akingdom under certain time periods, and during which king, and each kilometer counts, we want this to be exact, when its presented on Wikipedia.

And then, with those guys up in Scandinavia, in one case having a documented kingdom known since Tacitus, some people seem to think they have the right to paint present Norway, Denmark and Sweden as a green area in Photoshop, without any borders, type the letters "viking territories" on it, upload to Wikimedia, and claim they are providing historical facts. I criticized this shortly after that a person named Bogdan made them in 2005, but my questions and criticism, seems to have been removed, and when I discissed, I was confronted with an angry mob, telling me, this is english Wikipedia and our version. = the same as history falsification...

Apart from what I have written above, I want to remind you that its a no-no to call people from Africa negroes, even if this was maybe common in the past. Its likewise not correct to call all germans Nazis, or call all Americans rednecks or Hilly-Billies.

'''What reaction would I get if I painted the North American continent green and typed the letters "Hilly-billy territory" and uploaded to the article about USA, would this be accepted? I hope not, so WHY shall Scandinavians accept a teenage version of Scandinavians during iron age, presented as a "fact" for the entire world of readers?'''

'''Using pejorative terms about other people, can never be defended by the argument of name conventions. it may, in fact, even be illegal, and Wikipedia should not be involved in criminal activities. '''

All groups of people should be respected, and be called with not pejorative terms. Britain as an example was attacked and invaded by numerous tribes and "nations" and in all instances they are correctly described by the correct name. When Saxons attack, even if they are pirates and referred to as vikings in some sources, they are mentioned as Saxons, not vikings, When Friseans attack Britain, even if they also were pirates sometimes, they are described as Friseans. So if Norwegians or Danes attack Britain, why should they suddenly be described as vikings, especially if the sources doesnt mention the word viking, instead mention them as Northmen? Wikipedia should not support fabrications of words, misunderstanding of words, and Wikipedia should not support myths and history falsification. This what I mean with that is extremely unpolite, uneducated, and very incorrect, to name my ancestors as pirates, instead of Swedes. Especially since Sweden only have two documented vikings during thousands of years, and at least on one rune stone, mention a viking guard, protecting Sweden from Vikings. The article doesnt seem to describe at one single place that Sweden, Norway and Denmark had an organized defence against vikings, called Landvärnsmän. Instead, on some articles the kings who inititated this are described naively as "viking-kings" or "viking-leaders" Many years Harald Hairfair was described as a viking-king, while the truth is, according to the sources:


 * Harald I of Norway (reign 872-930) At last, Harald was forced to make an expedition to the West, to clear the islands and the Scottish mainland of some Vikings who tried to hide there.. (the original text says in english translation:
 * King Harald heard that the vikings, who were in the West sea in winter, plundered far and wide in the middle part of Norway; and therefore every summer he made an expedition to search the isles and out-skerries (1) on the coast. Wheresoever the vikings heard of him they all took to flight, and most of them out into the open ocean.  At last the king grew weary of this work, and therefore one summer he sailed with his fleet right out into the West sea.  First he came to Hjaltland (Shetland), and he slew all the vikings who could not save themselves by flight.  Then King Harald sailed southwards, to the Orkney Islands, and cleared them all of vikings.  Thereafter he proceeded to the Sudreys (Hebrides), plundered there, and slew many vikings who formerly had had men-at-arms under them. 

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

The article viking should be up to date with what one of the more well known experts on vikings and viking time, John H Lind from Copenhagen University writes:


 * The term ”Viking” appears in Anglo-Saxon or Norse sources in the so-called Viking Age. Here it simply denotes pirates, no more, no less. It had no geographic or ethnic connotations that linked it to Scandinavia or Scandinavians. By contrast, in these sources we find it used anywhere about anyone who to an Anglo-Saxon or a Scandiniavian appeared as a pirate. Therefore we find it used about Israelites crossing the Red Sea; Muslims in Galleys* encountering Norwegian crusaders in the Mediterranean; Caucasian pirates encountering the famous Swedish Ingvar-Expedition, and Estonian and Baltic pirates attacking Scandinavians in the Baltic Sea. Thus the term was never used to denote Scandinavians as such. Therefore, if we wish to maintain Viking-Age studies on a scholarly level, we must stop acting as an appendix to the tourist industry by using the term Viking as if it was synonymous with Scandinavian and Scandinavians.

AND, WHY are all the documented vikings missing in the article, which instead tells a lot about Not-wikings? if people come to Wikipedia in order to read about vikings, and learn more about them, Where can thy find the true information about true vikings, if the article about vikings to 80% is about NOt-vikings, and doesnt even mention the true vikings? What logical argument can possible defend that Wikipedia presently is a source of desinformation, because a small number of users defend myths and desinformation, and want to "own" the article, and doesnt allow users to submit true and well sourced content about people wo really were vikings?

There can be no defence to discriminate Scandinavians, who had an advanced democrazy, a highly advanced navigation knowledge, and unique ship building making it possible to use ships both to cross the Atlantic ocean, as well as enter rivers, during a time when few European nation had this kind of boats. A culture which had an organized defence for their countries during a time when England France and Germany had not. A country where not one single Roman wanted to put their foot, after one the Roman explorers went with Friseans into the Baltic sea, and reported south Sweden as Scandza, dangerous shores. This culture, during much longer time than between 800-1066 created trade routes to Constantinopel, created the Kiev Kingdom etc, but very seldom Wikipedia readers gets an insight in this. Instead they read about primitive figures, using axes, not riding horses, (although Jordanes tells us how famous the Swedish war horses were in Constaninopel already in year 450, and compare them with horses from Thuringen) and portraited as an archetype man with beard, standing in the front of a ship, blowing a horn and attacking english churches. The present simplified presentations about Scandinavians in an article which heading actually only mens pirate, gives an extremely simplified version of a Scandinavian society that has for long time been neglected, in the shadow of National Romantic myths about "The viking", who as he is decribed in the article viking, never existed as he is described. Its is true fiction, and any pirate from this time, from Poland, Germany, Friesland or England, was viwed as a pirate. But Germans during viking time are germans, or if they were Saxons, they are called Saxons. English are called English, Still, Scandinavians, or Norse people speaking Norse, are pejorative called pirates. This does in no way reflect a neutral description of Iron age Scandinavians. Its a falsification, based on National Romantism, and it time, relate what the sources actually say, not what old men thought during 1890. Dan Koehl (talk) 10:38, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Dan Koehl (talk) 07:04, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I can recommend Neil Price's The Children of Ash and Elm: A History of the Vikings, (2020), pp. 7-8. He has a scholarly explanation of why it is correct to use Vikings for "Viking Age Scandinavians". He uses archaeology and written sources to depict a truly brutal and cruel society, a piratical society.--Berig (talk) 07:26, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

There may be a few defenders, of opinion, which is controversial, since they re contrary to what the prime sources describe. I have seen maps made by naive people, where almost entire Scandinavia was covered with a header "Viking countries" or "Viking kingdoms", while Sweden has a kingdom documented by tacitus already on 78 AD. A 2000 year old kingdom, gets alll of a sudden described as "viking territory" although the truth is the kings in those territories did not accept vikings in their kingdoms, they were fighting them. Why play a game with history in this juveile way, insetad of realting what the sources actually say?

Why creating a false picture about a Scandinavian culture, which is not true, just because it feels exciting, due to a number of attacks on british shores by people, who we dont know who they were. We dont know teir names or where they were born, Still seemingly it is OK to porarit an entire Scandinavian culture during thousand of years, based on 10-12 documented attacks on some churces in England. If 1000 british people during 800-1066 are documented as thieves, should the present British society be labelled as a nation of thieves? Dan Koehl (talk) 09:35, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Viking is NOT an English word
Above, User:Johnbod and User:Berig claim that viking is an English word, but theres no source verifying it has english origin, and it wasnt used in english language until 1807.

The word Viking AFTER being used in Oldfrisean and other languages, was first time used ina translation from Exodus where the sons of the patriarch Ruben are comitting piracy in the Red Sea, and are mentioned in Oldenglish as sæ-wícingas.

The seond use in Oldenglish was probably in translations from Orosius. On this first instance ever, it described the greek king Philip II of Macedonia with the following words: There is to read about Alexander the Great´s father, Philip II of Macedonia: Philippus vero post longam obsidionem, ut pecuniam quam obsidendo exhauserat, praedando repararet, piraticam adgressus est. translated into: ac he scipa gegaderade, and i vicingas wurdon. In this time the word pirat was not used in the english language, the latin piraticam was directly translated to vicingus. later mentioned in Widsith and Beowulf. In most cases the word viking was not used at all in Oldenglish about attacks from north people during the viking time, I think it was used only twice during 250 years, and maybe the two only occasions in history when the term vikings ever were used for for Scandinavian attackers.

From about 1400, the term viking was replaced by the the term pirate, and has since then, it may have survived a bit longer in Icelandic. In 1799 Sharon Turner still used the Icelandic masculinum form WikingR in the book "The history of the Anglosaxons from the earliest period to the Norman conquest". The first time the word viking is used in modern English was 1807, the second time 1827, and started to have a larger spreading after the 1840s, during the National Romantism. This however, does not give English speaking people any certain priority right, to define for people all over the word, an International interpretation of the word, based on English National Romantic ideas from the 1800s, especially if this interpretation is totally in conflict with the prime sources. Once again, please read this scientici work, written by a modern scholar, who is an expert: https://www.academia.edu/8906219/_Vikings_and_the_Viking_Age Dan Koehl (talk) 10:02, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I see the talk page is filling up with a semi-mangled discussion of the supposed "fact" that Viking isn't an English word. It might be more persuasive if it didn't start from the premise that the term Viking "wasnt used in english language until 1807". It's kinda hard to argue that a word isn't an English word if the person making the argument says that its been used in English since 1807. After that, it becomes kinda hard to take the arguments seriously. Ealdgyth (talk) 11:51, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Per WP:REDACT, please do not change posts after they've been replied to, such as with this edit. Supstantionally changing an original post after the reply can make the reply appear to be discussing something that wasn't there when the original reply was made. Also, please start using edit summaries, you've been here long enough to know that by now. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:05, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Obvious errors

 * 1) "The Vikings spoke Old Norse and made inscriptions in runes. " -False, the sons of Ruben in Israel, documented vikings and defined as vikings in the true sagas, did not speak Norse. Philip II of Macedonia, documented vikings and defined as vikings in the true sagas, did not speak Norse. The Kaukasian vikings who attacked Ingvar Vittfarne (Ingvar the Far-Travelled) on his journey, documented vikings and defined as vikings in the true sagas, did not speak Norse., the Arab pirates, documented vikings and defined as vikings in the true sagas, who attacked Sigurd the Crusader in Spain, did not speak Norse. In fact very few documented vikings seems to have spoke Norse. Dan Koehl (talk) 14:09, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) For most of the period they followed the Old Norse religion, but later became Christians.-False, see above.
 * 3) The Vikings had their own laws, art and architecture. Most Vikings were also farmers, fishermen, craftsmen and traders-False, real, true vikings, were never farmers, fishermen, craftsmen and traders. And this is probably a completely false statement, for anyone wo ever bothered to read Njáls saga or Egil Skallagrimsson where it is written about Bjørn Farmann: Björn var farmaður mikill, var stundum í víking, en stundum í kaupferðum; Björn var hinn gervilegasti maður. (english: Björn was a great traveller; sometimes as viking, sometimes as tradesman.)
 * 4) There is little indication of any negative connotation in the term before the end of the Viking Age.-False, read abt Harald I of Norway (reign 872-930) At last, Harald was forced to make an expedition to the West, to clear the islands and the Scottish mainland of some Vikings who tried to hide there. King Harald heard that the vikings, who were in the West sea in winter, plundered far and wide in the middle part of Norway; and therefore every summer he made an expedition to search the isles and out-skerries on the coast.[...] Then King Harald sailed southwards, to the Orkney Islands, and cleared them all of vikings. Thereafter he proceeded to the Sudreys (Hebrides), plundered there, and slew many vikings who formerly had had men-at-arms under them. Dan Koehl (talk) 15:37, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Please learn to use a talk page correctly. And use edit summaries. This section should have been placed after the last section on the talk page, not inserted above the last section. And it should have been signed. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:03, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, as you may guess, its the beginning of a list, byt yes I can sign every single row. Dan Koehl (talk) 14:09, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

NPOV
The main criticism a modern schooled historian could have regarding the present article, is that its describing something, and someone which never existed. It is also hopelessly seems to origin from the 1799 view on vikings, presented by Sharon Turner, and hasnt really undergone much development since then, in spite of that Edinburgh Review criticised Turner already in in 1804 for a lack of discrimination and for the romantic parts of the work. Not many things described on Wikipedia reflect a a view from 1799, and although his defenders today obviously refer to his view as "modern", its very sad to see how people today still climb to his work, probably quite often without even knowing whose work they are defending, but like parrots repeating what they heard as children, as the one and only truth about "The Vikings". Even if Turner, although leving school at 15 years aof age, wrote nice and entrtaining, history research has developed a lot since 1799, and English speaking youths really deserve better than when seraching for facts and arriving to Wikipedia article about vikings, be presented with a mixture of a comic strip and 220 years old reflections on iron time Scandinavians written by someone whos interest actually was Saxons, and who didnt read enough sources of the subject he wrote about, so instead referring to a rich variety of sagas, legends, myths, fantasy, speculations and pure fabrications. he though the word viking came from sea king, and that the word had origins in bays in Scandinavia, which are called vik. He obviously didnt read a lot by Orosius, he had no clue what so ever that a greek king, the sons of Ruben in Israel, arabic muslim pirates, and Caucasian pirates, ALL WERE REFERRED TO AS VIKINGS IN PRIME SOURCES.

Is it really Wikipedias role, to repeat such old material from 1799, and since then parrot repeated until today, while modern historians today, with a fresh and deep insight in prime sources, can deliver a much more precise and true description, and can help us clean an article and make it NPOV?

As vikings are presented in the article as a synonym with Norse people, they represent an abstract fabrication, which has very little relation to reality, and almost no relation to the prime sources which has been spread and translated during the last generations, and which probably none of the guys who wrote older books and encyclopedias, and repeating Turners view, ever read.

Norse people existed, and they spoke Norse. Vikings as a people never existed, and no people spoke vikingish. The viking/Norse mixture described in the article is abstract, something not true, something which never existed, and no verification what so ever, in one single prime source. Meanwhile, the prime sources from abt 200-1800 (almost 2000 years) described existing vikings, real people mentioned in their time as vikings. They existed. Im very much convinced about that an encyclopedia should primarly describe existing things, which can be verified by prime sources, not misunderstandings or myths about those things, which only are supported by some people with a bias, during the last apr 50 years.

On a second note, regarding the NPOV template, it refers to regardless if this article is written in English language, its content should reflect an Internernational view. The article should be focused on the subject, historical persons who were documented as vikings in the sources, not misunderstanding about a word since 1799, by british or other english speaking people. This misunderstanding can be described and explained as a side note, but a misunderstanding and misinpretation of a subject, should not form the entire, or main content, in an article. Even if some english and american people belive, that vikings could be traders or explorers, this misunderstanding should not be the main function of the article, contrary, the article should explain what the sources says, that this was never the case. If northmen discovered America, they should be described and mentioned as Northmen, not as vikings, becasue of undeducated peoples beliefs.

Furthermore, an article about vikings, should be an article about viking, and focus on REAL vikings, not about Not-vikings or Norse people. Norse people should be described in the article about Norse people. It is, when reading the article, pretty clear, that the article has been abused in that sense, someone has included a lot of content which refers to Norse people in general, while as an example the first two historical instances when some were referred to as a viking in prime sources, is not mentioned at all. Out from a logical point of view, what I mean with this, the article vikings should describe vikings, The article vikings should not describe Not-vikings as vikings, or enemies of vikings as vikings, or nations which had a documented organized defence against vikings, as vikings, since then its not an educational material anymore, if the article becomes a mixture of facts, not facts, antifacts, fantasies about a word, etc. Especially the last part is important. Te article should not primarly be a description of the word, or what any laymen has belived since 1850, it should describe the real subject, the vikings, and the persons which the sources describes as such. I may also add, an error, doesnt become truth, just because many people repeat the error. And it doesnt become a consenus either, and concenus is not a product of scientific method.If I can give an evidence for, that in medevial time Icelandic people very clearly made a difference beteween tradesman (kaupferðum) or pirate (víking) this is an evidence, and it doesnt matter how many thousand people BELIEVE that vikings could be traders, and claiming they have a consensus about that. Dan Koehl (talk) 06:35, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why Turner is being presented and argued against here, because there isn't a single mention of Turner in the article. As I pointed out, most of the sources are post-1990 and from reputable publishing companies or academic presses. We base our articles on exactly such sources, and if there is a problem with them ... other such sources need to be brought forward enough to make it clear that the current sources are not the majority. The fact that medieval sources used "viking" (and because such sources aren't actually being produced either, we can't tell if it's a modern translation of some other term or if "viking" really was used in those medieval primary sources) does not negate the modern sources used here in this article. Trying to interpret what the medieval sources meant by "viking" is what historians do. We do not go to those original primary sources and determine what viking meant then, we take what historians tell us they meant and thus we need to stop discussing the primary sources as if we were historians. This is not what Wikipedia does. Bring some secondary modern sources to the discussion, and we can discuss. (And not just one (possibly a pre-print?) journal article... we need a lot to outweigh the current sources that use Viking just as this article does.) Ealdgyth (talk) 19:28, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Very good, well the view you are defending dear, is Sharon Turners, and its dating back to 1799. You are defending a historical view from someone who left school by 15 years of age, and obviously you do this without even knowing it, and you seem to believe that the english historians view since then has developed, but if you read what Turner wrote 1799, you can see thats its neatly preserved as "facts"  in a completey unmodern article on en Wikipedia, in a nightmare package of mixed myths, speculations, and pure fabrications. This is what happends when people over generations repeat lies and myths, 200 years later someone think its the truth, without even having a clue who in the first place, is origin of his or hers, beliefs. heres your bible about "WikingR" read it and enjoy: and then you can look on the groups of green maps where all Scandinavian countries are presented as "viking territories" by someone called Bogdan, a total history falsification and pseudo-science, which all readers of Wikipedia since 2005, has been informed about, insted of getting the intersting information that Sweden is a 2 000 years old kingdom, who already in 700 had an organised defence fleet against vikings. if you would treat any Arabian country like this, they would demosntrate on the streets, and have their Imans making angry Youtube films, accusing Wikipedia of lying. But with the old swedish it seems its totally OK to take the liberty and turn their history into some kind of comic strip, adding a couple of totally irrelevant pictures of rune stones, and then they swim into the river of pseudo-science and write whateven someone wrote 70 years ago, without really having a cluse if its true or not, if its backed up by real historical sources, or is a production of myths and misunderstandings... Dan Koehl (talk) 20:00, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I am not "my dear" to you and I asked you already not to ping me. Please do not do so again. Also, can you learn to use a talk page properly - you've been here long enough to know how to indent to show who you are replying to. Until you begin to discuss from the sources (and modern secondary sources) this is completely off topic and is frankly verging into casting aspersions on the other editors. It's not "my bible" and I do not appreciate the veiled accusations contained above. Please begin to use secondary sources rather than aspersions and vague handwaving about stuff. The sources in the article include the Oxford English Dictionary which does indeed discuss that in English, the term "Viking" is often and mainly used to discuss the whole Scandinavian peoples of the period from about 700 to about 1100, as well as the historical time period therefore. Until you bring other sources which dispute this, you're just wasting folks' time. Ealdgyth (talk) 20:10, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I thought in English language that "Dear" is a polite way of addressing someone. I already gave you sources, and maybe you didnt see, or neglected it, but I can link again, to a scientific paper written by one of the real experts on viking and viking time, https://www.academia.edu/8906219/_Vikings_and_the_Viking_Age John H Lind

Unfortunately its not 200 year old guesses and speculations, rather less than 15 years old scientific document, and written by one of the very few not-russian historians, who spend several yers studying prime sources also in Russia. And please enjoy the map to the right, by all means, please tell me how it feels to be treated as a Scandinavian? Maybe in return you can give me a source for the map with "viking territory" below, because all other sources except Wikipedia claim that where its written "viking territory" was instead the kingdom of Svitjod/Sweden during iron age. That map has been used as Wikipedia educational material about Scandinavia since 2005, so I do hope it has been backed up with really reliable sources?


 * The term ”Viking” appears in Anglo-Saxon or Norse sources in the so-called Viking Age. Here it simply denotes pirates, no more, no less. It had no geographic or ethnic connotations that linked it to Scandinavia or Scandinavians. By contrast, in these sources we find it used anywhere about anyone who to an Anglo-Saxon or a Scandiniavian appeared as a pirate. Therefore we find it used about Israelites crossing the Red Sea; Muslims in Galleys* encountering Norwegian crusaders in the Mediterranean; Caucasian pirates encountering the famous Swedish Ingvar-Expedition, and Estonian and Baltic pirates attacking Scandinavians in the Baltic Sea. Thus the term was never used to denote Scandinavians as such. Therefore, if we wish to maintain Viking-Age studies on a scholarly level, we must stop acting as an appendix to the tourist industry by using the term Viking as if it was synonymous with Scandinavian and Scandinavians. - John H Lind}}

Dan Koehl (talk) 21:04, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Suggestions

 * Focus on keeping the article NPOV and from an international point if view. Local ideas about the term can be described in dedicated sections, but should not dominate the entire article as such, and make it look at its the entire truth about the word.
 * Remove, and avoid any kind of myths, fantasy and claims, which are in conflict with written prime sources, and more reflect different persons believes, imaginations etc. Or even better, describe them in a compact, dedicated section, where it clearly is evaluated as populair beliefs and myths. But avoid putting in all that mixed with facts, in the flow of the article, so it confuses the reader, and may make them believe that a myth is a fact.
 * Remove everything which belongs in the article about Northmen.
 * Remove graphics which belongs in the article about Northmen.
 * Remove all graphic which doesnt represent viking, verified by sources.
 * Explain already in the intro, that viking is a controversial topic, so become alerted about this and get a chance to read carefully, with a critical mind.
 * Try like in the German article about vikings, to more precisely describe shortly WHO and WHAT the article is about.
 * Try to avoid sources based on 1800s national Romantic, myths and fantasy that public may have.
 * In time chronology, present and describe all medevial sources which mention the word viking, and shortly describe what MODERN scholared historiansrelate about them.
 * Avoid personal and private opinions from people who may have written essays, book etc, which may have the slightest risk, of being based on any type of misunderstanding,misinterpretation etc. with short basic facts, it may be left to reader, to themselves evaluate what the sources actually says.
 * If the sources doesnt reveal a lot of information, then leave it like that. Theres no need for any time of fabrications, speculations etc done by anyone.
 * Describe the first 5-10 persons described as vikings, and the instances where the term was used, and how they were described.
 * Describe all geographical regions, from where the term has been used, to define persons as vikings, and in what context, those persons were described.
 * In Etymology section, clearify why some speculations made in late 1800 and early 1900, were made during a time when most historians did not specifically study the prime sources, but most often were simply repeating what they read somewhere. Clearify what was purely speculations and guesses in the past, and why they can not be verified by sources. Give the reader the chance to realize that even scholared people during late 1800 and early 1900, sometimes mixed verified facts, with their own personal fantasies.
 * If the article becomes much smaller, dont be sad about this. Its much more correct and true, to explain, that sometimes we simply dont know, instead of fabricating fairy tales, presented as "facts"
 * Controversial section: add this section, and only here explain which different ideas, and contrary opinions has been made. Instead of selecting any of them as the only truth, present on an equal basis, and explain the arguments for, and against certain theories.
 * Make it clear throughout the article what we know, but also what we dont know, about viking.
 * And, the advice from one of the most prominent experts on vikings, John H. Lind; Therefore, if we wish to maintain Viking-Age studies on a scholarly level, we must stop acting as an appendix to the tourist industry by using the term Viking as if it was synonymous with Scandinavian and Scandinavians.

Dan Koehl (talk) 11:59, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm just going to pull out one of these suggestions "In time chronology, present and describe all medevial sources which mention the word viking, and shortly describe what they actually relate." ... this is not what an encyclopedia article is for. Not to mention that if we did that, we'd have an article that was quite long... longer than most books. And it would ALSO be what historians do, not what an encyclopedia does. Historians take primary sources and describe and interpret them. Encyclopedias take the secondary sources and present them. We should not be "present and describe all medevial sources which mention the word viking, and shortly describe what they actually relate"... that's interpretation and its WP:OR. Pretty much the rest of this list is also not helpful because most of it is doing the historians' job, not the encyclopedia's job. Ealdgyth (talk) 12:06, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Good point, and of course it didnt mean what you refer to above. I changed to "and shortly describe what MODERN scholared historiansrelate about them. " would you agree that is relevant for an encyclopedia? Dan Koehl (talk) 12:13, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Regarding "Pretty much the rest of this list is also not helpful" well, a start is a start. other people may submit suggestions for a clean-up and reshape. The article in present form, is pretty much crap, and what one could expect from a teenager on a high school, spending a couple of days reading a couple of books. Something needs to be done. Dan Koehl (talk) 12:16, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


 * No, because it's still trying to do a historian's job - when the suggestion is "present and describe all medevial sources which mention the word viking, and shortly describe what MODERN scholared historiansrelate about them" it's still not what an encyclopedia does. It's starting from the wrong premise of what the article should do, which means whatever else it does, it isn't something we should do. Ealdgyth (talk) 12:19, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I hope you have good intentions with your input and clearly constructively want the article to become improved, as all articles on Wikipedia should. I repeat, we can cite scholared historians, preferably not during the national romantism epoch, like from a scientific document like this from which its very OK to cite "glossaries give Old English equivalents to Latin words, and here wicing is given as equivalent to Latin piraticus without any ethnic or geographical implications. In addition the term appears in some poems, which, although difficult to date, all appear in manuscripts dated to around the year 1000". Dan Koehl (talk) 12:38, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


 * If sources are quoted, it helps to actually give the citation to the source being quoted. Otherwise, it's just throwing out quotations without the ability to evaluate their source. And, again, nothing in that list of suggestions actually says WHY with sources that the current article is wrong. We need to discuss from the sources, not put out sweeping suggestions without any sourcing. Quite frankly, looking at the current article sourcing, it's pretty dang good at a quick glance - it's mostly from the 1990s or later, it's either from a number of academic presses or from reputable publishers, and there isn't a lot of the article that is lacking source citations. I'm failing to see much sourcing that is from the 19th or early 20th century, much less any from "National Romantic" (I have no clue what this is supposed to mean... is there a link to this "topic"?) sources? Frankly, unless some pretty hefty sources are brought to bear that dispute the current sources in the article, I see no basis for the NPOV tag on the article, which seems to be the push of one editor on the talk page that hasn't gotten any support from other editors. Ealdgyth (talk) 12:57, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Well, the article has a C-rate; "The article is substantial but is still missing important content or contains much irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant problems or require substantial cleanup." - so, theres much to do to improve it, and clean away the appearence of something written by a teenager.Dan Koehl (talk) 14:25, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Romantic nationalism - very important in Scandinavian countries (especially Norwegian romantic nationalism), not so much in the English-speaking world, or anyway not usually called that. Johnbod (talk) 13:01, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


 * , May this possibly be because you confuse Norse people with the term vikings? But yes, in the Swedish article I used a number of citations. An interesting citation is from Njáls saga which relates how the Norwegian Tradesman Gunnar and his fleet (who is nowhere mentioned as vikings) is being attacked by pirates from Scotland, who in Njals saga are mentioned as defined as vikings. I guess after reading only four or five prime sources, available for all not lazy people on Internet, it get clear that the present English article, is fairy tales, and strangely enough hardly nowhere actually refers to vikings, which is pretty strange. In any case, I think there is no reason what so ever to hide the fact from our readers, that Scottish people, friends of Malcolm II, were described as vikings, when they attacked Norwegians in the Baltic sea, while the Norwegians were not labelled as vikings. I guess many people had no idea that Scottish people, French people, Dutch people, people from Israel, and a Greek king, were true vikings, described as such in the historical sources, and theres probably not any reason, why this facts should be hidden from the public. After all, and article about vikings is not a politicl thing, where the editors should have any special political plan etc, but contrary, the truth about vikings should be clearly exposed to readers. But of course not fiction, or pejorative projections on for example Scandinavians, or any kind of discrimination of Scandinavians, Africans, Germans etc who has been during certain time periods been given incorrect labels in English language. Dan Koehl (talk) 13:16, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Please do not ping ... I'm watching the page. Also... Njal's Saga ... is a primary source. We do not interpret primary sources. See WP:PRIMARY. Words can have different meanings in different languages. What "viking" means in Swedish (or what the medieval sources used in another language) is irrelevant to what the meaning of the word is in ENGLISH. Please familiarize yourself with how an encylopedia works before bringing up stuff over and over and over again. You've bludgeoned this topic before and it's not helpful to keep doing it when consensus is clearly against it. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:26, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I never mentioned intreprete. I mentioned cite. Two different things in English. Njals saga is not written in Swedish. And I do hope you can remain calm, and focus on the subject, and not by any means try to change the focus towards my person? OK? Dan Koehl (talk) 13:28, 16 July 2021 (UTC) And fabricated "consensus" by a number of users should not be used as an argument to provide a "semi-owned article" or articles which are the product of any kind of biased opinions from users. Dan Koehl (talk) 14:25, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I fully concur with Ealdgyth, above. Per WP:OR, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources". And it is not possible for us to change the meaning of Viking in English, so the scope of the article will remain what it is in the foreseeable future.--Berig (talk) 20:24, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I see I had no idea that you are owner of the article viking, can you please verify this? And even if you own the article, and/or own the entire Wikipedia, can you motivate why the article can not follow the normal NPOV rules, why it absolutely must be POV and why it can not reflect other, more modern opinions from schoolared experts, than a book written by Turner 1799? Dan Koehl (talk) 21:27, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Apart from that Berig, regardless of your private opinion, Well, the article has a C-rate; "The article is substantial but is still missing important content or contains much irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant problems or require substantial cleanup." - so, theres much to do to improve it, and clean away the appearence of something written by a teenager. I suggest that it should reflect modern Viking-Age studies on a scholarly level, not what a teenager may expect to read. The article should reflect science, not pseudo-science. Dan Koehl (talk) 21:55, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * As I just wrote here, same user, same discussion, This is a modern language encyclopedia. We use secondary sources. I agree with Berig and Ealdgyth. And, please Dan: Why do you spread the same discussion on multiple pages all over the enwp wikipedia-viking articles? It is not fun and very time consuming to answer same thing on all discussions and also it is different users on every discussion that answers almost the same thing, and you reply the same. This is not constructive. Also it is not nice to write that the article looks like it is written by teenagers. That is mastering over the people that have searched for secondary sources and written an article on their spare time. Read and done what we are supposed to do. Please respect those wikipedians. Don't scare them away from here. Adville (talk) 23:27, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Apparently it's not just here. I just checked out the Swedish and Norwegian wikis, and their articles very closely match our own, right down to things like the dates of the Viking Age. I was beginning to think it was just an English thing, but everything from German and French wikis to Chinese wikis seem to parallel our own article. On the talk pages you can find Dan embroiled in the same futile discussions and getting the same answers going back to at least 2016, if not farther. I mean, this is beyond redundant and way past "I didn't hear that". It's a time sink across at least four different wikis, if not more. I think this answer from the Norwegian Wikipedia says it as good as anyone can, "Det er ikke vår jobb å komme frem til den "korrekte" betydningen av ordet viking. Dersom kildene sier ulike ting så bør dette fremgå av artikkelen. Vi bør også være forsiktige med å tolke historiske kilder, vi kan imidlerid gjengi hva kildene sier. For definisjon av viking er det best å holde seg til faghistoriske verk som definierer eksplisitt." --Mvh Erik d.y. 19. jun. 2016 (It is not our job to arrive at the "correct" meaning of the word viking. If the sources say different things then this should be stated in the article. We should also be careful about interpreting historical sources, we can, however, reproduce what the sources say. For the definition of Viking, it is best to stick to works of historical history that define explicitly.)


 * To Dan, when everybody else says your wrong, perhaps there may be something to that. Your intentions may be good, but this is the wrong place to make sweeping changes to society and the world, and the wrong way to go about it. You'd be better off to write a book and have it published by a very reputable publisher in the field of historical academics. Then we might be able to add something of your views here. But that really won't change anything, because, like I said, nobody is going to change the way they speak just because some encyclopedia says they should. (In fact, people have a tendency to do the opposite of what they're told, so it is actually likely to have more of the opposite effect as intended.) If you really, really want to change the world, then you do it through the arts. That is the only medium that even has a chance, and the only one that has ever made sweeping societal changes. (Shakespeare made far more of an impact on society than Queen Elizabeth ever could, and even the word "Viking" likely entered English through an opera.) But until then, you're just wasting everybody's time across multiple pages on multiple wikis, including your own.


 * And I agree, please learn how to use talk pages. Breaking up discussion across multiple sections and multiple venues is not helping, but only hurting your case. Zaereth (talk) 02:15, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

, You mentioned the German Wikipedia, did you really read it, its like night and day, compared to english article. Its like written about two different subjects. And I think you are rwong also in wether people change. People has changed, you dont hear people call Africans negroes as often anymore, you dont hear people call Germans Nazis very often nowdays. The word Gypsy seems to fade out also. , there nothing "modern" with repeating the mistake from Sharon Turners book from 1799, its rather very unmodern. History falsification is unmodern. Pseudoscience is unmodern. Dan Koehl (talk) 07:35, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

But, an important detail, if Wikipedia repeat the 1799 mistake from Turner, and dont explain that he was wrong, and dont inform visitors to the page that his ideas was because ha hadnt read all sources, how do you expect people to to change? How, and why should people change if the article is full with pseudoscience and history falsification? People probably believe that what is written there is true, although ALL prime sources gives an evidence it isnt. Its blatant lies, what is written on the page, and furthermore, about a non exisiting subject. Dan Koehl (talk) 07:55, 17 July 2021 (UTC)



Wikipedia should not be involved in discrimination, like having an almost empty page about my ancestors the Norse people, nothing written about their culture, religion, shipbuilding warfare, and instead keeping all the information about this, on apage about their enemies, the vikings. If britain had some pirates, you would not accept if I moved all text about english navigation and ship building to the page pirates. Would you accept a map on the page about America, labelled "redneck territory", like Scandinavians had to accept since 2005, watching a map where the Swedish Kingdom, documented since Tacitus, is labelled "viking territory" Do you call this MODERN?Dan Koehl (talk) 08:28, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Viking vs. Norse
I'm making a new section here as a fresh start on the issue of NPOV raised by, but will start by saying I agree with the removal of the POV template, both as a reflection of consensus on this talk page and in fact. I also want to endorse 's actions specifically, since Dan Koehl has accused him at the edit-warring noticeboard and on his own talk page of violating admin standards of conduct and WP:INVOLVED.

I think both this article and Norsemen do a good job of presenting the use of "Viking" to mean "all Norse people of the Viking Age", all speakers of norrønt mål (I hope I spelt that right) as a relatively modern development. However, as I believe I have said in the past at Talk:Norsemen, I personally regret the broad application of the term, and in this I believe I disagree with Berig's position. I have the impression that this broader use of the term started in the UK, with things like the Jorvik Viking Centre, which is a museum of domestic life in a town in the Danelaw, but developed out of the romanticised use of the term by the Victorians (Andrew Wawn, The Vikings and the Victorians: Inventing the Old North in 19th Century Britain; Karl Litzenberg, The Victorians and the Vikings: A Bibliographic Essay on Anglo-Norse Literary Relations; Viking Society for Northern Research; etc.) But it's now pervasive in English, and thus falls under WP:COMMONNAME. (And on Wikipedia it helps us avoid the perennial problem of Norwegian editors thinking that "Norse" and "Norsemen" refer specifically to Norwegian and the Norwegians, as norsk does in their language; mentioned at Norsemen.) I would nonetheless personally prefer that Viking expansion be moved to Norse expansion and links to Norsemen be added to the leads of a number of "viking" articles including that on the Jorvik centre, and I personally think some of the material here on expansion, culture, and everyday life should be moved to Norsemen.

I disagree strongly with the argument that Old Norse víkingr was primarily applied to non-Norse. However, it is primarily an occupational term; one needs to look also at uses of the noun for the action, víking, a viking expedition. Here's the Cleasy-Vigfússon entry for that noun, and here's the entry on the person-noun. (That site draws from the 1st edition for copyright reasons, but I have the edition with addenda and supplement and don't find anything added.) Whether it's an (Old) English word is a red herring, but it's pretty clearly Norse in origin and as Cleasby-Vigfússon says, not used terribly often in Anglo-Saxon; one reason for that is that a number of reports of viking raids are in Latin, and another is that there are several uses of "Danes" and "Danish" (Deniscan, denisc) in reporting raids and armies of heathens. (Cleasby-Vigfússon refers to the Anglo-Saxon uses of wīcing, but here's the Bosworth-Toller entry, from the same site; note the statement: "in passages dealing with English affairs the word refers to the Northmen".) Importantly, the attestations in Cleasby-Vigfússon demonstrate use of the term for the activity of raiding using ships, and that (until its generalisation in later sources to refer to highway robbery) it was quite freely used of Scandinavians. I'll add to the examples there this 10th-century skaldic verse, by a poet attached to the heathen court of Jarl Hákon, referring to Thor and Þjálfi as eiðsvara Gauta setrs víkingar ("sworn vikings of the seat of Gautr"). The main reason there is no ancient term corresponding to "Viking ship" is that Old Norse texts use either terms for specific styles of ship, such as knarr, or simply "ship"; the ships were not used only for raiding. But innumerable books have been written about the Vikings and Viking ships, and note that other terms for "viking" in Anglo-Saxon are scipmann (lit. "shipman, sailor") and scegðmann, from scegð, borrowed from skeið.

I think "pirate" and "piracy" are inaccurate translations, since in modern usage they denote raids against ships, whereas vikings harried settlements on land, usually by sailing up the rivers (as at Paris in 845 and 885, and see the former for multiple previous Viking raids) and to some extent participated in land battles (the traditional start of the Viking Age is the sack of the monastery at Lindisfarne in 793 and its traditional end is the Battle of Stamford Bridge in 1066). I suspect the word "pirate" has a more limited meaning nowadays than did Latin piratus or even "pirate" in the Cleasby-Vigfússon and Bosworth-Toller dictionary entries. But more importantly, it's clear from the texts, including even the references to "armies" in the Anglo-Saxon sources, that viking/raiding/invading was an activity and that those who did not die doing such activities subsequently did other things, such as farming and trading. I am well aware that many Norse women were capable fighters (Freydís Eiríksdóttir was fearsome) and in some cases went under arms and were buried with them. But labelling women and children Vikings as if that was their nationality, although based on romantic notions and intended to popularise the study of Norse culture, is more stereotyping than actual respect, as if raiding, harrying, and making war was all they did, or as if the women and children should be defined by what their husbands and fathers (sometimes) did. I recognise that this is a losing view, and Berig has stated that many Scandinavians like being associated with the exploits of the vikings. But to that extent I sympathise with Dan Koehl's viewpoint. However, as I said at the start of this long comment, this article and the Norsemen article both look almost entirely good to me from that point of view. We do explain this background. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:24, 18 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree with most of your assessments as spot-on and very well thought. I would point out that there is a lot of morphology that occurs in language. It's a fluid thing that changes in unpredictable and illogical ways. I've never known the term to be used in English as a description for all Norse peoples. As the English language is built on English history, the term as I grew up understanding it referred specifically to raiders and invaders of the era of Norse or Swedish descent. You have to understand, though, that those Vikings were a huge part of English history, not just as raiders but also invader/settlers. There have been well over 3000 Viking settlements excavated in Britain, and the effect that they had on the language shows just how influential they were to English development. More than 50% of the most common words we speak everyday are actually Scandinavian in origin. It's very easy to parse through Norwegian or Swedish and be able to recognize most of the words. So it's really no wonder that the term became romanticized in English culture. I've never known the term to have negative connotations in English. On the contrary, I've always known it to be a term of endearment or respect. In English, these are our ancestors, and I'm proud to be a descendant of the Vikings.


 * In a way, it's similar to the way gunslingers of the Old West were romanticized in the US, and still very much are today. Using the term "Viking" as a way to describe all Norwegians happens in a tongue-in-cheek sort of way; kinda like calling all Americans cowboys, but we generally use the term to describe a very specific set of Norsemen; those that raided, invaded, and settled outside of Norway back in the Viking Age. Zaereth (talk) 04:24, 18 July 2021 (UTC)


 * , it seems statistically, there was more attacks on Scandinavians from real vikings, than on England. This is probably the reason Denmark, Sweden and Norway established an organized defence against vikings, lead by "Landvärnsmen". before, and after, documented attacks on England, vikings attacked Scandinavian countries, This can presently not be described in the article though, if the article, according to some users, can only present one single view and there is a resistance against having the article NPOV, why essential information is missing. Dan Koehl (talk) 15:59, 18 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for constructive input . It seems the entire misunderstanding of the word in english seems to origin from the 1799 view on vikings, presented by Sharon Turner, . If you read his book from 1799 its almost identical with the present english article, very different from the more modern version on German Wikipedia.Dan Koehl (talk) 11:12, 18 July 2021 (UTC)


 * It seems, now also the page about Norsemen is under ownership and some kind of censorship, an important part of the Norse history was removed by a user.Dan Koehl (talk) 16:56, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Modern view
The word "modern" has been used in this discussion, referring to descriptions dating back to 1799. I reply that that is not modern, but THIS is modern:

The Vikings are a mythical group of people. Especially during the days of national romanticism in the 19th century, this myth-making took off. Among Swedish archaeologists, it is mainly the Historical Museum's Fredrik Svanberg who in recent years has taken the lead in "demytifying" the late Iron Age Scandinavians by seeking to show where the archaeological facts end and national romanticism begins. The Danish historian John H Lind at the University of Copenhagen is also one of the authorities who questioned populism that affected the word viking, and what consequences it leads to generously using the term when describing Viking-era events, although the sources have not mentioned any person as a Viking, even in the case of Scandinavian attacks in England, or on the continent. He believes that the portrayal of the "Viking Age" in the media is: [10] "Consistently populist and more meets the needs of the tourism industry than living up to the historical science's requirements for methodology: the Danes, like the other Scandinavians, were not Vikings, they did not perceive themselves as Vikings, but they could, like non-Scandinavians, choose the Viking position and draw on looting trains, as humans have always done and still do. Dan Koehl (talk) 09:44, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I cant see any other reason, except for biased opinions, and ownership of the article viking. Would anyone think that it would be accepted, if I cite one of the most famous experts on viking time, and his scientific article, less than 15 years old, do anyone belive that the owners of the article will allow me to submit anything from a modern expert like John H Lind, at Copenhagen University? Does anyone here have the courage to sumbit this text into the article viking, which is upto 80% about Norse people, which is maybe hte reasons for that the article about my trye ancestors, the Norse, is almost empty.

Are you allowed to submit this info, or are you also victims of the censorhip, by the woners, wo are against that anything recent scientific is submitted into the article?

''The term ”Viking” appears in Anglo-Saxon or Norse sources in the so-called Viking Age. Here it simply denotes pirates, no more, no less. It had no geographic or ethnic connotations that linked it to Scandinavia or Scandinavians. By contrast, in these sources we find it used anywhere about anyone who to an Anglo-Saxon or a Scandiniavian appeared as a pirate. Therefore we find it used about Israelites crossing the Red Sea; Muslims in Galleys* encountering Norwegian crusaders in the Mediterranean; Caucasian pirates encountering the famous Swedish Ingvar-Expedition, and Estonian and Baltic pirates attacking Scandinavians in the Baltic Sea. Thus the term was never used to denote Scandinavians as such. Therefore, if we wish to maintain Viking-Age studies on a scholarly level, we must stop acting as an appendix to the tourist industry by using the term Viking as if it was synonymous with Scandinavian and Scandinavians.'' -John H Lind

Source: https://www.academia.edu/8906219/_Vikings_and_the_Viking_Age

Reply to Zaereth questions below:
 * The "things" in this case vikings, were not Norse, only seldom. But the "things" described in the article viking, are 80% Norse. meanwhile, the article Norse has almost no description. Do you agree this is very, very strange? Why is a page about Norse people pretty empty, and someone with a bias, are describing Norse people on the page about their enemies, the vikings? Dan Koehl (talk) 10:43, 17 July 2021 (UTC)


 * The article has a C-rate, and obviously a number of users are since long time, not to happy with the content. The discussion page covers kilometers. Obviously this is a controverisal subject. Its also easy to see, that seemingly the page is victim of ownership. Does anyone what to get rid of all those problems, and contribute that the article gets better, and NPOV, and that noone is allowed to "own" the article?Dan Koehl (talk) 10:59, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

This is a discussion about vikings, This is a discussion about vikings, This is a discussion about vikings. This is NOT a discussion about me Dan Koehl (talk) 10:10, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Discussions about other subjects than vikings

 * Swedish Wikipedia has blocked him about nine times, and a few days ago they gave him a three year block for this behaviour.--Berig (talk) 05:00, 17 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Berig, I told you before, this is not a discussion about me, its a discusson about vikings. I hope you may remember this. Attacking other people personally, is NOT a valid argument in a discussion, which you should know as an admin, pr reverting other peoples edits with Rollback.Dan Koehl (talk) 07:35, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * But when you personally attacked me for not spelling correct yesterday in the other viking discussion (in my second language), then it is ok because I am an admin on svwp and you do not like me? (And you were corrected today by a user: I spelt in american english not brittish.) Same rules for you too dont forget that. Adville (talk) 08:18, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I very am sorry you feel attacked by me, Dan, and I humbly apologize to you for that. However, what can't be changed on the Swedish Wikipedia can't be changed here either. You cannot change the meaning of Viking in English. Neither can Primary sources from Old Icelandic be used to argue that the article has to be changed. Only reliable secondary sources in English can be use to determine the scope of this article.--Berig (talk) 08:40, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I never mentioned changing anything. But since you try, once again, to personalize the discussion, I continue the discussion about the article above, and leave you here with the discussion about my person. Im not intersted to discuss me, or you as persons. Wikipedia is not a forum. Dan Koehl (talk) 10:07, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * So, then no changes to the article? Then there is no need for the neutrality tag, right?--Berig (talk) 10:15, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

This entire discussion has always been about something other than Vikings. It's about the word "Viking", and what you don't seem to get is that encyclopedia are not about words. They are about things. Dictionaries are about words, and those are really the only reliable sources on how words should be used. The other logical fallacy that really stands out amongst the others is argument from repetition. Both fail to convince others, and the latter is designed only to irritate other into either giving in or getting angry, and I feel you know that full well, Dan. So don't act surprised when others get angry, because that is obviouskly the reaction sought after. The best thing for others to do in such cases is give your say once and then ignore the repetition. Consensus is not a matter of volume, but one of substance, and the consensus on this has long been clear. Dan is waging a war against language, and that is not what an encyclopedia is for. It's a waste of time, because it will never work, and if you've studied your linguistic history you would already know that. This is a bad case of WP:Right great wrongs (as percieved by one) and it is really time to WP:Drop the stick. People are tired of it. Seriously. And don't break up comments that were originally to someone else by creating yet another useless section on this talk page. It alter people comments by altering who they appear to be responding to, and that is against the rules of talk. Zaereth (talk) 10:26, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Since this section are regarding discussions about my persons, and other users emotional life etc. I reply regarding the topc of discussion above. Dan Koehl (talk) 10:43, 17 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I reply at the bottom of a discussion, to which I see all of this as one. That's basic talk-page etiquette. Don't expect me to go back and scour through what I have already read trying to find your interstitial comments, because I won't bother. Please learn talk page etiquette, because blatantly ignoring it is only putting people off. Zaereth (talk) 10:50, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I revers the NPOV templete from DK again. After that I saw he had filled a complain when it was removed by another user. What I can see of this discussion there are a consensus that it is neutral and that DK should stop. Thats my reason to remove the tag. Adville (talk) 11:09, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Some details from Neutral point of view/FAQ to keep in mind:
 * The best way to avoid warfare over bias is to remember that most of us are reasonably intelligent, articulate people here, or we wouldn't be working on this and caring so much about it. We have to make it our goal to understand each other's perspectives and to work hard to make sure that those other perspectives are fairly represented.

When any dispute arises as to what the article should say, or what is true, we must not adopt an adversarial stance; we must do our best to step back and ask ourselves, "How can this dispute be fairly characterized?" This has to be asked repeatedly as each new controversial point is stated. It is not our job to edit Wikipedia so that it reflects our own idiosyncratic views and then defend those edits against all-comers; it is our job to work together, mainly adding or improving content, but also, when necessary, coming to a compromise about how a controversy should be described, so that it is fair to all sides. Consensus is not always possible, but it should be your goal.


 * Anglo-American focus

English Wikipedia seems to have '''an Anglo-American focus. Is this contrary to NPOV'''?

Yes, it is, especially when dealing with articles that require an international perspective. The presence of articles written from a United States or European Anglophone perspective is simply a reflection of the fact that there are many U.S. and European Anglophone people working on the project. This is an ongoing problem that should be corrected by active collaboration between Anglo-Americans and people from other countries. But rather than introducing their own cultural bias, they should seek to improve articles by removing any examples of cultural bias that they encounter, or making readers aware of them. A special WikiProject for Countering systemic bias has been set up to deal with this problem. This is not only a problem in the English Wikipedia. The French Language Wikipedia reflects a French bias, the Japanese Wikipedia reflects a Japanese bias, and so on.

Dan Koehl (talk) 11:14, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

And from Help:Maintenance template removal:

'You should not remove maintenance templates if any of the following apply:


 * You do not understand the issues raised by the template;
 * The issue has not yet been resolved;
 * There is ongoing activity or discussion related to the template issue;
 * The problem that the maintenance template flags is plainly and unambiguously required for a proper article under Wikipedia's policies and guidelines;
 * You have been paid to edit the article or have some other conflict of interest [exceptions apply: see individual template documentation].

Dan Koehl (talk) 11:26, 17 July 2021 (UTC)


 * To Adville, I was tempted to revert myself, and I admit a little part of me was looking to see if it would trigger a 3RR, but if it helps bring others into this discussion, then I thought twice. I'd gladly invite an RFC if it would settle this once and for all.


 * TO Dan, as long as an encyclopedia is written in a language, it will always have some bias toward that language. It is unavoidable, and this is a perfect example. As much as it may disturb you, "Viking" is now an English word, with a very specific meaning which is understood by even the smallest school-child. When people come here who do not speak English well, they rely on dictionaries to tell them what the words mean. If we do not write in the common language of the people, then people will not understand what we write. We are limited by the constraints the language itself provides us, so we have to work to define the thing with the the words we have at hand. We cannot alter the definition of those words in the process. If it's an obstacle, then we have to find a way around it without altering the language, or else it will not make sense.


 * As an analogy, I could easily run a campaign on Norwegian Wikipedia trying to convince everyone that a cowboy is not an American cattle-herder. Historically, the term "cowboy" referred to "drovers", or people who drove cattle across the open plains from ranch to market. That was the original meaning, anyhow. Today, in English, it can be anybody who wears cowboy boots and hats. As a Norwegian word, it apparently means an "American cattle-herder". Who am I to say what the word should mean in Norse. It's their word now, so it can mean anything they like. It their language and their business. Zaereth (talk) 11:37, 17 July 2021 (UTC)


 * , thanks for your private opinions, but here are the Wikipedia rules, and I notice you again try to personalize the discussion, with focus on me, and omitting the C-rate of the article, OR kilometers of discussions during the last 20 years, by people who are not me, and you omit the ownership of the article, which is also breaking rules on Wikipedia:

Dan Koehl (talk) 11:54, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The Anglo-American focus passage that's further up the thread was simply copied a second time, seemingly with no rhyme or reason! El_C 20:02, 18 July 2021 (UTC)