Talk:Vikings/Archive 9

New text in intro
Pardon my frankness, but the new text in the intro, "Vikings (from Old Norse víkingr) were a number of closely related cultural and ethnic groups living during the Viking Age", is a load of BS. The Vikings were Norsemen, a single Scandinavian cultural and ethnic group, all speaking the same language, Old Norse. The split of Old Norse into Swedish, Danish, Norwegian etc didn't occur until long after the Viking age, and even today Swedish, Danish and Norwegian differ no more from each other than the different spoken dialects of the German language do, probably even less than that. So the intro went from bad to outright silly. I haven't read the entire wall of text above, but the claim that the change was made according to some kind of consensus on this page seems very dubious, to say the least, so I suggest that User:MjolnirPants self-revert. Thomas.W talk 20:58, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Dude, just change it then. Getting confrontational doesn't fix anything. Editing does. You know what? Nevermind. I'll change it myself. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  21:09, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I've changed the intro now. Thomas.W talk 21:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * , your edit runs contrary to the consensus reached above. Four users have all agreed to merge Norsemen into this article and create a separate article about the seafaring raiders. Please read the discussion and consider self-reverting, because your edit isn't likely to survive very long, anyways. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  21:28, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If you want to merge Norsemen into this article you have to discuss it, and get a clear consensus for it, there, it's not something that can be done from here. And it is very unlikely that you're going to get a consensus for such a merge there... Thomas.W talk 07:17, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The vikings were no ethnic group at all, but the Norse were, which makes the article just filled with errors anyway. Its just horrible that four people actually think they are some sort of konsensus, and own the article. Except from the wrong signals the article gives a reader, its against the rules. Dan Koehl (talk) 04:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

One key problem is the impetus to cram everything into the opening sentence, leading to redundancy and tortuous wording. The latest version uses the words "north Germanic" twice, and uses the term Viking Age while also setting forth its dates, even though the term is used, linked and explained again later in the paragraph. The term Norse is linked to a disamb page, which defines them as Scandinavian, which is also used in the first sentence for good measure: A multiple redundancy word soup run-on. Most of these terminology difficulties should be treated in the Etymology section. And we may expect general readers to make it through the first paragraph; not everything needs to be in the opening sentence -- and especially not twice. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 05:22, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * , show me that policy. In fact, WP:MERGE specifically states that the destination page is the most common place to have the discussion. The current talk page at Norsemen is over a month old, with no discussion of this subject. In addition, the most recent frequent editor of both the talk page and article page has also been active on this page. There's no reason to assume that frequent editors of that page are unaware of what's been going on here.


 * However, if you think that people who edit there would be opposed to the merger, please go get them to come here and get involved. If we can get a consensus that the merger is a bad idea, and that the Viking article should be about the raiders, and the Norsemen article about the people, I would be happier than I am with this compromise. This is the problem with not reading the discussion: you end up not knowing what people have actually said, although to be fair, you seem to have had that problem with regards to me since our very first interaction.


 * , before declaring by fiat that this is wrong and must be changed, try reading this:
 * "Disregarding the ultimate philology of the word and the history of its use over the centuries, which has been much discussed, it is now in such everyday use by both specialists and non-specialists - however improperly - to describe the Scandinavians of the Viking Age, that it almost impossible to avoid its use in this generic sense. Although it is often appropriate and necessary to use such terms as 'Scandinavian' or 'Norse', as I have done in this book, it is often simpler and less confusing to label something as 'Viking' rather than deal in scholastic circumlocution to placate purists, however justified they may be in their arguments."
 * The term "Viking"
 * Quoted from Vikings in the Isle of Man by Sir David Wilson
 * It may be wrong in a technical sense, but if a noted historian acknowledges the dual meaning of the term, we can as well. I agree that Vikings were raiders and pirates, distinct from Norsemen in general, however note that I do not agree that the terms pirate and viking are completely interchangeable. (Phillip of Macedonia was not a viking by any stretch of the imagination, and your arguments to the contrary fall apart under even the slightest scrutiny.) Finally, don't start hurling accusations of ownership around, especially when the person standing in front of you is demonstrably not trying to own the article. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  13:22, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes you've made those claims before ...and they don't stack up. The arguments you make, are not valid and the evidence doesn't really support you. You're statements that we seem to think we own the article, is no more than you simply being rude. Four editor think we have a consensus? Well yes. That's actually how it works. Go read WP:consensus, and you'll see that this is true (for example, it says: "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity").
 * It's certainly better than one single editor, who somehow thinks his words count for more than every other editor in the talk page...--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 13:27, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:MERGE also says that a tag should be placed on both the source page and the target page, pointing to where the discussion is to take place (before any voting on the merger takes place...), so that regular editors of both pages know that a meger has been proposed and can vent their views. Claiming that there is a consensus in favor of a merger when the editors on Norsemen haven't been properly informed about the discussion is silly. Even the entire idea about merging Norsemen into Vikings is silly since Vikings only were a subset of Norsemen. If any merger should take place it should be the other way around, with Vikings being merged into Norsemen. Thomas.W talk 22:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC) (PS. Please learn how to indent your talk page posts properly...)
 * I would be open to that possibility, actually. Alternatively, Vikings could be merged into Viking Age. So are we going to have a vote? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:08, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Not until all pages have been properly tagged so that everyone who has an interest in it has been properly notified. Thomas.W talk 22:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I find the notion of merging Viking and Viking Age to be really bad. Those are two rather separate issues. Norsemen and Viking, however, have the same meaning. A merger would thus make perfect sense.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 13:29, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * So why haven't you put up any tags? It'd be nice to see you helping instead of just complaining... Nevermind. I'm expecting too much. Once again, I'll do it myself. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  12:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC) (PS Read WP:THREAD before complaining about indenting)
 * I don't support a merger between Norsemen and Vikings, so there's no reason for me to place any tags or start a discussion. But since you placed the tags I have corrected the erors you made. See my intro to the new discussion below. Thomas.W talk 13:05, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * What errors? You mean where I pointed it to the section where the merger actually being discussed? MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  13:36, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Before you refer to WP:THREAD, you might want to actually read it. It states that you should respond to a comment with four levels of indentation, with one more (i.e. five). Not zero.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 13:27, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * What does it say about how to indent a response to more than one person? Nothing. Stop being argumentative. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  13:36, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "What does it say about how to indent a response to more than one person?"
 * Generally, you'd make two separate responses. One for one person's comment, and one for the other's ...but as both had the same level of indentation, in this case, I don't see how there is any problem in knowing what the level should be (five, in this case, that is).
 * Also, it's rather ironic to accuse me of being argumentative, given what you wrote in the sentence directly preceding that accusation...--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 13:44, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Enjoy your 'irony'. MjolnirPants  Tell me all about it.  13:54, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I always do.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 13:57, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

On changing language and meanings of words
In reference to the above arguments: it seems to be fairly common for words to change from a generic to a specific meaning when they enter another language. "Claymore" for example just means "big sword" in Gaelic, but has come to mean two particular types of Scottish swords. In this case, it seems that "Viking" and related words were simply the generic Norse term for pirates, regardless of who they were or where they cam from, and could even be used to refer to those from as far afield as Macedonia. However, in Modern English (rather than Old English or Norse), it has the more specific meaning of "early medieval Norse pirate" or even "early medieval Norse people". While "Phillip of Macedon as a viking" might be worth noting in the etymology section, the article should stick to the standard contempory English meaning of "Norse". (Otherwise we might as well delete the article and replace it with a link to pirate).

That said, I think there is a legitimate argument as to whether this article should be just be about the early medieval Norse pirates of the "Viking Age", or all Norse people of that time. My understanding is that the former was the original "modern" meaning of "viking", with the latter is a more modern development. But from the histories I've seen or read, there seems to be a degree of push-back by historians and archeologists to say that "viking" should really only be used for the pirates (or possible the pirates and explorers/traders). I think we need to have a look at current popular and accademic use, and see if we should split the pirates from the rest of the population. Iapetus (talk) 16:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Just provide sources and references to you points and put them in the Etymology section. RhinoMind (talk) 21:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Ah... A sensible comment on the issue.
 * Well at the moment, the broader meaning of "Norse people during the Viking Age" is what is used. For that to change, there would need to be a demonstration that the use has changed, in the Reliable Sources (and the use needs to be evident in "normal", popular, sources, not just academic ones), such that the "pirate-only" meaning is in the vast majority. Even if there's a push-back, that is not relevant to Wikipedia, until/unless that push-back succeeds.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 13:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * When popular and academic use conflict, Wikipedia usually reflects academic use. Therefore, academic sources are more relevant than popular sources. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No.
 * According to Wikipedia policy, Wikipedia should reflect popular use. The article can, and indeed should, include an explanation of the academic use, but it should use the terms, as they are popularly used. See WP:COMMONNAME, WP:JARGON and WP:TECHNICAL.
 * ...and I should remind you, that policy cannot be over-ridden by consensus, or even unanimity, in this talk page.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 13:23, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ...And I should remind you that not only are you dead wrong, but you are wrong on many levels. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  14:26, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Redirect of Norseman and Northmen
The first sentence in the article reads: "Norseman" and "Northmen" redirect here. Why?
 * 1) The first documented viking, Philip II of Macedonia ,was not Norse.
 * 2) Many documented vikings belonged to non Norse people.
 * 3) North people in general, were not vikings.
 * 4) Viking age was from apr. 800-1066, but the norse culture spans over a longer period.
 * 5) Vikings were not same as norse, they didnt belong to any certain ethnical group.
 * 6) The old-english word viking is during medevial time used as a translation from the latin piratae. Thats all.

Dan Koehl (talk) 16:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Everything you state, are utterly unverified and baseless assertions and/or confusions of the historical meaning of the word Viking, with its modern meaning.
 * ...with the exception of 4 (though the exact years are highly debatable).--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 19:15, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Really? Below I give you verification for Philip being called a viking.
 * Now I ask you to verify that north people, in general, were vikings?


 * Dan Koehl (talk) 19:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * 1. The first documented viking, Philip II of Macedonia ,was not Norse.
 * From the Full text of "King Alfred's Orosius" at http://archive.org/stream/kingalfredsorosi79oros/kingalfredsorosi79oros_djvu.txt:
 * (Chapter PHILIP BESIEGES BYZANTIUM; INVADES SCYTHIA. 117, which tells about Philips time as pirat)
 * Philippus vero post longam obsidionem, ut pecuniam quam obsidendo exhauserat, praedando repararet, piraticam adgressus est
 * translated into oldenglish:
 * "ac he scipa gegaderade, and i vicingas wurdon, etc"


 * So here we have a greek king from Macedonia, which is to my knowledge, the first documented case of the word viking, and I just wonder how you can transfer this king, who temporarily becomes a pirat, to become a northmen? Anf if he becomes a northman, will you only call him him northmen during his piracy period, or throughout his whole life? And how will you deal with the other Macedonians, will they all become northmen, if northmen in english language refers to an ethnic group?


 * Dan Koehl (talk) 19:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I didn't bother to read the text, as it is from the 9th century, and is thus completely irrelevant to the meaning of the word Viking, in modern English.
 * Also: Of the five claims you made, you have only presented a justification for one. Well you made six, but as I said, I accept number 4. In fact, as is seen from this talk page, it is a point that is generally accepted here. Also the last one (that Viking was used to translate "piratae") may be true, technically, but you have not shown how it is, in any way, relevant.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 23:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, the people we are talking about, and should describe in the article, are vikings? Where else shall you describe vikings, and make an article about them, if not on the article vikings? Secondly, you find it irrelevent to read a text about vikings, which is from the 9th century, but I do not agree with you, I find it most relevant, since it was during the 9th century they lived, and were active, there are no vikings today. Finally, if you had read the text, you would have seen the verification, (that Viking was used to translate "piratae"), if you would have followed the links, and read the text.


 * So I give you homework, try again, and you will find it.


 * Dan Koehl (talk) 11:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi. We have had this discussion above in several posts Dan. Please read those posts and comments. What we are interested in describing here in this article, is what is meant by 'Vikings' in todays world. 'Viking' has many meanings and those meanings vary through the ages even. Today 'Vikings' are the term used by scientists and archaeologists to describe the Norse people during the Viking Age. How the word 'Viking' was used in former ages is important to discuss in sections on etymology and the like. I invite you to review those sections in the article and contribute what you feel is missing. Have your sources ready. RhinoMind (talk) 15:14, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Btw 1. Northmen = Vikings before the christening. Norse = A loose term describing the people of Scandinavia.
 * Btw 2. The term Viking was also used by the Norse themselves to some extent and not just to describe aggressive raiders. vik means cove or inlet. It is also evident in many place names. RhinoMind (talk) 15:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Theres no evidence whatsoever to what viking means, only guesses and explanation. Vic was known in latin before the scandinavian world for bay was used. Apart from that. the word viking did reflect an activity, and there has been numerous speculations what the word means, but none has been verified. Study this more, and you will see. Dan Koehl (talk) 02:48, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Well Dan, it seems you still don't understand, despite being told several times...
 * This article is on the English Wikipedia. If you insist on how the word was used in the 9th Century, please leave this place and instead go to the Old English Wikipedia and the article on Viking they have there.
 * This article is concerned with what are called "Vikings" in Modern English.
 * Any mention of the use of the word, centuries or millennia ago, is irrelevant for anything other than the etymology section and the like.


 * Let's look at your assertions, shall we:
 * "1. The first documented viking, Philip II of Macedonia ,was not Norse."
 * The notion that Philip II of Macedonia was a Viking, is a completely baseless and unverified assertion. (that he wasn't Norse, is beyond dispute. Of course he wasn't)
 * "2. Many documented vikings belonged to non Norse people."
 * That is a completely baseless and unverified assertion.
 * "3. North people in general, were not vikings."
 * This was true at the time, as is clarified in, e.g, the Etymology section, but does not reflect how the word Viking is used in modern English
 * ...or, indeed, most modern languages ...like, say, modern Swedish. A language you might be familiar with. Du kanske har märkt att svenskar, svenska böcker (inklusive läroböcker och uppslagsverk) och filmer (inklusive dem som har utbildningssyften), när de säger "viking", referera till alla som tillhörde den kulturen/etniciteten, under vikingatiden?
 * "4. Viking age was from apr. 800-1066, but the norse culture spans over a longer period."
 * This is a point that has already been discussed, at length, in this talk page. We agree that this is true, and the article already reflects this fact. What's your point?
 * (The exact dates, however, are not universally accepted. The dates you cite, are undoubtedly from a British source, BTW. Other countries do not tend to insist on 1066 as the end date. That date is very Anglo-centric)
 * "5. Vikings were not same as norse, they didnt belong to any certain ethnical group."
 * That is a completely baseless and unverified assertion.
 * "6. The old-english word viking is during medevial time used as a translation from the latin piratae."
 * Okay sure, lets say that's true. I haven't investigated it, and I don't intend to bother to. I'll just take your word for it. So what? Please note the answer to point three ...and just about every response to a comment of yours, in this talk page.
 * How the word was used in medieval times is completely irrelevant.
 * This is the English Wikipedia not the Old English Wikipedia.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 19:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

WEll ZarlanTheGreen, Itseems you still dont understand, that there seems to be an obvious fact that is not discussed here. Regardless how a word gets misinterpreted during the last 50 years, it should reflect the truth in an encyclopedia. People looking in encyclopedias, in books or digital, are looking for true explanations of terms and words, not for misinterpretations. If a word gets misinterpretated for some time, due to culture, politics, or just ignorance, it doesnt mean, that things can be corrected. I remember articles about african people, gypsies, etc, when I was a child, which most people in that time accepted, which are not accepted today. People misinterpreted things, and later they got corrected.

So, when people search for, and read the article they belive that they in fact are reading about vikings, while they are partly reading about Norse. The article doesnt define when the information is about Vikings ,a dn when it is about Norse. I belive some contributors to the article are not even aware about the difference. I can read on this discussion that every month theres people who object, and they get unpolitely treated, although they come with good arguments, and with verified opinions. This means that the article is biased by some people who hold a certain opinion, and they make it not possible for others, with good arguments, to change. Thats what makes the article POV. Whatever opinion YOU have, and whatever opinion I have, the article should follow the NPOV and reflect the neutral truth. Now the article is mixed with real facts, fantasies and misintepretations, and mixed up with other terms. A baker, an engineer, a sailor etc is not presented comepletely different on different languege sectors on wikipedia. Presntly, readers on the english wikiedpa is not clearly givenn an aexplanation that the word viking reflects vikings on the german wikipedia, and unlogically reflects vikings and norse on the english. We dont help anyone searching for truth and facts, with this childish game. An apple, a ship, a tree, a baker and a viking, should be presented ina standardized way on all wikipedias. People whoread the article viking, should read information about vikings, and nothing selse, all others concept are confuesd and leads to confusion. If youare confused regarding the meaning of viking, dont force others to become as confused.

Dan Koehl (talk) 02:48, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * You clearly do not understand how language works.
 * Languages change. The meaning of words change.
 * The article gay is about homosexuality, rather than describing carefree happiness. Do you regard that as wrong and POV?


 * You think that this article should define the term "Viking", in a particular manner? You think that this article should correct how people use the word?
 * That is POV and Original Research!
 * The place of Wikipedia, is to reflect how words are used in modern English and to reflect what contemporary reliable sources say on the matter ...and they say that Vikings are the Norse people of the Viking Age.
 * Your crusade to "correct" how people use the term Viking, has no place on Wikipedia. It goes against what the Reliable Sources state, and it goes against Wikipedia policy and guidelines.


 * You want to change how people use the word Viking? Fine, but do it somewhere else. Wikipedia is not a soapbox
 * If you succeed, then the Reliable Sources will start using the meaning that you want them to ...and then, and only then, it'll be okay to use that meaning here.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 04:57, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * @Dan. I believe the reason that this goes on and on and on is that you (and others) dont read the answers to their objections and posts. The answers are very clear and obvious. Again I invite you to review the section on ethymology and contribute what you feel is missing. And I will also encourage you to write a whole article about The Norse. It seems that you know a great deal about what defines The Norse, so why dont you share this insight and knowledge? You only need good sources, that is all. I really hope you will do that. If you want to continue the crusade against the consensus of the scientific and archaeological definitions and use of the word Viking, you are welcome, but I believe it would be better to write a book about it, than repeating yourself here. RhinoMind (talk) 10:53, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Rhinomind, I would be happy to write about Norse, but then only on the article and page about Norse, not on viking.


 * ToZarlanTheGreen, let me remind you, whn you write people, that theres people outside UK and America. People using the english language, who may search for information about vikings, and may search for information about Norse people. Since the article viking doesnt explain, thattheres a limite group of people who object to that Vikings are, and were vikings, and Norse, are, and were Norse, so when they get the desinformation on the article viking that for some extremely strange reason has been merged, they dont have a cluse, that this is an invention, a product of ignorance, that the producerswant to become a standardized approach to the two different terms.


 * I have never, in ay encycklopedia, seen vikings and norse merged. They were always descibed on their own individial header.


 * Furthermore, the other wikipedias, also read by by what most people would define people, dont mix those terms up, and they make laguage wikilinks to the two different terms, which you have merged. Now, even if theres probably less intellctual people in england and america, Icant just mix the term idiot with the term anglosaxians on the Swedish wikipedia, even if I would have the opinion that since the last 40-50 years, most "people in Sweden regard americans as rather stupid? I dont state that this is the case, Im just using this way of describing that what you have done is not logical, and is against what other people on the wikipedia work for.


 * Language links should lead to relevant pages within the different wikipedias. Regardless how many piza bakers from Ialy exist today, and some ignorant people may call all italians for pizza bakers, it would be totally wrong and unethical to group the page bakers and italians on one page?


 * The swedish, german, and many other language wikipedias represent knowledge about vikings, and knowledge about Norse people, and it should be possible to make relevant links from those two terms, to their respective equivalent terms on the english wikipedia.


 * Both the german and the Swedish wikipedias clearly says, that there was never a people, or an ethnical group that were called vikings, and the terms viking and norse are represented on different pages.


 * You have made the whole thing very confused, by mixing those pages, and I doubt that any expert on ironage in scandinavia supported this idea, regardless what reliable source you mention above, but not link to.


 * Finally, whatever you compare about being gay, and being homosexual, which can represent people living today, the article viking still describes people from medevial time, from the viking age. There are no vikings today? So even if I enjoy that childish way of trying to make a less intelligent act relevant, it isnt it just underlines how the logic is missing in the entire approach to the term viking on the english wikipedia.


 * Unless you make the article forked into viking (original meaning) where the medevial persons who were involved in the activity viking are described, and make a second article viking (misinterpreted, popular definition, used by some litterature, but without support in prime sources]] you will not act according to how wikipedia should function.


 * It has to be reminded, that many people around the earth use the english wikipedia. The english language is therfore not an extended cultureappendix for a limited group of people with origin from UK and America, according to you calling themselves "people", it is a tool for reading facts for people from all around the world, and they are looking for facts, not for confused desinformation.


 * Lets not underestimate those readers; when they read:
 * that the first documented viking was Alexander the Great´s father, Philip II of Macedonia, and they also know that Macedonians were not Norse, thay will NOT understand why viking and norse articles are mixed on the english wikipedia.
 * that Björn Farman, is described by Snorre Sturlusson in Egil Skallagrims as: Björn was a great traveller; sometimes as viking, sometimes as tradesman, those readers, which are also people, will not understand why vikings in the articles are described as tradesmen? Or why anyone could do the major mistake and describe an entire nation, or several, as vikings, if thet i fact were not?


 * And when they read that Harald I of Norway  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.. they will become even more confused by the english wikipedia who desscribes the norwegian king as a viking, although no prime source ever did. (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.


 * So, if you would mix happy people with homosexuals, throughout the article about gay, it would MAYBE make sense, what you write.
 * Like on every second line you refer to happy people, and for every second line you refer to homosexuals, but you dont refer the reader, when the the reference is changed. And as far as I know, the article gay is not redirected to the article happiness.


 * Other people, who dont share tis confusion, will just become as confused as the aouthors of the english article viking by reading it.


 * I doubt that its wikipedias ambition to confuse people.


 * Dan Koehl (talk) 16:05, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * "ToZarlanTheGreen, let me remind you, whn you write people, that theres people outside UK and America."
 * Let me remind you that I am neither British nor American ...and that the word "Viking" is used to refer to Norse people of the Viking Age in pretty much all languages, not just English and in pretty much all countries, not just the UK and the US.
 * "Since the article viking doesnt explain, thattheres a limite group of people who object to that Vikings are, and were vikings, and Norse, are, and were Norse, so when they get the desinformation on the article viking that for some extremely strange reason has been merged, they dont have a cluse, that this is an invention, a product of ignorance, that the producerswant to become a standardized approach to the two different terms."
 * I have some difficulty understanding what you've written there. Please write in English (you've manage fairly decently before, so I know you can). At the very least, you could use a spell checker.
 * I agree that Norse should be it's own article, rather than redirecting here.
 * ...and it is
 * Thus I don't really understand what you are complaining about.
 * "Language links should lead to relevant pages within the different wikipedias. Regardless how many piza bakers from Ialy exist today, and some ignorant people may call all italians for pizza bakers, it would be totally wrong and unethical to group the page bakers and italians on one page?"
 * If "pizza bakers" became the universially used term for "italian", then it would be correct to make the page "pizza bakers" talk about how it means people from Italy. That's how language works.
 * "The swedish, german, and many other language wikipedias represent knowledge about vikings"
 * As you are an admin on the Swedish Wikipedia, I find it rather dubious, for you to bring it up as an example.
 * Reliable Sources, in the Swedish language, however, do not reflect your views.
 * "Both the german and the Swedish wikipedias clearly says, that there was never a people, or an ethnical group that were called vikings"
 * As does this article.
 * "You have made the whole thing very confused, by mixing those pages"
 * I have? Really?
 * I guess the fact that I have never, not even once, made any edits to Norse, doesn't disuade you from that notion?
 * "Finally, whatever you compare about being gay, and being homosexual, which can represent people living today, the article viking still describes people from medevial time, from the viking age."
 * In what way is it relevant, whether or not the group are alive or not?
 * "So even if I enjoy that childish way of trying to make a less intelligent act relevant, it isnt it just underlines how the logic is missing in the entire approach to the term viking on the english wikipedia."
 * You're saying it isn't logical? Show it! Demonstrate that, that is the case! A mere assertion is worthless.
 * Calling my argument childish is just an insult and does nothing to contribute to the discussion, or in any way support your point.
 * Can you please explain why Viking should reflect how the word was used many centuries ago, while Gay should reflect the meaning that wasn't used until just some decades ago. Or do you mean that Gay shouldn't be about homosexuality?
 * "viking (misinterpreted, popular definition, used by some litterature, but without support in prime sources"
 * So papers by archaeologists and historians, do not count as Primary Sources, do they?
 * Furthermore, the sources need to be in English. The sources you mention, that use "Viking" the way you want it to be used, are not in English. Not modern English. Thus the terms there, do not count as the terms that should be used in English.
 * "So, if you would mix happy people with homosexuals, throughout the article about gay, it would MAYBE make sense, what you write."
 * ... O_o
 * Wha... how... WTF!?
 * "I doubt that its wikipedias ambition to confuse people."
 * I agree and that's why I oppose what you are arguing for.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 20:24, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree and that's why I oppose what you are arguing for.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 20:24, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * My error, I refered to the redirect of "Norseman" and "Northmen. King Philip II of Macedonia was not a Norseman, and he did not speak norse. Dan Koehl (talk) 01:53, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay. Well I do not agree that Norseman and Northmen should be separate from Viking, so...
 * If we replace "Norse" in your comment with "Norseman/Northmen", then we can replace my reply with "You have not shown any evidence to back that up. The Reliable Sources seem to rather disagree with you, and Wikipedia is supposed to reflect what the Reliable Sources say, not what is correct according to you (please read: Verifiability, not truth)"
 * I note that you haven't addressed any of the other points I raised, BTW...--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 02:13, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm content that "Vikings" has two major meanings, the narrower meaning "Norse raider" preferred in academia, and the wider popular meaning "Norsemen", and that for practical purposes, this article uses the popular meaning, but the intro does not even acknowledge the scholarly preferred meaning. Since we have an article Norsemen, I have made Norseman and Northmen redirect there as it makes no sense to have Norseman redirect here and Norsemen lead somewhere else. If there is a widespread feeling that Norsemen and Vikings should be merged, such a merger should be discussed. On the other hand, if it is felt that the subjects should, and could easily, be kept distinct, material that does not pertain to the raiders should be removed from this article.
 * I have no preference either way, but I see the problem that the meaning of "Vikings" is ill-defined. Everyone agrees that the Norse raiders deserve the designation, but whether non-Norse raiders deserve it too is unclear. Moreover, whether Norse outside their original Scandinavian homelands who did not engage in raiding and other war-related activities, but only in trading, exploring and settling, are called Vikings in the scholarly sense is completely unclear to me. Eventually, in the popular sense, Norsemen who stayed in Scandinavia and never ventured abroad are called Vikings too, but if the subjects are to be kept distinct on Wikipedia the stay-at-home Norse can obviously not be treated here.
 * So, are Norsemen and Vikings to be merged, aye or nay? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I live in a Norse country (Sweden), that has a Norse culture.
 * Not a country that has, historically, had a Norse culture.
 * A country that has a Norse culture now (as well as historically). "Norsemen" refers to Norse people of a certain period, as does "Viking" ...and Northmen. Norse culture refers to those people, regardless of time period. The Vikings that settled in Normandy, eventually assimilated into the French culture and ceased to be Norse, but this is not true of most of the Nordic countries. Essentially, anywhere were people speak in a North Germanic language, is Norse.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 17:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirecting Norse culture to Norsemen was a compromise, to avoid edit warring. The intro should say that the Vikings were Norsemen, not people with a Norse culture, because that's what they were. If you haven't alreday done so I suggest you read Norsemen, here on en-WP. Thomas.W talk 18:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * This section is getting pretty unwieldy, we may need to archive the older discussion. But I vote nay. It's clear that while all (or at least the vast majority, if you watch that TV show) Vikings were Norsemen, not all Norsemen were Vikings. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  18:24, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ????? I wrote that "Vikings were Norsemen", not that all Norsemen were Vikings. And AFAIK no-one has made such a claim. (And Norseman and Northmen should of course be redirects to Norsemen, not to this article). Thomas.W talk 18:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you're getting confused over what I meant. I believe that the articles should not be merged for the reasons I gave. I wasn't trying to argue with anything you said, hence why I stated the same thing.
 * "Vikings were Norsemen" and "...all (or at least the vast majority, if you watch that TV show) Vikings were Norsemen..." are equivalent. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  19:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

On another note, does anyone object to me collapsing the discussion before today? I think starting over fresh would be a great thing, considering that the OP's arguments are no longer being discussed. MjolnirPants  Tell me all about it.  19:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't give a rat's arse about a TV show, or whatever false impression someone might get from it. "Vikings were Norsemen" and "all Norsemen were Vikings" are NOT equivalent. At least not in English, which is what matters here. Thomas.W talk 19:51, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You should go back and carefully re-read my posts. You're clearly not understanding me, and I don't know how I could possibly make it any clearer. I never said all Norsemen were Vikings. I did say that "not all Norsemen were Vikings." I made it clear that I oppose merging the articles. I'm not sure what I said that leads you to believe I said the opposite. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  20:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You wrote: ""Vikings were Norsemen" and "...all (or at least the vast majority, if you watch that TV show) Vikings were Norsemen..." are equivalent". If that's not what you meant to write, then that's fine, but you did write it. Thomas.W talk 20:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes. That is what I wrote. That does not mean what you are claiming it means. Observe: Now take out the parenthetical portion (parentheses in prosaic writing are usually used to denote clarification or a side note) and you get: Do you understand now? The two sentences are equivalent, and neither of them mean "all Norsemen were Vikings", nor were they ever intended to mean such, as evidenced by my previous statement that "...not all Norsemen were Vikings." MjolnirPants  Tell me all about it.  20:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "Vikings were Norsemen"
 * "...all (or at least the vast majority, if you watch that TV show) Vikings were Norsemen..."
 * "Vikings were Norsemen"
 * "...all Vikings were Norsemen..."


 * But that is exactly the problem here! What are Vikings? Are only Norse raiders, pirates and shipborne warriors Vikings, or are peaceful traders, explorers and colonists Vikings too? Are Norse warriors and kings who never ventured abroad Vikings? Are Norse peasants who never left their Scandinavian homelands Vikings, as in the broad, popular conception, where all Norsemen are Vikings?
 * My hunch is that Vikings and (non-Viking) Norsemen are hard to cleanly distinguish in practice, but I agree that in theory, they should not be treated as one and the same. So this article should not be about early medieval Norse culture in general. The main article for this should be Norsemen. This article about Vikings obviously needs the Norse cultural background, and will have to refer to it. But it should not be treated too extensively here.
 * For example, Norse language and literature does not belong here because it is not unique to the Vikings, but common to all Norse(men), Vikings or not. If we do this anyway, we only accomodate the common conception of all Norsemen as Vikings, but you have already indicated that you disagree with this popular conflation, as it would lead to the inevitable consequence that a merger would be necessary. Keeping distinct articles also means keeping the subjects distinct. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:42, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * To repeat and underline: Currently, this article is a de facto duplicate of Norsemen, and does not even acknowledge the difference between Norsemen and Vikings people like you make, and even insist must be made. It says: They were a seafaring people [...] based in Scandinavia. It does not even acknowledge the existence of the article Norsemen. If you vote nay regarding a merger, all the content not referring specifically to Vikings must be thrown out. But first it must be clear what this article is about, so that it is possible to tell what belongs here and what does not. And it must be acknowledged that there are at least two different conceptions of "Vikings", probably many more. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:01, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * From where I sit, the meaning of the term is pretty clear. "Vikings" refers to those Norsemen who left their homes to raid or trade or explore. I understand that in common use, the word refers to Norse people during the Viking Age, but I don't think that should matter. In common use, the word "Coke" refers to any caramel-flavored cola. In common use, the word "Theory" refers to any idea a person comes up with to explain something, or even any idea a person has. In common use, the word "Diety" refers to the Judeo-Christian diety. To take the last example further, the word "God" refers to the Judeo-Christian diety in common use. In none of those cases do the Wikipedia articles link to the common use of the word. I'm sure it would be trivial to collect a vast assortment of examples. Wikipedia is intended to be a collection of knowledge, not a collection of cultural memes. Therefore, I think that there should be two separate articles for Norsemen and Vikings. The article about Vikings may certain reference Norse culture, religion and way of life, because these things were part of what defined what it meant to be a Viking. Similarly, the article about Norsemen may certain reference Viking practices and history, as these were major parts of the culture. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  18:03, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Per Vikings, the term originally referred only to violent raiders, not peaceful traders. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:38, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that however this plays out, we have to accept that the terms Norsemen, Vikings etc. are used in a variety of different ways by different people - I quite like Eric Christiansen's intro to Norsemen in the Viking Age for this, not because it's necessary uncontroversial - he argues that the Swedes weren't Norse, for example, even if they were called Northmen - but because it does pull out the morass of differences in the way that the terms are used. From the perspective of an encyclopedia article, though, I would argue that some form of general article is needed that covers the theme in the way that most, non-specialists would envisage it: for most members of the public who will be searching for an article on the wiki, "Norsemen" and "Vikings" are a single historical concept - they'll be using the terms interchangeably. Such an article does, of course, would, I think, need to explain the different ways in which the terms are used and applied. I'd also argue that there is value in specialised articles on something like "Norsemen (people)" (as a discussion of a specific or imagined ethnic group or groups) and "Viking (activity)" (as a discussion of a particular historical activity) - again, both of which could go into more detail as to how the terms have been, and are, used. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:14, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Interesting discussion. But I have a few words of caution to all: Don't get lost in the briars! And what exactly do I mean by that? I exactly mean that etymology, personal views and how to define and box things from the real world, is a very exciting enterprise, but it also holds the danger of clouding the obvious. "Vikings" is used by scientists and archaeologists of today to mean the Norse during the Viking Age. And that includes all their activities independently of where they choose to settle, home or abroad. So whatever you conclude here and at the end of the day, this needs to be reflected in this article. However, it does not exclude presentation of other views or details and discussions concerning the (apparently tricky) term "Viking". Ok my words of caution. RhinoMind (talk) 01:08, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * So, should Wikipedia accept the popular conflation of Norsemen and Vikings (hence yea to a merger, and currently we're already halfway there), or should it keep the concepts distinct (hence nay to a merger, and yea to slimming this article)? Folks, you can't say both "keep them distinct" and "but let's keep everything the way it is currently". I'm not saying Wikipedia should be overly pedantic, but this is pragmatism taken too far. I see the need for a clear editorial decision, instead of muddling on. The current situation is messy, dishonest and unbearable, IMHO. It's just wrong, wrong, wrong to pretend in the article Vikings that nobody makes a distinction between Vikings and Norsemen and that the article Norsemen does not exist. In fact, the article is blatantly self-contradictory because in the Etymology section, it does acknowledge that Vikings are raiders, not a people as the intro claims. It's like claiming in the article Pharaoh that the pharaohs were a people and then go on explaining that the pharaohs were the kings of the ancient Egyptians. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:55, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia has a clear policy on these matters:
 * Use the common name ...even if it's not the "correct" name. (as explained in WP:RECOGNIZABLE)
 * This is also further confirmed in WP:Jargon and WP:TECHNICAL.
 * The word Viking, among regular people and in books (both fiction and non-fiction and both academic and non-academic), movies, documentaries, tv shows and so on, all generally use Viking, to refer to the Norse people of the Viking Age.


 * As to Norse people/culture... That is all those who's native tongue belong to the North Germanic languages, as I've said. Thus the Norse people have existed from about 200 AD, up until today. The modern people of Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Iceland, today, are Norse and belong to the Norse Culture. The people who lived in that area in the year of, say, 543 AD (well before the Viking Age), who also spoke North Germanic languages were Norse and belonged to the Norse Culture. Neither lived in the Viking age, however, and neither are Vikings (by any definition)
 * The word Viking has, historically, meant the activity (and later, by extension, those engaging in it) of going off and pillaging (and, later, also those who engaged in trade ...or, indeed, both).
 * That has, however, no bearing on what the word means today. It is relevant for the Etymoplogy section, but nowhere else.
 * You might note that the Wikipedia article vagina is concerned with the female sex organ, rather than scabbards, despite the fact that this is what the word originally meant. Historically, "vagina" meant "scabbard". These days, is used rather differently.
 * Wikipedia uses the modern meaning.
 * This is, after all, the English Wikipedia and by English, we mean the Modern English, as it is used these days. If you want to use Old English, there is a separate Wikipedia for that. If you want Proto, Middle or Early Modern English ...or, indeed, English that is somewhere between Early Modern and that of the 21th century, then you'll simply have to make a new, separate, Wikipedia for it, just like there is one for Old English and Simple English.


 * Do you think that vagina should be redirect to, or be merged with, scabbard?
 * If you do, then you will first need to change some fairly fundamental bits of policy ...and you will not succeed in doing so, as it makes no sense and would just make the site confusing and go against the whole idea behind it.
 * If you don't, then could you please explain why Viking should be treated differently? How is this any different?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 21:36, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * , I understand your points and for the most part, I agree with them. However, there is a passage in the first policy you linked which addresses my concerns. To quote it: "Editors should also consider the criteria outlined above. Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources." (emphasis added)
 * Consider the following links:
 * "The Vikings were pirates who came to plunder and kill, and they spread terror along Europe's coasts."
 * "The word Viking means a pirate, and the noun Viking means a pirate raid."
 * "Many historians commonly associate the term “Viking” to the Scandinavian term vikingr, a word for “pirate.” However, the term is meant to reference oversea expeditions, and was used as a verb by the Scandinavian people for when the men traditionally took time out of their summers to go “a Viking.”"
 * "With all the caricatures and stereotypes out there, there’s probably a lot you’ve never heard about the seafaring Scandinavians who raided and settled coastal sites in the British Isles and beyond between the ninth and 11th centuries."
 * "1. any of the Scandinavian pirates who plundered the coasts of Europe from the 8th to 10th centuries. "
 * While many of those links also address your point that the word is commonly used today to refer to the entire culture (notably numbers 2 and 3), each one also makes a point of specifically referring to the Vikings as the group that went raiding, trading or exploring. I would concede that the average person, with no particular interest in the subject and no post-secondary education in relevant history would use the term to refer to the entire culture. I would go even further and agree that the term is used by a number of historians to refer to the entire culture, as a form of shorthand. I would not, however, agree that "Norse Culture during the Viking Age" is an unambiguous and exclusive new meaning of the term. Considering the last link in particular, I would like to say that avoiding confusion seems to be the aim of your argument, but would it really avoid confusion if the page on Wikipedia is about a different subject than the dictionary definition of the word?
 * Regarding your example of the word 'vagina,' I would point out that the word has no meaning in modern parlance other than to refer to female sexual organs, which is why it's title is uncontroversial. However, bear in mind that in common use, the word 'vagina' refers to a woman's external sexual organs, while the wikipedia article is about the correct use of the word. In short, it is a perfect example of what I am arguing. If I were arguing that the original meaning of the word were to be used, I would argue that 'viking' be a redirect to some page covering the navigation of rivers, as that is where the root word 'vik' originated, AFAIK. From where I sit, it seems that applying your argument to the Wikipedia vagina article, we should make it a redirect to vulva. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  14:11, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ""The Vikings were pirates who came to plunder and kill, and they spread terror along Europe's coasts."
 * "The word Viking means a pirate, and the noun Viking means a pirate raid.""
 * Those are tourist inforrmation sites. They can hardly be called Reliable Sources.
 * ""Many historians commonly associate the term “Viking” to the Scandinavian term vikingr, a word for “pirate.” However, the term is meant to reference oversea expeditions, and was used as a verb by the Scandinavian people for when the men traditionally took time out of their summers to go “a Viking.”""
 * The reliability of that blog is questionable, but... It does not actually agree with you, or disagree with me. It says that the old Scandinavian term vikingr was used as a verb, for the activity. It doesn't, for a second, claim that the modern term Viking does, or should, mean the same.
 * ""With all the caricatures and stereotypes out there, there’s probably a lot you’ve never heard about the seafaring Scandinavians who raided and settled coastal sites in the British Isles and beyond between the ninth and 11th centuries.""
 * You're citing The History Channel!?
 * That entertainment channel (not educational channel) is very well known for being completely unconcerned with accuracy. In fact, it is very well known for its great amounts of inaccurate, or completely erroneous, claims. There is no way that I can, or will, ever accept someone using the History Channel as a source.
 * ""1. any of the Scandinavian pirates who plundered the coasts of Europe from the 8th to 10th centuries. ""
 * You can't use a dictionary as a Reliable Source, on this issue! For some things, they can be Reliable Sources, certainly, but for this!?
 * ...and also: "3. a Scandinavian."
 * "I would not, however, agree that "Norse Culture during the Viking Age" is an unambiguous and exclusive new meaning of the term."
 * I'm rather saddened and disappointed to see that you do not seem to understand what "Reliable Source", means. I suggest you go and read WP:Identifying reliable sources.
 * Great! You agree that this is not a meaning that we've just made up here. You think it's ambiguous, however, which I simply cannot understand. In what way is it ambiguous? I could understand it, if you think that it is confusing or unclear, but ambiguous? How so?
 * "Considering the last link in particular, I would like to say that avoiding confusion seems to be the aim of your argument, but would it really avoid confusion if the page on Wikipedia is about a different subject than the dictionary definition of the word?"
 * There are a couple of problems with what you just said there:
 * WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary
 * Just because one dictionary says something, doesn't make it right.
 * Dictionaries are supposed to reflect common usage. They are descriptive, not prosciptive. It is the common usage that is the true definition.
 * Wikipedia policy clearly states that it is the common usage in Reliable Sources, that is the important issue. Not dictionary definitions.
 * "Regarding your example of the word 'vagina,' I would point out that the word has no meaning in modern parlance other than to refer to female sexual organs, which is why it's title is uncontroversial."
 * Tell that to a re-enactor. Also, please check a dictionary, and you'll see more than one meaning being listed. Not the original meaning, admittedly, but that's not what you said, so...
 * "From where I sit, it seems that applying your argument to the Wikipedia vagina article, we should make it a redirect to vulva."
 * There are cases where it is acceptable to make an exception to the rule of using the common term, but that's not an example of it, but... While "vagina" is often used to talk about the vulva, the Reliable Sources never do. Thus it's not entirely an exception.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 18:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Tell that to a re-enactor. Also, please check a dictionary, and you'll see more than one meaning being listed. Not the original meaning, admittedly, but that's not what you said, so...
 * "From where I sit, it seems that applying your argument to the Wikipedia vagina article, we should make it a redirect to vulva."
 * There are cases where it is acceptable to make an exception to the rule of using the common term, but that's not an example of it, but... While "vagina" is often used to talk about the vulva, the Reliable Sources never do. Thus it's not entirely an exception.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 18:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * You're citing The History Channel!?
 * Yes, I cited the history channel's website for a definition of a term. Do you have a specific reason to distrust that link? There has never been a consensus on Wikipedia that the History Channel is not a reliable source for any history subject devoid of aliens.
 * Those are tourist inforrmation sites. They can hardly be called Reliable Sources.
 * They suffice for establishing the common usage of the term.
 * The reliability of that blog is questionable, but...
 * Why? Give a reason. To simply dismiss it as "questionable" doesn't further the discussion one bit.
 * You can't use a dictionary as a Reliable Source, on this issue!
 * We're talking about the definition of a word. A reputable dictionary is absolutely a reliable source for the definition of a word, no matter what you may say to the contrary.
 * I'm rather saddened and disappointed...
 * That does not address what I stated in any way shape or form, and serves as nothing but a personal attack. Please try to keep this civil.
 * Just because one dictionary says something, doesn't make it right.
 * Are you sure it's just one?     Most of them don't even give the alternate use as referring to people of the Norse culture, and those who do give an alternate use all say 'Scandanavian' instead.
 * Dictionaries are supposed to reflect common usage. They are descriptive, not prosciptive.
 * Are you arguing that Wikipedia is proscriptive? If not, I fail to see any point to this response. I've never suggested this article be trimmed down to a definition of the word, nor any such thing. I've said that the article should be about the same thing that the word is defined to mean.
 * Tell that to a re-enactor.
 * Are you arguing that re-enactors define what Wikipedia is, or what the modern definition of words should be?
 * Also, please check a dictionary, and you'll see more than one meaning being listed.
 * Every additional meaning is jargon. We're not discussing jargon.
 * There are cases where it is acceptable to make an exception to the rule of using the common term, but that's not an example of it, but... While "vagina" is often used to talk about the vulva, the Reliable Sources never do. Thus it's not entirely an exception.
 * Okay then. Now, can you find some reliable sources that explicitly state that the word is used to refer to all Norse people during the Viking Age? I've heard much of these sources, but I've yet to see one. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  19:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "There has never been a consensus on Wikipedia that the History Channel is not a reliable source for any history subject devoid of aliens."
 * I don't quite believe that.
 * "They suffice for establishing the common usage of the term."
 * No they do not.
 * "Why? Give a reason. To simply dismiss it as "questionable" doesn't further the discussion one bit."
 * That's not the way it goes.
 * It's a blog. There is no reason to treat a blog post as reliable, unless there is clear evidence that it is.
 * "We're talking about the definition of a word."
 * No.
 * As I said, this is not a dictionary.
 * "That does not address what I stated in any way shape or form"
 * Well no. It wasn't meant to.
 * "and serves as nothing but a personal attack."
 * No it does not.
 * It seems you do not understand what "personal attack" means.
 * It was not a personal attack, any kind of attack, nor any form of incivilty or rudeness.
 * Please read WP:No personal attacks.
 * "Are you sure it's just one?"
 * Do I care?
 * Also, while I say that dictionaries are not proscriptive, some of them do try to be, so...
 * "and those who do give an alternate use all say 'Scandanavian' instead."
 * ...which is generally used synonymously/interchangeably with "Norse".
 * "Are you arguing that Wikipedia is proscriptive? If not, I fail to see any point to this response. I've never suggested this article be trimmed down to a definition of the word, nor any such thing. I've said that the article should be about the same thing that the word is defined to mean."
 * None of that addresses my point: It is common usage that is relevant. Not dictionaries ...and Wikipedia demands common usage (as measured by common usage in Relieable Sources), not dictionaries.
 * "Are you arguing that re-enactors define what Wikipedia is, or what the modern definition of words should be?"
 * No, but they do use vagina, to refer to their scabbards. Well okay, that's not really relevant. Sorry about that. Just ignore this, please.
 * "Every additional meaning is jargon. We're not discussing jargon."
 * How does their meaning as jargon, make those meanings any less relevant?
 * Besides: Is not the meaning of Viking, refering exclusively to those engaging in the activity, also jargon?
 * "Okay then. Now, can you find some reliable sources that explicitly state that the word is used to refer to all Norse people during the Viking Age? I've heard much of these sources, but I've yet to see one."
 * Find me one that doesn't.
 * *check my bookshelf*
 * Swords of the Viking Age, by Ian Pierce
 * *googles*
 * http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/primaryhistory/vikings/who_were_the_vikings/
 * Googling "Viking" isn't a very effetive method of finding sources...
 * *checks the sources already used in Viking*
 * http://natmus.dk/en/historical-knowledge/denmark/prehistoric-period-until-1050-ad/the-viking-age/the-people/--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 20:33, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * http://natmus.dk/en/historical-knowledge/denmark/prehistoric-period-until-1050-ad/the-viking-age/the-people/--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 20:33, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

'''NOTE: Please read my most recent comment first. It's a short one, indented off this one.''' You should. If we are going to argue by fiat, then I say I'm right on all cases. If we are not, then please give me a reason why examples of common usage don't serve to illustrate examples of common usage. First off, it's not a blog, it's an online news magazine article. Second, until you can give some reason why that makes it unreliable, or give some reason why this particular site is unreliable, it's nonsensical to dismiss it. We're back to making arguments by fiat again? I never said this was a dictionary, nor have I implied it. We're talking about the proper name for two articles, and whether they should be merged. That makes this a discussion of the meaning of the words used in the titles of those two articles. Are you suggesting that you don't care what the word means? Your participation here suggests otherwise. Or are you suggesting that you don't care if you're factually wrong? And which is never given as the primary definition. We've already gone over this with regards to the vagina article. Either there are exceptions or there are not. You're contradicting yourself. To clarify my position, I don't believe that jargon needs to be used for article titles when more commonly used terms are available, but when there is the potential for confusion, precise terms should be used. I already have. You haven't given any reason why tourist information sites, livescience.com, the History Channel or five separate dictionaries are not reliable sources for establishing the meaning of the word. Until then, I will not accept that they are unreliable sources. I don't accept the sole publication from a non-notable author (who is a weapon smith, not a historian) which cannot be checked by anyone who doesn't own the book. Notice how I gave a reason as to why it's not good enough? Please reciprocate. That does not support your assertion. From that site: "The Vikings came from three countries of Scandinavia: Denmark, Norway and Sweden. The name 'Viking' comes from a language called 'Old Norse' and means 'a pirate raid'. People who went off raiding in ships were said to be 'going Viking'."
 * I don't quite believe that.
 * No they do not.
 * That's not the way it goes. It's a blog. There is no reason to treat a blog post as reliable, unless there is clear evidence that it is.
 * No. As I said, this is not a dictionary.
 * Do I care?
 * ...which is generally used synonymously/interchangeably with "Norse".
 * None of that addresses my point: It is common usage that is relevant. Not dictionaries ...and Wikipedia demands common usage (as measured by common usage in Relieable Sources), not dictionaries.
 * How does their meaning as jargon, make those meanings any less relevant?
 * Find me one that doesn't.
 * Swords of the Viking Age, by Ian Pierce
 * http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/primaryhistory/vikings/who_were_the_vikings/

That's one verifiable source which uses the term in the manner you describe. As I said before, I don't deny that the term may have been used as a shorthand to refer to Norsemen. If some historians use it in that manner, but the majority of common and scholarly users do not, then it's clear that there should be two separate articles. By the way, here's two more.
 * http://natmus.dk/en/historical-knowledge/denmark/prehistoric-period-until-1050-ad/the-viking-age/the-people/--

http://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/society/text/raids.htm

http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/plaintexthistories.asp?historyid=ab86 MjolnirPants  Tell me all about it.  21:13, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * "You should."
 * I see you've found the single most positive mention of the channel on Wikipedia ...which is also half a decade old.
 * That discussion seems to consider that TV programs/channels should be given the same treatment as newspapers ...and I don't think that a newspaper that has published what the History Channel tends to broadcast, would be regarded as a Reliable Source ...and I'm not just talking about the Ancient Aliens parts, but even the seemingly real stuff. Thus it does not qualify as a Reliable Source.


 * Besides: It is an entertainment channel. Not one that is aimed at, or that aspires to be, a news outlet or educational channel. Thus it does not qualify as a Reliable Source.
 * "If we are going to argue by fiat/.../"
 * You claimed that tourist sites are sufficient to verify common usage. That is a positive claim in need of positive evidence to back it up.
 * You provide none. ...and as what can be asserted without evidence, can be dissmissed without evidence...
 * "First off, it's not a blog, it's an online news magazine article"
 * *takes a closer look*
 * True. Thanks for the correction.
 * ...but the relevant bit of the article still doesn't state anything that backs what you claim, nor does it say anything that goes against anything that I've said, so the fact that it may qualify as a Reliable Source, actually works against you.
 * "Are you suggesting that you don't care what the word means?"
 * WTF? It seems clear that you have some difficulty with understanding what words mean, if you think that what I said, suggests anything of the kind. I've thoroughly explained why dictionary definitions are completely irrelevant to this issue. Thus the numbers are irrelevant.
 * "And which is never given as the primary definition."
 * Oh really? Please note Wiktionary, Merriam-Webster's, thefreedictionary.com...
 * "We've already gone over this with regards to the vagina article. Either there are exceptions or there are not."
 * WTF? What? Whu...?
 * "You're contradicting yourself."
 * How?
 * Also: You didn't answer my question of how the meaning of Viking, that you propose, doesn't count as jargon.
 * "I already have."
 * No you haven't.
 * The History Channel doesn't qualify, nor do tourist sites. LiveScience.com doesn't say that Viking doesn't mean all the Norse people of the time (just that it didn't, at the time ...and we all agree on that) and as to dictionaries... I've gone over that quite extensively, already.
 * "I don't accept the sole publication from a non-notable author (who is a weapon smith, not a historian)"
 * It's a quite notable book, regardless of the notability of the author ...and the relevant bit is acutally in the introduction by Ewart Oakeshott, who is an very notable amateur historian, who has gotten multiple papers published and revolutionized the study of swords.
 * "which cannot be checked by anyone who doesn't own the book."
 * That's not a valid reason. (see WP:V#Accessibility)
 * But to quote the relevant section: "Their efficiency as traders, buisnessmen and bankers, farmers and craftsmen is celebrated in careful detail"
 * "That does not support your assertion."
 * Oh really? I'd say that this bit rather does (I've added emphasis on the relevant bit) "Some went to fight and steal treasure. Others settled in new lands as farmers, craftsmen or traders."
 * I'd say a mention of non-travelling, non-fighting and non-pillaging Norse people, who are referred to as Vikings, rather does support my assertion.
 * "http://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/society/text/raids.htm"
 * I wouldn't quite count Hurstwic as historians not would I count them as a Reliable Source, for matters of what Viking means today, or how the word is used by either historians or the common man.
 * They are kinda good for some things, but not that.
 * "http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/plaintexthistories.asp?historyid=ab86"
 * They mention that "vikingr" refered to the ones that went pillaging, but nowhere do they come close to saying anything about whether the modern term "Viking", has the same meaning or not.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 00:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * They mention that "vikingr" refered to the ones that went pillaging, but nowhere do they come close to saying anything about whether the modern term "Viking", has the same meaning or not.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 00:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Although I'm not convinced, the truth is that I'm not vested in this issue either way. I propose a compromise. Can we agree to merge the two article under the name "Viking" and create a shorter article about the activity, perhaps named "Viking (activity)" or "Viking (pirate)" or something similar? The article, as it stands, is already predominantly about the people as a whole, rather than about the specific groups who went raiding/exploring/trading. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  21:58, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I see no reason for doing so.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 00:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It would put an end to this argument, and provide everyone who's weighed in on the issue some satisfaction. (except you, apparently). MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  13:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not at all convinced either that using Vikings in the loose sense of "early medieval/Viking Age Norse" is common scholarly usage, nor that it is really that pedantic to point out that a Norwegian stay-at-home peasant in 900 AD wasn't technically a Viking, but for reasons of pure pragmatism, a merger might not be such a bad idea. If anything, it will alert more Wikipedians to this issue. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That's exactly how I feel. The naming is important, but in the end, less important than the content, and easier to change in the future. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  15:01, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * @Florian Well, "we" do not have to convince you specifically of anything. All you need to do, is to open some serious books on archeology and start reading. Not just one book, not just a book that challenge the consensus, but a broad selection of books. I really hope you will, not the least because it is a much broader subject than you would think and it is a very enjoyable process. I have suggestions if you need a starting point? Btw. If you insist on continuing this particular discussion, there is already a section for it. Look here (above): "Viking was an Activity, not a People". Regards. RhinoMind (talk) 17:11, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello. I endorse Mjolnirpants suggestion. The use of the term "northmen" can be mentioned in the etymology section, if anyone feels like it. In this way no information will be lost. The ideal solution for me though, would be to just keep everything on this page, as there is no good reason to split a subject in two, except to satisfy some sporadic and unsound objections from random commenters. Sorry if that hurt anyones feelings, but that is really how this has evolved.


 * Btw. I don't really understand, why anybody would spend so much energy here on the talk page, arguing about specific etymological aspects, when they could just get to work and put all the information they feel is missing in the etymology section. Of course it would require some decent sources, but there is already room for elaborating more on the various aspects of the word Viking (or Northmen for that matter) in this article as it is. RhinoMind (talk) 16:58, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Mjolnirpants' suggestion seems sensible and pragmatic to me. I'd echo Rhino's point about the need to further improve the article itself, though... 2/3 of the etymology section is still uncited, for example. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:14, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

This sounds like a consensus to me. I'll get on the merging as soon as I'm able, and try to keep it smooth if anyone starts before me. I think a lot of improvements to the article will flow naturally from that. Does anyone have any suggestions for a specific title for the raiders article? I'd say that it's fine as a stub for the moment, but we do need to name it before we can make the stub. I vote "Viking (raider)". MjolnirPants  Tell me all about it.  20:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I utterly disagree. Sure, take stuff from Norsemen and put it here, and then make the article into a redirect here. I have nothing against that ...but I am utterly and completely against the notion of making a separate article for the activity. There is no good reason for it, it makes no sense, and would only cause problems and complications.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 04:37, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you trying to claim that the raids aren't notable enough to warrant their own article? I can prove that wrong in 5 minutes with one google search. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  13:18, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No, and how you could possibly infer that, from what I've written, is beyond my abilities to understand.
 * Is there one article for "Knight" (as in medieval knight) with a separate one for their activities? No.
 * Is there one article for "Samurai" with a separate one for their activities? No.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 13:38, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No. But there are separate articles for Knight and European, and for Samurai and Japanese people. Not all Norsemen went a-viking. The reason I infer that from what you wrote is that you said "...I am utterly and completely against the notion of making a separate article for the activity. There is no good reason for it, it makes no sense, and would only cause problems and complications." That only makes sense in one of two contexts:
 * You think all Norsemen went on seafaring expeditions; or...
 * You think those expeditions are not notable enough to warrant their own article.
 * If it's the former, I can prove that wrong, too. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  13:48, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I would also like to note that the EB article does not say that the Vikings were an ethnic group. It simply uses the "(people)" disambiguation in the sense of humans (as opposed to the space probe), not peoples. It clearly presents the Vikings as a subset of Scandinavians and does not equate them. So it does not support the equation of Vikings and pagan Norse in general made in the sentence the citation is used to support.
 * Another point: If Vikings = pagan Norse, wouldn't female Vikings be more than an isolated curiosity, if they existed at all? The article calls Freydís Eiríksdóttir a "Viking woman" but – per Talk:Freydís Eiríksdóttir – there are no sources who call her a viking. Can there be an ethnic group virtually without women? -Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:44, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2014
Grammar edits needed.

Issue is (was/were) subject/verb agreement.

Article:Vikings http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikings

Burial sites subheading-

The burial practises of the Viking was quite varied, ...practices...were quite varied,(might also make that Vikings) Either way it's a plural reference and needs a plural verb.

both cremation and inhumation was common. ...both...were common.

Goods subheading-

The Viking ship designs, like that of the knarr, was an important factor in their success... ...designs...were...

...feathers was bought from the Samis. ...feathers were bought...

... hunting birds was sometimes provided... ..birds were sometimes provided...

...goods was also traded... ..goods were also traded...

Artisans and craftsmen in the larger towns was supplied... Artisans and craftsmen...were supplied...

They was used... They were used...

Viking Expansion Heading-

The Saxons was a fierce and powerful people and was often in conflict with the Vikings. The Saxons were...and were often in conflict...

...the defence constructions was in use... ...the defence constructions were in use...

Reasons and motives subheading-

Raids in Europe including raids and settlements from Scandinavia, was not something new... Raids..., were not something new...

...their raids was much larger... ...were much larger...


 * ✅. Feezo (send a signal &#124; watch the sky) 08:26, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

How should these articles be organized?
In an effort to try and limit some of the extensive debating going on here, I'd like to ask everyone involved to pick which of the following options most appeals to them, and to explain why. If your most preferred option does not appear, please choose the best one and the describe your preferred option in your explanation. Perhaps if we can sort out the points on which we all agree, we can at least break the debate down into just what we disagree about.
 * 1. Leave everything the way it is with only minor changes (such as better sources, grammar, etc).


 * 2. Leave all articles titled the way they are, but merge Norsemen into this article and organize all alternate terms (including 'Norsemen') into redirects.


 * 3. Change this article to be about the raiders/traders/explorers (not just the raiders!), merge all the information about the culture and society into the Norsemen article, and organize all alternate terms into redirects.


 * 4. Merge Norsemen into this article, create a new section in this article for the raiders/traders/explorers, and organize all alternate terms into redirects.


 * 5. Merge Norsemen into this article, create a new article called 'Vikings (seafarers)' or something similar, putting all information about the raiders/traders/explorers into that article, and organize all alternate terms into redirects.


 * 6. Change this article to be about the vikings (the real documented vikings, the raiders!), merge all the information about traders/explorers and the culture and society into the Norsemen article, and organize all alternate terms into redirects. (This option was added by Dan Koehl at 23:22, 30 April 2014 (UTC))

I will withhold my vote until everyone else has had a chance to say their piece, as I find myself more and more on the fence about the subject. MjolnirPants  Tell me all about it.  14:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Option 1: Leave the articles titled as they are. Some of these are titled because they are connected to the Viking Age. Some of them, such as the use of Norse mythology in writing about the religion of the ancient Norsemen, and the reliance of articles on Germanic paganism on Norse sources, have to do with the nature of sources and the historical development of the field, but that group illustrates the problem with over-generalising "Viking" - the Norsemen had a culture before they developed Viking ships, and they continued to have one during and after the Viking Age, and to do things other than viking. My objection is to the merger/renaming. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:39, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * They also had the same types of ships long before the "Viking Age", they weren't developed over night when they decided to raid Lindisfarne in 793AD (which is often seen as the beginning of the "Viking Age"). So referring to them as "Viking ships" is incorrect. They were very seaworthy ships that had gradually evolved over a very long time, as can be seen on Nordic Bronze Age (~1,700BC-500BC, i.e. predating the "Viking Age" by 2,500-1,300 years) petroglyphs, showing roughly similar types of ships. Thomas.W talk 19:04, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, but there's a reasonable historical argument that the Viking Age began only once the ships had reached a certain point in that evolution - in opposition to the theory that it was touched off by an event. Also that's the term the outsiders/victims used :-) Not disagreeing with you in essence tho. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Ideal solution: 1. Create an article on "The Norse" (people,) describing what this broad term actually means. I hope proper sources exists on this issue? 2. Improve this articles section on Etymology heavily. Maybe an entire new article could be written on the word viking, as it was (apparently) also applied to "non-Norse" people. 3. Rename the article Norsemen to Northmen. It could then possibly be merged into this article under Etymology.


 * I am unable to choose between the 5 options presented here, right now. What happens to the article on Norsemen is of least concern to me, but seems to be of highest concern in this section. RhinoMind (talk) 22:25, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Option 1. And please note that you can't discuss changes to Norsemen here, it must be done at Talk:Norsemen, so this whole discussion is just a waste of time (with Option 2 being an even greater waste of time than the other options since we have just been through a discussion regarding a merger of Norsemen and Vikings, with a landslide "victory" for keeping the articles separate; so just drop the stick...). Thomas.W talk 13:28, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm done. You seem incapable of playing well with others, you seem hell bent on finding strife where there need not be any and I frankly don't care enough about this article to put up with you any more. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  17:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm just telling you what the proper procedure is, i.e. that discussions regarding the content of an article should be on that article's talk page, not somewhere else, and that you can not start a new merger discussion right after a discussion about the same merger proposal has resulted in a landslide decision against the merger. So just drop the stick and find something else to do. Thomas.W talk 08:29, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

In Eastern Europe. Was it "settled" ? More sources needed.

 * 1st - Viking family (Rurik) became administrator in Veliky Novgorod. Settlement Rurikovo Gorodische was converted into the residence of the princes. This settlement was before Vikings.
 * 2st - "In 882, Rurik's successor, Oleg of Novgorod, conquered Kiev and founded the state of Kievan Rus'."(from Veliky Novgorod)... Conquered. Where were new settlements ?
 * And next this article say me without sources - "By 950 these settlements were largely Slavicised." Where were new settlements ? What was Slavicised ? Where ?--Мехтех (talk) 22:03, 30 May 2014 (UTC)