Talk:Norsemen

message: :See also Talk:Scandinavians/version 2. Tbe old page Scandinavians is now at Scandinavians/version 2.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthony Appleyard (talk • contribs) 06:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Not a bad start user:vikings but this article is far too POV at the moment.Unfortunately you need to temper you passion a little and try to stick to cold hard facts. Everything you state should be backed up by evidence, and you should write your article as if you were writing about people whome you neither particuly like or dislike. Hope this helps Theresa knott 14:55 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)
----
thank you, Theresa, we are learning - we are happy to see that much more survived editorship than the last time we tried
Vikings 16:31 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)
----
I don't know what a major part of this article tries to say. Stuff that is truley "subjective" belongs on the discussion side, so I past it in below. // Rogper 22:41, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: older entries

message: In keeping with the naming conventions for articles, I'd like to propose through the Wikipedia:Requested moves process that this article be moved to "Norseman" and that it be converted to a redirect.  The relevant Wikipedia Policy is Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals).  Thanks for considering this for discussion.  I'll not nominate for moving until some time/input has passed here. Courtland 11:59, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
* I'm not going to do this proposal as I think it is probably best as it stands .. one would more frequently refer to the group of Norsemen rather than a single Norseman. Courtland 04:29, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
* I fully support the creation of a redirect, but I think the two articles should be reworded (so they do not have so much overlap) and then merged (at the very least to acknowledge "Norsemen" within the article as a seperate term). It seems better to have one comprehensive article rather than two smaller articles, especially since Norsemen and Northmen are generally considered interchangeable. Markovich292 21:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to move to "Norseman" 

message: Can we change the name of the article?100110100 11:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can 

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: "The Slavs and the Byzantines also called them Varangians (ON: Væringjar, meaning sworn men or from Slavic варяги supposedly deriving from the root "вар" - "profit" as coming from North they would profit by trading goods and not producing them, which had a negative connotation in Slavic culture of that time)..."
I believe what is meant is that the failure to produce goods had a negative connotation. However, the wording also leaves open the conclusion that it was the production of goods that was deprecated. Could someone tell me what was intended here? --AlanUS (talk) 18:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusing statement regarding connotation of profit

message: Some time ago I was asked to look this article over and I have now combed through it and made numerous edits. A few comments:
#) Large sections of the body are totally unreferenced, which is a major issue that needs to be solved before this article moves any further forward.
#) References should be removed from the lead, and the lead should be a simple summary of the body of the article (see WP:LEAD).
#) Caveats are needed for a lot of these sources referred to (i.e. add "according to legend"). A problematic example is "Iceland was discovered by Naddoddr, one of the first settlers on the Faroe Islands, who was sailing from Norway to the Faroe Islands, but got lost and drifted to the east coast of Iceland". With this it would be wise to include the primary source from which the legend stems along with the secondary source discussing it in the footnote.
After this, the material in the body needs a closer looking at. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment

message: Containing copyright violations?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ACopyright_problems%2F2011_September_18&action=historysubmit&diff=451193757&oldid=451185299
* Norsemen ([ history] · [ last edit]) from Harold I First King of a United Norway http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Norsemen&action=historysubmit&diff=445237081&oldid=444258174 --Diwas (talk) 22:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it may be a false alarm. The date of that website says 18 September, Alphasinus' edit seems to date to August. I checked a few other 'articles' on that site, and it seems that a few of them are pulled from other websites (for example, this  contains the exact same text as on this (undated) webpage ). Alphasinus may be a confirmed-sock with little credibility now, but I don't think that this is a case of him copying and pasting someone else's work, it looks to be the other way around.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 05:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know who are the original author, but where you found 18 September and which year? --Diwas (talk) 12:21, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Follow the link you gave, under the article's title "Harold I First King of a United Norway" is "Sun, 18 Sep 2011 18:23:00 | European Peoples".--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 05:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  What a luck, just the day I was read this article first and set a “copyvio?” In my cache and googles too, there is “Tue, 03 Aug 2010 19:41:08 | European Peoples”. --Diwas (talk) 18:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

text: Wow. I just noticed the recent comment on Talk:Normans#Clean-up_needed, and have noticed that Alphasinus indeed has a history of copying and pasting large swathes of text off the net . It must go deeper than these two articles. I remember he was edit warring with another editor over Varangians-type topics for instance.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 21:20, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

text: If you're talking about the revision deletion, I managed to do that, and it had nothing to do with the merger. See the logs: . The content was deleted following the copyright problems board listing. It seems like the merger was proposed as uncontroversial: . I have no idea why this would be seen as a desirable or uncontroversial merger, since the two articles don't seem to have had anything to do with each other. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  copyvio? 

message: Norse settlements in Sicily and in the south of Italy, who says that ? It is a joke ? There were some Norman adventurers and knights banished from Normandy that went there to make money and get power. They founded there principalities, became lord or king, but the Normans are not Norsemen and the Norman presence in Italy is not a settlement.Nortmannus (talk) 23:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map Problem 

message: There is a table called "Distribution" in the article. According to that table there are 8,260,987  "Norsemen" in Sweden. In what way are they defined. There is no source for this. What is the definition? Citizenship? "Ethnic origin" is not registred in Sweden and many people have multiple origins. So it must be imposible to count such an exact figure. --Muniswede (talk) 10:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exact numbers? 

message: : The Old Frankish Nortmann "Northman" was Latinized as Normanni, famously in the prayer A furore normannorum libera nos domine ("From the fury of the Northmen release us, O Lord!"), attributed to monks of the English monasteries plundered by Viking raids in the 8th and 9th centuries,[citation needed]
I agree with the citation needed, urgently so as it is nowadays often thought to be a later invention.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.220.15.58 (talk) 14:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation Needed 

message: I couldn't find any mention of the fact that the Norwegian word for Norwegian (people) is "Nordmenn" (pl) ie, "Northmen". With all the other talk of who calls who what, it seems relevant enough. - Ben.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:C440:20:11BC:80AA:82BA:3829:E152 (talk) 23:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Norwegian Endonym 

message: This map shows the very little knowledge of the WP map makers. The Normans are not Norsemen, they are a mixture of Gallo-Franks and Anglo-Scandinavians. In 1066 William the Conqueror set foot in England and during the 11th century Norman Barons set foot in the south of Italy and in Sicily, see Norman conquest of southern Italy, not the Norsemen, that is wrong !Nortmannus (talk) 19:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The Normans originated in the settlement of Rollo/Hrolf and his men in the area, and during the late Viking Age their conquests can be thought of as part of Norse expansion; the article on Norman conquest of southern Italy makes clear that the process of establishment of a Norman foothold there began well before the end of the Viking Age. The Norman Conquest of England has a better claim to be an exception, since the given reason was a legal claim of succession. I've recast the map caption to single out the Norman settlements as in some cases extending after the Viking Age, but they are not unrelated. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:05, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

text: The claim that the Normans are not Norsemen is just odd, I am afraid. ("Anglo-Scandinavians" has it the wrong way round - the Norman aristocracy became the English aristocracy after the Norman Conquest; they did not come from England! Accordingly, I will re-remove the "citation needed" on Sicily. I consider the passage about the derivation of the word "Norman" sufficient citation, since I have now provided an alternative to the prayer now thought apocryphal, one that also uses the word. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:16, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map showing the "Norse settlements" 

message: Please visit Talk:Vikings#How should these articles be organized? to share your opinion.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by MjolnirPants (talk • contribs) 14:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  How should these articles be organized? 

message: >> Posted on both the "Norsemen" and "Vikings" Talk pages:
As an increasingly steady contributor to Viking / Norse articles on Wikipedia, I've been intrigued to read the Talk pages for some of the more critical articles. As time passes, I'm convinced of the need for reorganisation across a number of these.
Starting with the Norsemen / Viking 'divide', for example, I'm aware there has been discussion recently as to the merits of merging these two articles. Some consensus apparently arose against a merger, for the moment at least, BUT since then nothing (or next to nothing) has been done to reorganise the articles in the manner which reflects that particular consensus. The 'Vikings' article, focusing on the raiding / piratical aspect of the word - distinct from the modern, generalised ethnic marker in English language texts - still retains much that would be better placed in a "Norsemen" / "Norse" article, not least the socio-economic descriptions of late 1st millennium Scandinavian society and economy. Such reorganisation would be the logical outcome of that consensus. Rather, it seems that the central argument to date has been over the semantics of the 'Viking / Norse divide', but with little or no responsibility then taken for rearranging the content. I would, moreover, consider it imperative - in the interests of clarity - to make more explicit the links between the two articles in their opening paragraph(s) and / or disambiguation links. A general reader, or researching student, looking up "Vikings" for example, needs to have it made clear that the Wikipedia article with that title will focus on the raider / piratical aspect of Norse culture, with the general article on the ethnic group from which the Vikings originated, the 'Northmen' / 'Norse', possessing its own much wider, more generalised article. I think the creation of a specialised "Viking" / "Northmen" / "Norse" template might assist with this potentially confusing overlap. The casual, beginning reader for example, might find it rather perplexing that we can have "Norse mythology", but also a specific article on "Viking art" - the links and boundaries between these established terms in scholarship are clear for those in the know, but could be rather confusing for the uninitiated.
Most worryingly, we seem to have a series of articles that duplicate the same material and / or present similar ideas in multiple sections. I'm already on record for questioning the organisation of the Viking Age article, for example. 
I'm interested to hear what others think on this matter... This is a call for further discussion on these matters, rather than an attempt to provide solid answers. Anyone? Paul James Cowie (talk) 20:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Vikings / Norsemen, related articles

message: "Norseman means "person from the North" and applied primarily to Old Norse-speaking tribes who settled in southern and central Scandinavia. They established states and settlements in [..] Iceland [..]". When I saw at Leif Erikson: "was a Norse[8] explorer" (note, "Norse" linked to "Norsemen"), I changed to "was an Icelandic[8] explorer (while his father was Norse)".
I note that the list of countries in the quote from this article doesn't include Norway (as probably the origin). When I read Norse I first thought it's a person from Norway. Is it appropriate to link Norse to Norsemen? At least I, read this "wrong".. Only when you hover over the link or actually press it do you see Norsemen, and while I did, I thought it meant men from Norway..
Maybe Norsemen (or Norse) is used to avoid having to say an "an Icelandic explorer" or "an Norwegian explorer" as both could get contested.
Note at Icelander I see: "2nd row: [..] Erik the Red", he seems clearly not born in Iceland (born in Norway), while his son Leif is.
Before I change possible errors at Bjarni Herjólfsson and Gudrid Thorbjarnardóttir, can anyone advise? comp.arch (talk) 11:48, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: In English - as opposed to Norwegian - "Norse" and "Norsemen" refer to all the people who spoke Old Norse. Some of the Icelandic settlers stayed there, but many also spent time viking and trading around, and although the kings were trying to establish the kind of firm concept of kingdom/country that we now think of as natural, things were still fairly fluid (Bjarni's life illustrates that). I'd say describing Leif as Norse is better, but there are nationalistic arguments on both sides. What isn't correct (in English) is to think of "Norse" as meaning "Norwegian". Yngvadottir (talk) 16:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I realize the vikings didn't carry passports.. and (at Iceland) "the settlement of Iceland began in 874 CE when the Norwegian chieftain [..] In the following centuries, Scandinavians settled Iceland [..] From 1262 to 1918, Iceland was ruled by Norway and later Denmark. The country became independent in 1918 and a republic in 1944." When would you say someone is an Icelander? From this time, people from Norway who had kids in Iceland may have viewed them as from the home country (as Iceland only a "settlement")? Note, Leif's wife was born in Iceland and he met her there and based on that (and the Icelandic source, nr 8, next to Norse and others (didn't read all) I changed to Icelandic (is consistent with his father's article lead that says Leif is Icelandic). At Eric the Red: "is remembered in medieval and Icelandic saga sources as having founded the first Norse settlement in Greenland." comp.arch (talk) 17:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: As I say, there are nationalist points on both sides. Iceland was settled by Norwegian chieftains who resented the king throwing his weight about. They set up a republic that was revived during WWII after centuries of first Norwegian and then Danish domination. The original Norwegian domination was entered into (semi-)voluntarily, depending who you talk to.  Bjarni, and Snorri, regarded Norway as the home country. From the other point of view, Snorri was a traitor. Then there's the issue of Sweden, whose early kings are regarded as mythical by many modern historians ... and the Orkneys and the Faroes and the bunch in Ireland ... lumping them all together as "Norsemen" is traditional in English and avoids these problems of "Was it yet a modern country" and "Was it legitimate" and "Where was his allegiance - or was he just looking out for his kin and his fortune". (It also avoids misusing "Viking" as a nationality.) But one does have to realise the word sounds to a Norwegian as if it means "Norwegian", which is not what it means or even implies in English. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Norse vs. Norsemen vs. Icelandic 

message: There is a lesser known figure in Norse religion known as Leo (symbol: Norse lion), he is often depicted wearing this insignia on the right bicep of his Kaftan, a silver winged helmet and pointed black leather shoes. He is known to have coined the term Islamian, but maintains the belief in Free will.
His weapons are a mace decorated in the Fibonacci number and a pointed shield decorated with three interlocking horns.
He is an ally of Heimdall (the horn bearer) and was impressed by Loki (the hound like one).--LeoElf-jsjydyk (talk) 13:12, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: No, there's no such figure in Norse religion. This article is about real life Norsemen, not made-up modern figures/fiction. Thomas.W  talk 13:20, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Leo the Elf

message: I think perhaps that that the wording "even though Norway, Denmark and Sweden were different sets of people by the Middle Ages" should be rephrased. Norway, Denmark and Sweden were certainly different states, but it is debatable if the people living there were "different sets of people" by the middle ages, well before the idea of nation states had emerged and at a time when regional identities were probably more important. In any case, "Norway" is not a people (Norwegians are). --Dijhndis (talk) 15:43, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "even though Norway, Denmark and Sweden were different sets of people by the Middle Ages"

message: The sentence: 
:In the early Medieval period, as today, Vikings was a common term for attacking Norsemen, especially in connection with raids and monastic plundering by Norsemen in the British Isles and Ireland. The Norse were also known as Ascomanni, ashmen, by the Germans,Adam of Bremen 2.29. Lochlanach (Norse) by the Gaels and Dene (Danes) by the Anglo-Saxons. 
is really capturing, and proving this article is not written by people who read the prime sources. Please read what he really writes, and change the text! Dan Koehl (talk) 09:57, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Adam did NOT write this

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Norsemen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140326122905/http://www.norden.org/en/about-nordic-co-operation to http://www.norden.org/en/about-nordic-co-operation
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I have undone your bold rewrite. I personally think that there must be an article on Norsemen. But I am open to suggestions and would like to hear your reasoning for your North Germanic peoples version. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 10:58, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Same here. I think these should be separate articles; North Germanic is a broader category, going way back into Classical Antiquity and arguably earlier. The Ancient Greeks and Romans identified a variety of tribes/groups in Denmark and further north, and invading southward from there, who cannot be positively identified with the later Norse/Vikings.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:21, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: North Germanic peoples is used in an ethnolinguistic sense. Not geographic. The East Germanic-speaking tribes that migrated south from Scandinavia, like the Burgundians and the Vandals, are not considered North Germanic in either the article nor the sources. Neither are the Jutes and the Angles, who spoke West Germanic languages and originally inhabited Denmark. This is specified in the North Germanic peoples version and should not be a point of confusion. North Germanic indeed is a broader category and it is encouraging that you also see the need for an article on North Germanic peoples. However, all Norsemen were North Germanic people. It's simply just a name for North Germanic people of a specific period (Viking Age). Having separate articles for Norsemen and North Germanic peoples makes as much sense as having separate articles for Hellenes and Greeks. Krakkos (talk) 11:55, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

text: I've added my reasoning at the above move discussion. I humbly ask you to carefully read (in particular what is mentioned in the sources) the North Germanic peoples version that you reverted. I hope you understand that it is very discouraging when content that one has spent a considerable amount of time to contribute is outright reverted like this. Krakkos (talk) 11:36, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope of the article 

message: I have to agree with Tom. There was certainly a consensus in the 80s and earlier that there was Norse settlement on Ösel. If this had been refused, there would some mention of a change of scholarly opinion on the matter. Just because every later source does not explicitly mention Ösel does not mean that they disagree with the notion.  Ermenrich (talk) 13:53, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: So far I have seen here only one source (from 1979) making Ösel settlement claim, how can you possibly call it consensus? --Minnekon (talk) 20:11, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

text: Ermenrich, do you have an sources for the consensus in the 80s? The later sources, like this latest one, does not mention Norse settlement at all. Not just for Ösel, but for Estonia in general. How do you interpret this? And Thom - can you link those sources that mention Norse Viking Age settlement on Ösel? Blomsterhagens (talk) 14:14, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

text: PS: the map should be changed anyway - not to mention the issues with great britain, it also says Chuds on the area for Estonia, which is not right. It's not a term that's used in common academic literature. I also don't understand why some areas are marked as countries there and others as "peoples". Blomsterhagens (talk) 14:20, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I get the impression that debating with you about this tends to go in circles, possibly because you've started this debate on three or four articles at once. Krakkos provided sources for Norse settlement in Estonia, including Ösel. You dismissed them as too old. There a now a recent source on Norse settlement in Estonia, you dismiss it for not mentioning Ösel. Obviously there is a consensus for both things,  or you would be able to find sources explicitly saying this earlier opinion is wrong. Ermenrich (talk) 14:23, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, it's not consensus, if only some sources claim settlements existed. And some of those sources are, as I already explained above, relatively lower quality because they are old (WP:AGE MATTERS), they are by Western authors who did not have free access to new findings in Soviet Estonia, and they seem (I can't see full text) passing by mentions without explanation (WP:CONTEXTMATTERS). So far I have seen just two good modern sources supporting idea of settlements: Felicia Markus (settlement on Nuckö peninsula and Enby village) and Gunilla Larsson (Proosa, 11th century). Now the question is if or how should map reflect claims with such limited support. --Minnekon (talk) 20:11, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

text:  I'm not dismissing that source. I accept that source. You mentioned there was a "new source on Norse settlement in Estonia" - where? Do you mean be the one by Krakkos? It's a great source. I do not see it mentioning anything about a general "there were Norse settlements in Estonia" though. It mentions a specific place where Norse settlement might have occurred and I accept that source. That's mainland Estonia and 11th century. But the map says very specifically, that there was a Norse settlement on Ösel on the 8th century. Based on what sources? That seems like a very specific claim that needs a very specific source, no? How does a source apply to something that the map claims happened 300 years earlier? Blomsterhagens (talk) 15:02, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

text:  Did you read the book, or did you only do a quick search for the words "Scandinavian settlement"? There are plenty of references to Scandinavians in it, from saying that part of the population spoke Old Norse to mentioning typically Scandinavian burials and the multitude of early Germanic (i.e. Scandinavian) words that were borrowed into Finnic (many of which are still present in Estonian), starting already during the Bronze Age. Words that, as mentioned in other sources, could only have been borrowed through direct contact over a long period of time... - Tom | Thomas.W  talk 14:38, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Author writes about Scandinavian cultural impact in Estonia. You think this impact can only be explained by settlements and want to add it to article. It is textbook case of original research and does not belong to Wikipedia. --Minnekon (talk) 20:11, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

text:  What does language have to do with Scandinavian settlements? The source says very clearly, that some of the local Finnic people spoke Old Norse because there was heavy trade with Sweden. Did you find any mention of Scandinavian settlements? Blomsterhagens (talk) 15:02, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

text:  Page 238: "The character of the oldest language contacts suggests that part of the communicating population was bi-lingual, and that the status of the speakers of Proto-Germanic was high (Strade 1992, 572). Kalevi Wiik, a Finnish linguist, concluded that the lingua franca on the eastern coast of the Baltic Sea was the language of the Scandinavians both in the Bronze Age and the Viking Age (Wiik 2002, 239–242). Therefore, at least part of the coastal population in Estonia in the second half of the first millennium, probably members of the societal elite, commanded Old Norse. It might be added that sagas, too, do not mention any language-related problems when describing communication with the inhabitants of Estonia or other peoples along the East Way." Blomsterhagens (talk) 15:15, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

text:  There's even a separate chapter for this: Chapter 7, Land and people. Page 305. 21 pages of content. And on those 21 pages, nor in the rest of the book, there's no mention of Scandinavian/Norse settlements. Why? Blomsterhagens (talk) 15:31, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

text:  Here's the source again for reference. I think in general people are mixing up language, cultural space and (ethnic) settlements here. Northwestern Estonia was clearly in the Scandinavian cultural space during that time, with some of the local Finnic population being bi-lingual in both their native tongue and Old Norse. There was heavy trade with Sweden, etc. And as the source claims, the societal customs also spread to Northwestern Estonia. Southeastern Estonia was in a different cultural space. I encourage anyone interested in the topic to read the source, it's a fascinating, organized summary of resources. Blomsterhagens (talk) 16:25, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

text:  It's unclear what sources the proposed map is built on and who created it and if it's creative commons. Also, the proposed map contradicts with the other map already used on the Vikings page: . Since the validity of the previous map has been questioned already before this discussion and definitely during this discussion, I switched the map on the article with the same map as is used on the Vikings page until things reach a consensus. The map on the Vikings page is obviously not contested. Blomsterhagens (talk) 12:11, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Wise I think. Although a more definitive and well sourced map as Krakkos suggest would be good, I don't yet have an opinion on the specific map he linked to, but the idea is good. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 12:22, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

text: The two maps are not in any way interchangeable, but show two totally different things, the old map shows areas within Europe, including Eastern Europe, where there were Norse settlements and cultural influence, while the map you added showed the probable routes the Norsemen/vikings sailed/travelled, with a focus on travels towards Iceland and Greenland. It's like replacing an image of a Volvo with an image of a Ford. - Tom | Thomas.W  talk 12:52, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

text:  No, it shows the same things. Look on the explanation on the bottom left corner. "Heimatgebiete" = Native areas; Eroberungen und landnahmen" = Conquests and landings. Blomsterhagens (talk) 12:56, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's an improvement. The previous Norse settlement map is inaccurate and until the proposed new map is created this map is a good compromise. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 13:00, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  There's is NOT a consensus that the old map is wrong, and should be replaced, and the maps do NOT show the same things. You are, knowingly or unknowingly, supporting nationalist POV against a long-standing general consensus among scholars. - Tom | Thomas.W  talk 13:11, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

text:  Thanks Frayae, I agree with the change. The validity of the old map has been questioned and there's no consensus for keeping it in the article. Blomsterhagens (talk) 13:06, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

text:   You accused someone of nationalism again. How do your own actions compare in the light of that definition? And which "long-standing consensus among scholars" are you talking about? The map on the Vikings page seems to be perfectly in line what academic sources say. Blomsterhagens (talk) 13:14, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't personally see why this is so contentious, we have basically a dubious map with several errors and a clear way to get a better one. For the time being the problem map has been replaced with a different map on a similar topic. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 13:22, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

text: I agree. Even if the norse settlements would not be a questioned topic, the old map still said "Chuds" for the area of Estonia which is incorrect. Not to mention the issues with England. Blomsterhagens (talk) 13:25, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitrary break 

message: This merge proposal was rejected by . That's OK, I accept the rejection. May I just ask, though, what people(s) the rejected merge articles are referring to? Am I understanding it correctly that the sources deal with "Vikings" as WP:COMMONNAME for an ethnic group of which these childhood, trade, and coinage articles are about? Just trying to understand the WP:CONSENSUS of intepretation of available sources on the matter. Sorry for the inconvience if this is somehow against any rules to ask. Chicbyaccident (talk) 15:51, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Vikings are not an ethnic group as such. They are most easily understood as Norsemen and others when outside Scandinavia, in a certain time period. Johnbod (talk) 15:55, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

text: I just noticed the merge proposal of Viking coinage into Norsemen. I think there's enough good sources out there on the net for someone to make a good article out of it. I don't think it should be automatically merged. What I do think should be merged (or redirected) is Raven Banner Penny and Raven Penny into Viking coinage.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 02:06, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: What is this? There's no citation for this (what seems to me) rather odd claim. Anyone have anything to back it up? Clown Tiddies (talk) 12:58, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed this recent unsourced addition, thanks. – Thjarkur (talk) 13:09, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Settlements in Syria?? 

message: I've redone a cleanup of original research of this page. I made a similar attempt last year, but this was reverted by Frayae, a sock of A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver. Krakkos (talk) 11:15, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: I have examined a large number of sources on the Vikings and the Viking Age, and there appears to be little evidence of Norsemen being the common name for the Old Norse-speaking peoples of the Viking Age. Here are some examples:
* Concise Oxford English Dictionary: "Vikings: Any of the Scandinavian seafaring pirates and traders who raided and settled in many parts of NW Europe in the 8th–11th centuries..."
* Charles Francis Keary in the Encyclopædia Britannica (1911): "The reason for using “viking” in a more generic sense than is warranted by the actual employment of the word in Old Norse literature rests on the fact that we have no other word by which to designate the early Scandinavian pirates of the 9th and the beginning of the 10th century... Historians of the north have distinguished as the “Viking Age” (Vikingertiden) the time when the Scandinavian folk first by their widespread piracies brought themselves forcibly into the notice of all the Christian peoples of western Europe."
* Alistair Campbell in the Encyclopædia Britannica (1973): "The term "Viking" is applied today to Scandinavians who left their homes intent on raiding or conquest, and their descendants, during a period extending roughly from a.d. 800 to 1050."
* Allen Mawer in The Vikings (1913): "Viking civilisation/ 6 the  Viking age/ 'the Viking movement/ 'Viking in-  fluence/ the word has come to have a wider significance  and is used as a concise and convenient term for describing the whole of the civilisation, activity and  influence of the Scandinavian peoples."
* E. V. Gordon in An Introduction to Old Norse (1962): "Norse was the language spoken by the North Germanic peoples (Scandinavians)"
* Anders Winroth in The Age of the Vikings (2014): "I reserve the term “Vikings” for those northerners who in the early Middle Ages raided, plundered, and battled in Europe, in accordance with how the word is used in medieval texts. Otherwise, I refer to the inhabitants of Scandinavia as Scandinavians. The language they spoke is called Old Norse, so I have sometimes used the term "Norsemen.""
* Peter Sawyer in The Oxford Illustrated History of the Vikings (2001): "From the eighth century to the eleventh, Scandinavians, mostly Danes and Norwegians, figure prominently in the history of western Europe as raiders, conquerors, and colonists... Other Scandinavians, mainly Svear from what is now east Sweden, were active in eastern Europe in ways that were very similar to those of their contemporaries in western Europe... The peoples these Scandinavians encountered gave them a variety of names... In the ninth century it was only the English who, occasionally, called the invaders Vikings... Viking originally referred to the inhabitants of Viken, it could explain why the English, and only they, called Scandinavian pirates Vikings."
* Peter Sawyer in Scandinavians and the English in the Viking Age (1995): "The Viking period is, therefore, best defined as the period when Scandinavians played a large role in the British Isles and western Europe as raiders and conquerors. It is also the period in which Scandinavians settled in many of the areas they conquered, and in the Atlantic islands..."
* F. Donald Logan in The Vikings in History (2013): "It was from the northern European peninsulas that the Vikings came: from the Jutland peninsula and its easterly islands and from the Norwegian- Swedish peninsula and the Baltic islands offshore. The three lands from which they came - which we would now call Norway, Sweden and Denmark - cover vast areas... Important as it is to stress the separate settlements of the north, the isolation of thinly settled areas from one another, and the sense of localness of the peoples, it would be a gross error to think of the Scandinavians as having nothing in common save their northern lands. They were united by links stronger than those of politics and frequent human commerce: they shared a common language, a common art, and a common religion."
* Katherine Holman in Historical Dictionary of the Vikings (2003): "The Vikings, those medieval Scandinavian warriors who launched ferocious and much-lamented attacks on western Europe, continue to evoke vivid images and lively public interest today... Viking is not merely another way of referring to a medieval Scandinavian. Technically, the word has a more specific meaning, and it was used (only infrequently by contemporaries of the Vikings) to refer to those Scandinavians, usually men, who attacked their contemporaries... The activities of these people led historians to name the period in which they undertook raiding, trading, and colonizing as the Viking Age."
* Jacqueline Simpson in The Viking World (1980): "Strictly speaking, therefore, the term Viking should only be applied to men actually engaged in these violent pursuits, and not to every contemporary Scandinavian farmer, merchant, settler or craftsman, nor even to warriors fighting in the dynastic wars of their lords or in their own private feuds."
* Neil Asher Silberman in The Oxford Companion to Archaeology (2012): "The “Viking Age” is traditionally defined as the period when Scandinavian raiders terrorized Europe"
* Judith Jesch in Women in the Viking Age (1991): "International contact is the key to the Viking Age. In Scandinavian history this period is distinct because large numbers of Scandinavian people left their homelands and voyaged abroad... The period is thus defined by the impact the Scandinavians had on the world around them."
* Angus A. Somerville & R. Andrew McDonald in The Viking Age (2014): "The Viking Age is generally considered to have begun in the late eighth century with the dramatic explosion of Scandinavian raiding parties onto the European stage."
In fact, it seems like scholars generally use the term Norsemen only for Viking Age Norwegians:
* Allen Mawer in the The Cambridge Medieval History (1922): "The term Viking... is  now commonly applied to those Norsemen, Danes and Swedes who harried  Europe from the eighth to the eleventh centuries, and in such phrases as  "the Viking age," "Viking civilisation," is used in a still wider sense as a  convenient term for Scandinavian civilisation at a particular stage in its  development."
* Peter Sawyer in The Oxford Illustrated History of the Vikings (2001): "In 875 Danes and Norsemen were competing..."
* Eric Christiansen in Norsemen in the Viking Age (2008): "Norse is a linguistic term which is sometimes applied to Norwegians and their colonies, but not to Danes or Swedes. Ditto for Norsemen."
Given the ambiguous nature of the term Norsemen and its rare usage among scholars for the topic of this article, its usage as a title for this article is unfortunate. Krakkos (talk) 14:23, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that replications of 19th century romantic distortions have persisted into scholarly language until rather recently. Wouldn't you agree that Wikipedia should be cautious about further replicating those misconceptions into the digital 21st century? Hence, just listing sources from the 20th century like above doesn't really take it to the bank, does it? Feel free to discuss it above but I see little more end result than free-floating word sallad. For starters, the arguments above are not reflecting the state of the Norse disambiguation page. If you insist on your arguments still, why don't you consider bringing them for evaluation in a proper article rename request of this Norsemen article? PPEMES (talk) 12:00, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse me if I'm not impressed by another of Krakkos's exhaustive and exhausting selections of sources that support his side of the argument, omitting those that don't. Experience suggests an equally long list could be compiled pointing the other way. Johnbod (talk) 12:07, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  The common name for the Old Norse-speaking peoples of Viking Age 

message: I strongly suggest that the section: 
:"The British conception of the Vikings' origins was inaccurate. Those who plundered Britain lived in what is today Denmark, Scania, the western coast of Sweden and Norway (up to almost the 70th parallel) and along the Swedish Baltic coast up to around the 60th latitude and Lake Mälaren. They also came from the island of Gotland, Sweden. The border between the Norsemen and more southerly Germanic tribes, the Danevirke, today is located about  south of the Danish–German border. The southernmost living Vikings lived no further north than Newcastle upon Tyne, and travelled to Britain more from the east than from the north." 
is removed, since it belongs in the article Viking, and its already enough with confusion between the terms Viking and Norse, so there is really no need to deepen the problem furthermore. Dan Koehl (talk) 05:58, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Dan Koehl - I agree with your suggestion. Krakkos (talk) 09:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section Geography 

message: History is no democrazy, and you cant vote which year a certain thing happened, it must be verified by citing prime sources.
Regarding the very unwise attempt to mixix this article with viking, I can add from a scientific article, written by professor John H Lind, at Copenhagen University:
: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 Scandinavian appeared as a pirate. Therefore we find it used about Israelits 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.
Source: https://www.academia.edu/8906219/_Vikings_and_the_Viking_Age
Dan Koehl (talk) 21:11, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  What do REAL experts say? 

message: I see this edit is being reinserted after being reverted out three times. As I said in my edit summary when I removed it, it's got several issues. One, it's ungrammatical. "In Yngvars saga víðförla written in the twelfth century by Oddr Snorrason, is described when Yngvar and his fleet in the land of the Saracens (Serkland) is being attacked by Caucasian prates, referred to as vikings. Vikings was a prominent problems and the Norwegian king Harald I of Norway was the most radical, cleanings his land from vikings." That sentence is completely ungrammtical and has numerous mispellings and misuse of words plus problems with verb usage. Two, the whole section is irrelevant to the section its inserted in - which is about the history of the term "Norseman". Nothing in there addresses the history of the term "Norseman". Three, it has sections on the terminiology of OTHER words which is also irrelevant to an article on Norsemen. Fourth, it is unsourced except for one sentence and the block quote. Fifth, (and most minor) it breaks the MOS in numerous ways also, but if it was just that last bit, it wouldn't be so bad, but the other four issues are serious and it should not be edit warred into place without a strong consensus on the talk page. I count four insertions of the information which is verging into WP:3RR territory. The edits need to be removed and discussion should take place on the talk page before it returns. Ealdgyth (talk) 18:34, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I see further unsourced and irrelevant additions continue to be made. At this point, it's looking very much like there is a competence issue here - when other editors object to edits, the correct thing to do is not to keep making them, but to discuss on the talk page. Please do so. Just because other editors won't stoop to edit warring repeatedly, doesn't mean that they consider the edits proper or that they should be allowed. Ealdgyth (talk) 18:51, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Relevant: .--Ermenrich (talk) 19:10, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit warring... 

message: The term "Viking" appears in the Sermon of the Wolf (wīcinga[e?]), written by archbishop of York and bishop of Worcester Wulfstan in 1014, and in Battle of Maldon (wīcinga), written probably after 991. 82.128.217.39 (talk) 19:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:   Wīcinga in Sermo Lupi and Battle of Maldon