Talk:Vinland

message: Erik the Red , having been banished from Iceland for manslaughter, is said to have explored the uninhabited southwestern coast of Greenland during the three years of his banishment. He made plans to entice settlers to the area, even purposefully choosing the name Greenland to attract potential colonists, saying "that people would be more eager to go there because the land had a good name".
is it possible that something like it happened to the Vinland?
takk for any comments  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dng23 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Vinland as Greenland?

message: The last sentence in the first paragraph; "These synonyms are often mixed up" confuses me. Synonyms are supposed to be different words, that describe appr. the same thing. NOT a single word that describes several things, as seems to be the case here. I don't know a good adjective that describes this ambiguousness, however... I suggest removing this sentence and instead add to the text, that the actual meaning of the word 'vin' is disputed. -- Dennis
The word Vinland doesn't necessarily mean 'wineland'.  The word 'vin' could also mean .. how to say it in english .. 'large open land usable for agriculture'. --anonymous
I will give this some attention: anonymous, you are quite correct: vin/viin is the subject of much scholarly contention. user:sjc
Also, beyond that, the article on global warming states that in Leif's time the climate of Greenland and Newfoundland was substantially warmer than today - making vines possible.  Vines do grow in Nova Scotia, which isn't much further south, today, although they're not so commercially viable as other places, they DO grow.
Regardless, "vine" was never a word describing the viniferis plant associated with wine and grapes in Old Norse.  It is a reference to the vanes of grass, alluding to the pastureland. --anonymous
: På Island, liksom i Norge och Danmark, hade det visserligen i flere århundraden varit väl bekant, att nordmän långt i sydväst från Grönland upptäckt ett stort land, som de af den där vildt växande vinrankan gifvit namnet Vinland. Men traditionen härom hade småningom dött ut, och de gamla handskrifter som förtäljde därom lågo förgätna i de isländska torfstugornas undangömda vrår. (Source: "Amerika, dess upptäckt, eröfring och fyrahundraåriga utveckling" Vol. 1 ("Amerikas upptäckt af isländarne. Vinland"), 1892)
: Although on Iceland, as well in Norway and Denmark, it had been well known for multiple of centuries that norsemen from the far south-west relative Greenland had discovered a great land, that they from the wild growing "vinranks" (=vitis vinifera) gave the title Vinland. But this tradition had nowadays vanished, and the old manuscripts that told the true story was lying hidden in various corners of Icelanding peat-cottages.
: // Rogper 23:40, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: What I can simply not understand in this debate is WHY Vinland cannot derive from the explanation given in the saga itself - namely from WINE. Doesn't Occham's Razor apply to this kinds of dabate? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.113.238.211 (talk) 04:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Couldn't grapes be included in "all manner of fruits"?  Yopienso (talk) 03:03, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Grapes are not necessarily wine. See also Gothic language "winja": grazing land, pasture, ref: Norsk stadnamnleksikon, 2nd ed. p.343. The use of the Gothic language also predates Leif Ericson.  St.Trond  (talk) 15:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, in Swedish for example "vinbär" means currants, and not grapes, if I am not mistaken. That might make more sense climate-wise.--95.89.29.209 (talk) 13:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: However, the word "currant" without modifying prefixes such as red- or black- means a dried grape (of the Corinth variety). All in all, it seems most likely that "vinbär" means "berries from which wine can be made", which may or may not include actual grapes, such as are to be found in south-east Canada. David Trochos (talk) 05:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Must note that meanings  get lost  in translation and   they named things so they sounded attractive to others -like   "Greenland" (not very green is it)  - "Markland"  (believed  to still in the subarctic means  "forestland"). Naming something Vine land does not seem out of the norm - Does not mean the lands actually  had any vines. I agree can make wine out of any berries  vines or not.  The  Vinland  is  attractive to settlers, while at the same time  making the  documented discovery more notable then it realy may be. The Norsemen were not famous for there vanity in anyway Moxy (talk) 06:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Meaning of 'Vin'

message: In "Was Vinland in New Foundland" , we find that names with "vin" were given from AD 100 to 600. This coincides with the period of St.Brendan. Quotes below are from "St Brendans journey" ca. AD 900, i.e. before Leif Eriksson: 
Chapter 1: "...et apparuit terra spaciosa et herbosa pomiferosaque valde." / "...and land appeared, spacious and grassy, and bearing all manner of fruits.". 
Chapter 9:"...pascuis semper commorantur die noctuque" / "...pasture always for eating, day and night".
Based on these "pasture" is likely, but "wine" is not. St.Trond (talk) 18:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Couldn't grapes be included in "all manner of fruits"?  Yopienso (talk) 03:03, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Grapes are not necessarily wine. See also Gothic language "winja": grazing land, pasture, ref: Norsk stadnamnleksikon, 2nd ed. p.343. The use of the Gothic language also predates Leif Ericson.  St.Trond  (talk) 15:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, in Swedish for example "vinbär" means currants, and not grapes, if I am not mistaken. That might make more sense climate-wise.--95.89.29.209 (talk) 13:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: However, the word "currant" without modifying prefixes such as red- or black- means a dried grape (of the Corinth variety). All in all, it seems most likely that "vinbär" means "berries from which wine can be made", which may or may not include actual grapes, such as are to be found in south-east Canada. David Trochos (talk) 05:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Must note that meanings  get lost  in translation and   they named things so they sounded attractive to others -like   "Greenland" (not very green is it)  - "Markland"  (believed  to still in the subarctic means  "forestland"). Naming something Vine land does not seem out of the norm - Does not mean the lands actually  had any vines. I agree can make wine out of any berries  vines or not.  The  Vinland  is  attractive to settlers, while at the same time  making the  documented discovery more notable then it realy may be. The Norsemen were not famous for there vanity in anyway Moxy (talk) 06:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Did Leif Eriksson give Vinland its name?

message: Hey Kenneth, at it again, I see. I've just de-Kennethized your additions to this page. Some of it was interesting, but as usual instead of adding you overwrite in an unsubtle manner with any theory you are personally convinced of. Could you please cut that out in the future? Thanks. Martijn faassen 22:07, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Hey Kenneth

message: Since otherwise we'll be trapped in a revert war, I've done an edit of Kenneth's contributions. 
Restore Helluland as flatstone land. Can you specify a source for the "hull" etymology?
Restore balanced view of etymology of Vinland in main text (outside etymology section). This mentions wineland (which is still a commonly accepted explanation) as well as the pasture land theory and defers further discussion to the etymology section.
Tightened up and NPOV-ed section on why those who advocate Newfoundland based Vinland consider it unlikely the settlement could be further south. Attributed it to particular advocates instead of saying 'most'. Left out detailed explanation of early English settlement as irrelevant to this article (perhaps a link to an article about this topic can be added?). Left out discussion about why the various native americans made this futile to even try for security reasons. This is rather speculative, and the vikings might not have reasoned that way at all. Vikings settled distant areas with a far higher native population density with a lot higher technology in Europe, such as Normandy and various places in the Mediterranean. They even attacked Constantinople.
:I've since found arguments along these lines. Far from supply lines battle with the natives can't have been very easy, of course. I still think the supply lines are the main reason, not the ferocity of the natives, but I'll add back a bit of text about this. Martijn faassen 18:50, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's right. Sweyn Estridson in English, Svend Estridson i Danish, and Sven Estridsson in Swedish. // Rogper 13:07, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

text: I have added a separate on how romantic view could influence the desire to place Vinland further south. Martijn faassen 19:27, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

text: I suggest that the mention of Straumfjord (=Kangerlussuaq?) and Hop be removed and put into own articles about Thorfinn Karlsefni and Snorri Thorbrandsson, because there are plenty of other names too. . // Rogper 13:07, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you do this? I don't know enough yet about these topics to make sense. Martijn faassen 18:46, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit summary

message: I've restructured the article quite a bit, moving things quite drastically, and making the sections more coherent (though bigger). Someone please read over it to see whether the ordering is all right. I've also spun off some non-Vinland material into Adam of Bremen, which I also restructured. Martijn faassen 23:13, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Big restructuring

message: Why not put Vinland in the context of Newfoundland, as MOST scientists advocate, even if they aren't sure of any other sites or excursions, they are VERY certain of the settlement in L'anse aux Meadows, just as it is in the saga, further past Groenland.  We have no other site found.  Put the facts and the fantasy together and grow some balls, for crying out loud!  No need to feel less acknowledging of our viking relatives just because they didn't go very far as the later explorers and merchants did on voyages financed by wealthy royalty, with better tech.  No need to see the vikings weak for only going so far.  They were poor and in inclement weather.  Just think, if the Groenland settlements died out, how profitable could further ventures have been?  I propose to include this as the early history and founding of Newfoundland's European society.  Their business in the sagas reflects the geography and natural resources.  
: I don't suggest to do that, because "Vinland" is a place orignially written in the Icelandic sagas, and only a modern scarcer excavitation has suggest its place. But we can write "in recent time, the interest of identifying Vinland with North America and deduce the truefullness in the sagas have increased, but there are much archeological work still to do."  // Rogper 13:41, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Rogper in that this article is about Vinland. We have reasonable indications that this is in Newfoundland and not everybody agrees. There is also an interesting history behind it; at first it was thought it was just a myth, later it turned out the Norse did reach North America in fact. We could add a few lines to the Newfoundland article that this is considered by many the most likely place of Vinland perhaps, and link back to here (if such a thing is not already there). Martijn faassen 18:26, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Why not put Vinland in the context of Newfoundland?

message: Oh, and I am not a "Newfie", and I'm not trying to fluff their genesis up to countreweight the Ontario English stereotypes of them.  Would it occur to you that the lifestyle of early settlers in Newfoundland mirrors the experiences of the sagas?  Or are we to encourage to forays into Madog and Brendan for the sake of Romanticism?  The Romantics are exaggerating for their ethno-patriotic pride on who knew and experienced America first.  Utter nonsense.  If Wikipedia is trying to increase its own credibility, it's editors should refrain from editing things in clearly POV manners.  One manner is; "Oh, we can't be sure, there's just so much we don't know."  Bullshit, they know only what they know and what we all have proof of so far.  If they insist on cryptozoologic style science, they push their own falsehood and POV.  Don't you look at these researchers and get a sense of their HOPEFULLNESS that things aren't what the evidence calls for?  Or, do you hope they get their delusion circulated everywhere to satisfy your own?  Certainly, their CLAIMS are just that.  As you would steer my edits here to be NPOV, try to use some sense with your sources, and get a sense of the craze over "America the Beautiful".  Everybody has a place here in America now, you don't need to entice anybody with false mythologies on the roots of people seeking their place in the wall of fame.  It is surely looking like the wall of shame.  Lord Kenne<eth> Alansson 22:43, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The history is written by those who wins the battle, the victories, and not the loosers. :-) Are there any specific statement by you that someone thinks is POV? // Rogper 13:45, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: But is there anything in the article at present that you consider POV and want to fix? Martijn faassen 18:21, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

text: Well, the wine and wheat path of the meaning is not our thoughts but the description given in the written texts. Compare to Iceland that is a very hot climate. // Rogper 08:42, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Objectivity in articles

message: Sorry, I just now got finished viewing the article.  It's been doen nicely.  My reason for "hull" is because it is etymologically connected to that "häll" term.  Since the nature adjective comes before the technological reference.  I am not debating that hull has no connection to "flat stone", like slate.  The land of Baffin-I have seen pictures-has flat rocks in so many places.  I was just using a word in English close enough to häll, just as we use Greenland instead of Groenland.  What gives?  I am making sense here.  Instead of Helluland or Häll-land , we can put Hull-land for English.  Just a bit of translation on my part.  
: The etymology is the word's origin and have nothing to do with their similarity in spelling.  The  "häll" (or "haell") have another transcription from "hull". The heall should sound like when saying the word hell. According to  is haell something that has an incline. Perhaps the english "hill" is etymologically related, but that is my guess. // Rogper 14:00, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is no other research besides your theory that indicates the 'hull' translation, I think we should leave in the current interpretation (flatstone), as part of the no original research policy.Martijn faassen 18:30, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

text: I think the English word "Woodland" have the same meaning as "Markland". However, in today Swedish, mark changed its meaning from "wood or forest" to "ground". I don't now how it is in Danish or Norwegan. // Rogper 14:09, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Hullland instead of Flatstoneland

message: What are the norse naming conventions in Wikipedia; anybody know? The most recent edit to the article edited away what are presumably the English spellings of various names, replacing them with the norse spelling. Leif for instance becomes Leifur, though Leif is definitely the name commonly used in English. Comments? Martijn Faassen 02:30, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Norse naming conventions

message: I accept the NF site is gennie, but I've seen it raised the Maine penny is evidence of fraud, & maybe NF is a fake. Is it well established as gennie?  Trekphiler 18:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Possibility of fraud

message: I am removing the sentence "There is a general consensus of scholarly opinion that the Vikings got to North America first."  This really has little to do with the article and obviously overlooks the fact that the north american continent had been inhabited for 25+ thousand years by that time.
:it is more contructuve to clarify this than to remove information. --KimvdLinde 20:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is indeed. We should just inform the reader who discovered what when, and in which order these movements of people took place. Fairly simple, eh ? =J //Big Adamsky 20:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing 'vikings got here first'

message: It is scientifically and historically proved that the Etruscan alphabet gave origin to the viking alphabet. But the Etruscan alphabet didn't develop from the Phoenician language or from the alphabet of Magna Graecia (Southern Italy), as many authors mistakenly write. It had origin from the Sardinian alphabet, an ancient language spoken in the Mediterranean area around the 2nd millennium BCE. It is commonly thought that the islanders of Sardinia (Italy), who worked as sailors, warriors, traders etc. are the "vikings" of the Mediterranean Sea. These warriors, who built over 20,000 stone castles best known as "nuraghe" and even worked for the Egyptian pharaoh Ramseth IInd, wore horned helmets and fur coats. They had spears, swords and axes. In reality many German playwrights and novelists of the past, when wrote about the vikings of Scandinavia, about their clothes and traditions, described the same Sardinians. (i.e. Wagner)In addition, there is hard evidence of this ancient civilization making their mark in places where, according to traditionally accepted history, they just shouldn't be. Interesting, some scholars think and support the theory that the Sardinian-Phoenician sailors went to the USA over 3,000 years ago. The Sardinian influence can be still found among the Aztecs (i.e. buildings) and other local cultures. There are tons of pics and news about this ancient folk on Google. Unfortunately, most of the pages are not written in english language and my altavista translator doesn't work well. 
-- Susy Hallen & Pet Stromberg 12:00, July 30 2006 (UTC) --
This text seems to be added to various talk pages on articles related in some way ro runes. Interesting, but as long as it remains on talk, harmless. Anyone knows what this is about? Martijn Faassen 21:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The runic alphabet

message: Is there any particular reason this article is listed in the "Germanic Paganism" category?  Not only does their seem very to be very little connection (Is Christopher Columbus's voyage listed under "Christianity"?) but from what I've read, Leif Erikson wasn't even a pagan.  
 I agree with you Vinland is Finland V sound in Norse is a F sound as in Finland Arysvargas
68.187.225.59 04:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Germanic Paganism

message: There are some things to consider here. Leifr Eiríksson had a father from Norway (Eiríkr rauði) and an mother from Iceland. He was probably born in Iceland, but grew up in Greenland and served the king in Norway. Add to this that the idea of nationality in the West Norse Sprachraum a millennium ago can not be compared to how we understand it today. With this in mind the most representative description would be Norwegian/Icelandic, as has been used in this article. I suppose you could add Greenlandic, but I think that would clutter up the sentence. (Nidator 14:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's just call him Greenlandic as he lived most of his adult life there. Fornadan (t) 16:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I have my "own POV"?! That is a bit rich coming from you. If you had actually read the relevant sagas you would have known that Leifr stayed in Norway and served in the hird of Óláfr Tryggvason. You are also making the common mistake of applying modern standards to a past period. (Nidator 17:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  He was Icelandic. I am tired of yours POV pushing here --Arigato1 18:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasn't me who made the text you edited in the first place. I just reverted to it and tried to give you some reasoning behind it. You seem to have some issue with Norway though. (Nidator 18:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes but you failed to give me a reason, next time try find sources before editing. No i like Norway it's where my grandfather is from. --Arigato1 18:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: My goodness! The Icelandic/Norwegian infighting over Mr.Eriksson's nationality is beyond ridiculous! Take into consideration that a thousand years ago there WAS NO ICELAND and NO NORWAY as we know it today. Whether he was from here or there doesn't really matter, since people in BOTH PLACES spoke the same language (Norse), shared the same cultural heritage (Western Scandinavian), the same religion (pagan with Christian overtones), and themselves COULD NOT CARE LESS if they carried a Norwegian or an Icelandic "passport". Iceland was primarily colonized from Western Norway, but the debate on whether he was Norwegian or Icelandic reminds me of the ancient debate of what was the language of Eden. Why not conclude that 100,000 years ago (or thereabout) his ancestors migrated out of Africa!!!! --141.149.57.224 04:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What you mention is pretty much why I thought that the article should continue to use Norwegian/Icelandic, but since it seems to have settled with using neither I see no reason to restart the argument. -- Nidator 13:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: So, what everyone appears to be saying is that those Native Americans growing up and living along the Willamette River 10,000 years ago should be called Oregonians? Svyatoslav 23:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: However, speaking about nationality at all when the subject of debate lived around the year 1000, is not right.  Nation/nationality is as you all probarbly know modern terms, and of no consequence for these events.  Eiriksons' family and background was probarbly just as important for him in defining himself as was were he was from, lived or had served.  It just depends on the situation one is asked: "Who are you?".  Leif Eirikson would not have answered "I am Norwegian/Icelandic/Greenlandic" anyway. Rather: "I am Leif, son of Eirik son of..., I was born on..., and voyaged to..., my profession is..., and I am a christian.St12357 (talk) 03:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Nationality of Leifr Eiríksson

message: "Vinland (Icelandic: Wine land ) was the name given to a part of North America by the norseman Leif Eiríksson, about the year (AD) 1000. At that time, the word "vin" didn't mean wine, but plain. These synonyms are often mixed up."
1. According to standard practice, "Icelandic: Wine land" indicates that "Wine land" is a translation into Icelandic, but I'm guessing it's supposed to be a translation into English from Icelandic?
2. Translating it as "Wine Land" and then saying that "vin" didn't actually mean wine is kind of offputting. I think it would be better to combine the two and say something like "the modern translation from the Icelandic is Wine Land, but at the time,... etc."
3. Presumably "plain" means the geographical feature? It would be good to make that clear since "plain" has other meanings.
4. I don't know what value the sentence "These synonyms are often mixed up" adds. What synonyms? Mixed up by whom, and with what relevance to the topic? (Does it mean "homonyms" rather than "synonyms" maybe?) Suggest simply removing it unless someone knows what point is being made.
Matt 19:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusing first paragraph

message: The "Skalholt" map shows what can only be a depiction of northern Newfoundland and calls it "Promontorium Winlandia", the exact position of the L'Anse aux Meadows Norse site and  parallel with England! 29 July 2007.
Note how the "finger" of Newfoundland (on a modern map) is shown "pointing" in the direction of southern Greenland and is so depicted on the Skalholt map. 3 August 2007.
See the notes on grid references, next to the Skalholt map link on the Vinland page. 24 Jan 2008.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.86.225 (talk) 14:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Skalholt map

message: I think that the legend of Vinland is neat as it is also closely based on facts. It is remarkable that it describes there being no snow in the Land of Hop when the Vikings stayed there one winter, as the farhtest north where this currently applies on the US Coast is in the Carolinas. It would be especially helpful if scholars who studied Vinland listed the directions for sites that the Sagas describe and then drew a map for the geography of the region as the Sagas depict. I tried doing this for Eric the Red's Saga here:
https://historum.com/t/where-do-the-viking-sagas-point-to-the-vikings-visiting-in-the-us-or-southeast-canada.196378/
Below is my own hand-drawn map:
Rakovsky (talk) 00:55, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion for locating sites in Vinland in known coastal geography 

message: I personally don't think the "pastureland/plainland" idea doesn't hold water, for a number of reasons.  First off, the first mention of Vinland ever comes from Adam of Bremen, and as it says in the article, not only mentions the name Vinland, but the fact that wwine grapes grow there, and that is why it is named for it "Moreover, he has also reported one island discovered by many in that ocean, which is called Winland, for the reason that grapevines grow there by themselves, producing the best wine."
Second, we have no scholarly sources cited that support this "pastureland" claim.  And the sagas clearly says the land was heavily wooded, pastures by definition being open land, not forested as the land is in the sagas
--Jadger (talk) 08:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure that's right.  Isn't it called Vinland in the Greenlander's Sage?  I think Adam of Bremen is the first reference that explains (possibly incorrectly) the origin of the name, not at all the first mention of the word Vinland.  Alexwoods (talk) 15:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Plain vs. Wine

message: I want to challenge the flag that is being used as the 'unofficial flag of vinland.'  It hardly seems encyclopedic for this entire article to be full of hotly debated scholar material, only to have a second class bands, no offense, interpretation of what it could be.  Is their even any evidence that they used actual historical documents or did they just sit down one day and pound it out?  I'm not going to take it down until at least a few people can discuss it, so... Asatruar (talk) 05:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're more patient than I am. I'm taking a Wikibreak soon and may not be around for much discussion. We've got no reason at all to think there was such a flag, it doesn't belong in the article, and it isn't in the article any more. Doug Weller (talk) 06:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Challenging the purpose of the flag

message: In a few things I've read, including discussions about Prince Henry Sinclair and in O.G. Landsverk's Runic Records of the Norsemen in North America, as well as in Farley Mowat, that there was a Bishop of Vinland at the Vatican in the 13th Century or thereabouts; like the Bishopric of Greenland the office continued long after any population did.  Landsverk's theories about the encryptions he reads into North American runestones (his work is now discredited) says they document the affairs of the Bishopric of Vinland in some way; irrespective of the validity of his theory is that he - and the others mentioned - cite Vatican records on teh matter.  This was most likely an honorific office, perhaps given to a Norse priest who maybe set out en route but never got there, or just a sinecure within the Vatican, an honorific office.  Cites for it are out there somewhere; it seems most likely to have been a paper office only, but definitely aprt of the paper trail about Vinland; probably fit for the "Other" section at least....btw looking for Landsverk's book online (JSTOR has it) I found this, which some of you will find provocative.Skookum1 (talk) 03:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Bishopric of Vinland

message: The article lists the first settlement as being named Straumfjöður, when in a book I'm reading it's called Leifsbúðir.  So what is the actual name of the first settlement? --134.117.200.36 (talk) 20:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Name of first settlement?

message: The date given on wiki pages is: Vinland 1001, L'Anse Aux Meadows 1003, Leif Ericson 1001-1002, Newfoundland 1006 and 999-1001. 29 June 2009.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.28.203.31 (talk) 11:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusion on Wikipedia re date of Vinland settlement

message: This post occurs as a result of a war between myself and "XX" who deletes my reference to "History of Norway" from 12th century as a description related to Vinland. From the picture  you will find, that except from Spitzbergen, which was uninhabited, the only land separated from Greenland by ice, and especially pack ice is Canada.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by St.Trond (talk • contribs) 21:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In my last revert of the article, done in a great hurry, I wrote, rather rudely, "do some proper research". By "proper research" I did not mean looking at a modern, climate-change influenced image of the Arctic in autumn; I meant research into medieval Norse perceptions of the Arctic. What they describe (as is clearly shown on map interpretations of medieval material, such as Bishop Resen's and Thorlaksson's) is Greenland as the end of a vast peninsula stretching over the Pole from northern Russia east of the White Sea (which they called Biarmeland, specifically mentioned in the source text for this mistaken reference). David Trochos (talk) 06:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  On page 78 in the same text we find that: "From Bjarmaland uninhabited land continues through the north until it joins Greenland" (Icelandic text from 1387). I hope this can help us make a better article. St.Trond (talk) 13:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. As it happens, there are medieval sources which do more accurately express the concept of Vinland's proximity to Africa, but a more detailed explanation of the medieval world concept will be required. I'll try to pick the most reliable of those sources and rewrite the section. David Trochos (talk) 06:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Then someone should look into whether "Africa" meant the same among the Vikings as it does today as well. The Vikings also had Serkland and Blåland as names of parts of Africa. If "Africa" means only "the area with very hot climate", then the quoted sentence does not implicate a proximity (IMHO). St.Trond (talk) 08:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In Norse learned literature from the high middle ages (12th-14th centuries), the world was considered to consist of three parts: Asia, Africa and Europe. The bit south of the Mediterranean was referred to as Africa.--Barend (talk) 18:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Barend's comment, and p.3 of ""History of Norway" makes Helluland, Markland and Vinland parts of Europe. Vinland is the bordering part. The map showing the Medieval Icelandic geographical concepts should be corrected to reflect the extension of Europe. St.Trond (talk) 20:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Very fair point. With luck I've still got the original graphics file at home, so I should be able to amend it later today. David Trochos (talk) 05:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Then "History of Norway" is used as source for the "Medieval Icelandic geographical concepts". Changing the caption to "Norse geographical concepts" should be considered.St.Trond (talk) 14:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Both changes now attempted. David Trochos (talk) 20:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Pack ice in Northern areas

message: This article has become very bloated, particularly the section about the location of Vinland. On the other hand its treatment of the sagas, the key source material, is quite perfunctory. I therefore intend to make some quite brutal revisions over the next week or two, which I suspect will offend many contributors- but will, I hope, be worthwhile. David Trochos (talk) 21:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The map is more informative than the text was. I would expect that the deleted quote: "where the water of the oceans flow in" or something like that, rather referred to the Gulf Current passing northwardly on both sides of Iceland, than to the tide as the article now says. Please clearify. The gap in south is missing (if the quoted text is representative). St.Trond (talk) 09:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've restored the deleted quote to help clarify the concepts, and modified the tides reference (though Norse sailors would have been aware of the tidal difference between the Atlantic and the Baltic, and the fierce tidal effects in the Skagerrak). David Trochos (talk) 08:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Dave. I hope you have kept the map files. Here are some more corrections. The map indicates an "Atlantic". The Norse name for this ocean is "Vesterhavet". It translates into Western Ocean. Similarly the Mediterranean is "Middelhavet" or Middle Ocean (Central Ocean). St.Trond (talk) 19:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Stand by for some brutality

message: Butternuts (Juglans cinerea) were found during the archaeological excavations at the L'Anse aux Meadows site. The USDA distribution map indicates that butternuts are "absent" from the province of Nova Scotia. The COSEWIC report confirms this as it states that butternut distribution in Canada is found in New Brunswick, southern Ontario and southern Quebec, without any reference to Nova Scotia (even though it's peninsula extends further south than New Brunswick). If this was the situation a 1000 years ago, it would imply that the butternuts found at the Norse site were collected from somewhere other than Novia Scotia. 15 November 2009  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.242.215 (talk) 15:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I can see, the article does not claim that butternuts were found in Nova Scotia (and I'll be clarifying the "Location" section in the next day or two). David Trochos (talk) 22:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Butternut distribution

message: This used to be an external link:
*"Was Vinland in Newfoundland?"- Paper by Einar Haugen, (1906-1994) Professor emeritus of Scandinavian Studies, Harvard University
It was removed in this  edit in March 2009. Turns out that the final third of the paper is a good source for the claim that the "meadow" reading is unlikely on linguistic grounds. The paper is a bit old, though - 1977. I haven't read Gisli Sigurdsson, does he cover the same ground? If not, Haugen should be added back as a reference. Jon kare (talk) 10:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sigurdsson only mentions the topic in passing, but Seaver (the other ref. for that paragraph) is more thorough. Possibly worth substituting Haugen for Sigurdsson? David Trochos (talk) 19:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Have done so. Seaver is a historian. Adding the linguist Haugen adds weight.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon kare (talk • contribs) 21:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Wine/Meadow

message: A note in the Penguin edition of the Vinland Sagas explains that "Earl Eirik" is probably based on a mistranscription error meaning Eirik the Red instead. Earl Eirik ruled Norway from 1000-1012, so it's strange that Bjarni goes to see him in 985 or 986 just after it states that he stayed in Greenland all his life. I don't have a good source, so I won't change it myself.  --136.152.148.247 (talk) 22:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There's actually a larger paradox behind this- if Bjarni discovered Vinland around 985, why was there no further investigation until around 1000? Both the Vinland Sagas indicate that the main Vinland voyages occurred just after a meeting of the discoverer with his main overlord back in Scandinavia; and the "Greenlanders" version does make a delayed meeting by Bjarni plausible, because he only remains land-bound in Greenland during the lifetime of his father. David Trochos (talk) 06:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Earl Eric

message: The latest edit summary says, "RV, consensus is to use CE on WP."  I don't see there's been a discussion of that on this page.  Excerpts from the general guidelines say:  "AD and BC are the traditional ways of referring to these eras. CE and BCE are becoming more common in academic and some religious writing. No preference is given to either style.  ...  Do not change from one style to another unless there is substantial reason for the change, and consensus for the change with other editors."  Yopienso (talk) 03:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: AD v CE

message: I'm going to re-revert the order of sections to bring the Sagas back to their old position above "Medieval Geographers", because, to my mind, the alternative order by Beyond My Ken does not, and effectively cannot, achieve what it purports to do: "present 'current' information then the background". In reality, BMK's order "buries" the current information in the middle of the article, sandwiched between "Later Norse Voyages" (which feels really out-of-place as we haven't been properly introduced to the first Norse voyages) and the Sagas. Putting the Sagas near the beginning clearly shows the historical process which got us where we are today. David Trochos (talk) 05:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Do whatever you want, you want to bury current, accurate information about Vinland under some turgid retellig of sagas, go ahead, it makes the article a piece of shit, and that's on your head. I leave it to you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, I was mad at someone else and directed the anger at you, instead -- my apologies.Look, I think the way I had it was better, and if I was the King of Wikipedia that's the way it would be, but there's value in what you say too.  I won't stick around to get in your way (my interest in the article was mostly about the layout & other visual aspects), but I'll leave with one suggestion, that if you leave the section order as it is, it might be a good idea to try to trim the saga sections down a bit, so that there's not so much material in the reader's path as they work their way down the article.Again, my apologies for shooting off my mouth like that, it was very bad behavior on my part. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries- I've attempted a compromise. David Trochos (talk) 19:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, an excellent idea.  If you're good with that, it certainly works for me.  You've been very gracious, thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Order of sections

message: Just wanted to draw somebody's attention to an external link that seems out of place.
Though it's called "The Vikings in Newfoundland", clicking it takes one to a site on learning spanish.  
I'd wipe it out, but thought somebody else should probably see it first.
Chopbox (talk) 04:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: How odd! Now deleted, thanks. David Trochos (talk) 07:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That was fast!  Chopbox (talk) 01:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: I'm not sure Wineland should redirect here, I suggest is should be a dab. PatGallacher (talk) 11:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wineland 

message: This article states that:
"Numerous artifacts attributable to the Norse Greenlanders have been found in Canada, particularly on Baffin Island and in northern Labrador. A late-11th century Norwegian penny, with a hole for stringing on a necklace, has also been found in Maine. Although there is no dispute about the authenticity of this small penny, its discovery by an amateur archaeologist in 1957 has become controversial; questions have been raised whether it was planted as a hoax.[18] Other possibly Norse artifacts in the area south of the St. Lawrence include a growing number of stones inscribed with runic letters, such as the Kensington Runestone. The age and origin of these stones is debated, and so far none has been firmly dated or associated with clear evidence of a medieval Norse presence.[19]"
However the wikipedia articles on the Maine penny and the Kensington runestones states that "The Norse coin from Maine should probably be considered a hoax" and "Almost all Runologists and experts in Scandinavian linguistics consider the runestone to be a hoax." And they refer to much better sources than the sources that claim that they are disputed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maine_penny
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kensington_Runestone
So the entire section of "Other Norse finds in America" should be removed or corrected. I am going to remove it because I don't have the linguistic ability to write articles in english. Someone else has to correct the text.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stockholmsödermalm (talk • contribs) 15:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree -  or that section at least needs to be reframed. It might be interesting to simply retitle it as "Probable Vinland Hoaxes." The content may not be credible, but it is related to Vinland at the modern cultural level, and is certainly notable.  de Bivort 21:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it needs to be dealt with. I'm not a fan of including hoaxes, because that gives them credibility by default, but mentioning them is warranted. More than passing comment, a line or two, is undue, IMO.  TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura  21:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the section User:Stockholmsödermalm took out, but I added more caveats to it. It's pretty short the way it is. --AW (talk) 14:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Kensington runestone and the Maine penny should be considered hoaxes. 

message: The Skalholt map latitude grid has the northern tip of "Vinland" at just over 56°N.
L'anse aux Meadows (Newfoundland), Mizen Head (Ireland) and Bristol (England) are just over 51°N.
This shows that the Skalholt map scribe made an error of +5°N when numbering the grid sections on the left and right sides ( by putting 55 instead of 50, 60 instead of 55, etc). 30 March 2012.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.135.88 (talk) 22:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems very likely, but unless a Reliable Source has specifically commented on the error in connection with Vinland, it's not relevant here. David Trochos (talk) 05:31, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Skalholt map

message: Hello, I was wondering what everyone things about this section being removed. It's not obvious to me that this reference is trivial, and seems to set the historical context for how far back there was awareness of pre-colombian contact. In fact, maybe there should be a Progression of Evidence section or something like that. de Bivort 20:45, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It was the editor who added it who removed it, and I think that was right. It seems pretty trivial to me and does not show "awareness of pre-Columbian contact". By the way, the 'astronomy' is observing the position of the stars, which certainly did not need contact with Europeans. Dougweller (talk) 20:55, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, thanks for explaining what astronomy comes from! But if we make a section on the evolution of the idea of pre-columbian contact, then this is probably worth putting in as it is from a prominent author, and as far as I can tell is a WP:RS.  de Bivort 03:11, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

text:  It is not RS, it is an opinion based on the assumption that two very loosely analogous facts are linked, with no substantial evidence to support it. Mediatech492 (talk) 03:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: How is it all of you have such strong, misguided opinions about this source? 1) It's not our job to evaluate the validity of the position (that would be WP:OR) - it is our job to evaluate whether the sources are reliable. 2) This is clearly reliable. Here's source (with 300 citations itself) that gives Wheaton's book considerable discussion, in a historical context. another source that establishes Wheaton as an authority.  de Bivort 05:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your assertion that we cannot assess validity is nonsense, it is precisely our role as wiki editors to assess for validity of both the position in question and the source from which it comes. Regardless of Wheaton's credentials, his reference to the Gaspe' tribe is only speculative and Wheaton does not assert it as fact but only mentions it as possibility. Speculation is not fact, and treating it as fact is WP:OR. Mediatech492 (talk) 07:00, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right about WP:OR -- but I'm not trying to say that Henry Wheaton's argument was correct. When I googled for source on his contribution it became clear that he has made a notable contribution to the topic, cited many times and discussed as an important part of chronologies about the identity of Vinland, as determined by reliable secondary sources. Saying something like "among the first advocates for Vinland in North America was scandinavia scholar Henry Wheaton..." does not assert his beliefs as fact, and respects all the other secondary sources.  de Bivort 15:07, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is called "Weasel Wording", please review WP:WEASEL, thank you. Mediatech492 (talk) 22:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Rubbish. The statement is precise, and supported by the references. Which part of that sentence implies something unsupported by the sources? Have you even looked at the sources I linked?   de Bivort 01:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

text: And I cannot see how we can discuss the evolution of the idea without sources discussing the evolution of the idea. Without those sources it would be original research. Dougweller (talk) 07:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The second source I provided does exactly that.  de Bivort 15:07, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Henry Wheaton 

message: A map showing modern geography would be helpful in illustrating the various hypotheses about historical events. -- Beland (talk) 18:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern map needed 

message: Hello Cluebot & Philip Trueman, please consider and react to the issues I have raised. I can't be bothered to campaign upon every uninformed Wiki article, and since I have your attention, please help us all to have a worthwhile entry here. And I advise you to cease destroying my correct, sourced and scholarly additions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.180.5 (talk) 23:38, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Cluebot isn't a person, and all that you need to do to get agreement to the suggested name change is show that your version is the common name in reliable English-language sources. Read WP:COMMONNAME. Dougweller (talk) 14:11, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: I submit that the article's title be changed to '''Vínland'''

message: Half of this stub is the unchallenged cliam by Tornöe that this is where Leifsbudir was, although that article doesn't even mention Tornöe. I can find no reliable sources discussing this claim. Doug Weller (talk) 12:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Waquoit Bay]] and [[Leifsbudir]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Vinland. 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/20070522105216/http://www.pc.gc.ca/lhn-nhs/nl/meadows/natcul/vinland_e.asp to http://www.pc.gc.ca/lhn-nhs/nl/meadows/natcul/vinland_e.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081216063635/http://www.pc.gc.ca/lhn-nhs/nl/meadows/index_E.asp to http://www.pc.gc.ca/lhn-nhs/nl/meadows/index_e.asp
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) 18:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Vinland. 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/20160303223625/http://www.kb.dk/permalink/2006/manus/678/eng to http://www.kb.dk/permalink/2006/manus/678/eng
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) 20:27, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: We don't know the extent of Vinland, but this article is only about what we know and the sagas say about it, not about anything later than the possible Norse presence. I'll trim it later. Doug Weller talk 08:32, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed by going back to version before User:WikAcct edited. There is no "history" of Vinland, no certain knowledge of what it meant and where it might have been, if it ever even was a clear geographial area. Stories of visits which might have been to North America aren't relevant without some clear connection to Vinland, either in the story or in modern academic texts. Doug Weller talk 13:44, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs to be pruned heavily 

message: Conquest of the North Atlantic 21 Jun 2007 by G. J. Marcus . Doug Weller talk 13:51, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  New source 

message: This feels unnecessary. I'm going to remove it since I believe it's just clutter. Colin dm (talk) 01:38, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finland redirect?