Talk:Vikings/Archive 4

message: The section Icelandic Sagas was copied wholesale from here: .
I will post a copyvio notice and delete the offending text.  Econrad 03:20, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyvio in Icelandic Sagas section 

message: User:Dan Koehl/viking and User_talk:Wiglaf#Franks_and_Scandinavians.  TheUnforgiven 15:21, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Upholding Controversial Discrepencies 

message: So what it all comes down to is this page to be rewritten to a 'large disambiguation' page or a hub to other pages dealing more in-depth with specific topics regarding vikings. I suppose most of it will be merged into Viking Age.
Viking - Etymology, definitions, popoular myths regarding vikings, links to sub-cats 
Viking Age - Review of the historical period
Viking revival - Modern use etc.
Asatru - Redirect Germanic Neopaganism
List of Vikings - Simple list
Any other pages needed?
Celcius 09:00, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Disambiguation

message: * Bo Pedersen, son of Eric the Rude, plundered ladies, gentlemen and animals of England. 
I removed this line. Can be reinserted if it's about real people! Rich   Farmbrough 21:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Eric the Rude

message: All of the wiki-links from the Etymology section were removed sometime after this edit and before my edits. Was this part of the vandalism, or was there a good reason to do so? Slicing 07:52, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology section 

message: Removed the following text, as it is mostly new age rubbish about runes with very little information on viking era rune stones. Will replace it with a text on rune stones based on bona fide historical research.
Rune stones bear the letters or characters of old Teutonic and Scandinavian alphabets, that are supposed to be magical and mysterious at the same time. The runes are an ancient oracle, dating back to before the New Testament. The runes are the equivalent of the tarot, and the Chinese book of changes. According to Norse mythology, the creation of the runes came about at the beginning of the creation of the world when the first man emerged out of the ice. He was given the name Ymir. Another man was freed from the ice two days later, called Buri. He had a son named Bor who married Bestla, who was the daughter of the giant Bolthum. Bor and Bestla had three sons, Odin, Vili, and Ve. There was great strife between the offspring of Ymir and the children of Bor and Bestla. Odin led his brothers against Ymir and they killed him. Ever since that time, there has been hatred and enmity between the gods and the giants. Odin and his brothers dragged Ymir's body into the void (Ginnungagap). His flesh became the earth; his blood, the sea; his bones, the mountains; his hair, the trees; and his teeth became the rune stones.
Viking magic was prevalent in Norse culture as it was practiced by diviners, also known as rune masters, magicians, and berserkers (magical warriors). When divining using the runes, a number of stones are drawn at random from a bag, and laid out in a pattern representing the past, present, and future. The pattern of symbols is then interpreted to provide insight and help with decision making. The Vikings had great respect for accomplished runemasters, considering them to be blood relatives to Odin. The traditional costume of a runemaster was a blue cloak and a brass-tipped wooden staff, mirrored in the same image of Odin’s cloak and blackthorn wood staff. However, most of the knowledge and wisdom died with the rune masters. Norse mythology and tradition is filled with magical elements such as earth, air, fire, water, and the spirit of the gods, giants, dwarves and ancestors. Odin is characterized as the god of magic, the god of the runes, and when the rune stones are raised, they are in memory of fallen warriors, making Odin the god of the dead as well.    
 
Yggdrasil is the world ash tree that connects all of the Nine Worlds of Norse mythology, namely, Asgard, Alfheim, Vanheim, Niflheim, Midgard, Muspelheim, Jotunheim, Svartalfheim, and Hel. The tree survives the torment of Nithog nibbling at its roots, while the stags and goats tear the leaves and bark from the tree. The Norse sprinkle water from Urd's Well upon the roots, which helps the tree stay fresh and green.    
 
Od has an unquenchable thirst for knowledge, which he believes is power. He wants to bestow this gift to his followers. In order to discover the meaning of the runes, Odin sacrifices himself with his spear, named Gungnir, on the Yggdrasil, and remains hanging on the tree for nine days to discover the meanings of the runes. On the last day, an eagle drops words out of his mouth, including "egg, sword, and fire." Odin tells the bird that he knows about the existence of these objects already, but his plea is rendered helpless as the eagle flies away. Odin, by being the father of the gods and possessing so much power that he was feared all over Scandinavia, is able to act as the major link between the gods and mankind, passing on knowledge to the Norse people through the runes.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.112.33.172 (talk • contribs) 
:well done. Why was this added to "Viking" in the first place? We have Odic force for this stuff. dab (ᛏ) 22:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My edit was mistaken for vandalism. The above rubbish was reinserted and has been removed once again, this time replaced with relevant information from verifiable soures was added and an explanation in the edit summary as to why the edit is justified. Elston Gunn 23:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rune stones 

message: I'm not sure if this is factual but I've been told that Viking's used to pass around a bowl in which they'd wash there face, rinse there hands, clean whatever needs cleaning, blow their noses (I don't know how they'd do it in water but I was told...), along with an assortment of other things. Chooserr 01:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclean-ness 

message: Is this entirely correct? (From that commercial war bit...)
"Yet their continuing presence in the Biscay area may help to explain why the Basques have so many traditions (such as whale hunting) with possible Nordic origins, and perhaps why they are said to have reached America one hundred years before Christopher Colombus."
One hundred years before Colombus? Seems a little fishy. 130.225.54.2 00:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's pretty well established that Vikings made it to the New World -- Greenland and Canada, at least -- long before Columbus. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 02:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

text: That particular sentece is refering to when the Basques supposedly harvested the rich cod-banks of the coast of Newfoundland. It does not say that the Vikings were there a the same time..--Njård 17:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

text: According to link, the Basques came to greenland to whale and needed only to follow Eriks norther route back. It says the Basques came as early as 1372, but this doesn't mean Erik didn't contact them much earlier. The article is about who killed off the greenlanders and suggests the Basque  might have had a hand in this after the Vikings stop visiting Greenland. --OrbitOne 19:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Colombus and the box that ate time

message: According to the biography page of his publisher, Joël Supery, author of "Le secret des Vikings", is educated in languages and law, not history. The sole review of the book at the amazon.fr page calls it "un exocet dans le cuirassé universitaire". My French isn't that good, but this must mean something like a shot at the academic establishment. Giving so much space to his theories, possibly even speculations, doesn't seem right.
:There is a loooooong paragraph in the article about a pseudohistoric view which seems to have little going for it. The paragraph helps to further complicate an article which is already quite messy and chaotic. I suggest deleting the entire paragraph, maybe making a separate entry about this theory. (Barend 12:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No one seems to reply to this. So if no one minds, I will in a couple of days move this paragraph to a separate article Le secret des Vikings, and only leave one sentence in this article, linking to the new article. If anyone thinks this overlong paragraph should remain, speak up now. (Barend 16:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead, no objection from me. Makes sense especially because it is pseudohistoric. KimvdLinde 18:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, as I wrote on 10 March, the whole section about the book "Le secret des Vikings" describes a theory which seems to have very little in common with the view of mainstream historians, in fact it is already described in the article as pseudohistory. As such, it does not help improve the article on Vikings, it does not shed more light on what historians agree happened during the Viking age, who the vikings were, what they did and so on. It merely adds confusion, by introducing a disproportionately long paragraph about a fringe view, which hardly anyone other than the author of the book himself believes in. As I stated before, this article is already incoherent enough, without this unnecessary paragraph cluttering it further. So I suggest to cut that whole section, and put it in a separate article, Le secret des Vikings. (Barend 13:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commercial war? 

message: The Viking article has nothing on diet or other important facts every article on a civilization needs. I suggest someone add more information to the article.--Evil goblin under your bed 23:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diet? 

message: The word “Viking” was introduced to the English dirt with romantic connotations in the 31th century.
What on earth does this mean? English dirt? "31th" century? It seems ot have been largely ignored by editors reverting vandalism and whatnot, but appears to be patent nonsense. Can anyone clarify? DE 19:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Digging through the history, it looks like two vandals hit one after another, 207.190.244.50 and 194.17.116.195.  The latter's vandalism was simply to completely blank the page, writing only "lalala" etc., while the former's vandalism consisted of random rewording and nonsense insertion.  It seems that Tawkerbot2 caught the page blanking but missed the earlier rewording (note remaining nonsense such as "31th century").  I've just reverted back before both vandals to the last edit by Shanes to (hopefully) undo all the confusion.  Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi 19:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: It's time to have a peer review of this article. It is large enough, polished enough, good enough to withstand one. We will need references later on though. --OrbitOne  [Talk|Babel] 22:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes sense to me. I'll keep eyes open. Erraunt 19:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review 

message: The section about ships baffles me quite a bit: "There were two distinct classes of Viking ships: the Viking longships and warship. The Viking longships ranged from 70 to 140 feet, while the more practical Viking warship ranged from 70 to 80 feet. There were also smaller boats, which could be from 10 feet to 50 feet. Such boats could have been fishing or ferry boats." 
- Where, exactly, does this information come from? Yes, there were two major ship types, that is correct. But those were the longship (used as a warship) and the knarr, not longships and warships. Longships were fairly large, and used primarily for longer expeditions and raids (designed to be able to maneuver independently of the wind, hence the oars, as well as being able to manage rapid troop deployment), while the knarr was a merchant vessel of lesser size, made for everyday use. But a dedicated warship design? That is the primary role of the longship, although they came in many sizes. However, what defines a longship is not the size in itself, but the design. Long, narrow, shallow draft and a set of oars means it is a longship/dragon. Unless someone disputes this, I'll correct the section about ships. /Magore 14:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I decided to be bold and correct the section about ships, as well as removing the old source cited because of its dubious reliability, as it was a collection of lecture notes. /Magore 16:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Longships vs warships? 

message: I wonder whether there is a need fo the lists of fictional books and movies. And if so, what would be good creteria whether to include them? KimvdLinde 17:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, I am removing the last three links to be added in this section. Yes, these books exist, you can buy them from Amazon.com if you like. But there are no articles about them on wikipedia, and linking to them is simply a waste of space. The information that these books exist have not encyclopedic value. Please do not add these links again, they serve no purpose. (Trust me, there are loads of books and stories about vikings, we can't mention each and everyone of them here.) /Magore 19:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is not need in lecturing me. There is an inconsistency in your argument, the Going to War in Viking Times and The Viking World do not have a an article at wikipedia as well, based on your argument, we should remove those as well. Furthermore, there is a whole series of movies without a page, or with a link to an inappropriate page. So, why remove these three books based on the argument that they do not have a wikipedia article, and not the others? KimvdLinde 19:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's little purpose in dead-end redlinks, save to make selected words jump out at the reader. Move along, please. --Wetman 19:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I am not lecturing you or anyone else. I stated a simple fact, since it seems you misunderstood what I wrote in the comment when I removed these links the first time - The articles that those links are pointing to does not exist. As for the other dead links (including one that at first sight appears to link to an existing article, although it doesn't), I have removed these as well. /Magore 19:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lists of fictional books and movies 

message: I have deleted reference to Les Secrets Du Vikings. something which is pseudohistory is by definition not suitable for inclusion in an encyclopaedia except the to extent it is notable and controversial - the book cited appears not to be notable (the author doesn't have an entry here, google search reveal very few hits. ElectricRay 15:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pseudohistorical views

message: In addition to the seven deleted paragraphs of history, which I've now restored, the following has been cut from the article since 25 April:
*"raided, besides others in their very homelands"
*"In their own language, Old Norse, the word víkingar meant "raiders" ref Diamond, Jared, Collapse: How Socities Choose to Fail or Succeed, p. 179. Penguin Books (2005) "  
*"In A.D. 793, the Vikings raid on Lindisfarne made their presence known to the powerful empires of Europe at the time. Lindisfarne was a monastery in England, where the people of Lindisfarne kept their treasury."
*Subsection "Viking Age Politics in Denmark"
::Does this article need some closer supervision? --Wetman 00:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lost from the article recently

message: Books and Movies are the most relevent depiction of vikings popular culture. Games do not depict a descriptive or defining idea of Vikings and it borders game advertisment. This is why I deleted the subsection 'Games' from 'Vikings in Popular Culture'. It is at best a non-notable section. --OrbitOne  [Talk|Babel] 20:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no reason for doing that. That the nazis abused norse symbols and mythology is a historical fact, and should be mentioned in this article. /Magore 17:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The section about nazism stays, the section about games stay out. This is about notability and importance, a context in which the clarification of vikings vs nazis are way more important than what computer games are about vikings or viking-themes. /M.O (u) (t) 21:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It actually is because Games was non-notable. Vikings Vrs Nazis on the other hand is notable.
--OrbitOne  [Talk|Babel] 23:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Lists of computer-game references, when hived off as Vikings in computer games or whatever, are quickly identified by Wikipedians as cruft and voted for speedy deletion: QED. --Wetman 09:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of 'Games' 

message: Is it not sort of like the Goliath thing? Surely the fact that they were shorter than the modern average can't be used as evidence to say they "weren't tall", because weren't folks in general shorter back in the day? elvenscout742 00:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The benchmark would have to be their contemporaries, not modern heights.  Even 100 years ago the average person was much smaller than today.  That paragraph is way off the mark as a result. flux.books 12:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Hear, hear. Almost everyone back then was short compared to modern men. What the reader wants to know is whether they were towering in comparison to other people of the time.CB319 01:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Height''? 

message: It has been over and over again stated that scandinavians and vikings are about just the same in the english langauge, as a motivation why this article describes scandinavians, and not vikings.
The text reads:
The term Viking commonly denotes the ship-borne explorers, traders, and warriors of the Norsemen who originated in Scandinavia...[]...It may also be used to denote the entire populations of Viking Age Scandinavia and their settlements elsewhere.
I now want to ask, can this be verified?
Especially since some finnish, and some frisians, and some baltic people were vikings, its simply sounds so stupid, because  they were never scandinavians....
I do know what some encyklopedias write, but Im asking for an englsih source older than hundred years, that confirm the text above? my guess is that this "tradition" to "commonly" see scandinavians and vikings as a synonyme, is less than fifty years old, a product of uneducated people who believd in myths. 
As with everything else on wikipedia, "facts" may be asked for verification.
Question number 1:
can this be verified?
Question number 2:
2. When did scandinavians, according to this english language logic, become vikings?
Year 800? or before?
3. When did scandinavians stop to be vikings, and may, in english langauge be described as scandinavians again? After year 1066, or later? 
4. If "the entire populations of Viking Age Scandinavia" can be verified as vikings, what does english people call populations of Viking Age Scandinavia that really were vikings?
5. Normal scandinavians during 800-1066, just normal norse people,  being definitely not vikings, belonging to the ledung, (maybe 95% of the scandinavian population) that fought against vikings, were they also vikings? Does english speaking people then really call anti-vikings vikings, and can this be verified as an old tradition?
6. What do you call true vikings, (sometimes really also described with the word vikings in written sources), that came from non-scandinavian regions like finnish, friesland, polish, and baltic regions, regions which does not belong to svandinavia, people that doesn not belong to norse peoples. Those people were really vikings, what do you call those vikings?
regards,
Dan Koehl 16:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Verification

message: Why I engafe a lot in this topic, is because of interest in true vikings.
Its also obvious that here is something wrong. Its always dangerous when people argue for "as all know" etc. Good examples are Champagne which "everyone" uses worng i daily chat, and the leanght of empereor Napoleon, who "everyone" knows he was short.
In germany, scandinavian are often refered to as "Elks" (german for Moose). Everyone knows what a Elk is, when refering to people in germany.
But, napoleon was of avrage body size, and only Champagne is described on the article Champagne.
And on the english wikipedia, the article :deElk describes moose, not scandinavian people.
WHY should this page different?
Why should people continue to get misleading information instead of correct?
WHY is this so important for people who promplty wants to describe Norse people on the article viking
I cant understand this...Why should an article on Wikipedia describe Misconceptions about a term, rather than the correct explanation?
Why?
Dan Koehl 11:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Champagne is a disambiguation page. Are you saying this page should be one too? This article does focus on "Vikings proper", i.e. not the Scandinavian populace in general but the ship-borne "merchant-warriors" in particular. If you want to write an ethnographic article about the Early Medieval population of Scandinavia, you are very welcome to do that at the proper article, Norsemen. dab (ᛏ) 12:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Background and reasons

message: See http://www.coronetbooks.com/books/d/deco0063.htm:
 Decolonizing the Viking Age, Volume 1
By Fredrik Svanberg
December 2003
Almqvist & Wiksell International
ISBN: 91-22-02006-3
This volume argues that the Scandinavian "Viking Age" can be seen as a system of knowledge constructed in the late 19th century and in its basic structures maintained up to the present day. This system of knowledge was heavily influenced by the nationalistic and evolutionary ideas of its time of making and may be described as a colonialism of the past. The book follows the making of the Viking Age from the start, through the most influential academic studies of the 20th century and up to the most authoritative recent works. A deconstruction of its main ideas is then suggested. In the second half of the book, a study of south-east Scandinavia is presented. This study is based upon discussions of "Old Norse" semantics of cultural landscapes, temporality and of the important connection between collective death rituals and the community of large groups of people. The results of this study are found to be incompatible with the knowledge structures of the "Viking Age" and of reaching beyond the Viking Age are suggested. This book is the first part of a dissertation in archaeology in two parts. The second volume is an archaeological work that creates the empirical foundation for the study of south-east Scandinavia found in the second part of the present volume.
For those who speak swedish: (from Fran http://www.sr.se/ekot/arkiv.asp?DagensDatum=2003-05-19&Artikel=233400
Arkeologen Fredrik Svanberg skrev:
Glöm vikingatiden som den beskrivs i skolböcker och uppslagsverk. Det menar arkeologen Fredrik Svanberg i en ny doktorsavhandling. Han har gått igenom och analyserat allt arkeologiskt material som grävts fram från vikingatidens begravningsplatser i södra Sverige och på danska Bornholm. Och han konstaterar att vikingar och vikingatiden, som vi känner den, är en konstruktion.
Fran http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=1194&a=456833&previousRenderType=1
Kåre Fagerström, arkeolog och fil dr i antikens kultur och samhällsliv skrev:
Ordet viking förekommer på någon enstaka runsten och hos Snorre Sturlasson på 1200-talet, och ordet används då nedsättande om muslimska pirater. Vikingen som begrepp har ifrågasatts av många, var och en utifrån sina egna utgångspunkter, och en som prövat på det dekonstruktivistiska angreppssättet och en imperialistisk infallsvinkel är Fredrik Svanberg, som i sin avhandling "Decolonizing the Viking Age" till yttermera visso återanvänder illustrationer från Henry Morton Stanleys Afrikaexpeditioner. Effekten av illustrationer av upptäcktsfärder till Kongo till en avhandling om vikingar är slående - i förstone verkar kombinationen paradoxal, sedan förstår man.
[...]
Men om det nu inte fanns något som vi kan kalla "viking" eller ens "vikingatid", hur ska vi då ställa oss till termerna i dag?
Eller med andra ord: Finns det skäl att dekonstruera ordets moderna historia?
Till att börja med kan man fråga sig i vilka sammanhang de används och vilka som kämpar "för vikingens överlevnad". Vi ser då att det handlar om huliganer, om nynazister, om rollspelare, om museifolk och om turistmänniskor. Det är alltså ett brokigt sällskap, där de olika grupperna knappast vill förknippas med de andra. Så låt oss bortse från huliganer och nynazister, som huvudsakligen ser vikingen som en slagskämpe. Återstår rollspelare, turistfolk och museimänniskor. Alla dessa har delvis sammanhängande intressen av att vidmakthålla vikingen. För turistindustrin är vikingen en lockande och inkomstbringande symbol.
Vikingen som begrepp är ju faktiskt inte enbart slagskämpe, utan också en samhällsbyggare som grundade Ryssland och Island, koloniserade och styrde stora delar av England samt grundade mer kortlivade samhällen på Grönland och i Amerika. Det är ett rikt arv som förknippas med vikingen. Skall vi bara kasta bort det?
Ja, tycks Fredrik Svanberg säga, och han pekar på vikingens kluvna arv och på att själva begreppet är ohistoriskt. Museimänniskorna har ju till uppgift att undervisa om den sammansatta historia som träder fram ur historiens dimmor om man tittar ända tillbaka till vikingatiden. Svanberg trycker på just detta: bilden är så komplex och rymmer så mycket att det inte berättigar oss att tala om en tid, ett folk eller en epok.
Vad som framgår av uppräkningen av de grupper som "tjänar" på att vikingen hålls vid liv är att de alla har ett ekonomiskt intresse. Turistnäringen säljer platser och resor tillsammans med souvenirer, museifolket tjänar på att folk söker sig till museer och utgrävningsplatser och rollspelarna har ju också en del att sälja, det finns ju vikingabyar med en hel del hantverk till avsalu och så vidare.
Och kanske är det så enkelt att det gamla motivet bakom vikingakulten - att rättfärdiga en väpnad imperialism - numera har ersatts av ett ekonomiskt motiv. Samtidigt står huliganer och nynassar i kulisserna och gnisslar tänder för att de snälla krafterna snott deras idoler - och det är kanske inte helt fel?
with best wishes,
Dan Koehl 21:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Most present sources

message: Hello,
WikiProject Ethnic groups has added new assessment criteria for Ethnic Groups articles.
Your article has automatically been given class=stub and reassess=yes ratings. [corrected text: --Ling.Nut 22:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: -->How to assess articles
Revisions of assessment ratings can be made by assigning an appropriate value via the class parameter in the WikiProject Ethnic groups project banner  that is currently placed at the top of Ethnic groups articles' talk pages. Quality assessment guidelines are at the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team's assessment system page.
Please see the Project's article rating and assessment scheme for more information and the details and criteria for each rating value. A brief version can be found at  Template talk:Ethnic groups. You can also  enquire at the Ethnic groups Project's main discussion board for assistance.
Another way to help out that could be an enjoyable pastime is to visit  :Category:WikiProject Ethnic groups, find an interesting-looking article to read, and carefully assess it following those guidelines.
Thanks!
--Ling.Nut 03:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Assessment Criteria for Ethnic Groups articles

message: I've removed the following text
...as Cornwall was never absorbed into Wessex the Vikings in a sense stopped Cornwall from becoming Saxonised.
As Cornwall did become Saxonised, I've amended the passage to include
The Britons of Cornwall allied with the Vikings in an unavailing attempt to expel the Saxons from Cornwall in 838.Halliday.F.E. A History of Cornwall, Duckworth, 1959 (2000 edition), , p102. 
And I've removed the whole Cornwall section on the grounds of bewildering inaccuracy; here it is for the scrutiny of editors:
The Vikings sailed into history around the same time that the Anglo-Saxons of Wessex were threatening the Celts of Cornwall and Devon. The Vikings probably had some contact with the Cornish via the tin trade, a trade in which Cornwall had a monopoly of the European market, as the Vikings were traders as well as warriors. Possibly as a result of good relations between the two, the Cornish and Danish Vikings joined forces in order to repell any Anglo-Saxon attacks on Cornwall (which the Saxons called "West Wales"). In 722, King Ine of Wessex invaded Cornwall with a huge Saxon army, but unknown to him, a combined Cornish and Viking army was waiting. King Ine arrived somewhere around the Camel estuary (possibly near modern day Padstow), but his Saxon army was literally torn to shreds thanks to the Celtic/Norse alliance, and King Ine fled the battle-field, most of his Saxon army either dead or taken hostage (to be sold into slavery) by the Vikings. This crucial battle kept Cornwall seperate from Wessex for at least 200 years. As a reward for their victory, the Vikings may have been given settlements in Cornwall, such as Falmouth, as well as a constant supply on tin, a commodity which the Vikings greatly admired. Another policy of Cornish/Vikings alliance was for the Vikings to constantly attack, burn, pillage and weaken Wessex, which they did with regularity, a policy to undermine Wessex as a military unit. This alliance of Cornish and Vikings kept Wessex out of Cornwall, and ultimately it would be French-speaking Vikings, a.k.a the Normans, who ultimately conquered the Saxons of Wessex, although the Normans and Cornish formulated some sort of deal that kept Cornwall as a distinct entity right throughout the Middle Ages -- the Stannary laws.
These are my reasons:
The earliest date for a Viking raid on Britain, as the article indicates, is 787. So the idea that Vikings, as such, were helping the Cornish fight against King Ine in 722 is invalid (any help given would have been by Norse traders, Danes, or whatever). In any case, although the Cornish finally halted the Wessex advance and defeated Ine, they lost half their territory in that war and so it can hardly have been considered a success.
The passage states that the final Cornish victory kept Cornwall separate from Wessex for at least 200 hundred years; but Cornwall was conquered by the Saxons under Egbert in 814 and thereby lost its independence. It's true that a Viking force assisted Cornish attempts to repel the Saxons in 838, but the combined force was defeated by the Saxons and the Vikings fled. 
The passage suggests that the Cornish lost their independence to the Normans; quite untrue, for the reasons above.
The passage stretches the definition of Viking by calling the Normans "French-speaking Vikings". They may have descended from Rollo, but Normans are not called Vikings
The passage suggests that, after the conquest, the Normans did a deal with the Cornish by agreeing the stannary laws. But the first stannary charter was granted in 1201, 135 years after the Norman conquest.
The passage suggests that in the time of the Vikings, the Cornish had a monopoly of the European tin trade, but this is unlikely as tin was produced in Spain as well as other places. Anyway, we have no facts about this because Cornish tin is unmentioned in historical records between 616 and 1198.
NB: In a separate passage, the article mentions that the people of Falmouth are proud of their Viking connections. I doubt that but I've left it in for the moment until I can check it. I come from North Cornwall and cannot speak for the people of Falmouth, but no-one round my way is proud of their Viking connections because we didn't know that we had any.
qp10qp 12:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vikings in Cornwall

message: The section on the British isles states:
The Viking presence dwindled until 1066, when the Danes lost their final battle with the English. The year 1066 is most commonly associated with the Battle of Stamford Bridge which is regarded as ending the Viking age. The battle at Stamford was between the English and the Norwegians. Did the Danes have a similar experience with the English in the same year as the Norwegians? Or was it impossible for the Danes to remain after the Norwegians were beaten? I suspect this sentance originates from a misunderstanding and just needs a rewrite, but if it is true I think my questions are relevant. Inge 10:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A pussling sentance 

message: Hello everybody! Sorry for my “poor English” I’m only a 21st century Viking and I don’t know very well your nice language! I congratulate you for your file about Vikings! It’s very complete!
I would like to propose you information. For us Vikings from today, we think that June 8th 793 (or 787)  is not the starting point for Viking raid. The Vikings are not a spontaneous generation of avid and sanguinary barbarians in 793, but they had legitimate reasons to retort against the violent exactions of Christian crimes (Charlemagne). The Vikings passed from the statute of explorers, tradesmen to that of pirates mainly because of dogmatic harassing monotheist of which they were the object. I would find equitable for their memory to explain one of the reasons of their strandhöggs (commandos). Moreover they first attack against the Christian sites, and it is not only because they were more vulnerable and that the Church held a quarter of the richness, but also because that constituted the symbol of destruction of their people and culture. One of the reasons of the vindication of my North Ancestors: in year 782 Godfred Danish King which came to assistance of the Saxon chief Widukind. Charlemagne impose “the law of the iron of God” or “the baptism or the massacre”  and he massacres 4500 Saxons and off-sets (deportation) 12000 women and children who refused the baptism, Christians destructed the Holly Tree Irminsul!  Widukind, Saxon chief require of the assistance of Danish king Godfred to avenge his people for the bloody verdict of Verden. Godfred accepted because Christians attacked Danish too (Dannevirke fortifications) and the sister of Godfred married Widukind. Vikings and all Pagan people were furious for the massacre of Saxons and the destruction of Holly Places, they knew that the Christians were very powerful and would not stop in Saxony! Here is also an important economic reason! Vikings wanted to protect their business, the Godfred kingdom was a very famous place to trade! The Vikings didn’t want that the Danish’s counters fall in the hands of Christians! Moreover in 808 Hedeby became the largest commercial counter of Scandinavia! It was vital to protect it! The Vikings chiefs saw progression of Christianity and wars destroyed the businesses! This economic reason contributed to enter it in war of the Vikings against the Christians. All the pagan ones rebelled against the terrible exactions of Charlemagne. 
In fact the Lindisfarne attack caused a considerable agitation in the Christian clerks,  because the Christian clerks were the victims and they were the only writers! It’s why one spoke much about it!  That’s the reason why we use to take this symbolic date of the June 8th , 793 to decide first attack Viking, by a Norwegian named Thorgis (perhaps one of my ancestors!) but the Scandinavians fight Christians for more than ten years ago, defending their people, their beliefs and their shopping centres! “Pappars” were also very virulent against Vikings to convert them and “put salt in their mouths” The attack of Lindisfarne is not a starting point but a symbol for Christians of Vikings crimes ! 793 is the starting point from a Christian point of view, it cannot be a starting point from a Viking point of view! One cannot limit the Vikings to horrible assassinating pirates of the Priests, there were multiple reasons with their violence! 782 is an important date to understand why the Vikings make raids. Obviously you can choose if you want to present my information according to a language encyclopaedic than I do not control yet rather well! Vikings salutations!Thorgis 20:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am afraid your 'information' is pure neopagan fantasy. dab (ᛏ) 22:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  782 the massacre of 4500 Saxons avenged by the Vikings 

message: Hello Dab! Thank you for the interest which you carries in my article. These infos are not erroneous even if the words are strong “deportations” it acts well of that alas! After some research: terms employed by the encyclopaedia “All Universe” (Hachette edition album n°5 page 1110) precise: “Charles decided to devote to a terrible massacre and it made slice the head, the same day, with 4500 Saxon (...) Guerrillas, repressions, and deportations in mass began again and were completed only into 804” Another source, in particular in the book of Jean Mabire(famous Historien) “the Vikings” (the Anchor Marine editions  in 2004.) Besides he begins its work with this historical fact (an782) Page 9 chapter 1 the long title “Ten years after the massacre of pagan Saxons by Charlemagne, the monks undergo in Lindisfarne the fury of Norman” the page 13 where it makes speak Widukind: “All mine were exterminated to the last prisoner. Four thousand five hundred noble warriors perished. The old men, the women, the children, all those which did not carry weapons, were off-set out of foreign ground where misery and the contempt wait.” Page 14 of the same book: Widukind requires of the assistance of Danish king Godfred “ account of the massacres and of the exiles, imaginations (...) of old hatreds are poked (...) With the iron of God must answer the iron of Odin strikes (...) Revenge! “ Page 15: “During more than two centuries, the Northmen or Norman, will make pay with the abbeys and in the cities of Occident the Charlemagne crime ” There is also page 16 where have to read the following title: “The massacre of Lindisfarne avenges the crime for Verden” “Lindisfarne will pay for Verden”
There is besides a memorial for this massacre of Verden where thousand large steles are set up. For this crime against the Saxon ones. One qualified Charlemagne of “butcher” and his wife who led to the crime Fastrade de Franconie “the cruel one”.
There are several other sources of which: The Zwiki encyclopaedia, (that I did not know, sorry for the advertizing!), this specifies: “The following year, a rising general carried out by the chief Saxon Widukind leads to the franque defeat, Charlemagne makes decapitate several thousands of Saxons prisoners in Verden and orders the deportation of several clans towards the kingdom of the Frank ones."  I hope that these sources will be sufficient to understand why the Vikings attacked Christians. Many other historien know those informations.You can consult also the page for “Widukind” and “Charlemagne” Cordial greetings Vikings;) Thorgis 08:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  the history truth, nothing else. 

message: Thank you Dan for your kind message. Precisely I should like to ask you a question: I am fond of history, specialized since my youth on the Vikings. I should like to bring some elements on this topic, but unfortunately I rather badly write English, I can’t allow myself to intervene directly on the article. So I prefer to write my infos and my sources on the discussion page. Could somebody see what could interest the article? My first subject explains why the Vikings make war against the Christian world. I think that it's important to know it! I thank you for your assistance and contact me if you have needs for my knowledge on this topic, I would make my best to help you and find sources. In a friendly wayThorgis 19:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest you copy the relevant passages from books onto this talk page in their original language, giving precise author, publisher, ISBN, page references. Then someone can translate them into English and paraphrase or quote them, if there is consensus, in the article.qp10qp 19:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  One of the reasons for Vikings raids. 

message: WHOEVER IS DELETING THE BLOODY SECTION ABOUT THE BAGHDAD RAID, STOP! ITS TRUE, LOOK IT UP THE MILLITARY CHANNEL! GEES! IF I HAVE TO KEEP ON ADDING IT BECAUSE PEOPLE KEEP ON DELETING IT, THEN I WILL!
:Add a citation to a reliable source if it is factual then. SparrowsWing 03:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you know that as a fact, then try finding a factual website saying the same thing, and citing it instead. ChadyWady|Talk 13:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  STOP DELETING THE BAGHDAD RAID!