| Revision as of 14:59, 10 May 2015 editJohnbod (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions, Rollbackers280,673 edits →Former viking: cmt← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 13:27, 19 November 2024 edit undoFavonian (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators287,720 editsm Reverted edit by 185.61.91.184 (talk) to last version by TylerBurdenTag: Rollback |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{talk header|search=yes}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|collapsed=yes|vital=yes|1= |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Military history |class= |B-Class-1=yes |B-Class-2=no |B-Class-3=yes |B-Class-4=yes |B-Class-5=yes |Nordic=yes |Medieval=yes}} |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Middle Ages|importance=Top }} |
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Denmark|importance=Top}} |
|
|counter = 6 |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Norway |importance=Top}} |
|
|minthreadsleft = 5 |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Sweden|importance=Top}} |
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 2 |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Russia|importance=High|mil=yes|hist=yes|ethno=yes}} |
|
|algo = old(90d) |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Estonia |importance = Mid }} |
|
|archive = Talk:Vikings/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Iceland|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Piracy|importance=top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Ethnic groups|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Norse history and culture|importance=top}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{Article history |
|
{{Auto archiving notice |bot=MiszaBot I |age=3 |units=months }} |
|
|
{{ArticleHistory |
|
|
|action1=FAC |
|
|action1=FAC |
|
|action1date=10:30, 18 April 2006 |
|
|action1date=10:30, 18 April 2006 |
| Line 16: |
Line 19: |
|
|action1result=not promoted |
|
|action1result=not promoted |
|
|action1oldid=48958522 |
|
|action1oldid=48958522 |
|
|
|
|
|action2=PR |
|
|action2=PR |
|
|action2date=19:28, 22 January 2007 |
|
|action2date=19:28, 22 January 2007 |
| Line 22: |
Line 24: |
|
|action2result=reviewed |
|
|action2result=reviewed |
|
|action2oldid=102488676 |
|
|action2oldid=102488676 |
|
|
|currentstatus=FFAC |
|
|
}}{{Annual readership|days=90}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|currentstatus=FFAC |
|
|
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
|
|counter = 18 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 5 |
|
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 2 |
|
|
|algo = old(90d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:Vikings/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|collapsed=yes|1= |
|
|
{{WPMILHIST|class=C |
|
|
|B-Class-1=yes |B-Class-2=no |B-Class-3=yes |B-Class-4=yes |B-Class-5=yes |
|
|
|Nordic=yes |Medieval=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Middle Ages |class=c |importance=Top }} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Denmark|class=c|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Norway|class=c}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Sweden|class=c|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Norse history and culture|class=c|importance=top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Russia|class=c|importance=High|mil=yes|hist=yes|ethno=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Estonia|class=c|importance=mid |
|
|
|b1 <!--Referencing & citations--> = yes |
|
|
|b2 <!--Coverage and accuracy --> = no |
|
|
|b3 <!--Structure --> = yes |
|
|
|b4 <!--Grammar and style --> = yes |
|
|
|b5 <!--Supporting materials --> = yes |
|
|
|b6 <!--Accessible --> = yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Iceland|class=c|importance=top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Piracy|class=c|importance=high}} |
|
|
{{Ethnic groups|class=c|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WP1.0|class=C|category=category|WPCD=yes|small=no}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
==Were the later Danes any different from the earlier (Saxons, Angles and Jutes = Anglo-Saxons), or just all in the same ongoing process?== |
|
|
Another aspect is that the ], ]and the ] were of Danish/Germanic tribes on ] and todays ] (united with Denmark until 1864), whom settled in large parts of Great Britain in the early Middle Ages and formed the the merged group of ] that would eventually carve out the first united Kingdom of England. ] that was the centre of the danish Vikings is located in ] and a major question is if the Vikings and the Anglo-Saxons were any different, just like cousines. It could be seen and just different waves of the same process that wnet on for some hundreds of years? The major difference was rather who should be the boss and who writes the history? The ] establishing in ] is a much different issue. If not a mellenium, because the ability for ] to take ] and later most of ] was to prevent Germanic tribes to take over such ] areas, where the Celts in fact prefered the Romans. The Danes (], ]and the ]) were pushing on Britian already then. It is a accurate quation if there were any difference or just an ongoing process of waves and just different personal management? ] (]) 06:01, 16 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:{{ping|User:Zzalpha}} Hello. Yes, this is very interesting stuff! Yes as you describe it, the Vikings raids and settlements can be viewed as a continuation of the ], but they travelled much further than before and their raids and settlements were much larger in scale as well. The Vikings were also different from the Angles and the Saxons. They had different religions, different Gods, different language, different cultures and they were in conflict with each other. The Vikings were neither Jutes nor Danes, as these tribes came before the Vikings and their culture, but the was Jutish and Danish genes in the Vikings no doubt. ] (]) 20:45, 23 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::I think a problem in this theme is that the labels Angels, Saxons, Juts, Danes, Vikings are made after their existence and they just looked upon themselves as tribes and "business" enterprises/risk investments to use modern terms. The Angels, Saxons, Juts were originally all having the same religion as the Vikings later, but became Christian in England, and were pretty different when the Vikings came from what they were arriving 400-500 years earlier. So are we compared to our 17th century ancestors and especially people in the US are quite different from our ancestors moving there 100 years ago. My grandpa had 6 brothers and sisters and 5 went over and he when later back. But I think they were of the same bloodline, and modern DNA studies would be interesting to see? After the Viking age national states were forming in their area and Southern Jutland ] is today Germany and ] is shared by Denmark and Germany since 1919. But the Dukes of Holstein (])became the kings of Denmark from 1448 and still is in power, and Holstein was an integrated part of the Danish reign even though Holstein was a part of the ]. ] is a specific area and they spoke old ] and the difference between that and old Danish ] were most likely not bigger than they could understand each other. Question is if we can distinguish old ] (settled in Kent) being related to Danes or Germans, I think there were no exact definitions in those days? I think the only major difference between the ] were only arrival time. There were old and new Vikings fighting about power in Alfred the Greats time, and the ] were there seeing them all arriving in different waves. In fact ] most likely stopped them from taking over Britain and France already 50 BC, that was according to Ceasar the reason of his intervention in France. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 00:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
== Review and new ratings == |
|
|
|
|
|
Hello everybody. I think it is time for new reviews of this page and perhaps new rankings? A lot have changed and been added since it was last examined. I am not sure if the page will get any better rankings, but a new review would be appropriate nevertheless. Whatever the outcome, the page could greatly benefit from a solid formulation of what needs to be done in order to make it more Misplaced Pages-like. I am not necessarily thinking content, but more style issues. |
|
|
|
|
|
However, I dont know much about how to attract qualified users to make reviews, so perhaps some of you had suggestions for how to proceed with this? |
|
|
|
|
|
Cheers. |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 12:33, 3 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
* '''Topic: the use, origin and meaning (etymology) of the word ''Viking''.''' |
|
|
|
|
|
:Its a good initiative, and I agree that it would be good if the page could be rewritten for new rankings. |
|
|
:The problem though, as I see it, is that the article is not consisting, contrary to the german article its unclear about what, who, or which the article describe. The real vikings, a present misinterpretation, etc. I object very much to be described as descendant to vikings, the sentence ''the term frequently applied casually to their modern descendants'' gives a picture to what I mean. Theres no evidence whatsoever that Im a descendant of vikings, while of course Im am a descendant to ]. If noone starts to cleanup from the beginning, with a definition on what the subject for the article is, it will suffer from a major handicap. ] (]) 02:25, 8 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::This is now on the "to do" list then. The issue has been raised and discussed thoroughly in several previous threads on this talk-page. I advice new readers to dig and read up on this, before commenting on this specific issue here. |
|
|
::The (reffed) info I have put up, is talking from the POV that "Vikings" means "the people of (or originating from) Scandinavia during the Viking Age". This POV/definition can also be equalled to "the Norse people during the Viking Age", to incorporate the broader term Norse. Here Norse mean the people of Scandinavia, without any specific historical era in mind, although it is sometimes limited to the people of Scandinavia originally practising the Norse religion only. Reading a few of the refs and surces that are up now, will make it clear. |
|
|
::Nevertheless it is of course important to discuss, that outside Scandinavia itself, "Vikings" traditionally defines "raiders and settlers originating from Scandinavia". This should be explained in a section dealing with the meaning of the term and name Viking. I think it is up already? As you Dan (and others) have pointed out, "Vikings" has traditionally even been used as a general term for raiders, without regard to their ethnic or geographical origin at all. This should also be explained of course. There are many meanings apparently, depending upon the context and the worldview of specific authors. ] (]) 18:53, 13 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Yes and no {{ping|RhinoMind}} (thanks for your efforts to increase the quality of this article), I wouldnt say it has been used ''even'' as a general term for raiders, without regard to their ethnic or geographical origin, it was ''never used for anything else than that'' until some fifty years ago. And it was until fifty years ago never used as a term for traders. I have argued for that Viking was the old-english translation of the latin word ''pirate''. The word pirate was never used in any literature from this time. And as I have verified elsewhere, Alexander the greats' father, Philippus II of macedonia, was the first to be mentioned as ''viking'', the oldest documentation of the word viking, that I have found in any medevial document. Philippus was of course far away from living, or being born in Scandinavia. But he did commit piracing for some two years, according to the sources. Latin: ''Piratae''= Oldenglish: ''viking''. ] (]) 02:17, 14 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::I would like to add that an important step for the future of this article could be an effort to globalize the article. Regardless if some british and US people presently believe that vikings were a tribe of people with ancestry from Scandinavia, this is not the case for millions of asian, african and southamericans that user the english language version of Misplaced Pages. For them the present article ''invent'' vikings from Scandinavia, while they would probably benefit much more from a neutral point of view, where the prime sources are given the emphasis describing and explaining who vikings were, rather than a populistic and highly commercialized interpretation since the fifties. I belive all articles should be globalised? ] (]) 20:16, 20 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 4 December 2014 == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Vikings|answered=yes}} |
|
|
<!-- Begin request --> |
|
|
Georgia Herron and Amber Gurdler have proof that vikings were real ily |
|
|
<!-- End request --> |
|
|
] (]) 02:59, 4 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:] '''Not done:''' please provide ] that support the change you want to be made.<!-- Template:ESp --> — <span class="nowrap">{{U|]}} <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup></span> 03:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== The extensiveness of the term 'viking' concerning ethnicity == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The subject of defining the term 'viking' is treated in a recent book, "Fibula, Fabula, Fact - Viking Age in Finland" in which the relevance of its appliance to solely Scandinavians is questioned. The book focuses on Finland and it is asked whether or not the Finns of the late Iron Age can be labelled vikings. The same concerns, I suppose, e.g. the Baltic and Finnic peoples inhabiting the Baltic Sea region and largely having a shared cultural sphere with the Scandinavians. Of course, borderline cases raise questions but may therefore be of special interest. <small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 16:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
:Interesting point. As far as I know the Finnish culture was distinctively different from "the viking culture". And the same applied to the Slavic cultures of the eastern and southern regions of the Baltic sea. Of course cultures also mixed in those days, but I am still confident that many cultural distinctions would have been obvious. Such as language, art work, religion, gods, social structures and even to some degree genetic distinctions (much more so than nowadays). But our knowledge and understanding of the Viking Age is growing and changing day by day. There is so much going on right now. Would love to read the book. ] (]) 17:05, 23 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:By the way. How to interpret and use the term "Viking" has been discussed intensely above. And it appears that there is not a singular consensus on its use. ] (]) 17:05, 23 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::As far as I know where was no wiking culture at all. Until 1900, no prime sources ever connected vikings to any ethnical tribe, nation, country or culture. The word means pirate, and pirats may be from just anywehere. As I have stated before, the first documentaion of the use word viking is when it used for the macedonian king ], the father of ]. ] (]) 17:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Yep, had you in mind Dan :-) ...and both then and now, we are all human beings living on a tiny planet. We cannot run from that fact, by putting labels on each other. ] (]) 17:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Female Vikings? == |
|
|
|
|
|
This article contains almost no information about women in Viking settlements.(Other than a reference to jewelry, as far as I can see.) |
|
|
|
|
|
I would be interested in learning more, especially about the supposed existence of shield maidens, and the fact that women traveled with their men. |
|
|
|
|
|
I realize there may not be much information available, but I think at least one section of the article should be devoted to women. ] (]) 06:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:{{ping|Malkee}}, I stand to be corrected, but I believe that history doesnt know one single female viking and theres not one prime source, that mention one, why I argue that it would be very wrong to invent or fabricate female '''vikings''', whose existence is until now, not known or confirmed, out of political correctness. Im sure noone wants to see parts of tha article amazons filled with speculations on eventual male amazones, whose existence has never been confirmed, for the same reason. But you may actually refer to ], the Scandinavian people before the Christianisation of Scandinavia, where I find your request very relevant and also realistic. ] (]) 07:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I am not asking of a desire to be politically correct.I am interested in writing a novel set during the Viking era and I need information, at least whatever is available. Obviously, "Viking" females existed or there wouldn't have been any Viking men, at least in the Norse countries. What about this? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2017251/Family-affair-Viking-warriors-joined-wives-invaded-Britain.html |
|
|
If you're in doubt about authenticity of the study,I would ask you to look at the note by one of the researchers in the comments who apparently conducted this study. I found this under the Misplaced Pages entry for "shield maiden." Other articles are listed there, too. Women should get equal time in this article, and not out of political correctness. We don't know if Amazons existed, so it's wrong to equate Vikings, male or female with them when we do know Vikings existed. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 02:37, 7 February 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
:Well I wouldn't put any store by anything found in the ''Daily Mail'', it is not considered a reliable source. And no, women should not get equal space in the article, that should be decided by what can be found in the sources. The published research they referred to in the ''Mail'' article is available online . Look instead to that for research for your book. There probably needs to be a clear distinction here between the periods of Viking raids and the period of Norse settlement. Immigrants are much more likely to bring their women with them than pirate raiders. As I understand the paper (didn't read it all), there is still no evidence of female warriors, although finding swords in female graves may be suggestive. ]] 08:14, 7 February 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I am well aware of the Daily Mail's reputation. At no time did I ask for "women to get equal space" in the article. This is the reason women get frustrated in academic and employment circles, because their questions are so often taken as a demand for equality, rather than a genuine inquiry. As a former journalist, I know that mistakes are often made in news articles. But most of the time, the thrust of stories in newspaper articles and even on television is essentially correct. From what I've been able to gather from my research -- not all of it conducted on Misplaced Pages or through the news media -there was some crossover during the period of Viking raids and the period of Norse settlement." I'm interested in that. I'm also interested in the fact that swords in female graves may be "suggestive" of female warriors. If I was so intent on including this information in the article, I would put it in myself. But I certainly think it's something that should be discussed. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 07:57, 8 February 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
After reading almost to the end of the linked article, I thought I would add this to our discussion: "Another important implication of the osteological sexing results is that Norse women appear to have been present from the earliest stages of the migratory process, rather than, as the commonly held theory has it, arriving as part of a second wave after the great army had started to settle the homelands it had conquered. The presence of Norse women at Heath Wood and the woman in the Repton mass burial are highly suggestive of women accompanying the great army to England, as these sites are dated to the campaigning period or its immediate aftermath." |
|
|
No,it's not certain. But it deserves mention.] (]) 08:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)malkee] (]) 08:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:So you didn't say that women should be given equal space? Hard to see what you meant by "omen should get equal time in this article" in that case. Look, I've found the primary source for you, I don't expect thanks for that, but whatever ends up in the Misplaced Pages article will tell you no more than that. McLeod has not said, or even suggested, that women were Viking warriors. Only that they were present in England earlier than previously thought. All sorts of things are placed in graves. In modern times people are buried dressed in their Sunday best. That does not mean that they normally (or ever) ran around dressed like that. Queen Liz II swings a sword every time she knights someone. Doesn't mean that she is ever going to use it in battle. More direct evidence is needed before we can say women fought in Viking battles. ]] 08:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Just have to give a "thumbs up" for the Queen Elizabeth comparison! Made me laugh :-) A good example. Ceremonial weapons and armour were probably important in many situations. ] (]) 16:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Dental health == |
|
:@Malkee "the thrust of stories in newspaper articles and even on television is essentially correct." From a general point of view, I don't agree. I do not suggest skipping a serious check up on the sources said media uses, whenever you want to be certain about a particular story. If it is hard (or impossible) to find solid sources for their stories, it is most likely because they don't exist. The media makes quite a few blunders and "original research" half-true stories. Personally I indulge in mass-media anyway, because I like to be entertained sometimes. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Swedish archeological investigations<ref>{{cite journal | last=Bertilsson | first=Carolina | last2=Vretemark | first2=Maria | last3=Lund | first3=Henrik | last4=Lingström | first4=Peter | title=Caries prevalence and other dental pathological conditions in Vikings from Varnhem, Sweden | journal=] | volume=18 | issue=12 | date=2023-12-13 | issn=1932-6203 | pmid=38091309 | pmc=PMC10718447 | doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0295282 | page=e0295282}}</ref><ref>{{cite web | last=Nilsson | first=Johan | title=Vikingarna plågades av ständig tandvärk | website=] | date=2023-12-26 | url=https://www.dn.se/sverige/vikingarna-plagades-av-standig-tandvark/ | language=sv | access-date=2023-12-26|archive-date=26 December 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231226185630/https://www.dn.se/sverige/vikingarna-plagades-av-standig-tandvark/}}</ref> show that Vikings had horrible dental health – ] and ] were common. Majority of vikings were likely plagued by permanent toothaches. I wanted to add this to the article, but found no suitable location.<br> |
|
:About the mentioning of men-women ratio during raids and subsequent settlements. If it needs to be mentioned, all we can do is to explain that it is currently being researched. Personally I suggest waiting to put anything in the article, until this research has delivered some solid results for us to write about and reference to. In general Misplaced Pages needs a lot more info from solid sources, than more half-studied stories and perhaps-true-rumors. |
|
|
|
It could be good to have a section on viking health, including dental health. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edit: then again, other sources report that vikings had good dental hygiene and remarkably advanced ] practices.<ref>{{cite web | title=Oväntat avancerad tandläkarkonst hos vikingar | website=Göteborgs universitet | date=2023-12-14 | url=https://www.gu.se/nyheter/ovantat-avancerad-tandlakarkonst-hos-vikingar | language=sv | access-date=2023-12-26}}</ref><ref>{{cite web | author=Carolina Bertilsson | title=Vikingarna hade koll på tandvård | website=forskning.se | date=2023-12-14 | url=https://www.forskning.se/2023/12/14/vikingarna-hade-koll-pa-tandvard/ | language=sv | access-date=2023-12-26}}</ref> |
|
:Btw. I have posted some info on this whole topic on your talk page Malkee. As you I find it fascinating. ] (]) 16:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
<br> ] (]) 22:14, 26 December 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:This doesn’t strike me as something that belongs in the main article or is even notable or generalizable.—-] (]) 00:23, 27 December 2023 (UTC) |
|
I still think this article needs a chapter about women. I have subsequently read of Misplaced Pages's efforts to get more women to contribute to articles. This discussion is indicative of the problem. ] (]) 23:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)malkee |
|
|
|
::The vikings in-fact didn’t have horns on their helmets that was made up centuries later by illustrators ] (]) 15:47, 1 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:::We can credit that to an opera producer, actually. The ancient Britons, on the other hand, did wear horns on their heads. Not helmets though, but more often the entire skull of an animal, skin and all. Not for battle either but as costumes for a religious, druidic festival that we still celebrate today... just 30 days from now in fact. ] (]) 21:40, 1 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
I believe your largest problem will be to identify a single woman, mentioned as wiking during her own time. But by all means, since your focus is ''novels'', invent one, and ask the community hat she should be a part of the article. By now the article doesn't really provide scientific facts anyhow, so I guess it won't get much worse with a couple of new inventions in regard to the term wiking. I guess we have to wait to wait another 5-10 years auntil we cet a consensus that the article wiking should focus on wikings and nothing else. ] (]) 00:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{Reflist-talk}} |
|
:I don't think these are very helpful comments. The article begins "Vikings (from Old Norse víkingr) were Germanic Norse seafarers, speaking the Old Norse language, who raided and traded from their Scandinavian homelands across wide areas of northern and central Europe, as well as European Russia, during the late 8th to late 11th centuries. The term is also commonly extended in modern English and other vernaculars to the inhabitants of Viking home communities during what has become known as the Viking Age." Of course there were Viking women, but they played no regular role in warfare. We don't have much on any aspects of Viking domestic life, & more would be welcome. ] (]) 03:17, 19 April 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Legacy II == |
|
::maybe not helpful, but at least true. Im aware of that some english speaking people refer to ethnic scandinavian as vikings, but this is a misinterpretation of the word. Before 1800 and the romantic period, you can not find one single woman in the prime sources described as, or referred to as viking. If people, based on the present misinterpretation of the word, start to speak about female vikings, you are in fact inventing something which never existed. ] (]) 04:00, 29 April 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi, a bouquet from my latest Florilegium. Can/should it be included, or not? Opinions welcome. T |
|
Hello. There is new online information on Viking women here: (National Museum of Denmark). ] (]) 16:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:(https://www.worldhistory.org/Vikings/) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:The Vikings influenced the culture of every nation they came in contact with and in every conceivable way from architecture to language, infrastructure to poetry and place names, military reforms to food and clothing, and certainly in the areas of warfare and shipbuilding. |
|
That article refers to women during the viking age, which is not the same as women who went on viking, since no women did that, according to the prime sources. ] (]) 04:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:Probably not, but since this is the English Misplaced Pages, we are using the word in the English meaning of it, as described in the article lead. ] (]) 11:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::Who are we? I thought that Misplaced Pages articles should be written with global content, then if you are using the term in English, is not the same as if everyone else would use the word in English like that. Probably, but in order to start writing about female vikings, you must find one in the sources. because if the article should be just about female Scandinavians, it would be more logical to label such a woman as a female Scandinavian, which she without doubt was. And describe who scared she was of vikings, which she most certainly was. That would be a true story, instead of an invention of something not existing, due to a habit of misinterpretation a word. ] (]) 11:48, 29 April 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::The English Misplaced Pages is written in English for people who speak English, globally. ] (]) 12:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::There is no universally accepted definition of Vikings, but the ''Blackwell Encyclopedia of Anglo-Saxon England'' includes women and children who left their Scandinavian homeland in search of a better life. The ''Oxford Dictionary of English'' refers to Scandinavian pirates and traders. There is no justification for excluding women. ] (]) 12:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I think (cautiously) that in Scandinavian languages Viking remains essentially a verb, for the raiding etc activity by Norse people, and "Viking women" sounds wrong. But this is English. ] (]) 13:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-46194699 |
|
OK, so i give you a challenge. You write a story about norse people during the viking age. Stubbornly, in the story you label them vikings, instead of Norse, although you are actually writing about Norse people, and about about vikings. They live in a village in Sweden, they are farmers, shepherds, hunters and one is actually a baker. A couple of the guys sometimes go on summer west viking, and return loaded with gold in the autumns. Now and then they come together on thing, and discuss the lawmen are solving the latest crimes in the neighbourhood, and the community also organize their defense, the defense against vikings. In this very village is one of the leidang harbours, always ready with four fighting ships, and food is stored. the ships are made for 24 men rowing, and one steering man. The four ships altogether holds 100 soldiers, and they are volunteering from the farms nearby, one from each farm, so that's why the districts is called a hundred, a term that will later become exported to England. But they also organize the peoples the village defence against viking raiders, and they put stakes in the water in order to make it difficult for atatcking ships. At least two soldiers in the village are official viking watchers, they are high ranking guys, the pre aristocracy, and they often keep guard at the top of the mountains, close to the shores, so they can identify a viking fleet approaching as fast as possible. Then we have a couple of very large farms nearby, owned by farmers who now and then build long ships, sometimes send their ships on vikings, and always to the west. Othervise they have trade routes to the east, and they suffer as much from viking attacks as do the local communities. They think, one day the vikings must have an end, they are destroying the market, the trade, and makes the seas dangerous. Theres a rumor that the new king of Norway, Harald the Hairfair, will be approved king from the pope on one condition: he must clean the shores of Scotland and Hebrides from vikings. It has aleady began, and thousand in the kings army has fought the vikings, who are now moving to Iceland instead. Some of those soldiers are staying in the Scottish communities, where now law and order gets established and a colony is being established, one the vikings are gone. Another escape for the vikings is the city of Jomsburg where outlaws can live. Most of those vikings would never get accepted if they returned to their home villages, all they know is how to fight, but they have heard about another profession, if they give up the viking, and are willing to swear an oath, they can get job as varangers in the emperors army in Cristianopel. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:The Viking system of law contains elements which mirror the ethical codes of many cultures, along with a framework of ownership. |
|
How do you tell this story in English? If you use the word viking for people, what word do you use for the word viking? |
|
|
|
:Mr Cooper* explained: "They are still some of the laws we use to this day; don't kill, don't steal. A lot of it related to property and respecting property." |
|
WHY make this so confused, just out of some stubborn rule, that even if we made an intellectual mistake 30 years ago, when we started to popularize everything Scandinavian by using the word viking, and now you don't have a word for the word viking, and the present Scandinavian are pissed because you refer to their ancestors as pirates... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Mr Cooper said: "The Viking system was almost like our current system still works. There was a local Thing, which was a local council. Then there was like, for example, a Shetland-wide Thing. Local Things would send representatives to that. Ultimately there was the King and court in Norway." |
|
Wouldn't it, really be easier if you would use the vord viking for vikings, instead of using the word viking for a lot of not-at-all viking? |
|
|
|
:In ways, this structure filtered through into egalitarian aspects of Viking society. Mr Cooper said: "Women had rights in Viking times that they lost and didn't regain for 10 centuries. They could own land, they could inherit land, and they could speak at the Things. "They were a fair-minded race. Despite their reputation. they had rules to live by. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:(/*Davy Cooper of the Shetland Amenity Trust, my addition/) |
|
] (]) 19:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::This isn't the place to discuss changes to the English language. ] (]) 19:48, 29 April 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:https://historymedieval.com/legacy-of-the-viking-age-shaping-europe/ |
|
:Johnbod, instead of reading poor encyclopedias from 50 years back, go to the oldest sources, mentioning the word. The first time when its used, is about the macedonian king Philip II, father of Alexander, he was viking for some years, according to the old-english sources, where the word viking is simply a translation of the latin word ''pirate''. It may surprise english speaking people that Philip was not Scandinavian at all, and never, ever was their a rule that pirates must have an Scandinavian ethnically association. Next source is Beowulf, read and see how the word is used. next is Adam of Bremen, read what he writes. next is the Icelandic sagas. next is the danish sagas from Saxo grammaticus, next is from the 1700 by Holberg. |
|
|
1 000 years when a viking, is just the old english word for the latin pirate. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Scholars have proposed different end dates for the Viking Age, with most agreeing that it ended in the 11th century. The conversion of Iceland to Christianity in 1000, the death of Harthacnut, the Danish King of England in 1042, and the Battle of Largs in 1263 are some of the events used to mark the end of the Viking Age. However, a "long Viking Age" may have extended into the 15th century, as the Western Isles, the Isle of Man, Orkney, and Shetland remained under Scandinavian authority until the 13th and 15th centuries. |
|
Then in 1800 a new "viking" gets invented, but he is a false viking, with no scientific proofed existence, he is made up on fantasies, archetypes and romantic ideas by ignorant laymen that thought is was colder in the viking age, they don't even know about the climate change and the little ice age. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Despite several attempts by Scandinavian kings to regain control of England, the last of which took place in 1086, Viking presence declined in England. The last major Viking raid was led by Eystein II of Norway in 1152. |
|
OK, so i give you a challenge. You write a story about norse people during the viking age. Stubbornly, in the story you label them vikings, instead of Norse, although you are actually writing about Norse people, and about about vikings. They live in a village in Sweden, they are farmers, shepherds, hunters and one is actually a baker. A couple of the guys sometimes go on summer west viking, and return loaded with gold in the autumns. Now and then they come together on thing, and discuss the lawmen are solving the latest crimes in the neighbourhood, and the community also organize their defense, the defense against vikings. In this very village is one of the leidang harbours, always ready with four fighting ships, and food is stored. the ships are made for 24 men rowing, and one steering man. The four ships altogether holds 100 soldiers, and they are volunteering from the farms nearby, one from each farm, so that's why the districts is called a hundred, a term that will later become exported to England. But they also organize the peoples the village defence against viking raiders, and they put stakes in the water in order to make it difficult for atatcking ships. At least two soldiers in the village are official viking watchers, they are high ranking guys, the pre aristocracy, and they often keep guard at the top of the mountains, close to the shores, so they can identify a viking fleet approaching as fast as possible. Then we have a couple of very large farms nearby, owned by farmers who now and then build long ships, sometimes send their ships on vikings, and always to the west. Othervise they have trade routes to the east, and they suffer as much from viking attacks as do the local communities. They think, one day the vikings must have an end, they are destroying the market, the trade, and makes the seas dangerous. Theres a rumor that the new king of Norway, Harald the Hairfair, will be approved king from the pope on one condition: he must clean the shores of Scotland and Hebrides from vikings. It has aleady began, and thousand in the kings army has fought the vikings, who are now moving to Iceland instead. Some of those soldiers are staying in the Scottish communities, where now law and order gets established and a colony is being established, one the vikings are gone. Another escape for the vikings is the city of Jomsburg where outlaws can live. Most of those vikings would never get accepted if they returned to their home villages, all they know is how to fight, but they have heard about another profession, if they give up the viking, and are willing to swear an oath, they can get job as varangers in the emperors army in Cristianopel. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Between 790 and 800, the first Viking raids began along the coasts of western France, primarily during the summer. The Vikings took advantage of the disputes in the royal family after the death of Louis the Pious to establish their first colony in Gascony. The raids in 841 caused significant damage to Rouen and Jumièges, with the Vikings targeting the treasures stored at monasteries. In 845, an expedition reached Paris, and the presence of Carolingian deniers in Mullaghboden, County Limerick in 1871 suggests they were likely booty from the raids. |
|
How do you tell this story in English? If you use the word viking for people, what word do you use for the word viking? |
|
|
WHY make this so confused, just out of some stubborn rule, that even if we made an intellectual mistake 30 years ago, when we started to popularize everything Scandinavian by using the word viking, and now you don't have a word for the word viking, and the present Scandinavian are pissed because you refer to their ancestors as pirates... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Economic Impact |
|
Wouldn't it, really be easier if you would use the word viking for vikings, instead of using the word viking for a lot of not-at-all viking,and when writing a story when normal people and vikings meet, the word viking refers to vikings and not to not-vikings? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:The Vikings also played a role in the development of a monetary system, as their trading activities required the use of coins and other forms of currency. The Vikings introduced the use of silver coins, which facilitated the exchange of goods and services, making trade more efficient. This led to the widespread adoption of coins as a means of payment, which was crucial for the growth of Europe’s economy. |
|
] (]) 19:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Another impact of the Vikings on Europe’s economy was the expansion of trade centers. The Vikings established trade centers in cities like Dublin, York, and Paris, which became thriving centers of trade and commerce. These trade centers attracted merchants and traders from all over Europe, who brought with them a wealth of goods and ideas. The establishment of these trade centers allowed for the exchange of goods and services on a large scale, and this greatly contributed to the growth of the European economy. |
|
:I found a story about a woman who performed raids with ships: |
|
|
|
] (]) 18:16, 26 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
''According to ], '''Alfhild''', daughter of the ] king ], was a ], who had her own fleet of ]s, with crews of young female pirates, who raided along the coasts of the Baltic Sea.'' ] (]) 17:39, 9 May 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::There you go then. Amazing there hasn't been a movie! But when we talk in the article about Viking women we mean housewives, not that one would get into a fight with them I'm sure. ] (]) 17:50, 9 May 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Oh, you mean that people that spoke vikingish? ] (]) 17:52, 9 May 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Former viking == |
|
== Name Change == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shouldnt the namr of this wiki page be Changed to Norse society or Norse culture instead of just vikings? Seems more historically accurate. ] (]) 06:05, 24 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
In ] is to read: |
|
|
*''Herraud's best friend was Bósi, the younger son of a '''former viking''' named Thvari or Bryn-Thvari by Brynhild, a '''former shieldmaiden''' and a daughter of King Agnar of Nóatún. '' |
|
|
*''Bósi was a rough boy who was eventually outlawed for maiming some other folk in a ball-game. Herraud, discontented, gained permission from his father, over Sjód's objections, be allowed to set off on a Viking expedition with five ships'' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:"Vikings" is by far the most recognizable name in English, so it's what we use per ]. Other articles like ] and ] use "Norse" as appropriate. ]] 06:24, 24 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
There is, however, no such thing as a former ], mentioned in the sources. ] (]) 22:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Germanic culture == |
|
] saga: ''Björn var farmaður mikill, var stundum í víking, en stundum í kaupferðum; Björn var hinn gervilegasti maður. (english: Björn was a great traveller; sometimes as viking, sometimes as tradesman.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The viking culture is non existend, its the germanic culture within the northern tribes. Viking was merely an occupation within the northern germanic culture, this should better be shown for accurate information. It should atleast be mentioned that the vikings were from the germanic tribes ] (]) 07:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
So, a ] could be a viking for some time, and he could be a tradesman (or a baker, or a shepherd) for some time. But not all tradesmen, bakers, shepherds and vikings were ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Before even the opening paragraph of the lead, there's a hatnote that makes it clear that the Vikings were North Germanic Norsemen. ]] 07:15, 14 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
] spoke ], but norse vikings did not speak vikingish, and norse shepherds did not speak shepherdish or bakerish. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2024 == |
|
Norsemen had norse culture, but there was no norse viking, baker or shepherd culture. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Edit semi-protected|Vikings|answered=yes}} |
|
I think its important to remind people today about the term Norsemen, an accepted term by historians and archelogists, referring to people from the north, present Scandinavia. This term does not have any certain time limit, the Norsemen were norse in years, 400, 500, 657, 749, 803, 950, 1066 and 1100. Norsemen is a true ethnical group, for some reason neglected on Misplaced Pages. Whenever the word viking is mentioned, it can correctly be replaced by the term Norsemen in 95% of the cases. Norsemen are described in other Misplaced Pages languages, and since the english Misplaced Pages should be written from a global point of view, the term Norse and Norsemen should not be treated different. |
|
|
|
"The masculine is more easily derived from the feminine than the other way around" -> delete this sentence. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rationale: does not support this sentence. "This would be the original sense of the feminine víking, and from it, the masculine would be derived" -> the source only presented 1 scenerio where the masculine form is derived from the feminine form. Overgeneralizing it is an original synthesis. I've read the source carefully and did not find that the source supports this claim anywhere. ] (]) 04:31, 26 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
The first documented use of the word viking is made by ], written in latin, and translated into old english. There is to read about Alexander the Great´s father, ]: ''Philippus vero post longam obsidionem, ut pecuniam quam obsidendo exhauserat, praedando repararet, piraticam adgressus est.'' translated into: ''ac he scipa gegaderade, and i vicingas wurdon''. In this time the word ''pirat'' was not used in the english language, the latin ''piraticam'' was directly translated to ''vicingus''. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:I have been looking into this since the IP editor posted a query at the reference desk (RD). The whole "Original meaning and derivation of the word Viking" section could be improved, but I don't see a problem with "The masculine is more easily derived from the feminine than the other way around". The original version of the queried text was added at 15:45, 26 March 2015. The source is |
|
Interestingly enough, theres stories in the sagas, describing arabic piates, and they were in the sagas referred to, as vikings. = Vikings could be arabs practising piracy, and vikings could be macedonian kings practising piracy, but peaceful norse farmers, and their wifes, were never, ever, described as vikings before 1900. |
|
|
|
:{{cite journal|url=http://eldar-heide.net/Publikasjonar%20til%20heimesida/viking%20rowshift.pdf|title=''Víking'' – 'rower shifting'? An etymological contribution|journal=Arkiv för Nordisk Filologi|author=Eldar Heide|volume=120|pages=41–54|year=2005|access-date=20 April 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140714233409/http://eldar-heide.net/Publikasjonar%20til%20heimesida/viking%20rowshift.pdf|archive-date=14 July 2014|url-status=dead}} |
|
|
:My explanation at the RD was that Heide and his sources are arguing that there are examples of masculine words like víkingr being derived from feminine words like viking (according to researchers in Old Norse), but not the other way round. Three key quotes are on page 43 {{tq|Askeberg says: "I do not know any example of a masculine ing-derivation having given origin to a feminine nomen actionis that expresses the person’s action, and such a formation seems unreasonable. A hildingr m. 'king' can not be supposed to have given origin to a *hilding f. 'the quality of being a king' etc"}} on page 44 {{tq|Askeberg points out that deverbative ing-derivations are considered younger than the word víkingr, and that it is unlikely that feminine verbal abstracts in so early times could be formed from strong verbs, like víka.}} and 45 {{tq|On the other hand, a masculine víkingr 'sea warrior' could well be derived from a feminine víking denoting an activity. Old Norse parallels to such a development would be vellingr m. 'pottage' from *velling f. 'boiling'; geldingr m. 'a castrated ox or ram' from gelding f. 'castration'; .}} ] (]) 17:18, 27 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::] Again, they present 1 example of a masculine word being derived from a feminine word. Where does it say that the masuline is more easily derived from the feminine in general? ] (]) 05:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::"Askeberg points out that deverbative ing-derivations are considered younger than the word víkingr, and that it is unlikely that feminine verbal abstracts in so early times could be formed from strong verbs, like víka" -> this sentence does not prove your point. They're talking about the derivation from the word "víka". This sentence actually contradicts your claim. It says the word "víkingr" (masuline) came first. |
|
|
::The first sentence ("Askeberg says:...") does not prove your point either. ] (]) 05:23, 29 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:] '''Not done for now:''' please establish a ] for this alteration ''']''' using the {{Tlx|Edit semi-protected}} template.<!-- Template:ESp --> ] (]) 19:02, 30 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::Consensus cannot be made if there is no one to debate it with. How am I supposed to reach consensus? ] (]) 02:42, 2 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Hey, you pinged me but I don't have the requisite knowledge here to feel comfortable deciding. I'll post on ] to ask. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 02:47, 2 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
::::The first thing I'll say is that the entire etymology section is extremely bloated and needs to be whittled down... a lot. I mean three paragraphs should be plenty, seven at the outside. No need to have it so big it needs to be divided into subsections, that's just nuts. Unless this article were about the word itself, etymology is not extremely relevant to the subject of this article, which is about the people. Encyclopedias are about things, not words (unless the word is the subject of the article). Don't get me wrong, it's interesting to know where words come from and etymology is a huge interest of mine, so it does merit some explanation, but this section has gotten way out of hand. The etymology section reads more like a textbook rather than a brief summary. |
|
For over 1 000 years, viking was nothing else than an old-english translation of the latin word ''pirate''. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::::For example, when talking in terms of feminine or masculine, the average reader is likely to confuse that with terms that are used to describe men versus women (for example, prince versus princess), but that's not what we're talking about. It's more like describing Latin words where masculine words denote that which is doing (words ending in -us), neutral words which denote that which is having done to it (words ending in -um), and the feminine, which is the act of doing itself (words ending in -a). This is because languages like Latin, Norse, and German are very ]s and not very order-specific. For example, if I say in Latin "dog bites man" it could mean either one did the biting; the order of the words doesn't mean much. You have to add the proper suffixes to let the reader know it was the man doing the biting (Dog-um bites man-us). English is a very ], so words are not masculine or feminine in this sense. English is very order-specific, so if we want to convey that the man did the biting, man must come first in the sentence (man bites dog). The entire concept of feminine or masculine words is very foreign to English and not at all intuitive to English readers. |
|
A macedonian king will never, ever, become scandinavian. An arabic pirat will never become scandinavian. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::::Getting this textbook-deep into the matter is just confusing and unfair to the general reader unless we explain these deeper linguistic differences. It's just too deep for a brief, easily-understandable summary. This all really stems from back in the days where Dan kept coming here hyper-focused on the word as if it was the same as the thing, which it's not. |
|
But a norseman was scandinavian, and the present scandinavians are descendants of Norsemen, according to historians and archelogists. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::::Etymology is far from an exact science. Linguists come up with their theories, which often conflict with each other, and they tend to disagree very adamantly. (Not that different from taxonomists.) When we get this deep we need to start explaining that so-and-so said this while what's-his-face said that, and this other person says this other thing, etc. I think it's best if we just altogether omit these fine details and paint this picture in far broader strokes. It'll be far easier to read and comprehend that way. If anyone feels the need to get into all these finer points then it would be best to create ] and incorporate it all there. ] (]) 05:03, 2 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
] (]) 23:14, 9 May 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:::::I'm not sure you've really addressed the IP's proximate concern. If the sentence in question is undue minutiae (I would probably agree), shouldn't it be removed anyway? <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 05:05, 2 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
:Your edits recently show clearly that in English it is just not true to say "Whenever the word viking is mentioned, it can correctly be replaced by the term Norsemen in 95% of the cases." You have had this explained to you several times now, and are behaving in a vandalistic way. Any more ungrammatical edits & you should be blocked. Please respect the English language. This is not an eccentricity of Misplaced Pages, but the clear and normal meaning of the word Viking in English, as shown by any ]. ] (]) 04:46, 10 May 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:::::::] It's not just undue minutiae. The source doesn't support the claim anywhere. 1 example does not mean one can overgeneralize it. ] (]) 18:54, 2 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
::I agree that Viking, because of it's etymological equivalence with raiding and later (Victorian? Wagnerian?) association with violence and masculinity can be an unhelpful term for deeper understanding. However, ] is correct that it has become the defacto English term for the period of migrations, trading, settlement and (yes!) raiding from Scandinavian peoples across Eurasia in the 8th-13th centuries. In British academia the accepted term for the occupations/interactions in what is now England/Britain is ']' but this currently unhelpfully links to the ] article, a much more specific, later quasi-political entity. The term '] is equally political and doesn't help most non-expert English-speakers who would search for 'Viking' to learn about this period. The ] article which ] linked to from ] is more helpful/appropriate than Norsemen and might be more appropriate on ]? The irony with the coverage of this period on English Misplaced Pages is that much of the detail is great yet uses terminology academics would see as outdated or morally problematic. Not sure what the solution is but a wholesale replacement of links to Viking with Norsemen is definitely not helpful. Is there a more sophisticated approach that doesn't involve wholesale rewrites? ] (]) 12:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::::::Yes, that's what I think, along with a ton of other details. ] (]) 05:12, 2 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::] is a good archeological term for cataloguing objects etc, but far less flexible or well-understood than Viking in other contexts (and for many confusingly close to 'Anglo-Saxon'). A short article placing A-Sc in its context would be very helpful, or it could redirect to the right section at ]. ] (]) 14:59, 10 May 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:::::::I've gone ahead and cut the entire section down to size, does it seem alright? <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 05:39, 2 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Thanks! I'm happy with the change. I know you're asking Zaereth, but I just want say that I'm satisfied. ] (]) 18:52, 2 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::I'm equally glad you are! Glad I could help. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 19:36, 2 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::Sorry for the delay, but it was approaching midnight where I am so I needed to go to bed. Yes, that's exactly along the lines of what I was thinking. If someone wants to get really deep into it, they can always create an article about the word where there's room to expand on things like "masculine" and "feminine" in a way that it will be fully coherent. All we really need here is a brief summary of that article, which it looks like you did a great job of. Thanks. ] (]) 20:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::I concur that ] is a viable article. I always like when we can have proper articles about terms—{{midsize|remind me to link this discussion the next time I get highly opinionated about an undue terminological tangent in some article. I always worry, but I guess given my major contributions it's unlikely people would accuse me of having some zealous hatred for lexicography.}} <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 20:07, 2 October 2024 (UTC) |
Swedish archeological investigations show that Vikings had horrible dental health – odontogenic infections and tooth decay were common. Majority of vikings were likely plagued by permanent toothaches. I wanted to add this to the article, but found no suitable location.
It could be good to have a section on viking health, including dental health.
Hi, a bouquet from my latest Florilegium. Can/should it be included, or not? Opinions welcome. T
Shouldnt the namr of this wiki page be Changed to Norse society or Norse culture instead of just vikings? Seems more historically accurate. H20346 (talk) 06:05, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
The viking culture is non existend, its the germanic culture within the northern tribes. Viking was merely an occupation within the northern germanic culture, this should better be shown for accurate information. It should atleast be mentioned that the vikings were from the germanic tribes 84.104.178.192 (talk) 07:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
"The masculine is more easily derived from the feminine than the other way around" -> delete this sentence.
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Referencing and citation: criterion met
Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met
.svg)
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the