Talk:Viking
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Viking has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
 |
WikiProject Echo has identified Viking as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Finnish language Wikipedia. |
 |
Viking is either included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (the project page is at WPCD Selection). Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL and GFDL-compatible images. |
 |
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. | ||||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. | ||||
|
Related task forces...
|
|||||
 |
This Article is part of WikiProject Middle Ages, a project for the community of Wikipedians who are interested in the Middle Ages. For more information, see the project page and the newest articles. |
Contents |
[edit] Archives
[edit] "Viking raids"?
Ive changed the title of the section "Viking raids" to "Viking expansion", since the earlier title gives an impression of the viking only being pirates that plundered, and not trader, explorers and colonisers.
Its not perfect, if anyone can come up with something better, feel free to change it.
By the way, I added a section with explanations to the expansion.
--Screensaver 17:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- Which, according to my opinion was very wrong, since vikings only made raids, the people you refer to that made expansions, were not vikings, or, did the expansions, but not as vikings!
-
- E.g. saying that painters not only painted, but also made sculptures, is not relevant, even if a painter has made sculptures? When he did sculptures, he did it as sculpturer, not as a painter?
-
- I also note that, yet another contributer, adds false information in an infected article, marked as NPOV, without givig any source at alla, but just simply change the article according to his belief, or opionion. I guess this is how this article evolved, and its a shame.
-
- I once again, ask everyone for sources for what is written here. If every article on the wiki would be treated like this, it would end up very badly... Dan Koehl 13:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Present definition of the word not verified
I still see no verification that viking means scandinavian people in british. I still men this is an misintrepreation, and that a majority think that viking and scandinavian are the same, is a myth, although well spread. Wikipedia should however, not spread myths, but true facts?
[edit] For those who belive that viking means scandinavian:
The swedish historican and book author Mats G. Larsson writes: "when Ingvar Vittfarne in the icelandic sagas was attacked by vikings on his way to Särkland, it probably refers to arabians, not scandinavians".
Now, how do you explain this? Was the scandinavian vikings arabians? Or, was the arabians scandinavian? How can the english wikipedia reach logic with its article, so it fulfills a goal of good information and facts for people who searches for facts, and not factoids?
Source:
^ 1999. Larsson, Mats G. Svitjod Resor till Sveriges ursprung. Atlantis. ISBN 91-7486-421-1. p192.
Dan Koehl 13:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- how often have we pointed out to you that there is a difference between 13th century Old Norse and 21st century English? The meaning of the term in 13th century Old Norse is undisputed. Really, no argument. We still have to allow for the meaning of the term in 21st century English, since, duh, this is en-wiki, not ON-wiki. You want evidence? (not that you haven't been shown evidence before). How about "Viking culture" getting 27,000 google hits? (hint, this term doesn't refer to the cultural commonalities between Norse and Arab pirates). I agree that the term should properly be "Viking Age culture", but there, the term "Viking Age" itself has led to an expansion of the semantic field of "Viking" dab (ᛏ) 13:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Once again, my dear Dab, I come up with written sources, naming one of the most important swedish experts on the topic, and you come up with the old factoids, arguments, using "we-terms" etc, since your vision of a wikipedia goes not on a scientific approach to the description of a term, but to the populistic. Still, your fight is in vaine, science is now cathing up. You still dont show any sources. Its Donald Duck research, what you do. The article ist still POV and a shame. Looks like a christmas tree that plague, with alot of warning signs, dont come near here. I welcome the day, when it reflects some prooven facts, and not factiods.
I am only one person, but its enough when the person comes with prooven written sources, which you dont. So as a real man, I dont need to be a "we" in rder to support my opinion.
Dan Koehl 21:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- relax Dan, it's all in your head. There isn't a dispute, Vikings were pirates, sure enough. But like the original pirates they grew into a notable political force, establishing entire states (the Danelaw, Rus, etc.) over time. There was an entire economy, at first based on piracy, and later on feudal tribute. And if you think about it, feudalism is really just glorified piracy anyway. I know from our previous meetings that you cannot listen to what I am saying, of course. But to Haukur, I agree that the article's emphasis should be on "raids". Of course, raiding, exploring, trading, and extorting Danegeld aren't mutually exclusive pursuits. Although Dan makes it sound as if they were. It just so happens that piracy was the single most profitable and prestigious pursuit in "Viking Age" Scandinavia. But I honestly wonder why Dan thinks the article looks "like a christmas tree that plague". The warning signs that were the result of your last visit to these shores are long gone, Dan, maybe you should refresh your browser cache? dab (ᛏ) 22:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] continuation: "One of the reasons for Vikings raids"
After these few days of reflexions on my preceding informations and to resume them, I add another important reason of the Vikings’ raids, whose sources are quoted in the preceding chapters. See file 3: « 782 the massacre of 4500 Saxons avenged by the Vikings » « the history truth, nothing else. » « One of the reasons for Vikings raids». Regards Thorgis 11:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
