Talk:Vikings

"The masculine is more easily derived from the feminine than the other way around" -> delete this sentence.

Rationale: The source 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. 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:EDA0:1EFB:E4CB:1F6A (talk) 04:31, 26 September 2024 (UTC) Reply

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 here at 15:45, 26 March 2015. The source is

Eldar Heide (2005). "Víking – 'rower shifting'? An etymological contribution" (PDF). Arkiv för Nordisk Filologi. 120: 41–54. Archived from the original (PDF) on 14 July 2014. Retrieved 20 April 2015.

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 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 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 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'; [etc.]. TSventon (talk) 17:18, 27 September 2024 (UTC) Reply

TSventon 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? 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:E1D5:4325:36B7:C2A5 (talk) 05:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC) Reply

"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. 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:E1D5:4325:36B7:C2A5 (talk) 05:23, 29 September 2024 (UTC) Reply

Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected }} template. TylerBurden (talk) 19:02, 30 September 2024 (UTC) Reply

Consensus cannot be made if there is no one to debate it with. How am I supposed to reach consensus? 63.73.199.69 (talk) 02:42, 2 October 2024 (UTC) Reply

Hey, you pinged me but I don't have the requisite knowledge here to feel comfortable deciding. I'll post on WP:WikiProject Linguistics to ask. Remsense .. 论 02:47, 2 October 2024 (UTC) Reply

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 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 synthetic languages 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 analytic language, 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.

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.

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 Viking (word) and incorporate it all there. Zaereth (talk) 05:03, 2 October 2024 (UTC) Reply

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? Remsense .. 论 05:05, 2 October 2024 (UTC) Reply

User:Remsense It's not just undue minutiae. The source doesn't support the claim anywhere. 1 example does not mean one can overgeneralize it. 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:8842:9163:CF6F:B64F (talk) 18:54, 2 October 2024 (UTC) Reply

Yes, that's what I think, along with a ton of other details. Zaereth (talk) 05:12, 2 October 2024 (UTC) Reply

I've gone ahead and cut the entire section down to size, does it seem alright? Remsense .. 论 05:39, 2 October 2024 (UTC) Reply

Thanks! I'm happy with the change. I know you're asking Zaereth, but I just want say that I'm satisfied. 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:8842:9163:CF6F:B64F (talk) 18:52, 2 October 2024 (UTC) Reply

I'm equally glad you are! Glad I could help. Remsense .. 论 19:36, 2 October 2024 (UTC) Reply

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. Zaereth (talk) 20:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC) Reply

I concur that Viking (word) is a viable article. I always like when we can have proper articles about terms—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. Remsense .. 论 20:07, 2 October 2024 (UTC) Reply

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 June 2025 and 26 July 2025. Further details are available on the course page . Student editor(s): Jdpuff19 (article contribs ).

— Assignment last updated by Jdpuff19 (talk) 00:59, 20 July 2025 (UTC) Reply

Hi, the lead opens "Vikings were a seafaring people originally from Scandinavia (present-day Denmark, Norway, and Sweden), who from the late 8th to the late 11th centuries raided, pirated, traded, and settled throughout parts of Europe. They voyaged as far as the Mediterranean, North Africa, the Middle East, Greenland, and Vinland (present-day Newfoundland in Canada, North America)." I just wonder why Iceland is not included here (as it is further down). Isn't it in the same geographical/exploration category as Greenland and Vinland? Besides, the Icelanders also participated in mainland raiding, making them 'vikings', if the sagas are to be believed. I'll just be bold and pop it in there. T 2A02:FE1:E180:3900:CD6C:B065:6F71:74A0 (talk) 11:47, 5 September 2025 (UTC) Reply

Oy vey, not able to edit. I'll leave it to someone else. T — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:FE1:E180:3900:CD6C:B065:6F71:74A0 (talk) 11:49, 5 September 2025 (UTC) Reply

It says "originally", Iceland is essentially a colony, the population being made up of Norse and Celtic settlers. TylerBurden (talk) 19:00, 5 September 2025 (UTC) Reply

Iceland would come under "as far as", but it is not one of the most distant destinations. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:42, 5 September 2025 (UTC) Reply

hi i think it’s misleading to say embrio of russia. i propose "made settlements in what would then become kievan rus". saying that rus and russia are etymologically the same is just playing dumb 2003:CC:3707:7200:7147:8C33:3193:CB85 (talk) 04:21, 1 November 2025 (UTC) Reply

It looks OK and has a good reference. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:36, 1 November 2025 (UTC) Reply

I agree that the wording is problematic. Three modern countries derive from Kyivan Rus - referring only to Russia perpetuates the Russian imperial narrative.—-Ermenrich (talk) 13:33, 1 November 2025 (UTC) Reply

Whether we like it or not, there was no Belarusian or Ukrainian dynasty descended from the Vikings. The "Russian imperial narrative" is pretending that there was no Scandinavian influence on Russian state-formation. See for example this which notes the "Russian–Scandinavian cultural symbiosis" that was formed and became prevalent until the crusades in the Baltic. Mellk (talk) 14:00, 4 January 2026 (UTC) Reply

Agreed per IP and Ermenrich. The statement is an accurate paraphrase of Brink's text, given in the ref note, but here it is misleading because it omits essential parts of the story. Carlstak (talk) 17:57, 1 November 2025 (UTC) Reply

What is russia? Russia is more about mongols and their legacy. Embrio of Russia are folks of following slaved folks: khakas, yugur, tuvan, karakalpak, Chuvash, turkmen, Tatar, bashkir, gagauz, Uyghur, nogai, karachay-Ballard, sakha, dolman, kumuk, etc.

Definitely vikings influenced on Kyivan Ruś which is part of Ukranian history, but not moskow kingdom (russia). — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-70049 (talk) 13:35, 4 January 2026 (UTC) Reply

This discussion is based on one definition of embryo, not the only one. One of the definitions in OED is "A thing (material or immaterial) in its most basic or rudimentary form, showing potential to develop." and gives an example by H. G. Wells: "Brunner Mond & Co. was only the embryo of I.C.I.". Brunner Mond was only one of the companies which became I.C.I., which is now part of Tata. This is similar to the usage here. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:09, 4 January 2026 (UTC) Reply

Why should Russia be singled out when it's one of three countries descended from Kievan Rus'? It's not like Kievan Rus' was ever a unified polity anyway.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:15, 4 January 2026 (UTC) Reply

I do not think the original text implied that only Russia descended from Kievan Rus'. Belarus and Ukraine became integral parts of Poland and Lithuania, while Russia was still ruled by the same dynasty with some of the same customs as before (hence "embryo" makes sense here). Maybe there is a better way to rephrase this? Mellk (talk) 14:31, 4 January 2026 (UTC) Reply

Change "first recorded Viking raid" to "first recorded raid at Lindisfarne" Hellothroughthis (talk) 08:42, 21 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Not done. User blocked as WP:NOTHERE. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:52, 21 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Change " Females also had long hair, with girls often wearing it loose or braided, and married women often wearing it in a bun. " to " Women also had long hair, with girls often wearing it loose or braided, and married women often wearing it in a bun. "

In this section, the term men is used instead of males to maintain consistency with the use of the term I suggest changing females to women. Hydroxycitronellal (talk) 17:11, 12 July 2026 (UTC) Reply