Talk:Norse colonization of North America

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mavigogun (talk | contribs) at 05:57, 7 August 2008 (→Clarification). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 05:57, 7 August 2008 by Mavigogun (talk | contribs) (→Clarification)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Norse history and culture

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norse history and culture, a WikiProject related to all activities of the North Germanic peoples, both in Scandinavia and abroad, prior to the formation of the Kalmar Union in 1397. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Norse history and cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Norse history and cultureTemplate:WikiProject Norse history and cultureNorse history and culture
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Canada Mid‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Iceland

	Iceland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iceland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iceland on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IcelandWikipedia:WikiProject IcelandTemplate:WikiProject IcelandIceland
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Greenland

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greenland, a WikiProject related to the nation of Greenland. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.GreenlandWikipedia:WikiProject GreenlandTemplate:WikiProject GreenlandGreenland
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Middle Ages

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

cleanup

I cleaned up this page, but it seems to me that it could definitely be fleshed out more. Surely there is data both from the Sagas and from the site in Newfoundland that could be added. Also, the page is mum on Greenland, which is generally considered to be part of the Americas. Anyway, I'll try to do some research to add these details, but if any expert on the subject comes along here their help would be appreciated!

--Jfruh 15:47, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Name change

Norwegian colonisation of the Americas is a more appropriate term for this, since the settlers were of Norwegian origin. It is not right to give proper names to the Danish and Swedish colonists but not the Norwegians. It is as if this encyclopedia is stuck in latin Catholic Church writings from the Middle Ages. They have a nationality and are a people, then and now. Please rectify this ignorance with a rewrite. Thank you.

I decided to do so, because the Norwegian country technically included all these settlements. Norway was not subsumed within Denmark for a while yet, with "Viking" too broad a term to use. I hope it satisfies other people and encouarages them to be educated about Scandinavia.

I think "Norse" would be a better title. Many of the people were of Norwegian origin, but again, as many appear to have been born in Iceland. MacRusgail 21:45, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Norwegian is a better name. The settlers were Norwegian. Some had "stopovers" on Iceland and some were born on Iceland and had parents born in Norway, but Iceland was considered part of Norway (yes I know the degree of Norwegian control over Iceland varied). Iceland, Greenland and the Faroes were Norwegian until 1814/15. Leif Ericson served under the King of Norway. Norse includes Swedes and Danes. Norwegian does not exclude the Norwegian lands of the time. Inge 13:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Iceland and Greenland were independent at the time and did not have allegiance to the Norwegian king. But I do think this page should be renamed - to Norse exploration of North America. - Haukur 14:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Blond Eskimo theory

Awhile back I read an article about a far northern tribe of Eskimos that had some blonds in it. It was supposedly found during the early colonization of America. The writer of the article theorized that this may have been the result Viking native interactions. I have never found any more info on the matter but if anyone knows anything about it, it should probably be mentioned.

Leon Evelake 04:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Strangely enough, I remember reading in a book (quite a few years ago, sadly) about an account by colonists of the North Americas who encountered a tribe of Native Americans whose language was described as unlike the other native dialects and was said to be very close to Gaelic. The book made the argument that the tribe was descended from Irish or Scottish slaves brought over by Norse colonists and had remained, adapting to the environment in the Americas. However, like os many tribes, this group was wiped out by smallpox. I wish I could find that book again. Anyone else know anything about this story? Renquist 01:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 17:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Addition to the article

Hello. I was wondering if it was alright if I add some information from these two books I got from my library. I'm asking because I'm probably going to make a section on the encounters between the Natives and the Norsemen. InternetHero (talk) 15:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

As long as your additions have references to go with them, there should be no problem. Dimadick (talk) 17:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've had problems with this before from not introducing myself to the group. I'm having a problem right now on the telescope article and its sub-articles, but i think I'm gonig to get an admin since the gus reverts my edits without the dispute resolution. InternetHero (talk) 20:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

New lead section

Hello. Whatever we do, we should adhere to the clauses entitled:

Preserve information
Whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information. Instead of removing, try to:
rephrase correct the inaccuracy while keeping the content move text within an article or to another article (existing or new) add more of what you think is important to make an article more balanced request a citation by adding the tag
Exceptions include:
original research duplication or redundancy irrelevancy patent nonsense copyright violations inaccuracy (attempt to correct the misinformation or discuss the problems first before deletion)
unsourced controversial claims about living persons

Nevertheless, the lead section was probably formed out of a consensus so I think we should have a discussion before editing such an inherent part of the article. Personally, I liked it the way it was before since it was more readable. Discuss. Sincerely, InternetHero (talk) 19:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The lead is not 'new'; as with all Misplaced Pages documents, it is evolving.

The lead section is not the place to pose or resolve arguments- unless controversy is the very subject of the article. Issues of naming accuracy and national identity of historical figures, such as these, are more appropriately addressed on the talk page. Nor is it a place to summarize common misconceptions- a highly subjective task that is at odds with the purpose of the article: to concisely and succinctly present information pertinent to the subject.

The 'Skrælings' reference is also extraneous to the lead, which would be better were it to find another home; however, I am reticent to remove it. Perhaps it could be worked into the body of the article. As is, it unnecessarily burdens the lead.

Considering that the lead section contained two items of potential contention -Naming Convention and Legacy- discussion here would have been wise considering the personal investment some might have in those positions -regardless of appropriateness to the lead. However, the article must not represent every minority view, and, in the lead, only the pertinent and majority held positions should be represented -lest it not serve it's function.

If the Naming Convention and Legacy issues concern you, develop them in an appropriate section -or article.

The lead was a contorted ramble; its function has been improved by the edits.Mavigogun (talk) 05:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

TTT. InternetHero (talk) 20:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Clarification

The following:

While sailing from Iceland to Greenland with a migration fleet consisting of 3,000 settlers and 25 other ships (14 of which made it without turning back), a merchant named Bjarni Herjólfsson was blown off course and sighted land west of the fleet.

The sentence implies that there were 26 ships: is this the case? If not, the word 'other' should be dropped. Anybody know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mavigogun (talk • contribs) 04:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The saga (using the translation referenced by that topic) refers to 35 ships, says 14 turned back, does not mention the number of settlers. It would be nice to have a reliable source for the number (the Time/Life book is probably not a reliable source, though it may refer to one). Tedickey (talk) 10:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Time-Life Books, while notorious for publishing 'truthy' entertainment, occasionally put out something substantial; any opinions on this one?; can anyone substantiate the reference (read and qualified, not a blanket opinion on typical source quality) for the population statement?

I'll reword to reflect the 35 ship number, removing the word 'other'.Mavigogun (talk) 10:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Both of my books say 26 ships in total. 14 of which turned back. I asked an admin once about this dilemma and he said that we should add both numbers (ie. ",but another source states the total number of ships at 35"). Mavigogun, I know you're new to Misplaced Pages but you should try and sign your posts. It is seen as good etiquette, and Misplaced Pages relies on the community. InternetHero (talk) 20:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Will you qualify those sources for us (context, source, reason for lending credibility to one figure over another)? The cited material should reflect this. If a reason can not be discerned to credit one over the other, we may not do so.

The edit to the bracketed text removed an idiom and replaced it with precise and succinct wording: 'made it' > 'completed the journey'. What is your justification for favoring the idiom? Idioms are not appropriate in this context.

The word other should be removed and the ship count changed to 26, if accurate.Mavigogun (talk) 05:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Categories: