There seems to be different opinions about the term viking and what a viking is, or were.

I have so far found numerous articles where the word viking was part of the text, although there is no proof that vikings had anything to do with the topic. Since viking is a complicated topic, and under intensive discussions now and then, it brings even more confusion to use the term, where there is absolutely no need, and where the term is not stated in any written sources describing the topic.

Study the article about (one of the "famous vikings" listed in article about vikings, king Harald I of Norway. Text:At last Harald was forced to make an expedition to the west to clear the islands and Scottish mainland of Vikings. Numbers of them fled to Iceland, which grew into an independent commonwealth, while the Scottish isles fell under Norwegian rule.

• Can Harald I of Norway be described as a famous viking?
• Would the vikings describe Haraldas a viking?
• Would any No wiking, fighting against vikings like to be labelled a viking?

Note: numbers of them fled to Iceland. And then they started to write stories and sagas, making themself and their ancestor vikings famous and honorable.

But: from the normal scandinavian society, consisting of NOT-Vikings, they were expelled. The most glorified place in the sagas, Jomsborg, was probably only a place for (criminal?) refugees.

But they revenged. Today theres people like dab, who states (without source) that "all medevial north" are vikings, an opinion obviosly based upon icelandic stories and sagas from the expelled criminals who went to Iceland. (Here is an interesting link, comparing Jomsvikingasaga with the story of Arthur). Those stories are not approved history documents.

Its easy to create a pseudo world of vikings, with:

• viking women and
• viking men
• belonging to the "germanic tribe: viking"
• going to wiking wars
• eating wiking food,
• praying to viking gods
• sailing with viking ships,
• from Viking harbor towns
• working at viking trading posts
• and going home to their viking houses
• in the viking village
• or viking settlements,
• in the viking country
• or viking territory,
• ruled by the viking king,
• or in the viking colony,
• where they lived viking lifes,
• and then died viking deaths
• and was part of viking burials.

All those terms without a single written historical proof, As far as I can see totally taken out from peoples imaginations. A very effective, but false way to "proof" all those people and cathegories were vikings. The article also stated that all scandinavians are descendants to vikings. (No source, of course !).

I asked for sources for all different statements. 2 users dab and Wiglaf discussed, but gave no sources for their arguments.

And gave them the 3 sources abt vikings I know. (1) (It is not written in those sources that all scandinavian are descendants to vikings)

I deleted the word viking in numerous articles, since it was put there by "accident" without any indication that its really relevant, and where no viking, or vikings were mentioned in the written sources about the topic. And started to discuss on Talk:Viking and Talk:Viking Age with the two guys in order not to change without consulting. Vikingsssssss!!!!!!!!!!!!

• Ahmad ibn Rustah (The article is about a funeral in Birka, which was no "viking-town".)
• Berserker, described Oden as viking god, but he is older than that changed > pagan.
• Ingegerd Olofsdotter (swedish princess, one of northern europes first saints (1001), described as daughter to a swedish viking-king)
• Leidang (The ledung fleet was used with vikings, according to written records.)
  • After I removed viking, "someone" changed to viking age, aperiod between 790-1066. The ledung was known before, and at least until +1300 so this is as irrelevent. Ledung was the scandinavian defence system, has no direct connection to "vikings" or any "viking-ages". (edit war 2 december)
• Longship. Text was: boats used by the Scandinavian vikings and Saxons changed into: boats used by the Scandinavians and Saxons.

After this i moved this text :

They called themselves Norðmenn (Northmen), which was rendered as Normanni in Latin, Norsemen in English, and Norman in French. Modern Scandinavians still refer to themselves as the people of the North, nordbor or nordmenn.

From viking to scandinavia, since no source was given for this statement. (That scandinavians are nordmen, or nordbor, there is no doubt) The only sources about wikings state they were called vikings (logical?) no source came up abt viking calling themself northmen. Of course, any person like a carpenter has a country, they can be northman and swedish, but this is not the same as swedish and northmen are carpenters.

User dab now moved this back to viking without discussion and started edit war abt technology section in viking, (which I had moved to scandinavia) and dab moved this now to viking age, although the text describes naval tecnology in general, dated long before 793. (and yes, scadinavians does have written recorded tecnology)

And treatened me to revert my efforts to change, which he before had suggested:

If you continue to just remove stuff, I will just revert you. dab 10:16, 2 Dec ([source])

Now the viking age has technology but not its inventors the scandinavians. Why is it more correct to keep a section about tecnology at viking age instead of at scandinavia if the tecnic has no particulair timestamp?

Apart from that, why not discuss this instead of starting an edit war?

Now I was told by dab to shut up:Excuse me, but if you are not prepare to listen, maybe you would better shut up, too. dab 10:31, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC) ([2)

and accused of being a troll: I hope this will stop Dan from trolling this page now. A short summary needs to be re-introduced in the "The Viking Age" section. dab 10:23, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)(3)

Could you just leave the article alone now, please? dab 11:52, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC) ([sorce]) jhphu

So I finished trying to follow his suggestion of using the article Northmen (where Tolkien caracter are described) and his invitation of You can of course try to disambiguate "vikings" from "Old Norse culture", and see how far you get. Make sure you always check English usage, though, as direct translation may be misleading/dab 21:12, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC) and ended asking him for sources to the culture was dominated by piracy during that time (plundering was Scandinavia's primary export product, so to speak)./dab and other statements completely from the air, not backed up by one source.

Since I will never be a part of edit war. This is, as admin, below my belt.

Which leaves only the discussions pages left, since I am not aloud by dab to change the articles without his permission othervise he makes edit war?

oh my! Dan the Viking is harrying the shores of English Wikipedia again? So far I see no evidence of looting or pillaging on the histories of Viking or Viking Age, but I am bracing myself :) dab (ᛏ) 07:22, 17 May 2005 (UTC) [[1]]

Also started Wikipedia:WikiProject Scandinavia, Wikipedia:WikiProject Sweden and Wikipedia:WikiProject Vikings 3 of december, in order to tempt more interested users to contribute so this project gets a better structure. hi

• Aalborg. Article states A. was settled originally by the Vikings, that V. had a trading post, and that there was V. settlements.
• Burning-glass naming a Viking harbor town of Fröjel, Gotland. No source for why term viking is used.
• Blood. Text:Germanic tribes (such as the Anglo-Saxons and the Vikings) . (No source for this invention of a tribe called vikings
• Canada. Text: Vikings briefly settled at L'Anse aux Meadows in Newfoundland. More permanent European visits came in the 16th and 17th century, as the French settled there. French are appearently French here, vikings are what?
• Christopher Columbus. Article states: it is widely acknowledged today that Vikings from Northern Europe had visited North America. (No source to as if those people really were vikings)
• Christmas tree. Text: In Scandinavia the Viking kings sacrificed nine males of each species at the sacred groves. This can only be taken from Adam of Bremens stories. Adam of Bremen DOES NOT say those people were vikings, he describes vikings very exact, and only as pirats in south sweden. he does not use the term viking when he speaks about the sacrifies at Uppsala.(deleted, see below)
• viking. A lot of info that doesnt refer to vikings at all. Until now no sources named. (In fact, after 1 days debate, not 1 single source)
  • Chapter about their Hygiene. Discussion about Varangian, who by no written records are identical with the word viking. Mixed up information.
  • Picture of a reconstructed longship named in the article viking ship. No source what makes this longship viking.
• Viking Age.
  • Map showing green parts, text under saying: Map of Viking voyages and territories. (No source. No year mentioning when the welldocumented swedish kingdom was lost to those vikings, or reunited with sweden again. For some reason north sweden was not viking territory? Dagö, Ösel, Friesland, and Julin/Wollin mentioned in sagas in connection with vikings are not green)
  • Text: Scandinavian warriors and traders, called Vikings, traded, etc No source given when ever in the words history a trademan was named viking. Or a source saying vikings were trademen. It is simply here invented that vikings could be trademen, which brings the consequence that the scandinavian traders in russia can be called vikings. But the there is no source named proofing that this is the case. (edit war 2 december)
  • Text: Vikings continued south on rivers to the Black Sea and then on to Constantinople. No source named for people using the name or term viking, travelling to black sea and constantinopel)
  • Viking longship. No explanation is made what that is, or the difference from a longship. No source mention a found vikinga longship. It seems the article speaks about longship, and for some reason refers to abstract, unfound marine vehicles for viking longships, inventing them, althogh nothing is proofed about their existence.
• Rus' (people) Text: the name Rusiyyah for a group of people who are usually interpreted as Vikings. (Interpreted by who, when, where? No source mentioned, why those people should be interpreted as vikings. There is no source what so ever saying that rus was vikings)
• Rurik. Text: Rurik...was a Varangian (Viking) (No source mentioned for this statement. meanwhile in the article further down remark is made about other opinions, mentioning those have no sources FUN.)
• Varangian. 1 st line states:The Varangians or Variags were Vikings who travelled eastwards from Sweden. (No source named)
• Viking ring castles. (describing what in swedish is called Trelleborgar. (not viking ring slott). No source given what is "viking" about them.)

Later deletion

• Christmas tree. 18 dec, still no arguments for the "viking kings" making blood sacrifice, removed viking, and changed into "according to Adam of Bremen pagan prists sacrified nine animals"

• prooved vikings
  • Palnatoke. described with the term viking in Icelandic sagas. According to them, he had 24 longships. No statement of "viking ship" production.
  • Torkel den höge, named jomsviking. Executed by Thorkel Leira.
  • Bue den digre, named jomsviking.
  • Harald, son of Bue, named jomsviking.
  • Hovard, named jomsviking.
  • Vagn Åkesson, named jomsviking. Supposed to have been leader over abt 30 vikings.
• Eventual vikings
  • 1014 - Battle of Clontarf: Brian Boru defeats Viking invaders, but is killed in battle.
  • Sigvald, son of Strutharald. named as leader at Jomsborg.
• Not vikings at all
  • farmers, fishers, hunters, warriors, lawmen, thingsmen, husabymen, members in the ledung, viking-guards, priests, women, children, slaves, being just simple scandinavians, peaceful or making wars with other villages, countries. (The majority of scandinavian people 793-1066)
  • Erik jarl, son of Håkon. Had a seabattle with 150 longships against the Jomsvikings
  • Thorkel Leira, executor of 18 Jomsvikings, sentenced to death.