Talk:Leif Erikson Day
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on 10 dates. [show]|
|WikiProject Holidays||(Rated C-class)|
|WikiProject United States||(Rated C-class)|
Why in the world does this page talk about an obscure reference to this holiday in one episode of a cartoon series? I'm moving this reference here.
- Maybe re-word and re-add it under "References in Popular Culture". And add a link to the particular episode, "Bubble Buddy". 18.104.22.168 06:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Leif Erikson Day in Spongebob
- Actually, it's a note FROM Patrick left to his friend SpongeBob. "Dear SpongeBob, Went to get more giant paper. Uhhhh, Patrick. PS, Happy Leif Erikson Day! Hinga dinga durgen!" Cleveland Rock 20:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- It shouldn't be added, because there is no proof that it has anything to do with the actual holiday. eSTeMSHORN (T/C) 11:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Ok this is my first add in any discussion but I'm confused by the actions of the president releasing the proclaimations for Leif Erikson Day 2004 and this years on Oct. 7th. I'm guessing it falls on a sunday and the president has that day off. lol.
Erikson is really spelled Ericsson This should be changed....imho Interpolarity 13:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- "Leif Erikson Day" is spelled exactly as it is in the federal law and presidential proclamation establishing the day. As for Erikson, there is more than one spelling, and this is the most common in connection with this day. Jonathunder 13:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Erikson has to be spelled with two "s", "Eriksson". It cannot be spelled with a "c". The rest of the spelling varies with time and place, but there is ALWAYS two s, because the first is the genitive (Erik's) and the second is the first letter in the word "son" (same meaning as in English). I therefore propose that the article title is correct because the name is misspelled in the U.S. law, but that we in the article text itself spell his name with two s's (not a double s, mind you, that is a separate letter in German). Dr Ulf Erlingsson (talk) 11:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Ericsson and Vinland
According to me, it would not be bad to add more lines about Vinland. I have found: "While the map has been radiocarbon-dated to between 1423 and 1445, it appears to have been coated with an unknown substance in the 1950s. This could be an undocumented attempt at preservation, or it could be part of a forger’s attempt to draw a new map over an old one. It’s unclear whether this substance is over or under some of the ink on the page… The ink itself has been chemically analysed, and dated to after 1923 due to the presence of anatase – a synthetic pigment in use only since the 1920s. Natural anatase has been demonstrated in various Mediaeval manuscripts, though. As for the content of the map, a number of questions challenge the age of the document. Greenland is presented as an island – a fact not physically proven until the turn of the 20th century and unknown to the Vikings, who mostly thought it a peninsula descending from the north. Several passages in the text are equally anomalous. Finally, the best argument against the map’s veracity seems to be that the Vikings were such good seafarers that they didn’t use nautical maps at all…" tommy 17:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- This is an article about Leif Erikson Day, not about theories on Viking exploration. Jonathunder 14:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)