Talk:Leif Erikson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Leif Erikson has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
December 28, 2011 Good article nominee Listed
Wikipedia CD Selection
WikiProject icon Leif Erikson is included in the Wikipedia CD Selection, see Leif Erikson at Schools Wikipedia. Please maintain high quality standards; if you are an established editor your last version in the article history may be used so please don't leave the article with unresolved issues, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the DVDs.

Date of birth[edit]

"It is believed that Leif was born about 960 AD in Iceland[2], the son of Erik the Red" "Erik the Red (950–1000[1])"

are you claiming that Leif Ericson had a father that was 10 years old and had already become an outlaw, sailed over the atlantic and created a child?

quite impressive...

Anonymous user

Requested move 21 April 2017[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) TonyBallioni (talk) 21:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Leif EriksonLeifr Eiríksson – Leifr or Leifur seems to be a lot more common than Leif - see:íksson+-wikipedia and - and should thus be moved per WP:COMMONNAME. It is also his birth name; the current page name severely butchers it. ArniDagur (talk) 21:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose: When performing that suggested search (with Google set to search English sources), I get 385,000 hits for the current name "Leif Erikson" and only 6,660 for the proposed name "Leifr Eiríksson". That's a ratio of 58 to 1. BBC and CNN and National Geographic and the Leif Erikson Foundation use the current spelling. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:27, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose move. His common first name is clearly Leif, though I admit there are several potential spellings for his last name.  ONR  (talk)  01:00, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose, I don't know what ArniDagur searched for to arrive at the conclusion that "Leifr Eiríksson" is a lot more common, but I get more than thrice the Google hits for "Leif Eiríksson" than for "Leifr Eiríksson", and about ten times as much again for "Leif Eriksson". The current title is also more common on Google Books, with "Leif" again beating "Leifr" by about three to one, and "Leif Eriksson" still much more common. Huon (talk) 01:27, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Review of cited sources does not support the assertion. Mediatech492 (talk) 03:54, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose I think the nominator screwed the pooch by mentioning the "Leifr" spelling of his name. I am not going to consider an Icelandic sagas era version of his name, without the grammar changes in Icelandic that have happened since then.--Snaevar (talk) 21:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The current title is the common name in English-language sources. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:38, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose The commonest name should be the title of the article here. I'm not even sure Liefr qualifies as a plausible search term, but if others think it is, a redirect could be created. Struck the prior sentence because there's already a redirect for this. David in DC (talk) 14:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Leif Erikson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:24, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Nationality in lead[edit]

The ideas we have about nation states today are not relevant for Leif Erikson, and thus "Norse" is a better description than "Icelandic" in the first sentence, which is rather anachronistic. His nationality in his lifetime would be Norse, because Icelandic was not a distinct nationality. Iceland was merely a place where Norsemen lived. He is assumed to have been born in Iceland, although it's not certain, to parents from Norway, and in terms of nationality/culture/language/identity/customs/ethnicity etc. etc. Norsemen on Island and Norsemen in Norway were the same group.

The same goes for the name; with reference to him and other persons from the 10th and 11th centuries, it is not an "Icelandic" name, but rather a Norse name. There was no such thing as a specifically "Icelandic" name in his lifetime; we don't refer to the names of early English settlers in various colonies (e.g. Arthur Phillip) as "Australian names" and so on either. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 20:59, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Origin and nationality of Leif Erikson[edit]

Leif Erikson is ultimately the son of norwegian explorer Erik the Red, and therefore of true norwegian ancestry rather than icelandic. Even though born and raised on Iceland, he is still of norwegian blood. Without Norway, and definitely without Erik the Red, Leif Erikson would`ve never been born. Therebye i proclaim Leif Erikson is a true norwegian and only norwegian, who where born and raised at Iceland. The same goes for Roald Dahl in England. A son of norwegian parents, but only to be born and raised in England. Again, without Norway, Roald Dahl would`ve probably never been born!

Kasper Garshol — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strikebreaker555 (talkcontribs) 09:02, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that looks a lot like a nationalistic standpoint, which is not valid on Wikipedia. As you yourself say, sources tell us that Erikson was born and raised on Iceland, which makes him Icelandic. His ancestry is also included in the article, and in the nationality field in the infobox. --bonadea contributions talk 09:15, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

There is no evidence that Leif Erikson was in Newfoundland.[edit]

According to BBC " In 1963, archaeologists found ruins of a Viking-type settlement at L'Anse aux Meadows, in northern Newfoundland, which correspond to Leif's description of Vinland." The word "corresponds" does not prove anything. It merely suggests something without concrete evidence or proof. However, we can say, there were some unknown likely Viking settlements. But again, this does not prove that Leif Erikson was in Newfoundland, let alone that he discovered it. On the contrary, we do have proof that Columbus was in America. This was well documented and accepted by the international community as fact. We can't rewrite history based on loose evidence and vague inconclusive references from a time when history was poorly recorded. A 1000 years ago the Romans were the only civilization to keep relatively accurate documentation of events. The Vatican continued the tradition. At that time, the rest of European history is highly speculative and vague. In the 1950's it was discovered that Greenland lies on the North American tectonic plate. We can't rewrite history based on relatively newly discovered geological facts. This is absurd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougster Mitrovic (talkcontribs) 08:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Could you provide some sources for this position? There are multiple sources for the information that's currently in the text, and that information is very hedged with a lot of "may have been" and "appears to". But regardless of that, any conflicting info needs to be equally well sourced. --bonadea contributions talk 10:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
A thousand years ago the Roman Empire did not exist anymore, at least in the west. Others wrote historical accounts in that time (see e.g. Category:Carolingian historiography). Do you, perhaps, subscribe to Fomenko's new chronology? Kleuske (talk) 10:54, 9 October 2017 (UTC)