Talk:Estonian pirates

Estonian pirates AKA vikings

Hello Berig, to avoid edit warring here: how come you call Scandinavian pirates from the late 8th–11th century vikings but the similar ship-borne warriors and traders of Norsemen (literally, men from the north) who originated from another side of the Baltic sea you call pirates?

As there are also referred to Estonian vikings in the article and there are sources elsewhere that refer to 'Estonian vikings' for ex 800-1100 A.D. Raids and counter-raids by Vikings around the Baltic Sea, including by Estonian Vikings. Estonians kidnap Norwegian Queen Astrid and her son, future King Olaf Trygvesson—sell them into slavery. Estonians destroy Sweden’s main town, Sigtuna. http://www.balticsww.com/tourist/estonia/history.htm

please have the article reverted to Estonian vikings instead of Estonian pirates so that your original article can't be interpreted as a racist Scandinavian POV. Thanks!--Termer 19:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Termer, he meant that you moved the article in a wrong way - you must use Move link at the top of the page to move articles, not cut-paste method. DLX 19:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks DLX for the tech tip! Although I can't speculate on what was meant. Since ethnic issues regarding vikings have been discussed also earlier on Berig user page, I can't be certain for the reasons until Berig has confirmed it.--Termer 20:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all, DLX is right that you moved the article in the wrong way. By cutting and pasting, you don't move the article's history with it. Secondly, the word "Viking" is ambiguous in English and can both mean "medieval Scandinavian" and "medieval north European pirate". On WP we strive to avoid ambiguous article names, and above all we try to make the terminology as mainstream as possible. If you want to call this article "Estonian Vikings" you have to expect the casual reader to think that is about medieval Scandinavians living in Estonia. PS, can you explain more exactly what you mean by "racist"? Are Estonians a different "race" from Scandinavians, or are you talking of "Nationalism"? Please not that personal attacks are forbidden on WP and can make you incur a block.--Berig 22:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Moving the article in the wrong way was my mistake, I apologize for that.
Regarding medieval Scandinavians living in Estonia, the ancient Swedish settlement in coastal areas and on islands of Estonia is a fact Scandinavians living in medieval Estonia is a documented fact. The fact is also that the 'Estonian pirates' used similar technology to Scandinavian vikings as described in the Chronicle of Henry of Livonia. Now, either those Estonian pirates were ethnically Finnish/Estonian or Scandinavian, is a secondary question. Most likely there were both.

Now, I have no idea why do you take anything here personally. I was referring to the way the northern pirates are called differently and I'm sorry if I exaggerated with calling this kind of approach racist. Perhaps nationalist like you suggested is more correct. Now, what are we going to do about the title? I think 'Estonian pirates' is in any way inappropriate since it refers to modern day national name of Estonia. Eistneskr by the old Norwegian sagas referrers to Finno-Ugric people like ancient Livonians and Estonians or Finns etc. 'Estonian vikings' would refer to Scandinavian style pirates that were perhaps both ethnically Scandinavian and/or Finno Ugric back then coming from what are nowadays known as Estonian islands. I'm open to suggestions. Thanks!--Termer 00:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Berig asked me to give an opinion on the naming. "Viking" is an unfortunate, blurry 18th-century term for Scandinavian raiders, merchants and other people who just happened to leave their countries on a boat for whatever purpose. The original term, as far as I know, is based on a long-extinct Old Norse word that roughly meant a pirate, however never used at the time about the same people that were later labelled as Vikings. Finnic and Baltic peoples are cut off from that by definition, so using it about them is incorrect.

Earlier Scandinavian presence in the Baltic area was all gone by the mid-11th century. Previous Baltic vassals adopted much of the Scandinavian warfare and turned against their previous masters. I seriously doubt that there were any significant numbers of Scandinavians left in the Baltic area in the 12th century.

"Estonian" was already widely used at least from the 11th century onwards in its current meaning, even though not by Estonians themselves. The name appears frequently e.g. in Russian chronicles. Estonia was not a unified country, but its people were seen as one in the contemporary sources. The same applies to Finns, Karelians, Votes etc.

Noteworthy is though, that the 12th century plundering was not a Baltic/Finnic privilege. Russian, Swedish and Danish attacks were not any different at the time. To be honest, there is a certain flare of medieval propaganda still present here, when attacks coming from the east were labelled as "pirating" and similar attacks from the west as "crusades". As we have an article Early Finnish wars, I would propose a similar neutral name for this article here, Early Estonian wars. My 2c. --Drieakko 12:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Russian chronicles have never called anybody Estonian (since the word itself is Latin for Estland) In Russian chronicles the ancestors of modern Estonians/Finns are referred to as Chuds. Please also note the fact that there were Scandinavians settled on islands that are nowadays known as Estonian from where the Viking style raids under discussion originated from. Further on, the period of crusades has nothing to do with what's under discussion here since Northern Crusades started a century later after the Viking era was over and Scandinavian countries had become Christianized.
During the Northern Crusades, it's a separate documented chapter in history and it's called 'the Ancient (Estonian) Fight for Freedom'. That was in essence the fight against the invaders by all ancient tribes including the ones living in modern day Estonia' mainland . But the 'Estonian pirates' were located only on islands, primarily on Oesel, that is BTW one of the main source from where the people into the western Finland migrated from in the ancient times.--Termer 19:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
PS. How about calling the article 'Ancient Estonian pirates', sometimes called the 'Eastern Vikings' , like it says on Saaremaa AKA Oesel?--Termer 19:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh well, I meant that they treated Estonians as a separate people, naturally not using the English word "Estonian" for them. Swedish settlers arrived only after Estonian wars were over and done with, in the late 13th century, around the same time than they started settling Finland. "Ancient Estonian Fight for Freedom" is a rather unsuitable name for a Wikipedia article, even though it is used by Estonian historians. Articles are not meant to raise any nationalistic emotions. Every war has somebody fighting for "freedom" and all past wars can be called "ancient".

About Finns, they have not emmigrated from Saarenmaa. I have not heard that claim ever before. --Drieakko 20:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Drieakko Please let me point out that they treated Estonians as a separate people is an opinion not a fact. The fact is the Russian chronicles referred to Chuds as all the finno ugric tribes living in the era, perhaps some of them were even Slavic.. Please check out the related map on WP. even the map of - Chuds Finno Ugric tribes also lived in the era that is modern Finland nowadays. Therefor calling people living in Finland back then -Estonians, is an opinion. Even in Old Norwegian 'eistneskr maðr ' in the saga of Olaf , it doesn't mean anything else than 'men from East'. Therefore Eastern Vikings would work well perhaps. Since Eastern pirates could refer to the Orient. Also, if you look at the English translation of The Saga of Olaf Tryggvason ,it refers to vikings as robbers and people as Aistian. A comment also says “Aistian names Klerkon, Klerkr, Eres (Heres), Reas, and Rekon/Rekon are most probably not Finno-Ugric but could be Old Baltic )

Russian chronicles originally used the word Yem for the Finns. In the 13th century, they started to use that specifically about Tavastians and adopted Sum for the southwestern Finns. There is no entry in the chronicles about Chuds that could be interpreted to have meant Finns. --Drieakko 04:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding finns emigrated from Saarenmaa It should be common knowledge that waves of the Finno Ugric tribes arrived to Finland from South that is modern Estonia now and the other waves arrived to Finland from East through that is modern Karelia. Now since the the global human genome project, there surfaced a fact about 5 years ago, DNA evidence pointed out that the people living on Saarenmaa and Western Finland nowadays have descent from the same origin.

Theories about mass-migrations of Finns have been dropped long time ago. DNA evidence points out that Estonians, Finns and Swedes are all closely related. --Drieakko 04:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Germanic tribes, Scandinavians living in the Estonian islands long time before the 13 cen. since the evidence to that are vague and controversial I don't think it's worth argue about the Scandinavian settlement during the Viking era any more.--Termer 03:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello Drieakko lets get to the point and stop trolling here, I could go on with this that the Finns referred by the chronicles were most likely the Sams and the DNA evidents doesn't say anything about mass migration but just points out the fact that the guys on Saarenamma and in western Finland are related closer than the rest of the Est Fin Scnd and you can get back to me with another opinion but thats not the point here etc. So what are we going to do about the 'Estonian pirates'? --Termer 05:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps they are better described as "raiders" rather than "pirates", since strictly speaking piracy means "robbery on the seas", where as these people mainly raided on land after arriving by boat. Anyway, how about the idea of merging the content into a section of the stub Ancient Estonia, then have this page as a redirect? Martintg 05:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Martintg pirates are also known nowadays as software etc. pirates. But in general I think merging this into Ancient Estonia sounds good to me. Then its going to be possible to point out that in modern English, the eistneskr are translated as Aistian's and Vikings in the same text are referred to as raiders and or robbers. I've posted a ref earlier.--Termer 06:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The current article is a rather mixed bag of all kinds of conflicts, not only maritime. I'd still propose Early Estonian wars to give a complete coverage about Estonian related conflicts before the German/Danish conquest of the area. The article should handle conflicts against Novgorod/Vladimir/Kiev, Danes, Swedes and eventually Germans. The overall amount of material about these conflicts is quite extensive, but it is currently thinly spread here and there. --Drieakko 06:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

calling those raids Estonian wars is way over the top I think. Those were still vking style raids from both sides, also there were conflicts between the Finno-Ugric and Baltic tribes back then. Sigtuna perhaps could be called a war for the scale of it but in the end it was just a quick raid. I think once Ancient Estonia is going to be more sophisticated article, once we'll get all that extensive amount of material about these conflicts in there, it would be reasonable to start a new, main article about the subject. So, I'd support merging all related articles into Ancient Estonia, cleaning it up and then lets take it from there. --Termer 07:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Kindly read my previous comment again. For example, the early 12th century conflict between Novgorod and Estonians seems to have been very extensive. I'd first sum up all conflicts under a common article and then spin off additional articles if there is need for that. --Drieakko 07:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello Drieakko I did read your previous comment again. And I have to come forward with my point once more. Since we don't have any articles in WP that cover those conflicts in depth, (or do we?) I'd suggest merging all related stubs or I'd first sum up all conflicts under a common article: Ancient Estonia and once any of the sections is going to ask for it's own article, then spin off additional articles if there is need for that.--Termer 20:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a good strategy, since stand-alone articles like Estonian pirates lack context, so it may be confusing for readers, we can spin it off later again if needed. However, since Berig was the originator of this great article, we should also get his opinion too. Martintg 22:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

IMO, adding information about these scattered and isolated conflicts to Ancient Estonia would not much improve the quality of the said article. --Drieakko 04:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Well ofcourse, the article is still a stub, so I intend to fatten it up bit over the weekend. Martintg 05:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather stay away from a discussion where people like Termer insinuate that the naming has racist POVs against Estonians. Since everyone has his/her own wishes, we should wait and see if other add their opinions until some kind of consensus appears.--Berig 07:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Well Berig, I thought we put this racial thing behind us and settled on ethnic or national bias. But since you insist. We should turn to the specialists perhaps. Since the racial theorist Alfred Rosenberg, a Reich minister of Nazi Germany has claimed that Estonians were 50 percent Germanic AKA Scandinavian and Vikings can only be applied to Scandinavians, perhaps a consensus could be reached if we call the article “Estonian half-vikings”? based on the DNA evidence Drieakko provided: Estonians, Finnish and Scandinavians are all genetically closely related , maybe we could even go for "Estonian 75%-vikings"? Anyway, since you have chosen to use the modern national name of the country please have this article renamed without adding any national bias to it's title. I refuse to go along with this trolling further and have to tag this article accordingly if not replied and dispute not solved via a consensus. Thanks!--Termer 03:21, 6 July 2007
PS.Og hvorfor syns du at nogen fra Finland skal taler om det for dig? Det er ikke om Finland eller om Drieakko men om dig selv, er det ikke? Du har brugt navnen "Estonia", derfor du skal tale om sig selv og omnevne venligst den historie. Tak skal du have!--Termer 16:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what is the dispute here. --Drieakko 04:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

second round

• Hey! I knew that I had came across reading about Estonian vikings several times, and not so much about "Estonian Pirates". so I took my time and looked it up. And it looks like there are no basis whatsoever to be concerned like User:Berig has been.

So here it comes. An interesting fact is that Estonian Vikings are mentioned in Heimskringla p.147 in the History of the Norse Kings according to "A Brief History of the Vikings" by Gwyn Jones. Interesting is the fact as well that came out, Estonian Vikings in Estonian were/are called Vikerlased. The books:

• The Northern Crusades by Eric Christiansen. ISBN-13: 978-0140266535 Estonian Vikings on page 36

• A History of Pagan Europe by Prudence Jones; ISBN 0415091365 Estonian Vikings on page 166:

• Nordic Religions in the Viking Age by Thomas A. Dubois; ISBN 0812217144; Estonian Vikings, on page 177:

• A Brief History of the Vikings: The Last Pagans or the First Modern Europeans? ISBN 0786715995 from Back Matter: Heimskringla, p.147, uses the term viking here, even though the captors are later revealed to be Estonian.

• A History of the Vikings by Gwyn Jones ISBN-13: 978-0192801340 on page 167 The Scandinavian Community: speaks of trading towns of the Vikings: the Estonian Truso among the Swedish Birka, Norwegian Skiringssal (Kaupang) etc.

• Encyclopedia of World Biography By Paula Kay Byers, Suzanne Michele Bourgoin; ISBN 0787625515; Estonian Vikings on Page 491

• Mother of Kings by Poul Anderson; ISBN-13: 978-0765345028; An Estonian viking. on Back Matter

• Cassell's Encyclopaedia of World Literature By S. H. Steinberg, J. Buchanan-Brown ISBN 0688002285; Estonian Vikingson Page 222

• Folklorica (Uralic & Altaic) by Peter Voorheis ISBN-13: 978-0700709410; on Page 213:the living conditions of the Estonian Vikings on Page 215:...the Estonian Vikings at sea; on Page 216: deals with Estonian Viking times

• World Encyclopedia of Contemporary Theatre: Europe by Don Rubin; ISBN-13: 978-0415251570; The Estonian Vikings in Estonian: Vikerlased

• My Several Journeys Book One by Elizabeth Mulford ISBN-13: 978-1414064604 Estonian Vikings on page 127

• Historical Dictionary of Estonia; ISBN 0810849046; Estonian Vikings - Page 517

This should be enough for now to end the ethnic bias here and call the article about the traders and raiders from the shores of the eastern Baltic Vikings as well on WP. Thanks!--Termer 09:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Excellent work! Martintg 09:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Browsing contemporary litterature, you can find thousands of references to Vikings this and Vikings that, without any other than populist content. If you want to change the definition of a Viking, please go first to the respective article about them. --Drieakko 12:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Martintg for your support and thanks Drieakko for provided skepticism. Although calling the 17th century Swedish Heimskringla that’s based on the 12-13 century Old Norse texts a contemporary literature seems more like an opinion rather than a fact for me. Also I must thank you Drieakko for pointing out the article Vikings that led me to Viking era. The articles seem to have some common problems in general therefore I’m glad to help by bringing everything together ASAP. For example the fact that the trading-raiding-Scandinavian-mercenaries etc. that had traveled eastwards were referred to as Varangians by the earliest Russian chronicles is totally missing over there. But at first I’m going to look up relevant refs about the estniska vikingr eller vikingr fra Estland etc. in Norwegian, Danish, Swedish and perhaps in Old Norse as well to support the facts listed in the sources written in modern English. And then once done with the Vikings in general, it's time to return and set things right over here. Thanks again for your support and constructive criticism. --Termer 23:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Scandinavian sources

So here is one how they teach kids in Norway about the vikings from Estonia. At the school of Avaldsnes, the town thats named after the Norwegian king Augvald, the place of the Viking Garden (Vikinggården). The Olav Trygvassons saga in Norwegian: Da de seilte østover havet, kom det vikinger fra Estland og røvet dem... :when they sailed on the Baltic sea came the vikings from Estonia and robbed them.--Termer 06:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Someone argued here that there were no Scandinavian settlments on the easter shores of the Baltic sea back then? Seems like you'd need to take it to whoever uploaded this image to Wiki and wrote the article Norsemen --Termer 03:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Map showing area of Scandinavian settlement in the eighth (dark red), ninth (red), tenth (orange) and eleventh (yellow) centuries. Green denotes areas subjected to frequent Viking raids.

There certainly were Scandinavian settlements in the eastern Baltic sea, but the attached map is really careless work. --Drieakko 05:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

That was actually my point Drieakko it is careless work if not WP:OR and shouldn't belong to an encyclopedia. Thanks for your support. I was just hoping that someone other than me would take it up ;-) --Termer 06:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Notes and references

==Requested move== Estonian pirates → Estonian vikings — Sources overwhelmingly support "Estonian vikings":

1. Estonian Vikings are mentioned in Heimskringla p.147 in the History of the Norse Kings according to "A Brief History of the Vikings" by Gwyn Jones.
2. The Northern Crusades by Eric Christiansen. ISBN-13: 978-0140266535 Estonian Vikings on page 36
3. A History of Pagan Europe by Prudence Jones; ISBN 0415091365 Estonian Vikings on page 166:
4. Nordic Religions in the Viking Age by Thomas A. Dubois; ISBN 0812217144; Estonian Vikings, on page 177:
5. A Brief History of the Vikings: The Last Pagans or the First Modern Europeans? ISBN 0786715995 from Back Matter: Heimskringla, p.147, uses the term viking here, even though the captors are later revealed to be Estonian.
6. A History of the Vikings by Gwyn Jones ISBN-13: 978-0192801340 on page 167 The Scandinavian Community: speaks of trading towns of the Vikings: the Estonian Truso among the Swedish Birka, Norwegian Skiringssal (Kaupang) etc.
7. Encyclopedia of World Biography By Paula Kay Byers, Suzanne Michele Bourgoin; ISBN 0787625515; Estonian Vikings on Page 491
8. Mother of Kings by Poul Anderson; ISBN-13: 978-0765345028; An Estonian viking. on Back Matter
9. Cassell's Encyclopaedia of World Literature By S. H. Steinberg, J. Buchanan-Brown ISBN 0688002285; Estonian Vikingson Page 222
10. Folklorica (Uralic & Altaic) by Peter Voorheis ISBN-13: 978-0700709410; on Page 213:the living conditions of the Estonian Vikings on Page 215:...the Estonian Vikings at sea; on Page 216: deals with Estonian Viking times
11. World Encyclopedia of Contemporary Theatre: Europe by Don Rubin; ISBN-13: 978-0415251570; The Estonian Vikings in Estonian: Vikerlased
12. My Several Journeys Book One by Elizabeth Mulford ISBN-13: 978-1414064604 Estonian Vikings on page 127
13. Historical Dictionary of Estonia; ISBN 0810849046; Estonian Vikings - Page 517
14. Aestii: An Analysis of an Ancient European Civilization By Edgar V. Saks; Estonian Vikings page 269

—Martintg 20:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC) Withdrawn, per Termer's suggestion. Martintg 03:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support, per nomination. Martintg 20:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose because of ambiguity. Most English speakers expect "Vikings" to be Norse, but these "Vikings" were not.--Berig 20:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Do you have a source that backs you claim of this expectation, or is this your personal opinion? Plenty of english language sources have been presented that support "Estonian viking", so I don't know where you get this view that english speakers expect something else. I'm an english speaker from Australia, are you a native english speaker? Martintg 21:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is a discussion between two English-speakers at the Viking Aswer Lady's webpage. The lady refers to an English-speaking scholar who maintains that

Strictly speaking, therefore, the term should only be applied to men actually engaged in these violent pursuits, and not to every contemporary Scandinavian farmer, merchant, settler or craftsman, nor even to warriors fighting in the dynastic wars of their lords or in their own private feuds. (Jacqueline Simpson. Everyday Life in the Viking Age. New York: Dorset. 1967. ISBN 0-88029-146-X. p.11).

The term "Viking" is diffuse as it is already, without using the name for every group that has been called "Vikings" at one point or another, be it to Estonians pirates or medieval Scandinavians who never left their village.--Berig 05:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Well according to many scholars, these people were engaged in violent pursuits, they also shared many other cultural characteristics and behaviours, and were most likely communities of earlier settlers from mainland Scandinavia, particularly on the island of Saaremaa, hence the academics refer to them as "Estonian vikings". Martintg 20:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. The term Viking has extremely specific connotations and a direct historical meaning in the English language. The term is also very culturally specific down to the very linguistic origins of the word. This word shouldn't be thrown around so loosely. What's next, Polynesian Vikings because there may have been Polynesian raiders (just as an example) during the window of the Viking Age? We need something more appropriate and specific to the subject. :bloodofox: 10:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• Not according to the scholarly sources. A report published by the European Science Foundation, for example, states there is no such thing as a monolithic ‘Viking’ identity, but that varieties of identity that can be labelled ‘Viking’. Martintg 19:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

*Oppose per bloodfox' arguments. Viking the designation of a folk, ie Scandinavian Germanic people of the High Middle Ages. Their indulging in piracy is secondary. --victor falk 12:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose per Berig et al. (comment by User:Briangotts)

• Support. It is true that, in popular use, the term "Vikings" is usually restricted to Norsemen from Sweden, Norway and Denmark. But as Termer and others have suggested from sighted sources, the informed academic consensus seems to differ. A case in point: perhaps the most detailed academic analysis of Estonian raiders, that of Edgar V. Saks, is titled "The Estonian Vikings" (Montreal: Practical Handbooks, 1981).

As for the American Heritage Dictionary, Berig, it is a confused source. For example, it confuses the meanings of "Nordic" and "Scandinavia" ("Nordic: Of, relating to, or characteristic of Scandinavia or its peoples, languages, or cultures"). Dictionaries are limited to one-line definitions, and so it is their tendency to compact — and sometimes distort — complex meanings. This is an encyclopedia, and should strive for comprehensive, nuanced analysis. Lkbunker 14:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Link the study please, I am curious as to what exactly it says. Regardless, I can probably dig up a ton of places where the term has been misappropriated for any number of reasons. Looking forward to that Polynesian Vikings article created in the same line of thought. :bloodofox: 01:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Link the study? how about looking up there at the books. Regarding Polynesian Vikings, please :bloodofox: list at least 14 books published in English like the ones up here talk about Estonian vikings and you can have your Polynesian Vikings article. --Termer 05:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
PS. I'm linking one for your convenience anyway, in case it's too much to check out the provided sources. Please enjoy,

Estonian Vikings at History of Pagan Europe By Prudence Jones; ISBN 0415091365. Looking forward to get one linking in return about Polynesian Vikings. Thanks!--Termer 05:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

PPS. OK, here is one more just in case

Nordic Religions in the Viking Age By Thomas A. DuBois ISBN 0812217144--Termer 05:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC) and one more

Estonian Vikings at Cassell's Encyclopaedia of World Literature;ISBN 0688002285, and one more

Estonian Vikings at Encyclopedia of World Biography - Page 491 ;ISBN 0787625515

• Oppose Strong support I'm very sorry, I was thinking only in modern English, not historically... That "viking" has come to mean "scandinavian medieval people" is a recent development. The word accurately describes what those Estonians were doing, much more so than "pirate".--victor falk 15:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• Support. An opinion that Estonian vikings might be confused with "Estonian Scandinavians" does not have any basis whatsoever since the first line in the article explains exactly what this is all about. And the term has been used by the Scandinavians since Icelandic Sagas from where it has made it into modern English as shown by the examples listed above--Termer 15:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. What next? Article about the Ukrainian Cossack fleet harassing the Turkish Sultan and Crimean Khan called as Ukrainian Vikings instead of cossack fleet? --Irpen 21:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Please give me a book Irpen that talks about Ukrainian Vikings and you can have the article.--Termer 21:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there are books mentioning Russian Vikings, and one of them even drew a parallel with the Cossacks. We can also expect Irish Vikings soon, they google far better than the Estonian and Russian variety. Not forgetting Scottish Vikings, Welsh Vikings, Dutch Vikings (or Low German Vikings), Frisian Vikings, Gothic Vikings, Wendish Vikings, Finnish Vikings, Slavic Vikings, ... all to be found in Google Books. --Paul Pieniezny 13:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support. "Estonian Vikings" is the clearest concise article name. It fixes the timeframe, the geography, and the modus operandi. "Pirates" is vague, as there were pirates in the Baltic Sea at much later times. /Pieter Kuiper 22:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The name Estonian Viking expeditions seems to solve all problems. /Pieter Kuiper 00:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Paul Pieniezny is right, Estonian Viking expeditions is ambiguous. /Pieter Kuiper 09:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, and I will surprise a lot of people here, I do not like "Estonian pirates" either. However, there is hardly a third alternative: "Estonian raid(s)" has four googles, but none refer to this. I do not know whether "Expeditions by Estonian Vikings" would be acceptable. It eliminates the syntactic ambiguity and probably also of the racist WWII "interpretation". --Paul Pieniezny 13:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support, per nomination and per Termer. Cited sources give valid grounds for the name change. --Hillock65 00:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support - less POV, better supported by the sources Alex Bakharev 00:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. Google Books score 23-16 for pirates. Google scholar 4-4, but two "Estonian Vikings" are in fact just quoting the title of the Saks book. Yes, there is a book "Estonian Vikings" by Saks. But there is also "Estonian Vikings" by Richard Landswehr ([1]). Saks is from 1985, Landwehr from 2000. It seems like the Saks book (limited edition: 500 copies) did not make much of an impression, for this name still to be used in a different way seven yers ago. Neologism. By the way, with everybody supposing that Vikings are Scandinavian, the expression "Estonian Viking raids" is going to be interpreted as Estonians raiding Vikings. Part of the text of the article is already confusing. I wish "Estonian raiders" was less of a neologism. --Paul Pieniezny 01:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• The debate has moved on, if you would have followed it, you would know there is concensus amongst the major proponents inTalk:Estonian_pirates#Estonian_Viking_Expeditions. Martintg 01:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Consensus does not equal wearing your opponent to death and in the meantime rename and make a revert impossible. Your move was discussed at ANI (which is where I saw this RM), people who were active there could not be part of the consensus here. You haven't answered my sourced argument that in 2000 (15 years after the book that you have been using to wear opponents down) someone could use "Estonian Vikings" with a completely different meaning. And yes, as the title of a book. Since in English "Viking" normally means "Scandinavian" (even as an adjective - "Viking Civilization") and most if not all of the Estonian raids were against Scandinavia some of the expressions now being proposed are very ambiguous and confuse the average visitor to Wikipedia. I interpret "Estonian Viking Expeditions" as Viking expeditions in or against Estonia, others may even interpret it as "Estonian expeditions against Scandinavia. Titles should be unambiguous to the average reader and this one is clearly not.--Paul Pieniezny 09:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

is it just me or do you Paul Pieniezny accuse Martintg of anything here? "wearing your opponent to death" sounds like an awful thing to do. There has been a long and difficult debate here and a consensus has been reached. Regarding Martintg than he has taken any proposal for a new possible title for consideration, meaning what I've seen, he has been working towards finding a consensus. Since it has been reached, the "Estonian Vikings" and the Survey above is no longer relevant.--Termer 16:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
PS.Hi Martintg, I'd strike out the proposal here and take the requested move down to avoid further confusion with this. Thanks--Termer 16:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

• Comment Here is something I've not added yet to the Viking article but going to ASAP: The way an English speaker puts it: from A Brief History of the Vikings: The Last Pagans or the First Modern Europeans? by Jonathan Clements; p.12; ISBN 0786715995: The Vikings were a group created by circumstance, not blood – they were not a “race”, nor did they have any patriotism, any sense of "Viking-ness". Although they were predominantly men from the areas now known as Norway, Sweden and Denmark, there are mentions in the sagas of Finns, Sami and Estonians among them. --Termer 22:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, I agree. "Viking" identity was not racial, it was a trans-national identity. The report published by the European Science Foundation, for example, states there is no such thing as a monolithic ‘Viking’ identity, but that varieties of identity that can be labelled ‘Viking’ caused some major social and cultural shifts across a wide swathe of eastern and northern Europe in the early Middle Ages. Migration And Transcultural Identities In The Viking Age Martintg 00:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

As said in the quote: "they were predominantly men from the areas now known as Norway, Sweden and Denmark". This is why the name "Estonian Vikings" implies that the Estonian Vikings also predominantly came from Norway, Denmark and Sweden. Why should the title misguide the reader to believe that there were substantial Scandinavian settlements in Estonia during the Viking Age?--Berig 05:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

"predominantly" does not mean "exclusively", it means "mostly". Therefore it is recognised that some Vikings also came from areas outside Norway, Sweden and Denmark, such as the east coast of the Baltic. Hence the term "Viking" is qualified with a geographical term "Estonian". Hence "Estonian vikings" is a valid term to describe a group of people who shared a similar culture, lifestyle and beliefs as the mainland Vikings, during the same period. Martintg 06:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you Berig saying that instead of addressing your question to the English speaking authors who speak in print about Estonian Vikings listed above, the article should be named something like Estonian Vikings -not Scandinavian ? And how do they interpret this vikinger fra Estland in the Olav Trygvassons saga [2] written in Norwegian? Please explain! Thanks--Termer 06:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It says on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision):

If a word or phrase is ambiguous, and an article concerns only one of the meanings of that word or phrase, it should usually be titled with something more precise than just that word or phrase (unless it is unlikely that the related usages deserve their own article).

"Viking" is an ambiguous word that is applied both to medieval Scandinavians and to medieval pirates. We have to follow Wikipedia policy and make the titles as unambiguous as possible.--Berig 06:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, thats why the English speaking authors call the guys Estonian Vikings, it's titled with something more precise than just that word or phrase. I fail to see how anybody could interpret Estonian Vikings as Scandinavians from Estonia as the something more precise clearly indicates that the vikings were Estonian. If the title was Vikings from Estonia, only then you could say that it might mean like you suggest. So far as far as I'm concerned, Estonian Vikings fits perfectly with the Wikipedia policy and is as unambiguous as possible. Unless of course we could go even further and call it like already mentioned Estonian -not Scandinavian Vikings--Termer 06:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

We also have Estonian Swedes, and when I read "Estonian Vikings", I surmise that there were North Germanics in Estonia earlier. That is why "Estonian Vikings" is ambiguous when I read it.--Berig 07:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, please let me point out that's only because in your opinion Vikings=Scandinavians. The books published in English listed above, seems don't share the opinion of yours. But please feel free to suggest any alternatives. The current pirates needs to go for the reasons listed right in the beginning up there on this talk page. Thanks--Termer 07:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is not just "my opinion", it is also the opinion of the BBC, and even your source claims that they were "predominantly men from the areas now known as Norway, Sweden and Denmark", which is why you can't brush it away calling it "only because in your opinion". I suggest "Estonian raiders" which conveys the same meaning without the ambiguity.--Berig 07:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The BBC article only talks about the Vikings that left mark on Britain. That is a POV. Thats fine but it's not a valid argument to dismiss all the books listed above. Estonian raiders would be fine in case we call the WP article Vikings Scandinavian raiders--Termer 07:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC) --Termer 07:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The American Heritage Dictionary (1992) says that "Viking" means:

1. One of a seafaring Scandinavian people who plundered the coasts of northern and western Europe from the eighth through the tenth century.

2. A Scandinavian.

These are the meanings of "Viking" in the English language, so the name you are suggesting is misleading. You are basing your arguments on metaphorical uses of the word.--Berig 07:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

neither term seems to have any sort of currency. How about widening the scope to Viking Age Estonia? The period is so far only addressed at History_of_Estonia#Early_Middle_Ages, and it is unclear whether these viking activities should stand as a full article. It would be better to treat the period in context. dab (𒁳) 07:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Please Berig do not take the discussion into circles. Martintg has already pointed out that your opinion is incorrect and I hate to repeat this once more: so do the published books in English and Norwegian listed above.--Termer 07:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Termer, the American Heritage Dictionary is a reliable source for the meaning of "Viking" in the English language, whereas your sources are not since they are not dictionaries and are likely to use the word in a metaphorical way.--Berig 07:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

PS. regarding: The American Heritage Dictionary, sorry, I have put some work into Viking#Etymology and there is much more to the word than this dictionary provides.--Termer 08:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Termer you are talking of etymology and of metaphorical uses. The American Heritage Dictionary talks of what "Viking" means in the English language. You can search for as many metaphorical uses of the word as you want to, but it does not change what standard dictionaries say about the meaning of the word in English. What you are doing is called casuistry.--Berig 08:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Please let me point out once more that the discussion is not about calling this article Vikings but Estonian Vikings. All your consernes regarding casuistry should be addressed to the English speaking authors listed above. And I'm sorry to hear that you don't consider the Olav Trygvassons saga in Norwegian and Heimskringla in Swedish regarding vikings -reliable sources. :-D this is not going anywhere. goodbye.--Termer 08:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

No, unlike the National Heritage Dictionary, Olav Tyggvasson's saga is not a reliable source for the modern English language, but it is a reliable source for what víkingr meant in Old Norse. English language authors are at their liberty to use metaphors as they wish, but we are writing an encyclopedia where we try to avoid ambiguity which means that we should avoid metaphorical expressions in the titles. I hope that you see my point and don't leave the discussion.--Berig 08:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• Berig, "viking" is not a carrying over of "scandinavian" to "pirate". It's the other way around. You should check the true sense of the word.--victor falk 20:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Victor Falk, there is no such thing as a "true sense" of a word. There are conventional and generally accepted meanings that change over time in a given language and we are talking of modern English. You are talking about etymology and with that way of reasoning "English" should only be applied to the German dialect of Angeln from where the Angles came to England.--Berig 07:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. "True sense" is not the true sense of "etymology", but it's its etymology. But I disagree very strongly with your dichotomising that we either speak Angeln or totally ignore past meanings of words.--victor falk 13:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that etymology is a very important part of any article, but I do think it is a different case when we consider titles and the use of words in articles. Whether they appear in titles or in articles, English words should be comprehensible to people who do not necessarily know anything about the history of the word. An English word like skirt should be used in a way that does not conflict with the way most English-speakers understand it, and the fact that it comes from Old Norse and originally meant "shirt"[3] is only relevant in an etymology section.--Berig 13:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

"Viking" is not an archaic synonym of "pirate", it is a still current one.--victor falk 14:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Victor, that is not an English dictionary. It is a site in French that appears to simulate lexical networks. Moreover, it appears to make use of the controversial theory that lexical items are based on building blocks.--Berig 14:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Atlas sémantiques is a bilingual French-English synonym dictionary. I see noiw I linked directly to the java visualiation, I'm sorry for that. It works like a regular dictionary also, like this: "viking". It's harder to find a dictionary that hasn't "pirate", "raider", etc, as a possible synonym or definition [4] [5] [6] [7]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Victor falk (talk • contribs) 15:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

Berig like I said yesterday, there is no point for you to keep repeating yourself, everybody got it I'm sure already at the first time. First of all the editors who have clearly noted on their talk pages that their native language is English must have understood what you keep saying. Instead I'd suggest you'd look up any sources for the current title as it is unreferenced , it can and will be challenged any time by any editor. I also would have to disregard the current comments by :bloodofox: and User:Briangotts since you have called them up here on their talk pages. Unless of course you think that the editors who oppose your opinion should do the same and call up anybody who'd support our take on the subject? However, even though you have called up supporters for your opinion, it doesn't really matter. As far as I'm concerned, the current consensus is to rename the article according to the suggestion because the unreferenced title and forwarded opinions have been challenged by numerous printed books also made available via direct links. Med venlig hilsen! --Termer 08:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Termer, concerning your allegations against Briangotts and Bloodofox. I asked for their opinions because they are interested in early medieval North European subjects. I can assure you that they are intelligent editors who can think for themselves, and I think you are in violation of WP:CIV by insinuating that they would vote in a certain way just because I called the vote to their attention.--Berig 09:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks dab, to get a consensus here, Viking Age in Estonia or something like that sounds OK to me.--Termer 07:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

If we can't get consensus on Estonian vikings, then Viking Age Estonia would be a altenative that would align with the sources. Martintg 19:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I have second thoughts about it. Viking age and Estonia is much broader subject about the era than an article about the people. The Viking Age, the era pretty much is like pointed out already currently called Ancient_Estonia#Early_Middle_Ages. the thing is, only people from the Estonian islands and western parts were known as the traders-raiders or the vikings. The southern Estonia had nothing much to do with it, like Ugandi and Sakala etc. therefore I'm afraid Viking Age Estonia wouldn't work really for the article.--Termer 20:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I am reading a book by Jansson called "Runstenar" (ISBN 91-7156-015-7) and which was published in 1980. He says on page 24 that there were Swedes living along the coast of Estonia in the 11th century:

På Finska vikens södra strand ligger Estland, där estsvenskar redan bodde när de svenska skeppen till Holmgård och på väg till Miklagård seglade förbi.

Translation:

On the southern shore of the Gulf of Finland is Estonia, where Estonian Swedes were already living when the Swedish ships sailed past on their way to Holmgard and Miklagard.

There were consequently Scandinavians living on the shores of Viking Age Estonia, so shouldn't "Estonian Vikings" be reserved for Viking Age Estonian Swedes in accordance with the mainstream meaning of "Viking" in English?--Berig 08:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe that these Viking period Estonian Swedes are nothing but an unproved hypothesis. However, there is a recent thesis by Felicia Markus discussing the origin of Estonian Swedes. I haven't read it myself, but it is supposed to be good.--217.112.249.156 09:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

There were people living in the Northern Estonia who came from Jylland already during Bronze Age, I'm going to write an article about them later on. This one here please let me point out once again is about the people that were called Osilians and Curelians, commonly known in history of Scandinavia as Vikinger fra Estland -Estonian Vikings. The term doesn't fully cover modern Estonia or Vikings in general in any way. What has Estonian Swedes to do with anything here?--Termer 08:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I have checked another English dictionary, the Merriam Webster, and it says exactly the same thing as the American Heritage Dictionary, i.e. that "Viking" has a much more narrow meaning in standard English than the one you are trying to advocate here[8].--Berig 08:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I hate to return to this Berig what does the dictionary say about the Estonian Vikings that are mentioned in those books and online books listed above?--Termer 08:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Termer, you are stressing a rare figurative expression of the same kind as "Polynesian Vikings"[9][10]. It is probably unlikely to find either "Estonian Vikings" or "Polynesian Vikings" in a dictionary or encyclopedia.--Berig 08:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. No offense to the Estonian nation and its rich history, but "Estonian Vikings" is a unsuitable term for encyclopedic purposes.--217.112.249.156 09:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

That's what I love about Wikipedia, anonymous editors lecturing the following encyclopedias for including "unsuitable terms":

Estonian Vikings at Cassell's Encyclopaedia of World Literature;ISBN 0688002285, and

Estonian Vikings at Encyclopedia of World Biography - Page 491 ;ISBN 0787625515

--Martintg 10:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

He may be an anonymous editor, but you have to respect WP:CIV and adapt your tone to it. Do you think that these encyclopedias would have entries named "Polynesian Vikings" or "Estonian Vikings"? I don't believe so because of the standard meaning of "Viking" in English.--Berig 11:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 2

Thanks for bringing up WP:CIV. Would you explain why this article has been chosen an unreferenced title that is in it's essence an ethnic slur? Also, I believe applying any meanings on Viking on ethnic bases is not appropriate for WP purposes. In that sense, thanks for drawing my attention to the all the sources out there regarding Polynesian Vikings. And last but not least, I still believe it's not appropriate to call up any editors directly into a dispute. There is a procedure for that on WP, WP:RFC. --Termer 15:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

As for the name of the article, I thought the subject was so obscure there could not possibly be a conventional English name for it, which there is not. If you interprete it as an "ethnic slur", I can assure you that it was hardly my intention. There are BTW people who find "Viking" to be an ethnic slur (User:Dan Koehl), so I don't understand what you are trying to change here. As for the ethnic connotations of "Viking" it is neither your decision nor mine, but we have to abide by definitions in reliable sources like the American Heritage Dictionary and Merrion-Webster, per WP:reliable sources. As for calling up interested editors, it is perfectly acceptable to announce disputes to interested parties, but what is much less acceptable is the way you have belittled their opinions[11].--Berig 17:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, so we're on our way to that Polynesian Vikings article after all, since it makes every bit as much sense as Estonian Vikings. That means we can just go and replace every article using the term "raider" and "pirate" with Viking thereafter, wonderful! Regardless, something akin to Viking Age Estonian Raiders would be far more specific and thus appropriate. :bloodofox: 17:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

No, because the pirate sense of viking is limited in time and space to northern Europe during the early middle ages.--victor falk 18:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

This whole Polynesian Vikings thing is a complete straw man. There is active research on Vikings in Estonia and Estonian academics regularly participate in conferences concerning Vikings, as this conference program shows [12]. Martintg 19:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

That is not what the proposed article is about. It is, instead, about Viking-like Estonian pirates who are of a non-Germanic culture. This is why the same decision would apply to Viking Age Polynesian Raiders. :bloodofox: 22:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

No it wouldn't, there are real connections between Scandinavian vikings and Estonian vikings, that simply do not exist with Polynesians. Geographically the Baltic Sea was a part of the hinterlands of the Viking Era and culturally the two groups shared many features, and was culturally distinct from mainland Estonia. Many of the inhabitants of the Estonia islands like Saaremaa were themselves settlers from Skandinavia who most likely arrived a couple of centuries earlier but assilimated to some degree into the local environment, as the most recent research shows. This is why Estonian academics are invited year after year to conferences on Vikings to present their latest research, while Polynesian academics are not. Martintg 00:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

While they were close by and there was some integration going on, I still have no idea why you are so hell bent on using a word that has a clear definition that does not apply to a certain group of people. Again, these people were not culturally Norse and even "Pirate" is a far more appropriate term for them considering this. What you need to realize is that this is the English Wikipedia and thus we use English words in the way that they are defined in English. A metaphorical term that compares a certain peoples to other peoples does them no favor. These people were of a distinct culture and should be recognized as it, not compared to another nearby culture who are better known. I frankly find that insulting to the Estonian raiders. What we need are specifics. That was exactly my point with the mentioning of so-called "Polynesian Vikings." There's a better term for these raiders too. :bloodofox: 00:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Re to :bloodofox:. So it's about being Germanic now? It's time once again to pull out the thing already mentioned here: Alfred Rosenberg, a Reich minister and the specialist of racial issues of Nazi Germany has claimed that Estonians were about 50 percent Germanic, perhaps a consensus could be reached if we call the article Estonian half-vikings? Never mind that these 100% Scandinavian Germanic guys back then called the people from over the Baltic sea Vikinger by themselves.--Termer 00:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Germanic as in culture not race. Do you have a Third Reich reference for that too? In English, we also have the term bless which is a Germanic term that originally meant to sprinkle something with blood. My point? We're speaking modern English. Practically anyone who hears you say "Viking" will think precisely of seafaring Norsemen attacking coastal societies. Why? Because they're familiar with the definition of the term. They will usually have (a lot of) misconceptions but, otherwise, that's simply how it's defined in English. :bloodofox: 01:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

A culture that was shared by the people living on the Islands of Estonia back in the Viking Age. You obviously believe that these Estonian vikings don't fit the criteria, I suggest you attend one of the many seminars on the Viking Age and argue your points with the many Estonian academics sure to be attending, the program guides are available here [13] Martintg 01:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Re to :bloodofox:, thats fine if you say "Viking" will think precisely of seafaring Norsemen attacking coastal societies' Norsemen means men from north, thats what the Estonian Vikings mentioned since Iclandic sagas until those books published in English were, men from north attacking coastal societies.. :-D And culturally, yes please compare Varbola Stronghold with Viking ring fortress that should speak for itself. --Termer 01:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The American Heritage Dictionary says: n. A member of any of the peoples of medieval Scandinavia. Compare all you like, I am not here to theorize. Are you suggesting that Estonia is Norse? Here's where the Modern English language comes in again.. :bloodofox: 01:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• I hate to repeat this but what did the dictionary say about the Estonian vikings? the term that has come up since the Icelandic sagas and is printed in modern English by native English speakers in those books and encyclopedias listed above? --Termer 01:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Not to mention that, even in modern English, "viking" and "pirate" are synonyms--victor falk 01:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Both Berig and bloodofox hang their arguments on a single line entry in American Heritage Dictionary. Well I'm just back from the local library where they have the full version of the Oxford English Dictionary, the complete 22 volumes that takes 2 metres of shelf space. :) I looked up "Viking". Historically, the word means "the practice of marauding or piracy", derived from the Icelandic. The term came into English usage in 1864, where "Viking" was the pirate vessel and the "Vikinger" was the sea pirate, the evolved into "Wikings", meaning pirates, in 1883. That developed into two current meanings of "Viking", the first refers to the populist meaning of "one of those Scandivanian adventurers who practiced piracy at sea, and depredations on land, in northern and Western Europe", and the second meaning for general use: "a warlike pirate or sea rover". Martintg 02:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Marting, you are being off-topic since you are discussing etymology, while you should be discussing the meaning of the word in modern English. I have also pointed out Merrion-Webster's dictionary which is online. There are consequently two standard dictionaries which give a much more narrow definition than the one you present.--Berig 08:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so, the etymology was discussed first followed by the two current meanings. Martintg 10:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, your source only gives that meaning in the context of Scandinavians. As I have shown with American Heritage Dictionary and Merriam-Webster, the trait "Scandinavian" in the English word Viking is not just connotative, it is in fact denotative, which makes the word exceptionally unsuited as the part of a title on Estonians.--Berig 14:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit conflict]Maybe it is the purpose of an encyclopedia to examine the broad definitions of a term, in contrast to a dictionary? And since when is etymologogy irrelevant to the meaning of a word?!? Especially when that word is used in a history article? That is a lack of historical perspective inadequate for the editing of a history article.--victor falk 10:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a usage guide where we try to correct the meaning of a word in the English language by telling the reader what a word "should" mean because it has meant so before. Etymology is important, but only as the part of an etymology section.--Berig 14:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Nobody says that viking should be a synonym of pirate, it is in the modern English language. Several sources clearly show that, let it be it is a secondary meaning nowadays, that not all dictionaries have as definition. Like the one on your shelf for instance.--victor falk 14:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

This secondary meaning of yours is so rare that it is ignored by two major dictionaries. Do you seriously mean that we should define Buccaneers, Privateers and Corsairs as "Vikings"? I don't believe so since "Viking" is too ethnically specific.--Berig 14:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

arbitrary section break 2.5

Dictionary.com [14] also gives more than one definition: Vi·king [vahy-king] –noun (sometimes lowercase)

1. any of the Scandinavian pirates who plundered the coasts of Europe from the 8th to 10th centuries.
2. a sea-roving bandit; pirate.
3. a Scandinavian.

--Martintg 10:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that dictionary.com is as authoritative as the American Heritage Dictionary or Merriam-Webster. Still, if we have a closer look at its definitions, it divides the word into three main meanings, two of which apply only to Scandinavians. I hope you agree that the word "Viking" has strong ethnical traits which should make you careful when applying the word to other ethnic groups. "Cossack" which is applied to Slavic groups is the same word as "Kazakh" which is used for a Turkish people. However, the form "Cossack" has strong ethnic associations and I doubt that you would use it as indiscriminately.--Berig 14:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Webster might be more reliable than dictionary.com, but it is not the only authority on the planet, as Martintg showed with the OED. Neither is atlas sémantiques some dot com site, it is run by the CNRS. My own 1964 Oxford Concise says:

"Northern sea robber of 8th to 10th c. Hence -ISM(2) n. [f. O.N. vikingr, perh f. O.E. wícing, (wíc camp, -ING³]".

Emphasis added on "Northern". Clearly those Estonian were practising vikingism. --victor falk 14:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry but, l'Atlas sémantique does not seem to have an English entry for Viking[15]. Maybe you could help me find it. BTW, as a fitting parallel: would you think that a name like "Celtic Vikings" sounds serious as a possible title for the article Scoti? It is the logical consequence of your line of argumentation here. Don't you think that we should make the titles of articles as unambiguous and scholarly as possible?--Berig 15:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Here you are. No, because they did not focus their activity in the Nordic countries and the Baltic littoral between the 7-8th and 10-11th centuries. A Celt, or a Serk for that matter, joining a drakkar crew in these times could be called a viking, and I would. I'm sure many did, but as individuals, and not as whole crews as the Estonians.--victor falk 15:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

please let me point out once more, for the third time, what pirate also means in modern English: (dictionary.com) pirate2 [ˈpaiərət] noun a person who does something without legal right, eg publishes someone else's work as his own or broadcasts without a licence Example: a pirate radio-station--Termer 16:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. None of these word is perfect (if there was a just-right one we wouldn't be having this discussion). Just as we don't worry that "pirate" has a meaning that doesn't correctly describes what Estonian pirates were doing, we shouldn't worry that "viking" has a meaning that doesn't correctly describes the ethnic origins of the Estonian vikings. But viking is more accurate than pirate.--victor falk 17:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

when they say pirate in modern English then other than software piracy the word reminds me of Johnny Depp and Caribbean Islands for some reason. --Termer 18:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Which picture do you prefer to illustrate those Estonians in the article? If you had to choose one and only one?

Pick me! I like dogs!

Choose me, I'm nice!

/.

Sources

Listen people, we should stop this ridiculous sandbox fight about "my 1964 Oxford Concise beats the crap out of your Merriam Webster any day of the week". Can we all agree that they all are authoritative wp:rs and wp:v sources, and that some but not all say that viking can be synonymous to rover/raider/plunderer/pirate in modern English?--victor falk 17:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Well OED is the most comprehensive reference of the engilsh language and is considered as the standard, and both the full version and the concise versions have the second meaning as rover/raider/plunderer/pirate

From encarta's dictionary [16]

Vi·king [ vīking ] (plural Vi·kings)

noun

Definition:

1. member of ancient Scandinavian people: a member of a Scandinavian people who carried out seaborne raids of northwestern Europe between the 8th and 11th centuries ad, often settling in the areas they invaded, as in Britain. They usually came in longships and raided mainly coastal regions.
2. seafarer: any plundering seafarer or pirate

[Early 19th century. < Old Norse víkingr, either < vík "creek, inlet" or < Old English wīc "camp"]

Comment It is clear that many english dictionaries have two meaning for "viking", it is not up to us as Wikipedia editors to choose which meaning is to be allowed and which is excluded. --Martintg 22:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary sectin break 3

The whole viking thing and the word it self in modern English is based on Icelandic sagas, saying that these are not reliable sources, we should go forward and delete the entire history of Vikings including the word itself that has been written in English since the rehabilitation of vikings perhaps? So, once it seems that in your opinion the word Viking has been monopolized and copyrighted in modern English we should just call the article Vikinger fra Estland according to Icelandic sagas and etc. refers to...

I don't agree with your opinion that it's OK to call up other editors directly to a dispute and refuse to follow your example and get here about 5-10 editors who'd support the suggestion made by Martintg

Regarding Polynesian Vikings, even though the term seems to be introduced in modern times unlike the Estonian Vikings that is based on the old Scandinavian sagas. surely there should be something on WP that explains what is this Polynesian Vikings all about.--Termer 17:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

PS. Thats fine that the ethnic slur was not your intention. I'd suggest being more careful while including modern national names into titles on WP--Termer 17:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I object to "Vikinger fra Estland". It should be Vikingar från Estland according to Icelandic sagas & etc... (:--victor falk 18:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Vikings of >"Baltgård"<

proposal withdrawn--victor falk 17:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't remember the viking name of Estonia and/or Balticum right now, but what do people think of that name? It eliminates ethnic connotations, and is more historical.--victor falk 13:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Originally Vikinger fra Estland -Estonian Vikings simply meant the Vikings from the eastern shores of the Baltic sea. Meaning the viking name of Estonia and/or Balticum was Estland or Eistland etc. --Termer 15:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I feel pretty sure there was a word for the whole baltic states, like Gårdarike, Serkland, Miklagård, Vendland, Saxland , Bretland, Valland, Sikelm, Holmgard, I might be wrong but I strongly recall reading it somewhere.--victor falk 16:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The Norse had many names for various parts of the Baltic states, like Virland, Eistland, Lifland, Eysyssel, Adalsyssla, Seimgalir, etc.--Berig 17:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I was thinking of Virland.--victor falk 18:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment:

• Virland refers to (Latin: Vironia) currently known as Virumaa, a county in the North-East Estonia that is BTW the origin for the modern national name for Estonia in Finnish -Viro
  
• Eistland historically refers to the country at the eastern shores of the Baltic Sea in general that is the origin of the modern national name for Estonia in Germanic languages -Estland. As Esthonia in Latin from the 6th. century by Cassiodorus is the origin of the modern English spelling of Estonia
  
• Lifland from the Viking times refers to Ancient Livland Livonia, finnic people living south from the modern day Estonia.--Termer 20:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Adalsyssla,from the 8th cen ynglinga saga refers to the mainland of Estonia in contrast to
  
• Eysyssel= Ösyssla the island Ösel on the coast of Estonia
  
• Seimgalir refers to Semigallians, a Baltic people living once at where is Modern day Latvia.
  

--Termer 20:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, the word for the whole "baltic states" up to 9th cen. was Estland. Please see the map attached to the article. Ancient Estonian Seafaring Warriors would be a way to put it without mentioning viking in the title. --Termer 16:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I admit, I didn't click on the map... Maybe this should be mentioned in the Estland dismabiguation page?--victor falk 17:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I think Termer's new suggestion is acceptable. However, there is no attestation of the name Eistland before the 10th century, unless you connect the name to Tacitus' Aesti.--Berig 17:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't like "ancient seafarers warriors", it's not search friendly and it is a typical wishy-washy compromise mouthful of idiosynchratic wikineologism. If sources commonly calls them "vikings", that's what we should also.--victor falk 18:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

While it may be a bit of a mouthful, Ancient Estonian Seafaring Warriors is probably the best compromise. While Berig objects to the use of "viking" because he believes it has certain connotations, Termer also objects to "pirates" because it has certain connotation as well. It is the nature of Wikipedia that wishy-washy compromise rules the day, with any two random editors having three separate opinions, and this whole thing will probably be revisited by another group of editors 12 months later, and have exactly the same discussion :). Also, as far as serach terms go, we still have the redirects, anyone searching for "Estonian vikings" or "Estonian pirates" will still find the article. Martintg 20:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I am fine with this proposal but offended that you didn't additionally call my proposal specifically wishywashy and random. Then again I suppose I will see you in 12 months. :bloodofox: 22:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

well, before this Ancient Estonian Seafaring Warriors gets too much attention I'd need to point out that it was meant to be a joke of course. It was meant to be a wishy-washy compromise mouthful of idiosynchratic wikineologism exactly like victor falk pointed out. Even if the article would be renamed accordingly, it wouldn't stay there for long because it would be a ridiculous title. The best practical compromise I can think of at the moment would be nominating this article for deletion and including the facts in a subchapter of Ancient_Estonia#Early_Middle_Ages. Because the current title is an unreferenced ethnic slur that refers to the modern national name of the country, getting over with WP:PROD should go smoothly--Termer 07:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

When I first wrote this article it dealt a few accounts of uncontroversial piracy[17], which was in no way intended to hurt the feelings of anyone. I am sure that very few people would be hurt in their national feelings by articles like Buccaneer, Corsair, Varangian and Viking. Now, you have expanded this article beyond recognition so that it covers a lot of other things, and claim that "pirate" is an ethnic slur. I hope that you are aware of the fact that there are people who consider "Viking" to be an ethnic slur as well.--Berig 08:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you say a few accounts of uncontroversial piracy, in modern English piracy means first of all software piracy, and Estonians are real people living up there in Northeastern Europe. So please have the title renamed to something that is more specific and not that controversial. Thanks!--Termer 15:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out that by Berig there is no attestation of the name Eistland before the 10th century, unless you connect the name to Tacitus' Aesti is factually incorrect. Cassiodorus mentions Estland -Esthonia in his book V. Letters 1-2 dating from the 6th century. These are the Aestii of Tacitus, dwelling in or on the south border of the country which is still called Esthonia --Termer 19:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I was talking of the name Eistland not the name Esthonia. Thanks for pointing what may be the first attestation of the name Esthonia.--Berig 08:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

These are different names in your opinion? Well, please let me point out that the difference is, one is Latin another Germanic spelling of the same name. Exactly like Sweden/Sverige is the same name one spelled in English another in Swedish.--Termer 15:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

No, but they are not the same, but they are related in the way that they may be based on the same root. The English form of Sverige was Sweorici but it is nowadays obsolete, like Sweoðeod which was the English form of Sviþioð. Sweden is based on the same root, but is a somewhat different name.--Berig 13:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The clearest concise article name is "Estonian Vikings". It fixes the timeframe, the geography, and the modus operandi. "Pirates" is vague, there were pirates in the Baltic Sea at much later times. /Pieter Kuiper 20:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Estonian Viking Expeditions

got something here Historical Dictionary of Estonia; p. 1; ISBN 0810849046: 1050 Estonians begin trading and raiding Viking expeditions...So to make sure the vikings would not be confused with "Scandinavians from Estonia" per Berig, at the same time considering the good points of Pieter Kuiper, Martintg, victor falk etc. , isn't it most obvious that the article should be called according to the dictionary: Estonian Viking Expeditions ?--Termer 05:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Why haven't we thought of this earlier? Support.--victor falk 06:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Excellent! /Pieter Kuiper 07:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Just in case Berig and bloodofox aren't happy with that title, Viking Age Estonians might be another possibility. Martintg 08:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Martintg, I think Viking Age Estonians would not work because the only Estonians that were going on the expeditions were the ones from islands, Henry of Livonia's Oeselians, he speaks of them having a fleet of viking ships. The second reason: the viking age in Scandinavia was over, the countries were Christianized by the time the raids from the eastern shores of the Baltic sea were still going on.--Termer 15:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree w/ Termer. I think that Estonian viking expeditions is both a good compromise and an even better title. Just as long as it isn't Ancient people from the eastern littoral area of the Baltic Sea that illegally took other people's property without asking nicely first... Then you'll have to pry my battleaxe from my dead, cold fingers(:.. --victor falk 15:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The name "Estonian Viking expeditions" is less ambiguous and more acceptable than "Estonian Vikings".--Berig 13:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I have enjoyed the depth and specificity of the debate here. It is encouraging. But the disussion is becoming circular and tangential. With a view to settling the matter, I add my SUPPORT to Termer's proposal for a consensus title: Estonian Viking Expeditions. Lkbunker 14:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks like we have achieved concensus here for Estonian viking expeditions. Martintg 18:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think the name is quite good.--Berig 19:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks like all our long discussions is all for nought. After the apparent concensus here for the name change, I changed the name to Estonian Viking expeditions, but for some reason unknown to me User:Irpen made certain assumptions and reported the matter to ANI Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Deliberate_unreversible_move_with_creating_artificial_history_by_user:Martintg within 13 minutes after I made the move. Alex Bakharev then moved the article back to Estonian pirates, then afterwards voted to support the rename of the article Estonian vikings in the survey. I thought we had moved on beyond Estonian vikings in the discussion, so then I tried to close the original debate I initiated as it seemed to be causing confusion and so that we can move on, but User:Irpen even reverted that attempt within 5 minutes [18]. The whole thing is all rather bizarre if you ask me. Martintg 02:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

PS, in regard to capitalisation, "Viking" would refer to the first definition, i.e. the Scandivanians, while "viking" would refer to the second meaning, i.e. seabourne raiders? Would that be correct? Martintg 02:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I still haven't got it what exactly User:Irpen was after. Why don't you just strike out your proposal Martintg -the Requested move up there. In case anybody still wants to go against the reached consensus and call the article Estonian Vikings or talk about it, they should be free to do so, but not under your name and your former requests I think.--Termer 03:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC) PS. I guess you'd be right about the capitalization, to avoid any confusion, the article is going to be called Estonian viking expeditions that refers to the "Vkinger fra Estland" from the Icelandic sagas and their trading and raiding activities. I'm going to rename the article according to the reached consensus as soon as the dust has settled from this, whatever the reasons and motivations were behind this thing [19]--Termer 03:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll strike it out as you suggest, I hope Irpen doesn't report me to WP:ANI for doing it. As for the capitalisation, this should be corrected in the article text accordingly. Martintg 03:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Time Off

I'd suggest to take time off with this until the dust from the confusion has settled. Meanwhile anybody please feel free to make suggestions according to WP:Consensus#Reasonable_consensus-building regarding any possible alternative titles to the article (other than the current consensus Estonian viking expeditions). I'm going to keep an eye on the developments and comment in case necessary. In case any reasonable suggestions for a possible alternative consensus have not been forwarded, I'm going to return to the matter in 2 weeks or so and rename the article according to the current consensus. Thanks!--Termer 05:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, with the ill considered report to WP:ANI the whole thing has been unnecessarily disrupted. However is seems that while Pieter Kuiper agreed with Estonian vikings and also Estonian viking expeditions, he has now changed his mind over Estonian viking expeditions, so I hope he make some suggestions and a quick straw poll is done in two weeks time before any move is made. Martintg 06:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

What about Expeditions of Estonian vikings? removes the confusion about what's Estonian, the vikings or the expeditions.--victor falk 08:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I embraced Estonian Viking expeditions as a creative compromise, but I was wrong in believing that it solved all problems. So I am not really against it, I just do not feel it is an improvement over the concise name Estonian Vikings anymore. Victor's suggestion Expeditions of Estonian vikings is fine with me too. /Pieter Kuiper 11:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Expeditions of Estonian vikings in essence would not be that different from Estonian vikings. The question is, would viking with No-capital letter be clear enough that it's not a name that might indicate Scandinavians but means early middle age traders raiders that were called so -vikinger or vikingr etc. fra Estland in the Icelandic sagas and in Heimskringla that has been translated into modern English as -Estonian vikings... Has it been about the capital letter all along perhaps? Because only Viking spelled with capital letter can mean Scandinavian, not viking.

Or perhaps we should just go for the spelling from sagas in old Norse Víkingr frá Esthland. Since there is an article called Varangians on WP, a name that is not commonly used in English that originates from Byzantine and is the name for Vikings in modern Russian, why can't we have an article title in old Norse that would be historically correct and take under consideration the fact that the meaning of Esthland or Estland up to the 10th century was the lands across the Baltic sea, not the modern Estonia...--Termer 17:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

That sounds fine to me too; it leads naturally to an explanation in the intro about what is "vikings" and "Estonians" (thank the gods that we haven' got into an, hrm, affray about that "Estonians" aren't the same thing as modern Estonians also..). And thanks to magic of redirects, from "Estonian vikings" and "Estonian pirates", it's swell from the users' point of view about finding what they want. About capitalisation: I think there is not doubt that if we go for Expeditions of viking Estonians, the 'v' should not be capitalised, because 'V' makes it more confusing whether it's about a people, like French, Swedish, English, etc--victor falk 11:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey! I wrote viking Estonians without noticing! Using it as an adjective, it makes it absolutely clear it's not about the Norse. What you say?--victor falk 11:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thats what this has been all about from the beginning, that the "Estonians" in the article aren't the same thing as modern Estonians even though some of them were proto-Estonians, others proto-Latvians and Finns. to make this as clear as possible my preferences would be the Norse spelling Víkingr frá Esthland (English: Estonian vikings) explaining what is this all about. Other than that , I think we shouldn't invent anything and an alternative would be to stick to the previous consensus, the way the dictionary put it, Estonian viking expeditions, that would clearly concentrate to the Viking age and just proto Estonians--Termer 16:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I actually like Victor's suggestion, we have Ancient Estonians so why not Viking Estonians. As an adjective, it makes it even more clear, and not having "expeditions" means we could also discuss their crafts and culture as well, which was distinct from mainland Estonians and closer to the Norsemen. 144.131.34.243 17:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The best would be to stick with what's been published out there. Víkingr frá Esthland etc. has been written down in Icelandic sagas. This has been translated into Norwegian as Vikinger fra Estland and in Heimskringla, in Swedish Vikingar från Estland that in the English translation of Heimskringla is Estonian Vikings or Estonian vikings that has spread into history books written in English listed above. Now the dictionary gave another option, Estonian viking expeditions. Whatever the title is going to be, it has to be based on a published source. All other ideas are going to be easily challenged as WP:OR and thats not what we need here. therefore any alternative suggestion should be based on a published source with a clear reference to it.--Termer 18:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

"Estonian Viking exploration" might be another possible alternative. Cerdic 03:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Víkingr frá Esthland

how about renaming Estonian pirates using Old Norse like they were mentioned originally? The current consensus Estonian viking expeditions would be fine I guess but it still refers to Estonians, at the time when Esthland and the "vikings" from there mentioned in the sagas meant the lands across the Baltic sea and denoted proto Estonians and Curonians. For example it would be quite a stretch to call the curonians that were also active traders-raiders -Estonians. therefor if we'd go with Víkingr frá Esthland it could be explained in the article that Esthland refers to literally East-Land and víkingr to the "viking style traders-raiders" from the East-Land mentioned in the Icelandic sagas. How about that? thanks!--Termer (talk) 08:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Why not just go with the original Estonian viking expeditions (note the capitalisation of "viking") that everyone agreed with originally, or even Estonian viking raiders. Martintg (talk) 11:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I think using a non-English name would cause a lot of opposition because of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). Why not name the article Oesilians? That is a less controversial name that could be used.--Berig (talk) 17:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I got the idea to use Víkingr frá Esthland from Þingalið created by Berig. There is a stub called Oeselians. And the point was, the article speaks of Oeselians and Curonians, that both were referred to as Víkingr frá Esthland by the ancient Scandinavian sources. Actually there is no way to tell if the sagas referred to the people from modern day Estonia or Latvia. Thats why I'd avoid using "Estonians" in the title all together.--Termer (talk) 18:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Berig, Wikipedia naming conventions would make Víkingr frá Esthland difficult to use. But I think Berig's suggestion of using Oeselians is a good one, and since Oeselians is a stub, all we need to do is merge this article into it. Martintg (talk) 20:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, sounds like a good compromise to me. Then we can pin point in the Oeselians to the Curonians article that would speak in more detail about the other guys. And this article here Estonian pirates + Estonian Vikings or Estonian vikings etc. should become redirects to Oeselians. --Termer (talk) 20:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree.--Berig (talk) 14:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

seems like consensus has been reached--Termer (talk) 08:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Case Closed Termer (talk) 08:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)