Talk:Leif Erikson

About Leif Erikson's Job.

So in the Infobox I added "Christian Missionary" to the Occupation(s) section. Which is not wrong he did spread Christianity into Greenland. Christin1000 (talk) 21:44, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

And it was undone by user:TylerBurden as being "Far less established than being an explorer". I agree with that removal. Meters (talk) 21:57, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

The story of Leif being a missionary is questioned by scholars. This is briefly mentioned (with citations) in the historicity section of the article.--Beneathtimp (talk) 00:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Then write "disputed" right next to "Christian Missionary". Most of History is disputed that doesn't mean we should erase it and most people who use Wikipedia only see the Infobox. Christin1000 (talk) 14:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

See MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. TylerBurden (talk) 23:15, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Leif Erickson in Pop Culture

In S2E3 of SpongeBob SquarePants cartoon, Leif Erickson Day is referenced and a Bubble Avatar is attributed to his spirit Ariascg (talk) 15:39, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Any secondary WP:RS making mention of this? TylerBurden (talk) 20:35, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Writing Leif Erikson's name in Runes

ᛚᛁᛁᚠ ᛁᚱᛁᚴᛋᛋᚨᚾ - The closest runes I could find to match the photograph shown on the webpage The Nomans Land – Leif Eriksson Inscription https://noahsage.com/2023/01/28/the-nomans-land-leif-eriksson-inscription/

Appple (talk) 05:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Horned helmet

@TylerBurden: Greetings! Regarding this revert, what's your preferred spot for noting the errors in the featured depictions? -- Beland (talk) 21:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I think the topic is already covered both on Vikings and on horned helmet, the statue also appears to depict Erikson wearing a winged helmet. TylerBurden (talk) 19:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

@TylerBurden: I don't think wings are any more historically accurate, and may simply be a fictional evolution of horns to be more impressive-looking. It seems unreasonable to expect readers of this article to know that they need to visit other articles in order to find out that some of the images in this article are presenting them with misinformation. If an encyclopedia needs to present misinformation at all for the purposes of explanation, it should be labeled as such at the point of presentation. There are plenty of depictions of Erikson already in this article which are not glaringly inaccurate, so if you don't wish to label the incorrect images, we could simply remove them, and put a more accurate one in the infobox. -- Beland (talk) 20:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree, I don't think it would be productive to change every caption on Wikipedia on images featuring horned helmets to insert commentary on their accuracy in Wikivoice. I don't see anything on WP:CAPTION indicating that this is in line with the purpose of captions, they are meant to be descriptive and succinct. In terms of accuracy, do you have a source on some particularly accurate depiction? TylerBurden (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that that would not be productive. Works of art should be respected for what they are, not haggled about for what they are not. I have now added "imaginary" to the caption. That should suffice. There can be no "accurate" depiction of Leif Eriksson because nobody knows what he looked like, nor what his helmet was decorated with. Wouldn't that be rather obvious to anyone? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:53, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Calling the statue "imaginary" implies that it does not exist, which is abject nonsense. Mediatech492 (talk) 21:56, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I think this is a case of ESL and they don't mean any harm. The obvious title is artist's rendition. But imaginary statue is quite funny to say the least. 2A02:1406:3F:5196:1590:89F2:7196:343E (talk) 10:07, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! English is my first language, which I have taught for over 50 years. Here my elderly brain was foiled by a list of synonyms for "fantasy (adjective)" which I did not want to use. I have now made a caption adjustment which I hope everyone can find acceptable, assuming good faith. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:57, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

If artists started producing images of George Washington in a toga, I would certainly hope that Wikipedia would either not use such images to illustrate that person from a time before photographs, or mention in captions why on Earth such ahistorical clothing was chosen. -- Beland (talk) 01:18, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

We can safely assume that Washington did not wear a toga (except possibly to a masquerade). We cannot safely assume that Leif's headgear did not include wings or that such headgear would be "ahistorical". What's your point? Why drag this on? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:46, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Winged helmets are far from being ahistorical. Their use in various cultures is well documented as far back as the bronze age. The ancient Greek god Hermes, and his roman counterpart Mercury were frequently depicted with a winged helmet. Mediatech492 (talk) 23:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)