Jump to content

Talk:Leif Erikson/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

More Typically Pretentious Ignorant Wikipedia Nonsense

"The title of this article is an Icelandic name; the last name is a patronymic or matronymic, not a family name; the person is properly referred to by the given name Leif, Leifr or Leifur."

Yeah right. The title is not an Icelandic name. It's an americanized version of a Nordic name. The surname is not a patronymic and certainly not a matronymic unless Iceland had babes named Eirík, and it is definitely a "family" name as it says - quite plainly and clearly for all save our US brethren to hear - "son of Eirík". That's the family name used in Scandinavia. Perhaps whoever wrote this can get an increase in their allowance from their parents or guardians and finance a trip there to see for themselves.

Leifur Eiríksson is an Icelandic -- or rather, Old Norse -- name and the surname Eiríksson definitely IS a patronymic. Leifur's father was named Eiríkr, hence Eiríksson. -- Palthrow (talk)'
Wow, epic fail. Icelanders don't have, and never have had, family names unless the name (and the bearer) is of foreign origin. BodvarBjarki (talk) 10:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Year of arrival in Vinland wanted

I think Wikipedia should include the year of Leif's arrival in "Vinland". The year was what I was looking for when I came upon this page and I was very disapointed that even though I was cascaded with knowlegde about Leif Ericsson, it failed to mention the key purpose of my search-- the year. Please consider this and update your site with the date included. Thanks! -Marrissa

The problem with that, is that the year is not exactly known. I think 1001 is the 'average' estimate, but it is also sometimes placed one or two years earlier or later. Andre Engels 11:00, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Discussion regarding L.E.'s name

Standard form of his name?

Is there a standard historically-recognized name for this fellow? The spelling Leifur Eiríksson exists elsewhere on this site, and seems to me to be more authoritative. Perhaps a renaming of this article could be considered. Radagastp

Someone who might come to this page might have no idea that this article is about the person who is commonly known in English as "Leif Ericsson". I'm going to change the references back to "Leif Ericsson", move the page back, and make a note that his Norwegian name was "Leifur Eiríksson". Nohat 22:08, 2004 Apr 24 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned there was never a person called "Leif Ericsson". I do think we ought to use his real name. Biekko 22:19, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
There was also never a person called Christopher Columbus, but certain historical figures have been given Anglicized names, and it's Wikipedia policy to use the most common English name to name pages. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). I've heard of Leif Ericsson but not "Leifur Eiríksson", and in the previous incarnation of the page, it wouldn't have been apparent to me that the article was about the same person we learned about in history class. It does seem that Leifur Eiríksson was his real name, and it is certainly important we indicate that, but the page title and references should be to the most common English name, which is Leif Ericsson. Nohat 22:33, 2004 Apr 24 (UTC)
Recommended use: Leif Erikson (spelling mostly used in offical US and UK papers) or Leif Eriksson (more correct)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/erikson_leif.shtml


In Norwegian, the correct name is Leif Eiriksson.

In Iceland, Norway, Sweden, the spelling varies with time, but two things NEVER vary: (1) that all use a K and not a c, and (2) that there are two s's, the first is a genitive s (Erik's) the second is the first letter of the word "son" (same meaning as in English). The modern spelling is Eriksson in Scandinavia, but Leifur Eiríksson on Iceland (which sticks to traditional orthography and grammar). I propose using Leif Eriksson as the correct spelling in English. Having only one s, or using c, is clearly wrong no matter how you look at it. Dr Ulf Erlingsson (talk) 11:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

What's wrong with this picture: The last paragraph of this article begins: "The date October 9 has been used to remember Leif Ericson in the United States"; and ends: "...the United States Congress authorized and requested the president to proclaim October 9 of each year as "Leif Erikson Day". (To me, the spelling used in an official presidential proclamation defines "correct" US-Engish.) 184.76.225.106 (talk) 22:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

And if a state legislature defined pi to equal 3.2, that would be the "correct" value in that state? I don't think so... Defining correct English is not among the constitutional powers of either the President or Congress. Huon (talk) 22:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Your "and if" is a strawman:
  • It was decided that "General Assembly lacked the power to define mathematical truth."
  • No case for mathematical constants having Federally standardized official usage that has been superseded by state law.
And finally... From: http://famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndGovt/Articles/MemLawOnTheName.htm
2.5 US Government Style Manual
Is the spelling and usage of a proper name defined officially by US Government? Yes. The United States Government Printing Office in their "Style Manual," March 1984 edition (the most recent edition published :as of March 2000), provides comprehensive grammar, style and usage for all government publications, including court and legal writing.
An established maxim of law states the importance of the name:
"Ad recte docendum oportet, primum inquirere nomina, quia rerum cognitio a nominibusrerum dependet.'
"In order rightly to comprehend a thing, inquire first into the names, for a right knowledge of things depends upon their names."
(Emphasis mine.) ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 04:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Variations: 'Google stats'

As has been pointed out before there seems to be no single recognized name for the man. A quick websearch I did revealed these different variations of his last name all being used at once:

  • Ericsson
  • Ericson
  • Eriksson
  • Erickson
  • Erikson
  • Eiriksson

Even Britannica had two of these variations in its article titles, the name "Ericsson" has no authority over any of these, all of those should redirect to his native language name and these different spellings be explained there. Biekko 23:01, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

OK, you bring up a good point. I didn't double check the last name. I did Google searches on the following phrases, and these are the results:
Search phrase Result count
Leif Ericsson 11,000
Leif Ericson 23,300
Leif Eriksson 15,700
Leif Erickson 13,300
Leif Erikson 9,270
Leif Eiriksson 790
Leif Eiríksson 133
Leifur Ericsson 67
Leifur Ericson 6
Leifur Eriksson 240
Leifur Erickson 2
Leifur Erikson 28
Leifur Eiriksson 2,190
Leifur Eiríksson 1,730
As you can see, the versions with "Leif" are much more plentiful than "Leifur". The evidence for the last name is less clear, although it does seem to point to "Ericson", with 1 's', being the most common. I would then say that the most common English name is "Leif Ericson", and we should say in the first sentence that his Icelandic name was "Leifur Eiríksson", but we should include at least some of these others. It seems that "Erickson", "Eriksson", and "Ericsson" are all about equally common after "Ericson". Nohat 00:21, 2004 Apr 25 (UTC)
Ericson is probably closer to a proper English version of his name, his father was Eric and Leifur was his son, thus Ericson. The double 's' is however derived from the grammatics of Icelandic. If we are going to use this English name, then it should probably rather be with a single 's'. But I'm content as long as it is made clear to anybody who visits this page that his proper name was Leifur Eiríksson. :) Biekko 00:58, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
His proper name is no more Leifur Eiríksson than it is Leif Ericson, both are modernizations of Leifr Eiríksson. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 16:01, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)
According to Thorkell Ericson, Leif's son also had the last name Ericson. Is this correct or was he really Thorkell Leifson or something like that? Nohat 04:47, 2004 Apr 25 (UTC)
Yes, he ought to be Leifsson if he really was Leifur's son. I need to do some research on this, I haven't yet been able to find any sources indicating that Leifur even had a son. This Thorkell Ericson article seems to be all wrong.Biekko 09:20, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
The Google search doesn't take into account that many unrelated people are named Leif or Eriksson (or Ericsson etc). For example, "Peter Eriksson" gives some 70,000 hits. I do not think this search should carry any weight when choosing the name. Filur 06:48, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It does, actually, when you enter the search phrase within quotes, such as this: "Leif Ericson". No problem at all, which I'm sure the above contributors know. --Wernher 05:22, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Just for completeness, I did the following searches:
Search phrase Result count
Leiv Eiriksson 21,200
Leifr Eiriksson 1,790
Leifr Eiríksson 1,770
The "Leiv" form is the most common one in modern Norwegian; 12,300 of the results for that form are Norwegian-language webpages. The two "Leifr" searches should probably be combined, which gives a sum of 3,560 hits. I don't see any reason to oppose the 'predominant form in English'-argument, however, as long as the most common alternative forms are mentioned and redirected from. --Wernher 05:22, 25 November 2005 (UTC)


L.E. is known in Iceland as Leifr Eiricsson. That combination has not been discussed here yet ...

On the other hand, It is best to use most common known name(s). Therefore I suggest to call the article "Leif Ericsson", and Refer below on most other names (in Scandinavia today, he is known as "Leif Eriksson"). But double "S" should be there as "Leif hiS Son". Due to writing mistakes in the past, his name also is spelled with ck

These unsigned comments are incorrect; please see discussion below of Leif's name in Old Norse. -- Rob C (Alarob) 16:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

k or c

The article about Erik the Red uses the k spelling but here the c spelling is used. For the sake of consistency this article should be moved to Leif Erikson or the one about Erik to Eric the Red. --Biekko 16:50, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm a direct descendant of Erik The Red, and i can tell you for sure that icelandic has no c in their alphabet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.0.98.47 (talk) 22:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Ericsson instead of Ericson

This article should be titled "Leif Ericsson" with double s. No mather how often "Ericson" is indexed by Google. Those "Ericson"s are often sites that borough content from Wikipedia, so when we change the title to "Ericsson", in a few weeks "Ericson" will have been dropped in the Google ranking. After all, his name means "Eric's son" (see the double s), not "Eric-son". Switisweti 10:52, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1. There was no evidence when I gathered those statistics that Wikipedia mirrors constituted a significant portion of the Google search results. Nohat 18:11, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Evidently there is also no evidence those mirrors did not constitute the main part of those results. Maybe you didn't take note of that possibility. Those mirrors should always be left out in such investigations. Now we don't have a clue about the quality of the results. And those results lead to the decission to keep the title with *son. Switisweti 11:11, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
2. Your logic is flawed. We don't have "Johnsson", "Fredericksson", "Wilsson", "Robertsson", "Jacobsson", etc. Nohat 18:11, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
In English language you may not find *sson (although I doubt that's the case, I don't know of any examples with *sson), but in many other germanic languages you do! In Dutch there is both "Jansen" and "Janssen", and this double s is very common in Danish, Norse and Swedish. In fact, an important telecompany is called "Ericsson" (!) with double ss. And since the original name of this explorer is "Eiríksson" we should stay close with "Ericsson". "Eirík" can be rendered "Eric" because otherwise there are problems with pronounciation, but *sson shouldn't be changed. But this my opinion, and if no others agree, I rest my case. Switisweti 10:59, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
BTW: One Google search gave me 602,000 examples of Internet use of "Johnsson", with double s! But now I really leave it to you, fellow Wikipedians. Switisweti 11:19, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I say keep the double 's' -- it's the form of the Old Norse patronym, and hence *the* patronymic, irrespective of various English or Norwegian bastardizations of the name. -- Palthrow 18:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Old Norse name?

Shouldn't the Old Norse name be "Leifr Eiríksson" and not "Leif Eriksson"? I will change it in the article. Nidator 13:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for a clear overview. That is how I understand it as well. Do you also agree that the name of his mother should be modernised as "Tjodhild", and not as "Thorhild"? (Nidator 19:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC))
I should explain that in English I hold with using the name Leif, sans suffix. Our language is not declined and inflected like Old Norse or Icelandic, so we should not attach a nominative suffix to Leif's name. I have no strong feeling against Anglicizing his mother's name as Thorhild -- especially in light of how Tjodhild is likely to be mispronounced ˈtʒadhɪld by the typical English speaker. -- Rob C (Alarob) 20:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, just Leif in both English and contemporary Norwegian. I was only correcting the Old Norse name close to the start of the article. With regards to the name of the mother I suspect that "Thorhild" is simply erroneous. Maybe "Thjodhild" is better than "Tjodhild" in an English language article though? (Nidator 20:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC))
I have looked up the etymology of "Thorhild" (in the Norwegian form "Torhild") and the Old Norse form was "Þórhildr" [1]. The same site modernises "Þjóðhildr" as "Tjodhild" [2]. With this in mind there is little doubt that "Thorhild" is erroneous and that "Thjodhild" would be the best form in English. I will change the article. - Nidator 12:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC) -
Þjóðhildr and Þórhildr are two separate names. Þórhildr is associated with Thor, the Norse pagan god, whereas Þjóðhildr is associated with 'þjóð' which means people or folk. So it should most definitely not be anglicised as Thorhild, regardless of whether English speakers have a hard time pronouncing Thjodhild. -- Palthrow 14:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Non-English text characters

I reverted Switisweti because he made a total mess of the article -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 15:50, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I just reverted YOUR edits, which were not in place since this is English Wikipedia, so you should use English equivalents of original (Icelandic, Old Norse) names. And please stop using non-English characters in this English text. <THORN> should be rendered "th" and <eth> should be rendered "d". Thank you very much. Switisweti 21:22, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
They were in place, we're discussion a topic which in which the persons discussed have names in old Icelandic or Old Norse, which means that we use whatever none-english characters needed when discussing their original names.
As for your claim that Þ should be rendered "th" and ð should be rendered "d" is simply untrue, please stop changing the relevant characters, it makes them unreadable. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 16:26, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)
Changing those characters is completely unintentionally since my computer doesn't support them, renders them as <THORN> and <eth> whenever I change other parts of the article or this talk page and save these changes. Blaim Wikipedia-software. And please use English variants of those original names whenever you're talking plain English, though you may indeed mention their original form once or twice. Switisweti 22:16, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Actually you - or rather the software you're using to edit wikipedia is to blame, i presume that you're using internet explorer on mac os 9 which has a known problem with Þ and ð. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 17:55, 2004 Dec 25 (UTC)
Mac OS 9 and MSIE 5 are to blame. You're right. I'll stay away from the article. Switisweti 11:31, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
NN 7 has no problem with Þ and ð - as you can see. I repaired all I caused in this section. Switisweti 23:29, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
You can always use &thorn; and &eth; to make þ and ð--157.157.117.34 06:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Intro pgph improvement wanted

Can someone rewrite the first paragraph so it is clear who Leif Ericson is and what his importance is? As it is now, we only know that he is a Viking, and then there's information about his genealogy. We only know that he's an explorer after reading the whole article. 202.152.46.130 03:32, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Suspected class paper removed

I deleted a section that appears to be a paper for class. This section introduced Leif, ignoring the fact that he has already been identified earlier in the article. It contained numbers in brackets which referred to nothing. It had a very chatty tone: "Don't worry about the underlines brackets or numbers they where for a class for history/writing". It also contradicted items established earlier in the article (the main article says Leif had converted to Christianity, but the deleted portion says he converted others but did not accept the religion himself. -Volfy 06:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Here is most of the text: --Volfy 02:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Did you know that it is thought that Leif Erickson was the first one to discover North America? [6] Well he did! [5] Although some people think that Christopher Columbus discovered it and he did but he was just the second Europeans to land there. [1] Three topics that will be talked about in this essay are: his life and family, his faith, sailing.
[1] Leif Erickson was a Viking and sailor who dwelled from 960-1020 A.D. His father’s name was Eric the Red. [3] Happily sailing was Leif favorite thing to do. It is thought that he was one of the first Europeans to set foot on North American soil. [6] Eric established a settlement in Greenland. [2] Like his dad, Leif was a natural fighter although he did not like fighting. [4] Living on a family farm he frequently helped everyday. One of his main jobs was to ride the horse that was carrying the hay from the fields to the barn fir storage. [5] Because Vikings had very hard but exciting lives, they aged very quickly.
When Leif traveled to Nidaros, King Olav’s (Olaf) country and Olav accepted them in to his house for awhile. [5] As a result, Olav taught them some of the basic ways of Christianity like the golden rule and putting God above all others. [4] Imposing to his own nation, Leif was quickly becoming a great leader. [2] Throughout his life Leif was a believable and trustworthy man. [1] He sailed back home and shared the faith with his family which they all chose to believe. [6] Most Vikings believed as well. [3] Shortly after, his men built a church for the Vikings to worship in. Although Leif himself never accepted the faith, he still returned to view the finished church house.
[3] Interestingly the first time Leif set sail it, was for a Viking whale hunt which is far away from land. [1] Leif yelled at the crew, “She blows,” because he observed the magnificent creature first. [2] From the stern of the boat his father took aim. Eric the Red shot. It flew high. It stuck. [6] The whale was captured. It took them a day to get back from their hunt. [4] Sailing was a humongous part in a Vikings life and almost every Viking had the same kind of boat. [5] When Vikings sailed, they usually stayed nearby land so that if they needed supplies, then they could raid the local villages.
[1] Leif Erickson was a family man; he loved sailing, and taught some of the Vikings Christianity. [3] Slowly people have been realizing that he was the one that discovered America and that it was not Christopher Columbus who was the first one. [5] Although Christopher made some colonies, which does not make him the founder of America, Leif is still the first discoverer. The most significant thing about Leif Erickson is that he helped convert the Vikings to Christianity even though he himself did not accept the faith for himself. Because he did not think that it was truly the right faith to believe in.

Is "namesake" the correct word?

In a recent edit, I stated that the fictional submarine named after L.E. is his "namesake". Now, is this a proper use of that word, or do "namesakes" always have to be other people? --Wernher 09:02, 25 November 2005 (UTC)


A few notes on the name

I somewhat idly did a search with books.google.com which I think yields slightly more helpful results than a normal Google search. This is what I got.

  • Standardized 13th century Old Norse: Leifr Eiríksson - 13
  • Modern Icelandic: Leifur Eiríksson - 46
  • Modern Norwegian version 1: Leiv Eiriksson - 7
  • Modern Norwegian version 2: Leiv Eriksson - 6

Various Anglicized versions:

  • Leif Ericson - 456
  • Leif Eriksson - 382
  • Leif Ericsson - 281
  • Leif Erickson - 274
  • Leif Erikson - 253
  • Leif Eiriksson - 104

By that test the article is currently at the most popular Anglicized version of the name.

It's also, perhaps, worth pointing out that the standardized Old Norse spelling is not something you'd expect to find in the original manuscripts. I'll see if I can find a sample to show you.

If Leifr was literate, and he very well may have been, he would have written his name with the runic equivalent of "laifR:airiks:sunR" or something similar. That is if he would have chosen to indicate his father's name after his. Patronyms were by no means a fixed part of Norse names back then. His name was just Leifr - anything after that was just to disambiguate him from all the other Leifrs out there :) - Haukur Þorgeirsson 02:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Fictional namesakes

Heres the story behind the Interpol song:

Paul Banks of Interpol - "That was one of those things where, if you were to be able to isolate the keyboard part to that song-- which you probably can't-- but if you were in the studio, or if you just heard us doing a soundcheck, there's a quality to it which someone commented was kind of Viking-esque. Like if you were watching a film, you could see the galleon approaching the coast, the fucking Vikings peering over the edge or whatever, and then I just said, you know, "Oh, Leif Erikson," and I was really happy that everyone could live with it, because for me, it's like absurdist. Absurdism is great, 'cause why not? It seems more arbitrary to take a lyric and make it your title than to take something completely out of left field."

Folks, don't forget to sign your comments with ~~~~. Regards, Rob C (Alarob) 16:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Did Leif Erickson ever land in New York??

  • There is a section of The Belt Parkway in Brooklyn which is officially known as Leif Erickson Drive & there is also a Leif Erickson park. I always wondered the reasons behind this. (obviously he must have, but I can't find any information to confirm it)
    That name is surely just to honour him. It is highly unlikely that he ever went further south than Newfoundland but it is impossible to prove that beyond all doubt. Stefán Ingi 18:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Some "experts" believe he at least visited Long Island sound, and that his basecamp was not too far north of there on an island now called No Man's Land which I'd have to look up because I can't remember where it is. It has purportedly a much milder winter climate than the surrounding area, with little or no snow. Another tip is claimed to be the comments of the explorers that daylight lasts much longer (and the nights shorter) in Vinland than in Greenland/Iceland/Norway in winter. (Eirik the Red was from Jæren, almost as far south as one can get in Norway.)
(Whether these claims are true or not, it's entirely possible that the people who named Leif Erickson Drive and park had never heard of them.) --Hordaland (talk) 15:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I believe Brooklyn once used to have a high number of Norwegian immigrants and people of Norwegian ancestry. There are other roads in Brooklyn which also have Norwegian names, such as Bergen Street. I would think it's likely that Leif Erickson Drive and the park are remnants from that time. TheLastNinja (talk) 19:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I've always been taught that Leif was pronounced "Layve", not "Leaf". Am I correct in saying that this is the correct pronunciation? → J@red  22:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I am unsure how I would pronounce Layve but Leaf is probably far of target in any English pronounciation. As an approximation to how Leif was pronounced in Old norse, try saying the English word "late" but with an "f" sound instead of the "t" at the end. I would add an IPA pronounciation but I would probably get it wrong. Stefán Ingi 08:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, yeah, that's sort of what I was trying to get at with layve. Here's another example: say "wave" but with an "l" instead of a "w". I think your pronunciation is similar to mine. → J@red  19:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm Norwegian, and here, we pronounce it pretty much like one pronounces the english world life, only with a slightly bolder I. Pretty similar to what some regional british dialects sound like. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.157.238.202 (talk) 19:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC).
We pronounce it like the English word "Life" in Danish too, but the Icelandic/Old Norse pronounciation would be something like "Layf". --dllu 18:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it's definitely "Layf" (though I prefer "Lafe" as in the Swedish equivalent:p) rather than any "Leaf" (which is just bizarre, honestly). -- Idontcareanymore (talk) 14:48, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Article title

I've skimmed the part of this discussion page regarding the title of the article and don't have quite the patience to figure out which name became the accepted title. I'm just wondering why the article is named "Leif Ericson" but that name does not appear at all in the opening sentence. — Larry V (talk) 16:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


Article Title

There are a few ways to spell Erikson/Erickson/Eriksson/Ericksson/Eiriksson. None of these ways are spelt as the title is shown (Ericson); Scandinavians dont use the alone "c" as a "K" sound. The odd thing is Erikson is spelled correctly throughout the article, the Title should reflect the article accurately. It is a disgrace to wikipedia and Leif Eriksson that his name be broadcasted wrongly. Please Correct it. Please just use a "k". The "c" is just insulting.

Its a disgrace to wikipedia when you ignore its rules. Please sign your post and try not to preemptively insult people for not agreeing with your point before youve ever made it. 74.132.249.206 (talk) 19:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

referenced, not OR

Thanks for the message. As I responded on my page, this claim can be referenced by William O Kellogg, who is former Head of the History Dept. at the highly esteemed St. Paul's School, in his texbook "American History th easy way,' 3rd Ed. ISBN 0-7641-1973-7, 2003. The actual section is on page 9 under "The Vikings." and page 8, "European Immigrants." Im sure if you researched this question, though, you'd find it in many other reputable academic sources. I made clear we are talking about the Norsemen settlements; Ericson explored the coast of North America and the settlements resulted, with the evidence suggesting as far as Minnesota.Giovanni33 21:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I am about to update the Norwegian article which is currently is a sad case, and then I am checking out the facts here first. One thing is certain. No Norsemen ever reached as far as Minnesota. They explored the coastline only at best. The whole Minnesota thing originates back to the so called Kensington stone which has been proven false again and again. As a Norwegian I would proud if Norsemen actually have gone as far as Minnesota, but as a historian I can not support false evidence. This particularly information or suggestion will not be available on the Norwegian Wikipedia. --FinnBjork 18:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Impressive

Four years (article was created in 2002), hundreds of edits and still 5 lines? Are these lines all known facts about this supposed 1st lander of America? Must be an hoax or somethin'. Shame On You 20:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Used to be longer - look at this for example. Feel free to revert to some fuller version. Read Grœnlendinga saga and Eiríks saga rauða (the sagas, not just the articles) and you'll basically know as much as anyone. Haukur 20:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Slightly misleading?

His exploration resulted in several settlements, with some evidence suggesting that later Norsemen may eventually have penetrated as far as Minnesota...

This is somewhat weasely, for me, and borderline misleading. If mentioning Minnesota is indeed relevant, which I doubt, should it not be acknowledged at the very least that what evidence has been found is highly controversial? In any case, if Norsemen did turn up in Minnesota, which I also doubt, that would have been centuries after Leif's sojourn in Vinland; surely no-one has suggested that settlements begun by Leif survived till the supposed time of the Kensington runestone in the 1300s. qp10qp 23:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Bulk source addition

Here will be placed the bulk addition of source that was added by an editor and later removed in order to maybe re-use some of the material for later purposes.

(Copyvio text removed per OTRS # 2008062510017401. Rjd0060 (talk) 00:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC))

Lincher 14:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Strange sentence in Early Life in Iceland

What is "Then designed the first ever farm of people and cows." supposed to mean? That sounds very fishy... 207.255.66.200 23:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

That was during a period of heavy vandalism on the article, so individual changes may not have been looked at closely. That one looks like it maybe came from someone with limited English. I'm not sure what it meant, so I've removed it. Fan-1967 23:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Leif born in Iceland

There have been some edits that change the article to say that Leif was born in Norway. This is not supported at all by the historical evidence. The following excerpt is from Eiríks saga rauða from Sturlubók:

Þorvaldur hét maður. Hann var son Ásvalds Úlfssonar Yxna-Þórissonar. Eiríkur hét son hans. Þeir feðgar fóru af Jaðri til Íslands fyri víga sakir og námu land á Hornströndum og bjuggu að Dröngum. Þar andaðist Þorvaldur, en Eiríkur fékk þá Þjóðhildar, dóttur Jörundar Atlasonar og Þorbjargar knarrarbringu.

This translates as:

There was a man named Thorvaldur. He was the son of Asvald Ulfsson son of Yxna-Thorir. His son's name was Eirik. He and his father left Jadur for Iceland because of some killings and claimed land in Hornstrandir and lived in Drangar. There Thorvaldur died, but Eirik married Thjodhild, daughter of Jorund Atlason and Thorbjorg knarrbringa.

This account occurs both in Eiríks saga rauða and in Landnáma, so we have two written sources indicating that Leif's father did not meet his mother until he settled in Iceland (along with an account of Thjodhild's Icelandic parentage). This seems fairly solid evidence that Leifur cannot have been born in Norway. Everything seems indicate that he was born in Iceland, although it is in principle possible that he was born in Greenland.

I would like to ask the Norwegians who are changing his nationality to Norwegian to stop, please. -- Palthrow 14:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


What about the fact that Iceland was discovered by Norwegians and was a Norwegian "colony"? 9/4-10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.200.236.230 (talk) 09:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

This is incorrect, Iceland was not a Norwegian "colony" by any measure before the year 1262. Iceland established its own government (Althingi, still in operation today) in 930, or 40 years before Leif was born and 70 years before Vinland is discovered. And as to the "Norwegian" discovery of Iceland, it is generally agreed that the man who discovered Iceland was Garðar Svavarson, a Swede who owned land in Denmark, and Iceland was not only settled by Norwegians but also by a number of Swedes and Danes and people from other countries or with different heritage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.221.140.200 (talk) 23:42, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Name once again

As was mentioned above, the Old Norse form is Leifr without a u, so I added that again. I also removed the (sic!) part from the "Leif Ericson Day" paragraph, because it was clearly POV. The last name should be spelled Eiriksson, or at the very least Erikson with a k. I think the article should be moved. I know it has been discussed before, but the fact that no consensus was achieved doesn't make the current title any less arbitrary. --dllu 18:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the article should be moved to Leif Eiriksson or Leif Eriksson. - Palthrow 01:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed a line someone had vandalized. It stated "IM MANDYS GRANDPA" which I felt was irrelevant to the article.

James mcaninch 13:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Speculation

It seems to me the speculation section would be more appropriate to some other article, since none of it deals specifically with L.E. or even mentions him. Perhaps see also links to articles about these speculative ideas would suffice. As it reads now, it all just seems tacked on. Anyone disagree? Jonathunder 13:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

errors?

in this article its states his crew size as 15

yet in the article on Bjarni Herjólfsson it states Leif Ericson's crew as 35

could you please help me figure out the true number —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.49.38.142 (talk) 17:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 17:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Known vs Claimed

While the claims are moderately strong, there's a distinction - which is borne out by most of the article - that Leif Ericson is widely claimed to be the first European (with whoever accompanied him - not mentioned). "Known" is an unqualified statement of fact. We don't have those facts. Tedickey (talk) 11:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

agree - "thought" is acceptable (though to some, it's equivalent) Tedickey (talk) 21:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I think it's more accurate at any rate - one can think Leif was the first without making a definite claim that he was (along with the unknown Vikings who came with him, as you say), or without "knowing" it. And many people do.--Cúchullain t/c 21:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The first european in America?

I took a quiz at Facebook which stated that Juan Ponce de León was the first euopean in America, and when i looked it up here it said the same thing. Doesn't Greenland count as Europe or what? Can someone help me?--Arvid Edberg, Sweden

Perhaps that quiz meant America as in just the United States? Incredibly US-centric I know but it could fit. Juan Ponce de León is said to have "discovered" Florida so maybe he was the first European in the current territory of the USA. --Bjarki (talk) 16:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Leif married?

" Leif married a woman named Thorgunna ...", it says. Did he? He had a son with her and acknowledged fatherhood, but I think he never married her. --Hordaland (talk) 15:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC) I agree with this statement. i do not think he married her but another woman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.90.106.238 (talk) 09:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Leif's later life and death

The article doesn't mention what happened to Leif. There is mention of him dying in Vinland, but no reason why, or how. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robauz (talk • contribs) 17:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

please add this image

Leif Ericson discovers America

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.234.123 (talk) 22:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Bjarni had seen Newfoundland?

"he bought Bjarni Herjólfsson's boat and set out to explore the land that Bjarni had seen (located west of Greenland), which likely was Newfoundland, Canada."

Why was likely Newfoundland? Bjarni's description matches Leif's description of Markland. Though it's not explicitedly stated I got the impression that Bjarni found Markland/Labrador. This is no proof but a hint, and a very good one in my opinion. Furthermore when driven of course me seems he would more likely stumble upon Labrador than Newfoundland. As in other articles stated, the need for wood in Greenland was a motivation for Leif's exploration to find the forests Bjarni mentioned. According to other articles Newfoundland has an open landscape with meadows, which is why it is considered to be Vinland, as it matches the descriptions of Leif Erikson, and which is why he found it suitable for colonisation. Truchses (talk) 13:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Because of ongoing vandalism from anonymous accounts, I placed semi-protection on this page for the next six months. Established and logged-in editors are still able to make modifications, but new accounts and anonymous editors will be required to suggest changes at the talkpage. --Elonka 00:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

As a long-time watcher and infrequent editor of this article, I wouldn't mind knowing why it is that this article attracts so much vandalism. Anyone? ClovisPt (talk) 01:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
In my experience, there is a direct correlation between "subjects that are taught to children", or "subjects that appear in books read by children", and vandalism on those articles, since they are more likely to be being read by children in the first place. For example, I might see an article on "Polar bears", and I'll see vandalism like, "Mrs. Smith's class sucks" or "I hate school". In effect, the kids are often "doodling" on Wikipedia rather than in their own notebooks. --Elonka 01:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Leifur Eiríksson

Great grandson of Úlfur "skjálgi" Högnason my great x30 grandfather, born in Iceland, died in Iceland and burried in Iceland Yes, I really bet he considered himself a Norweigan HAH. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.40.248.120 (talk) 22:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Norwegian

I'm not quite sure why he's in the category 'Norwegian Explorers', since he was clearly not Norwegian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.41.240 (talk) 23:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Icelandic

I concur with the two gentlemen that commented before me, Leifur Eiríksson was indeed not Norwegian or Swedish for that matter but Icelandic.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 01:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Then it needs a proper source for the change, as opposed to just deleting the properly sourced version that currently exists. Dayewalker (talk) 01:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
The source that exists does indeed say that he was Icelandic.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 02:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Changing Leifs nationality and year of estimated birth is 100% unjustifiable. Me 75.69.41.240 and 78.40.248.120 have a consensus amongst ourselves regarding this matter and nobody else has cared to participate in our discussion and take a stance so if anyone is unhappy with Leifs nationality being listed as Icelandic then please do discuss the matter with us but don't be edit warring with us, that's not the way to go.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 03:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

You need a reliable source (no matter how many IP-addresses you connect from) Tedickey (talk) 11:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Leifr is best referred to simply as a Norseman, since applying modern national categories retroactively to the 10th century is a futile and confusing exercise in anachronism. He was born in Iceland to a "Norwegian" father but probably spent a large part of his life in Greenland. I think he should not be referred to as Icelandic, Greenlandic or Norwegian, but rather as "Norse". -- Palthrow (talk) 13:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Palthrow. At that period we can only categorize Ericson as a Norseman. The modern nationalities did not exist at that period. --Alarichus (talk) 23:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I know that this is pretty old but i just wanted to add something, i would talk about Leif as an Icelandic or a Greenlandic man not Norwegian since according to Íslendingabók the first people to arrive on Iceland and permenatly settle down there arrived around 870 and 60 years later Althing was founded, after the foundation of Althing people started talking about the people in Iceland as Icelanders, but Erik the red(Leif's father) moved to Iceland with his parents because his father Thorvald Asvaldsson was exiled from Norway around 960, during the reign of King Harald Fairhair, because he had committed murder when Erik was only 10 years old. So i would say that the fact that Leif's grandfather came to Iceland because he was exiled from Norway would rule him out as a Norwegian although Leif himself became christian after meeting the king of Norway Olaf Tryggvason, it is true that he did spent most of his life in Greenland but the fact remains that after all of Erik's children had passed the the so call Grænlendinga saga ends shortly after although he had one child Thorgils so i would say that people hadn't lived long enough in Greenland overall for to even start calling it a nation. But the main point is like Alarichus said Leifr is best referred to as a Norseman not a Norwegian, although personally i would call him an Icelander. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kristofera (talk • contribs) 00:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Native American contact

I contributed to the Article about Native American contact and how it was sometimes violent. I also put in that Leif Ericson's brother, Thorvald, was the first to meet Native Americans and it ended in a battle. In this battle 8 Native Americans were killed. It was deleted. Why? {Cmguy777 (talk) 04:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)}

As I pointed out: "see Norse colonization of the Americas". The source and content of the edit were a digression, using a less reliable source than the other topic already uses. Tedickey (talk) 21:21, 22 October 2009

Unsourced comment

As I am intruged to add, Lief Ericsson also helped spred the Christian faith throughout Greenland by bringing a priest that he had met during his journey (here is a small recount of the story!): Lief Ericsson made it to Norway, were he was greated warmly. The king, King Olav, also greated Ericsson, and offered him a place to stay. One day, while playing chess with Leif, King Olaf told him of how he used to also worship the gods Leif did. He also told him of how a plague had struck Norway and how many people had died. Then he told Leif of how he turned away from those gods and began to worship the living Christ. He was baptized along with thousands of Norwegians, and then the plague stopped. Leif, not being very faithful to the Viking gods, became very interested in Christianity. He finally agreed to be baptized and accept this new faith. On his return voyage, he brought along a priest to spread the Christian faith to Greenland. This is all I have to offer for the article. To see the full story, see {mnc.net} for "Lief Ericsson". -Lusy611

Please sign your comment. Also, we have zero reason to believe unsourced christian propaganda deserves a place in the same article as heavily sourced recounts of what actually happend. Im tempted to rewrite the names in your story and change nothing else to show how it might be applied easily to anywhere at any point in time and still be as pointless, but that would be best left for another article. Suffice to say, I could do it, and it would be exactly as meaningful: Not at all. 74.132.249.206 (talk) 19:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
"Please sign your comment" An interesting comment from someone who does not sign his/her comment. Carptrash (talk) 22:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

leif erickson

he was a viking from Iceland —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benhong63 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused

Lief Erikson is not (as a previous comment states) a viking from greenland is he?Esoteric Prattle (talk) 03:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

no - look at the editor's history Tedickey (talk) 12:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


Inconsistency below the picture of the statue

Below the pictures of the statue, it say Born 970 Greenland, where the article is quite clear that it is believed that he was Born 970 in Iceland.

Vidarv (talk) 16:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)Vidar

It is a fact that he was born 970 in Iceland but moved to Greenland with his father who had been exiled from Iceland because of murder when he was 12 years old or in 982. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kristofera (talk • contribs) 00:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Karirun, 11 June 2011

I don't know why the nationality of Leifur Eiriksson is so ambiguous/cryptical. Being born in Iceland, with a father from Norway and a mother being a native Icelander (descendant of the original Norse settlers), he should be referred to as Icelandic and not Norse. (see ^ "Vísindavefurinn: Shouldn't Leifr Eiríksson ('Leif the Lucky') really be viewed as a Greenlander with family roots in Iceland and Norway?" (in (Icelandic)). Visindavefur.hi.is. 2005-11-25. Retrieved 2010-02-16.)http://visindavefur.hi.is/svar.asp?id=5433


Karirun (talk) 02:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

It's been discussed at length on this page. TEDickey (talk) 11:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
As Tedickey said, this has been discussed above; you're welcome to continue the discussion here, but I'm marking the edit request as answered; if/when you get consensus for the change, any regular editor can tackle it. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Duplicate section

We discussed Leif's conversion to Christianity twice. I removed the latter section which seemed less relevant. Huon (talk) 14:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Apparent inconstistency

In the "Personal life" section we have the statements, "Leif eventually passed on his chieftaincy of Eiriksfjord to another son, Thorkell, in 1025, and is last mentioned alive in 1019. Leif must thus have died at some point between these years". If he might have died before 1025 how can we say that he passed on the chieftancy in 1025? Is the first part of this supposed to mean, "Leif had eventually passed on his chieftaincy of Eiriksfjord to another son, Thorkell, by 1025 ..."? Phil Bridger (talk) 16:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

If I'm correct, we only know that Thorkell was chieftain in 1025, and one has then assumed that Leif had to have been dead by then. The last time Leif is mentioned himself is in 1019. So we do not know exactly when he passed on the chieftaincy to Thorkell, but only that it happened sometime between 1019 and 1025; presumably right after Leif's death. So I think you're correct, and I will change the wording accordingly. —Filippusson (t.) 17:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Leif Ericson/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Astrocog (talk · contribs) 02:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    • There are two disambiguated links in the article, which can be seen here.
    • One of the links (MSN) has connection issues. See the problem here.
    • Prose is fairly spotty throughout. For example, the lead says, "It is believed that Leif was born around the 970s, the son of Erik the Red, a Norse explorer from Western Norway, an outlaw and himself the son of an outlaw, Thorvald Asvaldsson." Are you as confused as me? Try to avoid unnecessary compound sentences like that, especially in the lead. That's just an example from the article. The remainder should be checked for similar instances.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    • References shouldn't be other encyclopedias, such as Encarta.
    • Several instances of citation overkill. Once a sentence has more than two citations at the end of it, a reader can't tell which source goes with which fact. Use citation bundling, or just rely on the one or two most reliable sources for a particular fact.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    This is the main sticking point for me. While the article stays focused on the subject, it is quite light reading on such a notable person. Given the number of sources, I would expect an article much more expanded than this. There needs to be more discussion of scholarly work by historians concerning Ericson and his explorations. A google search and a search on Amazon shows several more relevant books on this topic that could be used to increase comprehensiveness.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    No apparent problems.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    The article has expanded by a factor of two (10,000 K to over 20,000 K) this month alone. This is not stability, as there is still active editing and expansion going on.
    Ok, this "citation style" warning has come up a few times. I won't pass the GAN unless this is resolved. Just make the citations consistent. Either all books used are in bibliography, or none are used. The editors involved in the reverts could just quit their bitchin' and fix it. Seems a fairly easy fix.
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    • The painting image (Leif Ericson discovers America) seems to have a copyright problem. It claims to be public domain, but doesn't have a proper tag for the US.
    • It would be nice, but not required, to have an image of some depiction of Ericson's face.
  7. Overall: Quite a number of issues here. I'm putting the GA review on hold for 7 days, however I think this article will need much more work. I think a peer review is appropriate, and also some advice from an expert historian to address the comprehensiveness of the article.
    Pass/Fail:


Fixing issues

Fixed all on 1. besides the prose issue, for which I have requested a copyedit. Fixed all on 2. Fixed the copyright issue on 6. Other than that, you have a request about an image of Leif's face. Besides the statues, I am not aware of mainstream images attempting to depict Leif's face. The closest would perhaps be this, but I think it's best to leave it with the statue. —Filippusson (t.) 18:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Yes, it's not required to get another image, but could help in the future. The main issue is comprehensiveness (3) - make sure that this article represents all broad aspects of Ericson and his life, including the major scholarly discussions that exist. AstroCog (talk) 18:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Come to think of it, if the article needs to be expanded extensively with information from the "Leif" theme books found on Amazon you should just fail the GAN now. I might do it later some time, but not within the next seven days. —Filippusson (t.) 19:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I was just in the library for the college I work at, and I leafed through a few books in the Scandinavian section. Many of the books on the viking topic included information about Ericson, so that's another avenue to pursue. I won't quick-fail the GAN, to allow for some possible additions. I don't mind giving you a little more than 7 days (21 days, maybe?). You could also recruit some help from the related WikiProjects. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 19:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I wasn't prepared for the requirement of an extensive expansion of the article, and have no capacity to do so either in the near future (not with offline literature at least). I thought that the article was broad enough and well-sourced enough for GA, and that a further expansion to a deeper level would only be required for FA. —Filippusson (t.) 14:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I looked a bit closer at the GA criteria, and it says that comprehensiveness is not required, so I can let this slide here. I think the article shows much promise, so I'll adjust the criteria evaluations. Go ahead and work on the prose issues mentioned in the review, and also check on that image fair-use rationale problem I mentioned. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 01:22, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
A copyedit appears to have been done on the 13th so this can be re-looked at. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. I'm sorry to be slow recently. The end of the fall semester was a busy time for this college prof. Everything seems to be in order here, I'm going to pass it. AstroCog (talk) 05:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I do recall one of SpongeBob Squarepants' episode where they celebrate "Leif Ericson Day". Why isn't this included in the article? Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 20:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Probably because it tells us nothing about common popular depictions of Leif Ericson, and it might be hard to find reliable sources, too. Not every dropped name must find its was into a "in popular culture" section. Huon (talk) 20:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
True, but the source would be cited in Template:Cite episode. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 20:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Why citationstyle?

Someone asked about an explanation for the citationstyle template so here it is. It's fairly simple. The article has a bibliography section with two books, and in the citation notes these books are given in the short forms, as "author, year" etc. Then there are several other books in the notes, which are missing in the bibliography. Geschichte (talk) 21:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I always thought that only the books where more than one page were used should go in the bibliography section, and that otherwise it would be best to just put it all in one ref. Is this wrong? I have written several (GA) articles in that way before, with no remarks being made about it whatsoever. —Filippusson (t.) 21:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
I'd put all books there, otherwise it looks confusing. Geschichte (talk) 10:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Erik banished from Norway?

From this version: “Their father Erik was banished from Norway for manslaughter and went into exile in Iceland. Soon also banished from Iceland, Erik went on to travel further west”...

The article Thorvald Asvaldsson indicates that it was Thorvald who was exiled from Norway for manslaughter. He fled with Erik, who would have been about about ten years old at the time. Is it accurate to say that Erik was banished from Norway for manslaughter? Braincricket (talk) 08:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

According to Eirik's article at the encyclopaedia Norsk biografisk leksikon [3], citing the Landnámabók: “Torvald, son of Åsvald, son of Ulf, son of Okse-Tore, went from Jæren with his son Eirik Raude because of murder. He took land on Hornstrand ... Torvald died there.” (my rough translation). So it appears that Thorvald did the killing in Norway. Manxruler (talk) 18:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I've tried to reword it, but I'm not convinced by the result of my own attempt. Is Thorvald's banishment from Norway important to Leif, or should we remove it entirely? Huon (talk) 18:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
In Norway, at least, the banishment of Eirik and his father is almost always mentioned when the story of Leif is told. That's sort of where the story begins in most versions. Manxruler (talk) 00:32, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to see it kept—it's an interesting fact that otherwise would have to be pieced together from reading two other articles. My initial concern was that, knowing nothing about Leif's family history, it seemed like Erik had been involved in two independent sets of murders in two countries, each resulting in a banishment. Apparently that first killing was all Thorvald, and Erik was just along for the ride when his father was banished. I think Huon's changes made that much clearer. Braincricket (talk) 01:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
To me it works well now. Besides, Leif's life in all likelihood would have turned out quite different if it wasn't for the deeds and misdeeds of his grandfather and father. Very important to include, I'd say. Manxruler (talk) 02:27, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
: : How can a person born adn raised in Iceland by a parents who lived in Iceland mostky all their life, be Norwegian. It's my opinion that he was Icelandic — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexanderGunnar (talk • contribs) 00:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
The topic doesn't say that. Some people however start by asserting that Norse is synoymous with Norwegian, and go on from that point to make other remarks TEDickey (talk) 00:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Lief Erikson's picture / face

Somewhere I thought I read an inquiry about his face and/or picture. Nothing currently exists that could be considered authentic (done in his lifetime, or anytime near). It seems most images are constructs based on one or two (relatively recent) statues.

For reference:
How should we picture the appearance of Leif Ericsson? The most reliable record on the story of Leif Ericsson is the Greenlanders' Saga, but in regard to his looks it doesn't mention anything other than that he was an impressive man.

The article also includes:
Leif Ericsson wears a beard and long hair. Individuals with this hairstyle can be found on the Bayeux Tapestry and the Hylestad Portal. His hair is somewhat reddish, because his father (Eric ‘the Red’) had red hair. The clothing is simple and the pleats were modelled [sic] on the examples on the Bayeux Tapestry. The reproduction of the body (with the face and the legs in side view) is similar to the silhouettes on the Picture Stone from Tängelgårda. (Emphasis mine.)
From: Gallery of reconstructed portraits

Unfortunately, the "Reconstructed portrait" image is copyrighted. ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 07:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Leif was "West Norwegian" according to the very article itself

Hello. I have to be blunt.

Let me explain how the revert was unwarranted.

I NEVER removed the word “Norse”, so your revert explanation is a straw-man, and not WP valid at all. You implied (or maybe you didn't see it carefully enough at first) that I somehow removed the word "Norse". I didn't. I merely ADDED the words "West Norwegian" next to it. For better clarity. And it is a sourced fact in the article.

I merely added the elaboration next to it...of WHAT PRECISE TYPE OF “Norse” he was. He was West Norwegian, and that is supported by refs too. "Norse" is not clear or precise enough. Lief was West Norwegian, and there's nothing unsourced or un-supported about that. He may have been born in "Iceland", but his parents (sighs) were Norwegian. Why shouldn't that be made clear in the "Nationality" section of the info box??

"Norse" is not actually a "nation", per se, but a group of nations. In other words, for example, Lief was not "Swedish". His parents were Norwegian. So putting that NEXT to "Norse" (not removing "Norse" at all), is not a bad thing, and not "unsupported" at all. Then it becomes just a matter of persona taste, (with front lame untrue excuses of "not supported"), and reverting good faith accurate things for personal taste is against WP policy. I won't put up with it.

Good-faith accurate sourced edits and modifications should NEVER be reverted, according to WP policy and recommendation. Only truly inaccurate or truly non-supported things, or arguable vandalism, should be "reverted". It's in the body of the article itself about Lief's West Norwegian background. Are you gonna say that Lief was not "Norwegian" at all? Anyway, the edit stands, and there was no valid WP reason to simply remove it for personal agendas or because "you may not like it". It's valid and supported. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 02:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the addition of "West Norwegian" to Leif's nationality is an improvement, for the following reasons: Firstly, I doubt it's accurate. Leif was born on Iceland, which was not formally a Norwegian colony but independent. By birth he was not Norwegian but Icelandic, but I doubt Icelanders would have considered themselves a nation at that time. And while Leif later by choice became a hirdman of King Olaf Tryggvason, that would at best make his adopted nationality Norwegian, not specifically "West Norwegian". "West Norway" wasn't even a nation to begin with. Secondly, the addition was unsourced, and I doubt there are any reliable sources giving Leif's nationality as "West Norwegian". Hashem sfarim says it is sourced in the article proper; I would ask him to point me to the source; I couldn't find it (nor even a mention of West Norway). All we have is an Icelandic article (reference 3) which states that nationality wasn't that important in Leif's time. As an aside, it is a little hypocritical of Hashem sfarim to complain about edit warring while happily reverting multiple other editors. Per WP:BRD, he should have started to discuss his edit immediately after the first reversion. Huon (talk) 02:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Not sure how you miss "West Norway" in the article body proper. It's right there, in the second paragraph, and is even WIKI LINKED. Having nothing to do with me. Here it is:
It is believed that Leif was born around the 970s—the son of mother Thjodhild and father Erik the Red, an explorer and outlaw from Western Norway. Erik founded the first Norse colonies in Greenland, and was based at the family estate Brattahlíð in the so-called Eastern Settlement, where Leif had his upbringing. Leif had two known sons: Thorgils, born to noblewoman Thorgunna in the Hebrides); and Thorkell, who succeeded Leif as chieftain of the Greenland settlement.
Again, to repeat that part...right below here:
"Leif was born around the 970s—the son of mother Thjodhild and father Erik the Red, an explorer and outlaw from Western Norway."
From where? What does it say? "from Western Norway".
You act as if "West Norway" is something I made up, or whatever. It clearly isn't.
Also, again, "Norse" is not really a singular "nationality" per se. But is a bit too broad, and includes a few actual countries. The point is if it says in the very self-same article itself that Leif's parents were "from Western Norway", then are we to conclude that "Norway" plays no role in Leif's nationality at all? And shouldn't be mentioned maybe right next to "Norse" as a sensible logical elaboration, to make it a bit clearer?
Also, as for edit-warring, I reverted only twice. Not even the three time threshold (which is allowed in 24 hours). And I see what you did as "edit-warring" in the sense that good-faith and accurate modifications should not be reverted, especially when you see there's already a little issue with another editor.
The point and question is, again, will you say that, if Leif's father etc were from "West Norway", per the very article's already-stated wording, that Leif himself is not "Norwegian" in any way? Hashem sfarim (talk) 03:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
I missed "Western Norway" because I searched for "West Norway"; sorry about that. But that's Eric the Red anyway, not Leif. (There is no source for that statement either, so claiming that it's not unsourced is stretching it, too.) According to the Icelandic source discussing Leif's nationality, his mother was from Iceland, and Leif was born there. Thus I still don't see a source claiming Leif was anything more specific than "Norse". Assigning him the nationality of "West Norwegian" because his father was born there is original research, especially in light of the Icelandic source rather explicitly stating that we cannot give him a precise nationality, in particular not Norwegian. If you cannot present a reliable source calling Leif's nationality "West Norwegian", I'm going to remove that once again per WP:NOR and WP:V. (As yet another aside, while "Norse" may not be a nation in the modern sense of the word, certainly not a single country, it comes a lot closer to nationhood than West Norway.) Huon (talk) 04:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
per talk and per good points made, I found refs stating "Norwegian" nationality... Hashem sfarim (talk) 06:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for adding sources! Since the infobox source called Leif "born of Norwegian descent" and neither mentioned specifically western Norway, I've changed the infobox to correspond to the source given. Huon (talk) 11:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Leifur Eríksson - An Icelander

In my opinion he's Icelandic. Any man born and raised in Iceland, who never visited Norway, but from a Norse race, is for me an Icelander. Except ofcourse if any of you thinks that children of immigrants, like more than half of U.S. people ain't Americans, because they have foreign race. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexanderGunnar (talk • contribs) 14:46, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Leif did visit Norway and became a hirdman of King Olaf Tryggvason, as the article already states. We have an Icelandic source calling him Norse; let's leave it at that. Huon (talk) 15:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Interests

This article fails to recognize any of leif's intrests and I was wondering if there were any. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.196.206.204 (talk) 01:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived 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: moved per request Favonian (talk) 10:40, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Leif Ericson → Leif Erikson – Widely recognized spelling, used by:

Also used:

(Note: Simply counting the number of google hits (many of which are redundant) for a given spelling version is not a reliable way to determine which spelling to use. We must look to the integrity of the sources themselves.)
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.

Music

The music band Interpol has a song called Leif Erikson from their album Turn On The Bright Lights — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.7.219.3 (talk) 06:38, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 October 2013

His name is Leif Eriksson, son of Erik the Red; Eriksson → Erik's son. (Printed books) 24.11.168.194 (talk) 20:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. You are right, of course, but the name given here is one of many anglicisations (compare Christopher Columbus). Because this topic has been extensively discussed here in the past (see #Discussion regarding L.E.'s name above), it would need a new consensus to change it. See also footnote 3 in the article. --Stfg (talk) 22:21, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
This version of his name is what we have settled on for here. Didn't make everyone happy, but so be it. Einar Einarsson aka Carptrash (talk) 22:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I guess there's a lot of choices for the spelling of his name. It was Leifr Eiríksson originally. Though no one goes by "Leifr" anymore, I believe most patronymic names have dropped the doubled "s"; "Leif Erikson" is at least the likely spelling in modern Norwegian. One could certainly take issue with the suggestion of "leef" as a viable pronunciation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leif#Pronunciation Pdxleif (talk) 08:26, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Name

Why is his name incorrectly written? He is Leif Eriksson, son of Erik the Red; Eriksson → Erik's son. Anonymous user

Actually, his name was Leifr Eiríksson. The more you know . . . 84.13.115.63 (talk) 05:45, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

How many people did he rescue?

After reading the text he rescues two men when he traveled from Norway to Greenland and got lost and visited the Americas and picked them up. Then farther down in the text after moving there he left for Greenland a second time he picked up one castaway again. He picked up 3 Castaway's! That sounds strange! In general the timeline is confusing: If we are accepting that there are 5 item in the timeline, we have the two last event fixed. Erikson get lost on his travel from Norway, to Greenland (event 4), and rescues 2 castaway's. He mounts an expedition to Americas and stay's there 2 or 3 years (event 5). So the 3 other events are not very clear in what order they took place. We have the 2 Castaway that was rescued in event 4, and the Icelandic castaway rescued in event 5. The 2 castaway's are not specified to be Icelandic so we don't know if they came to the Americas at the same time as the Icelandic castaway or not. So this could have been one or two events. If it's 2 different events we don't know witch one took place first and witch was the second event? If we adding Bjarni being lost and seeing the Americas we now how 6 possible way to lay out a timeline: A. 1. Bjarni getting lost 

  2. 2 Castaway's
  3. Icelandic Castaway
  4. Erikson getting lost
  5. Erikson settles the Americas

B. 1. Bjarni getting lost 

  2. Icelandic Castaway's
  3. 2 Castaway
  4. Erikson getting lost
  5. Erikson settles the Americas

C. 1. 2 Castaway's 

  2. Bjarni getting lost
  3. Icelandic Castaway
  4. Erikson getting lost
  5. Erikson settles the Americas

D. 1. 2 Castaway's 

  2. Icelandic castaway
  3. Bjarni getting lost 
  4. Erikson getting lost
  5. Erikson settles the Americas

E. 1. Icelandic castaway 

  2. 2 Castaway's   I
  3. Bjarni getting lost 
  4. Erikson getting lost
  5. Erikson settles the Americas

F. 1. Icelandic castaway 

  2. Bjarni getting lost    I
  3. 2 Castaway's 
  4. Erikson getting lost
  5. Erikson settles the Americas

On the other hand if the 3 Castaway's came at the same time there is only 2 ways to lay out a time line. Either the Castaways came before or after Bjarni. 68.4.84.135 (talk) 17:27, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Makes no sense

In the “Discovering Vinland” section it states the following “Consequently, if this is to be trusted, Bjarni Herjólfsson was the first European to see America beyond Greenland, and the two unnamed shipwrecked men were the first people known to Europeans to have made landfall there.” In the same section in the next paragraph it states the following “and mounted an expedition towards the land Bjarni had described” If we are suppose too trust that Bjarni only did see America from the sea how come he is describing it to Erikson later down in the text. And wouldn’t Erikson know more about the Americas than Bjarni he after all put his feet on the land when he rescued to two castaway’s, Bjarni never did that according to the text.68.4.84.135 (talk) 18:47, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Age?

Those two "c" in front of the dates indicate they are guesses, and since even the amount of possible error is unknown (1 or more years), it's not possible to give a precise "49 or 50" as age at death — without a reliable source for that TEDickey (talk) 19:03, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

If I apologize for earlier edits, we might estimate his age as no one is exactly sure how old he was at the time of his death. Either way, we might list his age between 40 and 50.

Wikipedia's role isn't to make estimates, but to report information available in reliable sources. Those two "circa" numbers are for decades, and without further knowledgeable sources, can be construed as any date within the decades - even for instance from 979 to 1020 (41 years), which is line with your comment. But published sources are the place to start, not editorializing. TEDickey (talk) 00:52, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thank you, TEDickey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinmuniz115 (talk • contribs) 01:24, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Undeniably the discoverer of Americas

There is no doubt Erikson is the first known European to have discovered North America. To say that he is "considered by some as the first European to land in North America" downplays this fact to a remarkable degree.Royalcourtier (talk) 07:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

All that is known is he is historically documented. Whether or not there were earlier European explorers who landed in N.A. is still debated. 50.111.211.140 (talk) 00:36, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Also, the phrase "before Christopher Columbus" is redundant in the lede sentence. If Columbus is to be mentioned, it would be better to write, "nearly 500 years before Christopher Columbus arrived in the Caribbean." That would show not merely that the first was (of course) earlier than someone else, but also how much earlier than America's existence becoming widely known in Europe. Schoolmann (talk) 17:11, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Your assertion that Erikson discovered North America overlooks that fact that Greenland is part of North America, and Norsemen knew of the existence of Greenland decades before Erikson was born. This claim agruably belongs to Gunnbjörn Ulfsson who lived nealry a century earlier. Mediatech492 (talk) 18:25, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 21 April 2017

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 Erikson → Leifr Eiríksson – Leifr or Leifur seems to be a lot more common than Leif - see: https://www.google.com/#q=Leifr+Eiríksson+-wikipedia and https://www.leifureirikssonfoundation.org/ - 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.

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

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

Nationality in lead

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

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 (talk • contribs) 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.

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 (talk • contribs) 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)

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Conversion

Actually, his conversion to Christianity took place shortly before the East-West Schism of 1054, so it is somewhat anachronistic to say that he became a convert to Roman Catholicism. PatGallacher (talk) 00:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

agreed. The overlinking was another good reason to revert TEDickey (talk) 01:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I really don't understand on what grounds an addition in the section of Popular (emphasis added) culture is reverted. I thought Wikipedia can include information if appropriately referenced. I added a reference from SpongeBob, where Lief Erikson is mentioned. Comes TEDickey, and removes the SpongeBob entry on said section saying "not an improvement". Why? Because it is from SpongeBob? I mean, okay, it is a cartoon but still it is a reference in popular culture. Is it that Leif Erikson feats are so widely known to the entire world that a cartoon reference is too trivial or insignificant to merit mentioning? Or is it below Wikipedia's standards to include this sort of references? I am not undoing Tedickey's revert, but I would like to know what can be considered as improvement on such a section. It's not that the entry mocks Lief Erikson, or that it vandalises the article or anything, and I believe that whether a cartoon reference is degrading the quality of an article or not is entirely subjective. Maybe TEDickey thinks an entry like that is childish and boring, no problem with that. But is it possible for other editors to weigh in? Dragon Heart String (talk) 15:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I've never been a big fan of pop culture sections in articles. If we listed every casual Culture reference to Erikson we could easily end up with a massive list of trivial data that longer than the rest of the article combined. If we are going to have such lists we should have some sort of benchmark for notability. Mediatech492 (talk) 16:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
If there were a section on "historical references" in the Spongebob article, I'd be all for it, but in this configuration, I am not a fan. The statement you added says something about SpongeBob, not about Leif Erikson. Causal references in cartoon shows do not add anything of substance to the article. Kleuske (talk) 16:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough, I guess that extending the article by including all sorts of popular reference would not add much. Thanks for the input guys! Dragon Heart String (talk) 17:10, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree that with an important figure like him if you included every casual mention you could end up with a fairly long list. However he is definitely the main character in Henry Treece's Vinland the Good, and probably in Nevil Shute's as well. PatGallacher (talk) 20:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2018

Under "Leif Erikson - Popular Culture"

The 1928 MGM late silent (Technicolor! Sound score!) film "The Viking" centers around Erikson's voyage to North America, featuring Leif himself as a central character. [SEE WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE "The Viking"]. 2606:6000:621B:BD00:7949:9B3A:DAB8:2CCC (talk) 10:02, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ToThAc (talk) 00:43, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Saint Brendan

I have removed the reference to Saint Brendan, since his voyage is mainly mythological with no real evidence. Please discuss here before adding again.Vpab15 (talk) 20:48, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Leif Erickson: a brief history

Born , of Iceland commonwealth , in 960-970 a.d. , was the second son of Erik the Red. Eriksson was credited as the first European explorer to set foot on North American soil ,even though it was only because his ship was blown off course on his return to Greenland ,around year 1,000 and named the area Vinland (land of wine). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.221.33.252 (talk) 23:23, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Second Line of the Article

This article states that Leif Erikson "was the first known European to have set foot on continental North America (excluding Greenland), before Christopher Columbus." However, Christopher Columbus never set foot on continential North America. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2013/10/14/christopher-columbus-3-things-you-think-he-did-that-he-didnt/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.877cd1b13816) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.216.17.223 (talk) 15:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

The article you cite is incorrect. Columbus first set foot on mainland North America on August 14, 1502 at what is now Puerto Castilla, Honduras. He spend the next two months exploring the region. Furthermore, most of the islands of the Caribbean are considered to be geographically part of North America; including all the islands Columbus is known to have visited. So the wording of the article is correct. Mediatech492 (talk) 16:04, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Artist renditions

Are any of the depictions of Leif's visage (body and face) are of the true man, or are all of them artist renditions (a picture from the imagination of the depicting artist)?77.138.224.125 (talk) 15:23, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

They are just renditions, the descriptions that exist of Leif are rather vague. – Thjarkur (talk) 18:05, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Columbus never set foot in North America

The beginning of this Wikipedia article is incorrect in implying Columbus set foot in North America. This never happened. Here is an article from the Washington Post confirming this:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2013/10/14/christopher-columbus-3-things-you-think-he-did-that-he-didnt/?noredirect=on

The Washington Post article is incorrect. Please read the Christopher Columbus article. On his fourth voyage Columbus went ashore near what is now Puerto Castilla, Honduras on August 14, 1502. He explored the region for the next two months before returning to Spain. Honduras is in continental North America. Mediatech492 (talk) 16:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
So you are saying it depends on how you split the Americas? Some would say that the areas from Mexcio to Panama (both included) are considered Central America 77.138.224.125 (talk) 15:20, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Central America is definitely considered to be part of North America by pretty much everybody who considers North and South America to be separate continents. I believe the only people who separate Central and North America are those who consider both to be mere subcontinents of America. 206.55.177.124 (talk) 22:45, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Central America is not a continent. It is a region of the continent of North America. If it is in Central America, it is in North America. Mediatech492 (talk) 17:28, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Also, it may not be totally clear that Leif did set foot on continetal North America, he could have set foot on the island of Newfoundland. PatGallacher (talk) 18:21, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

His name

Hi, my name is Maron (i'm Icelandic) and i would like to point out his name. I have seen thousands of people calling him "Leif Erikson" Witch is not his name, its "Leif Eiríksson" in Icelandic. (I'm just saying this so you get everything historically accurite about him) All of is family are also "Eirikson" on Wiki but it is actually "Eiríksson" (Wiki... pls fix) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMaron (talk • contribs) 12:53, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

He is known as Leif Erikson in the English speaking world and we try to use commonly recognizable names here on Wikipedia. The Old Norse version (Leifr Eiríksson) and modern versions are given in this little note shown after his name. – Þjarkur (talk) 19:48, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
I very much agree, and uninteresting what errors english speaking people had done with Scandinavian names in the past, the articles pints out that his name is a patronymikon, but then destroying that unlogical, is not smart. His name is Eriksson, becasue he is Eriks son. He is NOT Erik son. Dan Koehl (talk) 00:50, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

His name is Leifur in Icelandic, not Leif. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.209.137.142 (talk) 10:39, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Should we have a navbox Template:Leif Erikson, connecting all the pages within Category:Leif Erikson? ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:21, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I'd say it's not necessary, the category is small and all the things there are mentioned in the article. – Thjarkur (talk) 18:07, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
@Another Believer:Yes, I think it could be useful to have one similar to the one on the Columbus page with a link to 'History of the Americas' and perhaps to the 'Viking Age'. It helps to see Erikson in the broader context of his times. RickyBennison (talk) 13:53, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed that the page had quite a lot of images. The right side is full and there is one on the left which looks a bit awkward. In order to solve this problem, I was hoping to create a gallery under the 'Legacy' section called 'Art and sculpture'. In the gallery I will put the two memorial statue photos and 'The Landing of the Vikings' painting. I will also add a painting by Hans Dahl (NB not Christian Krohg) called 'Leif Erikson Discovers America'. The advantage of a gallery is that it tidies the page and allows for other images to be added. For example, the commemorative Leif Erikson rune stone at L'Anse aux Meadows (LAM). For the other images, I will move the LAM photo to the right and just generally neaten. Any suggestions or objections? RickyBennison (talk) 14:12, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Anything that helps WP:Sandwich is good because of accessibility ... but best be aware of image spam problems as outlined at WP:GALLERY.--Moxy 🍁 14:37, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

first known European to have set foot on continental North America?

The article says Erikson was probably born on the coast of Breiðafjörður. Since that is on the North American Plate side of Iceland, then Erikson is technically not European. The first known American to set foot on America maybe? SpinningSpark 19:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

That's a very interesting point, but irrelevant as continental plates don't determine the extent of a continent. All of Iceland has long been considered part of Europe, while knowledge of tectonics is relatively modern. UpdateNerd (talk) 09:39, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Personal life

This article misrepresents the indigenous peoples' story and struggle while glamorizing Erikson as being a wise and moral man. In reality, he viewed the indigenous people as outsiders, despite him being the one to enter their land from the outside. He killed the adults, enslaved their children, and kidnapped them to Europe [1]

There are major issues with this sentence: "After Leif's first trip to Vinland, he returned to the family estate of Brattahlíð in Greenland, and started preaching Christianity to the Greenlanders." This sentence is problematic for many reasons, one being that Vinland was not a place back then. By referring to this land as Vinland, it erases the native ties and further embellishes the idea that Erikson "discovered" Vinland. It furthers the false narrative that the natives who lived there were an uncivilized society, living in the woods like animals, and needed the colonizers to "settle" them. Traditional maps of European colonizers in North America give the impression that the land was uninhabited forest before the Europeans entered.[2] For this reason, it is ever important to recognize that the true inhabitants of the land are not "Greenlanders" as the article quotes. The true inhabitants of what is now Greenland are the indigenous people of various tribes, including the Inuit, Beothuk, and Micmac [3]


Don'tTakeYourselfTooSeriously (talk) 04:27, 10 September 2020 (UTC)Don'tTakeYourselfTooSeriously

References

  1. ^ Weaver, Jace. "The Red Atlantic" (PDF). J-Stor. Retrieved 9/9/20. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  2. ^ Merrell, James. "Second Thoughts on Colonial Historians and American Indians" (PDF). JSTOR. Retrieved 9/9/20. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  3. ^ Weaver, Jace. "The Red Atlantic" (PDF). J-Stor. Retrieved 9/9/20. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
I agree. One problem is that the article does not clearly distinguish between established facts and the descriptoons or citations from the sagas. Other is that interpretations are mingled into it that are not referred to any source and maybe come from the author of the sentence (therfore, pov). For example, the mentioning of "red indians" which for sure none of the norse called them... Mucht to do, sort aout and rewrite! 47.71.46.26 (talk) 09:20, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Is there any clear evidence that this person actually existed? 212.129.74.59 (talk) 18:29, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Religious issues

This is developing into a spat which has nothing to do with Leif's life. Of course the Orthodox and Catholic Churches claim continuity with the unified church prior to the Great Schism of 1054. I don't think this merits detailed mention in the article. PatGallacher (talk) 02:28, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Of course It merits mention in the article if you allow others to say he’s Roman Catholic in the article which it says at the bottom. It is very important because he is the first European colonizer of the Americas which most attribute to Columbus and his Catholicism(some claim Judaism). The Orthodox believes that it predates the Catholic Church back to the disciples time just as the Roman Church does. Look at purple line here it predates the red https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations_by_number_of_members#/media/File:Christianity_major_branches.svg

These are the references https://ocl.org/leif-eriksson-first-orthodox-christian-america/ http://www.orthodoxcanada.com/journal/2007-01-01.html https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/article/151011-columbus-day-leif-erikson-italian-americans-holiday-historyFoorgood (talk) 02:34, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with PatGallacher – referring to Leif either as a Roman Catholic or an Orthodox christian is an anachronism, and it is no surprise (but also of no encyclopedic interest in this article) that both Churches claim him. Following this edit the article (appropriately in my view) no longer claims that he was RC. Wham2001 (talk) 07:02, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
ok i think we can agree on that so can you also remove the source # 37 which says he was catholic? because if not i think we should put the source as well saying he was the first orthodox.Foorgood (talk) 15:25, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Foorgood, there have been some edits to the article (not by me!) since you posted so I'm not certain which source you meant, but assuming it was the uCatholic.com blog (which I agree was not reliable) then I think this has been done? Wham2001 (talk) 17:49, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
yes sir glad we came to consensus.Foorgood (talk) 18:01, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

The purple line is a split of the oriental orthodox from the unified church. The oriental orthodox are neither in communion with the eastern orthodox or the catholic churches and nowhere does the given article suggest that it predates Catholicism. While the Orthodox arguments seem to arise from random biased orthodox blogs, the claim that he was catholic is published by the new work times. Moreover it is definitive that Erickson had converted to the Latin western Church and not the Eastern church, so using the term Roman Catholic isn't an anachronism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6010:c640:a84b:29b7:b834:96cf:db7f (talk) 15:13, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi 2603, and thanks for bringing your points to talk. Please remember to sign your talk page posts using 4 tildes at the end (~~~~). I encourage you to gain consensus here for your edits before making them again. Could you clarify which 'purple line' you're referring to? They NYT source looks good, but it attributes the "Catholic missionary" viewpoint to Heyerdahl and Lilliestrom and takes pains to note that their views are contested by other scholars. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:27, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi Firefangledfeathers the article in the NYT doesn't say that other scholars contest the views of the authors over erikson's religion, in fact there seems to be a broad consensus on that. The contest is over the impact that the vikings may have had on North America. The purple line that i was referring to was what the user:PatGallacher had erroneously used to claim that eastern orthodoxy is in anyway older than Roman Catholicism. He uses this file which records splits from the one unified christian church of the roman empire to suggest that oriental orthodoxy is older https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations_by_number_of_members#/media/File:Christianity_major_branches.svg. However this isn't true as the very link that he has provided seems to trace all christian denominations to a common origin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6010:c640:a84b:29b7:b834:96cf:db7f (talk) 17:25, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
@PatGallacher, Foorgood, and Wham2001: in case you'd like to re-engage with this issue. It looks like the purple line view was Foorgood's FYI. If we're using that image, I'd say the relevant lines are grey, red, and blue; both East and West can reasonably lay claim to continuity with the pre-Schism church. Let me be clear: I am inexpert in this topic area. I was convinced by the prior rough consensus to support the status quo ante, but could easily be convinced by reliable sources stating otherwise. I am not so convinced that I'll revert your recently accepted version.
Speaking of which, I believe the NYT's attribution to the book authors, coupled with some of the Times' editorializing, serve to distance NYT from the 'Catholic' claims. Editorializing: "unique approach of", "even called". I also think the skeptical scholarly reception to the book's claims in other areas is evidence of their unreliability. If there is broad consensus that Erikson was Catholic, there should hopefully be more reliable sources attesting to the claim. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:43, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Firefangledfeathers, thanks for the note. I don't have a NYT subscription right now so I don't think there's much that I can add, but given what you and Moxy have written I doubt I'd be convinced to change my mind. Wham2001 (talk) 19:17, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
You're welcome. I share your doubts. For reference, here's the most pertinent snippet of the NYT piece (allowable per WP:C-P#TALK):

The unique approach of Dr. Heyerdahl and Mr. Lilliestrom was to cast a Roman Catholic glow over medieval Greenland and Vinland. They even called Leif Ericson "a Catholic missionary."

Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:30, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Right – I would say that's clearly insufficient to support the article stating that Leif was Catholic in Wikipedia's voice. I've reverted this morning's addition. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 07:50, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Just seeing this talk.....pls review Full communion before junk media sources are used.Moxy- 18:28, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Pronunciation

It would be helpful to include a pronunciation (English and/or Icelandic and/or Old Norse). It's a bit above my pay grade. Cf. Leif#Pronunciation. SSSheridan (talk) 06:45, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

More recent NYTimes article

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/20/science/vikings-newfoundland-age.html?surface=most-popular&fellback=false&req_id=422638563&algo=bandit-all-surfaces_setnthitem_0_news_typekoftopn_2_5_news&variant=3_bandit-all-surfaces_guardrails_pool_hp_1d&pool=pool/249abdc7-aea7-4629-b2ef-a1f76cdbbdde&imp_id=220375939&action=click&module=Popular%20in%20The%20Times&pgtype=Homepage — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.78.129.111 (talk) 13:21, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): BSoren17.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Recommend adding Hjemkomst viking ship replica trip from New York to Norway

From Wikipedia " eight members of Hjemkomst crew decided to sail Hjemkomst to Norway, which was Asp's original dream. The ship departed Duluth on May 11, 1982 and arrived in New York City on June 8, 1982 and arrived in Bergen, Norway 19 July " 70.125.36.82 (talk) 14:57, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Is there a specific relation between this and Leif Erikson for it to be added to his article? TylerBurden (talk) 20:12, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:23, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Leif_Erikson/Archive_1&oldid=1222187308"