Talk:Norse colonization of North America

• Talk:Norse colonization of the Americas/Archive 1

{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/New_York_University/FYSEM-UA_900_Busting_11_myths_about_the_archaeology_of_human_evolution_(Spring) | assignments = ArjunChikkappa | reviewers = Jaelienrivera | start_date = 2022-01-31 | end_date = 2022-05-13 }}

The Norse didn't know how to knit, this is well known. It's very likely the needle would have been for naalbinding, which they did know. The earliest knitted artifacts from Europe are Spanish and post-Viking age.

I know the source linked says they were potentially used for knitting, but this is likely a misconception due to certain naalbinding stitches being very hard to distinguish from knitting.

This error is also in the article about L'Anse aux Meadows because they use the same source. VictoriousBard (talk) 10:24, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

:@VictoriousBard, thanks for bringing this up. Would it be enough to change "knitting" to "nålebinding"? If other sources are needed I found these:

:* [https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/lanse-aux-meadows "L’Anse aux Meadows"] (2025) [2006] by Birgitta Wallace says, "{{tq|Similarly, a broken bone pin found in the fireplace in the middle hall could have been either a hair or clothing pin or, possibly, a needle used for nålebinding, a form of knitting for socks, hats and mittens.}}"

:* [https://www.amazon.com/Viking-Clothing-Garment-Nille-Glaesel/dp/1494475227 Viking: Dress Clothing Garment] (2010) by Nille Glaesel says, "{{tq|The Vikings did not knit, but used a technique called nalebinding (needle binding) [...]}}" on page 24.@

:* [https://archive.org/details/discoveryofnorse0000ings The Discovery of a Norse settlement in America] (1977) talks a good deal about the needles without mentioning technique.

:If you think that more than the one-word change is needed, would you mind doing it? From the perspective of someone who never knits and has mostly sewn to mend clothing, the distinctions aren't clear between the two techniques. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 23:58, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

::@Rjjiii I think simply changing the word in both articles is probably fine, with a link to the article about nålebinding. A nålebinding needle resembles a large sewing needle more than it does a knitting needle and only one is used to manipulate the yarn. VictoriousBard (talk) 17:07, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

:::@VictoriousBard thanks and feel free to check my work: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Norse_colonization_of_North_America&diff=prev&oldid=1279871325][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=L%27Anse_aux_Meadows&diff=prev&oldid=1279870585][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=N%C3%A5lebinding&diff=prev&oldid=1279870046] Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:02, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

The final section in the article is: Norse colonization of North America#Duration of Norse contact

This seems like it is already covered in the sections on each settlement. Should this be removed? Is there something down there that should be merged up to another section? Is there something missing from the article that should be fleshed out in this section? Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 00:38, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

:No need for it and a bit off claming "was likely in part because of hostile relations", As most say its because of population size, weather change and lack of resources ...just like L'Anse aux Meadows#Norse activity Moxy🍁 00:58, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

The current lead is somewhat short and likely too focused on rebutting a misconception (instead of presenting the scholarly consensus). Rather than tweak the live article, I have begun drafting a lead at:

Talk:Norse colonization of North America/sandbox#Lead

Feedback, criticism, improvements, and so on are welcome. I haven't put in many wikilinks or references yet. Also, it probably should be trimmed down. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 19:43, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

:I've just pushed this live. The last paragraph probably needs to be revised again as the language is very dense for a lead section. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:58, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Would there be any objections to nominating this as a WP:Good Article? It's currently rated at C-class, but seems pretty close the GA criteria. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 16:39, 28 April 2025 (UTC)