Contents

Talk:Atgeir

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Norse history and culture Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norse history and culture, a WikiProject related to all activities of the North Germanic peoples, both in Scandinavia and abroad, prior to the formation of the Kalmar Union in 1397. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Norse history and cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Norse history and cultureTemplate:WikiProject Norse history and cultureNorse history and culture articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Technology / Weaponry / British / European / Nordic / Medieval Start‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military science, technology, and theory task force Weaponry task force British military history task force European military history task force Nordic military history task force Medieval warfare task force (c. 500 – c. 1500)

Netvike

[edit]

Link added to my webpage which includes more detail on atgeir-type weapons. More than need be included on the wikipage. Netvike (talk) 22:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am removing this external link. Chunjee (talk) 16:06, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam."

The first paragraph contradicts itself several times. In the first sentence it states unequivocally that the term predates the "Viking Age" and does not appear at all during the Viking Age. Then in the third sentence it states just as unequivocally that it refers to an item that existed only after the Viking Age. If this is meant to suggest a documented historical example of precognition, I'd like to see a source citation.

Then the second paragraph contradicts all of the above by stating that the term refers to a polearm of the Viking Age! What??

The perpetrator of this confusion appears to be Netvike, who slapped a new opening para on the article without checking to see if it fits the rest of the article. I hesitate to simply remove the offending first paragraph because there seems to be the germ of scholarship here. But his thesis is unclear and rambling. It requires significant improvements in clarity, and should be edited into the article, not just dumped at the top of it. 12.233.147.42 (talk) 03:23, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the website is now a gold investment website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.121.137.135 (talk) 18:33, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New paper: Jóhanna Katrín Friðriksdóttir and Jackson Crawford. 2023. "Dating and provenance of AM 314159". Arkiv för nordisk filologi vol. 69: 420-874. Renerpho (talk) 21:05, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 1st hoax. A good one (see today's very entertaining Forgotten Weapons episode, which ends with the shooting of a sheep), but a hoax nevertheless. The paper cited above does not exist. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:11, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been bamboozled. I was about to post the same thing when I looked at the comments and noticed the date. KetchupSalt (talk) 09:49, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just came back here, to see what became of this. Oh dear! What a nice hoax! Renerpho (talk) 16:47, 20 May 2023 (UTC) As a veteran of The Great April Fools' Day Edit War of 2020, I must say that this wouldn't have happened if the rules around April 1st hoaxes hadn't changed. They should have let us have fun that day, look where the changes got us!^[Joke] Renerpho (talk) 16:56, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]