Talk:Berserker

The photo of the reenactor with the bear on his head isn't very historical and unnecessary in this article. I am going to remove it unless someone can make a very good case for retaining it. 2403:5813:9C91:1:F3DE:27FF:BD2D:9D4F (talk) 11:01, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

This article in general needs a lot of work. Nearly every theory listed has been universally debunked by academics (such as the mushroom theory, which was suggested by an 18th century mycologist with no background in old Norse studies) and this article presenting them as plausible is extremely misleading to a casual reader. Dale Roderick's published Thesis on Berserkers is an excellent new source that should be added to this discussion Fwinzor (talk) 13:57, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

True and real. An example source: https://web.archive.org/web/20231103125217/https://www.nrm.se/faktaomnaturenochrymden/vaxter/kryptogamer/manadenskryptogam/svampar/rodflugsvamparjultomtenschaman.145.html Blockhaj (talk) 18:53, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

@Fwinzor:, if you know better, I suggest you contribute edits.

@Blockhaj: I’m confused by your claim. That article specifically states that use of mushroom hallucinogenics am Viking warriors is likely a myth. Strebe (talk) 19:47, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

@Strebe It is a myth with no historical basis (not counting historical pseudo-archeology). Some have argued that its plausible due to shroom eating being part of some slavic culture chamanizm, however, its just pure speculation and is not likely at all since no native shrooms in southern Scandinavia gives such an effect. Blockhaj (talk) 19:54, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm hoping/planning to. To be honest I'm brand new to trying to edit/add to wiki articles and didn't want to mess it up. but in the mean time I thought I'd at least bring up the problem. Fwinzor (talk) 19:56, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

U can write here and i can implement it properly, alternatively that u add it to the article with the best of ur abilities and we will fix any potential formatting errors etc. Go ham. Blockhaj (talk) 11:13, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Copied from my talk page:

These assertions are an admixture of off-the-wall commentary and arbitrary standards. I'll need to see 1) relevant Wiki guidelines to justify your position or 2) consensus from third parties before backing down from these edits. Alternatively, you can contact the editorial staff of Merriam-Webster (an Encyclopædia Britannica Company) and demand they cease their attempts at disseminating "falsehoods" to the general public. Keep us informed of your progress. 94.110.217.82 (talk) 16:29, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

The problem with this edit] is that it injects “ancient” in conjunction with Old Norse: “In the Old Norse written corpus, berserkers were ancient Scandinavian warriors…” “Old Norse” already means ancient. At best, the word is useless, but it’s worse than useless: By adding “ancient”, you make it unclear whether the statement means contemporaneous to the Old Norse accounts, or whether the Old Norse accounts speak of something already ancient to them. It’s just bad writing, and it does not reflect Merriam Webster’s definition because M-W does not jumble up “Old Norse” and “ancient”. Mixing “Old Norse” with “ancient” is WP:SYNTH. And the English link is MOS:OVERLINKING: Anybody reading that already knows what English is. Obviously. There’s your policies. As for “Scandinavian”, I’m okay with leaving that in—unlinked. Strebe (talk) 16:54, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

In fact, that edit reflects Merriam-Webster's definition perfectly as it cites it word-for-word:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/berserker

Ergo, the dispute is with the professional board of editors being cited verbatim rather than with this editor—alleging they encourage "unclarity", "falsehoods", "bad writing" or "worse than useless" content among their public. Suffice to say, assuming good faith does not prohibit discussion or criticism of outlandish tirades. WP:SYNTH is inapplicable: to place the onus on this editor implies said editorial staff overlooked what you referred to above, despite drawing from the same Old Norse written corpus; incidentally the only one known to exist. We can instead posit that 1) they were aware of your considerations prior to publication, 2) did not share your assessment on any point made, while 3) having a greater credibility than you. That's not mentioning two of the three guidelines stipulated by MOS:OVERLINKING don't even apply to the links in dispute. I suppose I could leave out those links in a gesture of compromise, but I frankly see no basis for it in the guidelines cited. 94.110.217.82 (talk) 20:55, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I’m waiting for you to point out the “Old Norse” going on in that Merriam Webster citation. The claim that your edit was “verbatim” is false and so all your sophistry about taking the problem up with dictionary editors doesn’t get anything more than an eye roll from me. The problem with your edit is you, not Merriam Webster. Strebe (talk) 00:45, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

What's pointed out is that you miscast a subjective gripe on the edit as a WP:Synth and WP:MoS issue, while it's neither. No original synthesis exists; the links have sufficient relevancy. At most, there's a tenuous case for an unnecessary grammar edit so "Old Norse" and "ancient" don't overlap. If this isn't agreed on, I recommend we move to WP:3O. Having to sift through adolescent diatribe each exchange to get to the argumentation, such as it is, taxes my patience. 94.110.217.82 (talk) 18:41, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

You already have a third opinion: User:Blockhaj, who opposes “ancient”. You are wrong on all counts.

• From MOS:OVERLINKING: In addition, major examples of the following categories should generally not be linked: Languages (e.g., English, Arabic, Korean, Spanish). This is exactly what you linked.

• You pretended to have copied the dictionary definition verbatim. That was false, and then you ridiculed me for opposing your false edit.

• Meanwhile, from WP:SYNTH “Do not combine material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.” One source referred to “Old Norse”; the other referred to “ancient Scandinavians”. You combined them in a way that implies “Scandinavians who were ancient in the eyes of those who wrote in Old Norse”.

You are a time-waster, and your claims of “adolescent diatribe” are hypocritical. Strebe (talk) 20:55, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

@Strebe i dont oppose ancient? I havent followed the discussion closely, what is the issue here? Blockhaj (talk) 22:00, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Sorry. What is the reason for your contribution just below this, User:Blockhaj? I read it as an argument that “ancient” is not appropriate to use in the context of events contemporaneous with Old Norse writings. Strebe (talk) 22:28, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

@Strebe ye no, that is correct. Ancient in the context of the Viking Age would refer to the Migration Period before the Vendel Age, or even earlier. The Viking Age is not really ancient to us, it is just poorly documented, but we still have various if not lots of writing from the period. Blockhaj (talk) 22:49, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Old Norse grasps the Old Norse language, which spans from circa 800 to 1500, although from around 1100 split into Old Danish, Old Swedish, Old Norwegian and so forth, and generally the Old Norse written corpus can be said to end around 1350 at the very latest, as the 1350 to 1500-perid is the period of German influence and the shift into the modern Mainland Nordic languages. "Ancient" in this context means it goes back to time immemorial, time extending beyond the reach of memory, record, or tradition, indefinitely ancient, "ancient beyond memory or record". Blockhaj (talk) 21:21, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

One of the images in the article (Berserker#/media/File:Gundestrupkedlen- 00054 (cropped).jpg) has a figure who has been identified as the Celtic god Cernunnos. Speculation also exists whether some of the depictions of Berserkers could be depictions of animal-headed gods of some sort. Does anyone agree with this opinion? I know the berserkers did really exist but this is also a very interesting possibility. Picaboo3 (talk) 04:55, 5 November 2025 (UTC)