Talk:Kensington Runestone/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Other artifacts

Is there any reason to discuss the so called Vérendrye Runestone at all? To summarize, nobody who ever saw it claimed that it was a runestone. Now it is lost. Holand did speculate that it might be runes, but I don't think that's enough to merit inclusion. Just possibly a "see also". Jon kare (talk) 08:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

"Läger" translation

I see "läger" has been translated as "stores". I think stores likely would be "lager", and it'd make more sense to translate "läger" as "camp" here. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 21:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough- changed accordingly. David Trochos (talk) 17:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Good. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 12:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Lager comes from latin Locci, I know this from math to mean points, however this is singular so it just means point or position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.150.218.221 (talk • contribs) 3:28, 13 February 2010

Que? I think you mean Loci, which is latin for "places" (singular locum), and isn't related to "Läger" in any way. Läger is not an import but related to the word "ligga", the english "lie" which both come from the indo-european root 'legh'. The spelling on the stone, "läger" is a spelling that pops up around the 17th century. In the 14th century it should rather have been spelled "legr". The usage in math is rather irrelevant. :) You can't just go around and guess wildly what words mean based on that they sound vaguely similar to other words in other languages. :) Linguistics is a big and complicated science. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Only to show how skeinish this can get, läger would mean something more or less like camp. Both lager and läger have closely linked meanings and as an aside, are cognates of English lair (Gothic ligrs, Old German legraz). All of these come from the 7000+ year-old Indo-European root legh, which means lay. Meanwhile loci is the plural of Latin locus, meaning place as in a spot, from the earlier stlocus, from the Indo-European (and very Mediterranean) root stlis which has to do with striving or confrontation. Lager did not spring from locus. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Runestone fakery

I wonder if there should be a mention of the "AVM stone" which fooled the Kensington runestone researchers—until the hoaxers came forward. Kinda interesting.

--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 08:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, why not? It seems relevant. Can you find a link where some prominent Kensington supporters, specifically Nielsen or Wolters, say that they believe it to be genuine, then that would be even more relevant. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I found one on GoogleBooks mentioning Wolter accepted it as genuine. In August 2001, news of another stone dated 1363 broke out. The rock had been found within one-forth mile of the Kensington Rune Stone in Minnesota. Three months later, scholars Kari Ellen Gade, chairwoman of Germanic Studies at Indiana University, and Jana K. Shulman, associate professor of English at Southeastern Louisiana University, confessed to have forged the stone "for fun" with classmates during a University of Minnesota graduate seminar on runic inscriptions back in 1985. They wanted to cast doubt on the KRS and test whether people believe a faked boulder was genuine. Sixteen years later, the forged stone showed up, and geologist Scott Wolter, a noted supporter of the KRS, came forward, examined, and declared the rock authentic. Following the professors' announcement, he immediately accepted it was not Viking. This is from: Ferreira, Leonardo (2006). Centuries of silence: the story of Latin American journalism. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 270. ISBN 0275983978. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 10:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

See "American Heritage" April 1959 Volume 10 Issue 3 for Erik Wahlgren article "The Case of the Kennsington Rune stone"; also follow up article American Heritage Postscripts AUgust 1977 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.83.126.88 (talk) 17:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Those articles are about the Kensington Runestone itself. The requested Wikipedia article on the AVM Runestone has already been added, and includes several refs. on the topic. David Trochos (talk) 18:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Miszabot Archiving?

This page needs some archiving, IMO. Anyone opposed to setting up MiszaBot to do it? I have no experience with it, but it seems practical. It should have a quite long delay, maybe 90 days? --OpenFuture (talk) 11:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

+1 Jon kare (talk) 12:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

+ another- probably a good timesaver. David Trochos (talk) 18:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, no protests, I've set it up (I think). We'll know tomorrow. --OpenFuture (talk) 23:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, that worked well. Since we need links to the archive I set up the talkheader template too, reminding people about Wikipedia rules, in particular NOTAFORUM. It felt like a good article to do it on. :)

William Thalbitzer and Robert A Hall.

Found by an IP-adress: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,859375,00.html William Thalbitzer was a Philolog. That's *almost* a linguist. Not a linguist in Scandinavian languages, though. And it was in the 50's. Also, Robert A. Hall Jr was a linguist in romance languages, who apparently thought the stone was genuine.

I think we need to reformulate the start, to point out that it's relevant that you know scandinavian languages. Knowing french doesn't give you expertise on medieval norse. ;) Suggestions? --OpenFuture (talk) 18:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Your current phrasing: "Almost all Runologists and experts in Scandinavian linguistics consider the runestone to be a hoax." is fine. Jon kare (talk) 12:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

It's actually overly kind to the stone, as the total number seems to be zero. :) But whatever. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Bias

Who else thinks that this article is too strongly one sided? There are recent analysis, aside from "history channel" that seem to show some validity for these runestones. However there are those of you out there who want to keep this article one sided. Why? Wikibullying? Love for Bias? The inability to present the argument for both sides as opposed to a one-sided argument that leads the reader to the conclusion that everything is bullshit? There are some keys of validity to this if you look into it. Present both sides of the argument instead of just one dismissing it. Please. Thank you.

Wiki is deeply and consistently biased against any evidence of pre-columbian European visitation to America. The article on the Newport Tower is nothing but a sham. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiloh68 (talk • contribs) 12:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Basically Wikipedia reflects mainstream opinion, and mainstream archaeological opinion is not against pre-Columbian European visitation per se -- clearly it supports a Viking presence -- but doesn't accept any of the the myriad of other claims that exist. Dougweller (talk) 13:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Put another way, en.Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth and is meant to follow reliable sources. Pre-Columbian visits to America by Europeans happened and are widely acknowledged throughout the encyclopedia. Moreover we don't know how far small groups of Norse, likely from the Greenland settlements, may have wandered into North America throughout the 10th to 15th centuries. However, it's overwhelmingly likely Newport Tower was built as an early colonial English windmill. The Kensington runestone, owing to its lack of archaelogical context and skewed linguistics, so far can't be verified as pre-Columbian or anything else by any known methodology. As such, the speculation is a wonderful tale and someday there may be a way to show the stone was left by a small band of Norse who somehow wandered deep into North America at a time when the climate was warmer than now, but so far, taken altogether, the stone's provenance tends to make it look more like a fake, hence professionals publicly talk about it from that outlook, although anyone who says they know how it got there is likely mistaken. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The hallmark of bias is the attempt to shift an imaginary burden of proof onto the unfavored position. True, we can assume there is no intelligent life on Mars until we prove there is. But it is a fallacy to argue that, for example, the Newport Tower must be regarded as a colonial build until it is proven otherwise. One has to be unaware of the astrological alignments of the tower to believe that colonists would have taken such pains. But wiki will not even allow that point to be made. The same is at work with the KRS. No-one has refuted Wolter's findings, except to say that there "could be" this or that error. Regardless of what it says or means or who carved it, the overwhelming evidence is that it is too old to be a settler's hoax. And wiki won't allow that point to be made either.

The Newport Tower is a bad example to choose. There is, when you look at it, not a shred of evidence that the Tower existed before the Colonial era (for a start, early descriptions of Rhode Island make no mention of it). As for the astronomical alignments- sorry, but the 17th century was the era of Galileo, of Newton, of the creation in England of the post of Astronomer Royal, and the founding of the Greenwich Observatory- the movements of the stars and planets were among the most fashionable topics of study. David Trochos (talk) 18:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

You speak of evidence yet there is no evidence it was built by colonials. A tiny village without a single building made of stone so they go to the huge effort to make their first sone building - a windmill? There are no other stone windmills from the period in New England, they are all wood. There is no record of it being built, even though it would have been the most ambitious undertaking in the brief history of the settlement. And by the way, the colonials didn't need astronomical observatories, they had almanacs. And there is nothing about the structure to indicate it was built as a windmill or had ever been used as a windmill. All you have to do is look at the Gilbert Stuart painting done only a hundred years after it was supposedly built. A stone windmill should last hundreds of years and yet already it has fallen to ruin with no remnants to show it was ever a windmill. It was found, an attempt was made to convert it to a windmill but it failed. Of all the theories of its origin, a colonial build makes the least sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiloh68 (talk • contribs) 14:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Very briefly- no. Newport in the 1670s was a thriving port, and the Newport Tower was an estate feature visible on the skyline from Governor Arnold's mansion on the main street (he was one of the richest men in America, with an international merchant business and substantial farms). Also, Rhode Island is famous for "stone enders"- 17th and 18th century buildings made of wood but with stone end walls for fireplaces. The early settlers were were very good at building with rough stone, and it would have helped to clear the fields too. This has nothing directly to do with the Runestone, of course, but it illustrates why a certain firmness is needed in editing articles like this. David Trochos (talk) 20:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Please present any evidence you have of any stone structure being built in Newport in 1670. You have none. The wiki article on the Newport Tower would be destroyed in 24 hrs if the arguments were permitted to be posted. You can't even respond intelligently to the astrological alignments. Perhaps you can cite another windmill in new england with such alignments? No, of course not. Two of three professional analyses of the carbon dating conclude that it is pre-colonial. Is that in the wiki article? Of course not. Shame on wiki and its defenders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiloh68 (talk • contribs) 12:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to take this discussion to Talk:Newport_Tower_(Rhode_Island). David Trochos (talk) 19:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

ABSOLUTELY BIASED IN FAVOR OF IGNORANCE. WOLTER'S encyclopedic coverage of ALL provenance issues, and his personal anecdotes on the subject of the Swedish conference, place the opinion strongly in favor of authenticity. The recent overview by KEHOE does a nice job of clearing the air in regard to the dogmatic and self-serving pronouncements of the 'Rune Scholars', who can never admit their error lest the public learn that their scholastics are incompetents. The analogy of 'Continental Drift' is employed to illustrate the accuracy and validity of the assertion - - - yet it was forty years until the theory of Plate Tectonics (which explained continental drift) threw down the old model. Kuhn, in discussion of revolutions in science, laments that the usual story is that the old school must die, before the new models can succeed. Ancient carved wooden artifacts, found in Sweden and carbon dated to the 1300's, verify beyond any doubt, the accuracy and authenticity of the runes used on the Kensington artifact. Alas, it will be another three generations before the damages are assuaged. As Galileo uttered, under threat of death: 'it moves', refuting the Inquisitors. The only persons who are competent to write the Wikipedia article on the Kensington Runestone have published well written books on the subject, and only they or their agents on their behalf, should do so. M2m2m2 (talk) 23:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC) ADDITIONAL COMMENTARY- The opening remarks block for the KENSINGTON RUNESTONE contains highly unprofessional remarks and language and I presume the editor for this section will soon be replaced by a competent authority with the time to do it correctly. M2m2m2 (talk) c21:30 29 November 2009 (UTC)

In reality, as noted elsewhere on this page, the persons most competent to judge the authenticity of the Kensington Runestone have not yet been offered the appropriate fee to do so. David Trochos (talk) 06:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

ADDITIONAL COMMENTARY- Kehoe has published through conventional channels, is compensated, and possibly prohibited from doing a charity publication (Wikipedia) by her publisher. Wolter has published, and by controlling it directly, will do better than going through a conventional publications firm. M2m2m2 (talk) c20:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

And Wolters published his book himself, which doesn't say a lot for it. Dougweller (talk) 21:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

ADDITIONAL COMMENTARY- see the WIKIPEDIA entry on self-publication, there are a large number of highly respected authors who self publish. M2m2m2 (talk) c21:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I did a retool of the opening recently that was immediatly smacked down. I may have not done the best job editing the article on the Kensington Runestone, but the evidence I cited needs to be entered in an obvious way. The article is very one sided and does not consider any of the research on the stone over the last ten years. The article draws a conclussion in the first paragraph. I dont think my version made it seem like it was definatly 100% ligit but it raised the question. I suggest if you happen to be flipping through the channels and see the special about the Holy Grail in America on the history channel you take the time to watch it. I don't have a horse in the race so I am not going to get into a fight of changing it again but I think the way it is written is very misleading. Garkeith (talk) 07:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Everybody has a horse in the race, you too. But your changes.... Not only did you remove a lot of the valid quotes and references, you replaced them with statements based on an article full of complete fantasies without any basis in reality. Viking Knight Templars!?! I'm sorry, it's like a bad joke. You could just as well have claimed they flew over on dragons. I have absolutely no clue how anyone can believe those fantasies are 100% "ligit" research. It's not your version that is the problem, the problem are the statements. Somebody is pulling your leg, Garkeith. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

What would I possibly have to gain from this horse race as you call it? I am a 30 year old 911 dispatcher from Clarksburg, WV that tinkers with wikipedia on midnight shift when we are dead. I watched a special on the history channel about this yesterday and looked it up for further reading and what I found was a misleading article that in my opinion is similar to a flat earth argument where there are several pieces of new research available that are being ignored. Not only largely left out, but the article is written in a biased way that sways the readers opinion before they even continue reading. You are lead to think, much like your comment that you are an idiot if you think the stone is legit. Imp sure you are some stuffed shirt who thinks he is never wrong, probably an older person who hates anyone who thinks outside the box. I guess I will just have to wait until more people see the History Channel special Holy Grail in America and more people come to see this horrible excuse for an "encyclopedic article." Garkeith (talk) 10:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry you got fooled by pseudo-scientific nonsense on the History Channel. I've seen many such shows, I know how they work, and I know it's easy to get tricked by them if you don't know the subject well. But waiting for more people getting fooled will not change anything. Wikipedia articles which needs to reflect scientific research, not contra-factual fantasies about Viking Knight Templars. Read more history and you'll realize these ideas completely collapse at the merest factual scrutiny. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for educationg me with your all knowing guiding light. I'm sure you know much better than any of the people on this page that disagree with you or the people at the History Channel. Congrats on your genious. Garkeith (talk) 12:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Garkeith, I'd just like to point out that the History Channel did not produce "The Holy Grail in America" , they just purchased it from Commitee Films. I'm not saying we should discount the theories presented in the film due to this, but it is important to distiguish who the real makers of the film are. I do agree somewhat with OpenFuture though that you should look at some of the programs that the History Channel airs with some skepticism. Again, I'm not saying discount it entirely, but you have to remember that the History Channel has a motive... to earn a profit. Satchellmr (talk) 23:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Redid the opening paragraph, which seemed to indicate there were no Runologists or Linguists in favor of the stone, and that those living in the Kensington area believed in the stone without any evidence for authenticity. Neither point is true. Mzalar (talk) 16:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

So come up with references to show that, then. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

And the runologists and linguists need to be academic runologists and linguists, not self-taught, etc. Meanwhile please be careful about changing cited text. Dougweller (talk) 17:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure, linguist Robert A. Hall Jr. believed that the Runestone was authentic. He was a professor of Linguistics, and a good authority on Creole and Pidgin languages. Unless his Wikipedia page is incorrect, he is a linguist, not self-taught, academic, and believe in the Runestone. Why is he not referenced? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.209.101.193 (talk) 00:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

There is a whole section at the botton of the page newly created for this. You should probably discuss it there. But the answer is: Because he is not an authority on Scandinavian languages. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

OpenFuture, seems to be trying to take control of this article to ipose his personal bias. This is NOT how Wikipeida is supposed to work. Unfortunately, this is a good example of how Wikipedia sometimes doesn't work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.232.0.188 (talk) 22:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia is so amazing in that it gets information from all different sources and it can change with the most recent information unlike the old encyclopedias that died in a year! I had bought into the story of "oak Island" the lost treasure island. You can go read that page on Wiki and see how fast hoaxes can be disproved. After reading this whole entry closely I came away with the feeling that it is real. That is exactly because wiki is so powerful in getting to the bottom of fakes. Since it can't do that on this one it makes me feel like this thing must actually be real! If I could have a perfect world I would choose no bias! However this thing is the one creation that can stand up to any thing!

GP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.189.168 (talk) 06:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you need to read the article again. :-) --OpenFuture (talk) 07:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Needs Historical Context

This article appears to cover the linguistics of the runestone well, but the strength of Alice Kehoe's book is that she used four-field archeology to analyze the problem. I.e., this article would be improved with a section about what was going on in the 14th century that would motivate Scandinavians to travel to Minnesota, and motivate the natives to kill them. This is all in Kehoe's book -- the Black Death killing half the population of Scandinavia, the Russian fur trade being closed to the Scandinavian traders, and showing on a map that Minnesota is as far west from Scandinavia as their Russian fur trade routes were east, with similar ocean/river navigation. I.e., the question of how Scandinavians could have traveled so far into North America, which seems impossible to a layperson today, become entirely plausible with knowledge of 14th century Scandinavia. Also, the article leaves of the geologist's interviews with the farmer's neighbors, who all asserted that the farmer was an upstanding and honest man, as evidenced that he never sought to make money from the runestone.--66.234.118.132 (talk) 14:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

No, this isn't relevant. Nobody is disputing that such travel was possible (even if it was highly unlikely). Even if you would find proof that Scandinavians *did* go, it doesn't change anything. The article isn't about possibly Scandinavian travels to North America in the 14th century, it's about the Kensington runestone, and the only historical context it has is 19th century Minnesota and it's Scandinavian immigrants. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I find this a bit confusing. I agree that the article should not go into intensive detail on the plausibility of travel to North America (maybe a link to another article would be appropriate). But I disagree with OpenFuture's statement that the article should focus solely on 19th century Minnesota. If you are talking about the origins of the stone you must acknowledge the possiblity of travel to the state from Scandanavia in the 14th century leading to the creation of the stone. There are respectable sources out there that give this possibility. I understand where OpenFuture is coming from, but this possiblity is part of the debate, and we must accurately present the debate at hand including all possible viewpoints (sorry, trying to keep this civil). --Satchellmr (talk) 02:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Just as an after-thought, I don't even know what article you would link to to describe the "Possible Immigration to North America from Scandanavia in the 14th Century"? Any thoughts? --Satchellmr (talk) 02:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't put words in my mouth, please. Obviously the Norse travels to north America are marginally relevant to the article as a part of the pseudo-archaelogical theories, but that is *not* the historical context of the stone, because the stone is not made during this time. The historical context is 19th century Minnesota. This is already mentioned, hence, the article does *not* need more historical context. It already has it. It is theoretically possible that Norse travellers went to North America and made a rune stone, yes. But this is not about "a" stone. It is about *this* stone. And it was not made by Norse travellers in the 14th century. It was made in the 19th century by Scandinavian immigrants. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I feel that is a very biased view on the topic at hand. I don't understand where we have made the concrete conclusion that "[The Kensington Runestone] was not made by Norse travellers in the 14th century. It was made in the 19th century by Scandinavian immigrants."??
Has this been concluded as fact, or is there strong evidence towards this possiblity? If the latter is true, this article must include historical context aforementioned due to the presence of evididence that supports the possibility that *this* stone was made by Norse travellers in the 14the century. --Satchellmr (talk) 16:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The answer is yes on both accounts. The stone is beyond all reasonable doubt made by a Scandinavian person in the 19th century. Yes there is strong evidence towards that. There is no evidence that indicates that the stone is 14th century, excepting that the stone itself claims to be.

Btw, you can't have evidence towards theoretical possibilities, that doesn't make sense. Evidence is about actualities, not possibilities. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

You cannot make the argument that we have concretely concluded that "[The Runestone] was made in the 19th century by Scandinavian immigrants." And there are numerous examples of evidence that indicates that the stone is 14th century.

Btw, I'm not suggesting a theoretical possiblity. You are mistaking proof for evidence. There is evidence on both sides of the argument that gives credence to each viewpoint- the stone being a 19th century fake or a 14th century relic. --Satchellmr (talk) 17:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, exactly everything you write in your last comment is incorrect. I don't think we'll get further here. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Physical Analysis

Does anyone else feel that this section is lacking? I believe it only has two sentences in it. Any suggestions? --Satchellmr (talk) 21:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Until just over a week ago (13 May) that section was much longer, but most of it was unreferenced. Trouble is, only one analyst, Scott Wolter, has actually examined the Runestone with modern techniques, and his results (most crucially the inferences he has drawn) have not really had proper peer review. I suspect that a further reason for the removal of material about his analysis is that he has since engaged in a number of high-profile media projects based on speculation about the Runestone, which would not have been possible if his physical analysis had not appeared to demonstrate that a 19th century origin for the stone was unlikely. David Trochos (talk) 07:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, even his physical analysis makes conclusions on the age of the stone surface, but *not* about the runes themselves. In fact, he claims they have been recently "retooled", in other words, his conclusion about the age of the stone is not a conclusion about the age of the *runes*. His position that the stone therefore must be genuine is simply incorrect. So the section is lacking because the physical analysis is lacking. It should probably be removed. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

With one hand you say he cant be trusted (Wolter) because he makes a living off of what he does for a living! Then when he makes a statement that supports your side and proves just how honest he is in his analysis you then decide to take his word for it and use it to disqualify him. The guy could never win with you guys! Also there was a geologist from Minnesota Historical Society, Newton Horace Winchell, in 1910 that also came up with the conclusion that it was old. 2 Different scientist coming up with the same conclusion. Also some of the linguists you are talking about did not look at this in regards to modern discoveries either. If you are going to use modernity as a cut off then tell us what date that is and which of your linguists fell by the way? G. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.189.168 (talk) 05:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

With one hand you say he cant be trusted (Wolter) because he makes a living off of what he does for a living! - Nobody have said that.

The guy could never win with you guys! - Yes, he could. By making an analysis of the inscriptions (not the ununscribed surface) and publishing it in a peer-reviewed journal. Why do you think he hasn't done that?

The rest of your comment is an attempt not to discuss the article, but to discuss the stone. Read WP:NOTAFORUM. You are also wrong in most things you say above, Winchells report shows that the runes were newly inscribed, etc. Read his report too. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The stone is not only the runes. It is a whole a large stone. This section of the wiki artical is talking about what conclusions experts in Geology have made on the stone. (I'll clue you in on a secret back in the day when this was found they didn't have quite the same overall appreciation of just how fragile that was. So whoever had it used metal tools to clean it up the runes.) The rest of the stone didn't all get abused that way because everyone concentrated on the runes. So if a Geologist (or 2) come along and say's this part of the stone has been weathered for hundred of years! Then that is an interesting statement. It is one statment that comes from a 2 geologists not about the Runes but about the what has happened to the stone itself. (although because (Wolter is beyond honest he put in facts about the runes too just so it was very very clear)

This is a section about Geology of the ruin stone! Let the Geologists information just be stated clearly! It is that simple. If you truly believe in science you would let facts stand on there own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.189.168 (talk) 17:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Only the runes are relevant for determining the age of the inscription. The geology of the untooled surface is completely irrelevant as it has not been dressed.

Yes, this section is about what conclusions experts (or well, one expert) in geology has made on the stone. And that conclusion is this: The stone had undergone an in-the-ground weathering process that should have taken a minimum of 50–200 years in natural conditions. There was also evidence of recent carving or retooling for 90% of the runes. That's it. That's what Wolter found. Winchell also found that the runes seemed recently carved, and indeed that the ones on the side even still had the stone dust in them that results of carving.

Is the section lacking? Yes. But that's because the research is lacking. As mentioned multiple times now: There exists *no* peer-reviewed scientific analysis of the stone or it's runes. The section therefore reflects the state of information available. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Olof Öhman and Larsson

What is known about Ohman? Was he well-versed in pre-Columbian Swedish? Is the article trying to imply that he made up characters that were later found to be old, forgotten characters? in the same vein, what is the point of the Larsson information? Larsson has written down two character sets of unknown origin and chronology, and the Kennsington Stone borrows from both? (fotoguzzi) 76.105.160.69 (talk) 02:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

"Pre columbian swedish". :-)

There are no old runes, and the language of the stone is 19th century Scandinavian. Making the Kensington runestone does not require any special skills in runes or medieval Swedish. In fact, it requires a distinct *lack* of such knowledge.

The origin and chronology of Larssons rune-rows are not unknown. The development and history of runes are generally very well attested. The point of including it is to show that the runes used on the Kensington stone, although not in use during the 14th century, were in use during the 18th/19th century. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk by Henrik Williams

See [1] "Experts on Scandinavian languages and runes have concluded that the inscription on the Kensington Runestone is not medieval. However, Williams warns against calling it a “fake,” which implies that it was created to deceive. “Almost everyone who sees the runestone as a fake will claim that it is worthless,” said Williams. “My attitude is exactly the opposite. The inscription is of interest to historians of Scandinavian languages, even though it is not as old as it declares.” Williams emphasizes the importance of the Kensington Runestone for Swedish Americans. “If the Swedish-American community holds what may be the world’s most famous runestone, it ought to pay some attention to it,” he said. “The rich history and controversy surrounding the stone has made it an important cultural icon.” Dougweller (talk) 15:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

AVM

Copied from my talk page:

I hope you've read WP:NOR. Who has said "This is moot if the V is seen as the first letter of the word "Virgo" (virgin) rather than the second letter of the word "Ave". What's your reliable source for this? Dougweller (talk) 20:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The entire section is predicated on the interpretation of "AVM" as "Ave Maria", which requires an explanation for the V. However, the fact box at the top of the article claims that AVM is short for "Ave Virgo Maria". If that is the case, there is no need to explain the presence of a V or the absence of an E, and the entire section is superfluous.

Note that this article (referenced in Barrett, Minnesota and Johan Andreas Holvik) suggests a completely different interpretation of AVM which is not mentioned here.

While we're throwing WP:*s around, IMHO this article could use a big fat WP:POV warning. The entire debate section seems to me to lend undue weight to the hypothesis that the stone is real, whereas, as the intro states, the overwhelming academic consensus is that it is a hoax.

My personal opinion is that it is a fabrication, and I cannot understand how any knowledgeable person could take it seriously. The stone is supposed to have been carved by 14th-century Norwegians yet the text is in modern Swedish, badly transcribed (including the rookie mistake of transcribing the letter D into the similar-looking but different-sounding thorn) into a set of runes which is inconsistent with other sources from that period.

DES (talk) 21:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I have a problem with using the Massey brothers at all. I love the way they are called the "Massey Twins". I'm not sure what to do about it. Dougweller (talk) 22:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know the Massey brothers from Adam... but this reminds me of the folk etymology of words like fuck, posh etc., where people concoct elaborate stories to explain something which does not need explaining simply because they are unaware of (and couldn't be bothered to find out about) the actual facts. DES (talk) 22:58, 23 November

DES (talk) 13:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I find the whole section on AVM ridicolous and would prefer to see it deleted. The discussion about how to render "Ave" is idiotic. The "notch" is pure fantasy, and if they bothered to wrote out "Ave" including the notch why would they have renedered "Maria" as only an "M". Utter nonsense. But as usual there are few sources to claim utter nonsense is exactly that, and the section is sourced, so... --OpenFuture (talk) 14:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Not all sources are created equal. You wouldn't quote Da Vinci Code in support of claims about Leonardo da Vinci's ancestry, even though Dan Brown claims his novel is 100% factual and millions of idiots believe him. I agree about deleting the section, but I believe it should be done as part of a general WP:UNDUE cleanup. DES (talk) 01:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, possibly we could do something like that. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

My own outlook these days is that the stone was very likely a keenly done hoax in a swirl of Scandavian nationalism, which got out of hand. The first chinks I found in the folklore (a fun and wonderful tale) had to do with the Mandan: When one digs into the reports they had some European features and anthropology, there's nothing there to behold, it all looks like a muddling of early 19th century gossip among folks out on the American frontier, woven further by boosters eager to believe in a pre-Columbian origin. At first blush, the stone's folklore seems believable but I've yet to look into anything about it that holds up to anything like meaningful verification. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The authenticity of the stone can be and has been trivially disproved: the inscription is 19th century Swedish badly transcribed into 17th century runes. This is why, to quote the intro, “almost all Runologists and experts in Scandinavian linguistics consider the runestone to be a hoax”. The undue weight given to the minority opinion is typical of Wikipedia—a combination of its US bias and the fact that those who believe it is real are far more motivated to edit the article than those who don't. DES (talk) 01:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

How is the prevalnce of minority opinion which boosts *Scandinavian/Norse* nationalism a result of a "US bias?" If anything, Wikipedia has a leftist/European bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.205.57.121 (talk) 05:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The authenticity of the Kensington Runestone is important to, and championed by, Americans of Scandinavian descent, not actual Scandinavians, most of whom have never heard of it and couldn't care less if they had. DES (talk) 23:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

From what I've seen, I believe that's true. The root of any bias on this topic would be of the "emigrant nationalist identity" kind in the northern midwest of the states, mostly Minnesota, mostly among Scandinavian Americans, has been that way since the stone was pulled out of the ground (once or twice, as may be) and could have a lot to do with why the thing was carved to begin with. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The systemic bias one finds here isn't the same in each topic area. Rather, it's driven by both the demographics of those who tend to edit an article and the sources (however flawed, which they often are) to be had on it. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

A new source

I've found a book on Google Books with a chapter discussing the KRS [2] but you can't read all of it. Good stuff though. Dougweller (talk) 10:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Your link points to a search for information about the Bourne stone, not the KRS. The book does contain a discussion of the KRS, with a very important caveat:

This chapter definitely will not be about whether the KRS itself is a legitimate Norse artifact [...] the chapter concerns itself with people's beliefs about the KRS and how they affect collaboration between archaeologists and communities [...] I am skeptical about the KRS, and I believe it is a hoax.

At best, it could be used as a source for a section about the history of the debate.

DES (talk) 09:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I found it while searching for information about the Bourne stone, but that's irrelevant. It is certainly relevant for discussion of the history at the very least. Dougweller (talk) 12:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Updated translation/transliteration

I've updated the transliteration and translation to a new version by Nielsen and Williams. I have made one change though, in their transliteration they two times transliterate it to "th", and once to "þ". These are equivalent, but since "th" is two characters I replaced them with "þ" for consistency and to make a proper transliteration, ie one character to one character. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Ohman umlaut

Another editor recently tried removing the umlaut over the first letter of the surname Öhman, on the authority of Theodore Blegen's "The Kensington Rune Stone : New Light on an Old Riddle". Turning the discussion on its head, what evidence is there FOR use of the umlaut? The problem with American printed sources, which tend not to show an umlaut, is that they do not necessarily have access to typefaces with the requisite characters; do Scandinavian texts on the topic routinely use the umlaut? Are there examples of documents signed by members of the family using the umlaut? David Trochos (talk) 06:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Swedish sources generally do write "Öhman" and there is no doubt that this was his name in Sweden. However, he may have voluntarily dropped the umlaut when moving to America, in which case it could be argued his name should be written "Ohman" as this may have been how he wrote it when he discovered the stone. I don't think it's a big deal. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I think English sources are the only texts we can consult when deciding usage on an English encyclopedia, unless unavailable. The "why or why not" of whether the umlaut is employed is, after all, speculative; we can only ask what they do. And Blegen addressed English practice: Undoubtedly the correct original spelling of Ohman's name carried an umlaut on the first letter, but he himself dropped it, and in most writings about the Kensington stone the umlaut is omitted. (Blegen 1968, pg. 6)

Blegen's book includes a number of transcripts of important documents spread over 14 appendices, the most striking of which is a handwritten letter by Ohman in Swedish to a Mr. Warren Upham dated December 9, 1909 (see Blegen pgs 158-62). Ohman was not ignorant of the umlaut, using it on 23 different words in three paragraphs, but he did not use it on his own name, nor in a signed affidavit from the same year which Blegen also reprints. Blegen says it was his practice, and since Ohman used the umlaut elsewhere in the same letter it does appear to be preference and not something forced on him by a typeface.

So as I see it, there are only two authoritative sources: standard practice in English secondary works and Ohman's own practice. We have a reliable source saying that Ohman's own practice was not to use the umlaut, and that as of 1968 the weight of English scholarly convention followed him. Unless convention since 1968 has radically changed in reliable sources, or some scholar is able to show that Ohman's 1909 signatures were aberrant, I don't see a good case for "Öhman". 69.228.104.167 (talk) 19:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Jonathunder (talk) 22:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

In the absence of votes against, I've now made the change.David Trochos (talk) 05:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

opþagelse

Although I suspect the argument that "opþagelse" does not translate the French "découvrir" (added 31 July 2011, but swiftly removed) is more-or-less original research, the underlying argument seems valid- if any published research on the Runestone has already made a similar point or otherwise demonstrated that opþagelse existed before the 16th century, it should definitely be included. David Trochos (talk) 06:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The argument was basically that "dag" is an old germanic word, but that's not a valid argument. Both "op", "dag" and "fard" are old germanic words, the combination "opdagelsefard" is not. I agree that the claims of loan-translation from French are weak, but for a "journey of discovery" to happen the word "discovery" must first exist, so an "opdagelsefard" can not happen until the word "opdagelse" exists, and it also has to exist in the meaning of "discovery".

I'm not etymologist, but from what I can find (but this would be OR, but see for example [3], [4]), "opdage/uppdaga", which literally means to "up-day", originally means to bring light to, or appear, or even arrive and announce. It seems this meaning have continued in Dutch, while in Scandinavian languages the meaning of the word has moved closer to "discover" later.

The related Swedish word "upptäcka" first appears in the 17th century in the same meaning of uncover or announce as "opdagen" [5]. It's meaning of "discover" is also later. In fact, for "discover" the word "uppfinna" (up-find) was used until the 18th century, where "upptäcka" started to be used, and the word "uppfinna" was used for "invent".

The word "optagelsefard" is even later, and probably doesn't appear until the 19th century. So even though all parts of the word are all germanic words, the word in itself is so late that it excludes everything but a 19th century date for the inscription. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

In the Grettis saga, chapter 65, there is a sentence which reads "en Bárðardalsmenn segja að hana dagaði uppi þá er þau glímdu,". This translates as "the men of Bardardal say that the day dawned upon her while they were wrestling;" Also in the Alvissmal there is "Uppi ertu, dvergr, of dagaðr" or "The dawn has caught thee, dwarf". These, of course, support what you said about up/op+dag relating to dawn/light bearing. It also shows that the combination was around before the French could create "découvrir". The word discover doesn't need to exist, only the concept. I don't see why Norse in 1362 couldn't have used "opþagelsefard." The concepts of bringing light to something and discovering something aren't much different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.33.12.15 (talk) 18:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Dagaði uppi is talking about the dawn, not discovery.Dagaði uppi and "opdagelse" are using the same words, but for completely difference concepts. That both the words "opp" and "dag" existed in 1362 is no indication that "opdagelseferd" did. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

From what I can see, there exists no reason to separate d and þ in the writings of the stone, the runes are identical, and correspond regularly to modern Scandinavian d-sounds. Also, that it would correspond to a t sound is definitely straining things. Old Norse "taka" and Gothic "tekan" never had a lisp sound to begin with, so the confusion is unlikely. And also, in Scandinavian -else is a rare noun ending, particularly in connection with native roots. In Swedish, "taking up"/"acquisition" would be "upptagning" or possibly "upptagande", not "upptagelse". 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 14:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, -else is a borrowed suffix from Middle Low German to begin with, and 1362 is a bit early for any deep Middle Low German impact on Scandinavian, from what I can find out. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 15:17, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Olof Öhman's signature found on stone

" in a recent paper in Saga och Sed 2010, Mats G. Larsson shows something less obvious: the hidden signature of the stone's carver, who also was its finder." [6] Dougweller (talk) 16:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Using numerology and cryptography to disprove authenticity of a runestone stone works just as well as using it to prove it. --OpenFuture (talk) 02:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The syntax is quite strained if we take it as Scandinavian. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 12:00, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

NPOV

There is a serious NPOV issue here in that the article presents the content as if there were serious academic questions about its authenticity. There is not and the article needs to assert such clearly. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Good luck. I think I was the first, or one of the first, to edit the article to state unambiguously that the academic consensus is that it is a hoax, but the True Believers keep coming back and adding their own pet hypotheses and / or trying to introduce ambiguity into the lede. DES (talk) 16:08, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

If you can state specific examples of what is wrong and perhaps even suggest improvements, I think this process is doable. The article has been quite neutral at some points. Personally I'd like to see the whole "Legends" section go, it's completely unrelated to the stone. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I have visited the runestone (and also the L'Anse Aux Meadows site in Newfoundland, where Vikings were (undisputed) for several years)). While debate over the runestone's truth is fine, calling those of us who believe in its placement by Vikings "True Believers" is hardly a neutral point of view. My own view is that it is authentic. A fine book by Alice Kehoe supports this view. Occam's Razor, really: there is no motivation whatsoever to believe in the idea that Ohman or an accomplice carved this. Personally, I would say the NPOV question here runs the other way: the article is highly supportive that it is a hoax, and some commenters here agree. There is no such thing as an "academic consensus" on this issue -- just the usual phenomenon of people (especially Americans) not wanting to be "taken in". But look at the object, examine the history.... it is fascinating and the evidence in favor of a hoax is, in my opinion, much less than then evidence in favor of authenticity. Stan Wagon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.181.118.225 (talk) 14:43, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

There was plenty of motivation for Ohman. This hoax was performed shortly before the 400th anniversary of Columbus's discovery, which was widely celebrated in the US (infuriating Scandanavian-Americans). And Ohman really needs no motivation regardless - fame-seeking is sufficient. The Cottingley Fairy girls didn't profit from their hoax. "True Believer" is perfectly accurate, given that believers in the Kensington Runestone are doing so in the face of overwhelming evidence that it is a hoax. Fundamentally, it is a very extraordinary claim - which requires very extraordinary evidence - which is not there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.184.189 (talk) 03:16, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Please note that the talk page does not need to be NPOV. It is therefore perfectly fine to express the opinion that the beliviers in the stone have a dogmatic quasi-religious attitude by calling them "True Believers" (although perhaps not constructive). However, it is not allowed on the article page, unless supported by reliable sources. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:41, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

sigh, the article is WP:BOMBARDing the reader, saying IT HAS REPEATEDLY BEEN DISMISSED AS A HOAX. What more do you want? In fact, can we get rid of some of the "bombardment"? The status of this question is quite clear, imo, the scholarly mainstream has consistently been that this is a hoax, but there were occasional legitimate scholarly minority views saying "hey, what if it's genuine?" Wikipedia doesn't lose its honour by giving room to these minority views, indeed it should do so under WP:DUE, as long as it is still made clear that they are just that, minority views. --dab (𒁳) 13:34, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

going through the article, I do see that it suffers from the apparent inability of editors to distinguish between serious and crappy sources.

the case has been carefully examined by serious scholars. This alone puts it in a different category than, say, Oklahoma runestones (which anyone who knows anything abour runes will dismiss as modern from a mile off). So let the scholars present the pros and cons. It's not about "supporters" vs. "debunkers", it's about scholars carefully weighing the evidence even if they all end up concluding it's likely a fake. This is far superior than clinging to sh***y publications by "supporters" such as the Massey and Nielsen stuff. Even our translation cites Nielson as its source. This is pathetic. The translation is undisputed, so cite it from a serious publication (it's not the content or meaning of the inscription that is under examination, it's its age).

I went over the page and inserted a few well-placed inline tags. Most of the article is fine though. I stick to my assessment that it does, in fact, make sufficiently clear that the scholarly opinion is that it is a 19th-century hoax. It's enough to say as much, you don't need to keep hitting the reader over the head with it. --dab (𒁳) 14:41, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I once again see Wikis NPOV hype to be heavily misused in this article. I rarely edit Wiki any longer because every article seems to have a few favorite "caretakers" who repeatedly revert edits & make sure the article stays as close as possible to their own personal opinions of the subject. The prime example in this specific case is how the article body DOES mention several cases of controversy surrounding the origins of the rune, which automatically bring doubt to it's exact age & authenticity. But then if you look over to the right of the article, Wiki has taken it upon itself to be the final judge .... "Produced 19th-century hoax". There you are, NPOV hypocrisy at it's best (or worst). If you truly want NPOV, there would be a "Possible" in that confirmation, or even a "Probable". I believe it's entirely safe to say that NO PERSON alive on this Earth can truthfully say, "This rune was carved between the years 1800 & 1899." You sure it wasn't made in 1799? What about 1900? Then you're dealing with an entirely different century, although only 1 year apart. But Wiki, on it's on, has completely eliminated & solved that problem itself, by labeling it a definite 19th century hoax. Just one of many other similar instances of the folly of the NPOV religion used by Wiki. Either use NPOV, or don't use it at all. Only using it in certain cases is ridiculous. If you can't prove it, then use "Probable". But I'll let someone else change it because I'm fairly sure it'll eventually be reverted back to it's current form and then trigger an extended debate about NPOV once again. Just for the record, I do NOT believe the rune to be authentic. But on the flip-side, using ALL available evidence & research, I'm definitely not capable of saying it is a definite hoax & definitely made within a specific 100 year period. But Wiki can I suppose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.159.73.185 (talk) 01:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

As Ohman claimed to have discovered it in 1898, no remotely reliable source will claim he carved it in 1900 or 1799. Jonathunder (talk) 07:06, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

"19th-century hoax" is clearly the majority or "mainstream" opinion, by a huge margin. There has been some "controversy", and it is worth mentioning as much, but clearly under WP:FRINGE. At least since the discovery of the Larsson run rows, there can be no reasonable doubt the inscription is modern. Before 2004, I suppose a very remote possibility could have been argued for authenticity, but even then this was extremely far-fetched. The article's WP:DUE balance is perfectly fine as it stands. NPOV does not mean you need to give "equal weight" to theories with non-equal credibility. --dab (𒁳) 18:10, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

'purport' (possible stylistic concerns)

I can't speak meaningfully to recent edits, other than to nitpick that the verb, 'purport', (/ 'purported') might appear unfamiliar/formal/scholastic to native english speakers. Might I suggest 'Purported historical context' -> 'Historical context', 'purports to be' -> 'appears to be', 'purported discoverer' -> 'claimed discoverer'(Br-Eng) ('alleged discoverer'(Am-Eng)) etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.33.117 (talk) 11:13, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with "purport", a perfectly straightforward verb in written English, and not quite synonymous with "appear". I realize this will not typically be used by a native speaker in non-formal spoken language, but after all this is an encyclopedic article in written English. Neither Oxford Dictionaries nor American Heritage Dictionary mark the word as obsolete or archaic, so I see nothing wrong with using it. The point is that the inscription itself purports to be from the 14th century, this is not the same as a general "appearance" which might have been reported by some scholar based on circumstances. The stone's actual historical context is the late 19th century, only it's purported context is the 14th century, and the section "purported historical context" is dedicated to discussing the historical period the forger had in mind when producing the inscription. --dab (𒁳) 18:15, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

The proposed changes above are unacceptable as they drastically change the meaning from one of being a claim to one of being factual. If you want to change "purported" the appropriate terminology would be "falsely claims to be" or "tries to pass itself off as" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

More Material Needed

The History Channel spins a yarn about the [redacted link]Kensington runestone, which centers around the theories of Scott Wolter (The Hooked X) about the Kensington Runestone. This article needs to address his claims. JKeck (talk) 03:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Why? His published works are actually self-published, he himself asked for his BLP article to be removed. We don't normally cover self-published fringe claims unless they've been discussed on sources that meet WP:RS. Please don't link to tv programs that aren't on the official website. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 17:11, 31 March 2015 (UTC)