Talk:Kensington Runestone

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Minnesota, which aims to improve all articles related to Minnesota.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating within Minnesota articles.
This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

This article is part of WikiProject Archaeology, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to archaeology on Wikipedia. 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.

Contents 1 Runes and Guilds 2 Language 3 Runic Numbers 4 Author's Note 5 Orphan paragraph 6 Cleanup 7 Viking 8 Move page? 9 Picture 10 Larssen 11 Inscription Change 12 Location on main north-south waterway 13 NPOV 14 Contents/Purpose 15 a-/e-dialect 16 Anon's comment 17 The text 18 Anti-catholic bias shrouded 19 Grab the shovel and the spy satellite! 20 Some vs. Most 21 THE RUNESTONE IS TRUE!

[edit] Runes and Guilds

The knowledge and meaning of these runes was quite widespread in the guilds.

One wonders exactly how widespread the knowledge and meaning of the runes really were if it took more than one hundred years to discover them. Perhaps the author of the quote would be kind enough to offer a source for the assertion. - Inquiring Mind, 3 Aug 2004 (posted by anon at 12.74.169.77, 02:53, 3 Aug 2004)

This text is pretty biassed.--Wiglaf 08:58, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

While it had been suggested in the paper on the Larsson notes, there is no example of the Larsson runerows having been used for secret messages. Indeed, to the best of my knowledge, there is no examples of runes being used as a secret code in any Guilds whatsoever. The idea that the Larsson runes may have been used as a code apparently springs from the fact that the final alphabet on the paper is a cypher known as the Masonic code or the pigpen code, which dates back to at least circa 1600. This later code was simple and fairly common, and was used by soldiers in the civil war, among other things. In fact, as best I know, the source of the Larsson runerows is unknown. It could be modern or it could be ancient. One of the unusual runes in the first runerow can be dated to the early 14th century with most examples in the Codex Runicus of Scanian Law, though it was used in calanders after that date.

[edit] Language

"Illy or illnes is actually the name of the Bubonic plague or Black Death in early medieval times and since it is a word of English descent it led Oluf Rygh et al to call the stone a hoax from the beginning." Ill is not of english descent, it is of old norse descent, and was also borrowed into english... Rygh should have known about that, if he was a runologist... But it is probably rather the strange overall appearance that he objected against.

The word in question above has usually been translated as illu (evil). This translation has been accepted even by opponents of the runestones authenticity, such as Noreen, and Jansson, while nearly all others made no objection to this translation. Further, the phrase "save from evil" as a part of the Our Father prayer makes perfect sense here. I have therefore converted changed that part of the translation - mz

In English, ill will doesn't mean sickiness. Wyss 04:59, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As a Norwegian, I find the text very easy to understand. Usually, reading texts that are older than from say the 17th c. are really difficult, or close to impossible to understand. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.108.98.37 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Speaking as another Norwegian, I have the same impression. This, of course, is an extremely serious problem for those who argue for its authenticity. 158.38.145.115 13:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Is there a Norwegian page on this stone? If so, what does it say? Hanfresco 21:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

There is, but it's just a stub. The Swedish version is very skeptical.Jon kare 14:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Runic Numbers

Thalbitzer argued in 1951 that the date 1314 is done with pentadic number as (1)(3)/(1)(4) in the left margin on two seperate lines of the Kingigtossuaq stone form Greenland. It could also be argued that the pentadic numbers were not generally known in the 19th century, as can be seen in the fact the the first translations of the KRS did not give a translation for the runic numbers which had them baffled.

When was this Kingigtossuaq stone supposedly made, and where could I find more info about it?

The place is in fact named Kingigtorssuaq. I added a reference to the book in the References section and wrote a stub on William Thalbitzer. -- Petri Krohn 02:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S. In fact Kingigtorssuaq (Hjortetakken) is a 1184 meters high mountain in Nuuk. -- Petri Krohn 02:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

P.P.S. I created a new article at Kingigtorssuaq Runestone. -- Petri Krohn 04:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Author's Note

As a major contributer to this article, I think that as a proper disclaimer I should note that after 7 years of study it is my personal belief that the Kensington Runestone is an authentic artifact from the 14th century. While I have tried to write a balanced article, it should be noted that any bias that has crept is is likely slanted toward the authenticity argument. Michael Zalar

[edit] Orphan paragraph

I found this paragraph in the text section, it sounds vaguely familiar but there seems to be nothing in the article relating to it, so I'm putting it here for now until someone can think of what to do with it.Wyss 10:31, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There is a parallel proposal for the destruction of the Native American town of Cahokia due to black death, estimated to be inhabited by 25,000 peoples according to modern scholars. However, this is just a hypothesis.

Ok, this is similar to another indication of pre-columbian european contact with native Americans in the Mandan tribe, which had blue eyed/fair-skinned members, lived in huts with European/Scandinavian features and had fragments of religious myths which were without doubt of Christian origin. For example, it has been speculated that our carvers of the Kensington Runestone were eventually assimilated into the Mandans. However, there is also a possibility of pre-columbian Welsh contact with the Mandans, and the entire topic is really tangental to whether or not the stone was carved by Vikings so I suggest both the Mandan anomoly and the Cahokia epidemic be left out of this article. Wyss 17:02, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

I've done a major cleanup of syntax and style, rendering standard, crisp encyclopedic English without disturbing content or detail a bit (although if I've inadvertantly done, please fix it!).

I've read about this before, and had no idea what to think about it (19th century forgeries of artifacts were so common). Now I lean towards thinking the stone's plausibly 14th century. I think it probably is, based on the documented "beyond Greenland" exploratory voyage, mica erosion and the idea that the linguistic anamolies are echoes of dialect, which can develop quickly in far flung populations. What a fascinating mystery! Wyss 10:58, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The allusions to "a book published" here and "an article" there are not the equivalent of references. Are any titles available? --Wetman 11:07, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? (I'm sure it's something to attend to but I can't figure out what non-references you mean) Wyss 12:32, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I've completed a second pass. I've added a smidgen of detail about the reason for the voyage to Greenland. The content was superb IMO but the English needed a good shearing and re-combing, which I have done. Again, please feel free to fix anything I've lost or botched! Wyss 17:12, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I've made a third pass, adding bits of detail and some qualifications. The early provenance is a bit muddled (but not too bad, considering the natural unreliability of eyewitnesses). The timing of its discovery by a Swedish farmer was truly unfortunate and suspicious. One commentator has mentioned the stone might have been taken more seriously if it had been found by a French-speaking farmer in Quebec (and thirty years earlier or later might have helped!). Wyss 03:41, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have finished up for now by cleaning the opening of this talk page (no content removed, just format stuff). Wyss 05:01, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone else think the following phrase from the first paragraph of this article is biased? It states "...but most scholars and historians dismiss it as a prank or hoax." Based on the rest of the article, as well as my personal knowledge of the debate (living less than 25 miles away from Kensington), I believe it should be changed to "some scholars and historians dismiss it as a prank or hoax." "Most" implies that a significant majority of experts agree, thus downplaying the controversy surrounding the stone. The use of "some" would more accurately reflect the distribution of the acedemic community on the issue. -Josh Doebbert

[edit] Viking

The word "Viking" should really not be used on any 14th century Scandinavian. By this time the last viking had been dead for at least 250 years Fornadan 00:12, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In rewriting and expanding the opening sentences to show the dispute, I also changed "Viking" to "Scandinavian explorers". Be bold and change it elsewhere in the article if the current wording is incorrect. Jonathunder 01:50, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)

[edit] Move page?

The article text capitalizes "Runestone" throughout when refering to this specific stone, treating it as proper noun. So do most of the sources. Shouldn't we move this page to Kensington Runestone? Jonathunder 03:19, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)

If no one objects, I'll move the page to Kensington Runestone. Jonathunder 23:07, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)

Done, and "what links here" redirects and articles updated. Jonathunder 02:02, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

This article could really benefit from a good picture of the stone, or perhaps the replica, at least. Anyone know of a free image? Jonathunder 01:05, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)

There is a picture accompanying the 1910 Minnesota Historical Society Report here: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2000.03.0048;query=spage%3D%23240;layout=;loc=220 which is no longer protected by copyright. I'm not sure how to post it up here though. (The link should get you directly to the picture, but its possible that you will have to go back and forth a few pages on the site).

[edit] Larssen

There is no mention of the Larssen ms. - See http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/168635_prank12.html

Sure it's mentioned. Pls sign your posts with four tildes, thnks. Wyss 14:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Inscription Change

I changed "ded" to "theth", if people claim that the rune should be interpreted as "th" in the rest of the document, it should be read as "th" here, too... (Of course, I am fully aware that the word has never been pronounced with a th-sound in Scandinavian, but I think it's only consistent. Naturally, I think that the "th" idea is just a bad attempt of explaning the word "oppdage".) Also, I don't understand how an R-rune could be interpreted as "der" in norder, but I am willing to accept an explanation of that.

[edit] Location on main north-south waterway

The section on location is somewhat original but not truly original research. The sources are maps more than literary works.

I studied the issue a year ago. (Too bad I no longer have the references available.) It seems that none of the Runestone related material on (the web) refers to the portage. In fact it is almost impossible to find any reference to a north-south portage anywhere. The Chicago portage has huge economic importance. No one in historic times seems to have shown any interest in traveling between the Hudson Bay and the Mississippi river.

On maps the potential waterway is however clearly visible. The Nelson River is the largest river running into the Hudson Bay. The Red River of the North again is the largest river running into Lake Winnipeg. The southbound outflow from Lake Agassiz (the largest lake ever?) carved a huge riverbed, more like a canyon. At the southern end of the Red River it is about 1 km wide with walls 50 m high.

One description of the route: http://www.hudsonbayexpedition.com/route.html

-- Petri Krohn 09:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

It's not original research since people have been speculating (in writing) for at least 100 years that Kensington may have been on a natural waterway/portage route of some kind from Hudson Bay. However, I NPoV'd the text, cleaned it up and refactored the headers in an effort to make it as encyclopedic as possible. Wyss 09:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

Sorry, but this article just isn't up to NPOV standards, especially the "Conclusions" section. For instance: "a stunning prank left by someone with knowledge of obscure medieval runes.. apparently unknown to most professional linguists.." etc. Nobody sceptical of this stone believes the forger knew about these obscure runes, but rather the more likely explanation is that it is a mere coincidence: The forger invented some runes which had independently been used elsewhere. Same goes for the grammar: Given enough texts you can always find someone else making the same error or irregularity.

Please try re-reading it first, since the article clearly lists that as only one of several possibilities. Wyss 21:17, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I see that it does that. The bias isn't in that the opposing viewpoint isn't presented, it's in how it is presented. Why say that the prankster must have had knowledge of these (in the 19th century) unknown runes, when the people claiming it's a hoax aren't saying that they did? --BluePlatypus 21:35, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Most skeptics acknowledge that the runes are rather sophisticated. I think it's NPoV to characterise any prank that has caused sincere debate for over a century as "stunning." However, I may have missed what you're getting at. Could you re-phrase your concern if my answer was off? Wyss 21:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

My main concern here was that the assertion "IF it is a forgery THEN the forger MUST have known these things.". Where that condition is not true. The proponents of the hoax theory don't say the forger MUST have known these things. They consider it just as likely if not more likely the forger may not have known these things and just happened upon them by coincidence. By (falsely) implying that the forger MUST have had knowledge of things that were not known by experts at the time, the bar is raised for the 'hoax' theory using arguments not supported by those in favor of it. That is not NPOV at all.

Well I still think adjectives with emotional charge like 'stunning', 'haunting' and so on should be used sparsely in encyclopedic text - the reader should be presented with the facts and evaluate them themselves. It also gives an overly dramatic tone, IMO. But that's just style, and not what my main concern was here. --BluePlatypus 15:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, there hasn't been any sincere debate, IMHO. The experts have practicly been unanimous in considering the thing a fake. The fact that a group of enthusiasts continue to search for excuses hasn't really changed that. See also: Flat earth society, creationism, electric universe and whatnot. --BluePlatypus 18:26, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Totally non-NPOV: "Larsson's notes eliminate any possibility that the unusual runes were made up on the spot by the stone's author." --Says who?

Because the runes in his notes pre-date the stone. However, I agree the line could be re-worded to more carefully specify the logic and chronology. Wyss 21:17, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I see what you mean: That the runes on his note pre-date the stone in the 19th century. I can agree with that. But AFAICT, there is no evidence that Larsson's runes are from the 14th century or earlier. --BluePlatypus 21:35, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

The absence of evidence is not equivalent to the presence of evidence, it's the opposite of the presence of evidence. Wyss 21:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I think what you mean to say is: "Absence of proof of the negative is not proof of the positive". Which is exactly my point. Saying "There is no evidence these runes weren't used in the 14th century" is not evidence that they were. There simply isn't any evidence either way, because noone seems to have seen them outside of Larsson's document. That does not mean that it's equally likely that they were from the 14th century as it does for the 19th century. --BluePlatypus 15:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

No, that's a different point (proving the negative etc). Anyway, I don't think the article asserts equal likelihoods of anything. Wyss 19:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

There are also of factual errors. Like the referencing to "Vikings". Especially if you're talking about the 14th century. --BluePlatypus 21:10, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Be bold! Try an alternative descriptor and cite your reason. I don't see a need for a dispute tag. Please feel free to participate in editing this article! Wyss 21:17, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, well to be more specific: "Viking" is a term largely invented by 19th century romantics. It only appears on a few runestones, and seems there to adress specific groups of people. The idea of a large homogenous 'viking' civilization in Scandinavia is today a rather discredited idea. So 'viking' is simply not a good term for serious historical discussion. 'Viking-age' is an accepted term though. But in any case, the Viking age ended in the year 1000. After that time they're just Danes, Swedes, Norwegians. --BluePlatypus 21:35, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Yep, I agree with you. Since the whole story began in the 19th century, the article has artifacts of 19th century terminology which have crept along with the sources. Please fix that? Wyss 21:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm changing the "Opinion swings" heading to just "Debate". I don't think you can neutrally say the opinion has "swinged". The majority of experts in the field have consistently considered the thing a fake. I'm not quite happy with the 'Debate' header either, (nor the general layout of the article), but at least it's more neutral. --BluePlatypus 21:12, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Contents/Purpose

Has anybody wondered why the explorers would have written this message on a stone? I tend to think the stone is a hoax for just this reason -- the whole text points so much to "Look, you fools of later centuries, we actually were here long before you thought about it!"

I mean, why would they write that they took "a long voyage to the West"? I mean, you wouldn't leave a message in New York, stating you just made a trip to New York...

What's the purpose of saying "We've left a number of people behind there and then", when you can safely assume it would be years before the next person discovered the stone...?

Is there any more scholarly discussion of the stone text? -- Syzygy 14:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

"The Vikings in America" by Erik Wahlgren argues pretty strongly for the stone being a forgery. It's a good read. Awiseman 19:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

This is something the scholars indeed have discussed (and I've been meaning to include it, but the article needs a revamp in general, IMO). And yes, it is indeed one of the main reasons people believe it's a forgery. Aside from the odd location and point in time it was found, and peculiar runes and grammar, the text of the stone is also extremely odd in style. Runes were sacred, and their texts are usually quite lofty, and don't contain the details contained on this one, such as dates. The style of writing is very odd. For example, "wi war ok fiske" literally translated means "we were and were fishing", as opposed to "wi fiske" ("we were fishing"). This redundancy is typical of modern spoken swedish/norwegian, but not of the written language. It's like finding a IM-speak text written on parchment with a quill. --BluePlatypus 23:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I read on the Internet from someone that thought it would be very strange that Vikings/Norse explorers who had travelled to basically the other side of the world and were nearly dying from sickness would choose to maintain their very last strength to write a rune stone that no-one in the country would be able to read... 81.232.72.53 13:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I exchanged emails a few years ago with a psychologist specializing in groups under stress regarding this issue. The psychologist said (if I may paraphrase, I don't have the specific email in front of me) that inscribing a runestone, even if they felt there was little chance of anyone finding it, is consistant with what a group might do in that situation. It deals more with validating themselves than communication with others.

[edit] a-/e-dialect

What are the a dialect and e dialect referred to in the text? A google for "e dialect" swedish -"kensington runestone" turns up nothing of relevance. —Felix the Cassowary 09:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that refers to unstressed -a in several words turning to -e or schwa in several dialects. (In that case, it's strange that the page claims most Swedes have an e-dialect, I'd say, Swedish, unlike Danish and Norwegian Bokmål, has retained the -a, just like Icelandic.) Examples from Swedish and Norwegian Bokmål: Swedish kasta, Norwegian kaste (throw), Swedish kalla, Norwegian kalle (call), Swedish jänta, Norwegian jente (girl), Swedish trana, Norwegian trane (Crane bird). 惑乱 分からん 15:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

If you ask me, I don't think it's a serious linguistic concept, but just something Nielsen invented. The article as it currently stands is very biased towards his theories. If Wakuran's assumption is correct, it's also very strange, as he says, unstressed 'a's are far more common in Sv than in No/Da. --BluePlatypus 22:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. Most Scandinavian dialectal traits are rarely defined to one particular language, though, and unstressed e is found in Sweden in at least the traditional dialects of Gotland and Värmland. I think the a- and e- here, still might be mixed up, however. It seems to be a Wikipedia error that has moved on to mirror sites. Allegedly, what I could find out was that the e-dialect is a rare old dialect that was spoken in Bohuslän (and, on the runestone, turned into a pigeon dialect because of the mixed nationalities and spoken varieties of the crew). But it is confusing as as it stands now, and should either be clarified and removed. 惑乱 分からん 13:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anon's comment

Transferred anon's comment to the end of the page - Skysmith 08:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

This sort of statement:

"The Kensington Runestone could be a stunning prank left by someone with knowledge of obscure medieval runes and intersecting word forms apparently unknown to most professional linguists at the close of the 19th century, or a haunting message left by 14th century Scandinavian explorers in the heart of North America"

setting up a false "either-or" situation, closes off any other possiblities for consideration. It is a favored, albeit unconscious, technique of "fringe historians." Whoever submitted this should, if they ask others to be open-minded, rewrite this confining and restrictive "either-or" dilemma so that it allows for more possibilities than merely "a stunning prank" or "a haunting message."

---

[edit] The text

The letter thorn should probably not be transcribed when quoting the rune text, especially if there is some doubt about which sound it represents. Fornadan (t) 22:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think that is just a bad excuse from Nielsen, desperately tring to avoid the word "oppdagelse", I wrote a more NPOV explanation in the article explaining the problem. 惑乱 分からん 18:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-catholic bias shrouded

This thing looks like the "Runestone of Turin". The similarities are stunning, some experts would do anything to deny their authenticity in face of overwhelming historical, material and scientific evidence. The controversy is probably because of AVM, the three letters that indicate those original viking explorers were roman catholic, which is very inconvenient for the protestant USA, which denies Mary and the saints. If the stone had runes to say "the pope is responsible for all this misery we got" the stone would be long exhibited and revered alongside the manuscript of Constitution. 195.70.32.136 21:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Ehhh, the controversy is linguistic, not religious... 惑乱 分からん 01:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

At the end of the 19th century, when the runestone was found, USA was in a state of worst anti-catholic hysteria, comparable to the McCarthy-era commie hunt. Obviously the stone was judged in that situation and the refusal stuck. Maybe if JFK survived the stone would be accepted now, but it is still a shame to be a catholic in USA. Imagine newspaper headlines like "Kensington runestone proven authentic - paedophiles founded our great nation". 82.131.210.162 12:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grab the shovel and the spy satellite!

The runestone is a 911 call, either true or hoax call: someone allege 10 people were murdered by redskins, gives exact location and time. The surviving white men found their 10 comrades and obviously must have buried them properly, because christians do that. Where are the graves, why weren't they searched, found and archeologically excavated? If we found the grave(s), containing 10 nordic warriors scalped ("red with blood") and buried with their arms and armour, the stone would be proven authentic.

This would also serve as proof on the inherent brutality and thus inferiority of the redskin race and justify the concept of manifest destiny in retrospective. This would be a big morale boost for the USA, which still struggles with the issue of having exterminated indian tribes as caucasians expanded to the west during the 19th century.

The entire territory of USA was photoed by commie spy satellites during Cold War (and possibly by own Keyhole satellites and U2 spyplanes). Just as bosnian mass graves were located by NRO telesensing during the yugoslavian civil war, the grave of the 10 norseen should be found from air or space. USA is often ridiculized abroad for having only 200 years past and already bullying. With this, americans could say they have almost 700 years past and be more proud.

It is stupid to analyze the runes to death, when you could go out with a shovel and find the dead! 195.70.32.136 22:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I love the Internet.--TN | ! 07:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: This particular IP editor rants like this on talk pages all the time.--Caliga10 02:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

This is proposal is very sensible. All academic talk about fulthark irregularities goes nowhere, since if original the stone was carved by a time-constrained and seriously emotionally distressed person, who has just lost most comrades. He couldn't care less for grammar. With modern remote sensing and space imaging technology it is definitely possible to find a mass grave of ten people, no matter how long buried. A few sweeps by a Predator drone would possibly nab the site, you don't even need an expensive satellite run. Possibly adding 300 years to U.S. history is no small reward, although to use it against native americans with ulterior racial motives would be a great shame. 82.131.210.162 12:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Just one thing, this'd assume that grammar is a difficult thing you always have to think about, but for native speakers, it mostly (though not always) comes natural, no native English speaker would likely mix up singular and plural forms, and use forms such as "we am", "they is" or "he are", even in stressed situations. 惑乱 分からん 18:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some vs. Most

It seems that many people are opposed to the statement "...but some scholars and historians dismiss it as a prank or hoax." and would rather it read "...but most scholars and historians dismiss it as a prank or hoax." Unless you can verify that a significant majority of scholars and historians "dismiss it" and do verify it in the article, please do not edit this statement. The rest of the article supports a discussion with scholars more equally distributed between real and fake. Farmboyjad 02:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I would in fact argue, that most scholars do not take a definite stance on this issue. -- Petri Krohn 05:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I would say that most linguists who have studied and writen about the issue consider it a hoax, on the other hand most geologists who have studied the stone believe it to be authentic. Personally I prefer the term "many" when talking about scholars opposed to the stone. Mzalar 22:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

There is in fact no doubt that the stone is a genuine stone. Stones are plentiful, and forging one would be meaningless. However, very few non amateurs doubt that the inscription on the stone is a fake. Jon kare 22:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

How about "...but its authenticity is strongly debated among scholars and historians."? Farmboyjad 03:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Scholars and historians are pretty unanimous. Enthusiasts are a different matter. Jon kare 18:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Hm. I guess I've gotten a biased viewpoint since I live thirty miles from where is was discovered. I still believe it's authentic, but I'm apparently in the minority, and Wikipedia is supposed to be objective. Anyway, the article's current phrasing about inconclusiveness takes the focus off the amount of debate and renders this whole discussion moot.Farmboyjad 22:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

How about

In general, Scandinavian linguists and runologists are overwhelmingly against accepting the genuineness of the Stone... Few scholars in other disciplines have challenged their ruling.

This is from one of this article's pro-authenticity references, the pdf file at American Linguists Keith and Kevin Massey's site. Explicit admission from prominent authenticity advocates that most authorities consider it a fake.

[edit] THE RUNESTONE IS TRUE!

I totally belive in the Runestone. I researched all about it and even went to the museum where it is put. How could some farmer write all that,which by the way is all historicly correct, and then burry it tangled in a tree's roots?

I think the Kensington Runestone is true! I went to the museum all about it. (The Museum is in Alexandria, MN) And, the writings are historicaly correct, and it was found tangled in a tree's roots. Coinsidence, I think not! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lindman9 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)