Jump to content

Talk:Kensington Runestone/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Ohman vs Öhman

I reverted an edit which changed Ohman to Öhman throughout the article. While the latter is the correct Swedish spelling, the former is universally used in discussions of the Kensington Runestone, both by supporters and detractors, and seems to be the spelling he used himself. According to one source I found, he changed his name from Olsson to Öhman (apparently to honor his father) and again to Ohman upon arrival to the United States. DES (talk) 11:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

""Myths of the Rune Stone: Viking Martyrs and the Birthplace of America" by David M. Krueger (University of Minnesota Press, October)

"Most of what has been written on the Kensington Rune Stone has been preoccupied with questions of authenticity," Krueger writes. "Insufficient attention has been given to the reasons for the popular appeal of the Kensington Rune Stone since it was unearthed in 1898."

The author, a scholar and teacher with degrees in religion, is more interested in why this strange object has captured imaginations. He argues that faith in the authenticity of the stone found in west-central Minnesota was a crucial part of the local Nordic identity that recast Native Americans as villains even though there was overwhelming evidence it was a hoax. He shows how the legitimacy of the stone has implications for a variety of Minnesotans, including Scandinavian immigrants, Catholics, small-town boosters and those who desired to commemorate the white settlers who died in the Dakota War of 1862."[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 20:26, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Scott Wolter

Geologist Scott Wolter examined the stone in his St. Paul MN laboratory in 2000. He found that mica had weathered on the carved stone surfaces for more than 200 years before it was unearthed in 1898. Based on this geological evidence, the stone cannot be a modern forgery. Unfortunately I don't see this information in the article.

I do not have access to Wolter's publications ("The Hooked X" and "Kensington Rune Stone: Compelling New Evidence"). If you do, please add the information to the article. Jedwards01 (talk) 21:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

That study (or his books) has not been peer-reviewed, and is as such not a reliable source. In essence we have nothing more that Wolters word. I have read it, and there is in fact no support for his conclusion in the paper. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:18, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
I saw the Norwegian documentary on the stone recently and Scott Wolter didn't come off particularly well. There would likely have been some bias, involved, but he appears stressed with a lot of personal issues. Also, it's clear that the only professional supporters of his theory are his personal friends and partners, so we can't go further than mention that it's his own claim of the matter. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 08:58, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Apart from Scott Wolter, the show also featured professor Henrik Williams, who appeared skeptical, but mentioned there has never been any evidence that Ohman himself had forged the stone, Richard Nielsen, who has had a systematic bias in his research but have been careful following academic standards (and had a falling out with Wolter) as well as local researchers, who seemed honest, but rather bumbling and over-interpreting. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 09:14, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the information. You may not be aware that Wolter had an article here but after his attempts to remove comments by Nielsen that were in the article he asked for it to be deleted, and it was taken to AfD where the decision was to delete. You may have read a slightly different story on the net with me as a villain. Dougweller (talk) 11:07, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Scott Wolters' "degree" is phony. He has a Bachelor's in Geology, that is all. His claim to a Master's in "forensic geology" is unknown to the University of Minnesota-Deluth, the instutution he alleges awarded it to him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.183.4 (talk) 22:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Jason Colavita raised this issue on his blog on 1/21/2013, at http://www.jasoncolavito.com/1/post/2013/01/scott-wolters-apparently-non-existent-degree.html . Wolter gave an extensive reply in the comments section on 1/22/2013 at 6:49 PM, indicating that it was an informal presentation by his professors, and not an official honorary degree. He has since removed it from his resume. Unfortunately, the comments are in thread order rather than chronological order, so you have to dig down to find his reply. HuMcCulloch (talk) 14:36, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The reason that there isn't archeological peer-review of Wolter's research is that Wolter is not an archeologist and the purely factual research he has done is based on geology. He does speculate quite a bit about the origin of the stone, and this part has questionable credibility. However, the geologic research Wolter has done is a large part of the stone's history and offers a different view of it from a different perspective - that of a geologist. There should be information about Wolter's idea in the article, accompanied by a disclaimer of sorts saying that his work is controversial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.27.124.201 (talk) 21:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Saying his work is "controversial" would imply at least some experts take him seriously. Show us someone who does. He's a crackpot. Jonathunder (talk) 23:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Far too much ad hom in this thread. None of the geological evidence is being addressed. All I see it more bias. Woller is also not the first geologist to examine the runestone and make the determination that it is genuine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiritsplice (talk • contribs) 04:48, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The ad hom is probably because Wolter provides many examples of being very credulous, and it's hard to tell whether his geology is any more believable than his other work. I just saw the season 3 finale of America Unearthed, where he referred to Templar symbology on the Statue of Liberty outside a Paris church, without mentioning that the Musée des Arts et Métiers site has actually been an art museum for decades before the statue was created, despite having walked past a museum sign. It's hard to believe that his geological research has had better work done on it. He might have the skill to identify some types of rock, but which of his runestone work extends past geological skills? -- SEWilco (talk) 01:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I've removed all reference to Scott Wolter's work from this article. As mentioned above, he is an amateur with no formal training or expertise that would qualify any of his books as reliable sources for this article. Further, all of Wolter's work is self-published. His books are published by Lake Superior Agate, which is registered to Wolter himself [2]. So we have a non-expert self-publishing his fringe theories. Thus, anything that can only be sourced to Wolter will never satisfy either the reliable sources guideline or the undue weight policy. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Newton Horace Winchell

Where is the evidence debunking Winchell's findings? The arguments for the KRS being a modern hoax would be trumped by Winchell's conclusion that the inscription was 500 years old. Dktrfz (talk) 02:27, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

It's a classic problem. Nobody ever seems to want to hire an expert on antique fakes to examine famous items which may or may not be fake antiques. David Trochos (talk) 23:02, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Winchells conclusions are also extremely weird. They are based on Prof. W. O. Hotchkiss, state geologist of Wisconsin, estimating that the inscription is at least 50 to a 100 years old, which Winchell for no reason at all except apparently confusing himself, then multiplies with 5 to get 500 years. He notes, as does Wolter, that the cuts in fact appear fresh, but this is blamed on the inscription being cleaned out with a nail after discovery.
Nobody has actually examined the inscription. Both Winchell and Wolter base their dating on examination of the stone surface and the assumption that it has been buried for most of the time since the 14th century. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Smyrna vol 6?

It would be interesting to read Olaus Breda's article in Smyrna, but I can't find it online anywhere. If anyone knows of a way to get access that would be cool. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Kehoe

Per WP:FRINGE, we should make sure not to give undue weight to minority or fringe viewpoints. Kehoe is literally the only archeologist of note to give any credence to the Kensington stone (and furthermore she has very little expertise to claim on Runes or Nordic languages and she has been a proponent of old world contact since her first paper in 1952). Her view should not be given undue weight - a simple mention will do. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:49, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

OpenFuture's edit

I reverted most of OpenFuture's last edit. It wasn't just that the edit created non-idiomatic wording and said "in 1911" twice in one sentence; that could be easily fixed. The problem was that far too much was removed. Please discuss before taking such a broad axe to the article. Jonathunder (talk) 15:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The things I did remove was quit irrelevant details, which to me seem like coat racks or speculation. Where and how Ohman placed the stone after it was returned from Northwestern University, and his sons quips seems there to needlessly discredit Ohman and don't actually tell us anything meaningful. The same goes for first quoting Holand about being given the stone, and then pointing out Ohman was paid ten dollars. It seems like the only effect of it is to give the impression that Holand was lying. We don't need to know how or where Ohman placed the stone, neither is it relevant if he was paid for it or not. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:54, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Holand claimed he owned the stone; other documentation says otherwise. That's part of its provenance: the chronology of the ownership, custody, or location of the object. How and where the stone was placed is important in later studies on weathering and age. The sources talk a great deal about the tree roots which supposedly surrounded it when found. Jonathunder (talk) 16:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
I've trimmed it a bit. We certainly don't need the quote from Holand, or all the detail about the source of the land where it as found. Nor the bit about where Ohman placed the stone. If later studies discuss it then we can use them in an appropriate section. Doug Weller talk 16:40, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kensington Runestone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Legacy section?

Not sure if that's the appropiate title, but David Krueger has written a university press book called Myths of the Rune Stone: Viking Martyrs and the Birthplace of America where according to Amazon he " takes an in-depth look at a legend that held tremendous power in one corner of Minnesota, helping to define both a community’s and a state’s identity for decades." and "shows how confidence in the legitimacy of the stone has deep implications for a wide variety of Minnesotans who embraced it, including Scandinavian immigrants, Catholics, small-town boosters, and those who desired to commemorate the white settlers who died in the Dakota War of 1862. Krueger demonstrates how the resilient belief in the Rune Stone is a form of civil religion, with aspects that defy logic but illustrate how communities characterize themselves. He reveals something unique about America’s preoccupation with divine right and its troubled way of coming to terms with the history of the continent’s first residents." You can look at a bit of the Kindle edition. He also has said this month that ""There is a power to myth, and historians talk about creating a usable past," Krueger says. "It's helpful. But it's disturbing that, on one level, Americans are only interested in pre-Columbian North American history if white people are involved."[3] An article called "[Vikings Red with Blood and Dead:White Martyrs and the Conquest of the American Frontier" can be found at [4]. Doug Weller talk 09:29, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

One source for a whole section seems low. It certainly warrants mentioning in the article in any case. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:54, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree, I'm sure there are other sources discussing it. Doug Weller talk 15:25, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
I think the source clearly needs to be in the article. It is exactly the kind of critical secondary source that can be used to evaluate claims in the from the primary sources and put them into a wider context.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kensington Runestone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Scholarly consensus

It's not really a consensus and the support for authenticity goes beyond "local people". [5] GigglesnortHotel (talk) 16:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

And your evidence for that is a website that says "We are a group of enthusiasts who are interested in all things vintage"[6] which has an anonymous article based on the self-published work of Scott Wolter, who isn't a scholar. You need to do a lot better than that. Doug Weller talk 16:39, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
And it gets even better, the article quotes something from the anti-Semitic conspiracy theory pushing (want to buy a book on the Clinton murders? - they have one) American Free Press. Very scholarly. Doug Weller talk 16:45, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Vikings, Templars, and Goths, uff-da! Jonathunder (talk) 16:51, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Ok, so you don't like the source. That's fine, but why must you all be snarky and mocking? Why can't you just say "this source isn't reliable"? It would have been as simple as that. No wonder people leave this site in droves every day. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 17:15, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
I guess because we get jaded.. and getting tired of having to spend time analysing poor sources. I could have spent more time explaining our policy on sources. I do that sometimes with new editors. Doug Weller talk 17:57, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Since your first edits, Gigglesnort, included installing Twinkle and using Wikipedia acronyms, perhaps we just assumed you weren't new. Please pardon us if that isn't the case. Jonathunder (talk) 18:27, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kensington_Runestone/Archive_4&oldid=911015716"