Talk:Curmsun Disc

Pontus Weman Tell source

It looks like this source by Pontus Weman Tell was restored to the article (along with some associated claims) with the edit summary of The work of P. Weman was written under supervision of Ph D Jens Nieling at the Center of Black Sea Studies at Aahus University. However, this does not appear to meet our requirements for scholarly sources. The source was self-published at academia.edu, not in a peer-reviewed journal. Per the author's own bio, he has degrees in unrelated fields (Economics and Law) that terminated at the master's level. Our requirements allow for doctoral dissertations that have undergone peer review, and in some cases master's dissertations that have been peer-reviewed and are widely cited by scholars, but that is not the case here. Thoughts from others? Woodroar (talk) 15:21, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

How to summarize scholarly disagreement in the lead

This edit removed the following sentence from the lead: Most scholars believe the Curmsum Disc to be a forgery, while some believe it is genuine but disagree on the dating. The edit summary mentioned that it was unsourced, although sources are not required in the lead section. I believe that the sentence is a neutral summary of the Analysis section. On the one hand, we have Sven Rosborn's findings, which are now supported by Karen Schousboe. On the other hand, we have Marek Kryda, Kurt Villads Jensen, Jes Wienberg, and Jens Ulriksen disagreeing with those findings. Steffen Harpsøe gave a different date, but also stated that he isn't certain if the disc is genuine. That says to me that the majority POV among scholars is that the disc is a forgery. Thoughts? Woodroar (talk) 20:33, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Dear Woodroar, I believe you are misinterpreting the sources. We have following facts: Rosborn has presented his version of dating based on his analysis which are partly supported by Schousboe. Marek Kryda is also supporting the Rosborn’s dating but he insists that the mound in Wiejkowo is a proof of a non-Christian burial. Borth Jes Wienberg and Jens Ulriksen have never commented the disc's dating. They have however strong doubts about the Gesta translation which is a separate story. The only one who ever made statements on the dating issue is Kurt Villads Jensen who said that the dating of gold is impossible. Villads Jensen never presented an alternate dating theory and that means in scientific world that he is just speculating. You forgot to mention the National Archives of Denmark. Here you have an official statement and the dating is late 11th century. Please keep in mind that within archaeology we only have assumptions in case of an object which is non-organic. Therefore, both Rosborn, Harpsoe and Villads Jensen use the words like maybe, might be or probably etc. The use of these words only means that none of the involved scholars take their own theories for granted. At the same time no one is really questioning the disc age. There is one, Bogucki, who claims that his own ancestors created the disc in 17th century. His version is highly questionable because he visited Lund University in 2018 and asked for a grant to further analyze the disc. He did not get one and since that time his is just spreading some fake news. If we summarize your question, then the correct answer would be to point out the 10th or 11th century (maybe 17th or 18th as well) as possible periods when the disc was created but to add that a correct dating is not possible as the object was not discovered during an archaeological excavation. Current version of the lead must be changed as it is misleading and undermines what established “players”   within the filed are talking about. Ystadsbo1956 (talk) 21:15, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

The object is now kept at the Royal Palace in Stockholm. Who even suggests that it is a forgery? DiplomatSthlm (talk) 23:21, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply, Ystadsbo1956! Some comments:

videnskab.dk quotes Jes Wienberg as saying "Man forundres over, at den kristne kong Harald Blåtand overhovedet får en guldskat med sig i sin grav." (Google translate: "One is amazed that the Christian king Harald Bluetooth even took a gold treasure with him to his grave.") How is this not a comment on the gold items?

videnskab.dk also quotes Jens Ulriksen as saying "Dateringen af 'gravhøjene' til vikingetid hviler ikke på noget som helst andet end hans personlige antagelse." (Translation: "The dating of the 'burial mounds' to the Viking Age is based on nothing other than his personal assumption.") How does this not involve the disc?

A letter in the Journal of Swedish Antiquarian Research by Kurt Villads Jensen and Wojtek Jezierski says "Det enda någorlunda säkra gällande guldskivan är emellertid att den påträffats i en skokartong i Malmö. Guldskivan är inte heller möjlig att datera och ser inte ut som något annat föremål vi känner från vikingatid – eller någon annan tid." (Translation: "The only thing that is reasonably certain about the gold disc, however, is that it was found in a shoebox in Malmö. The gold disc cannot be dated and does not look like any other object we know from the Viking Age – or any other time.")

videnskab.dk also covers Kurt Villads Jensen, saying "Ifølge Kurt Villads Jensen ligner den ingen anden kendt mønt fra vikingetiden, og guld kan faktisk ikke dateres præcist. Guld kan til gengæld til enhver tid smeltes om. Skiven kan derfor potentielt være en forfalskning lavet på et hvilket som helst tidspunkt af guld fra vikingetiden, bemærker professoren." (Translation: "According to Kurt Villads Jensen, it resembles no other known coin from the Viking Age, and gold cannot actually be dated precisely. Gold, on the other hand, can be remelted at any time. The disc could therefore potentially be a forgery made at any time from gold from the Viking Age, the professor notes.")

You mention that Mateusz Bogucki is "fake news", but his viewpoint here is cited by two sources. That's incredibly important on Wikipedia.

Wojciech Filipowiak is also reported as saying "It can be objectively stated that both the disc and the written source, as well as the circumstances of its discovery, are completely unreliable and one should not draw conclusions about Jomsborg, Wolin or Harald Bluetooth on their basis."

We have to balance these secondary sources against Sven Rosborn and Karen Schousboe, both of whom self-published their claims (Rivengate AB and Medieval Histories). Note that on Wikipedia, primary and self-published sources, especially scientific articles, tend to carry less weight than secondary sources—and especially when they've been challenged for a variety of reasons.

Wikipedia isn't a scientific journal, and whether or not an expert like Kurt Villads Jensen has proposed an alternative date doesn't matter to us. We're here to summarize what reliable, secondary sources say about these subjects. Additionally, we're not obligated to follow official statements from government bodies such as the National Archives of Denmark.

If you have any other issues or questions about the sourcing, please let me know. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 23:35, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

I am reading your quotations and find that only Villard Jensen says that the disc could potentially be a forgery. The important word here is “potentially”. To understand me and others who oppose your changes to this article, you must think like historians and archaeologists do. Below are some examples:

videnskab.dk: you quote Jes Wienberg as saying "Man forundres over, at den kristne kong Harald Blåtand overhovedet får en guldskat med sig i sin grav." (Google translate: "One is amazed that the Christian king Harald Bluetooth even took a gold treasure with him to his grave.").  This assertion is nothing more than a theory that the Curmsun disc could not have been placed in a Christian grave. Wienberg believes that even if the disc was found in Wiejkowo, it cannot be connected to the grave.

videnskab.dk also quotes Jens Ulriksen as saying "Dateringen af 'gravhøjene' til vikingetid hviler ikke på noget som helst andet end hans personlige antagelse." (Translation: "The dating of the 'burial mounds' to the Viking Age is based on nothing other than his personal assumption.") It is generally accepted that the Viking Age ended year 1066 AD with the Battle of Stamford Bridge. In this section Ulriksen’s criticizes Kryda not Rosborn. Regardless of that he is not making any claims that the disc is a forgery. He is only pointing on a date later than 1066 AD.  

I don’t really know how to summarize this scholarly disagreement, but Rosborn has only been criticized for connecting the Curmsun disc with the death of Harald Bluetooth and the village of Wiejkowo. His opponents suggest that there is nothing that proves that there was ever any grave in Wiejkowo and that the disc can be of a later date. By now, most accepted version is the one presented by National Archives of Danmark and it is late 11^th century.

If you take the above into consideration, then you should agree that the claim that the majority of scholars in the field have doubts about the authenticity or provenance of the disc is just misleading.

One last thing… The disc was never found in a shoebox… According to the press it was found in a casket with old buttons: https://www.expressen.se/kvallsposten/maja-11-hittade-skatt-fran-harald-blatand/ Ystadsbo1956 (talk) 15:08, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

I think there's a miscommunication here. My point with the quotations above isn't only about the disc being a forgery, but that there are a spectrum of objections to Rosborn's thesis, ranging from criticizing certain elements (dating, provenance, etc.) to believing that it is a forgery. Woodroar (talk) 15:52, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

I noticed that I wrote "authenticity" in the lead when I meant "dating". I've fixed that. My apologies if that lead to the miscommunication I mentioned above. Woodroar (talk) 15:46, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi Woodroar,

Thank you for explaining your recent edits. Could you please clarify two specific sourcing questions?

1. The claim about a scholarly majority. Which sources support the statement that “a majority of scholars in the field” have questioned the disc’s dating or provenance? It would help to distinguish objections to its dating, its reported provenance, its association with Harald Bluetooth’s burial, and its authenticity. These are related but distinct questions, and criticism of one does not necessarily establish a position on the others.
2. The identification of the museum. The Kvällsstunden article refers only to “Naturhistoriska Museet”, without specifying which institution it means. What source supports identifying it as the Swedish Museum of Natural History?

I also believe your paraphrase of Lars Olof Lagerqvist’s statement is misleading because it omits the context of his comparison with counterfeit coins. A faithful English translation of the published quotation is:

“I have seen many counterfeit coins, but I have never seen anything like this. I cannot say that it is a forgery.”

Your wording conveys that the object was unfamiliar to him, but leaves out his stated experience of examining counterfeit coins, which frames his assessment.

Kvällsstunden describes Lagerqvist as one of Sweden’s leading numismatists and experts on Viking-age coins. That relevant expertise gives his assessment weight and makes accurate attribution particularly important. His statement should be preserved with its context, without presenting it as an unequivocal authentication of the disc.

Source: Kvällsstunden article.

I hope that Wikipedia’s neutrality and sourcing policies will be applied consistently to all viewpoints discussed in this article. I am concerned that the recent edits may give disproportionate prominence to one interpretation. I would therefore appreciate clear, source-based answers to the questions above. The article should reflect the published evidence and the weight of scholarly discussion, without privileging any editor’s personal assessment.

I also intend to propose additional dating interpretations supported by reliable published sources. Each proposal should be assessed individually for source quality, relevance, accurate attribution, and appropriate weight under Wikipedia’s policies. The same standards should apply to sources supporting an early date and to those questioning it.

If these specific sourcing and neutrality concerns remain unresolved, I would seek a review by uninvolved editors, including through Wikipedia’s Neutral Point of View Noticeboard if appropriate. My aim is to reach an accurate and balanced account through transparent discussion and consensus. ~2026-51083-15 (talk) 23:04, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi 2026-51083-15! I've updated the content from Kvällsstunden. Is that a better summary of Lagerqvist's comment?

As for your question about sources and the "scholarly majority" sentence: all of the sources are cited throughout the article, primarily in the "Analysis" section. Because another editor asked for it, they're all cited in that lead sentence as well.

But to save you some time, the sources where scholars question the dating or provenance, or call the disc a forgery, are: Siden Saxo, the Journal of Swedish Antiquarian Research, a Danish science outlet (videnskab.dk), a Polish science outlet, a Danish weekly newspaper, and the Associated Press. Keep in mind that these are all secondary scholarly sources or reputable sources quoting scholars (who are named in the "Analysis" section).

As far as I've found, the only scholars who positively believe the dating/provenance are Rosborn and Schousboe, and their sources are self-published.

The remaining sources mostly report on the dispute and don't take a side. (Which makes sense, as they're all generalist sources, not experts on this topic.) The exception seems to be Kvällsstunden, which quotes Lagerqvist as refusing to call it a counterfeit, while also saying other unnamed experts do call it a forgery.

Our Neutral Point of View policy requires that we weigh viewpoints based on their prominence in reliable sources. So we've got at least 6 named scholars (plus unnamed "experts") who question at least some part of Rosborn's findings, and they were all published by reliable, secondary, independent sources. That makes the 2 self-published sources by Rosborn and Schousboe a minority viewpoint, by comparison.

I hope that helps explain why the article is written the way it is. I also look forward to seeing your new sources. Woodroar (talk) 00:29, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi Woodroar,

Thank you for the detailed explanation and for revising the Lagerqvist passage. Restoring his reference to previous experience with counterfeits makes the summary clearer. One small translation correction remains: “Naturhistoriska Museet” means “natural history museum”, rather than “national history museum”.

I agree that significant criticism should be included and that Wikipedia should give viewpoints weight according to their prominence in reliable sources. My remaining concerns are the structure of the lead and whether the evidence supports the particular scope of “a majority of scholars in the field”.

The lead currently says that the inscription names Harald Bluetooth, but does not actually introduce a proposed date for the disc. It then states that a majority of scholars have questioned its dating or provenance. This leaves the reader without a clear explanation of which dating proposal is being challenged. Naming Harald in an inscription does not, by itself, establish that the object was made during or around his lifetime.

I think there are two clearer approaches:

1. Keep the lead general and explain that the disc’s dating, provenance and authenticity are disputed, with the competing interpretations explained in the body.
2. Briefly introduce Rosborn’s proposed late tenth-century date and connection with Harald Bluetooth’s death, explicitly attributing this interpretation to him, and then explain the scholarly objections.

Either approach would make the relationship between the proposed dating and the criticism easier to understand.

Regarding the majority claim, one source warrants closer attention. The Associated Press article states:

“Experts have determined that the cast gold disc that sparked Maja Sielski’s curiosity dated from the 10th century.”

The disagreement described concerns competing burial theories. Could you identify which passage you regard as questioning the disc’s dating or provenance?

More generally, questioning some part of Rosborn’s findings is a broader category than questioning the disc’s dating, provenance or authenticity. We should identify the specific objection attributed to each scholar before using their statements to support a claim about the majority of an entire field.

I agree that source quality and independent publication matter. However, counting the individuals quoted in a selection of publications does not automatically establish how representative their views are of the wider scholarly field. The wording should reflect both the prominence of the criticism and the precise claims supported by the sources.

I am not requesting equal space for all interpretations or the removal of documented criticism. I am asking for a lead that clearly explains what is disputed and avoids a majority claim broader than the evidence supports.

I will also review the existing sources in detail and, based on that review, propose any necessary revisions to the lead. Alongside this, I will bring forward additional published sources for discussion, so that we can assess their relevance, reliability and appropriate weight individually.

The full texts of the Siden Saxo and Weekendavisen articles are not openly accessible through the linked references. Could you provide the relevant page numbers and brief passages explaining how each source supports the statements about forgery or alternative dating? It would be helpful to distinguish whether each article explicitly questions the disc’s authenticity, proposes a different date, or reports another scholar’s assessment, and to identify any dating range actually given. ~2026-51083-15 (talk) 20:58, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Oops, thanks for catching the national/natural mistake!

I've been thinking about how to phrase the lead for a while, and I believe that keeping it general and stating that some elements (dating, provenance, authenticity) are disputed is the better option. Here's why: while multiple scholars have questioned parts of Rosborn's findings, even calling the disc a forgery, I don't believe any have accused Rosborn of misconduct. In other words, they've said that Rosborn's interpretation was incorrect, but not that he forged the disc. My concern with mentioning Rosborn and then the dispute is that readers might think we're suggesting it was intentional, like it's another Kensington Runestone.

The AP source is possibly the worst reliable source that we have, unfortunately. My understanding, through reading some other (unreliable) sources by/about Kryda, is that he isn't as convinced as Rosborn and wants to do more research. Yes, the AP source does say that line about "experts have determined". But there was plenty of other pushback against Rosborn's claims from the start, in 2014, and it's surprising that the AP author doesn't know that. That's not a huge issue, because, while the AP is a reliable source, we have better sources to rely on: the journals, and to a lesser extent the science-focused media. Generalist and non-expert sources, like Aftonbladet and Kvällsstunden, are probably the least useful to us.

I've never been able to find a copy of the Siden Saxo source online. It was in the article when it was created, and I have to trust that the original editor summarized it accurately. Weekendavisen was also added by another editor. I believe that I did find that one through The Wikipedia Library, but I wasn't able to find it today. Either bibliotek.dk is no longer making its articles available to Wikipedia editors, or I'm misremembering. I've had to look up sources for dozens of articles like this, perhaps more, so that's certainly possible. Woodroar (talk) 00:35, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi Woodroar,

Thank you for clarifying your reasoning. I agree that keeping the lead general is a sensible approach and that its wording should avoid implying personal misconduct by Rosborn.

Would you support replacing the sentence beginning “A majority of scholars in the field…” with:

“The disc’s dating, provenance and authenticity are disputed.”

The specific dating proposals and scholarly objections could then be explained and attributed in the Analysis section, with their coverage reflecting their prominence in reliable sources.

My remaining concern about “a majority of scholars in the field” is the scope of that claim. The sources establish that several scholars have raised objections, but we still need to distinguish their specific criticisms and consider whether the available evidence supports a statement about the wider field. Giving specialist publications greater weight does not, by itself, resolve that question.

Regarding AP, I agree that specialist publications may deserve greater weight. My point concerns what this particular article supports: it reports a tenth-century date and disagreement about the burial site. I have not found a passage explicitly questioning the disc’s dating or authenticity. We should take that distinction into account when identifying sources for the various objections.

Thank you also for explaining the difficulties accessing Siden Saxo and Weekendavisen. Although the current Siden Saxo reference does not provide the full text, I have now obtained a copy. I will prepare a detailed summary with page references and present it in a separate thread, together with any proposed corrections to the article.

The publication’s background is relevant here. Siden Saxo was a quarterly history magazine issued by Rigsarkivet, the Danish National Archives. The Ministry of Culture’s research portal describes its purpose as communicating research-based historical knowledge to a wider readership. Harpsøe was an archivist at Rigsarkivet and an editor of the magazine, with scholarly publications on medieval history.

His fourteen-page discussion therefore merits careful consideration as a substantial historical assessment published in an established institutional setting. In reviewing it, I will distinguish the theories he reports from his own arguments and conclusions, including the qualifications he places on them. That should give us a firmer basis for deciding how to summarize his position and what weight to give it.

It would also be helpful to obtain the relevant passages from Weekendavisen so that we can check precisely which claims that source supports.

In the meantime, could we agree on the general lead sentence proposed above? ~2026-51083-15 (talk) 13:20, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

We can certainly discuss removing "majority" depending on what the source analysis shows, and perhaps if other editors feel the need. Please understand that it's not only me insisting on the "majority" phrasing. The article and its current phrasing is the work of many editors, and the article has been brought up at several noticeboards due to disruption. It just happens that the article is on my watch list and I'm interested in the subject, so I participate more than others. Woodroar (talk) 23:47, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi Woodroar,

Thank you for clarifying. I understand that the current wording reflects contributions from several editors, and I appreciate your willingness to reconsider it following a closer review of the sources.

I have now posted a summary in a separate section on this talk page, titled “Review of Harpsøe’s 2015 Siden Saxo article”. Have you had an opportunity to read it?

The summary includes page references and proposed revisions. Harpsøe examines Bogucki’s hypothesis, identifies weaknesses in the modern-forgery explanation, and reports that Lagerqvist examined the disc without finding signs of forgery. He also proposes a hypothetical medieval date and leaves the final question of authenticity open.

Siden Saxo was a quarterly history magazine issued by Rigsarkivet, the Danish National Archives. Harpsøe is a Danish historian (cand.mag.) and archivist at Rigsarkivet and he was an editor of the magazine. His fourteen-page historical discussion merits careful consideration, with its conclusions and qualifications clearly attributed to him. More on Harpsøe here: https://pure.kb.dk/da/persons/steffen-harps%C3%B8e/

For the account of Lagerqvist’s examination, I suggest using Siden Saxo as the principal reference. Harpsøe reports the outcome of the examination and explains its significance within his analysis. We could therefore consider replacing the reliance on Kvällsstunden for that particular point with an accurately attributed summary of Harpsøe’s account.

Regarding the 19 July 2022 Science in Poland source about Filipowiak, the report contains material from two separate interviews: Bielecka’s interview with Filipowiak, and a reference to a PAP interview with Bogucki.

One attribution detail is worth clarifying. In the Polish text, “falsyfikat” (“a forgery”) appears in the journalist’s description of Bogucki’s position, rather than in the words directly quoted from him. His quoted expression is “produktem miłośników starożytności” (“a product of antiquity enthusiasts”). The eighteenth- or nineteenth-century dating are also reported indirectly.

This description appears to refer to the kind of object numismatic collections call a “fantasy medal”: a historicising or classicising medal made in the eighteenth or nineteenth century whose subject or type was not produced in antiquity. The Hungarian National Museum uses the term for such medals and gives an eighteenth- or nineteenth-century medal depicting Thales as an example: https://mnm.hu/en/en/collection/coins-collection/collection-g

CNG’s catalogue also provides examples of eighteenth-century medals depicting ancient subjects. Jean Dassier’s mid-eighteenth-century Roman-history series includes a Hannibal medal dated to 220 BC and a Caesar medal dated to 47 BC:

• Hannibal: https://www.cngcoins.com/Coin.aspx?CoinID=207573
• Caesar: https://www.cngcoins.com/Coin.aspx?CoinID=367836

These examples were issued in the eighteenth century and depict ancient figures and events; their ancient dates refer to the historical subjects. They do not, by themselves, show that such medals were passed off as genuine ancient objects. I am therefore using “fantasy medal” as a description of the type of antiquarian object Bogucki appears to have in mind.

The report attributes to Bogucki the view that the disc was a product of antiquity enthusiasts from the eighteenth or nineteenth century, and characterises his position as treating it as a forgery. However, the published text does not establish that “forgery” was his exact wording in the PAP interview. We should preserve the difference between a direct quotation and a reported assessment.

For a fuller account of Bogucki’s hypothesis, it would be useful to compare Siden Saxo with the relevant passages in Weekendavisen once those are available.

My suggestion is to review which source best supports each statement and whether particular references should be replaced or supplemented by fuller accounts. Could we begin with the proposed revisions in the new Siden Saxo section, and then return to whether “a majority of scholars in the field” is supported by the sources collectively? ~2026-51083-15 (talk) 21:19, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

I've already replied to your Siden Saxo comment below.

I have to ask, are you using AI/LLM to generate these comments? Woodroar (talk) 03:00, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi Woodroar,

I’m a Swedish investigative journalist working for a Swedish media group. Three of us are currently preparing a major article about Harald’s gold. As part of our reporting, my colleagues and I have interviewed several researchers, including some who have taken part in earlier newspaper interviews and others who have simply followed the story.

I’m currently fact-checking the material. Our reporting includes information that has not yet been published, so I understand that it cannot be used to support Wikipedia content. We expect to publish the article this autumn; once it is available, editors can assess the published sources on their merits.

We began by reviewing the existing sources, and turned to the Wikipedia article because it serves as a useful hub for the references and discussion surrounding the disc. I write in Swedish and use translation tools for my English posts, so please let me know if any wording comes across unclearly. ~2026-51083-15 (talk) 12:46, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Harald’s gold = The Curmsun Disc, in Swedish "Haraldguldet" ~2026-51083-15 (talk) 16:15, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

That makes sense, thank you. I would be careful with the translation tools you use, as AI-generated comments are not allowed on the English Wikipedia. We've found that AI not only misunderstands many of our policies, but it often misrepresents those policies to its users. I would strongly suggest reading more at WP:LLMCHAT and WP:AITALK if your translation tool uses AI.

I'm commenting on all of the changes here so as not to split the conversation between threads.

I've update the article's content on Harpsøe's claims. Does that update sound good?

As for the Science in Poland/PAP content, thank you for the background but I'm sorry to say that it's not very useful to us. One of Wikipedia's most important policies is No Original Research. If a source doesn't explicitly make the connection to those fantasy medals, then we can't, either. As editors, we're here to summarize what reliable sources say without adding our own analysis or interpretation, and that's all. Perhaps if Bogucki clarified his position in another source, or followed up with Bielecka to update her article, we could reevaluate that part. Woodroar (talk) 19:19, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for updating the Harpsøe section. The new heading and wording make it clearer that his idea about a local cult was hypothetical and that he left the question of authenticity open.

I also understand your point about No Original Research. I only mentioned “fantasy medal” as possible background to Bogucki’s description. I agree that it should not be added to the article unless a reliable source makes that connection directly.

I have also found another source that may be useful. Jes Wienberg reviewed Rosborn’s book in Kuml, the annual archaeological journal of the Jutland Archaeological Society. Kuml publishes archaeological research and book reviews, and its website explains that submitted manuscripts go through peer review: Journal information

On printed page 180 (PDF page 7), Wienberg writes: “bortset fra en guldskive, som ikke kan dateres” (“apart from a gold disc whose date cannot be established”). Wienberg’s review

Would Kuml be an acceptable source for saying, with attribution, that Wienberg considered the disc’s date impossible to establish? ~2026-51083-15 (talk) 21:52, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

That's a great find! Yes, I'd consider that one of our better sources and I've added it to the article. Let me know if my summary could be improved! Woodroar (talk) 14:56, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

I’m starting a new thread titled “How to summarize scholarly disagreement in the lead (cont.)” as a continuation of this one. Each reply leaves less room for the text, so I thought it would be easier to continue the discussion in a new thread. ~2026-51083-15 (talk) 20:49, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

This thread continues the discussion in “How to summarize scholarly disagreement in the lead”. The original thread has become quite cramped, so please add further comments here. The question remains how the lead should fairly summarize the published views on the disc’s dating and authenticity. ~2026-51083-15 (talk) 20:40, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind, but I've outdented your reply to continue the thread. This is important for accessibility reasons, as it allows users with screen readers to follow the thread. Woodroar (talk) 21:14, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi Woodroar, No problem at all, and thank you for explaining. I’m happy to continue the discussion here.

I’ve found two further published sources that I think we should consider for the article.

Lucie Malbos is a medieval historian at the University of Poitiers. In her 2022 biography of Harald Bluetooth, Harald à la Dent bleue: Viking, roi, chrétien, published by Passés Composés, she gives the disc an approximate date range of 960–1125 while noting that its date and function remain uncertain. Publisher’s page

Ayşen Sina is a professor of ancient history at Tekirdağ Namık Kemal University. In a chapter co-authored with Ömer Şimay and published by PA Paradigma Akademi Yayınları in 2025, they say that the disc is thought to date from around AD 1000 and may be associated with Harald Bluetooth. They also acknowledge that its reported discovery cannot be verified. Read the chapter in the publisher’s PDF

There are two other researchers I think are relevant to the discussion. Carl L. Thunberg is a Swedish historian and archaeologist whose work includes Viking Age history and cultural heritage. He also joined Rosborn’s research group to study the disc and the purported manuscript associated with it. Article about Thunberg

Anders Ödman is a researcher in historical archaeology affiliated with Lund University and a former director of its Historical Museum. He is mentioned in Rosborn’s book as one of the specialists in the group Rosborn assembled after seeing the disc. Ödman’s university profile · Rosborn’s book

A journalist colleague of mine will add the relevant material and citations to the Analysis section. I hope you’re comfortable with these additions. Malbos’s book and Sina and Şimay’s chapter seem to me to be potentially suitable sources for attributed statements on Wikipedia, while the other links document Thunberg’s and Ödman’s involvement. I’d welcome your view on the sources. ~2026-51083-15 (talk) 21:30, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

The Lucie Malbos book looks good to me. The publisher is an imprint of Éditions Albin Michel and the book even won some smaller awards.

I'm less confident about the Ayşen Sina/Ömer Şimay paper. There's not much information about the publisher and their contact email is a gmail address, which is not a good sign. But Sina is a professor, at least, so I think this source is fine unless someone else finds a reason to reject it.

As for Thunberg and Ödman, I'd suggest we wait to mention them until they their findings or comments about the disc get published by reliable sources. Simply mentioning that they're working with Rosborn doesn't mean anything yet. Also, it might imply that they agree with him. In the Nordsverige source, Thunberg is quite emphatic that he doesn't know whether or not the disc is genuine, but it sounds like he had not studied the disc—so I don't think it would be fair to quote him yet. Woodroar (talk) 23:12, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Sorry for taking more than a week to get back to you, and thank you for looking into these sources.

I agree that mentioning Thunberg and Ödman in the Analysis section now could imply that they endorse Rosborn’s interpretation. We’ll leave them out unless their own findings or comments on the disc are published in suitable sources.

I’m also glad Malbos’s book looks suitable. I appreciate your careful assessment of the Sina and Şimay chapter, too. My colleague will post proposed wording on the Analysis section based on Malbos’s book. ~2026-53936-39 (talk) 19:52, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

I like the added sections! Woodroar (talk) 22:04, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Fringe topic?

I have concerns that the Curmsun Disc may be a fringe subject. I've started a discussion at the Fringe Theories noticeboard here: Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Curmsun Disc. Woodroar (talk) 18:34, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

I've updated the article based on suggestions at the Fringe noticeboard and the overwhelming number of reliable sources that disagree with the initial findings about the disc, or that believe it's an outright forgery. Woodroar (talk) 22:12, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

September 2025 edits

I've reverted several edits removing reliable, secondary sources that positively characterize the Curmsun Disc as dubious or a forgery. These were replaced with a statement that researchers are simply unsure, which I consider whitewashing. Another added source appeared to give credibility to the Expedition Unknown findings, though it didn't mention the Curmsun Disc at all. As mentioned in comments here and at the Fringe Theories noticeboard, the theories put forth by Sven Rosborn are self-published and increasingly the minority viewpoint. Our NPOV policy, particulary DUE, stresses that we need to give prominence to viewpoints in reliable sources, and that means the majority of experts who find serious faults with Rosborn's findings. Woodroar (talk) 14:52, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I have an academic degree, and I work daily with analysis of sources. The changes I have made have been a consequence of a deep examination and many conversations with my colleagues. By removing my revisions, you are putting some scientists, mentioned in the article, into a tricky situation as you indicate that they have created certain theories which they never stated at all. Some of these scientists may also feel that their reputation has been damaged by your revisions.

Also, the fact that you are removing a reference to a statement made by one of the largest universities in Denmark is also an indication that you have your own agenda. With all due respect, especially after your long involvement in Wikipedia, you do not seem to realize that through your misinterpreted quotes you are insulting a Danish university and one of Denmark's foremost archaeologists, Søren M. Sindbæk. Søren would never risk his reputation and call the Curmsun Disk an artifact (Expedition Unknown) unless he was certain that the disc was made sometime in the late 11th century. This follows the assessment made by the National Archives of Denmark, which was partly based on research conducted at Lund University. The conclusions were published in the National Archive’s journal Siden Saxo. However, you cite Siden Saxo as a source stating the opposite, that Curmsun Disk is not authentic. Have you read Siden Saxo's article? The article is available in Danish and only in print. The title translated from Danish is: Mysterious golden disc from ancient times. You don't even seem to have translated the title but have concluded that Siden Saxo is also behind all the conspiracy theories. This is a serious violation of Wikipedia's rules and we, who are a larger group of researchers, will actively work to make proper corrections to this article so the reader gets a fair chance to form his/her own opinion based on true and only true facts. I also apologize for my bad English. UlrikTheResearcher (talk) 18:53, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I have not read the Siden Saxo source, no. I am trusting the editor summarized it fairly when the article was created. Their summary includes phrases like "According to a theory", "the disc may have been created", "There is a possibility", which suggests that Steffen Harpsøe did not emphatically state that the dates were correct or that the disc was genuine. (If that summary is incorrect, perhaps you could provide a better translation?) This seems to match what Søren M. Sindbæk said on Expedition Unknown: "well, the jury's out". He didn't empathically state that the disc was genuine, either.

Ultimately, it appears that there is a spectrum of reactions to the disc, ranging from unsure to forgery, which I've tried to convey in the article. If you can suggest a better way to express that, I'd be happy to hear it. If, as you say, I've misinterpreted quotes, I would certainly like to hear that as well. Please be as specific as possible!

As far as my agenda goes, I want articles on Wikipedia to reflect what the sources state. I initially thought the Curmsun Disc was an interesting item, but as I read more scholarly sources, I found that most experts either doubt the published findings of the Curmsun Disc or believe the disc to be an outright forgery. (I've also found that expert opinions outside of journals have leaned toward it being a forgery, which I found interesting. However, I have not included them as they wouldn't meet our requirements for sourcing.) Because most experts have expressed doubt or believe the disc to be a forgery, it is Wikipedia policy to state that. It is against policy to simply list facts and let our readers decide. If that's not what you meant, I apologize If I've misread your comments here. Woodroar (talk) 20:07, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Please believe me that I am not a supporter of any of the theories regarding the dating. At the same time there are only two valid theories. It is Sven Rosborn's theory, and the one presented by Siden Saxo. What is not stated in the cited sources but is stated in locked online articles or printed articles is that the Curmsun disc has been analyzed by experts appointed by Lloyds and an isotope analysis was done then which clearly showed that the disc's age was approximately 950 +/- 200. It was an analysis based on the concentration of Helium, Uranium and Thorium. The insurance letter from Lloyds is presented in several of those sources which are locked due to subscription requirements. I will see if I can get more information about that. 213.158.36.246 (talk) 23:15, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

I have now received the necessary confirmation that Lloyds has insured the disc in 2016. The insurance policy was obviously based on the results of gold examination. I will upload the documents to Internet Archive. UlrikTheResearcher (talk) 22:54, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure how helpful that would be. Was the policy published and analyzed by a reliable source? Woodroar (talk) 15:55, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Review of Harpsøe’s 2015 Siden Saxo article

Following the discussion about the sources cited in the lead, I have now read the full text of Steffen Harpsøe’s “Haraldsguldet – en mystisk guldskive fra fortiden”, published in Siden Saxo, no. 4 (2015), pp. 14–27. I would like to propose a fuller account of his assessment in the Analysis section. All page references below refer to the printed pagination.

Harpsøe’s position includes several distinctions that the current summary does not adequately convey:

1. He argues against the modern-forgery explanation. On pp. 23–24, he identifies weaknesses in the eighteenth-century hypothesis associated with Mateusz Bogucki, including the proposed connection to a collection in Płoty, the alloy composition and the expected historical traces of such a fabrication. However, he accepts some of Bogucki’s stylistic observations, particularly that the lettering resembles eleventh-century examples. On p. 25, Harpsøe writes: “Så måske er den fra senere i middelalderen, når det nu næppe er en moderne forfalskning.” My translation: “So perhaps it dates from later in the Middle Ages, since it is unlikely to be a modern forgery.” This is an assessment of likelihood, not a definitive exclusion.
2. Lagerqvist’s examination is an explicit part of his argument. On p. 24, Harpsøe reports that Lars O. Lagerqvist, former head of the Royal Coin Cabinet and an expert on forgeries, examined the disc and found no signs of forgery. Harpsøe describes this as one of the strongest arguments against that explanation. This should be attributed to Harpsøe’s account; it does not establish a particular manufacturing date.
3. His discussion of “forgery” distinguishes different historical contexts. On pp. 24–25, he does not claim that a unique object cannot be forged: he explicitly explains that an exact original is unnecessary. He also distinguishes a fabricated account of a saint’s life from an authentic medieval object produced within a later cult of that saint.
4. His alternative dating is expressly hypothetical. On pp. 25–26, Harpsøe develops a possible date of approximately 1050–1125, perhaps around 1100, for an object made by local priests to promote Harald as a missionary saint. This concerns a possible attempt to establish a local cult, rather than evidence of formal canonization. He explicitly calls the reconstruction hypothetical. His conclusion on p. 27 leaves authenticity unresolved and calls for further investigation.

I therefore suggest replacing the current Harpsøe paragraph with wording along these lines:

“Danish archivist Steffen Harpsøe proposed that the disc might have been made between approximately 1050 and 1125, perhaps around 1100, by local priests seeking to establish a cult of Harald Bluetooth as a saint. He described this reconstruction as hypothetical. Harpsøe considered a modern forgery unlikely, citing several objections to that explanation and reporting that numismatist Lars O. Lagerqvist had examined the disc without finding signs of forgery. Nevertheless, he left the question of authenticity open pending further investigation.”

The existing Siden Saxo reference could support this paragraph, with specific citations to pp. 23–27. I also suggest changing the subsection heading to “Around 1100 – proposed local cult of Harald Bluetooth”.

The source does support questioning a date within Harald’s lifetime. However, Harpsøe’s own assessment should also be distinguished from the modern-forgery hypothesis that he discusses and criticizes.

Would other editors support these revisions? ~2026-51083-15 (talk) 20:52, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Other than the cult vs. canonization issue, your summary sounds similar to what's already in the article. Is that correct or am I missing something? Now I don't see much of a problem with changing the heading as you suggested. Adding that much content cited to one source does strike me as a bit WP:UNDUE, though. (This means that we're giving too much emphasis to a single source.) I'm also not sure if we should be attributing claims to Lagerqvist via Harpsøe. If Harpsøe is indeed an editor of Siden Saxo, that raises questions about its editorial process and how we use the journal. Our BLP policy, for example, forbids use from using self-published content to make claims about other living people. Woodroar (talk) 00:16, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

The distinction I wanted to clarify is that Harpsøe’s scenario is hypothetical and concerns a possible local cult or veneration of Harald; it should not be presented as evidence that Harald was formally canonized. Since the current text already makes the scenario conditional, perhaps the only change needed is a more precise heading and a brief clarification in the text.

On Lagerqvist, I agree that any statement should be explicitly attributed to Harpsøe, rather than presented as a direct quotation or as an independently documented finding. Harpsøe’s role as an editor is a reasonable factor to consider when assessing the article’s editorial context, but I am not sure that this alone makes his article self-published.

One point about BLP: Lagerqvist died in 2023, and the policy generally applies to living people and, for a limited period, the recently deceased. So I do not think BLP is the main issue for this particular statement. The ordinary questions of attribution, verifiability, and source reliability still apply.

Would a limited change to the heading and a short clarification about the hypothetical nature of Harpsøe’s proposal address your concern? ~2026-51083-15 (talk) 15:14, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Whatever is done, AI-generated text is not allowed on Wikipedia. This includes AI-generated talk page comments. Gnomingstuff (talk) 06:45, 25 October 2026 (UTC)