Talk:Viktor Rydberg

archive: [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.69.219.3 (talk) 22:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Homosexuality and other speculations

Since poorly cited and embellished sources have now been judged to meet the "high" burden of proof here on Wikipedia, I have restored all of Mr. Radford's quotes, and done as he has requested placing them in their own section. This in the interest of compromise. If such speculations and poorly sourced quoutations are allowable, they really should be put into the proper perspective, and labeled as the speculations they are. I have placed these chronologically in the work as they arise move than 30 years, and in most cases over 100 years after the author's death. Clearly, these quotes are not biographical in nature, but are based on his writings, thus belong in the catagory of literary criticism. Jack the Giant-Killer (talk) 13:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience in being willing to restore the disputed material. A section header that begins "Literary theories.." actually is a reasonable way to address this point. In fact, the revised section which is there now probably deserves further pruning because the theories presented about his sexuality are not working from very much data. It might be better to let our readers see some of the passages (or very brief summaries of them) that are being used to claim a 'homoerotic' element in his writing. As I mentioned above, our Thomas Mann article shows how this kind of analysis can be done properly (search for the word 'sexuality' in the Mann article). What is currently known about Rydberg's life seems to provide much less data than Mann's about his sexuality. EdJohnston (talk) 17:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ed, the Thomas Mann article actually is an excellent model.It handles the matter in a tasteful way. Personally, I don't care who Rydberg slept with, if anyone. It will be interesting to see how Radford intends to handle the presentation of passages (or very brief summaries of them) that are being used to claim a 'homoerotic' element in Rydberg's writing. So far, he has only used two two sources: one very amateur, and one work critical of the theory. The gay encyclopedias are soft on sources, and big on statements. Radford has also been adding material, he attributes to them, and some of the quotes are not found in the source he cites. I object to restating their statements as fact, unless evidence can be provided to back them up. It is slanderous to repeat uncritically that Rydberg was "suspected" of having sex with Rudolf Ström, a 12 year old, without some kind of support. As noted, you could not do this if he were alive, so I see no reason you should be able to do it now that he is dead. He was never "suspected" of this during his life, and never by anyone who has read their letters firsthand. Radford is attempting to paint a portrait with mud and muck. I also see no relevance of mentioning Swedish law, unless someone can provide evidence that these laws were actually applied to Rydberg. Mentioning them suggests they were, which is the clear intent. Whatever his private sexual orientation, Rydberg was no Oscar Wilde. The "friendship" with Pontus Wikner is also being used in the same manner. The "friendship" was one of correspondance between two famous people of the era, not an physical "friendship" which is being used here as a euphemism for homosexual "lovers". The encyclopedia in question names four people as having been prominent, not two, so it amounts to editorializing. Jack the Giant-Killer (talk) 19:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

As a friendly reminder, if Radford continues to load the section on Speculations regarding Rydberg's private life with additional quotes and citations from Moffett's article, I can easily do the same. While her article takes several extreme positions, she concludes that Rydberg was a sympathetic and loveable "Peter Pan," who advocated children's rights and was clearly "no pedophile." This is 180 degrees from Radford's conclusion, and his editorial spin. Moffet's nine-page sketch of Rydberg's private life reads like an amateur psychological thriller. It is filled with such psycho-babble, as her humorous conclusion that Rydberg "can best be understood as a kind of Oedipal Peter Pan at heart, however well disguised as a corpulent cultural and social leader with a bushy moustache." She openly wonders how Rydberg's work would have fared in a post-Freudian world (something we are witnessing here). This book is clearly the work of an amateur. As noted, the book jacket lists her only relevant credentials as having been a "former adjunct English professor" and science fiction writer, whose hobby is translating Swedish poetry. This isn't scholarship. Moffett's bibliography in the Rydberg section of her book lists only Stople's short article as her source, ignoring the 5 standard biographies published since his death, citing Stople (and only Stople) numerous times in the sketch. It is full of opinion and commentary, making it almost twice the length of Stople's. This is not a reliable biography by any standard. I have no interest in enagaging in another round of edit warring, but will not stand by and watch this entry be loaded with amateur crap such as this. Similarly, the gay encyclopedia was pulled by its publisher for credibility issues, and thus was posted on the web. The editor defends against these undisputed charges on the website, by making personal attacks on the scholars who criticized the veracity of his work, literally calling them a vast "left wing conspiracy" of feminists! Thus to cite either of them as credible sources here is truly laughable. Jack the Giant-Killer (talk) 04:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you want. The article isn't stating "VR was a homosexual", much less "VR was a pedophile". It merely states the fact that the question of homoeroticism and homosexuality has been raised. I really don't see why this is such an issue. We can drop the gay encyclopedia for all I care. The sexuality question can be a short paragraph within WP:DUE. --dab (𒁳) 16:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the whole thing is ridiculous. Since when are "speculations" on a persons private life, worthy of mention in an encyclopedia? Granting legitimacy to such speculations cheapens Wikipedia. If it must be included at all, a short mention with citations of the most reliable sources would be preferable, to the 3 paragraph essay littered with suggestive quotes and accusations from internet sites. This entry is being used as an extension of the libelous "Rydberg Religion" essays. The matter is an issue solely because one editor is pushing for inclusion of the most damning quotes possible, without proper citation. We have yet to establish that the sources in question actually say what they do. A sample of Radford's citations show several descrepancies which throw the whole of his edits in this matter into question. Frankly, DAB, as I see it, your wishy washy approach has allowed this to continue as long as it has. Obviously "we cannot just all get along" when one person is hell-bent on corrupting the entry. Finnrekkr (talk) 21:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I am also for trimming the material on sexuality to the minimum, if it is to be included in the biograhical section. If Radford insists that the full quotes and other matter are to be included, it must be included in a section of its own and labeled as literary theory, since it is not biographical in nature, but literary criticism solely based on Rydberg's writings. Jack the Giant-Killer (talk) 14:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

how are statements on an author's private life, speculative or not, "literary theory"? That's nonsense. Sure, reduce to the max, but stop the spinning and weasling. --dab (𒁳) 15:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Anything based solely on the author's published writings would be considered a "literary theory" by strict definition. Would it not? Why be a "weasel" and insist it is "biographical," when it isn't? Your recent edit is better, but since you still give so much space to these literary speculations, I insist they be placed in a seperate section for literary criticisms of the author's work. Any fool can sit and make things up. Evidence is what is important. There is none here. Finnrekkr (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

we can further shorten it. It is the creation of a dedicated h2 section that is giving too much weight to this stuff. Summarize it in a sentence or two. Biographers conclude that VR "without doubt" was a homosexual. We don't have anyone contradicting that afaics. So we can just state the fact and move on, without going into dubious speculations on "masked representation of homosexual intercourse". dab (𒁳) 07:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

No, no, no, no. It's still speculation. Here's better : "Although he appeared to remain celibate and never made any statements otherwise, some scholars, based on literary analysis, have concluded that VR "without a doubt" was a homosexual." It still needs qualification, because it's still speculation on the parts of a few scholars.CarlaO'Harris (talk) 10:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Such is already obvious. You are simply editorializing, something we don't do: we merely report on what sources say. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 10:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not "editorializing". It's putting the proper context on dubious sources that shouldn't be quoted in the first place because they are based on PURE SPECULATION. Simply because someone with a degree engages in pure speculation doesn't suddenly magically transform it into truth or reliability. It's FACT that he never made any statements otherwise. The assertion merits the qualification. I'll stand by this point. CarlaO'Harris (talk) 01:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Mr Giant-Killer, you would also do well to appreciate this point. Not to mention the fact that you would also do well to read this point, which sums up your last, edit. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 14:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Continued misrepresentation of Tolley's article

Clive Tolley's single reference to Rydberg is already included in the article. It is obvious to anyone who reads it that Tolley did not agree with Rydberg on the single point in question, and he expressly rejected Rydberg's claim that the "world mill" was an important element of Norse mythology. Under these circumstances, to cite a tertiary source for the proposition that Tolley "took up Rydberg's theory" is simple misrepresentation. Tolley's article, with it fleeting reference and express rejection of Rydberg's theory, speaks for itself. Rsradford (talk) 22:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it does, since it does not "reject" the theory, but qualifies it, its qualification not being a rejection, but giving proportion to its noteworthiness. Scholars, unlike polemicists, engage nuance, not simple debate-team tactics of refutation. CarlaO'Harris (talk) 00:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Despite your continuous efforts to delete it, die kommentar zu den liedern der edda directly states that Tolley "took up" Rydberg's theory (which is apparent to anyone who has read both Tolley's article and Rydberg's work). This scholarly source has been cited as saying so. Your effort to remove it is vandalism. If you care to cite another scholar who supports your rather silly-sounding (in light of the printed evidence)claim that Tolley did not, please do so. Finnrekkr (talk) 01:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

No sooner is one dispute settled, than Radford flips back to a previous one. I suppose this will go on endlessly. I cited the German "Kommentar" regarding Tolley's theory. Indeed, it says that Tolley "took up" Rydberg's theory of the world-mill, in its commentary on the Grottosöngr, Radford has cited no evidence which contradicts this. Jack the Giant-Killer (talk) 12:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Once again: The best evidence of the content of Tolley's article is Tolley's article. Tolley's sole reference to Rydberg has been quoted in full -- it has to do with the definition of a single word, and Tolley does not agree with Rydberg even on that detail. Moreover, he expressly rejects Rydberg's belief that the mill played any sort of important role in Norse mythology. To represent this as building on, supporting, or even accepting Rydberg's theory is deceptive. Rsradford (talk) 22:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Continued misrepresentation of Lindow and Clunies Ross

It is quite simply false to assert that either John Lindow or Margaret Clunies Ross "favor" Rydberg's loopy theory of an Aryan racial-mythological "epic." Nothing from their work has been cited for this ridiculous proposition, and nothing can be. Does Wikipedia allow outright lies to be inserted into articles, in the interest of selling an editor's vanity-press "translations?" Rsradford (talk) 22:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you are like a broken record, emphasis on broken. Your imputation of absurd, exaggerated agendas to those your paranoia identifies as opponents is astounding. You'll intentionally slander an author simply because you don't like his theories, then assert without evidence that a translator of that author's works is using wikipedia as an advertising resource when there is absolutely no evidence for that claim. You're misrepresenting the claim here, which is that against your pet theory of total fragmentation of myth, there are scholars who believe that a mythic time-line of some kind makes sense, and Rydberg's theoretical reconstruction falls within this category of a coherent mythic time-line.CarlaO'Harris (talk) 00:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

No one is saying that "either John Lindow or Margaret Clunies Ross 'favor' Rydberg's loopy theory of an Aryan racial-mythological 'epic.'" What has been said is that both scholars have purposed theories that the myths were arranged in a chronological order, like Rydberg did. Rydberg was 'ignoored' 120 years ago for suggesting this, yet now two scholars have drawn similar conclusions. Their works and page numbers have been cited to support their 'loopy' claims. This is, at least, the third time you have removed them, then claimed no one has cited them. You insist on removing scholarship that does not support your POV. As you know from experience, Wikipedia will put up with a large amount of such bad behavior. You have been asked to stop making personal attacks, and yet you continue unabated. What is your purpose here Radford? You are promoting your so-called "non-profit" organization, covertly and overtly. Perhaps this bears further investigation. What is it you are selling? Who profits? Finnrekkr (talk) 01:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

STOP THE PERSONAL ATTACKS NOW, "JACK!" Nobody is listening anymore. Rydberg insisted that the extant myths are fragments of a single "proto-Aryan" racial epic that could be "reconstructed" like a proto-Indo-European language. Serious scholars like Lindow and Clunies Ross would either laugh at that idea or be repulsed by it, depending on how seriously they took it. If you have any good-faith belief that these scholars' work can be held up to support Rydberg's racial-nationalist fantasies, please provide the quotes. Otherwise, stop using their names to prop up this nonsense. Rsradford (talk) 22:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Who Moniters the Moniters?

Jeez, Moreschi, three reverts in a 24 hour period. I thought that was against the rules. If you're going to blanketly restore old revisions, you might at least fix their typos to make it less obvious:

The online GLBTQ (An Encyclopedia of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Culture) further claims that Viktor Rydberg, Pontus Wikner were counted “[a]mong the important Swedish cultural figures of the period who engaged in same-sex sexual relationships.”

Rydberg and Wikner were not the same person. You might consider placing an "and" between their names. However, in the interest of fairness, if Wikner is to be mentioned at all in connection with Rydberg, you should list all of the names that the GLBTQ lists instead of singling out just two.

Look, do you actually get the reason why I'm reverting? It's because you seem to insistent that sticking your personal thoughts into the article ("this preposterous opinion") is fine. It isn't. Nor is it your job to evaluate the truth of what reliable sources are saying. That's for the reader to decide on his own, or for other reliable sources to evaluate. If you cease to make awful edits, I won't revert them. Simple as that. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 14:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Jack, I think you have about made your point now. You have an opinion. You have pushed it about as far as at all possible on Wikipedia. We heard you. Why not give it a rest now. dab (𒁳) 14:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll do my best to refrain from further editorizaling. My point is to make it clear that the nature of this material is speculative. THE GLBTQ cites no sources.It uncritically repeats earlier speculations, which cite fictional works by the author as evidence. The original section included unsourced and dubiously sourced claims of pedophily as well, which have since been removed. As I have said several times, I feel this article has become bloated with material due to the attempts by RSRAdford (author of the hit-piece, The Rydberg Religion, google it) to stuff it with unfavorable citations intended to defame the subject. Taken out of context, these citations intentionally misrepresent the conclusions of their authors. Moffet's work is a prime example. We keep going around about this because Radford fails to "get the point" (as you say) and keeps reediting sourced material, such as the Tolley, Lindow, and Ross material he addresses above (for at least the third time now), to promote his view. I feel obligated to counterbalance his negative POV with an overly positive POV to compensate, thus the "awful" edits. I'm content leaving the article the way it is, or even scaling it back to the pre-Radford days, if the author of the "Rydberg Religion" would quit promoting his pagan agenda here to discredit Rydberg's mythological works via an ad homineum assault on the author. DAB has allowed the tone of this discussion page to degenerate by tolerating Radford's name-calling and personal attacks. I have been editing this article for a number of years without incident, and was forced to take a name because of Radford's hostile take-over of the editing process. If you want to make a fair decision, look at this matter from the start, and consider all of the edits by the people involved rather than a few selective ones. Jack the Giant-Killer (talk) 14:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

"pagan agenda"? I've looked at the "Rydberg Religion". It is well referenced. It does promote a point of view, which is fair enough for any article not on Wikipedia. It is obvious Radford doesn't think highly of VR, but he manages to show that he is hardly alone in this view. I fail to see any "pagan agenda" in this. We do not endorse Radford's conclusions, but we can very well make use of the references he provides. You need to learn to recognize support when you get it. I have long said that I do not think GLBTQ is a good source. What we have done is iteratively tighten and polish the "sexuality" section. It just was more tedious than would be necessary because of all the revert-warring. Please take this as a lesson of which approach does have an effect on Wikipedia, and which does not. Blanket reverting of a sourced paragraph is a waste of time. Successive improvements and polishing (not editorializing) results in better articles. dab (𒁳) 15:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Who cares whether it is "well referenced"? Anyone can stick a bunch of footnotes behind their polemicist diatribe. You have to have the intelligence to actually examine the sources to see if they say what the puppet-master is purporting them to say, unless you care to get taken for a ride, simply because the car "looks" impressive to you. It's a front, it's Potemkin-scholarship. A careful examination of those sources demonstrates that they have been slanted, distorted, and marionetted. That's not "well referenced". That's pseudo-referencing, because the sources don't say what they are purported to say. One should learn to distinguish between substance and color of substance. CarlaO'Harris (talk) 00:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The gay encyclopedia still looks to me like a weak source about Rydberg. With enough patience (which I lack right now) this page might develop a consensus to exclude it as a source. But the immediate problem that Moreschi was responding to was the POV language with which Jack was quoting the views of the gay encyclopedia, including 'citing no evidence for this preposterous claim.' That type of language doesn't belong in the article. EdJohnston (talk) 16:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I know. I was pointing out, to Jack, that he has no hope of getting away with the "pov language", but that he does have a prospect of finding a majority for dropping the GLBTQ. dab (𒁳) 19:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I have been observing this entry for some time. For a few examples of 'awful' edits, see Radford's introduction of two new major sections: recently the one on 'Sexuality' and the original section on 'Scholarship' (from May 6th). The former was full of lurid innuendoes of criminal homosexuality and pedophilia with 12 year old Rudolf Ström. The latter consisted of a loose collection of four disjointed negative quotes regarding the author's work, as if that was all there was. Administrative action was absent on both accounts. When faced with an extreme, and asked to reach a consensus, naturally it is better to negotiate from the opposite extreme than to start from a more reasonable position. DAB's lack of oversight and the appearance of favoring one side of the dispute does seem to have played a significant role, emboldening the editors of the article. No administrative action would have been necessary if someone had nipped the name-calling and personal attacks in the butt early on, and not tolerated blatant shifts in POV. In my opinion, someone with a more even hand and a bit more experience should be overseeing this entry. Finnrekkr (talk) 01:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

What I have learned is that if you footnote something, you can basically say anything you want on *this* entry. I've watched this enough now to know how it works. The Tolley article is a prime example. It took the citation of a secondary source saying that Tolley "took up" Rydberg's argument to state the obvious fact that Tolley took up Rydberg's argument, because Radford used an out-of-context quote to make it appear he didn't. A broader citation of Tolley demonstrated that Radford misrepresented the source. Not that that has deterred him. Similarly, you'd never know that Moffett concluded that Rydberg was celebate from anything Radford cited. Radford used a criticism of DelBlanc to present DelBlanc's opinion as evidence. Nevermind that this 'unbiased' source soundly refuted DelBlanc's opinion, saying there was no textual evidnece in support of it. The point was that it mentioned homosexual pedophilia, which supported Radford's original thesis. He then used the unsourced statements of the gay encyclopedia to further develop his original argument, despite the fact that the substanative sources actually drew the opposite conclusion. It's a clear-cut case of making an original argument, but because it is sprinkled with footnotes and out-of-context quotes, the admin here is fooled. There is no question I recognize support when I see it. DAB supports Radford. Since no one here is willing to check the sources, we all are at the mercy of this dishonest editor with an anti-Rydberg agenda.

This lesson is a bit confusing though, because over on the Lotte Motz entry, a false charge of plagarism by the same editor has brought all editing on the entry to a complete standstill. Nevermind that the source has been quoted in full, and that both myself and Radford agree on its content. On that entry, the well-cited sources have all been wiped out, and the entry blanketedly reverted to a stub page, because Radford objects to any reference to the verifiable fact that Motz was jewish, that her PhD was in German and that she taught German, but made a career of commenting on Old Norse texts. Those verifiable facts are "irrelevant", as RAdford sees it. Call me a slow learner if you will, but Wikipedia administrators don't appear to have have a uniform code. Each entry operates like a mini-feifdom. This entry operates like the American Wild West, and the Lotte Motz entry operates like Soviet Russia. If you wish to teach anyone how Wikipedia works, let's see some consistancy. Jack the Giant-Killer (talk) 03:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Here We Go Again

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. No sooner do we arrive at a consensus on one section than Radford moves onto another. No sooner do we arrive at a consenus there, than Radford returns to the previous section, repeating the entire process with the same result. Radford has added nothing new in his latest round of revisions. Once again he is deleting verifiable scholarship he disagrees with. He deleted the Kommentar reference which states that Tolley took up Rydberg's argument, as well as verifiable references to Lindow and Ross, because they do not agree with his original thesis that Rydberg is an uneducated criminal homosexual pedophile. How long will *this* "dog-and-pony show" go on? Jack the Giant-Killer (talk) 02:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Radford's contributions have been very helpful. If you didn't keep spewing vitriol at him, this could have been a pleasant collaboration of iteratively improving the article. Can't you just pragmatically make your point without all the snide bickering? It doesn't cast a very favourable light on you, and the outcome will be the same in the end. I know ideas of style and civility can diverge considerably (which is why I am no friend of the hysterical waving around of WP:CIVIL, that policy is abused more often than applied sanely) -- but this is going a bit far now. dab (𒁳) 09:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Continuing misrepresentation, source-doctoring, and POV pushing

On June 27, 2008, the editor with a direct financial conflict of interest reinserted the following misleading points into the article:

“Rydberg’s theory of a unitary Aryan-racial mythology “has found favor in recent works by John Lindow and Margaret Clunies Ross.”

This undocumented claim has been repeatedly challenged here on the talk page. Please quote directly from these scholars (neither of whom mentions Rydberg or his faux-mythology even once, not even in a footnote), or stop deliberately falsifying the article.

“Although [Hamlet’s Mill] initially received two negative reviews, their work is now extensively cited by scholars and popular writers:”

This is, putting it as politely as possible, an outright lie. Every scholar who bothered to review Hamlet’s Mill excoriated it in the harshest terms. I have inserted three representative quotes into the article to document this point; I could insert a dozen more, and will, if requested to do so. No scholars “extensively cite” Hamlet’s Mill today. The closest example the COI editor has been able to produce is a retired professor from Occidental College who mentioned the book in passing. This should be specifically acknowledged, if the views of contemporary scholars on this silly, totally irrelevant book are to be mentioned at all.

“Clive Tolley took up and qualified Rydberg's theory in his 1995 Saga-Book article:”

This has repeatedly been demonstrated to be yet another deceptive claim. (See discussion above.) This time, the COI editor actually deleted the part of Tolley’s quote in which he demonstrated that he did not accept Rydberg’s view even on the single detail under discussion. This is obviously more than a mere difference of editorial opinion; it is knowingly misrepresenting facts and doctoring quotes in an article in which the editor has a direct financial interest. To avoid further quote-doctoring, I have trimmed the reference to Tolley, contrasting what the Kommentar says with what Tolley actually wrote.

Deleting the identification of Judith Moffett until late in the article:

The COI editor quotes Judith Moffett early in the article for a complimentary evaluation of Rydberg, but much later, when he (finally) allows one of her critical comments to be quoted (in a footnote!), he identifies her as “a former adjunct professor of English at the University of Pennsylania.” If this is to be Moffett’s identification, standard editing procedure requires it to appear the first time she is mentioned or quoted. The COI editor’s refusal to follow this normal procedure is yet more evidence of POV-pushing.

Relegating critical comments to footnotes:

The COI editor has moved Moffet’s essential evaluation of Rydberg’s work – that he was "a historian who cared more for atmospheres and half-truths than for historical facts," to an unrelated footnote, while featuring her broad, complimentary evaluations in the text of the article. Another rather obvious instance of POV-pushing.

I have corrected, deleted, or modified each of these issues in my most recent edits. If there is any good-faith dispute over any of these points, this is the place to discuss it, rather than simply reverting to continue pushing a financially-interested POV.

Rsradford (talk) 23:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I have removed these slanted revisions of yours, and will continue to do so. Learn some civility, pal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CarlaO'Harris (talk • contribs) 01:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Reason : you're full of it, it's been proven again and again, so give it up.CarlaO'Harris (talk) 01:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Response to the latest projection

Pragmatically speaking, when one cuts through the unpleasant vitriol, Radford's helpful contributions here are either verifiably false or unverifiable. He writes:

COI editor

You have presented no evidence of this. You have been asked repeatedly to stop speculating on the motives of your fellow editors. Stop the personal attacks.

“Rydberg’s theory of a unitary Aryan-racial mythology “has found favor in recent works by John Lindow and Margaret Clunies Ross.”

"Unitary Aryan-racial"???? No one has found favor with this strange characterization, except you. The revision you are apparently referring to is clear and well-cited. Look up the references.

This is, putting it as politely as possible, an outright lie. Every scholar who bothered to review Hamlet’s Mill excoriated it in the harshest terms.

Lying isn't polite. You have only cited two reviews, and one was penned by a medical doctor and amateur archeologist. According to your definition that makes him a "popular writer." These early reviews of the work are not reflective of the recent scholarly views. Feel free to cite all 20, assuming they exist at all. If so, you open the door to the extensive favorable and more recent citations catalogued on this page. I'm sure there is sufficient room in the footnotes for as many as you care to add, and their more recent rebuttals.

No scholars “extensively cite” Hamlet’s Mill today. The closest example the COI editor has been able to produce is a retired professor from Occidental College who mentioned the book in passing.

The extensive citations are documented on this very page. By concensus, we determined not to add them as they would have made the size of the entry more unwieldy than your edits have caused it to already be. Do you read this page? As for the "retired professor," I suggest you read her and her husband's book. They refer to the work "Hamlet's Mill" so often they abbreviate the reference to it as S & D [Santilliana and Duchend]. Your efforts to characterize it as a "passing reference" is, to put it politely as possible, a lie.

“Clive Tolley took up and qualified Rydberg's theory in his 1995 Saga-Book article:” This has repeatedly been demonstrated to be yet another deceptive claim. (See discussion above.)

In fact, the editor you refer to ADDED to the citation, proving your characterization of it to be innaccurate. You deleted, in fact, the direct quotation from the German Kommmentar which specifically states that Tolley "took up" Rydberg's theory. Now you claim ignorance of it! The record speaks for itself.

The COI editor quotes Judith Moffett early in the article for a complimentary evaluation of Rydberg, but much later, when he (finally) allows one of her critical comments to be quoted (in a footnote!)

No authors, except Rydberg, are directly characterized in the introductory paragraph. The paragraph is not intended to highlight scholars who have commented on Rydberg, but give a general introduction to Rydberg from a number of sources. You reveal your own motives on this. Besides characterizing Elizabeth Wayland Barbar as "a retired professor" and a "professor emeritus from Occidental college" you fought to keep Moffett from being characterized at all when you extensively cited only the negative bits of her short bio, misrepresenting its conclusion. Now you wish to selectively place the descriptor where you think it will do the most damage. In contrast, on the Lotte Motz discussion page you continue to refer to your beloved Lotte Motz as "Prof." eventhough she was forced to quit teaching more than 30 years ago! Your intellectual dishonesty knows no shame.

Relegating critical comments to footnotes:

Following DAB's example in the Scholarship section, all lengthy citations, pro and con, have been regulated to the footnotes. You haven't complained of this before now, and have relegated a number of positive citations to the footnotes yourself.

The COI editor has moved Moffet’s essential evaluation of Rydberg’s work – that he was "a historian who cared more for atmospheres and half-truths than for historical facts," to an unrelated footnote, while featuring her broad, complimentary evaluations in the text of the article. Another rather obvious instance of POV-pushing.

It hasn't been removed. It was moved to the the section which deals with his historial romances, rather than randomly inserted as an editorial comment. Rydberg was not a historian. He was a Romantic author and poet, who used historical settings in his fictional works. His scientific studies included Bible criticism and comparative mythology— all within the realm of literature. If you apply the outline of Moffet's overall sketch to the outline of this paragraph summarizing his work, she is clearly referring to his historical romances, primarily the Last Athenian, which she refers to as a"faux-historical romance." By all accounts, the novels are allegories intended to convey philosophical ideas. Their settings are typically religiously charged historical periods, such as the Greek conversion to Christianity, the Reformation in Germany, etc. In the section you seek to mischaracterize, Moffett clearly states "The overall impression one brings away from a study of Rydberg's career and character is one of complexities and contradictions." She gives three examples, including the one you quote, before concluding "Fredrik Böök, who seldom misses his mark, sums up Rydberg as a metaphysical: "He saw the ideas of things, not the things themselves, the eternal, the overall patterns not the shifting multicolor phenomena of this world."

It is now rather obvious that you are deliberately cherry-picking what you feel are damaging statements in order to push your POV, more clearly expressed in your coy "Rydberg Religion" essays. Jack the Giant-Killer (talk) 04:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Undocumented quote

I have removed the following undocumented quote from the article:

[Rydberg] was further characterized as a "specialist in Germanic religions" in 1990 by Tore Ahlbäck. [citing: Tore Ahlbäck, 1990, in Old Norse and Finnish Religions and Cultic Place-names: Based on papers read at the Symposium on Encounters between Religions in Old Nordic Times and on Cultic Place-names held at Åbo, Finland, on the 19th-21st of August 1987.]

The editor who inserted this supposed quote into the article was apparently unaware that the book, Old Norse and Finnish Religions and Cultic Place-names is a collection of scholarly papers from a variety of sources. Tore Ahlbäck was not the author of the book, but the editor. If the quote in question actually appears in this book, it must be attributed to the specific author and title of the article in which it appears, with the page number. Of course, if the "quote" is simply another product of a hyper-enthusiastic imagination, such attribution is not required. Rsradford (talk) 16:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

False claims regarding Lindow and Clunies Ross rectified

Since the COI editor has repeatedly refused to provide any direct quotes from John Lindow or Margaret Clunies Ross in support of his undocumented claim that these scholars somehow endorse Rydberg's racialist faux-mythology, I have provided the relevant quotes myself, which should resolve this particular episode of deceptive citation. Rsradford (talk) 18:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Repeat a lie often enough and it will become truth, eh, Radford? You've yet to establish any "racialism", but you hope the slander will stick if you sling it often enough. The citation is not deceptive, and you are, as always, attempting to obscure the essential point here, which is that a timeline or story-arc is considered by some scholars now to be plausible. We don't expect these approaches to be identical. If you wish to document exact quotes, they belong in the footnotes. For the time being, I have reverted the article back to its previous state. CarlaO'Harris (talk) 19:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Query to the administrators: Is there any procedure in Wikipedia to prevent the deliberate falsification of citations, such as we have just seen by CarlaO'Harris? It is simply astounding that after repeatedly refusing to provide any evidence in support of her misrepresentation of Lindow's and Clunies Ross's work, she has now simply deleted the contrary evidence I provided, and reinserted her demonstrably false statements into the article. This goes beyond simple deception, and surely cannot be tolerated in what is supposed to be a factual encyclopedia article. Rsradford (talk) 19:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, whine, whine. Put them in the footnotes, as I suggested.CarlaO'Harris (talk) 20:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

This is so predictable. Radford has moved from attempting to fill the entry with charges of criminal homosexuality and pedophilia, to filling it with empty charges of racial hatred. This is NOT characteristic of Viktor Rydberg or his work, and it is pointless to have to keep fighting this nonsense. Isn't it clear that Radford's purpose here is malevolent? Finnrekkr (talk) 00:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the Lundberg Material

Since Lundberg cited the works of Rydberg after Rydberg's death, Rydberg cannot be held responsibile for their misuse. This is another attempt to insert the bias of the "Rydberg Religion" web-zine into the entry. The poem cited is verifiably clipped and mistranslated, regardles of the source. Lundberg clearly modifed it to fit his own diabolical purpose. Radford knowing uses this as a caption on his "Rydberg Religion" site. The intent to insert it here is thus self-evident. The long biographical passage about Lundberg is intended to reflect negatively on Rydberg. It has already been decided here that what modern pagans, such as Radford, do with Rydberg's work is inappropriate for the entry. Thus, the material on Lundberg is equally inappropriate. Rydberg was not a supporter of eugenics. No reliable source suggests this. Finnrekkr (talk) 01:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

This is another transparent attempt to associate Rydberg with distasteful activites, using the "guilt by association" method. It amounts to another innuendo campaign. None of the quotes regarding Lundberg have any direct bearing on Rydberg, his personal views, or personal actions. Apparently Radford wants you to belive that Rydberg was personally killing handicapped children now. As a child labor activist, and children's rights advocate, Rydberg never would have condoned such behavior. Radford has recently added a new section to his "Rydberg Religion" page stating all this nonsense in more elaborate and hyperbolic language. This is clearly an effort to give his own site legitimacy. If there is a COI editor here. RSRadford is clearly it. Finnrekkr (talk) 01:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Once again Radford has tinkered with the Reception section to insert long quotes contained in the footnotes back into the main text of the entry as a means to promote his editorial view. I have reeturned them to the format agreed on here several weeks ago. There is no sense in fighting the same battles over and over. Also, Radford's quoting of long passages of Lindow and Ross, which do not accurately summarize their conclusions are deceptive and another effort to editorialize. Both authors clearly accept a limited chronology, as the original revision states. Radford is attempting to radicalize the statement in an effort to disprove it, loading the entry with irrelevant quotes not reflective of the authors' conclusions. It's a trick we have all seen before. Finnrekkr (talk) 01:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Surely you can't miss the ironic hilarity of your objection to material documenting Rydberg's influence after his death!!! You have bloated this article beyond recognition with specious claims of Rydberg's supposed influence on contemporary scholarship, quoting works by scholars like Lindow, Dronke, and Clunies Ross who don't mention Rydberg at all, or Tolley, who mentions him in passing and disagrees with him. The entire nonsense section on "Hamlet's Mill" is supposed to show that Rydberg influenced this silly book, and it in turn has influenced serious scholars -- all long after Rydberg's death! True, Rydberg was not "responsible" for Lundberg's use of his Aryan racial theories and writing, but this is his legacy, not any imagined influence on modern scholarship. Rsradford (talk) 17:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The ironic hilarity is that anyone would consider two misquoted lines on a campaign poster, one of many I might add, as influence of anything! Your motives in adding such an irrelevant piece of garbage to this entry are clear, Mr. Radford. Finnrekkr (talk) 21:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Another orgy of POV-pushing

"Jack/Finnrekkr" made eight modifications to the article over the past 24 hours, in every instance deleting relevant, verified sources giving a balanced appraisal of Rydberg and his work, and inserting or reinserting material calculated to convey a distorted impression of the value of Rydberg's 19th century racialist faux-mythology (and coincidentally, to help sell "Jack's" vanity-press paperbacks, advertised elsewhere in the article).

1. Repositioning the Bredsdorff quote.

That Rydberg was a largely self-educated journalist is undisputed. He had only one year of university education, and supported himself as a journalist through most of his career. There is no justification for removing this characterization from the introduction to the article, and burying it in the middle of the "Biography" section.

2. Manipulation of Moffet quotes.

Deletion of the identification of Moffet as the source of the description of Rydberg as "an expert on Norse mythology" (which he manifestly was not) is completely unjustified, and has been restored.

3. Similarly, the (repeated) deletion of Moffet's fundamental evaluation of Rydberg

as caring more for half-truths than facts in unconscionable, given that the COI editor relies heavily on Moffet's more complimentary statements (even though he has tried to conceal their source).

4. Attributing the unverified de Vries quote to a "noted Dutch scholar"

is puffery, given that readers can go to the Jan de Vries page and read about him themselves. It would be equally accurate (and far more relevant, in the context of Rydberg's influence) to describe him as a "noted Nazi sympathizer."

5. Deleting the readily verified Liberman quote from its position beside the unverified and disputed de Vries quote

is pure POV-pushing. Both quotes have now been relegated to the footnotes.

6. There is no justification for deleting the Lundborg reference.

It is highly noteworthy that Rydberg's racial nationalism fed directly into Sweden's eugenics program, as illustrated by the "Aryan blood" quote on Lundborg's banner. Especially given that the COI editor has larded the article with reams of completely irrelevant material that doersn't mention Rydberg at all, deleting the Lundborg passage has no justification beyond POV-pushing.

7. The repeated deletion of any reference to the date of York Powell's evaluation

is deliberately deceptive, since it obscures the fact that virtually nobody has agreed with him in the past 114 years. Yet again, it has made clear in the text that Powell's was a 19th-century evaluation, not a modern one.

8. More nonsense concerning "Hamlet's Mill."

The false claims concerning the scholarly status of this eminently silly and completely irrelevant book have become comical, as documented elsewhere on this page. Rsradford (talk) 17:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

ORIGINAL RESEARCH EDITING

Radford has moved from painting Rydberg as a criminal homosexual and child-molester to a baby-killer. What next?

Kicking off this self-described orgy, "RSRadford" indulged in eight modifications to the entry in a single sitting, in every instance adding his original research to promote his quirky POV, intentionally inserting irelevant material calculated to convey a distorted impression of Rydberg's literary efforts in comprative Indo-European mythology. This being a renewed effort to promote his online fanzine, "The Rydberg Religon" formally rejected by a consensus of editors here. Unable to directly plug it, RS is again attempting to insert its original research here.

1. Repositioning the Bredsdorff quote.

This was moved to the "Biography" section where it belongs. Rydberg was not famous as a journalist. It's how he made his living, before becoming a famous author, scholar and member of parliament. The buzz-word "buried" is rather telling. Radford wishes to editorialize emphasizing the fact that Rydberg did not have a university degree, as if this is the only thing that makes a person worthy of being a scholar. The fact that Rydberg is universally recognized as a scholar has no bearing in the world of Rs Radford, largely self-educated as an Old Norse scholar and ersatz historial biographer.

To illustrate this point, notice how Radford added the dates of Rydberg's university studies to the bio section [1850] to [1851], and then reduntantly restated that these studies last one year. Either Radford believes the readers cannot count to one, or he is editorializing. You decide.

2. Manipulation of Moffet quotes.

As noted, a mini-bio of Moffett is not appropriate in the first paragraph of the article, where her general description of Rydberg is one of several. Radford wishes to place the bio here in an effort to diminish her assessemnt of Rydberg as an "expert on Norse mythology." He fought and lost that battle more than a month ago. See above.

3. Similarly, the (repeated) deletion of Moffet's fundamental evaluation of Rydberg

Mr. Radford apparently cannot read. This quote was not deleted. It is contained in the second paragraph of the entry, in its proper context. It is a disporpotionate & bloated quote and should be removed or relegated to the footnotes however. In an effort to editorialize, Radford took one sentence from a larger statement about Rydberg's overall work and highlighted it, as it appeared to support his POV. However, the entire quote doesn't draw the conclusion Radford wishes to promote, so he selectively clipped it to misprepresent the author's views. Again, Rydberg was not a historian, but the author of several historial novels (written as allegories commenting on the modern Swedish State Church and its stranglehold on government). Moffett herself calls these novels "faux-historical romances." Clearly, they are not intended as accurate histories, as Moffett herself recognizes.

4. Attributing the unverified de Vries quote to a "noted Dutch scholar"

Such "puffery" is apparently accurate when applied to "former professors", "popular writers" and "honoary degrees holders" in other words, anytime it is used to support Radford's original research, but such "puffery" is only objected to when the source refutes Radford's original research. And, for the record, the quote has been verified. The source and page number were added after Radford challenged it. No one has challenged it since. Those who care to can go look it up as I have. Since the work is not on Googlebooks, apparently Radford cannot find it.

5. Deleting the readily verified Liberman quote from its position beside the unverified and disputed de Vries quote

This is another verifiable lie. In the next line, Radford admits "Both quotes have now been relegated to the footnotes." Radford attempted to reposition the Liberman quote as an editorial comment. It has been positioned within the reception section since its inception, and put in the footnotes since DAB's revision of the section. This was discussed at length above. Why do we have to keep rehashing this? Obviously Radford "gets it."

6. There is no justification for deleting the Lundborg reference.

Radford uses this miscited piece of Rydberg's poetry as the headline on his Rydberg Religion page, which is why he wants it included here. The justification, as already stated, is that what Lundborg did has nothing to do with Rydberg, his work, or his beliefs. The source cited lists several quotes that Lundborg took and placed on banners. Radford chose one of these to the exclusion of all others. The "quote" in question is taken from 2 lines of one of Rydberg's poems, clipping two words from the middle of the second line changing the meaning of the lines to fit Lundborg's radical view, which he then displayed on one banner of many to promote the abortion of handicapped children. No doubt Rydberg would have been horrified, had he been alive. Rydberg did not support Lundborg or eugenics. He was a child-rights activist and no supporter of the zero-population growth effort of his day, Radford has shown no evidence that he was. Rydberg clearly expressed in his essay "The Future of the White Race" that a people who do not reproduce will most certianly be displaced by a people that do. This is rather prophectic considering the curent situation in Sweden.

Radford opined:

"It is highly noteworthy that Rydberg's racial nationalism fed directly into Sweden's eugenics program, as illustrated by the "Aryan blood" quote on Lundborg's banner."

It was previously decided here that what people (such as modern pagans) did with Rydberg's work after he died was not relevant, as the author had no control over it. Lundborg was a loon, no doubt. Radford is inserting him here to push his original scholarship on display at the "Rydberg Religon" website. RAdford has a seperate article there devoted to the eugenics movement, replete with original research attempting to paint Rydberg as its spiritual master.

7. The repeated deletion of any reference to the date of York Powell's evaluation

This is another verifiable lie. The date is there and has always been there. It has not been "deleted." Radford wishes to redundantly insert it up front to promote his editorial view, as he states. You will notice that Radford wishes to date all older quotes up front, but says nothing of newer quotes referenced in the same manner (i.e in the footnotes as part of their citation). Again, he is selectively choosing which quotes shall be prominently dated and which shall not to promote his original research.

To illustrate how disingenuous Radford is being here, he uses the scholarly text "Hamlet's Mill" (penned by two IT professors) in exactly the opposite manner. In that case, he promotes the earliest reviews of the work as the primary assessment of it, and ignores, deletes, or falsifies more modern assessements of the work, attempting to devalue their authors as "popular writers" or as "former professors"— the same method he objects to here and in #2 and #4 above, when they appear to support his original research.

8. More nonsense concerning "Hamlet's Mill."

Radford has tried several tactics now to discredit this work. These have been discussed at length, and a consensus has been reached. There is nothing new here. Old dog, old tricks. Jack the Giant-Killer (talk) 14:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Continued misrepresentation of Clive Tolley's work

Since "Jack/Fennrikkr" seems totally set on lying about the content of this article, instead of allowing it to speak for itself (it discusses Rydberg's views only once, does not agree with him, and reaches a conclusion fundamentally opposed to Rydberg's), I have been forced to delete the reference. I have previously offered several different versions that would mention Tolley's work without misrepesenting it, but the POV-pushing editor will have none of it. If a neutral editor or editors (not including "Jack's" sock puppet or pet troll) want to try writing a NPOV summary of this work and its relevance to the article, you are invited to do so. Rsradford (talk) 17:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. Once again, Radford is inserting the biased research from his "Rydberg Religion" Articles to give his web-zine a modicum of legitimacy. He has added new sections to it recently, full of the same kind of innuendo and errors that characterize the rest of it, and is attempting to insert them here. It has previously been determined that how others use Rydberg's work years after his death is not relevant to this entry. Yet, Radford persists. I have gone back and removed the quotations by Lundborg once again, as well as the reviews of Hamlet's Mill as they are not relevant to this entry. These were previously omitted by a consensus of editors here, see above. If Mr. Radford wishes to create seperate enties for these topics, he is free to do so. In the meantime, please stop vandalizing this site with your "Radford Religion" nonsense. Finnrekkr (talk) 00:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Can we get some intervention to end the falsification of sources in this article?

Once again, the editor with the direct financial conflict of interest has reinserted demonstrably false claims concerning Clive Tolley’s work into the article, complete with a “doctored” quote which makes it appear that Tolley endorses Rydberg’s nonsense, whereas the uncut quote makes it quite clear that this is not the case. I have once again provided the full quotation, but history shows the COI editor will promptly trim it again to enable him to continue misrepresenting Tolley’s point.

[Note: It took him exactly 5 minutes to do so!] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsradford (talk • contribs) 18:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The continuing false claims about the academic status of Hamlet’s Mill are reaching new levels of absurdity. The COI editor’s assertion that the book is “extensively cited” by modern scholars remains wholly undocumented, whereas that same editor is now deleting relevant, factual references to the publication history of Hamlet’s Mill, and citations to the sorts of lurid pop-occult works that actually do cite to it.

The COI editor’s deletion of important factual information concerning Rydberg’s influence on the Swedish eugenics movement is wholly incompatible with his insistent fictional claims that Rydberg’s racial nationalism plays some significant role in modern scholarship on Norse mythology. It is especially noteworthy that even Rydberg’s bibliography has been falsified, to conceal publications that might prove embarrassing to an editor using this article to sell his self-published paperbacks. Is there any way to get some intervention to put an end to this pattern of deliberate falsification of the article for personal gain? Rsradford (talk) 16:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Radford, you really ought to try reading. When you gain some familiarity with this case, and the discussions which have already occurred, rather than knee-jerk reacting on the basis of ignorance, it will greatly improve both the civility of our process as well as facilitate the balanced completion of the article. At the risk of being redundant (following list having already been printed twice above), I will refer you to just a small sample of the abundant and extensive citation :

"Carlo Ginzburg sees fit to cite Hamlet's Mill. And we find, "References to Hamlet's Mill and the theory that it presents are frequently found in popular science works such as Coming of Age in the Milky Way (1988) by Timothy Ferris, Professor of Astronomy at Berkeley. Other works, such as The Language of Archaic Astronomy by Harald A.T. Reiche have indicated a continuing respect for this work. This article is includes in Astronomy of hte Ancient, edited by Kenneth Brecher, Associate Professor of Physics at MIT, and by Michael Feirtag, member of the Board of Editors of Technology Review." (Jane B. Sellers, The Death of Gods in Ancient Egypt: A Study of the Threshold of Myth, Penguin Limited, London, 2003 , p. 2.) Roy Willis, from the University of Edinburgh, and Patrick Curry, from Bath Spa University College, see fit to extensively cite and engage Hamlet's Mill in their "Astrology, Science, and Culture : Pulling Down the Moon" (Berg, Oxford, 2004), stating that it includes a major "signal achievement". Barbara Sjoholm, in The Pirate Queen (Seal Press, Emeryville, 2004) calls it a "dense, exciting, and often impenetrable text", reviewing it favourably in her annotated bibliography, and mentions that the "Icelandic scholar Gisli Sigurdsson helpfully pointed me in the direction of Hamlet's Mill". Frank Durham and Robert D. Purrington, in Frame of the Universe : A History of Physical Cosmology (Columbia University Press, New York, 1983) favorably engage Hamlet's Mill in several locations. James Lang, Associate Professor of Sociology and former director of the Center for Latin American and Iberian Studies at Vanderbilt University, favorably cites Hamlet's Mill in his Notes of a Potato Watcher (Texas A& M University Press, 2001). Edward Dudley, Professor of Spanish and Comparative Literature at State University of New York at Buffalo, favorably cites Hamlet's Mill in The Endless Text : Don Quixote and the Hermeneutics of Romance (State University of New York Press, 1997). Dr. Wallace Martin, Professor of English at the University of Toledo, in Recent Theories of Narrative (Cornell University Press, 1986) calls Hamlet's Mill "A brilliant argument connecting mythical narratives with archaic cosmologies" (p. 217). Northrop Frye, in the Collected Works of Northrop Frye (University of Toronto Press, 2002), also favorably cites Hamle'ts Mill (p. 408), as does Charles Ruhl, Associate Professor of English at Old Dominion University, in On Monesemy : A Study in Linguistic Semantics (State University of New York Press, 1989), as does James H. Charlesworth in "Jewish Interests in Astrology" (in Rise and Decline of the Roman World,Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, 1987), as does Paul Feyerabend, Professor of Philosophy at UC Berkeley and Professor of Science at the Federal Institute of Technology at Zurich, in Farewell to Reason (Verso, London, 1987, p. 113), as does Rachel Hadas, Assistant Professor of English at the Newark College of Arts and Sciences, Rutgers University, in her Form, Cycle, Infinity : Landscape Imagery in the Poetry of Robert Frost (Bucknell University Press, London, 1985, p.89), as does Eric Voegelin, Professor of Political Science in the Faculty of Law at the University of Vienna in Order and History (Volume IV : The Ecumenic Age, University of Missouri Press, Columbia, 2000, p. 132). Mark Bauer, in This Composite Voice : The Role of W.B. Yeats in James Merrill's Poetry (Routledge, New York, 2003, p. 196) calls it a "massive study". Dr. Thomas G. Brophy, in The Origin Map (Writer's Club Press, 2002), calls it "classic". Georg Feuerstein, in In Search of the Cradle of Civilization : New Light on Ancient India (Quest Books, Wheaton, 1995, p. 239), calls it an "exceptional work". It is cited in Richard M. Lerner's Concepts and Theories of Human Development (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, 2002), and in John R. Hinnells' The Routledge Companion to the Study of Religion (2005). It is clearly an important work that receives regular citation in University Press books written by educated Professors. Mr. Radford is able to find some scholars who differ with it. So? My catalogue illustrates that there is a healthy difference of opinion here in the academic community that definitely does not constitute any kind of unanimous discrediting of the source."

Furthermore, your broken-record tactics of emphasising Rydberg's "racial nationalism" amounts to nothing more than slur-propaganda. Ethnicity as such barely enters into the work of Rydberg which you have most objection to. You don't like his mythological investigations and, unable to rebut them as such through your own might and main, engage in character assassination. Nietzsche hated anti-Semitism and German Nationalism, yet after his death, his work was claimed by the Nazis. An author is not responsible for how people mishandle him after his death. That would also apply to Rydberg, and how you have chosen to misrepresent him, again and again, on world-wide public forums. And perhaps you might stop putting forth your claim of using this article for mercenary purposes, as it has been dealt with again and again, unless you wish to earn the nickname of "Radford, Horsebeater", as in beating a dead horse. That issue has been put to rest. CarlaO'Harris (talk) 22:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Once again, the editor with the direct financial conflict of interest has reinserted demonstrably false claims concerning Clive Tolley’s work into the article, complete with a “doctored” quote which makes it appear that Tolley endorses Rydberg’s nonsense, whereas the uncut quote makes it quite clear that this is not the case. I have once again provided the full quotation, but history shows the COI editor will promptly trim it again to enable him to continue misrepresenting Tolley’s point.

[Note: It took him exactly 5 minutes to do so!] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsradford (talk • contribs) 18:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The only one falsifying material around here is Radford. He has been caught doing this time and again, and is simply using the lax oversight here as a means to further his neo-pagan agenda. Obviously, Rydberg's popularity among neo-pagans is a cause of great concern to him, since it causes a professional lawyer like him to invest great amounts of time and energy ranting about a "dangerous cyber-cult" devoted to the man's work. In case anyone here isn't already aware, this is what I am talking about:

http://www.rydberg.galinngrund.org/

This is RSRadford's website. Bloodofox previously noted it reads like a joke; and thus was promptly removed from the reference section here. Since that time, Radford has repeatedly attempted to insert original research from the site into this entry, painting Rydberg as a criminal homosexual, a pedophile, and now a baby-killer. None of these false accusatations has merit. Radford builds his cases through lurid innuendos and the willful distortion of the sources he cites, as some lawyers are prone to do. Most revealing is that not a single shred of evidence for the existence of a neo-pagan cult devoted solely to Rydberg can be found anywhere on the web. This cyber-cult simply does not exist.

Now to address his relevant points:

The deletion of slanted and deceptive information concerning the Swedish eugenics movement, inserted as original research, is entirely compatible with the intent of this article. There is no direct evidence that Rydberg himself ever supported such a movement. Do I really have to state the obvious? Lundborg misquoting a single piece of Rydberg's poetry as a campaign slogan after Rydberg death is hardly evidence for Rydberg's complicity in the eugenics effort.

The extensive citations to Hamlet's Mill were cataloged here by Carla O'Harris some time back, and it was agreed then that crtical references to this book, whatever their conclusion, were not relevant here. DAB suggested some one open an entry on Hamlet's Mill if they wished. No doubt Radford will do this when he tires of vandalizing this entry.

The Kommentar zu den Liedern der Edda supports the fact that Tolley supports Rydberg's findings on the mill. The source is cited.

And lastly, Radford writes:

"It is especially noteworthy that even Rydberg’s bibliography has been falsified, to conceal publications that might prove embarrassing to an editor using this article to sell his self-published paperbacks."

How so? The bibliography has been a joint editing project worked on by many hands over a long period of time. Is Radford seriously suggesting there has been a conspiracy to falsify the data? ROFL! Perhaps he is implying a sin of omission. If so, Rydberg was a journalist, author, poet, and member of parliment. He wrote a great number of news articles and commentary during his long career as a journalist. , and any number of book introductions, book reviews, laws and legal documents, tracts and pamphlets and other material of a a general nature not mentioned here. There are also three volumes of personal letters that have been published, and scores of unpublished writings on file at the Swedish Royal Library. If Radford cares to catalog all this, please have at it. Jack the Giant-Killer (talk) 20:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

OUTRIGHT VANDALISM

In his most recent edit, dated July 3rd 16:46, RSRADFORD author of http://www.rydberg.galinngrund.org/ an inflammatory and false website solely devoted to defaming Viktor Rydberg, the subject of this entry, added the following:

"Of this work, Nazi sympathizer and scholar Jan de Vries, said:

It is outrageous to characterize the well-respected Dutch scholar and religious historian Jan de Vries as a "Nazi sympathizer." The clear intent is to discredit any scholar who views Rydberg favorably, using character assassination, the lowest means possible, to do so.

Following the same pattern, Radford again reduntantly inserted irrelevant information regarding the misuse of one of Rydberg's poems 40 years after the author's death, attempting to link the author with rascism and infanticide through innuendo and guilt by association:

Rydberg’s final publication, "The Future of the White Race"[29] focuses on perceived racial moral and physical degeneration, and influenced Herman Lundborg.[30] Lundborg, as director of Sweden’s State Institute for Racial Biology, promoted a national program of eugenics, including the forced sterilization of those classified by the government as unfit for the nation’s racial stock. At the 1930 Stockholm Exhibition, Lundborg set forth the institute’s mission under a banner partially quoting one of Rydberg’s poems: "To Aryan blood, the purest and noble, was I wed by a friendly Norn.”[31]

The source cited clearly states that this slogan was one of several Lundborg used, but Radford selectively cites only this one, again adding his uniquely negative editorial spin designed to defame the subject of this entry. It has been noted several times that the poem in question has been miscited, omitting two words from the middle of the second sentence. Any admin should note that this misquote is also used prominently as the headline of Radford's anti-Rydberg website.

In the following paragraph, RSRADFORD again inserts numerous criticisms of a work which mentions Rydberg favorably. The clear intent here is to discredit any source that views Rydberg favorably. This entry is about the 19th century author Rydberg not the 1969 book "Hamlet's Mill" yet has repeatedly attempted to discredit this work here. RSRADFORD writes:

'One of Rydberg's mythological theories is that of a vast world-mill which rotates the heavens, which he believed was an integral part of Old Norse mythic cosmology. The 1969 work Hamlet's Mill by IT professors Georgia de Santilliana and Hertha von Duchend utilizes this theory. This work was widely ridiculed by scholars when it first appeared, brought out by a publisher of game books because no academic press could be found that would accept it. Jaan Puhvel, for example, dismissed the book as “not a scholarly work on the problem of myth”;[42] H. R. Ellis Davidson referred to Hamlet’s Mill as: "... amateurish in the worst sense, jumping to wild conclusions without any knowledge of the historical value of the sources or of previous work done";[43] while Edmund Leach pronounced it “pure fantasy.”[44] Although the book is now extensively cited in popular works such as The Giza Death Star Destroyed: the Ancient War for Future Science,[45] From Atlantis to the Sphinx: Recovering the Lost Wisdom of the Ancient World[46] and The Canopus Revelation: The Stargate of the Gods and the Ark of Osiris,[47] it remains “virtually ignored by the scientific and scholarly establishment.”[48]'

In the same vein, RSRADFORD again falsely states that Clive Tolley "rejects" Rydberg's theory, when a second-party source has been cited that verifies that Tolley accepted and qualified Rydberg's theory. This had been directly cited in the entry and has been discussed at length on the discussion page. Yet, Radford continues to delete it without discussion or explanation, based on his singlar reading of Tolley's text. This is clearly original research and POV-pushing.

"Clive Tolley rejected Rydberg's theory in his 1995 Saga-Book article on “The Mill in Norse and Finnish Mythology,” which examined additional Indo-European and Finnish analogs of the mill.[49]

Since RSRADFORD chooses to forgo the discussion process, instead filling it with personal attacks and false accusatations, and continues to revise the entry with verifiably false and inflamatory statements, it should be clear to all parties that his intent is to vandalize this entry. As the Administrator of this page, DAB (DBachmann) has made no effort to curb these assualts on the integrity of this page, and in my opinion, is encouraging RSRADFORD's actions here through his inaction and occasional verbal support for Radford. Jack the Giant-Killer (talk) 16:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you should take a step back one of these days. This isn't Wikipedia:Vandalism as we use the term around here. I agree that the off-hand characterization of de Vries was WP:UNDUE, although it is of course a fact, not "character assassination", that JdV was pro-Nazi. It's just that the point is irrelevant here. It is obvious that Rydberg's work appeals to the Neo-Nazi, Nouvelle Droite or "Neo-Völkisch" mindset, but I suppose that doesn't by necessity cast any shadow upon VR himself any more than it does cast one upon Snorri. It just helps put the pathetic show on this talkpage into perspective. dab (𒁳) 17:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

What is obvious DBachmann is your bias for Radford's POV. Your attitude amply explains what you call, the pathetic show on this talkpage. In my years of study, I have seen little evidence that Rydberg's mythological work appeals to the "Neo-Völkisch mindset." Nor has any verifiable evidence been presented here to that effect. In fact, Radford's attempts to paint Rydberg as such are so poorly supported, that, if anything, it proves that the opposite is true. Most neo-Nazis here in the States are verifiably "Christian," followers of the "Christian-identity" movement citing the Bible as their moral authority. I am also aware that many Europeans have the misguided idea that America is a racially-divided county. I have often encountered this attitude from several Europeans here on holiday, who are generally surprised at the racial diveristy they see in all public places. When asked where they got this notion, they most frequently cite CNN and other American broadcasts. No doubt, as a German, this false perception about America may also color your own thinking. Jack the Giant-Killer (talk) 15:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

This explains to me why this nonsense has been allowed to continue for so long. Radford is expressing DAB's views. Now that DAB has revealed his anti-Rydberg/pro-Radford bias in such unmistakeable terms, how does one go about getting such a biased administrator removed from his position of oversight on an entry, where he has proven that he cannot be objective, I wonder? Finnrekkr (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible to tag this article “Fiction?”

Back when the factuality of this article was first tagged as “Disputed,” it was thought by some that it might be possible to move the text back in the direction of NPOV. Instead, it has been pushed wildly away from any connection to reality by the persistent efforts of William P. Reaves (aka “Jack the Giant Killer”) to convert the article into a puff-piece advertising his self-published paperbacks.

The current version of the article contains three major, deliberate misrepresentations, that either must be addressed, or else consign the article to the realm of pure fantasy.

1. It has been repeatedly demonstrated that the misrepresentation of Clive Tolley’s work is a knowing lie.

As even a quick glance at the work will confirm, Clive Tolley did not develop, modify, endorse, or accept Rydberg’s racial nationalist faux-mythology in his 1995 Saga-Book article. His single mention of Rydberg has been quoted in full, although “Jack” has repeatedly altered the quote to create the false impression that Tolley agrees with Rydberg about something. He does not. In fact, Tolley flatly and unequivocally rejects Rydberg’s central point, concerning the significance of the “world mill” in Scandinavian mythology. It would be impossible to imagine a more direct repudiation. Yet Mr. Reaves resorts to a teriary source – in German, no less – as his authority for the proposition that Tolley’s article says something which it self-evidently does not. Relying on a tertiary source to contradict the plain meaning of a secondary source, when that source is readily available for examination, would be unacceptable research for a 6th-grade term paper, and it should be unacceptable in Wikipedia.

2. The deliberate misrepresentation of the “scholarly” status of Hamlet’s Mill makes a joke of this article in itself.

The claim that modern scholars “extensively cite” to Hamlet’s Mill is so ludicrous that Mr. Reaves doesn’t even bother trying to support it. He simply sticks to his lie, and deletes any and all factual information concerning Hamlet’s Mill – that it was released by a publisher of game books because no academic press would accept it; that it was universally excoriated by scholars who bothered to review it; that it is “cited” today primarily by luridly-titled occult paperbacks, and that those scholars who mention the book (not “cite,” but mention) do so in dismissive and derogatory terms.

3. Mr. Reaves’ purging of any reference to Rydberg’s racist works, and their impact on the development of Sweden’s eugenics program, is “whitewashing” of the worst sense – the more so since these facts are being deleted from the article purely for monetary gain.

It is simply comical for Mr. Reaves to declare this evidence of Rydberg’s actual historical impact “irrelevant,” while tirelessly filling the article with lies, deceptions, and outright fabrications, to create a fictional “influence” on Old Norse scholarship that Rydberg never had.

I have restored factual material on each of these three points. In the past, it has taken Mr. Reaves as little as five minutes to revert the article to his unsupported fantasies and conscious deceptions. Wouldn't it be simpler to just post a warning that this article is for advertising purposes only, and bears no relationship to reality? Rsradford (talk) 03:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Addressing Radford's Objections, once again.

There would be no need to tag the entry as fiction, if Mr. Radford's revisions could be permanently excised from this entry. This editor has shown a willful effort to distort and misrepresent the published works of scholars to push his original research concluding that Viktor Rydberg was a baby-killer, ur-Nazi, criminal homosexual, and pedophile. No doubt, when these efforts fail, Radford will scrape the bottom of his bag of tricks for something else, just as lurid.

Mr. Radford claims:

"The current version of the article contains three major, deliberate misrepresentations, that either must be addressed, or else consign the article to the realm of pure fantasy."

This is a Red Herring. Mr. Radford's objections have been repeatedly addressed and identified as original research. To illustrate this fact, Radford's revision describes one prominent scholar he disagrees with as a "Nazi-sympathesir" and attempts to associate Rydberg with the 1930s eugenics movement, a campaign to murder handicapped children, forty years after Rydberg's death. Radford bases these editorial comments on a single 1930s campaign slogan which misquotes two lines from one of Rydberg's popular poems. Both revisions are intended to smear Rydberg as a Nazi, eventhough he was a Swede who lived more than thirty years before the advent of the Nazi party. These "fantasities" have been addressed and corrected repeatedly, and are not worth addressing again.

1. It has been repeatedly demonstrated that the misrepresentation of Clive Tolley’s work is a knowing lie.

Radford's misrepresentation of Tolley's work has been proven to be false by the quote from the Kommentar zur den Liedern der Edda, Bd. 3, which Radford has deleted numerous times now. That scholarly source clearly states that Tolley "took up" Rydberg's theory, repeating it point-by-point. A comparison of the two works demonstrates the truth of this. In contrast, Radford quotes a single line of Tolley's text, taken out of context, which does not mention Rydberg or his work to push his original research. Once again, he is selectively quoting a work to misrepresent its conclusions.

2. The deliberate misrepresentation of the “scholarly” status of Hamlet’s Mill makes a joke of this article in itself.

Editor Carla O'Harris has cited a wealth of citations to this work on this page more than once now. Radford choses to ignore these to push his baseless claims. Mr. Radford's intent to poison this entry with his venomous POV is evident on his web-zine "The Rydberg Relgion", which Bloodofox has noted "reads like a joke." Mr. Radford is attempting to import its original research here, because the site itself was not allowed to be linked with this entry by a concensus of editors, precisely because of its false and misleading content.

3. Mr. Reaves’ purging of any reference to Rydberg’s racist works, and their impact on the development of Sweden’s eugenics program, is “whitewashing” of the worst sense – the more so since these facts are being deleted from the article purely for monetary gain.

Who is this "Mr. Reaves"? It is simply comical for Mr. Radford to claim that Rydberg was the author of racist works. He was a liberal humanist and identified as such in several works. He promoted children's rights and the rights of the Jewish minority during his lifetime and is recognized as such. During his term in parliament, Swedish Jews gained full civil rights. Rydberg himself made the key-note speech in support of the law. His essay "The Future of the White Race" (which includes those of Jewish descent among the "white race" as quotes from Rydberg's writings attest) is a phophetic plea to abandon the politics of "zero-population growth" and unregulated capitalism at the end of the 19th century which was lowering the Swedish birthrate and sending large parts of the population to an early grave through child-labor, sweat-shop working conditions, and exposure to industrial pollutants. As a contrast, Rydberg used the Chinese population noting their high birthrate, cultural tendency to defer to authority, and their current migration rate (citing Chinese immigration to America to work on the burgeoning railroad system). He concluded that if these trends continued, Europe would be inhabited by majority Chinese within a 100 years.

In light of the current geo-political situation, Rydberg was not wrong in this warning. After WWII, large populations of Middle Eastern workers and their families migrated to Europe to fill the gap left by the decimation of the pre-war male population of Old Europe, and China has become an ever expanding global superpower. The point of the essay is not racism, but cultural self-preservation. Since the essay has not been published in English, Radford no doubt has never read it firsthand, but instead is relying on its title and one citation to it to draw his erronous conclusions.

In the past, Mr. Radford has displayed his bias by filling the entry with racial and hate-filled propoganda based on half-truths and innuendos (for example, quoting anti-sodomy laws in the same breath as suggesting Rydberg had a sexual relationship with a 12 year old). Wouldn't it be simpler to just put an end to Mr. Radford's editorial privledges here, especially in light of his most recent efforts to smear a prominent Dutch scholar of the 1940s, 50s and 60s as a "Nazi Sympathesir" solely because he disagrees with his views? Jack the Giant-Killer (talk) 15:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Once again, "Jack" (William P. Reaves) demonstrates that he has no answer to the points I raised above, except his endless personal abuse and his amateur "spin" on history. Reading between the lines, Jack essentially admits that he is lying about the Tolley article, contradicting the words Tolley wrote on the page in favor of his own personal interpretation of a third-hand source -- not to mention "doctoring" a quote from Tolly, changing its meaning by 180 degrees, to cement his deception.

"Jack" is knowingly lying about Hamlet's Mill. His partner at the juvenile "Viktor Rydberg" Yahoo Group, "Carla O'Harris," has not identified a single scholar who "extensively cites" to this monumentally silly book. If "Jack" had even a faint belief that this claim is true, why is he unable to give any examples of these "extensive citations" -- and why does he promptly and persistently delete the references I have inserted into the article, quoting what the scholars really say about the book?

"Jack" is knowingly whitewashing the article by removing any and all references to the documented impact of Rydberg's Aryan racial theories on the development of Sweden's eugenics program. This is Rydberg's rightful, historical legacy -- but of course, that fact won't help sell Mr. Reaves' vanity-press "translations," so out it must go!

It is simply comical that "Jack" knows so little about Jan de Vries, whom he purports to quote (a quotation that has never been verified by any independent source, by the way), that he is unaware of de Vries' relationship to the Nazis. Of course de Vries would have had glowing things to say about 19th century racial nationalism! Refusing to identify his political orientation as context for those comments is yet more POV-pushing.

Rsradford (talk) 07:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Radford, I have provided the extensive citation. The point is not extensive citation by a single scholar, the point is extensive citation by a broad range of scholars. Read the list, repeated three times above. You're demonstrating your lack of good faith, and your desire to slant. You personally find Hamlet's Mill to be monumentally silly because it doesn't support your stunningly un-neutral point of view. The reason that Jack didn't give the references is --- if you had bothered to even read the discussion session here rather than rabidly and ignorantly ranting --- we had already agreed that all of those references were cumbersome.CarlaO'Harris (talk) 15:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Radford, I agree that Mr. Reaves tends to be out of line in his campaign on this page. He is fabricating cherry-picked "references" supportive of his view of Rydberg, and denounces the slightest inconsistency running counter to his agenda in hysterical tones. It isn't possible to develop this article in good faith under such circumstances. I must nevertheless note that you seem to be over-emphasizing the notability of Rydberg's racialist views. Scientific racism was perfectly common in Rydberg's period, and it will be enough to simly note that he is no exception in this. I understand your desire to denounce dishonest attempts at touting Rydberg's scholarship in the context of neo-völkisch ideology. However, this isn't an article on that unpleasant underbelly of Germanic neopaganism, it is about Rydberg himself. De Vries is an noted expert in the field, and while he may have harboured unsavoury political ideologies, he is still an expert in his field, and can be quoted as such rather than as Nazi sympathizer. I must also note that as a result of this dispute, the article gives completely disproportionate weight to Rydberg's mythographical theories. As the 1911(!) EB writes,

The Freebooter on the Baltic (1857) and The Last of the Athenians (1859) gave Rydberg a place in the front rank of contemporary novelists ... In Viktor Rydberg Sweden possessed a writer of the first order ... He was an idealist of the old romantic type which Sweden had known for threequarters of a century; he was the last of that race, and perhaps, as a mere writer, the greatest. " (emphasis mine) [2]

Rydberg is first and foremost a gifted novelist and the author of popular books on religious philosophy. His mythological stuff is a mere side show worthy of mention, but not of taking up a large proportion of this article. dab (𒁳) 12:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You would agree, wouldn't you, dab, that Jack is "out of line" while Mr. Radford is not, since you have repeatedly demonstrated your slant towards Mr. Radford in complete ignorance of his almost total rebuttal in this forum. What's your agenda?CarlaO'Harris (talk) 15:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked Mr Reaves for a month for his disruptive edits. His hysteria is making progress here impossible. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 12:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

"Disruptive edits"? Absurd. Once again Wikipedia demonstrates its absurd bias and dedication to untruth --- a dedication dab bragged about! Far from being hysterical (and let us notice the foam coming off of Mr. Radford's lips), Jack has continually provided references and rebuttals in the dog-and-pony show Mr. Radford is putting us all through here.CarlaO'Harris (talk) 15:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I find this surprising. He and Radford have both been both deleting each others' material and debating hotly here; they've both accused the other repeatedly of COI, but Radford keeps calling Reaves "the COI editor." And I wonder how Reaves' real name came into the discussion? Yes, the atmosphere is unpleasant in here--I've been skimming in some dismay for a week, wondering if I dare get into it. But Radford seems to me to have been the more personal and less willing to collaborate.

The Encyclopedia Britannica is a dated source with little relevance to what's notable today, and it's not uncommon for a writer to be notable for different things in different countries, especially since poetry is hard to translate; and Rydberg's poetry has not been widely available in English. In an English-speaking context, his reorganization of Germanic mythology looms large; it should get more space here than on Swedish Wikipedia regardless of what the situation was in 1911.

As to de Vries: he was exonerated of moral depravity but found guilty of serious political misjudgments. I have been looking through sources trying to find a citation in English to add to the article on him, but have found only German and Dutch; I'm new here but I understand foreign-language sources are deprecated. It's an over-statement to call him a Nazi sympathizer; he was a collaborator to the extent that he remained within academia during the occupation, and he fled to Leipzig at the end of the war, fearing the backlash that indeed happened. He served time in prison and was stripped of his Royal Academy membership and his academic post. But the commission found him innocent of Nazi sympathies, as opposed to love of Germany and failure to take a stand against the occupation. In any case, the reference to de Vries is merely to support Rydberg's mythological writings having been read and taken seriously by academics in the field of Germanic mythology, and as an academic in that field, de Vries ranks very highly. Yngvadottir (talk) 14:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your points on de Vries. Since you appear to be both knowledgeable and neutral, I do invite you to present suggestions towards improving neutrality and balance. I will be sure to support your edits if they are coherently argued and referenced. --dab (𒁳) 18:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

At last -- some hope of progress! Some comments on a few of the points made above:

The relevance of deVries' politics: I first inserted the reference to de Vries' Nazi collaboration in response to "Jack's" gratuitous identification of him as a "noted scholar," by way of introducing his (still unverified) quote lauding Rydberg's racial-nationalist mythologizing. My point was that de Vries' expertise should be allowed to speak for itself, especially since he himself is the subject of a Wikipedia article: Jan de Vries. Drop the superlatives, verify that the quote is genuine, and there would then be no reason to refer to de Vries' politics. In any event, I concur with dab in acquiescing to however you want to resolve this issue, Yngvadottir, if you wish to lend a hand.

"Extensive citations by scholars" to Hamlet's Mill: "Carla" and "Jack" have been playing word games here. In scholarly writing, to "cite" a work means to draw on it as an authority for some point, or to attribute it as the source of some idea that is being developed. What "Carla" produced was a list of works (apparently drawn right off of Google Books) that mention Hamlet's Mill -- even though, if one examines the nature of the comments, they tend to be of the "this silly book is unbelievably worthless" variety. These are not "scholarly citations" as that term is understood in academic writing. Consequently, the claim that Hamlet's Mill is "extensively cited by scholars" is simply false, and should be deleted. If someone wants to say that Hamlet's Mill is "extensively mentioned by scholars," it is only fair to give some examples to show how devastatingly negative those comments are. Of course, when I have tried to do so, those quotes were promptly deleted by "Jack."

The misrepresentation of Tolley's work: Poring over "Carla's" latest contribution, I see no argument justifying the continued deceptions concerning the content of Clive Tolley's 1995 Saga-Book article. Does anyone (besides "Carla") have any objection to my restoring the factual account of what Tolley actually wrote, in place of the contra-factual inference that he somehow accepted or built on Rydberg's theory of the "world mill?"

As to how Mr. reaves' name got into the discussion: I finally got tired of his listing my personal e-mail address, my place of employment, and his speculations concerning my professional and academic work, none of which can be gleaned from my account name, Rsradford. There is an old Indo-European saying about sauce for the goose. Since "Jack" will apparently not be invading my privacy for at least a short time, I will gladly stop invading his. Rsradford (talk) 19:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

regarding Hamlet's Mill, let me repeat my position that this article isn't the place to discuss it. It was only ever brought up because Jack+Carla found it on google books as they harvested the "extensive mentions" of VR. Like JdV, it has its own article, at Hamlet's Mill. Whatever merit is in the "world mill" mytheme could also be discussed at a world mill article, at Millstone#In mythology, or similar. It is a waste of time and unduly distracts from the topic at hand to try and resolve these questions here. dab (𒁳) 13:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Dab, your disrespectful tone is not appreciated, and if you continue, I will report you. We were not "harvesting" from Google Books. We've both read the book, and like many other scholars, find it to be valuable. Contrary to Mr. Radford's assertion above, the books cited above were fully checked for their positive mention of Hamlet's Mill, or their citation. The fact that the book is so extensively cited indicates that it is an important work. Once again, Mr. Radford has failed to do his homework, and simply engages in innuendo, while Jack and I have done our research.CarlaO'Harris (talk) 18:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Relocating the "world mill" discussion

[copied from preceding section:]

regarding Hamlet's Mill, let me repeat my position that this article isn't the place to discuss it. It was only ever brought up because Jack+Carla found it on google books as they harvested the "extensive mentions" of VR. Like JdV, it has its own article, at Hamlet's Mill. Whatever merit is in the "world mill" mytheme could also be discussed at a world mill article, at Millstone#In mythology, or similar. It is a waste of time and unduly distracts from the topic at hand to try and resolve these questions here. dab (𒁳) 13:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

"Harvesting" is a rather strange word for research.CarlaO'Harris (talk) 18:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

That would be a positive way to resolve this situation. The Hamlet's Mill article has been in existence for a year and a half, and would be a far more appropriate forum for advancing the arguments regarding that book, since the discussion there involves more people who have actually seen the work in question.

Similarly, Clive Tolley's "Mill" article, which has virtually nothing to do with Rydberg, would more productively be discussed in a new article on that subject. However, I doubt that a Millstone#In mythology section would be adequate for this purpose. Unless someone objects and/or wants to volunteer, I will go ahead and set up a new World Mill article, linked to Norse Mythology and Wikipedia:WikiProject Norse history and culture, where any and all claims about the significance of the mill in Scandinavian mythology can be fully ventilated without creating a major digression from the main subject of the article, as they does here. Comments, anyone?

Rsradford (talk) 16:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Mention of the work "Hamlet's Mill" and its assessment of Rydberg's theory is relevant here. What is not relevant is the extensive unblananced critiques of the work added by RSRadford. In his last blanket revert, DAB supported re-adding a large amount of this material here. I find it strange that the two editors now advocating its removal are the very ones who have sought to repeatedly include it.66.193.49.130 (talk) 16:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

So much for blocking, eh?

It is certainly possible to say that Hamlet's Mill mentions Rydberg, if that's important to you. But the text should provide a link at that point to the main Hamlet's Mill article, where the significance (if any) and academic status (if any) of the book can be fully discussed without causing a major digression having nothing to do with Rydberg.

Here is my proposal for a stub for the World Mill article:

User:Rsradford/World Mill

Comments?

Rsradford (talk) 16:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

with my recently restored privilege of editing this page (following a block and some drama on my talkpage:) -- thanks for the dedicated stub. The item may still be summarized at Millstone, the same way Bear#Myth_and_legend refers to Bear cult. --dab (𒁳) 18:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

So much for avoiding personal comments, eh? The admins have shown their bias here by following RSRadford's identiciation of Jack the Giant-Killer as William P. Reaves, in violation of Wikipedia's policy. Let's not forget both Carla O'Harris and myself as been identified as Mr. Reaves as well, by the same editor.

I have taken the liberty of removing the editorial comment that Jan de Vries was a Nazi sympatheizer as DAB said that was irrelevant here, before blanketly reverting back to RSRadford's previous edit containing it. Also, I find no verification or point in RSRadford's saying that Hamlet's Mill was published by a publisher of game books, because it could not find a suitable academic publishing house. The statement is unsourced and smacks of pure editorializing. I also returned the scholarship that RSRadford DAB removed in RSRadford's revision and DAB's blind revert. Finnrekkr (talk) 19:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't care whether someone is called "Reaves" here, and it does not impinge on how we proceed with the article. I understand you communicate by some mailing list, and at least one of you is Mr. Reaves, but that's really irrelevant for the purposes of Wikipedia. You fail to point out which Wikipedia policy in particular you wish to allege has been violated. --dab (𒁳) 07:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Hamlet's Mill and Den hvita rasens framtid

I have included the citations of scholars in the Hamlet's Mill section, as Mr. Radford was slanting things towards his negative POV. I have given a more balanced consideration of Den hvita rasens framtid. I still assert that Lundborg is irrelevant here, and belongs on his own page. There, if Mr. Radford insists, he may mention Lundborg's citation of Rydberg's words.CarlaO'Harris (talk) 19:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I've just removed the whole section relating to Hamlet's Mill. I fail to understand what relevance it can have here. This article discusses Rydberg, it doesn't need a lengthy rant on something almost completely unrelated. See also WP:COATRACK. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 20:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

And I have moved the related discussion of the World Mill to its own article, as discussed above. Rsradford (talk) 22:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Moreschi, please review the revision-history. The discussions you object to were added by RS Radford to support his POV. I am all for removing the lengthy discussions of Hamlet's Mill and Harbardsljod. These were introduced and rallied for by RS Radford against the objections of other editors on this entry. It's about time they go. However, all quotes which directly pertain to Rydberg and his work are relevent and should stay, thus I have restored them to the entry. 18:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Finnrekkr (talk • contribs)

For whatever it's worth, the preceding statement is obviously false. The references to both Hamlet's Mill and the Clive Tolley article were first inserted into the article on 3/28/08 by the poster now known as "Jack the Giant Killer," when he was editing anonymously from IP 97.100.237.167. Because Hamlet's Mill was cited as a legitimate scholarly source, and Tolley's article was misrepresented as "accepting" Rydberg's theories, discussions of those sources ensued. Why the above editor sees fit to restore these sections while claiming that they should be deleted is beyond my powers of comprehension. Rsradford (talk) 19:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Similarly, Hárbardsljóð was first injected into this article by "Jack the Giant-Killer" on May 13, 2008, as an example of ideas for which Rydberg is still "cited by scholars" -- without revealing that he is "cited" only as an example of outdated or mistaken analysis of the poem. Again, the discussion ensued to clarify the nature of the misleading "citations" first injected into the article by "Jack." There is no reason the Rydberg article needs to say anything more than that Rydberg thought Harbard was Loki, this view was repudiated by leading scholars before 1900, and if you want to know more about it, go to the Hárbardsljóð article. Rsradford (talk) 19:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Endlessly stating and citing sources to show (in your opinion) that the theory was "forcefully repudiated" is editorializing, and is precisely what has been deleted from the article. The fact is, Rydberg is cited as expressing a view, and the Kommentar does NOT draw any conclusion. It simply outlines the history of the discussion of which Rydberg was a part. The source clearly states that Harbard is not identified in the poem. Thus, there is no "correct" answer. Adding the views of other later scholars is editorializing.Finnrekkr (talk)

Obviously, if you're taking the position that it's okay to include knowingly false and deceptive claims in the article (so long as they puff Rydberg and help sell amateur "translations" of his work), but any discussion that might tend to shed light on the reality of those claims should be banned, that leaves us exactly where we were before the recent efforts to start purging this article of some of its irrelevant verbiage. Rsradford (talk) 20:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

And oddly, although you assure us you are not "Jack," I see you have now intentionally doctored the quote from Tolley's article exactly as "Jack" has done on numerous occasions, to create the false impression that Tolley agreed with Rydberg on the single detail on which Rydberg's views were consulted. As you know, and as the full quote makes clear, he did not. I have once again corrected this deception, which would be more appropriately purveyed over at the World Mill article instead of here, anyway. Rsradford (talk) 02:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

And I have once again corrected your purposely misleading and slanted-POV deception, and will continue to do so, again and again, as long as you continue to insist to slant the article towards your biased POV. How long do you want to keep playing this game? CarlaO'Harris (talk) 15:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The only game-playing in evidence is by you, "Carla." By deleting and altering the relevant quotes from Tolley's article, and citing a dubious interpretation of two words translated from a tertiary foreign-language source to make it appear that Tolley's article stands for precisely the opposite of what it says, you are making a mockery of Wikipedia's editing procedures. But by all means, continue lying about it. The more reverts you make, the more likely it is that some administrator will take the trouble to look into the matter and see exactly what you're doing. Rsradford (talk) 17:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Tolley's Conclusion

The premise of Radford's argument is false. Nowhere does Tolley say he "rejects" Rydberg's argument. The fact is, Rydberg never suggested or stated that the cosmic mill was "a widely developed mythologem in the extant sources." Both he and Tolley cite a number of poetic passages from Snorri Sturlusson's Edda, Eddic and skaldic poems, and Saxo Grammaticus' Gesta Dancorum alluding to the sea as mill (sand as grist, etc.) as evidence for the concept of a cosmic mill which churns the sea and rotates the heavens. The German Kommentar clearly states that Tolley took up Rydberg's theory and discusses the point. This "foriegn langauge source" was cited at length here some time ago. It does not simply consist of "two words". That is a gross mischaracterization. If DAB reads German, he did not object to it then. Radford is misrepresenting Rydberg's theory, Tolley's conclusion, and the comments of the Kommentar in an effort to editorialize and POV-push. No where does Tolley say he "rejects" Rydberg's theory, nor would any reasonable person conclude this based on the published evidence. Finnrekkr (talk) 20:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Back on May 28th, Jack the Giant-Killer posted the source in question:

"1) Die Kommentar zu den Liedern der Edda, bd. 3; s. 839 clearly states that Tolley "took up" (aufgreift) Rydberg's theory of the mill, contrary to Radford's earlier statements. Since he has access to the Kommentar and quotes from it, there is no excuse for this kind of gross misrepresentation.

"Rydberg postuliert zwei ursprünglich getrennte Mytheme von einer grossen und einer kleinen Grotti-Mühle. Die grosse Mühle sei jene, die im Wasser mahle und Sturm, Brandung und Strudel erzeuge. Ausgehend von der Strophe des Skalden Snæbjorn (s. 4c) rekonstruiert er einen umfassenden Mythos von einer ‘kosmichen Mühle.’ Die die gesamte Natur und den Sternenhimmel bewege (so stellt er z.B. eine Verbindung her zwischen der Bezeichnung der Mühl kurbel, möndull, und der Bezeichnung für den Vater des Mondes, Mundilfæri, in Vm. 23) In christlicher Zeit sei die kosmische Mühle dann weitgehend in Vergessenheit geraten, während die ursprünglich der Heldendichtung entstammende ‘kleine Mühle’ durch die Aufnahme des Grt. in Skskm. Der Nachwelt bewahrt worden sei (1886. 425-451). Diese Deutung Rydberg’s greift in jüngster Zeit noch Tolley auf (1995). Er vergleicht die Mühle in Grt mit dem finnischen Sampo, einem nirgends genau beschreiben, von ihm aber als ‘kosmische Mühle’ identifizierten Gerät, das mit der Fruchtbarkeit des Landes und dem Ablauf der Jahrezeiten verknüpft ist; dieses Gerät zerbricht schliesslich ebenfalls und setzt dem Reichtum und der Fruchtbarkeit Grenzen."

I can read German and it is obvious to me that Radford is wrong in his assertions-- verifiably wrong. His statements require one to accept a false premise and ignore the statements of the premminent Kommentar zu den Liedern der Edda, written and edited by some of the top names in Old Norse scholarship, which he now belittles as a "two word" "foriegn-language source". This same kind of juvenile approach was evident in the Harbardsljod discussion.

How many blind reverts will it take before Radford gets suspended for 1 month for disruptive editing? The name calling, condescending tone, edit warring, unwillingness to compromise and a number of other behaviors are in clear violation of Wikipedia's policies, and he has been officially warned more than once. The administrative hypocracy here is astounding. 21:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

"Finnrekkr", every single personal issue you ascribe to R.S. Radford is also applicable to William... er... "Jack", as well as William / "Jack"'s long-time friend Carla. Condemning one participant in the argument for the same thing being done by nearly everyone involved only serves to show your own bias and agenda, not solve the actual problem. Stop wasting our time and write fairly, or do not bother.

Additionally, this is not the place for such ranting. Yes, yes, I know, nearly everyone involved is doing their pissing and moaning directly on this talk page, but that also solves nothing and in itself is a direct violation of Wikipedia policies, which you are now quite guilty of.

Anything else to say to dig the hole deeper? Or will you take your own advice to its logical end and address the entire problem as it is supposed to be addressed here? Have the problem dealt with by those at Wikipedia who care at all about arguments that have gone past the point of civility and constructive debate. Or you can piss and moan about one person. Up to you. 216.69.219.3 (talk) 22:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

That's besides the point, even if true. The substantive issues above require addressing. Time and again Radford has been proven, when source comes down to citation, to have distorted the facts. It is not unreasonable to demand that the sources be cited faithfully, instead of slanted to fit Mr. Radford's POV.CarlaO'Harris (talk) 10:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Your (or Mr. Reaves') purported ability to read German is of course irrelevant to Tolley's article, which is written in English. Indeed, quoting the entire contents of the Kommentar on this page would be irrelevant to Tolley's article, which says what it says. Tolley expressly, unequivocally, reaches the opposite conclusion from Rydberg's concerning the mythical significance of the "world mill," and he does not cite to Rydberg for anything whatsoever, beyond his discussion of the meaning of a single word. Misepresenting that as some kind of scholarly "support" for Rydberg's 19th-century amateurism is worse than misleading, it is knowingly deceptive -- especilly when the two of you try to support this deception by truncating quotes to misrepresent their meaning. With that evidence before us, your claim that you have "time and again" "proven" me to have distorted a source -- here or anywhere else -- speaks for itself. Rsradford (talk) 17:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The German Kommentar is written and edited by Klaus von See, Beatrice LaFarge and other top scholars in this field who have published in English and in German. It cannot be so easily dismissed. In his most recent revision, Radford simply states his opinion that they are wrong. This is original research and editorializing, and has no place in the entry. Nowhere does Tolley "reject" Rydberg's theory, nor is it "obvious" to anyone but Radford that he doesn't repeat and qualify it, as the editors of the Kommentar say. The source has been quoted in its entirety, and has not been refuted anything verifiable. Radford's statement is built on the false assumption that Rydberg argues that the world-mill is a "widely developed mythologem." He doesn't. He cites the same evidence Tolley does. The only difference between Rydberg and Tolley's presentation is that Tolley presents additional material from Finnish sources to expand on their common conclusion. If Mr. Radford can produce evidence to support his view, he should do so. The single clipped quote from Tolley's article doesn't support his conclusion. It supports the Kommentar's. Finnrekkr (talk) 21:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Enforcing proper WP:TALK and WP:DR behaviour

Note the WP:ANI dicussion here (diff) on this article and on Lotte Motz (initiated by Moreschi (talk · contribs)). Since the editing atmosphere, and behaviour both in terms of WP:TALK and WP:EW have been deteriorating, it may be necessary to impose special restrictions on this article in order to assure smoother progress. Controversy is good. Dishonest tactics of confusion, wikilawyering and misrepresentation of sources is not. Since I have been (marginally) involved in article space edits (mostly reverting what I considered disruptive edits), I will not impose or police such restrictions myself, but I encourage uninvolved admins to lay out a reasonable approach to this effect, and stifle future edit-wars or talkpage flamewars in the early stages. dab (𒁳) 09:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I would welcome such intervention. I have repeatedly offered to submit disputes on this article to mediation, but "Jack"/"Fennrick" has declined to be bound by an impartial authority. The present example of obviously, verifiably misrepresenting a source in order to "puff" the status of Rydberg's faux-mythology (and thereby promote sales of "Jack's"/"Fennrick"'s paperbacks) is clearly not one that can be resolved by other means. Rsradford (talk) 15:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Radford continues to make inaccurate and unverifiable statements regarding other editors he opposes. I welcome an unbiased administrator, especially one who would put a stop to the repeated miscitation and misrepresentation of verifiable published material. This current debate about the Tolley article in light of the published evidence is ridiculous. In my opinion, the situation has gotten where it is precisely because of the ineffective and uneven administration used on the site to date. For whatever reason, this seems to be what Mr. Radford wants. I can find no other explanation for his actions. Finnrekkr (talk) 16:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

well, admin intervention will concern user conduct, not content, in any case. Arriving at a stable article is a drawn-out iterative process. We don't want to short-circuit this process, but we want it to take place with decorum and mutual respect between dissenting editors. Looking at the tidbits regarding "world mills" that are under dispute at this point, I must say that it appears the article has made considerable progress towards stabilizing. Take a step back, don't obsess over ultimately offtopic factoids, and we'll be there sooner rather than later. Personally, as a reader, I must say that the question whether VR was "correct" in his "world mill" hypothesis has a rather neglegible effect on the overall impression of him I walk away with. --dab (𒁳) 16:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, dab, this is not a good-faith content dispute. Again today, "Jack"/"Finnrekkr" has deliberately falsified a quote from Clive Tolley's article to create a knowingly false appearance that Tolley supported, or at least agreed with, Rydberg's nonsense on this point. I have restored the full, undoctored quote -- the only point in Tolley's entire article in which Rydberg is even mentioned in passing -- to make it clear that no such support or agreement exists. Within a matter of minutes, we can expect "Jack" or one of his merry band of puppets to once again falsify the quote to conceal what Tolley actually said, so he can continue with his financially self-interested POV-pushing. When you speak of "admin intervention [concerning] user conduct," I hope that includes requiring users to refrain from deliberate distortions. That's the problem we have with this article, or at least the major one. Rsradford (talk) 17:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec with Rsradford)IMO we have the following issues on the table: (a) Rydberg's multi-volume work on mythology; (b) Hamlet's Mill; (c) the theory he was a closeted homosexual. IMO the rest of the issues--his poetry, his standing as a Swedish intellectual--are almost resolved, though the dismissive "self-tutored journalist" comment should probably go and stay out. On (a), I submit that what the article should say is that he was an important early popularizer of Norse mythology and one of the first to seek to analyze it intellectually rather than dismissing it as primitive, but that his Gesamttheorie, while it has found favor among some pagan groups, is not accepted in academia today (someone cited a good quote on that, about his conflating gods in the Max Müller manner). On (b) I do not know how widely read the book itself is, but I think the point should be made that the idea has been taken up by at least one scholar. On (c) I think a brief statement that it has been suggested is all that is warranted. If the specialized encyclopedia referred to is the one I suspect it is, it contains unsubstantiated assertions, but clearly Rradsford considers this very important, and I do recognize that given the considerable social not to mention legal pressure in past eras not to be openly gay, surmises and suggestions that someone may have been gay are almost always all we have. Plus it may not be the same encyclopedia. But to go beyond that into suggesting he had a pedophilic liaison with a 12-year-old I think is way beyond respect and decency, unless there is some shred of evidence.

I would be sad to see the article protected. I think newbies and unregistered editors should be able to pitch in, especially on academic topics like this. I think we need more voices--especially people who read German and Swedish--not fewer. But there should not be any allusions at all to what anyone else's name, profession, or motivation in editing the article may be. Unless someone wants to state their own credentials or motivation--and we all do have one reason or another to be interested in Rydberg. The issue is not that we should not have such, but that we should achieve consensus on how to portray the guy and why people have found him interesting--or dismissed him--so that the resulting picture is accurate. Saying that some have said "X" about him doesn't imply we--or we all--agree with that "X."

Or have I still not figured out how this is supposed to work?Yngvadottir (talk) 17:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

this all sounds extremely reasonable, Yngvadottir, and I again do invite you to edit the article towards what you suggest. Rsradford, your point is taken, but you could try to tone down on the venom a little bit, and instead of retaliating for "doctored quotes" by detailed exposition of the actual situation cutting down the paragraph in question to the barely relevant. Thus, in this edit, I agree that the "unprofitable occupation" is well-chosen to sum up current mythologists' take on VR's Gesamtschau, the elaboration on Tolley could instead have been a reduction of the paragraph to "One of Rydberg's mythological theories is that of a vast World Mill which rotates the heavens, which he believed was an integral part of Old Norse mythic cosmology." -- relegating all further detail on this very marginal issue to World Mill. dab (𒁳) 18:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Yngvadottir, thank you for your constructive suggestions. As I have done previously, I would welcome you to examine the long-disputed de Vries quote and make a determination concerning its authenticity, and how de Vries should best be characterized ("noted scholar," "Nazi sympathizer", "both of the above," or "none of the above"). The sexual identity question is not "very important" to me, beyond the fact that I abhor dishonesty, and I believe this topic has not been honestly dealt with. Two different encyclopedias have been quoted on this subject, yet neither quote has been allowed to remain in the article. Furthermore, the Lambda Nordica article and Stolpe's quote concerning Rydberg's "boy-craziness" have been deleted without justification. As for Rydberg's relationship with his 12-year-old pupil, the very fact that this is mentioned in Rydberg's authorized Swedish biography and other mainstream reference works should make it noteworthy, imo. Rsradford (talk) 21:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I see two de Vries quotes in the article as it stands. I wish I had access to Forschungsgeschichte der Mythologie, because that looks like a clumsy translation. But I don't. I'd be grateful if someone would put the German in here; in any case, isn't it policy that where foreign-language works are cited, the original wording should be in the footnote? The main purpose of citing de Vries is to show that Rydberg's work on mythology received some praise from academics, and so I don't think we need the second quote, on Loki, which seems to just be there to add one laudatory adjective. Looking in de Vries' Altgermanische Religionsgeschichte, which I do have to hand, I find in the chapter "Geschichte der Forschung" (p. 80): "Ein Nachzügler war der schwedische Uhland, wie dieser zugleich Dichter und Forscher, V. Rydberg, der noch in den achtziger Jahren des vorigen Jahrhunderts ein breitangelegtes Buch über die germanische Mythologie geschrieben hat, dessen gewagte Kombinationen freilich der damaligen kritisch orientierten Forschung wenig zusagten, aber heute die ihm trotz unstreitiger Mängel gebührende Achtung wieder gewinnen." My translation: "A later contributor [to the effort to derive a common Indo-European religion from the evidence of the various peoples, after Max Müller and Adalbert Kuhn's attempts had been found wanting] was the Swedish Uhland, like the latter at once a poet and a scholar, V. Rydberg, who as late as the eighties of the last century wrote a wideranging book on Germanic mythology, the daring syntheses of which admittedly found little acceptance in the analytically focused scholarship of the period, but today [in the 1950s] are again receiving the attention that is due to them despite their indubitable failings." This is judicious and sums up the issue from both sides--Rydberg's theories deserve attention and have sometimes received it in an academic context, notably post-war, but they share the failings of other overarching, synthetic theories and haven't found much acceptance. de Vries is one of the best, if not the best authorities on such matters, since Altgermanische Religionsgeschichte is the last of the great summaries of the entirety of Germanic mythology and the scholarship on it. As I said earlier, his imprisonment for collaboration does not affect that one iota, and moreover it's a misrepresentation to call him a Nazi sympathizer. The commission cleared him of moral failings while finding him guilty of serious political missteps; i.e., he was a fellow traveler. Indeed some sources say he was attempting to defend Dutch culture and his colleagues by working within the system under occupation. (Unless someone's recently improved it, the article on de Vries is miserable, a copy of the German Wikipedia article with the formatting removed from the list of publications; I would have edited it already but I can't find English-language sources.) So I would definitely say he should be referred to here as a prominent Germanicist, and I suggest we substitute that quote for the two now in the article.Yngvadottir (talk) 23:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I have agreed to accept your resolution of this issue, and will do so. My primary interest was to ensure that de Vries actually said whatever is being attributed to him in the article. Thanks. Rsradford (talk) 23:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

dab, I have tried to completely eliminate any reference to the contentious Tolley article by exporting it to the World Mill entry, where it belongs. Unfortunately, it keeps being brought back here, solely for the purpose of misrepresenting its content. If it can't be removed from this article entirely (as it should be), I don't see what else I can do but quote Tolley's single reference to Rydberg in full -- after all, it's only one sentence, even when not truncated to change its meaning. Rsradford (talk) 21:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Investigations into Germanic Mythology

Ok, I think some of the problems here clearly call for the creation of a dedicated article where Investigations into Germanic Mythology can be discussed in obsessive detail. I have created the article, and have accordingly reduced the coverage of random tidbits regarding the work in this article. This is the biographical article on the author. Discussion of the reception of one of his works in particular in the resolution we have been seeing here clearly warrants the creation of a book article. Of course this will export part of the dispute to the new article, but I forsee that it will take the edge off it, since much of it wasn't really about actual details of VR's mythological views but rather about presenting VR in a certain light. --dab (𒁳) 18:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

This is an excellent idea; my only suggestion would be that the section of the Viktor Rydberg article headed "Mythological Works" should be exported to the new article. No one (to my knowledge) has disputed that Rydberg was a leading cultural figure in late 19th-century Sweden because of his very popular novels, poetry, and journalistic essays. He also had some stature as an advocate of nudism, "folk education," and religious reform. None of this is at issue, and should properly be reflected in this article. The primary point of contention is Rydberg's competence (as a "largely self-educated journalist" -- an historically accurate characterization that should not be deleted) to address Norse mythology, and his motives for doing so. Exporting that dispute to the new article on UGM would leave nothing here worth getting anyone's pulse elevated, other than the sexual identity issue, which has only partially been addressed. Rsradford (talk) 20:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea but see a different problem with it. The overwhelming majority of the attention to Investigations into Germanic Mythology has come in neo-pagan contexts, and those sources are generally considered unacceptable on Wikipedia. Hopefully those with the knowledge will find things they can cite there, or it will remain a short article.

The fact Rydberg didn't have a degree in mythology is hardly relevant; there were no such degrees, and there is and was no requirement for a poet and novelist to have a degree in anything. In any case as I said before, his publications and ideas being notable has nothing to do with agreeing with them. In the English-speaking countries, he's mainly known for having written about Germanic myth, so that needs to be stated in the article on him. I think the article also needs to briefly say why--for having attempted a synthesis of the myths that has found adherents in neo-paganism, and for having put forward the World Mill as an important theme--but the nitty gritty (the stuff about the One Sword, the identification of different gods with each other . . .) can now find a home in the special article on Investigations just as the varying evaluations of Hamlet's Mill now have a home in that article. But the fact that some academics disparage anyone who didn't have a degree (or the wrong kind of degree/a degree in the wrong field) is neither here nor there in terms of Rydberg's rep. Especially since it's anachronistic to expect someone to have been anything but self-educated in Germanic mythology until recently.

I'm prepared to accept that you regard the sexual identity issue as important, but unless there is some good evidence, it's only an assertion so should only be briefly mentioned as just that. Readers can explore the psychology of the closet and the specific arguments made re: Rydberg elsewhere.Yngvadottir (talk) 22:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

As a factual matter, I'm afraid it's not correct that one year of law school was the norm for 19th century scholars of Germanic mythology. Folklore and mythology were well established academic disciplines well before Rydberg's time, and serious scholars in these fields, like any other, were expected to have completed their formal education. In fact, it was unusual for someone lacking a university degree to be allowed even to teach in a högskola. Rydberg was afforded that opportunity -- which provided him with the leisure to indulge in the racial-nationalist fantasies that yielded UGM -- only because of his popular stature as a writer of fiction. Rydberg's lack of education is therefore not only relevant, it is a critical factor in explaining how UGM came into existence. It also explains why the work was dismissed as meritless by all scholars who were approached to publish it (with the exception of Anderson, in part), as well as by Rydberg's vastly more competent contemporary, Olaf Noreen. Rsradford (talk) 22:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a source for his lack of a degree being the rationale for rejecting the book for publication? There are several other possible reasons: There was a backlash against Max Müller that affected other Big Theories, there was preferential treatment for works on "Classical" mythology (which continues today), and the work has a popularizing objective of "sharing our national heritage" to which there may have been political objections. You have access to the official biography--what did these guys say when they rejected it? Also, I don't see the basis for the book coming out of racial fantasies. Popular nationalism, yes, but promoting interest in one's national past is not the same thing as racism. As to "fantasies," I think we should leave such evaluations for those who will be writing about his syncretic theories in the specialized article :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 23:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it should also be noted that it speaks highly of his accomplishments and the respect in which he was held that he was given a college teaching position despite not having completed a degree--just as it would today. But again, I would like to see substantiation of the claim that that was why it was hard for him to find a publisher for UGM, and I note that not having a degree and not having a degree in the field (which may well have not been a study option in Sweden the way it already was in, for example, Germany) are distinct things. (It remains a field in which, outside Germany, few of the academics who wind up contributing started out getting their credentials. Lotte Motz' dissertation was on Walther von der Vogelweide.)Yngvadottir (talk) 23:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Yngvadottir, regarding your understanding that "neo-pagan [...] sources are generally considered unacceptable on Wikipedia": this is a question of due weight. Obviously, neopagan sources are perfectly acceptable as references for neopagan topics. VR is an important Romanticist author, and dwelling on recent neopagan online excitement would be undue in his biographical article. Even excessive dwelling on his Investigations was becoming undue, since after all he isn't primarily known for that. The creation of an article with a narrower scope changes this balance, and I could envisage a section "in Neopaganism" at Investigations into Germanic Mythology, where (verifiable) neopagan sources might be acceptable. Not as judgements on Rydberg's work, but as documenting its impact on the neopagan subculture. --dab (𒁳) 07:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Radford does not have a source for this, because there is no source. According to the Warburg biography and his personal letters, which have been published in three volumes, Rydberg had no problem finding a publisher. He was in fact being pressured by his publisher, Albert Boniers (still in existence today) to provide an acceptable manuscript to publish. He had previously published two versions of his epic in Swedish and Danish journals and his publisher was clamoring for a book length manuscript. He was undercontract to produce two. Albert Bonnier, was also in fact, Jewish, and would not have published an anti-semitic "racist-nationalist" fantasy. The work is not and was not considered racist, nor does it advocate the superiority of the "Aryan" race over any other. The word "Aryan" is clearly defined in the volume as "Indo-European" (as it was understood in the 1880s) and the scientific data, such as the measurement of skulls, distribution of eye color and hair color, were part of the accepted scientific data of the time. Rydberg clearly states that the Aryans were part of the wider human family, and a subset of the "White Race" in which he included Semites, and others. Rydberg was an advocate for Jewish rights in parliament and helped overturn the "Luthern only" laws of his day. This is part of why he was so popular in his era. He advocated minority rights and was successful at it, being a persuasive author and speaker.

In English, the Danish-American ambassador, Rasmus Björn Anderson, was happy to do the work of translation, and also the second volume. Thier letters speak of personal visits both Anderson and RYdberg made to one another, and Rydberg speaks of giving Anderson complete freedom in the translation. It was a relationship built on friendship, admiration, and trust. Anderson finished translating and got the first volume published in 1889. Anderson was reassigned to America after his party lost the election of 1888, and never finished the second volume. He did however republish his 1889 translation of Volume I again in 1903-1906 as part of the multi-volume Norreona Society Collection. The German literary critic Phillip Sweitzer agreed to do a German translation, but was killed in a skiing accident before he could finish it, and a group of French scholars agreed to, but never completed a French translation. It's all there in the Warburg biography, including exceprts from personal letters to support it. The facts can also be confirmed from the letters themselves, published in three volume sin the 1930s. The only drawback, you have to be able to read Swedish. 66.193.49.130 (talk) 15:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Note

OK. Per the ANI discussion, Jack the Giant-Killer (talk · contribs), CarlaO'Harris (talk · contribs), and Finnrekkr (talk · contribs) are limited to one revert per day on this article, Lotte Motz, and all closely related articles, such as World Mill. Further, all of the above and Rsradford (talk · contribs) need to stop commenting on the contributor and start focussing a little more on the content. Posts that fail to fulfill this condition will simply be removed from the talk page. Thank you. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 18:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

What is the basis for this, and where is the ANI discussion where this is archived so it can be disputed?CarlaO'Harris (talk) 11:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Here is what I was able to find :

it is obvious that these accounts act in unison, but it is difficult to prove they are socks. Since there seems to be a consensus that some dishonest editing has been going on, I would suggest we (the admin community) impose on them a restriction of one revert per day, which will take away their sock advantage while still not locking them out completely. As Moreschi says, both sides in this disputes have not shown impeccable behaviour, and if we were to clamp down on one side only (even if it is the worse behaving one), we might be acting partially. A 1RR parole, and a stern warnining of using one account per editor is on order though. --dab (𒁳) 09:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that sounds good. I'll implement that soon if there are no objections. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 18:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom's uncertainty principle for socks is this: "For the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets." This probably could use a convenient shortcut. — CharlotteWebb 10:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC) "

First of all, I am nobody's "sock puppet" nor anyone's "proxy". I am my own person with my own opinions and arguments. As far as "the worse behaving one", from my standpoint, that is clearly Mr. Radford, and anyone who doesn't see that is being taken for a ride. I am not acting "in unison" with anyone but myself, and these so-called "sock puppetry" charges are merely attempts to restrict or eliminate different editors who are attempting to wring out the dripping slander from the article of a noteworthy author and theorist.CarlaO'Harris (talk) 11:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

see right above. Here is a diff. Moreschi as an admin is within his rights to impose such restrictions. If you feel he is abusing his privileges, you have the option to raise the issue at WP:AN, although you should be warned that such attempts often backfire if they are seen as "wikilawyering". The upshot is that we need to get this dispute on track in terms of civility, compromise and collaboration. With the involvement of Yngvadottir, quite apparently an informed user unburdened by the previous history of antagonism between Radford and Reaves, things seem to begin looking better. dab (𒁳) 11:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

in my judgement, this dispute is asymmetric:

• on one side, we have Jack and a flurry of other redlink-accounts. These indulge in WP:FRINGE by attempting to misrepresent sources into suggesting that VR's theory have currency in scholarship today.
• on the other side, we have Rsradford, a single user editing under his real name, and perfectly willing to give satisfactory references. Radford isn't neutral, but the issue with him is WP:DUE. He is obsessing a little bit with over-emphasizing the rather pedestrian fact that VR is a 19th century romantic nationalist and as such prone to scientific racism, synthetic over-generalization etc.

these conflicting biases are useful in gathering the raw data, but for the purposes of Wikipedia, we need other editors (such as Yngvadottir) in order to establish proper encyclopedic balance. dab (𒁳) 11:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. No one here is engaged in anything "fringe" whatsoever. The opinions about these topics are varied, and include some positive appraisals, both of Rydberg himself as a theorist, as well as various aspects of his theories. No one has attempted a monolithic whitewash here as you suggest. There has been absolutely no demonstrable, verifiable "misrepresentation of sources", and your suggestion that there has been is false and slanderous. Back up your statements with proof, and we shall rebut.CarlaO'Harris (talk) 17:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I have also been able to provide "perfectly satisfactory references" in my edits. The issue is that no one checks. In my opinion, Radford has made several dishonest references, misquoting and misrepresernting the sources he cites. This issue has been raised a number of times. I have no problem being restricted to one edit per day, however, Radford should have the same restrictions. Again, this is biased process is in favor of Radford and his original research edits. What gives? Finnrekkr (talk) 18:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

more diffs, less ad hominem insinuation please. If Radford has "misquoting and misrepresernting the sources he cites", I must have missed that. He has been harping on rather dubious sources on Rydberg's sexuality, probably beyond what was due, but I am not aware he has misquoted or misrepreesnted anything (unlike his opponents). It appears you are merely echoing the accusations directed at Jack at this point, and the presentation of a specific issue, point by point, would be more helpful. --dab (𒁳) 09:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Yah, you must have missed that, because you obviously haven't been paying any real attention to this talk page at all, where we have repeatedly shown up Mr. Radford's distortions, which are obvious to anyone examining the real evidence.CarlaO'Harris (talk) 17:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Background

I've finally bothered to search google groups. The animosities on this page all fall into place once this is understood as the seamless continuation of a newsgroup flamewar. This thread (May to June 2007 - and this) is particularly enlightening. It takes a few minutes to sort out the handles, but it is clear that several participants in that "discussion" have now joined this Wikipedia talkpage. This has a long history: Eric Wood relates how Reaves has been trolling Asatru mailing lists with his Rydberg obsession for years, Finding too few others to share his obsession, and alienating most people with his "yer ignernt" comebacks, he wanders from group to group, year after year. This reminds me of Jean Faucounau (A usenet troll whom we've also had the pleasure of dealing with on Wikipedia). Reaves' lack of success in rousing interest even in folkish Asatru also goes to put into perspective Radford's alarmist account of a "Rydberg religion". All I can say is, Wikipedia is not usenet. Please continue the exchange of niceties on google groups. Wikipedia prefers an atmosphere of respectful collaboration between dissenting editors. --dab (𒁳) 09:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

If you really wish us to stop commenting upon one another and focus on the subject, why do you continue to post such inflammatory and slanted comments? Again, DAB you are showing your own bias, reading what you want into things. Eric Wood is one of Radford's pals and most vehement supporters. His views are hardly unbiased. A critical examiniation of the spectrum of usenet groups demonstrates that RSRadford (as rorik@yolo.com) has been "trolling" Asatru and Wiccan groups for years, flaming anyone who disagrees with his narrow views. If you want some examples, do a search. His attacks on "Suzy Squaller" on the Wiccan usenet group were particularly venomous. If you go back and check the history of this entry, Mr. Radford entered editing this entry with the same purpose. Yet, you repeatedly overlook his biased and his disruptive edits. It takes more than one person to fight a "flamewar." Radford has been one of the consistent participants for years. Moreschi has called his edits "obsessive." The usenet discussions show how "seamlessly" he transfered his obsession to this entry. In his most recent revision, Radford justifies his changes by saying "Deleted editorializing, eliminated POV pushing", then inserts the phrase:

"Since their publication, some of Rydberg's mythological theories have been discussed in other works (although not always in a positive light),"

It is generally understood that comments on works of scholarship are "not always" presented "in a positive light." Critical commentaries generally point out the positives and negatives of a work. This statement is simple editorializing, emphasizing the negative POV, a consistent undercurrent in Radford's revisions. Whenever the entry is revisied, Mr. Radford steps in an re-establishes his POV and original research. Why is this behavior not being addressed? Finnrekkr (talk) 15:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Dab's bias is clear. CarlaO'Harris (talk) 17:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

ahem, you people stumble upon Wikipedia and start the talkpage equivalent of an epic tavern brawl. Of course you are aware of the details I post above. I had not been, since I am active on Wikipedia, not on Asatru mailing lists. Unlike your various personal grudges inherited from years of flame-warring, I am perfectly new to this discussion, and I have no stakes in it whatsoever. If you read my comments, you will note that I am not above criticizing Rsradford. It is perfectly clear, still, that he cuts a better figure by far in terms of on-wiki conduct than his detractors. I take your post as an implicit admission that all of the Carla, Jack and Finnrekkr accounts are operated by people already participating in the usenet flamewar I linked (for Rsradford, no such admission is necessary, since he is posting under his real name throughout). My "bias" is indeed clear, it is pro WP:NPOV and pro WP:ENC. It is possible to keep alive circular discussions of the merit of Rydberg's ideas today for years on usenet groups, descending ever further into personal hostilities, shouting matches and ignoratio elenchi. Wikipedia is built to avoid that. We want the facts on the table, and develop a stable article, accurately reflecting what WP:RS we have. The tactics employed by Jack + friends to misrepresent "scholarly reception" of Rydberg are classic, and seen on Wikipedia on a daily basis. Very easy to see through by experienced editors. Rsradford has similarly gone past the mark in bashing Rydberg, although not by deceptive tactics, but by undue harping on dubious sources like gay encyclopedias.

Now the way we deal with this sort of thing on Wikipedia is by calling in uninvolved editors who examine the facts presented by the warring parties and figure out a neutral way to present the situation. We also have administrative measures to be inflicted on those who Just Don't Get It and cannot cut their usenet vitriol in spite of all calls for reason. The fact that I have no stakes in the issues involved is evident from the fact that I am not defending one particular revision, and that I am perfectly open to the input and opinions of other uninvolved editors such as Yngvadottir. Yngvadottir has shown considerable topical knowledge and sagacity in her comments so far, and I am perfectly willing to give her the lead in the further development of the passages under dispute. As I will also welcome further uninvolved editors joining this (as opposed to further redlink-accounts joining the fray of revert-warring and name-calling).

Unlike usenet, on Wikipedia debate isn't an aim in itself. A stable article is, and debate is only desired in as far as it constructively contributes to improving the article. We don't want any discussion for discussion's sake, let alone brawling for brawling's sake. I enjoy Rorik's conflict-management by níðvísa (although sadly unreciprocated), but that's clearly a means of resolving disputes appropriate for alt.religion.asatru, and not for Wikipedia. dab (𒁳) 08:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

An appeal to the administrators, and yet another fraudulent reference deleted

Since I have been advised to refrain from feeding trolls, I would merely like to draw the attention of the administrators to the foregoing personal attack, which I object to in the strongest possible terms. Exactly how does "Finnrekkr's" posting of my personal email address (for the second time!) help in any way to improve the quality of this article?

Speaking of which, on July 15 "Finnrekkr" inserted the claim that Rydberg's "historical place in Eddic scholarship" was demonstrated, inter alia, by the "discussion" of his work in:

Review of Drápa af Maríugrát, the Joys and Sorrows of the Virgin and Christ, and the Dominican Rosary by Kellinde Wrightson, Saga-Book, 24/5 1997.

Anyone who has actually seen this article knows that it is not a "review" of a 600-year-old poem; the words "Review of" do not appear in the title. More to the point, neither Rydberg nor any of his works are mentioned anywhere in Wrightson's article, not even in the footnotes or bibliography. So as it turns out, Wrightson's article really does "demonstrate" Rydberg's historical place in Eddic scholarship, but not in the way "Finnrekkr" would have Wikipedia's readers believe. I have deleted the reference. Rsradford (talk) 16:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The source may be incorrect, but it is hardly "fraudulent." The quote, which was mistakenly attribueted was published in the Saga-Book of the Viking Society in a review by Marvin Taylor of the following book:

GESCHICHTEN AUS THULE: ÍSLENDINGASÖGUR IN ÜBERSETZUNGEN DEUTSCHER GERMANISTEN. By JULIA ZERNACK. Berliner Beiträge zur Skandinavistik 3. Freie Universität Berlin. Berlin, 1994. x + 421 pp. + booklet of 49 pp.

And can be found at: http://www.vsnrweb-publications.org.uk/1997_XXIV_5.pdf

The mistake is understandable as the Drápa af Maríugrát, the Joys and Sorrows of the Virgin and Christ, and the Dominican Rosary by Kellinde Wrightson, Saga-Book, 24/5 1997, leads that webpage.

On page 386, the author Marvin Taylor writes:

“On the other hand, she sometimes gives too much credit. On page 365, where she points out that the Eddic dómr um dauðan hvern, often translated as ‘fame’, actually has the neutral meaning ‘judgement’, her footnote tells us that this observation ‘was already made by Ernst Walter’ in an essay of 1987. If Zernack wants to use the word already, how about mentioning Viktor Rydberg, who made the same point in 1886 (Undersökningar i germansk Mythologi, I 373)?”

Thus, I will restore it with the proper citation. 00:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, fine

Coming back to this talk page today I see that Jack's mates are not interested in constructive discussion. I've blocked them both for a month. If they all keep going like this next month I will block them all indefinitely, as well as any more new accounts you make or mates you recruit from Usenet. As Dieter has pointed out above, Wikipedia is not Usenet: you do not get to flame ad infinitum here. The serious participants here, particularly Yngvadottir (talk · contribs) - please continue with constructive discussion. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 20:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Banning them is one thing; getting them to stop revising the article is something else again:

Revision as of 04:40, 23 July 2008 (edit) (undo) 98.149.95.105 (Talk) (Changed Article to Conform With Professor Radford's Erudite Desires

Viktor Rydberg was a proto-Nazi pedophile who devised a series of totally fabricated myths with the sole intention of spreading racism and white nationalism. He was quoted as saying, "Someday I hope to inspire a rabid group of cyber-cultists." Some ignorant folks who actually have the audacity to believe that there was ever some kind of "Indo-European Mythology" find some strange value in this pre-Hitlerite's sadistic fiction disguised as Norse mythology.

By what can only be the strangest of coincidences, IP 98.149.95.105 is the address from which banned editor CarlaO'Harris (talk) posts to the "Viktor Rydberg" Yahoo Group. Rsradford (talk) 17:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The IP editor removed a large amount of content from the article, and was reverted by ClueBot. I left my own warning on the IP's talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 18:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The Opening Paragraph

The opening paragraph has been rewritten in the last month, to include a number of distortions. I'll handle these one at a time, and welcome the input of other editors.

As it currently stands, the opening paragraph contains the following sentence:

“Rydberg was an outspoken advocate of public nudity and group exercise, which he believed had been practiced in ancient Greece. In an essay entitled, "On Nudity and Ways of Dressing," Rydberg "suggested that a society civilized to the point of wearing clothing was weak; it could be strengthened if its citizens adopted the primitive habit of nudity."[2]

The source cited is:

2. Michele Facos (1998). Nationalism and the Nordic Imagination. Berkeley: Univ. California Press, ISBN 0520206266, pp. 85-86.

This statement is a rather gross distortion of the source cited. A couple of lines have been taken out of context to create the impression that nudity and group excerise (in the nude presumably) were important issues to Rydberg. Needless to say, these issues are not mentioned as being important to Rydberg in any of the standard biographies, and thus have no place in a general introduction to the author. These quotes are taken from a book on Art History in which a couple of Rydberg's minor works are briefly mentioned as representative of a line of thought in 19th century Nordic Romanticism. This source, nor any other source, suggests that Rydberg was an “outspoken advocate of nudity and group exercise.” Rydberg mentions nude exercise in a natural setting as an ideal in a single obscure essay, no doubt one of his essays on Greek and Roman culture. Facos provides a context, noting that nude bathing was common in 19th century Sweden, and clearly states that Rydberg's suggestions were consistent with trends in Romantic thought at the end of the 19th century. As Michael Facos states (p 85-86):

"National Romantics felt that physical immersion in nature fostered the primativeness they considered essential to the Swedish habitus. In the 1870s the physiologist Fritihof Holmgren, the palneologist Carl Curman, and the writer Viktor Rydberg promoted health through gymnastics, physical culture, and outdoor bathing. Their ideas anticipated by twenty years the German biologist Ernst Haeckel’s theory of monism, recorded in his Riddle of the Universe at the Close of the Ninteenth Century (1899). In an essay entitled entitled "On Nudity and Ways of Dressing," Rydberg constructed an elaborate hypothesis based on his belief that Greeks exercised in the nude, a notion circulated more than a notion circulated more than a century earlier by German aesthetician J.J. Winkelmann. Rydberg began by attributing nudity in ancient Greek art to that culture’s concern with fitness: “The Hellenic states were small city societies whose citizens needed the greatest possible bodily strength, touyghness, and facility with weapons for their defense. As a result gymnastics evolved. With gymnastics came nudity during exercise, and with that came nudity in art." Rydberg proffered the example of classical Greece as a model for contemporary Sweden. He suggested a society civilized to the point of wearing clothing was weak and could be strengthened if its citizens adopted the primitive habit of nudity. His application of evolutionary theory to socio-cultural phenomena, typical of the time, characterized Richard Bergh’s thinking as well. The idea that nature was the best arena for the physical conidtioning of youth gained momentum throughout Europe toward the end of the century”

Speaking of the Romantic Nationalistic painter Anders Zorn’s painting of a nude mother and son bathing, titled ‘With His Mama,’ Facos goes on to say (pg. 93):

"Nonetheless, that gaze is not purely voyeuristic. Zorn invites our (imaginary) participation more than our visual delectation; after all, nude bathing was quite normal in Sweden. According to Viktor Rydberg’s criteria, the nudity of these figures suggests their incorruptness; they are primitive beings in harmony with their environment. ‘With His Mama’ anticipated many subsequent nude bathing scenes in Nordic painting.”

The image of a nude child bathing as a symbol of the innocence of humanity is wholly consistent with imagery from Rydberg’s poetry and with the Romantic movement in general. If one wishes to isolate a representative quote from Facos' work, I suggest that the sentence: "In the 1870s the physiologist Fritihof Holmgren, the palneologist Carl Curman, and the writer Viktor Rydberg promoted health through gymnastics, physical culture, and outdoor bathing." The isolated editorial statement that Rydberg was an “outspoken advocate of nudity and group exercise” is a distortion of the actual source and has no business in the general introduction to this author. If this is mentioned at all in the article, its proper place is in the literary works section, and the Swedish title of the essay needs to be supplied. Jack the Giant-Killer (talk) 23:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Speculations on Sexuality

In a lengthy discussion on the Talk page at the end of June, it was previously decided that speculations about Rydberg’s sexuality should be summarized. On June 25th, DAB wrote:

"we can further shorten it. It is the creation of a dedicated h2 section that is giving too much weight to this stuff. Summarize it in a sentence or two. Biographers conclude that VR "without doubt" was a homosexual. We don't have anyone contradicting that afaics. So we can just state the fact and move on, without going into dubious speculations on "masked representation of homosexual intercourse". dab (𒁳) 07:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

At that time, the following wording was established by consensus:

"Svanberg (1928) and Stolpe (1978) suggested that Rydberg had a homosexual orientation, based on their interpretations of Rydberg's published works. Moffett (2001) reiterated Stolpe's theory, speculating that Rydberg's sexual orientation was the result of the early loss of his mother, concluding that Rydberg was homosexual but celibate. In her opinion, Rydberg found all sexual expression "dispicable, impossible, or, at best, delicious but lethal." Sven Delblanc (1983) argued that the novel Singoalla "reflected homosexual desires and impulses in Rydberg himself," and that the protagonist’s slaying of his unacknowledged son Sorgborn ['child of sorrow'] was a "masked representation of homosexual intercourse." Bäckmann (2004) disputed this theory noting that there is "no textual evidence" to support this "empathetic reading" of Rydberg's biography."

I am restoring that wording, as lengthy quotes of a speculative nature have again crept back into the article. Jack the Giant-Killer (talk) 01:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The Posthumous Essay on

DAB and Moreschi, would it be possible for one of you to summarize or edit the following paragraphs? If not, I'll be happy to take a stab at it, but I have been impresed with your ability to distill material to its relevant point. In the context of Rydberg's works, this single posthumous essay have been given undue space and attention. The wording as it now stands is blatant editorializing and reflects the original arguments made at http://www.rydberg.galinngrund.org/Racism.htm

Rydberg, a 19th century author, is not known as a racist in any of the standard biographies (quite the opposite) and had no known ties to the 20th century Eugenics movement. I do not dispute the direct quotes, but rather the editorial comments that accompany the quotes, and the supposed summary of foriegn language sources which closely matches the original research at the Galinn Grund site. I have not been able to independently verify any of these summaries in the last month.

The current revision states:

Rydberg’s final publication, Den hvita rasens framtid, "The Future of the White Race", published as an introduction to the Swedish edition of Benjamin Kidd’s Social Evolution, was a civilisationskritik. In this essay,

“Rydberg envisioned European culture being overthrown by the Chinese. He predicted that the downfall would come in the very near future and would come about because of moral degeneration, demographic conditions, and the ensuing defects in the population.”

In contrast to Kidd’s theme of the civilizing force of white Europeans, Rydberg foresaw only calamity, with European culture being swamped under the onslaught of teeming hordes of Asians. “The Future of the White Race,” with its preoccupation with moral and physical racial degeneration, helped spark the “racial hygiene” movement in Sweden. Herman Lundborg, as director of Sweden’s State Institute for Racial Biology, tapped into Rydberg’s racial themes in promoting a comprehensive program of eugenics, including the forced sterilization of those classified by the government as unfit for the nation’s racial stock. At the 1930 Stockholm Exhibition, Lundborg set forth the institute’s mission under a banner quoting from one of Rydberg’s poems: “To Aryan blood, the purest and noble, was I wed by a friendly Norn.”

It should be noted that the quote from Rydberg's poem Himmels Blå is a misquote omitting two words which change the meaning of the phrase from a source of National pride to a racial slogan. The blame is Lundborg's, but it need not be repeated uncritically in a factual encyclopedia article. Jack the Giant-Killer (talk) 01:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Back to POV-pushing

Although this article had briefly started to approach NPOV, I see there has been a major step backward today. I have restored the following material that has been deleted or relocated without justification, and corrected a number of misleading revisions:

Rydberg’s views on nudism and folk education: There is no justification for removing this well-documented biographical material from the article's introduction, which now consists primarily of random laudatory nuggets "Jack" has dredged up on Google.

Deletion of scholarly material regarding Rydberg’s sexuality: The deletion of this scholarly material is simple vandalism, which can be justified only by homophobia or by the deleting editor's concern for its impact on sales of his self-published paperbacks, which he advertises elsewhere in the article.

Rydberg’s “White Race” essay and its influence on the eugenics movement: The removal of this material is simple historical white-washing. That Rydberg’s “Aryan Blood” quote was emblazoned on the banner of Lundborg’s display at the 1930 Exhibition is documented by no less than three sources. “Jack’s” concern that the banner omitted Rydberg’s two-word reference to Sweden is nonsense, for as Rydberg himself made clear, he considered native Swedes to be identical to the “Aryans,” thus making the explicit reference to Sweden redundant. (There is a reason why Rydberg's volume of racial faux-mythology was dedicated not to the king of Sweden, but to the “ruler of the Aryan people of the Scandinavian peninsula.”) Lundborg understood Rydberg’s meaning perfectly, and his banner reflected that meaning.

Rsradford (talk) 22:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

In the past month a number of statements have been added to the Rydberg entry pushing an original point-of-view not found in any of the general biographical works on this subject.

The material speculating on Rydberg’s sexuality was previous deleted by an administrator on this site who rewrote and condensed it. See 15:08, 24 June 2008 Dbachmann Restoring it all again is a giant-step backward.

The so-called “random laudatory nuggets” in the introduction are actual quotes from general biographical works on Rydberg. These are drawn from the biographical sketch by Judith Moffet and two literary encyclopedia entries, none of which are available on “Google.” In contrast, the quote regarding Rydberg’s supposed views on nudity are taken from a book of Art history which briefly mentions Rydberg, available as a preview on Amazon.

Nowhere does the source say that Rydberg was an outspoken advocate of nudity. This is editorializing. I have quoted the source in full above. It has been grossly misrepresented. It is ridiculous to portray Rydberg as an “outspoken advocate of nudity and group exercise” when he mentions outdoor exercise as an ideal in a single essay. Michael Facos clearly indicates nude bathing was the norm in Sweden and that outdoor exercise was a contemporary theme in Romantic literature not original to Rydberg. If this essay is mentioned at all, it belongs in the Works section. It clearly has no place in the general introduction to this scholar. The citation itself is dubious as the Swedish title of the essay is not provided, nor is the date and place of publication listed.

As written, the paragraphs dealing with the Eugenics movement are primarily supported by foreign language sources, none of which are directly quoted. The 20th century Eugenics movement is tied to this entry via a tenuous connection to a posthumous essay used as an introduction to another author's work. The essay of course does not mention Eugenics and is nowhere cited as an inspiration of that latter movement. Again these are unfounded editorial comments, inserted to push a POV. Nor did Rydberg dedicate his book on mythology to the "ruler of the Aryan people," the translator (American ambassador Rasmus Anderson) did. Rydberg never read the English edition and gave sole editorial control of its content to Anderson, as stated in his personal letters published in three volumes in the 1930s.

The wording of Lundborg’s banner at the 1930 Exhibition, 35 years after Rydberg’s death is irrelevant here. An author has no control over how his works are used after his death. It’s fraudulent to pass Lundborg's slogan off as a quote by Rydberg. The slogan is a misquote of one of Rydberg’s most famous poems, omitting two words in the middle of the sentence without mention. It is no coincidence that this misquote is also the headline banner at the Galinn Grund webpage: http://www.rydberg.galinngrund.org/ Jack the Giant-Killer (talk) 03:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Racial Distortions

How is neutrality served in restoring the statement “not always in a positive light” exactly? It is generally understood that critical works do not always show the works in question “in a positive light.” This statement is editorializing.

It is served by counter-balancing your project of listing every mention of Rydberg you find on Google Books as indicative that somebody, somewhere (other than you) still accepts his racial faux-mythology. I have inserted a revised and more correct qualifier in the current version of the text.

Rsradford (talk) 20:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

“Since their publication, some of Rydberg's mythological theories have been mentioned or discussed in other works (although not always in a positive light), including his theory regarding.”

I have removed it again. It’s interesting to see what the quotes in the recent revision left out. For example, Linden clearly states that Rydberg’s definition of the “white race” was a cultural one, not a racial one, inclusive of all Europeans including Jews, Muslims and Hindus. That statement was surgically cut out, while the sentences surrounding it were retained. The problem with clipping the quote in this manner is that it creates the impression that Rydberg’s use of words such as ‘race’ and ‘Aryan’ can be defined in a 21st century American manner, rather than how Rydberg understood the terms in his 19th century European context. Overall, Linden’s views are radically distorted by this kind of selective editing.

The current revision:

Anna Linden, in En europeisk apokalyps? Om Viktor Rydbergs 'Den hvita rasens framtid' (Centrum för Europaforskning, 2005), wrote:

"Rydberg’s conception of race is not equivalent with the modern term; the meaning he gives the word is in fact more cultural than biological. …Rydberg ... was very critical to industrialism and unhealthy milieu of the big European metropolises, like London, Paris, Berlin, Vienna, Petersburg and Moscow. ...The biggest threat to the western world, according to Rydberg, is however the atomistic, egoistic individualism among Europeans themselves, especially among some of the industrialists and businessmen, only interested in money. This lack of morals will in the long run ruin the ecological system as well as the poor people on our continent. To Rydberg the only alternative to decline and final cultural destruction of Europe is a revival of the Christian idea of an organic fellowship of humanity in the body of Christ, including living, past and coming generations. Furthermore he advocates agricultural development and small, instead of large-scale industry."

What Lind actually says is:

Rydberg’s conception of race is not equivalent with the modern term; the meaning he gives the word is in fact more cultural than biological. When he speaks of 'the white race' Rydberg does not simply mean (Christian) Europeans, he includes Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists living in Asia, America and to some extent Africa in this expression; but what he actually criticizes is a phenomenon within Europe, not on other continents. That is the reason why I am treating his essay as an example of internal European cultural criticism. Rydberg’s essay was originally published as introduction to the Swedish translation of Benjamin Kidd’s international bestseller Social evolution (1894), but it was written independently of Kidd’s book. The Swedish author is, unlike Kidd, not a Social Darwinist and far more pessimistic about the European future than the Irishman. A common feature is however that both of them view religion and ethics as most important for the survival of a “race”.

Evolution is rightly said to be one of the most typical theme in 19th century Europe, but parallel to this optimism in the second half of the century there was a widespread, nearly apocalyptic, anxiety for the degeneration of the population caused by exceptional fast development. Rydberg shared this anxiety: he was very critical to industrialism and unhealthy milieu of the big European metropolises, like London, Paris, Berlin, Vienna, Petersburg and Moscow. According to what he says in his essay, death rates were much higher in these towns than on the countryside, the surviving people living in the former also suffered from bad health. In combination with low nativity this was a dangerous threat to Europe, especially compared to the steadily growing, physically as well as morally sound population in China and the Far East. If nothing is done about it, Rydberg fears that East Asia in the future will conquer Europe in “the struggle for existence”. The biggest threat to the western world, according to Rydberg, is however the atomistic, egoistic individualism among Europeans themselves, especially among some of the industrialists and businessmen, only interested in money. This lack of morals will in the long run ruin the ecological system as well as the poor people on our continent.

End quote

Since Rydberg defined the term "white race" culturally as Linden says, it would be incorrect to say that Rydberg's essay helped spark the “racial hygiene” movement in Sweden. Unless, of course, like Lundborg, the people who did so purposely warped his words to fit their own agenda, as Lundborg's misquote of a line of Rydberg's poetry as a banner slogan demonstrates.If anything, his essay helped spark the environmental movement.Jack the Giant-Killer (talk) 15:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

All of which is obviously irrelevant to anything under discussion. Rydberg's obsession with the cultural superiority of a fictive "Aryan race," which was the underlying motif of his mythological fantasies, was picked up and developed by Lundborg, Wagner, Himmler, and Hitler. The fact that the concept of "race" shifted over this time, with greater knowledge of genetics, is not even marginally related to the fact that 20th-century racial politics were influenced by Rydberg's work, whereas 21st century scholarship on Norse mythology is not.

Rsradford (talk) 20:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

If we are going to quote Linden, let's quote the entire passage, including the portion that states Rydberg's definition of "the white race" was cultural, not racial, and included Jews, Hindus, Buddists, etc. I realize this doesn't fit the original theory you have developed that Rydberg was a white-supremicist, but that's no reason to omit it. Rydberg specifically includes Semetic (i.e. Jewish) and Egyptian (i.e. Arabic) people in his definition of the 'white race' in his mythological works, as Linden states. In the second volume of Undersökningar i Germanisk Mythologi, p. 150 he states:

"Föreställningen om dubbelgängare fanns redan i den ariska enhetstiden. Den fanns antagligen i en för-arisk tid, ty den är gemensam fö flere grenar af den hvita människostammen: man har återupptäckt den hos semiterna och egyterna. Antingen är fördenskull denna föreställning de hvita racernas samfälda arf från en urtids gemensamhet, eller har den redan i långt tillbaka liggande prehistorika skeden uppstått själfständig hos hvar och en af dem för sig."

["The concept of doppelgangers already existed in the Aryan time of unity (i.e. the Proto Indo-European era). It probably even existed before then, since it is common to many branches of the white human stem: one rediscovers it among the Semites and the Egyptians. Thus, this concept is either a common inheritance of the white race from a primeval community, or it had already arisen independently in a far remote prehistoric period among each and every one of them."]

The ateempt to associate his use of the word Aryan with Hitler and German National Socialism is laughable. Rydberg was an outspoken advocate of the rights of Swedish Jews and gave the keynote speech in Parliment passing the law which gave Swedish Jews full civil rights. Any attempt to portray him as a pre-Nazi white supremicist is not only innaccurate, but a willful lie in light of the evidence. As the Yahoogroup exchange you drew attention to demonstrates, there is no line that the anti-Rydberg fantatics won't cross when it comes to defaming this author. Jack the Giant-Killer (talk) 02:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

From advertising to self-quotation

I have long found it surprising that "Jack" is allowed to advertise his vanity-press paperback "translations" in this article, despite the obvious financial conflict of interest this poses. His latest edits go even further, in that "Jack" actually quotes himself to support the proposition that Rydberg's work must be important, because otherwise "Jack" wouldn't have self-published the amateur "translations" he advertises here [!!] The most charitable thing one might say about this is that it constitutes "original research," and has accordingly been deleted. Rsradford (talk) 21:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Another Fake Citation

I support the deletion of the Facos’ and Lönnröth quotes from the introduction as well as the main body of the article since both references are verifiably false. Neither citation supports the editorial comments placed in front of them. I have already demonstrated by quoting the Facos' citation in full above that nowhere in his article does Michael Facos say that Rydberg was "an outspoken advocate of nudity and group exercise." I have now obtained a copy of Lönnröth’s article, and am not surprised to learn it too has been misrepresented:

He also advocated "folk" education, first promoted by the Danish theologian N. F. S. Grundtvig, in which rigorous, formal academic study and research would be replaced by practical training directed to the common man. See Lars Lönnroth (1998). “The Academy of Odin: Grundtvig's Political Instrumentalization of Old Norse Mythology,” in Idee, Gestalt, Geschichte: Festschrift Klaus von See (Gerd Wolfgang Weber, ed.). Odense: Odense Univ. Press, ISBN 8774926977, p. 339.

The citation only pertains to Grundtvig and his "Vallekilde Folk High School." Rydberg is not mentioned on page 339, nor said to be an advocate of Grundtvig’s school there. The citation is a fake. Rydberg is not an advocate of this school. The only times Rydberg mentions Grundtvig in his mythological writings occur in chapter 107 of the first volume (UGM1, p. 629), where Rydberg says: "Grundtvig and Bugge have called attention to the conspicuous similarity between this ballad [Ungen Sveidal] on the one hand, and Gróugaldur and Fjölsvinnsmál on the other," and in volume two (UGM2, p. 349-350) where Rydberg says that "Grundtvig, Müllenhöff and Bugge" agree that the name Beowulf is linguistically identical to Bjólfr.

Both of these fraudelent statements have been imported with slight alterations directly from the “Rydberg Religion—Part I” article at http://www.rydberg.galinngrund.org/Rydberg_Religion_1.pdf which reads:

“His unsuccessful stint as a university student led him to become an advocate of 'folk' education, first promoted by the Danish theologian N. F. S. Grundtvig, in which rigorous, formal academic study and research would be replaced by practical training directed to the common man.18 Enamored with what he knew of Hellenic culture, Rydberg advocated public nudity and group exercise, which he believed had been practiced in ancient Greece.19 In an essay entitled, 'On Nudity and Ways of Dressing,' Rydberg “suggested that a society civilized to the point of wearing clothing was weak; it could be strengthened if its citizens adopted the primitive habit of nudity.”20

18 See, e.g., Lars Lönnroth, The Academy of Odin: Grundtvig’s Political Instrumentalization of Old Norse Mythology, in IDEE/GESTALT/GESCHICHTE: FESTSCHRIFT KLAUS VON SEE 339 (Gerd Wolfgang Weber, ed., 1988). 19 See Michele Facos, NATIONALISM AND THE NORDIC IMAGINATION 85- 86 (1998). 20 Id. at 86.

If Rydberg was really a racist nationalist nudist homosexual pedophile, it would not be difficult to prove. One would not have to use a series of misrepresented and made-up quotes to make the case. 04:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Redundancy and Editorializing

Claiming to have “inserted a revised and more correct qualifier in the current version of the text” Rorik Radford has changed this statement:

“Since their publication, some of Rydberg's mythological theories have been mentioned or discussed in other works (although not always in a positive light), including his theory regarding….”

To this:

”Since their publication, some of Rydberg's mythological theories have been mentioned or discussed in other works (albeit frequently in a disparaging manner), including his theory regarding….”

The statement does not need editorial qualification. The reader can make up his own mind. The page contains a mixture of critical comments about Rydberg’s work both positive and negative.

Radford also insists on including the "disparaging" quote by Anatoly Liberman twice in the text. The full quote appears both in the main body of the text and once in the footnotes. Any effort to remove one of these duplicate quotations is immediately met with a blind revert.

You may have forgotten that it was you who moved the quote to the footnotes. Not only have I never "insisted" on maintaining the duplicate quote, I have now deleted it. Rsradford (talk) 21:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Radford also insists on redundantly dating the quote by Stopford Brooke, which is clearly dated in the bibliographic citation, in the manner of all other citations in the work. Any effort to correct this redundancy is also met with a blind revert This has happened twice in the last two days.

You have worded your reference to Brooke, as you previously did with your reference to Powell, to create the false impression that these laudatory comments are from contemporary scholars. An opinion that is over 100 years old is history, and should be identified as such in the text to avoid misleading readers. We do want to avoid misleading the readers, right? Rsradford (talk) 21:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Now, after attempting to add two fraudulent citations to the introductory paragraph, he has deleted the legitimate scholarship found there. What gives? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack the Giant-Killer (talk • contribs) 04:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

As you are quite aware, neither of the references you object to are "fraudulent" in any sense; they simply focus on aspects of Rydberg's real-world existence that may not be conducive to your book sales. Do you deny that Rydberg publically advocated nudism in his published essays, as Facos documents? Do you understand what the term "outspoken advocate" means? Q.E.D. It is perfectly clear that the Lonnroth citation supports the proposition that Grundtvig first proposed the system of "folk" education that Rydberg subsequently took up. The laudatory and deceptive quotes with which you had larded the introductory paragraph are in no sense more "legitimate" than these references. Since you refuse to allow balance in the article, my current proposal is that the introductory paragraph be limited to facts, rather than opinions: Rydberg was a writer; he was a member of the Swedish Academy. How exactly are you harmed (other than financially) by having to refrain from your deceptive editorializing until the beginning of the "Biography" section?

Rsradford (talk) 20:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Indefensable Fraud

I have quoted the Facos citation in full. Facos states that among others “the writer Viktor Rydberg promoted health through gymnastics, physical culture, and outdoor bathing.” In the context of good health and proper exercise, Facos says that Rydberg, in a single essay not properly sourced, “proffered the example of classical Greece as a model for contemporary Sweden. He suggested a society civilized to the point of wearing clothing was weak and could be strengthened if its citizens adopted the primitive habit of nudity.” Facos also states that nude bathing in Sweden at the time was commonplace. You have zeroed in on one point in a broader argument to create a false impression, then cited the source in question as if it supported your original conclusion. That's fraud. The source itself is questionable because Facos fails to provide teh essay's Swedish title, date of publication etc, bibliographic information necessary to identify the source.

The statement that Rydberg “advocated ‘folk’ education, first promoted by the Danish theologian N. F. S. Grundtvig" in his Vallekilde Folk High School" is also unsourced. The citation only pertains to Grundtvig and his school.

The fact is that Rydberg did not advocate nudity outside of a single essay, assuming it exists at all and has been characterized correctly. No source has been cited to support the statement that Rydberg advocated Grundtvig’s school of ‘folk’ education. Rydberg barely mentions Grundtvig's scholarly work in his massive two-volume work on Germanic mythology. Some advocate.

In the same manner, the Linden quote was clipped to hide the fact that Rydberg included Jews, Buddists, Hindus, and Muslims in his definition of the “white race,” both in his final essay and his works on mythology. He did not define the words Aryan or race in a post-20th century manner as you do. There is no evidence to support your original thesis that “Rydberg's obsession with the cultural superiority of a fictive ‘Aryan race,’ which was the underlying motif of his mythological fantasies, was picked up and developed by Lundborg, Wagner, Himmler, and Hitler.” Rydberg specifically states that the Aryans are part of the human race, and that he does not place their mythology above that of others branches. Nowhere in the work does he speak of the superiority of the "white race" or the "Aryan" branch of the human race, as you outspokenly advocate.

Rydberg advocated Jewish civil rights in Parliament, and included Jews and others in his definition of the “white race” both in his final essay and in his work on mythology. He speaks highly of Jewish "folklore and mythology" and that of other 'races.' There is not a one-to-one corrolation between the English word race and the Swedish word 'ras' as you suggest. I have provided supporting quotes for all of this above, except in the case where it is impossible to disprove what has not been said.

The general quotes concerning Rydberg are scholarly in nature, and appropriate for the introductory paragraph. You have no business deleting them. If you can provide scholarly statements of a general nature that support your view, please do so. I have no objection to that. I strongly object, however, to inserting half-truths and false statements regarding specific works into a general introduction to create a false impression designed to support a amateur website. If your statements are true, you should have no trouble supporting them with scholarly quotes. Jack the Giant-Killer (talk) 23:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)