User talk:97.100.237.167

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button Image:Signature_icon.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 03:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Conflict of interest warning about Viktor Rydberg

Please be aware that your edits

are being discussed at the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Our concerns are specifically about the Viktor Rydberg article.

You are welcome to join that discussion and give your own opinion. The following is the warning usually given to editors who, by the pattern of their edits, seem to be editing in a non-neutral fashion on behalf of some person or interest. We are especially concerned by your apparent deletion of well-sourced criticism of Rydberg from the article about him.

I'm not sure of the best means to contact you directly, so I'll try here.

My sole aim in editing the Viktor Rydberg is to maintain the honor and dignity of one of Sweden's best known authors. I urge the editors to review the Viktor Rydberg entries on their foriegn mirror sites, as well as the entries of other similar authors. There is a night and day difference. For example, negative scholarly citations of a general nature, such as calling the author's work "fantaises" as Mr. Radford objects to modifying, are rarely if ever included. His contributions are "sourced" to be sure but are not generally reflective of the overall criticism of the author's work.

I have made every effort to incorporate Mr. Radford's views into my editing process, presenting them in a truly neutral fashion. My views and specific objections to his contributions and editing descisions are best explained on the discussion page. You will notice that Mr. Radford altered my comments there three times, hardly in the spirit of a cooperative effort. I feel there is an attempt by Mr. Radford to conceal his bias toward this author.

I believe any dispute arises from my removing references to Mr. Radford's articles on this site, found at http://www.rydberg.galinngrund.org/Rydberg_Religion_1.pdf and http://www.rydberg.galinngrund.org/Rydberg_Religion_2.pdf

I urge the editors to read those articles in full, and check the references wherever possible. The views and quotes contributed to this article by Mr. Radford are reflective of his views in these online articles; neither of which promote a neutral view of the author. On the contrary, they are comprised of the most negative and salacious bits possible gleaned from works of scholarship, and then spun further in a negative light with speculation and innuendo. The conclusions drawn in these articles are not reflective of the opinions by the published authors of the works cited, and additonal direct quotes from the works cited can often be cited to demonstrate this fact.

The question of Viktor Rydberg's sexuality is entirely speculative, and acknowledged as such by the scholars who discuss it. The speculative nature of the argument is not indicated in these articles, and thus I felt was proper to edit it out of the Wikipedia entry. Direct statements regarding a "well-publicized liason" with an underage male student are false and misleading, and were not even suggested until three decades after the author's death. The evidence consists of a series of letters which never mention or suggest any kind of sexual contact between the author and a former student. The so-called "liason" took place in the student's home with his parents present, and the relationship was encouraged by his parents for many years. Their relationship is best characterized as an affectionate relationship between a student and teacher. The suggestion that this relationship was rooted in sexual desire was made by Victor Swanberg, an openly-homosexual Swedish literary critic living in Berlin in the 1920s. Swanberg details these facts in his intial book on the subject and all subsequent discussions are based on his book. The fact remains that Viktor Rydberg did not identify as homosexual, and had no known homosexual relationships. This is a matter of record. The label of homosexuality is pure scholarly speculation. You will note the lack of specific documentation in these allegations. Speculations on an author's sexuality are irrelevant. You will notice that most author's entries make no mention of their sexuality. Why should this entry be any different?

As for the inclusion of particular titles among the translations— all translations of Rydberg's work in English are listed that have been produced commercially, without regard to the nature of the publisher. The translations in question derogatorily referred to as "vanity press" are in the collection of the Swedish Royal Library; as well as other libraries around the country. Please refer to WORLDCAT for verification. They are also listed on a prominent Swedish website devoted to the author: http://vrsidor.se/eng/index.html (follow the links to "his books" and then "translations") One of the translations includes an introduction by a Swedish PhD student at the University of Lund. The books are also largely available on Googlebooks, so it seems commerical interest is not a valid motivation. What better way to judge an author's work than to read it first hand?

The editors should note that I have made numerous contributions to this site over the years, without conflict. Mr. Radford appeared her recently and almost immediately requested arbitration. He fails to mention that he has actively denounced the author's work in a number of internet fora over the years, particularily on Google groups. My aim is to present a neutral view of Rydberg, free of this kind of bias. You will note that in his most recent edit, Mr. Radford removed the work "scientific" from the citation, which was a direct quote by the author I cited. It is this kind of selective editing that I feel best shows his bias.

I have made every effort to document my sources, and believe I have made several significant contributions to the entry. I am puzzled by this disproprotional attention to Rydberg's mythological works; but since Mr. Radford feels inclined to speaulate on my motives, I feel free to do the same. His actions are probably best explained in that Mr. Radford is a lawyer by profession and has a vested interest in promoting the views he expresses in a wide-range of internet fora. He specfically acts to suppress any pro-earth pagan views, in an effort to help his professional cause. The insistence on spreading false and misleading information about the author's works, and his private life amounts to an ad hominuem attack on a well-respected author. As it stands, I feel the article gives a fair balance between the hardships the author faced in his life, and how he rose above them to a position of national importance. The fact that schools, landmarks, and other institutions are named for him, speak to his worth in his native land.


I feel strongly about this, as does Mr. Radford, but am willing to abide by your editorial decision, should it warrant such action. As far as I am concerned, however, Mr. Radford's sudden arrival here and his immediate request for arbitration are suspect, and a continuation of his tactics in other forums.



If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

  1. editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
  2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
  3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);
    and you must always:
  4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Thank you. EdJohnston (talk) 22:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)