Talk:Lotte Motz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am concerned about the removal, and subsequent mislabeling, of biographical information relating to this scholar's life and work, obtained from published sources honoring the subject of this article. Such information casts pertient light on the motivation of this scholar and her particular point of view. The redactor appears to be "white washing" this scholar's credentials and history, perhaps in an attempt to elevate her work. The majority of the biographical information was taken directly from the book Myhological Women which the redactor is familar with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.100.237.167 (talk) 23:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

By “whitewashing” I presume you are referring to deliberately deceptive editing by omission, such as has been plaguing the Viktor Rydberg article. Here is the distinction: On the Rydberg page, quotations from scholarship critical of Rydberg’s mythological theories have been uniformly deleted or misleadingly qualified in order to create a false impression of the value of that work. Here, the only criticism of Motz’s work has been by you – and your personal opinions are neither noteworthy nor authoritative.
Your undocumented assertion that Motz “attacked” Germanic scholars because she was a Jew is plainly anti-Semitic as well as unauthenticated, and has therefore been deleted (twice). If you can find a single scholar who has made such a claim (and has not died in an Allied prison), feel free to cite to that authority. Otherwise, this is not a forum for your hate-mongering.
Similarly, the implication that a leading academic journal like Saga-Book would publish a biased obituary of Motz, based on the fact that two of the three scholars credited for the obituary were members of her family, is both offensive to Professor Simek and the Viking Society, and frankly ignorant of the conventions of scholarly publishing. Again, if you can find any authority who makes such a claim, feel free to cite to that authority in the article. Your personal opinions are of no interest.
Several other undocumented claims and editorializing throughout your tendentious “edits” have been deleted on the same grounds. Find some authority to support your opinions, or keep them out of Wikipedia. If you seriously believe that Prof. McKinnell has “refuted” Motz on any substantive issue, feel free to quote his work in the article, to demonstrate that you understand what he has said and the context in which he wrote.
The lengthy cut-and-paste from the tribute to Prof. Motz published in Mythological Women is plagiarism, and has been deleted as such. This tribute is clearly referenced in the article, and anyone who wants to read it can easily do so, without your pasting it into the piece in lieu of the original text that covered the same ground. I have inserted some short quotations from the tribute concerning points you raised, but without your deceptive editorializing. Rsradford (talk) 21:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


Do try to follow Wikipedia rules and focus on the subject of the article, and not your fellow editors. This is not a personal matter. There is no need to demonize and mischaracterize the efforts of others here. Motz's work is a personal favorite of mine. I own several of her books. They are provocative, precisely because her thinking is outside the box. Obviously, we have differing views on the significance of Motz's contribution. You would do well to support your opinions with verifiable sources. All citations to the works I have used have been indicated. Quoted texts appear in quotes. The views of other scholars regarding her work, regardless of your opinions, are verifiable. I do not feel it is appropriate to include lengthy rebuttals of Ms. Motz's conclusions by other scholars on a site devoted to her, nor will I do so simply because you demand it. The referenced works have been cited. You, of course, are welcome to balance these with other works of scholarship that agree with your views, assuming there are any.

Your unfounded charges of plagarism, hate-mongering, and anti-semitism are inflamatory and unverifiable. Please refrain from further personal attacks on other editors. Ms. Motz's heritage and personal history are well documented in published biographical sources. To hide by omission or to suggest that such experiences did not affect her adult attitudes and opinions would not only be irresponsible, but misleading. I have cited information from verifiable sources, and noted them as such. Further removal of pertinent biographical information can rightly be considered vanadalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack the Giant-Killer (talk • contribs) 02:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Jack (formerly Anon IP 97.100.237.167), the purpose of a discussion page is to discuss revisions to an article. If you are unable to follow the discussion on this page, please stop defacing the article with your anti-Semitism, plagiarism, and unsupported assertions. See the discussion of each of these points under the relevant headings below.
Anti-Semitism
Your anti-Semitic comments have again been deleted, for the reason that was explained to you on 17 April 2008 (see above). If you can find any scholar who agrees with your "evaluation" that Motz's extensive scholarship on Northern folklore and mythology was in any way related to – much less determined by – her Jewishness, please post those sources in the article. Otherwise, please peddle your race-hatred elsewhere.
Plagiarism
Your extensive (and pointless) plagiarism from Mythological Women has again been deleted, and will remain so. If you are unfamiliar with the meaning of plagiarism, please consult any standard scholarly resource on the subject.
Unsupported assertions
As was pointed out to you on 17 April 2008 (see above), it means nothing for you to claim that a given scholar was critical of Motz's work, if you cannot quote a single passage by that scholar in support of your assertion. I have reviewed two of your supposed "references," and confirmed that you either do not understand what Professors McKinnell and Clunies Ross wrote, or else deliberately chose to misrepresent their work. I have created a new section headed “Scholars on Motz,” to discuss these and other references to Motz’s work in contemporary scholarship. If you can provide quotes to support your “interpretations” of negative commentary on Motz’s work, feel free to include them there. If you cannot do so – or if, as you have done before, you are deliberately cherry-picking negative references from works that include both positive and negative evaluations – please do not feel compelled to share your opinions of work you do not understand.
Editorializing
Your egregious editorializing has been deleted throughout. For example, your claim that the contributors to Motz’s festschift “seldom concur with her conclusions,” and that contemporary scholars “are little influenced by her work” are plainly counter-factual and far beyond your capacity to evaluate. Regardless of whether your anti-Motz editorializing is motivated by racism, malice, or simple ignorance of the literature, it has no place in an encyclopedia article. Rsradford (talk) 04:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


April 29, 2008: Mr. Reaves (aka “Jack the Giant-Killer,” aka Anon IP 97.100.237.167), we get it. You don’t like “Jew scholars” writing about Germanic mythology. What you don’t seem to grasp is, nobody cares what you like. Unless you can find some published scholar, anywhere in the world, who supports your bizarre opinions concerning Prof. Motz’s work, those opinions have no place in an encyclopedia article. See the listing of detailed issues above, before continuing to deface this article with your malicious "edits." Rsradford (talk) 16:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


Personal attacks on other editors are against Wikipedia's rules. Why is RSRadford allowed to make such attacks, and remain and editor? This person is obviously a troll. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.193.49.130 (talk) 20:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


May 1, 2008: Really, Mr. Reaves! If you can provide any documentation for your opinions, as requested above, please do so. If you cannot, please stop vandalizing the article from anonymous IPs! Rsradford (talk) 20:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Reaves, please grow up. If you cannot find a single published scholar in the entire world who supports your foolish, racist diatribes concerning Prof. Motz, shouldn't that tell you something? Isn't there some topic you know something about, which could form the basis for a new article? Rsradford (talk) 03:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Yawn.

Mr. Radford, who died and appointed you editor-in-chief of the Lotte Motz entry? Why such intense paranoia? I'm simply trying to have a civilized debate on the topic. This is not a one-handed operation.

You cannot simply delete my contributions to a balanced criticism of her academic context and agenda. If you would like to rebutt with additional scholarship, assuming there are any who support your radical views, please do so. I just saw Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed with Ben Stein. There are some really radical views out there, no doubt.

You are free to edit the material if you wish, otherwise, do not continue to attempt to delete it wholesale. If you don't like what they say, take it up with the scholars who said these things. I have only quoted them. Your charges of plagarism are particularly offensive, as I have cited my sources accurately and thoroughly unlike your opinion-heavy pieces. I have serious doubts that you have the ability to grasp the meaning of what you read, as you have a tendency to extract the worse or most extreme positions of someone, such as your comnments on Rydberg and Motz, respectively. You miss the point entirely.

Why the emotional tirade? What is your attachment to this author?

I should not need to remind you that you are not the editor-in-chief of this entry. My contributions are all sourced, and you have yet to demonstrate otherwise. Why not step up to the plate and provide some evidence with verfiable references? You have already demonstrated your lack of ability in correctly understanding and applying the meaning of Old Norse texts in your 1988 article on the Holmgang. Who are you to question the ability of others. What are your professional credentials in this field again? I have forgotten if you had any. ;-)


Mr. Radford, I invite you to make a positive contribution to the site, but I cannot with good conscious allow well-cited sources to be edited out or distorted to such ends. We disagree on the impact of this scholar. Regardless, I feel we both have valueable information to contribute to the site. Let's keep it friendly and quit the name-calling and charges of plagaism and anti-Semitism. Such verbiage is not useful, if you truly aim to resolve this matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack the Giant-Killer (talk • contribs) 20:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


Mr. Reaves, this is not a playground for your amusement. The specific problems with your repeated bad-faith "edits" -- anti-Semitism, plagiarism, unsupported assertions, and editorializing -- are set forth above, waiting for you to address them. If you can find any published authority, anywhere, who supports your racist and rather foolish opinions concerning Prof. Motz and her work, please quote them. Otherwise, stop vandalizing this article. Rsradford (talk) 22:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Outside view

Via WP:COIN. OK, there are two versions on the table: call them A and B. Sorry, but I go with Rsradford's version B and with many of his criticisms of the A. I wouldn't call the A version anti-semitic, but it does carry a distinct implication - via the initial framing about Nazi persecution and the reminder about the Master Race - that Motz had some hang-up, rooted in her persecution as a Jew, making her hostile to German scholarship. We shouldn't be able to tell from the text the opinion of the editor - but in the A there are a number of other little editorial digs such as the "feminists of a feather" comment and the WP:SYNTH of framing Motz's interest in female mythological figures with the "wake of the second wave of the International Women's Movement" (implying that interest to be some kind of dismissable Wimmin bias).

I also doubt that the Tribute cited is a reliable source - www.runewebvitki.com is a personal website, not a peer-reviewed publication. Note also that a large part of it is a copyvio from the the OUP blurb for The Faces of the Goddess (here). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 11:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Claimed plagiarism

Rsradford, which section are you saying is a cut-and-paste from In Honour of Lotte Motz? Gordonofcartoon (talk) 03:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


I am currently attending a conference and do not have access to the commemorative volume. I will provide documentation of "Jack the Giant Killer's" extensive plagiarism from that work when I return to my office next week. Rsradford (talk) 16:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


In response to your query: the second and third paragraphs of the article so closely paraphrase the corresponding paragraphs of the essay, "In Honour of Lotte Motz," as to constitute plagiarism. Three sentences have been copied virtually verbatim, and the rest appropriates so much of the structure, choice, and sequence of ideas from the memorial essay as to be obviously derivative. The two paragraphs in question are quoted in full below:
"Lotte Motz, née Edlis, was born in Vienna in 1922. After the Nazi annexation of Austria in 1938 she, as a Jew, was denied the right to attend Gymnasium (high school). In 1941 her mother escaped to America with Lotte and two younger brothers, settling in New York City. Working throughout her studies, Lotte Motz completed high school and college and received a B.A. in German from Hunter College, City University of New York, in 1949. She did a year of graduate work at Stanford University and completed her graduate studies at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, where she obtained a Ph.D. in German and philology in 1955. She moved to Oxford in 1959 where her husband Hans was a lecturer in engineering. There her scholarly career began. She undertook a Bphil in Old English wich introduced her to Old Norse. Her love of the subject never left her.
"When in 1971 she returned to America with her daughter Anna, she obtained an academic position in the German Department at Brooklyn College, City University of New York, where she was a highly popular and respected teacher. Later she taught German at Hunter College until in 1984 she contracted bronchiectasis. She subsequently had to give up teaching and eventually returned to Oxford with her daughter. Although she was very disappointed about giving up her beloved teaching, and leaving New York City, she pursued her scholarly activities all the more vigorously in Oxford, continuing to attend international conferences and write prolifically."[1] Rsradford (talk) 19:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


This appears to be yet another attempt to remove the information one editor objects to in the article, further elevating Motz's status from that of minor academic to serious scholar. Noticeably, Radford consistently refers to Ms.Motz as Prof. Motz when the biography specifically states that, due to bronchitis, no doubt brought on by heavy smoking, she was unable to teach and thus turned to writing. Is it common practice to refer to a former teacher as Prof. years after her retirement, or is this simply another tactic designed to elevate her status? References to Lotte Motz are few, thus Mythological Women remains the primary source for biographical information regarding her. All statements contained in the article are factual, and contain references to their respective sources. All references have been accurately cited, even Radford hasn't challenge that.

What is Radford's specific issue with detailing Motz's personal life, her childhood trauma, her religion, educational background, etc? This is information relevant to understanding this author's novel approach put forward by the compilers of the tribute work in question, Mythological Women. It should be remembered that Ms. Motz's own brother and daughter contrubuted to this work. As a tribute, it should probably be disqualified altogether, but contains the only published biographical information concerning this one-time "prof.", and therefore must be included if there is to be any article at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack the Giant-Killer (talk • contribs) 05:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It's fine to include the information, but it needs more paraphrasing (I wouldn't call it plagiarism, but the deal with Wikipedia is to produce a new reference work where you shouldn't be able to see 'fossils' of the source material.
no doubt brought on by heavy smoking
It's abundantly clear you don't like her, but there's no need for gratuitous rhetoric to portray her in a bad light. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 11:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Nor is there need for lying. "Jack's" claim that Prof. Motz "turned to writing" after she was no longer able to teach is belied by the bibliography appended to the article (assuming he has not yet deleted it), which shows more than a two-decade overlap of Prof. Motz's scholarly publications and her professorial responsibilities. Rsradford (talk) 22:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for comment

Note: RFC bot appears to be down. This RfC won't post to the main list until the bot runs again. I've made an inquiry to someone who has worked on it in the past. EdJohnston (talk) 16:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please tone down the personal attacks

  • Words such as 'malicious' and 'bizarre' should be avoided when referring to other editors. Forthright remarks on actual content is still permitted, but please don't comment negatively on other editors' mental state or capacity to understand things. Further comments placed on this page that contain personal attacks may be removed without further ado.
  • Even if you think you know who a certain editor is in real life, don't use that name here if they haven't revealed it publicly. EdJohnston (talk) 15:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Factual errors and editorializing in current version of the article

The current version of the article, as "revised" by User:JacktheGiant-Killer contains several factual errors and instances of "Jack's" anti-Motz editorializing that should be corrected and/or deleted:

I've posted an RFC on this. I could spot some editorialising (given away by the polemical flavour) but this is so specialised that it needs other informed opinions. If none is forthcoming, it might be better for the moment to cut the article back to a basic bio containing only material that's undisputed (i.e. what she worked on, but not any kind of attempt to synthesise where it fits in the scheme of things). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Response to the Lengthy Legal Brief

Hi Gordon,

I thought you asked Mr. Radford to support his exaggerated claims of plagarism. I appreciate you stopping the unwarrented personal attacks.

Obviously it will take me some time to respond to this lengthy diatribe. I can support the material I have contributed, and will immediately embark on doing so.

Rather than cutting the article back to basics, why not simply cut it back to the cited material? I have supported many of my contributions and will gladly support those he objects to. My only interest is creating a balanced, informative article on Lotte Motz, a scholar whose books grace my own collection. Her works are thought-provoking. She was an intentionally "provocative" scholar and this should be reflected in the article in the interest of truth. I find Mr. Radford's original work to be a rather "fluff" piece, whitewashing the details of her work and life. As a pagan activist (google his name) and creator of the Galinn Grund website, Mr. Radford has a vested interest in promoting Ms. Motz's views. In doing so, he has "rounded her edges" so to speak.

You will note that Mr. Radford has provided few citataions to support his claims. For example, he says:

Motz was one of the first scholars to seriously question the tri-functional theory of Georges Dumézil, demonstrating the inadequacy of that paradigm to explain many aspects of the Norse myths.[2]

As a citation he refer to one of Motz's works. There is no evidvence that Dumezil's "paradigm" was inadequate. That's Mr. Radford's opinion. In fact, it is one of the cornerstones of the modern Indo-European scholarship.

He has said things are not supported, but provided no evidence of an opposing view. You have asked me to support mine, and if given sufficent time I will do so, beyond what I already have.

My specific objection is that Mr. Radford has chosen not to edit my contributions, but rather deleted them wholesale in an effort to control the content of this article. If I have used excessive langauge, feel free to edit it. I have no objection to anyone editing my contributions. I object to Mr. Radford's de facto control of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack the Giant-Killer (talk • contribs) 23:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not interested. All I can see is two editors equally determined to control the article - and you are just as guilty of wholesale reversion. It's generally a deeply bad sign when editors write essays defending their stance. As I've said, I think your version of the article shows a distinct spin, and there are allegations of complete untruths that need investigating.
I suggest waiting to see what other views the the RFC brings, and you stop reverting now or I'll post this to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR, which involves a deal of hard work and will piss me off and make me a lot less sympathetic toward either side of this dispute. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 00:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I support Gordon's ideas of shortening the article to a version that can be reliably sourced. It does not come as a complete shock that the two people editing here who actually know something about Rydberg seem to have arrived with strong points of view. We just have to keep that POV under control to assemble a neutral article. EdJohnston (talk) 02:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
It's a difficult one (sorry about my irritation). Both editors certainly know the subject well, but it comes down to differing opinions on how to assemble the secondary material. But there should be no dispute about what she wrote. The Faces of the Goddess might be a useful work to highlight, in that it's characteristic of her arguments, appears to be the one that gained the nearest thing to a mainstream profile, and what it says is readily verifiable [1]. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 15:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


I'm happy with the edit, I think you have created a nice balance between the various views. Thank you for getting rid of the section on scholarship. In my opinion, a collection of bibliographical refernces does not qualify as "scholarship" Jack the Giant-Killer (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


I also support the idea of shortening the article to a version that can be reliably sourced. Indeed, if you want to review the history of this article, that is exactly what I orginally created -- and that original version is still perfectly adequate to put Wikipedia readers on notice of Prof. Motz's importance in contemporary Germanic studies. The current version of the article, however, is essentially "Jack's" version. All references to genuine scholarship have been deleted, and the bulk of the article consists of demonstrably false assertions, undocumented personal opinions, unverified "citations," and deliberate distortions. Although I have already identified most (but by no means all) of these defects, they continue to disgrace Prof. Motz's memory.
I would also point out that The Faces of the Goddess is very far from representative of Prof. Motz's body of scholarship. Indeed, this work is not cited even once by any of the essays in Prof. Motz's festschrift, Mythological Women. If you wish to focus on her most representative and noteworthy volume, which has received the greatest attention in the academic community, it should be The King, the Champion, and the Sorcerer. Rsradford (talk) 19:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


Certainly, "Faces of the Goddess" is Lotte Motz's best known work (verifiable through a web-search). Indeed, it is not representative of her work, which is perhaps why it has found the widest favor of her many writings. When she was not "attacking the icons of Germanic scgholarship", Motz specialized in commentaries on obscure legendary charcters and episodes in Germanic lore i.e. Svipdagsmal, Frau Holle, dwarves, etc. Her book "The King, The Champion, and the Sorcerer" amounts to a large article. It is a small (6" x 8"), 148 page, glue-bound paperback. As you can see, from the deleted section on "Scholarly Influence", penned by Radford, very few of Motz's articles on mythology have been included in a a handful of bibliographies, and only actually cited in a a couple of specialized works on mythology. Recall that Radford said she wrote "scores" of these articles, when the truth is she penned 2.5 score. Obviously, Radford is attempting to artifially inflate her work.


Since when are "dwarves" obscure? Sugarbat (talk) 23:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


Generally, when any of Motz's articles are cited, it is because the subjects she wrote on are obscure. McKinnell, for example, was expounding on Eddic poems which involve contact with the dead. For the sake of completeness he had to include Svipdagsmal. He turned to Motz's article because she is one of few modern scholars who comment on the poem. The poem is generally discredited as a late imitation of Eddic poetry with a "fairy-tale motif". Since the early 1960s, Svipdagsmal is no longer included in English translations of the Poetic Edda. Notably, McKinnell strongly disagreed with Motz's primary conclusion, which identifies the object of the protagonist's desire with the hero's own mother. The conclusion is not only novel, but absurd. No one supports it. As Radford noted, she had to turn to a "wide range" secondary material to support this Freudian fantasy, mainly because there is no evidence in the poem to support it.

Jack the Giant-Killer (talk) 01:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


Once again, we have the benefit of "Jack's" amateur analysis, in lieu of the views of actual Olds Norse scholars, which he deletes immediately when anyone attempts to insert them into the article. The quality of his perspective is perhaps best exemplified by the fact that he is unable accurately to count the number of Prof. Motz's articles that are included in the Selected Bibliography (which does not include her entire scholarly output). Or is the next step to delete all references to Prof. Motz's actual publications, and base the article entirely on "Jack's" uninformed opinions and deliberate distortions in lieu of the facts?
The statement that "very few of Motz's articles on mythology have been included in a handful of bibliographies, and only actually cited in a a couple of specialized works on mythology" is patently absurd and could be attributed to Jack's ignorance of Old Norse scholarship in general, except that he himself has deleted references to scholarship that disproves his claim. Rsradford (talk) 12:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Attacks

Once again, Mr. Radford, stop the personal attacks! The purpose of this page is to discuss the content of the entry. This entry isn't about "Jack". No one cares whether you think you know "Jack." Respect the talk page guidelines, as requested. I am not the one who deleted your bean-counts. I have sourced what I have said. Accept the fact that your attempts to label my contributions as anti-semetic, plagarism, or illiterate don't have any legs, and refocus on the content of the entry. Jack the Giant-Killer (talk) 04:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My recent change to the article

Since none of the false, misleading, and/or unverified statements inserted into the article by "Jack the Giant-Killer" have been addressed since I identified them on May 9, I have made the appropriate corrections. Note that in each case where I provide quotations from the sources "Jack" cited, it can be seen that he has misrepresented or distorted the author's meaning, always to advance his negative portrayal of Prof. Motz and her scholarship. Accordingly, where "Jack" has been unable to provide any verification for his "interpretations" of cited sources, I have deleted those interpretations. Obviously, if "Jack" or anyone else can provide quotes from the sources in question that support "Jack's" interpretations, those statements should and will be reinstated. Rsradford (talk) 04:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding the recent change to the article by RSRadford

The strong language ('false, misleading, and/or unverified') is unwarranted and suggests bias on the part of the editor, RSRadford. Again, all of my previous contributions have been sourced. Mr. Radford has now peppered the article with so many lengthy direct quotes from the memorial volume, it is nearly indistinquishable from the memorial work itself. On one hand, he has accused me of plagarism by citing the work, and on the other includes so many quotes from the memorial biography that we may as well reprint the article in its entirety here.

Let's not forget that "Mythological Women" is a memorial volume intended to honor the subject of this article. By cut-n-pasting quotes from it as heavily the current redaction does, the entry imports the POV of the work, destroying its own NPOV. After Mr. Radford's recent edits, I am once again in favor of cutting this article back to the basics. I am formally requesting an editorial descision on the matter.

A few examples will serve to illustrate the point:

As an Austrian-born Jew, she escaped to the United States in 1941 along with her family upon fleeing the Nazis.[2] She, her mother and two brothers eventually settled in New York. Unable to attend Gymnasium (High School) in Austria[citation needed], she completed high school and college in New York, receiving a B.A. from Hunter College. She did a year of graduate work at Stanford University, completing her degree at the University of Wisconsin, obtaining a Ph.D. in German and philology in 1955.

The request for verification here is puzzling. Sandwiched between citations to this work (Mythological Women), an additional citation from the same work (page 9) is hardly necessary. The author states "as a Jew [she] was denied the right to attend Gymnasium."

The same work says she was unable to teach after contracting a smoking-related illness. Thus it is inappropriate to address her as "prof." at this point. None of the sources cited follow this practice. Perhaps Mr. Radford was once a student of hers. Such fawning titles add to the slanted POV.

Prof. Motz was among the first scholars to "take a serious step beyond the Three-Function theory developed by Georges Dumézil nearly four decades ago."[3] She was the first scholar in recent history to question the validity of the name Nerthus in Tacitus' Germania, pointing out that Nerthus was merely one of the possible manuscript readings, "thus opening up new paths of thought on early Germanic religion."[4]

Two lengthy citations, one from a memorial work and another from a review of the same work, can rightly be construed as overkill. Why not cite the author of the review? Is it one of the contributors perhaps? This quote needs to be properly cited or removed.


Motz’s early essay on the Eddic poem Svipdagsmál,[5] published in Arkiv för nordisk filologi, examined competing theories concerning the origin of the work, before advancing novel interpretations of the hero Svipdag’s journey to Menglöð’s hall.

Drawing on a wide range of comparative folklore and mythology, Motz proposed that the poem described an initiatory ritual into an earth mother cult, symbolizing the seasonal return of vegetable life to the earth.[6], and her expertise on this topic was recognized by extending her the honor of writing the entry on the poem for Medieval Scandinavia: An Encyclopedia.


These statements are editoral in nature. I am not aware of any source that characterizes Motz as an "expert" on this subject, and there is no evidence that any "honor was extended" in being chosen to write an encyclopedia article. RS suggests that Jochens, another author who focuses on the female in Old Norse sources, cites her work for a "general understanding of the poem." Are we to believe she does this in a single footnote? Surely this is more hyperbole, of the kind described above.


Elsewhere in the same volume, she cites Motz as being the first to recognize that the dwarves of Norse mythology “were an all-male group,” an insight that Clunies Ross incorporates into her own theme, "negative reciprocity."[7].

According to the source cited, which I also have before me, the insight seems to be Ross' own. She cites both Jochens and Motz as contributors to it. Excluding the reference to Jochens and slightly modifying (plagarizing?) the language of this citation in prose creates the false impression that Motz is the acknowledged source. That does not appear to be Ross' intent.

Although Prof. Motz's work initially ranged across the fields of Old Norse and Germanic mythology and folklore, her research interests came to focus especially on female figures in Norse and Germanic mythology, notably the nature and function of giantesses in that tradition.[8]

Motz published only 11 articles (of the "scores" she would produce") by 1980. Her biography makes it clear why. Her output increased, when her tenure ended. Nearly one-third of these early works, particulary the first, concern female characters in the eddas and sagas. By 1980, she focuses almost exclusively on the female. Her memorial biographer states this plainly. Rather than mischaracterize it in this way, why not simply quote the memorial work directly once again?

A clear editorial pattern has developed here: quote when it's favorable, spin through restatement when it's not.

She sometimes saw buried remnants of shamanic initiation in narratives in which young men encountered female trolls, which could be interpreted as "inscrutable and frightening female guardian spirits." [9]

The word "frequently" used in the cited source has been changed to "sometimes", again creating an inaccurate impression of this scholar's view.


This exposed her papers, like all work in comparative mythology, to criticism that similar phenomena can easily have different meanings in different contexts.[10]Motz, however, was undeterred by this criticism.[11] As was noted in her memorial volume, "[I]t is left to others to take up the provocative thoughts she presented us with ...; she has given scholarship in this field a new impetus.".[12]

The phrase "like all work in comparative mythology" is highly subjective, and again not part of the source. The point of Motz's Faces of the Goddess is to debunk the comparative method behind a universal mother goddess by exposing a number of opposing global analogs. It is not a work in comparative mythology in the traditional sense, and thus cannot correctly be grouped with such works. The addition of this inaccurate statement and two more quotes from the "memorial volume" appear to be an attempt to mitigate the actual scholarly views, dismissing this work. The heavy direct citation of a single work (Mythological Women) now can rightly be charcterized as promoting a POV and borderline plagarism.


Shortly after her death, Motz became the subject of a posthumous conference held at Bonn University in 1999, leading to a commemorative volume of 11 articles concerning female entities in Northern mythology.[13]

This is redundant. It has already been mentioned in two paragraphs. A posthumerous conference producing a single festscrift was held in her honor. No one disputes that. How many times do we need to say this? The words "largely in German" have also been excised from the text. The statement is accurate, why cut it?

At this lively conference, "ideas were ventilated, vigorous discussions arose and papers frequently overran the allotted time."[14] Those in attendance recognized that such intense passion would have been to their honoree's liking.[15] Attendees contributing to the work included: Alexandra Pesch, Margrethe Watt, Rudulf Simek, Ute Schwab, Else Mundal, Wilhelm Heizmann, Anatoly Liberman, John McKinnell, Lise Præstgaard Anderson, and Ándís Egilsdóttir.

Another lengthy citation from the same memorial volume, and the omission of the contributions of her family from the work, amount to spin. The NPOV has now been altered, adopting the POV of the memorial biography.

Would an official editor please clarify how much of a single honorific work can be directly quoted and/or cited, before it is considered promoting that work's point of view? This quotefarm, once again, needs to be reduced to the basics Jack the Giant-Killer (talk) 02:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Your plagiarism has been documented, yet remains in the article. If you do not understand the difference between quoting and plagiarizing, you should not be altering encyclopeda articles.
The quotations that I added replaced your deceptive mischaracterizations of those very passages. Why should you be concerned that readers are allowed to see what those writers actually said, rather than being subjected to your negative "spin" on Prof. Motz and her work?
I am unaware of any professor who, after retiring from a distinguished academic career, is no longer referred to as "Professor." Can you cite any examples?
First you falsely characterized Jochens as a "feminist scholar," then you falsely accused her of being a "pagan scholar," and now you complain that she only refers her readers to Motz's work in a footnote(!) Again, if you are unfamiliar with the practice of using footnotes to refer one's readers to the leading works on a subject, you should not be altering encyclopedia articles.
Being asked to draft an entry on a given topic for a specialized encyclopedia is prima facie evidence of expertise in that subject.
The word "frequently" was deleted from your earlier edit (twice) because you cited only a single example, and I know of no others. Do you?
As all readers and editors are aware, it has been only you who has deleted quotes to scholarship, in this and other articles, and replaced them with your own "spin."
As I have previously noted, I would be content to have the article restored to its original, concise format. If you insist on broadening its scope, however, it should not be by mischaracterizing and "spinning" the topic, but through quoting or objectively paraphrasing the words of published authorities who know something about the topic. Rsradford (talk) 13:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] My May 16 Revert of “Jack’s” Edits, No. 1

Since “Jack’s” recent strategy has been to pepper the article with a volley of false, deceptive, and undocumented assertions en masse, I thought the most appropriate response would be to revert them en masse. I will deal with each of his edits individually here seriatim as time permits, so that in case any of them turn out to be supportable, they not be weighed down by the others.

"In her later years, unable to teach, she turned to writing."

Patently false. As has previously been pointed out on this page above, the selected bibliography appended to the article includes 25 scholarly articles and one book published by Prof. Motz before she was forced to retire from teaching. Given the time lags entailed in the submission, peer review, and publishing process, it is reasonable to infer that at least three additional articles were written prior to her retirement. “Jack’s” implication, that Prof. Motz did not begin publishing until she left academia, is unsupportable on its face. It goes without saying that no such statement appears at p.9 of Mythological Women, as “Jack” claims – which is why he provided no quote from that source. Rsradford (talk) 18:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] My May 16 Revert of “Jack’s” Edits, No. 2

“At the posthumous conference held at Bonn University in 1999, which lead to the festschrift, a commemorative volume of 11 articles largely in German, concerning female entities in Northern mythology, her ideas were once again 'ventilated, vigorous discussions arose and papers frequently overran the allotted time.’ ”

Intentionally false and deceptive. Although “Jack” has been corrected on these points before, he has deleted a quotation to the source that illustrates the deceptiveness of this passage. Seven of the scholarly papers published in Mythological Women are in English; only four are in German. Moreover, as the quote "Jack" deleted makes clear, there is no reference in this volume to Prof. Motz’s ideas being ‘ventilated’ at her memorial conference. This can only be a deliberate falsification of the source material by “Jack.” Rsradford (talk) 18:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I have made a good faith effort to edit the entry and restore the NPOV, which RS's contribution skewed by heavily quoting a 3-page tribute to Motz. Because he disagrees with a single point, he has reverted the article to one of his old edits. This behavior is unacceptable.

The book in question most certainly uses the word "ventilated". The passage reads: "She always enjoyed discussing her own and others' views and did so with fervour. It is this spirit which made the conference in her honor a fitting tribute. There ideas were ventilated, vigorous discussions arose and papers frequently overran the allotted time. Such a workshop would surely have been to her liking."

I have redited the article, taking RS's comments into account. Jack the Giant-Killer (talk) 18:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My May 16 Revert of "Jack's" Edits, No. 3

“She speculates that Jacob Grimm had chosen the reading because it coincides phonetically with Njorðr.' But this is obviously incorrect, as Grimm himself states: 'the manuscripts collated have this reading. ...I should prefer Nertus to Nerthus, because no other German words in Tacitus have TH, except Gothini and Vuithones.' More recently, John McKinnell, has reasserted the generally accepted linguistic basis for this reading."

Misleading/deceptive verbiage. The previous version of the article correctly stated that Motz argued that Grimm, in accordance with the extreme Germanic nationalism that motivated his Deutsche Mythologie, had chosen a particular manuscript reading because it would permit the appropriation of Norse mythology for a German nation that sorely lacked a mythology of its own. She may have been correct in this argument, or she may not have been. But it is clearly more than idle speculation. Grimm’s philological justification for his choice (which he invented on the spot) is clearly irrelevant to Motz’s argument concerning his motives, and cannot rationally be cited as showing that Motz was “obviously incorrect.” McKinnell “reasserted” nothing. In the work “Jack” cites, McKinnell gives no indication that he has even read The King, the Champion, and the Sorcerer, and certainly does not respond to Motz’s argument. He merely repeats Grimm’s derivation in his own treatment of Nerthus, as do other scholars. It has nothing to do with Prof. Motz whatsoever.Rsradford (talk) 19:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] At what point may a user be blocked for bad-faith editing?

A few minutes ago, I once again pointed out that "Jack the Giant-Killer" is deliberately falsifying the article with his claim that Prof. Motz "turned to writing" after she could no longer teach. This statement is patently false, as can be confirmed by the bibliography appended to the article, and there is nothing that remotely supports the claim in the source "Jack" cites for it.

Yet after this explanation was posted above, "Jack" simply reinserted his demonstrably false claim into the article.

If this differs from the behavior one would expect from a troll, I miss the distinction. Can anything be done? Rsradford (talk) 19:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


More name-calling and personal abuse. The "bad faith" is obviously on the part of RSRadford. The tribute biography, p. 9, clearly states:

"Later she taught German at Hunter College until in 1984, she contracted bronchiectasis. She subsequently had to give up teaching and eventually returned to Oxford with her daughter. Although she was very disappointed about giving up her beloved teaching, and leaving New York, she persued her scholary activities all the more vigorously in Oxford, continuing to attend international conferences and write prolifically."

Again, this editor has falsely accused me of plagarizing the article, and now criticizes me for summarizing it. Apprently he wants only the good bits put in this article, and anything he perceives as negative to be omitted. 21:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


Your plagiarism from Mythological Women has been documented and cannot be disputed. Indeed, the only factual information you have posted to this article has been plagiarized -- pointlessly so, since you pasted it over a non-plagiarized account covering the same period of Prof. Motz's life.
Your claim that Prof. Motz first "turned to writing" after she could no longer teach is plainly false, as can be confirmed by the bibliography, and is not supported by the passage you quoted above. Assuming you are sane, you can only be playing some sort of game by blatantly inserting false information into the article, and "documenting" it by citing to passages that do not even remotely support your claim.
Again I appeal to the regulars: Is there any mechanism to block a user for repeated bad-faith edits and apparent game-playing? Rsradford (talk) 22:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


Mr. Radford has now performed three reverts in a 24 hour period, along with the repeated personal abuse, and taking charge of the entry. Can someone block this behavior? 13:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack the Giant-Killer (talk • contribs)

[edit] Trimmed to stub

Enough. I've trimmed the article to its (hopefully) non-contentious stub, and am going to ask for protection in this form. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 13:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


Hi Gordon,

The stub, originally composed by Mr. Radford, is contentious. There was an earlier edit by yourself or another editor which sought to revise the article in a neutral manner. That edit would be preferable. 13:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Contentious in what way? It's just a brief biography and a bibliopgraphy. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 14:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Contentious in that it draws exclusively from the 3-page tribute work now, with editorializing by RS. Primarily, it creates a false impression of how many works she wrote. She did not write "scores" of scholarly articles, but rather approximately 50. The stub also erases all of the relevant contributions made since it was created. The biographical information is of such a general nature as to be misleading. There is much relevant scholarship (outside of the 3-page tribute) that has been omitted. Do you plan on restoring this at some point? Jack the Giant-Killer (talk) 14:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm reviewing this talk page because I'm curious about the background of the editor disagreement here. I'm puzzled by the above objection -- with regard to "scores" vs. "50." Are the editors aware that a "score" is, literally, 20? Therefore, "50" would be at least two "scores"?
It just seems such a weird little thing to get upset about? Sugarbat (talk) 23:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, it's a subtlety regarding how many "scores" implies (in relation to a dispute about the importance of the author). It's an archaic measurement anyway: best move is to say precisely how many, which has been done. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
With all respect, no, it hasn't. What has been done is to count the number of papers in a partial bibliography, and represent that as Prof. Motz's total scholarly output, which is incorrect. It's important to "Jack" because of his vested interest in denigrating and downplaying the contributions of real Old Norse scholars, knowledge of whose work undermines his efforts to promote 19th century Romantic fantasies (see Victor Rydberg). It's not important to me except that, as currently written, it's inaccurate. But as I said before, it's a trivial inaccuracy compared to what was injected into the previous incarnation of the article. Rsradford (talk) 01:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Just to wrap up, if you don't care for "scores of scholarly papers," it would also be correct to say "at least 50 scholarly papers" or "more than 50 scholarly papers." The problem with "around 50 scholarly papers" is that it implies the number is close to 50, which is really not known; or that it could be less than 50, which is clearly excluded. Rsradford (talk) 15:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


Number of papers corrected. It erases everything that you (plural) can't agree on. The deal with protection - assuming it's granted - is that text is discussed, and an admin will put it in on request when the form is agreed. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 15:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good Gordon. Thanks.Jack the Giant-Killer (talk) 21:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

As usual, "Jack" is knowingly lying. The selected bibliography, which lists only a portion of Prof. Motz's scholarly output, includes 50 articles and 3 encyclopedia entries -- which by itself is enough to make "scores" an accurate assessment. A full itemization of her published scholarship would go well above 60 articles -- but of course "Jack" would then complain about listing her more obscure works in the article . Nevertheless, thank you Gordonofcartoon for reducing "Jack's" ability to maliciously sabotage the article to such a trivial matter. Rsradford (talk) 00:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


Can we insist that the personal attacks stop as well? This has gotten old. 04:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack the Giant-Killer (talk • contribs)