Rather than start off an edit war, I figure I'd bring this up here.
A recent editor has begun purging large amounts of material from the article. While the reduction of minutiae is always appreciated, the complete elimination of discussion on certain topics is not. The entire Music and Lovecraft as a Fictional Character sections were completely erased (but the RPG section was kept?). I'm not saying it was all worth keeping, but it was deleted with neither consultation nor explanation. Some of this material should be examined for re-admission.
Additionally, attempts to reference pastiches and the wider Lovecraft circle in the lead were erased with the charge that "excessive detail of interests to those already in "fandom"; this is an encyclopedia, not a weird fiction fansite". This ignores the fact that Lovecraft's creations in part became widespread because he was so generous in sharing them with other notable writers (Frank Belknap Long, Robert Bloch), who in turn created other notable stories ("The Hounds of Tindalos" being an excellent example of a non-Lovecraft creation that has become a standard part of the wider Cthulhu Mythos). Notable writers have started and/or built entire careers out of this, such as Bloch, Ramsey Campbell and WH Pugmire). It also ignores the existence of the enormous Lovecraftian pastiche industry (as only partly documented here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cthulhu_Mythos_anthology). This is something ongoing since the 1960s, backed by notable/major publishing houses such as Arkham House, Tor and Del Rey/Ballantine, major editors such as Ellen Datlow, ST Joshi, Stephen Jones, and Martin H. Greenberg, major writers such as Stephen King, Elizabeth Bear, Laird Barron, Fritz Leiber, Neil Gaiman, Thomas Ligotti, Caitlin Kiernan--I could fill a page just with Wikipedia-notable authors of such. The article itself does a decent job of referencing this later on (with cites), but the now bare-bones lead ignores it. Adding not even a full sentence noting it at the start is useful to convey to the reader the fact that Lovecraft is famous not just because of his works, but because they have been widely borrowed and adapted down through today; material concisely summing up an entry's wider legacy is precisely what a lead is for. Uncharitably dismissing all this as "fandom" worth only of a weird fiction website is inexplicable to me, suggesting that the editor is not really familiar with Lovecraft's influence as a whole; we're not talking obscure mimeographed slash fiction here.
Hopefully we can reach an understanding. Palindromedairy (talk) 18:29, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
- I agree. New editors (first edit 5 June 2019, many edits tagged as minor when they are quite clearly not) need to recognise that the way to improve articles is through discussion and consensus on pages like this, not by unilaterally making potentially contentious changes - and then edit-warring to maintain those changes - even when they personally believe them to be justified. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:51, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
- I would suggest that the Lovecraft as a fictional character section be restored, as we could write an entire article on the subject. The music section should be restored as well. Furthermore, the lead should be expanded, not reduced. Lovecraft was one of the most influential speculative writers; the lead should give a concise explanation of his importance. Two paragraphs are simply not enough. The recent spate of removals is baffling, and User:Robdhood's edit summaries are misleading at best. ―Susmuffin Talk 04:53, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
- Unfortunately the editor concerned - who has still not contributed to this talk page - is now edit-warring to restore their preferred wording. I restored a shortened and prosified version of the "Music" section, for which the editor concerned "thanked" me. A few hours later they reverted my edit with the following bizarre, illiterate and largely irrelevant edit summary: "This page has received numbers complaints lasting years saying correctly this article is too much fanservice. There is information not pertinent to an encyclopaedia article on HP Lovecraft. To insist musical influence be included, there should be similar sections for a great many authors. The reason they do not is music influence is at once a defensive strategy to desperately widen Lovecraft's standing, and, to promote the marketing front of a cottage industry devoted to profiting on his name." This was followed by a further edit giving additional emphasis on games, with the edit summary: "RPGs are important because 1) the 80s revival of Lovecraft was built on Del Ray reissues plus Peterson's Cthulhu RPG released then, and 2) RPGs are technical accomplishments operationalizing Lovecraftian themes especially sanity. The sanity component makes HPL RPGs uniquely powerful as gaming systems. Music and other media instead attach themselves to Lovecraft's name because the content is not robust enough to stand alone in their genres.". The editor is clearly convinced of their own personal and partial viewpoint, but that should carry little weight here. I suggest that the article be returned to the status quo ante version of 30 May 2019 here, which can then form a basis for further discussion of changes on this page leading to a consensus. In the meantime I am warning the editor concerned for edit-warring. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:55, 22 June 2019 (UTC) PS: The editor deleted the warning here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:26, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
- I've had two edits dismissed on the charge of "fandom" as well, regardless of the actual content, so this seems to be their personal bugbear (and I've also had the "thanks" for stuff they immediately changed). I concur with the revert and chosen date; it needs trims from there, as it was getting bogged down in minutiae, IMO (I would quickly restate some of the edits I made, if there were no objections), but they can be made readily enough and in consultation with others, unlike how things have been going to date. Palindromedairy (talk) 22:31, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
- Your edits were reasonable. ―Susmuffin Talk 10:49, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
- I agree the wholesale deletes and edits have skewed the article to one person's viewpoint. I concur with the revert suggestion and chosen date. Rjmail (talk) 23:45, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
- I support User:Ghmyrtle's plan. This nonsense has gone on long enough. ―Susmuffin Talk 04:00, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
- Now done. Suggestions for major changes should be discussed and agreed on this page before being implemented. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:45, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks. Just chiming in to note that I agree with the changes Susmuffin has made to date. Palindromedairy (talk) 17:08, 23 June 2019 (UTC)