Talk:H. P. Lovecraft/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2021

Addition of the Fallout series in reference to videogames that have plotlines based on Lovecraftian Horror. Specifically, the Dunwich Building in Fallout 3, and the DLC "Point Lookout." Also, a few references in Fallout 4 with the Dunwich Borers. Finally, in Fallout 76, a creature, called The Interloper, is a reference to Lovecraftian mythical beings. Jacobpshappy (talk) 17:23, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:41, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Some of these are discussed in section 9 of this article and in this article's sections on "Dunwich Borers" and "The Pickman Gallery". If these are sufficiently reliable sources, the Dunwich Building, Dunwich Borers, and Pickman Gallery could be mentioned in the article. - 73.195.249.93 (talk) 20:02, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  A S U K I T E  04:56, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2021

In an interview with Jane Pauley on CBS News Sunday Morning famed novelist Steven King said his father left him a Lovecraft novel and after reading the work King knew he had found his life's work. 71.162.197.125 (talk) 14:22, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Might be WP:UNDUE but quote the source here and we'll see what people think. Britmax (talk) 15:38, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

This is the interview in question.

"There were, like, cocktail napkins from Tokyo, little hula-hula dolls from somewhere in the South Pacific; there were those things," he said. "But there was also an H.P. Lovecraft book. And it showed this horrible green monster rising from a broken-open grave in a graveyard. And I thought, 'This is it!' You know? Whatever it is, something chimes in you and you say, 'I've found something that resonates with my soul.'

The same incident is described in the source that the article already uses to cite Lovecraft’s influence on King; I’m not sure there’s anything to be gained by adding a description of it to the body of an article that’s about Lovecraft, not King. Brendan N. Moody 18:25, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:51, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Edit to add more complete list of audiobooks

The online edition section of the external links currently includes a link to Lovecraft's Librivox page, which includes audiobooks of only a fraction of his stories. This page has a much more complete list of online audiobooks of Lovecraft's writings, including nearly all of the stories by him alone listed on his Wikisource page (the exceptions are a parody story and a few juvenilia) along with a substantial number of his poems and collaborative stories; would it be appropriate to add this to the external links? - 73.195.249.93 (talk) 19:48, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I am aware of that page. I will give it some thought. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 14:47, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:H. P. Lovecraft/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Realmaxxver (talk · contribs) 20:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

The Good article nomination template I will be using is at the bottom. Realmaxxver (talk) 20:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments

Lead

• I think the period= parameter of the infobox could be replaced with the years_active= parameter.

• It is done. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 21:09, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• The third paragraph of the lead

"In these letters, he discussed his world view and his daily life" the second "his" could be removed.

• It is done. I look forward to reading any other comments that you may have. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 21:06, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 6 - St. Armand 1972 might be linking to the wrong page (p. 3).

• The source has been removed from that sentence. It was a bit too indirect. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 21:16, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

New Lead

• "According ot this philosophy, humanity was an unimportant part of an uncaring cosmos that could be swept away at any moment." misspelling of "to".

• It is done. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 13:08, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Marriage and Move to New York

• "Lovecraft's single-room apartment at 169 Clinton Street in Brooklyn Heights, not far from the working-class waterfront neighborhood Red Hook, was burgled, leaving him with only the clothes he was wearing." Not sure that the specific location should be included here, already mentioned two paragraphs earlier.

• I removed it. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 21:45, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Personal views

• "Lovecraft began his life as a Tory.[121] This is likely the result of his conservative upbringing." The two sentences can be merged into "Lovecraft began his life as a Tory,[121] which was likely the result of his conservative upbringing."

• It is done. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 21:55, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Influences

• "One of Lovecraft's most significant literary influences was Edgar Allan Poe, whom he described as his "God of Fiction".[146] His fiction was introduced to Lovecraft when the latter was eight-years-old." Does "the latter" refer to Lovecraft or Edgar Allan Poe?

• "The latter" refers to Lovecraft. I have made it a bit more clear. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 22:18, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• "In "H. P. Lovecraft: New England Decadent", Barton Levi St. Armand, a professor emeritus of English and American studies at Brown University,[155]"

• It might be a bit excessive to add a source to prove that he was a professor at this university.
• Wikilink to Brown University

• Both have been done. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 17:50, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Critical reception

• "According to Joyce Carol Oates, Lovecraft (and Edgar Allan Poe in the 19th century)" "in the 19th century" is also a bit redundant.

• It has been removed. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 23:02, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Lovecraft studies

• "After Derleth's death, the scholarship entered a new phase." The date of Derleth's death could be specified

• The date has been added. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 23:02, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Image review

All of the images have fitting licences, and except for H. P. Lovecraft, 1930.png, the images are relevant to the section that they are included in.

• I chose an image of the subject, as that section is not the easiest to illustrate. If you want, I could replace it with a photograph of one of the critics. Unfortunately, it looks the image of Edmund Wilson is going to be deleted from Wikimedia Commons. That was my first choice for a replacement. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 13:08, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

• I replaced the image with one of Colin Wilson. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 13:35, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Source check

Ref 239 - Since Karr 2018 is split into multiple sections, the section that is cited might be included to improve verifiablity. this can be done with the loc= parameter (see the Template documentaion). This can also apply any uses of Karr 2018 in the article (Ref 243 and Refs 246 – 249)

• I will look into this. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 13:08, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

• It is done. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 18:10, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

• Gale 1960 - Citation contains two links to an archive url.

• I am not sure what was going on there. It might be linked to the power outage that disabled the Internet Archive itself. For now, I have replaced the links. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 17:50, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

• de Camp 1979 - does'nt include a url and / or a ISBN / ISSN.

• I added the ISSN. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 18:18, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Copyvio check

After a check on copyvio, I think this might be ok, as long as it can be proven that these specific three urls copied from the article, and not the other way around;

• https://erneacouniphypoul.tk/
• https://www.whosdatedwho.com/dating/h-p-lovecraft-and-sonia-haft-shifirkin-greene
• https://www.newstatesman.com/uncategorized/2014/10/weird-realism-john-gray-moral-universe-h-p-lovecraft

I saw the third one on a previous check through Earwig's service. It appears to be triggered by the quotes and titles that are in the article. The other ones look like spam. The "erneacouniphypoul.tk" website—which was not there a month ago—appears to have copied at least one of my edits. The dating website appears to have never been archived. This implies that it was recently created. Meanwhile, the text was first placed here between 2011 and 2014. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 21:06, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Overall rating

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	I may need some feedback from a more experienced reviewer, specifically with reliable book sources, but it looks alright. After a source review that I have done, I found no issues; pass. Realmaxxver (talk) 20:55, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Copyvio issues adressed above; pass.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

@Susmuffin:, the article has passed the Good article criteria. I'm just pinging you in the case that the bot notifies you of a failed good article nomination; which can happen if the article has previously failed a good article nomination. I think we should see if we can bring the article back to featured status. Realmaxxver (talk) 20:55, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

typo in the lead: last paragraph

life ant works should be life and works--2A02:1810:BC04:4B00:DCE4:21C9:C9A0:494C (talk) 09:42, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done --WizWheatly (ftaghn) 10:11, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Coordinate error

. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.196.170.93 (talk) 22:59, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

institutionalization

"institutionalization" links to the wrong article, the correct one being: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Involuntary_commitment Since the article is protected, I can't change it, so please someone change who can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.192.204.53 (talk) 21:19, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

It is done. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 20:54, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Barton Levi St. Armand

I started a draft for Barton Levi St. Armand. He wrote a great deal about Lovecraft. Any help would be appreciated. Best, Thriley (talk) 23:00, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Racism and citations

Much of this article is based on the work of S. T. Joshi. Joshi is not an unproblematic figure in research on Lovecraft; he has repeatedly rejected literary criticism of Lovecraft as well as of Lovecraft's racism, even withdrawing from conferences in which other speakers were scheduled to discuss Lovecraft's work in a way that Joshi considered negative.

The article needs to be improved both by widening and diversifying its sources and by reducing the reliance on Joshi's work. Atiru (talk) 23:02, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Much of Lovecraftian scholarship is built on the work of S. T. Joshi. He has been the central figure in the field since Dirk W. Mosig retired from it in 1978. In terms of Joshi's literary criticism, he has given different responses to different stories. There are some that he likes, dislikes and is indifferent to. He has also commented in the use of race in Lovecraft's stories. A direct citation to that effect was removed by your edits. I would also question the usage of blogs and interviews in your edits. These are primary sources. According to Wikipedia's own policies, reliable sources must generally be secondary in nature. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 00:18, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Secondary source about this topic worth noting:

Loos, M. J. (August 14, 2021). Staying with Lovecraft’s Trouble: Affirmation as an Alternative Approach to Lovecraft’s Legacy of Racism (Master's thesis).

Eyeingcookies (talk) 00:15, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Call of Cthulhu Video Game

Self-explanatory, not included in Lovecraftian Horror, HP Lovecraft, nor Call of Cthulhu pages, nor does it have it's own page. Pretty good game, it's said in this article that video games are an intrinsically difficult medium to portray cosmic horror into, however I think that this game, if played first hand, and concluded to acte of it's endings, conveys the experience rather well... Sceak (talk) 17:40, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

@Sceak: I believe you're talking about Call of Cthulhu (video game). (It's mentioned in Cthulhu Mythos in popular culture.) — Mudwater ^(Talk) 17:55, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

@Mudwater: I didn't look under Popular Culture, just under Video Games... All three pages have a Video Game section, and none of them mention it... Sceak (talk) 18:01, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

@Sceak: I'm looking at Cthulhu Mythos in popular culture#Video games, and there's a link from there to the Call of Cthulhu video game article. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 19:14, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Politics

Please stop peppering the internet with the term "democratic socialist". This is a fairly recent innovation and totally anachronistic to Lovecraft. 79.79.251.63 (talk) 20:54, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

This article needs more content

This doesn’t even scratch the surface of Lovecraft’s influence on culture…Quake, Half-Life, From Software, I could go on for hours… 50.251.64.137 (talk) 20:39, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

More racism/weird rhetorical strategy

"Scholars have argued that Lovecraft's racial attitudes were common in the society of his day, particularly in the New England in which he grew up."

Why put this paragraph right after talking about his racist views? I'm not saying it's not important to put things like these in their respective historical contexts. However, this - due to the (very consciously made) decision of structuring the text this way - reads as an excuse of what the writer established in the previous sentences. 90.186.176.27 (talk) 08:07, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

There's an essentially memetic argument about Lovecraft that not only was he racist, he was spectacularly, unusually racist even for the 1920s and 30s, which is one hell of a charge. It's memetic in the sense that it's repeated without sourcing over and over because it suits the biases of those using it, who almost always repeat it not in isolation but with the idea that therefore Lovecraft should not be read/celebrated because he was a bad person. An actual analysis of this argument would founder rather rapidly when one considers things like (in terms of writing) the majority of pulp writers ever published or (in terms of wider society) the Tulsa Race Riots, Henry Ford and The International Jew, peak KKK membership, or that Hitler guy, but it's surprisingly widespread despite its weaknesses. As a result, it appeared in this article at one point. It was countered by the statement you're pointing out, and then eventually deleted altogether. The problem, as you've noticed, is that as an argument in isolation rather than a counter/contextualising argument the remaining statement smacks of racist apologetics. I'm not sure how it should be handled at this point; I think the article does a good job overall in dealing with Lovecraft's opinions on race in proper detail, and so perhaps the statement can be deleted (or slightly reworded/repositioned). My only worry is that we then get the meme back, and start going in a circle. Palindromedairy (talk) 21:29, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah he names his cat the N-word, he was racist, so is like the majority of the world to this day. His work has already influenced modern horror in a way that is inescapable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.251.64.137 (talk) 20:44, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Influences section

The Influences section contains: "He was also influenced by the travel literature of John Mandeville and Marco Polo. This led to his discovery of gaps in then-contemporary science, which prevented Lovecraft from committing suicide in response to the death of his grandfather and his family's declining financial situation during his adolescence" To the casual reader (eg me) it is very unclear how gaps in contemporary science prevented Lovecraft from committing suicide. I don't have the source material. Could someone who does extend the explanation? 157.131.122.202 (talk) 01:38, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2022

add a final sentence to the first paragraph of the atheism section: Later on in his life, Lovecraft would write that his time as a pagan was one of the “most poignant sensations of my existence.” JesseRopers (talk) 00:01, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

 Partly done: Your suggestion did not accurately reflect what the source states, so I made some modifications. Thanks for your request! Actualcpscm (talk) 13:04, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

References

H.P. Lovecraft took back his racist attitudes at the end of his life

I admire H.P. Lovecraft because he admitted that he was a bigot and took back everything he said about the races that he used to write defamatory things about! 2601:49:8400:20F0:9D2E:F8AE:98AF:63B8 (talk) 19:49, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

"I can better understand the inert blindness and defiant ignorance of the reactionaries from having been one of them. I know how smugly ignorant I was" H.P. Lovecraft ashamed of his racist views. 2601:49:8400:20F0:9D2E:F8AE:98AF:63B8 (talk) 19:56, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

So why is he still called "not a nice man" by students and broadcasters of supernatural literature like Mark Gattis? 2A00:23C8:8F9F:4801:1441:C841:A47B:AD72 (talk) 22:27, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2022

Please add to the section Music: In 2022, American Composer Richard Thomas Hill (b.1969) released a recording of his composition Cthulhu Cantata for four singers and modern chamber orchestra which utilizes 21st century harmonic language but in a Baroque form used for sacred music with text from Lovecraft's poetry and prose instead (as well as lyrics by the composer and Charles Moore, Jr.).

If links need to be added for more info you can use the following: https://www.richhillmusic.com/post/cthulhu-cantata-official-release DrAtomik (talk) 18:19, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Please provide secondary sources to demonstrate that this is noteworthy. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:50, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Categorization as a white supremacist

I feel that the conclusion that Lovecraft was a white supremacist is not justified by the sources, as while it is well known that Lovecraft held racist views, white supremacism is a very specific ideology of racism, and while all white supremacists are racists, not all racists are white supremacists. If the category was added on the basis of an editor's personal opinion that Lovecraft's racism made him a white supremacist, then this would be original research. In the section discussing Lovecraft's racist views, it's also stated that Lovecraft was racist towards other groups of white people, which is not a proponent of the ideology of white supremacists. Also, I'm not sure but I think the WP:BLP projects probably suggest that if a person isn't known for being a part of a hate group, they don't recommend categorizing them with such associations, because Charles Dickens and John Wayne are not categorized as white supremacists, and on the Kanye West article, the category "American neo-Nazis" was added, left for a few days and then removed. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 13:03, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

This is not a properly formatted RFC. I suggest you remove this tagging, read through the WP:RFC and if you really want this to be an RFC (which I don't see why it should be) then resubmit it here in a new section with a properly formatted RFC question and neutral wording. An RFC tag is not a means to get someone to respond to a talk page comment. Canterbury Tail talk 18:54, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Procedural close as an invalid RfC. Firstly, there is no indication that there has been prior discussion of this matter which has reached an impasse. Secondly, an RfC's opening statement should be neutral, not a statement of one person's position. The person who opens the RfC is of course free to state their position as a comment, but not as the RfC's opening statement. As an example, a good RfC opening statement should just say "Should the article describe John Doe as a floobitieblab?", not include "I think it (should|shouldn't), and here's why." The "I think it (should|shouldn't), and here's why", belongs in the section for comments. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:22, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

External links section

This is listed as a "good article" but an issue in the "External links" section, deserving a tag according to the criteria, that includes a list of "Immediate failures".

The lead of Wikipedia:External links state: Some acceptable external links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy.

Number 3 of the "Important points to remember" section states: Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.

Some of the links are very likely to be "Links normally to be avoided" according to #1. This can give the appearance Wikipedia is just promoting websites (#4) when the section becomes bloated. Added links that more than likely do not provide "further research" results in "trivial content", and eight links are too many. Some likely do not present any "unique feature or information", and needs to be looked at for trimming.

This goes for content in the "Journal", "Library collections", and the "Online editions", listing the five "Works by", and any that are considered "user-submitted" so it is better to "Choose which pages to link based on the immediate benefit to Wikipedia". -- Otr500 (talk) 06:30, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Is this better? ―Susmuffin ^Talk 10:52, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Request for comment

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

RfC is not well-formed and shows No strong consensus. This RfC suffers from a difficult close on multiple fronts.

• The RfC was rightfully identified for a procedural close early in the discussion, due to a lack of WP:RFCBEFORE activities. There is no real talk page discussion preceding this RfC to give context to it (or to possibly avoid an RfC altogether), and because of that:
• The RfC objective was unclear. The prompt for this request was "Is the categorization of Lovecraft as a white supremacist neutral, given the author not identifying as one?", emphasis mine. While many commenters recognized this and specifically answered the neutrality question, just as many or more commenters understandably argued in general to include or exclude this categorization. This makes it even harder to adequately compare and evaluate the arguments.
• There is, regardless, no strong consensus. The arguments put forth are pretty well split, especially considering the amount calling for a procedural close.

To summarize the arguments, the No or otherwise exclusionary commenters mostly argued either that Lovecraft's racism/white supremacy was not a defining characteristic of theirs (including that excessive use of categorizations devalues them), or less commonly (and less effectively) that Lovecraft was not an active political/organizational proponent of white supremacy, or that their views were more a product of their time. The Yes or otherwise inclusionary commenters primarily argued to the point that there is a great deal of coverage on Lovecraft's work and their racial perspectives. This argument does however directly addresses the primary concerns of of the exclusionary side and has the benefit of being more strongly backed by WP policy. If I am to be entirely unbiased however, I think that this RfC deserves the stated closure, and I think the best way to proceed is to start a proper discussion on this talk page so that editors can properly present their cases cooperatively, and respond to each other rather than the drop-a-ballot-in-the-box nature of the RfC. GabberFlasted (talk) 21:23, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

---

Is the categorization of Lovecraft as a white supremacist neutral, given the author not identifying as one? RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 02:26, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

• Yes Academic sources describe Lovecraft as a white supremacist. CJ-Moki (talk) 07:45, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
• Procedural close as bad RfC due to a lack of WP:RFCBEFORE. ––FormalDude (talk) 12:29, 11 January 2023 (UTC) (Summoned by bot)
• Firstly, this was an incredibly unnecessary RfC; the normal course of discussion has not been exhausted and I don't think the sense of urgency is required on a long-dead author's article. I agree with procedural close. Nonetheless: the answer is yes. Aside from academic sources, the press also describe Lovecraft as a white supremacist (LA Times, The Telegraph). Trying to remove something from an article based on your own understanding of racism & white supremacy... seems like OR. Where's the source that differentiates between the two in relation to Lovecraft? That's the only way around this, and it will still be contradicted by a corpus of press/academic writing. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 12:34, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
• No First I agree that this should have been discussed before opening a RfC. That aside, Lovercraft isn't a notable white supremacist even if some academics or other sources have described him that way. It's not a central part of Lovecrart's biography. There would need to be sources outlining him as a an important leader in the white supremacy movement to draw that conclusion. I have no objection to this being included in the article since it's reliably sourced, but the category is overkill. Nemov (talk) 16:09, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
• Yes: The vast majority of sources that discuss H. P. Lovecraft that are cited in the article make some comment to that effect. The people who professionally study Lovecraft came to the conclusion that he was racist decades ago. Regardless, this should have been discussed before creating a request for comment. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 18:16, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
• Yes. First off, I disagree that a procedural close is warranted here. Yes, perhaps the OP could have done some more BEFORE work here, but this was reasonably always going to be a controversial call and I really don't see the harm in availing one's self of an neutral process recruiting outside community perspective. That said, I think there is more than enough WP:WEIGHT to just justify the categorization? Yes, I think clearly so. As I recall, the topic is complex with regard to Lovecraft: he clearly embraced some very eugenicist-adjacent and fear-mongering ideas in his time, but then also grew disillusioned with the fascist associations of those psuedo-scientific philosophies in his later life, but most scholars today disagree that he completely divorced himself from those beliefs. And of course, it goes without saying that literary critics and socio-historical review of his work have very low-hanging fruit when it comes to finding themes express fear of racial outsider or the "dangers of race mixing", white replacement theory, and any number of other topics which go pretty hand-in-hand with long-standing white supremacist messaging. So long as the RS are making those links themselves, as they certainly, that's WP:NEUTRAL and WP:DUE enough for the category to me: not everyone the cat is used for has to be an avowed, affirmative, proud, and eager spokesperson for white supremacy; persons who are significantly attached to the general sphere of belief through robust discussion and research in RS are perfectly acceptable recipients of this status. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 06:52, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
• No. WP:DEFINING is pretty clear. Lovecraft's racism is not a defining characteristic. Furthermore, the category is problematic: it has no clear inclusion criteria and the term has a broad range of meanings (as detailed on our article on it). Personally, I think the category becomes meaningless if we err on the side of inclusion under those broad definitions. As a benchmark for inclusion, consider that Thomas Jefferson is not included. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 09:23, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

  Lovecraft's racism is pretty much never never omitted from modern discussions of him (scholarly or academic) and is definitely one of his defining characteristics. Whether "white supremacist" is suitable is different. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 16:08, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

• No. That would be a very narrow description of his personal views. He is not known for being a white supremacist, but a writer of science fiction. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:05, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
• Poor RfC, procedural close. Come on. WP:RFCBEFORE. Secondly, no. This is not enough of a defining characteristic to warrant calling him a white supremacist. Cessaune (talk) 00:44, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
• Yes: Procedural close comments have not resulted in a close. A search results in several pages referencing the subject's racist views resulting in being labeled an "unapologetic White supremacist", an "unrepentant racist and white supremacist", "a virulent racist, white supremacist and anti-Semite", and the "racism and xenophobia that poisoned Lovecraft’s work and letters". -- Otr500 (talk) 05:24, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
• No - though not for the reason given, his self-identification is irrelevant. I agree with Nemov, who has no objection to this being included in the article since it's reliably sourced, but the category is overkill. Also Barnards.tar.gz comment that Lovecraft's racism is not a defining characteristic. It is always problematic when categorising people whose views were not untypical of their age, and especially creative people working to the prejudices and expectations of the audience of their time, who easily fall-foul of modern sensibilities. The threshold for inclusion should be HIGHER such that it is a central characteristic of the individual. The category becomes meaningless if we err on the side of inclusion. Pincrete (talk) 12:54, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

No, not neutral and not defining. Ortizesp (talk) 06:18, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

• No, unless he was involved in organized public efforts, such as political groups. As already stated, erring on the side of inclusion makes a category weak and shallow. I don't know that a categorization is warranted simply because scholars and news writers are obsessed with this topic generally. Scapulus (talk) 20:57 (UTC)
• yes his racist views are included in the lead and sourced in the article.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 08:58, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
• No – for an article to be included in a category the categorization needs to be able to be verified (WP:CATV), done in a neutral point of view (WP:CATPOV), and be a defining feature of the article (WP:CATDEF). For the category white supremacist, the categorization is verified for the article. The categorization is borderline npov, because as the article states his views on the position of white people were nuanced. On the last requirement CATDEF, the category does not seem to be a defining feature of Lovecraft, and his addition to the category would dilute the value of the category for search purposes. When the category is used to find other white supremacists like David Duke, it doesn't help the reader to be given a long list of borderline, nondefining white supremacists like Lovecraft. --Guest2625 (talk) 03:17, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
• No - The writer had racial beliefs, but was never part of any organized effort to promote the ideas of white supremacy.Belregard (talk) 20:19, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
• No. Seems a recentism, and such an extraordinary WP:LABEL should require extraordinary acts, and WP should have some restraint. I can believe a 1920s WASP had views not currently acceptable, but there is nothing of really political prominence or explicit acts sufficient to make this a WP:DEFINING characteristic. This mostly seems a recentism of literary critics appearing after 2010, and it should be mentioned as a criticism, but not be phrased as a flat ‘he was a white supremacist’ with little or nothing of real actions and explicit statements by him to explain what it is about. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 13:13, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
• Yes. Lovecraft's racism is a central part of studies of both the author and his work. Any academic exploration that does not touch on it is significantly handicapped in the analysis and background it can offer. Since it's integral to the subject, it should be categorized as such, and NPOV does not allow us to hide that. --(loopback) ping/whereis 09:15, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

  The racism topic isn't currently a central part of this article. It's not mentioned in the lead. This discussion isn't about omitting the information from the body of the article. It's about categorizing every person who had racist opinions a white supremacist. Nemov (talk) 15:52, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

• Yes per CJ-Moki's sources above and the consensus in academic circles. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:29, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

White supremacist categorization

First of all, thanks to GabberFlasted for good close on the malformed RfC. I don't think we need another RfC because the guidelines are pretty clear. There is nothing wrong with the included content in the article about Lovercraft's opinions on race. They are well sourced. The question is should Lovecraft be categorized as a white supremest? In the previous discussion there didn't seem to be a consensus to include the categorization. I argue it should be removed on the grounds well outlined above until there's a consensus to include. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 21:40, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

• Yes Academic sources describe Lovecraft as a white supremacist (see my comment in the above RfC). CJ-Moki (talk) 05:20, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Remove space between H. and P.

Probably pedantic, but I'm a bit bothered by the space between H. and P.! FlantasyFlan (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:55, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Spaces between initials in names are an accepted convention on Wikipedia and required by the Manual of Style. I do personally agree that it looks odd, but it’s the consensus approach. Brendan Moody (talk) 10:41, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Are We Talking about Santa Claus?

The article states: "He was introduced to the Bible and the mythos of Saint Nicholas when he was two.” The "mythos of Saint Nicholas" sounds interesting, while obscurely put, and perhaps deserving of a cross-reference. But to what? Santa Claus? (My guess.) Saint Nicholas? (I’m thinking…probably not. But what do I know?)

Jdickinson (talk) 07:36, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

The passage seems to be a paraphrase of part of Lovecraft’s essay A Confession of Unfaith, in which he contrasts belief in God to belief in Santa. So he is indeed talking about Santa. But as a primary source, I’m not sure how due any of this is. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 11:09, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Consistent with the “Be bold” editorial guideline, I added the Santa Claus link, with “mythos of Saint Nicholas” visible link text. This meant removing a more obvious link (“Santa Claus” link text) near the end of the same paragraph.

I don’t think I would have felt the need to link this if the phrasing were not so obscure. It’s also somewhat distracting or confusing, in that “mythos” is an unusual word, except when Lovecraft comes up. It would be quite possible for a Lovecraft reader not to have seen it in any other context besides the one in which it appears as many as 21 more times in this article, i.e. the Cthulhu Mythos. (Or maybe it’s more complicated; see the following.) Considering all this, it seems that the root of the problem may actually be the original language (“mythos of Saint Nicholas”) rather than simply “Santa Claus”; and if I were bold enough, I’d revise this. (And maybe I will, after this exercise in thinking out loud. Just not tonight.)

Note that the 21 other occurrences of “mythos” may or may not be capitalized, may appear as the “Cthulhu Mythos,” the “Lovecraft Mythos,” or simply “Mythos” (or “mythos”; see below). It’s not absolutely clear to me that “Lovecraft Mythos” refers to the same thing as “Cthulhu Mythos,” and someone with more knowledge of Lovecraft may want to disambiguate this.

The occurrences of “Mythos” and “mythos” as a single word are inconsistently capitalized. Do these show a subtle but meaningful distinction between a proper noun and the generic English word? Or are they accidental? This is an opportunity for a grammar surgeon.

Jdickinson (talk) 08:14, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

The one instance of "Mythos" was replaced with "mythos". Similarly, "Lovecraft's Mythos" was replaced with "Cthulhu Mythos". Finally, the Santa Claus thing was resolved, and an extra source was added for good measure. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 21:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

You brought the laser-like focus I could not muster! It’s a thing of beauty.

Jdickinson (talk) 09:13, 30 January 2024 (UTC)