Talk:H. P. Lovecraft/Archive 5

NO EVIDENCE OF RACISM
✅

The only "evidence" linked are scenes in his FICTIONAL works. Are these editors insane? These are FICTIONAL works with aliens and demons.

-G — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.21.157 (talk) 08:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Ermmm... you haven't read many of his letters, have you? Or his works, where almost all non-Aryans tend to come off less than flatteringly, if I may euphemize? -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  19:46, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

His letters can get very racist, one of the worst bits being his opinion that the entire subcontinent of India should be cleared of inhabitants so decent people could live there. His attitude towards other races was paternalistic at best, such as complimenting a black cook.Saxophobia (talk) 21:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The section on Racism is not a personal essay but a collection of what reliable sources say about the issue. If you want to take it up with the major scholars of the field be my guest, they are listed in the citations.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I think there is room for relativizing the racism of Lovecraft. It wasn't exactly a mindboggler that he resulted in a sort-of racist considering his upbringing, simply from reading his works and letters etc it's not hard to trace it. Considering being in his position i would probably not be much unlike him. Not a professional post at the slightest but i just felt like adding my thoughts, i started reading about him recently. --Restinthytomb (talk) 02:22, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm requesting an admin close this discussion since there's nothing here related to improving the article. It doesn't matter what Wikipedia editors think about Lovecraft's racism; we're here to write articles conveying what our sourceshave said on the subject. See WP:Talk page guidelines, and WP:NOTFORUM. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Citation needed clutter
Someone does not appear to know that leads are not supposed to have citations. The refing of every statement with a page number is not necessary for someone long since dead. The paras are reffed and if every sentence has to have a ref, where does it say that in policy? I am taking out the citation needed from the lede. Overagainst (talk) 19:05, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Parasomnia
I'm neither piqued nor dubious about the inclusion of this factoid--it's relevant, I suppose.

I am, however, somewhat at odds with the wording itself.

The article states that he suffered from night terrors, 'a rare parasomnia'.

Firstly, can we elucidate just what we're comparing, here? It's pertinent to the word selections. If we're stating that any parasomnia is rare, I suppose we'd be correct. However, if we're stating that night terrors are rare when compared aside other parasomnias, I'm less sure.

Our own article upon the subject makes no mention of the comparative rarity of night terrors--it merely adduces the relevant research statistics upon the subject.

Ergo, I feel it would be more proper to simply say 'a form of parasomnia'. I shall be enacting this change immediately. If you have any objections, I welcome you to voice them. Ghost Lourde (talk) 15:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Addendum: Furthermore, I'd like to indulge in a bit of conjecture. I am by no means a professional in regards to such matters, as I have comparatively little experience with psychology, neuroscience, linguistics, and the various multidisciplinary fields therein, but I feel there may be some validity to this, regardless:

The article portrays H.P. as being a prodigious child--and, given that he was able to recite poems at the age of three, that portrayal is far from unwarranted. However, it makes equal mention of his difficulties with higher math, mentioning that it may have precluded him from becoming a professional astronomer. Also, the article highlights his general reclusiveness in regards to social matters.

To me, this seems indicative of hyperlexia. Firstly, it goes without saying that such premature reading ability is highly aberrant. Moreover, he never outgrew this; in fact, he practically dedicated his life to it. Furthermore, his difficulties with higher math may reflect an atypical neuroanatomy. Finally, many hyperlexic individuals have greater difficulty with social interaction than the average person.

Nevertheless, this could all just be inaccurate frivolity, but it seems like a point worth discussing, regardless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghost Lourde (talk • contribs) 16:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Rebuttal portion of race section
The following is given nearly the same portion of the page as the (very well-sourced) paragraph before it, and yet is supported by two cites and a lot of weasel wording. It seems to be textbook WP:FRINGE, so I'm removing it. If someone can rescue it, here's the text for you to work with.192.249.47.186 (talk) 14:49, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

"However, perceptions concerning Lovecraft's views on race are being challenged by some 21st-century literary scholars. Some scholars such as Gail Bederman have noted that other contemporary authors such as Edgar Rice Burroughs who are subject to similar criticism were in fact no way unusual for their time, and were in fact completely typical of not just average early 20th century Americans but in fact were typical of the overwhelming majority of early 20th century intellectuals including Charlotte Perkins Gilman, Theodore Roosevelt, G. Stanley Hall, and others. This is true both of Lovecraft's racism as well as his ideas about cultural degeneration and his xenophobic anxiety in general.[53] In 'Black Christ and His Invisible Brother on the Cross: Race and Religion in H.P. Lovecraft's 'The Dunwich Horror',' Historian Michael Gurnow argues that the author suggests empathy toward minority plights and viewpoints. In 'The Dunwich Horror,' the two monstrous brothers of the tale are mulatto, thus part African American, and become martyrs by the story's climax.[54]"

Source?
I noticed a sentence in the introductory section that piqued my curiosity and I was wondering if someone could add a source for this information since there doesn't appear to be one cited. The sentence I am referring to is "He also involved neighborhood children in elaborate make-believe projects, only regretfully ceasing the activity at seventeen years old."

If the original source is unknown but a kindly wiki contributor happens to have more information on the subject... I would love to hear from you. I realize that adding this to my comment is going outside of the purpose of talk pages so I will be editing out this second paragraph if I do not receive some sort of response within a decent amount of time. Even after reading through the talk page guidelines I am unsure of how posting personal information is viewed here, but I'm going to go ahead and take a chance for the possibility of satisfying my curiosity and include a throwaway email, whydopeoplegotobed@gmail.com


 * It's not unreasonable to request further information here. The lead section is supposed to summarise information from the rest of the article, so it's definitely a mistake for that line to be included there without any context or explanation later on. —Flax5 12:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I just grabbed my copy of S. T. Joshi's Lovecraft biography to hunt down a source for this, and in one of life's little synchronicities opened to the very spot where it's discussed, on pages 56-7 and 65-6 of the 2004 printing of the Necronomicon Press edition. The young Lovecraft and his friends turned part of his extensive backyard at 456 Angell Street into a make-believe village called "New Anvik," which included pretend roads, garden spots, and a fort to protect it from equally imaginary Indians. After the move to 598 Angell Street, Lovecraft reestablished New Anvik in a vacant lot next door, putting a lot of effort into landscaping over the years before abandoning it at seventeen, when he decided he was too old for that kind of play.


 * This is definitely the kind of thing that belongs in the body (if anywhere), not in the lead. There's way too much about Lovecraft's early life in the lead, almost as much as in the main body of the article. I'll add it to my ever-growing mental list of aspects of this article that need alteration when I find the time. Brendan Moody (talk) 16:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Re: HPL's racism.
As long as we are going to discuss how typical or atypical racism was among English-speaking writers in the early Twentieth Century (and I agree it is relevant to the article), one should really include a lot more of the Socialists and/or Progressives: H.G. Wells, Jack London, Margaret Sanger, etc. Lovecraft considered himself a conservative and was raised by reactionaries, but the fact that he could see his racist views mirrored across the intellectual spectrum of the day should in fairness be noted. When I have the time, I will find suitable citations for the authors above and edit the article. Mandrakos (talk) 20:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Suitable citations in this case would mention Lovecraft specifically rather than simply confirming that those other writers expressed racist views, as it would be original research to treat their views as relevant to Lovecraft without a source that does the same. (That's why I've just removed the summary of Gail Bederman's work, which I hadn't realized until now makes no mention of Lovecraft. I also removed the summary of the Michael Gurnow article; whatever its merits as an interpretation, it's not a work or an author of sufficient weight in the field to belong in a brief overview.) But I agree that the wording of the article should make clear that racism (though not necessarily Lovecraft's own extreme brand thereof) was widespread at the time, not just confined to the somewhat ill-defined "New England society he grew up in." I believe the discussion in Joshi's biography is useful here, and will try to find a decent citation and phrasing for the point in the next couple days. Brendan Moody (talk) 01:06, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, and am also challenging this text as WP:OR. Consensus should be obtained here on the Talk page for alternative text, and the disputed text should not be re-added. -- Laser brain  (talk)  12:33, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If anyone thinks that there was a phenomenon of racist views being expressed by famous authors of the early 20th century, I think that would make a good topic for a wikipedia article. Then, all these authors articles, rather than repeating the information, could reference that article.  I think that would help 1) Allow the topic to be represented consistently in all those author's articles, 2) reduce duplwication, 3) Give the reader a great place to get the whole story related to that issue. Rjmail (talk) 14:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * We should depend on what most scholarly sources say, not what individual editors think. Most sources say he was either a raging racist, or a product of his times and therefore racist. It's really pushing it to argue that he wasn't racist at all, especially with real non-racists of the time getting coverage elsewhere.DreamGuy (talk) 01:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "I also removed the summary of the Michael Gurnow article; whatever its merits as an interpretation, it's not a work or an author of sufficient weight in the field to belong in a brief overview"


 * Moody, I would argue that you are bypassing substance for show. You admit Gurnow's interpretation is solid, but that he doesn't have a recognizable name.  1. Unless the entire Wiki H.P.Lovecraft page be Joshi citations, I think we need to give a little, 2. If you look on Gurnow's website, he is a recognized scholar in the field of American literature (he's a professor of American literature at Missouri State University),  3. The article in question, Gurnow's Dunwich interpretation, is cited throughout other websites and sources as well,  4. It argues a much-needed minority opinion that Lovecraft reverted his racial views during this career.  Lovecraft scholar (talk) 22:25, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on H. P. Lovecraft. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.gizmology.net/lovecraft/copyrights.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 04:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Fallout 3 italics
EDIT: Apparently it appeared twice in the list anyway so I just got rid of the buggy one. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Problem solved I guess.

I know it's super minor but it's bugging me. In the Games section of Lovecraft's Influence on Culture heading, Fallout 3 appears as ' 'Fallout 3' ' (the link works). In the text however I can't see anything wrong with it. Does anyone know how to fix this? SchamrothShake (talk) 00:16, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on H. P. Lovecraft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050718080221/http://www.themodernword.com/scriptorium/lovecraft.html to http://www.themodernword.com/scriptorium/lovecraft.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on H. P. Lovecraft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131004222501/http://www.librosgratisweb.com/html/king-stephen/danse-macabre/index.htm to http://www.librosgratisweb.com/html/king-stephen/danse-macabre/index.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.animenation.net/blog/2002/08/13/ask-john-is-there-any-lovecraftian-anime/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121030081418/http://www.unclecthulhu.com/tomes to http://www.unclecthulhu.com/tomes

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:48, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on H. P. Lovecraft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170112180807/http://www.wordsworth-editions.com/authors/lovecraft-hp to http://www.wordsworth-editions.com/authors/lovecraft-hp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20010109213600/http://www.deathrock.com/rudimentarypeni/cacodisc.html to http://www.deathrock.com/rudimentarypeni/cacodisc.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:00, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Night terrors, sleep paralysis or simply recurring nightmares?
I made some changes to the Upbringing section to better match the source but I'm still not happy with it. For one the source is a pop culture listicle with no references. Night terrors and sleep paralysis are very distinct, occur at different stages of sleep, and present very differently. Neither has anything to do with recurring nightmares which, and this is obviously unusable OR on my part, is what Lovecraft's own description in a letter sounds like.

Looking for sources, I find no mention of any such sleep disorders in online biographies. They only show up in pretty iffy pop culture articles like the current source. A Smithsonian mag article mentions night terrors and that's about the best I found. A couple other, what I'd consider unreliable, confuse night terrors and sleep paralysis and use them interchangeably. The only print biography I can access simply calls them recurring nightmares in the relevant section then, much later in the book, uses "night terrors" once in conjunction with "childhood nightmares" in a manner that doesn't suggest what would clinically be called night terrors. Anyone have access to other print biographies that may have something to say on the subject? Capeo (talk) 23:46, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Making this a good article again
I just ordered just about every print biography of Lovecraft that exists. In the coming months I'd like to bring this article up to much better than the C-class it currently is. Help is welcome. Particularly with copy editing. Capeo (talk) 05:49, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * So I've spent a lot of time on the early life section in my sandbox . As is quite clear right now the only source is Joshi's I am Providence, a thousand plus pages I'm making my way through. Obviously my intent is not for that to be the only source. De Camp and Tyson just got delivered and I am I'm going to start going through those as well. I'd like to see this article follow a structure more akin to typical GA and FA articles: a solid biography section with chronologically ordered subheaders, then themes inherent in the writer's work, and an influence section that is much smaller than all the fancruft stuck in here now. The article also badly needs a unifying of its citation style.


 * What I don't want to do is spend a bunch of time expanding the biography and then drop what amounts to a totally new article in there just to be reverted. So I'd love some collaboration. In my sandbox is two sections so far. The top is just an info dump with citations. The lower one is my first attempt to pare it down. It can be pared down more. My biggest difficulty right now, aside from some just some good copy editing, is balancing straightforward biographical information with how influential biographers find this information on Lovecraft's work. Joshi, fairly early, deals a good deal with Lovecraft's apparent disdain for physical affection. It's only in Lovecraft's later high school years that he spends a long time on his racism, hearkening back to early influences, that would require going back and bringing them up in Early Years section.


 * Long story short, feel free to comment here, or in my sandbox, and edit the lower section. 03:16, 14 November 2017 (UTC)Capeo (talk)

I know this is getting expansive
It needs trimming, and copy editing (and thanks to the editors that have already fixed my bad grammar), but I'm still of the mind that an article that's a biography should mainly be... a biography, in keeping with other GA and FA bios. That said, I expect substantial trimming will need to happen. For instance, even the section I just added. The UAPA was an incredibly important part of Lovecraft's life. More exhaustive bios go into great detail about it (Joshi, de Camp). Less exhaustive one's simply mention it. Somewhere in between is best for a WP bio. Right now I'm on the exhaustive end of the spectrum. It's hard to source, and I'm reticent to source, large sweeping proclamations about Lovecraft based on single sentences. A good for instance would be that a lot of the internet sources perpetuate a non-factual myth that Lovecraft experienced night terrors, sleep paralysis, etc., despite there being no evidence suggesting that to be case. That's one of the main reasons I'm leaning towards written sources as being the predominant sources at this stage. Beyond all that, I'm mostly looking for any collaboration and, at the same time, some approval I guess. Meaning, I fully expect significant trimming, I expected this article to be watched more than it apparently is. I just don't want, weeks of work now and more to come, suddenly reverted because nobody put forth their objections earlier. Capeo (talk) 02:32, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * An IP removed the section on class and race with an explanation that it didn't discuss his stories. I reverted the edit because it appeared to have reliable sources which did discuss his writings. I'm not bonded to the issue either way and will let consensus decide. Ifnord (talk) 04:26, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Well I think it large scale reversion including full revert back to before you started is likely, because you are expanding with long argumentative chains of reasoning rather than adding referenced encyclopedic content. Previously concise sections are being puffed up like a bullfrog with argumentation and nebulous speculation.. For instance
 * In April 1893, after a psychotic episode in a Chicago hotel, Winfield was committed to Butler Hospital in Providence.Though it is not clear who reported Winfield's prior behavior to Butler, medical records indicate that he had been "doing and saying strange things at times" for a year before his commitment.[5] Winfield spent five years in Butler before dying in 1898. His death certificate listed the cause of death as general paresis, a term synonymous with late-stage syphilis.[6] Susie never exhibited symptoms of the disease, leading to questions regarding the intimacy of their relationship. In 1969 Sonia Greene ventured that Susie was a "touch-me-not" wife and that Winfield, being a traveling salesmen, "took his sexual pleasures wherever he could find them".[7] How Greene came to this opinion is unknown, as she never met Lovecraft's parents, though Lovecraft himself termed his mother a "touch-me-not" in a 1937 letter noting that, after his early childhood, she avoided all physical contact with him.[8] This is contrary to Susie's treatment of a young Lovecraft soon after his father's breakdown. According to the accounts of family friends Susie doted over the young Lovecraft to a fault, pampering him and never letting him out of her sight.[9] Throughout his life Lovecraft maintained that his father fell into a paralytic state, due to insomnia and being overworked, and remained that way until his death. It is unknown if Lovecraft was simply kept ignorant of his father's illness or if his later remarks were intentionally misleading.[5]
 * Compare how it was before you started
 * In 1893 Lovecraft's father became acutely psychotic, when Lovecraft was three, and was placed in the Providence psychiatric institution of Butler Hospital where he remained until his death in 1898.[3] Lovecraft maintained throughout his life that his father died in a condition of paralysis brought on by "nervous exhaustion." His father was diagnosed with general paresis suggesting that his mental illness was caused by late-stage syphilis, but neither Lovecraft nor his mother (who also died in Butler Hospital) seem to have shown signs of being infected with the disease.[6]
 * I think the way it was a few months ago is more encyclopedic, and you might have been placed to avoid wholesale reverts had you got one section into shape then posted it here for comments, rather then editing the article and implying that anyone who objects should speak up while you are in the middle of a flurry of main page editing that includes an altered structure for the article.Overagainst (talk) 20:44, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I wonder if it might be worth separating the discussions of his stories and themes into his bibliography article? That might help focus and slim it down, and give people an easier way to find commentary on his stories.Rjmail (talk) 21:29, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Putting in the section "H. P. Lovecraft's The Shadow over Innsmouth (1931)"
In the Reference sections at the end of the article, one is missing - "H. P. Lovecraft's The Shadow over Innsmouth (1931)", which already exists elsewhere and should be put in here.Malcolmlucascollins (talk) 19:19, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure what you're asking. I see the References section at the bottom. And I see citation 126 in that list, which is "Lovecraft's Shadow Over Innsmouth. Donovan K. Loucks." Rjmail (talk) 20:52, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Necronomidol
Necronomidol is a band inspired by H.P. Lovecraft and should possibly go in the Music section of the article but it's at least partially protected. 68.186.109.212 (talk) 10:26, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not mentioned in the band's article, nor obvious in their song or album names.-- WizWheatly  (ftaghn) 15:50, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Antisemitism
" He praised non-WASP groups such as Hispanics and Jews" He may did that at one point, but he was also pretty antisemitic (one of many sources) 2A02:8108:8200:23C9:8508:89B6:B53E:145D (talk) 10:48, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:H. P. Lovecraft for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:H. P. Lovecraft is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:H. P. Lovecraft until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 14:45, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Wholesale Deletions
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. &#8213; 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. &#8213; 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. &#8213; 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)

Now recruiting
I'm looking for participants for a possible new wikiproject H. P. Lovecraft, to tag and improve articles relating to him.-- Auric   talk  09:58, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Merger proposal
Whipple Van Buren Phillips does not seem to be independently notable, as all of the reliable sources that I could find are biographies of his grandson or genealogical documents. I suggest that we merge his article into this one. ― Susmuffin Talk 05:08, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge: and agree as there is little notability here, and notability is not inherited. GenQuest  "Talk to Me" 12:47, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge: seems logical. --Bluejay Young (talk) 04:36, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge: Personally I like that as a separate article. I think the content would add little value to this article and just clutter it unnecessarily. Rjmail (talk) 21:29, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

"Lovecraft as a fictional character" section
How come absolutely no mention of the three animated movies --- Howard Lovecraft and the Frozen Kingdom (2016), Howard Lovecraft and the Undersea Kingdom (2017), Howard Lovecraft and the Kingdom of Madness (2018) --- in which Howard is portrayed as a child?

Just curious. 2600:8800:784:8F00:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 16:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)


 * These films have their own articles (see parts 1, 2, and  3). The argument can certainly be made that the films be mentioned in this article, however. In my opinion, these fall squarely into the Real Person Fiction realm instead of the more common supernatural fiction. Perhaps they deserve a sub-heading within the  Influence on culture section? Though, I'm not sure if there is enough distinction to warrant a complete division.  Edge  20:54, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Lovecraft had a celiac disease
He got all the symptoms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.158.58.179 (talk) 22:28, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Lovecraft was diagnosed with intestinal cancer. Speculation is not allowed without proper sources. Klayman55 (talk) 16:36, 8 March 2020 (UTC)Klayman55

Removed mention
I removed the mention of "Michel Houellebecq"'s work, which stated "In the bibliographical study H. P. Lovecraft: Against the World, Against Life, Michel Houellebecq suggested that the misfortunes fed Lovecraft's central motivation as a writer, which he said was racial resentment." This is personal opinion of some guy who has very strong political opinions. I fail to see how it, or he, is relevant to Lovecraft. I'd also add, on a personal note, that this comment feels like a snide personal attack.

I apologize if I'm violating some rule, etiquette or standard. I rarely have enough of a reason to edit any wikipedia article. 85.220.117.44 (talk) 03:36, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Typical
> Lovecraft's racial attitude was common in the society of his day, especially in the New England in which he grew up

This is only true from a certain point of view. Many of his beliefs WERE the general consensus, but certainly not to that extent. The very notable thing about his racism is the fact he was so racist that even in a society as racist as early 20th Century New England, he was considered to be unusually racist. I do understand that a source would be needed for this though, which is why I’m (for now) putting this on the talk page rather than the main one, but the fact that if this were as simple as that, we wouldn’t even have the section that the sentence is in in the first place! --StrexcorpEmployee (talk) 13:23, 25 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Do you have any academic or scholarly sources that support the claim that he was unusually racist by the standards of the early 20th century? This is a claim that is often repeated, but none of those claims provide any real analysis of his views on race. Since this is a sensitive issue, I would prefer if we used the best-possible sources in that section. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 09:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Logical positivist
I'm afraid Lovecraft is famous for stuff he did not buy into, see Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:23, 6 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Is there any part of the the article that implies otherwise? From what I can tell, the article agrees that Lovecraft was an irreligious atheist. That is a viewpoint that is supported by all respectable Lovecraft scholars. Feel free to remove any text that supports fringe theories. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 13:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Later correspondence
Could someone have a better source than this odd github page that was just uploaded for this letter that was just added? If we want to keep it as a primary source, at least. We may also want to reword it, it feels almost like apologia for Lovecraft's racism. --Blemby (talk) 02:22, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've found the original published print source and cited that. Apologia was definitely not my goal. I thought it was fascinating that he spoke out so vehemently against his old beliefs and writings, at the very end of his life. In the same letter he also expresses strong socialist and anti-capitalist beliefs. —BlackTerror (talk) 09:16, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem, some of that actually was already in the article. --Blemby (talk) 17:18, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 September 2020
I would like you to remove the last sentence in the paragraph entitled "race." This is an opinion and the support offered is just a book containing opinion, and not a work of history. You could say "It has been claimed that ..." but I think Wikipedia should stick to facts here. The reader can form his or her own opinions. Danielmabuse (talk) 09:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * ❌ There are two sources here, and if you want to remove sourced content (especially this, which tends to put other potentially controversial information in context), you need to show a consensus for that removal first. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 17:59, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

He had celiac disease...
... that progressed into him having an autoimmune hypothyroidism (Hashimoto's) and adenocarcinoma of the small intestine, both of which are common in people with an undiagnosed ("hidden") celiac disease. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.111.202.6 (talk) 12:21, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

The name of his cat seems worth mentioning
The name of his cat, "Nigger Man", seems worth mentioning regarding his attitude to race, so it should be added (see The Rats in the Walls). 80.6.233.101 (talk) 22:34, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Edit for Stephen King's mention
In the Legacy section Stephen King is mentioned twice as being influenced by HP Lovecraft. Seems like the 2 lists of those influenced by him should be combined. And perhaps even some names removed since alot of the writers were influenced by him but not all are well known. 172.58.187.42 (talk) 18:01, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. Run n Fly (talk) 18:02, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Saved from adolescent suicide?
"This led to his discovery of gaps, which prevented Lovecraft from committing suicide during his adolescence." This is a remarkable sentence to come across with no further explanation or attribution.
 * There's a cite at the end of the para, so by convention the claim is cited. However, I'm unable to find a copy of the original article to verify that the cite does indeed cover the claim.  If anyone has access to it, can they verify? Palindromedairy (talk) 03:34, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I should add that I agree that it could definitely use more context. Palindromedairy (talk) 18:20, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Jan B. W. Pedersen does say it in his article. Chapter Four in A Dreamer and a Visionary corroborates Pedersen's statement. Joshi attributes his continued desire to live to his scientific curiosity. I will add something to the biographical section in eventuality. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 10:36, 26 May 2021 (UTC)