Talk:H.P. Lovecraft

Hmm, I think we need a Lovecraft/Cthulhu subcategory in roleplaying. --Myomoto 14:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I approve of this motion, although I think it should be its own category, not a subcategory - CoC, ToC are both RPGs, but Arkham Horror and Dark Corners of the Earth are not. -Destro

Yeah, that's true, I wasn't really thinking about anything but the RPGs, I know there's a card game as well. --Myomoto 14:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Correct, at least two CCGs in fact. And a number of other vidyagames. -Destro

Racism

The article seems overly invested in calling Lovecraft a racist. More than half of it is fully devoted to a litany of hate against him, and isn't really relevant to his work as a horror writer (which is to say, the portion of his influence actually related to /tg/).

If you think it's extreme feel free to tone it down, but he was most certainly a racist, the whole innsmouth thing was basically saying interracial marriage brings about monsters, and it's important to leave the fact that he was a racist on there, otherwise you're skewing who he was. -- Triacom (talk) 04:35, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

This needs more than a simple tone-down. If he was racist, I would agree that that is worth mentioning, but there are only six lines in the article that actually speak of any aspect of his life that isn't racism. The rest of the article (which is to say, the vast majority of it) is barely more than hate-sperging. This needs a full re-write, and the "stub" tag in lieu of that.--Asorel (talk) 04:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Bro, are you just "racism-cleansing" this entire wiki? 'Cause that's just as sad as the PC-tumblrites you're doing it to spite. Especially when the racism here was both in the service of the joke, about Lovecraft being a prototypical Internet nerd when you get down to brass tacks (complete with marrying a Jewish woman), and a massive theme of his entire body of work, without exception. --SpectralTime (talk) 08:10, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I must have missed that particular portion. A good part of that section was arguably not humor. Either way, the new version is much more informative. I would have written an alternative, though I was irritable and sleep deprived earlier.

This article is cluttered with irrelevant social diatribes that have nothing to do with tabletop gaming or /tg/. Requesting permission to clean up and refocus the article to Lovecraft's influence on tabletop gaming and games directly inspired by his works. Just because there are worse examples doesn't mean we should just ignore this one. --24.94.237.251 (talk)

A statement of objective fact (that Lovecraft's writing was inspired in no large part by the values of his time) hardly qualifies as a diatribe. It's not judging or criticizing him by standards that didn't exist until long after his death, it's just stating facts. If you want to gut out genuine information about him because you don't like the fact that he lived in different times with different values, you're just as bad as any SJW. They try to rewrite history too, you know. You may however add information on said influence on gaming and games, as long as you don't try to censor his biography.--Newerfag (talk) 23:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not trying to censor anything. I simply want this article to be about Lovecraft's influence on tabletop gaming as is the purpose of this wiki. Wikipedia is the wiki for a biography of Lovecraft. Why is there any need for any kind of biography on Lovecraft at all here? --24.94.237.251 (talk)

• I would agree with the above. As it stands, there's almost twice as much written on Lovecraft's racism than on his mythos and /tg/ influence.--Asorel (talk) 00:04, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • As would I. Perhaps I was too quick to judge in that respect. --Newerfag (talk) 00:41, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I would re add the portions talking about how he wrote many letters to several authors at the time, it is not dealing with racism and is instead showing how he and other writers influanced each others work, such as portions of the cthulu mythos existing in the connan universe. Maybe even expand on that a tiny bit.Dragoon508 (talk) 01:26, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

• i also agree. he was a product of his time and its kinda fucked up to judge him by modern standards. Abraham Lincoln would be, be todays standards, and unbelievable bigoted racist. If we made an article about how much of a racist Lincoln was, it would completely miss the context and the achievements of his life, and would be utterly unfair. --Kapow (talk) 03:21, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • There's a hundred years of history you're glossing over there, and Abe Lincoln wasn't racist towards other white people! Nonetheless, I'll fold with the current on this one. If no one else finds mocking his racism funny or informative, so be it. --SpectralTime (talk) 04:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

• being discriminatory against other white people would probably qualify as nationalism, not racism, and we are all aware that the late 1800s and early 1900s had hardcore nationalism as the zeitgeist. Again, a product of his time.

• • • • No, he literally thought that Italians were "degenerate" in terms of their genetic makeup. And he was an Anglophile who hated his home country of America for splitting off. Again, he was the prototypical "weirdly fixated Internet nerd," and one of the many, many things he fixated on was race. Remember when the Big Horrific Reveal in one of his stories was that the protagonist's ancestors included... a black woman? This shit was already archaic when he did it! Everyone was racist then, sure, but not everyone was that racist. Besides, I find it hilarious that his wife often had to remind him to stop ranting hatefully about the Jews in front of her, because she was Jewish. --SpectralTime (talk) 04:26, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

• most of that sounds like nationalism to me. and most of it sounds completely in line with the the way people were back then. remember, this is a time period where the kkk is running around and "irish need not apply" and the catholic church still blamed jews for killing christ and tensions from italian immigration were high. none of it is good, but that more a commentary on the society as a whole than each individual. if this was a board dedicated to critical theory then the subject might have a place here, but its a board dedicated to /tg/.

• • • • • • • plenty of European groups weren’t considered white at the time (hence, for example, Frank Sinatra’s Democrat membership and stance on immigration and the like). White until recently meant Northern European in the USA. Anyway, I thought Lovecraft was atheist? How does that qualify as normal for the time? He was best known for writing on the fear of the unknown and barely left his various properties, whether he lived with his wife or his mother.

Why do you care so much about this shit? It's like you're all from ~tumblr~

I don't know how old this discussion is but I do recall that Lovecraft's views on foreignors lessened in his later life. Tyranid Memestealer (talk) 03:14, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

hopeless after all?

So the Old gods and Great old oens are to us what we are to ants, right. Well aren't 20-50 humans a year killed by ants?Skadooshbag (talk) 00:23, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

>shamelessly ripping lines from Terrible Writing Advice

Get out, you thoroughly unoriginal cretin. --45.18.185.176 03:39, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Racism Boogaloo

I really don't think a comment on Lovecraft being racist is necessary in the article at all. What does it even add? What relevance does it have? It's just an awkward parenthesetic insert that clogs up the sentence. TheBadageBoys (talk) 19:26, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

It informs the reader because it influenced his writing, the Shadow Over Innsmouth story for example (one of his most memorable in the public's perception) was his slant against interracial marriage. -- Triacom (talk) 19:34, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

This isn't a Wikipedia article, it's about his influence on tabletop gaming. I don't think the Call of Cthulhu RPG made anyone think marrying another race will make you into a fishman. TheBadageBoys (talk) 19:39, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

This is an article on Lovecraft, not just his tabletop influence. -- Triacom (talk) 21:27, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Not to mention no one's arguing for ideologocial indoctrination or anything of the sort, just noting it was a thing he was known for that tangibly seeped into his writing in at least a few instances. --LGX-000 (talk) 21:31, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

What point does including it have though? At all? It's not indoctrination no, but it comes off as weirdly sociopolitical. I see this alot with Lovecraft where everyone has to force some injection that he was a racist, even when it doesn't have any relevance or fit at all, and most of the time it's a virtue-signal. TheBadageBoys (talk) 23:30, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

The point is it had a large effect on him, enough to influence his writing. I like how you changed the goalposts though, first claiming that this was only about his literature, then claiming the article isn't about he he is as a person when it influenced both. Trying to downplay it as you're currently doing is very dishonest as it doesn't accurately portray him. -- Triacom (talk) 23:48, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

And furthermore, we had this episode like 4 years back if the text above indicates anything, and more or less drew the same conclusion then, too. --LGX-000 (talk) 21:35, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

It seems many people didn't want it included then either. It isn't necessarily a false statement, but it doesn't have any point being there. Everything else is about what Lovecraft's mythos was like, the other major weird fiction players he influenced, and what impact that had on games related to it. Racism has no place, bearing, or need to be in a game-related article. TheBadageBoys (talk) 23:30, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

The article is about him and his literature, him being racist even for his day, to the point it affected his works means it's relevant to both. -- Triacom (talk) 23:48, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Please tell me how his ideas on race influenced Call of Cthulhu, Trail of Cthulhu, Delta Green, or any of the video game adaptations. TheBadageBoys (talk) 01:03, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Sure, Lovecraft was under the impression that interracial marriage would result in tainting the gene pool of the parties involved and the children resulting from it would be monsters. To that end the Deep Ones and their children are the his analogy of the children of interracial couples, while the gods they worshipped were supposed to highlight them as being particularly evil. Now Deep Ones and the fish people of Innsmouth (the people willing to have interracial kids, so of course he makes them hideous and evil) show up a lot in CoC games and related material, but that was their origin. This bit isn't included in these main article because that would be a little too much like making it a political piece, so adding that he was racist, even for his day was deemed enough. -- Triacom (talk) 01:31, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

What does saying "he's a racist" add? TheBadageBoys (talk) 01:34, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

It informs the reader of his character, and since this is an article about his character and since it had a large impact on him and accidentally spawned his most popular mythos, it's important to mention it. -- Triacom (talk) 01:38, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Blood-mixing with eldritch beings causing mutated offspring doesn't mean it's a reflection of his character. TheBadageBoys (talk) 02:57, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Him choosing to make them proxies of interracial couples means it's a reflection of his character. Honestly though this might just be the weakest argument I've ever heard, because you're ignoring all of the above, both recent and old to try and pretend he wasn't racist, even for his day. -- Triacom (talk) 03:02, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Alright, in order:

>This isn't a Wikipedia article, it's about his influence on tabletop gaming.

Counterpoint: This doesn't need to be a Wikipedia article to note basic influences on his literary works, which in turn inspired a lot of other media, tabletop games included. Surely it isn't hard to imagine that some tabletop players may also be avid readers. That said:

>I don't think the Call of Cthulhu RPG made anyone think marrying another race will make you into a fishman.

I don't think anyone made an argument for that at all, especially considering it's a singular line or set of lines in the early paragraphs of the article, and is "contained" to that one section. That's "moral guardian" logic, and the precise sort of shit that bugs me and very likely a few others.

>I see this alot with Lovecraft where everyone has to force some injection that he was a racist, even when it doesn't have any relevance or fit at all, and most of the time it's a virtue-signal.

People write what they know - literature is a product of the times and culture in which is was created, and as a result it's "natural" for some of their views to occasionally seep into their writing, with the degree to which it occurs if it does and how outspoken they are about their views being another bag of worms altogether. Most basic literary analysis accounts for the author's views and their society in some manner, and given this is a 'basic literary analysis' (albeit in a truncated, snappy Cliffsnotes sense of the phrase), that's about as solid a foundation for relevance as it gets.

>Regarding "virtue signaling" (which, ironically, frequently serves little purpose as a term except for other people to virtue signal about their "lack" of virtue signaling)

It was written as is specifically to avoid just that: it is evident that his racial views impacted and influenced some significant part of his writing, and that, while such racial views were normal for his time, he was particularly xenophobic, we note that much and leave it at that, presented as a matter of fact and course without calling for any judgment. That the mere subject matter is itself a highly judgmental matter is not something we can help, only try to mitigate.

Besides, while we do like to have SOME sort of standard about the shit we say or do here, we can't get but so sanctimonious about it - and thus, here we arrived, at the relatively footnote-like line being discussed here.

>Please tell me how his ideas on race influenced Call of Cthulhu, Trail of Cthulhu, Delta Green, or any of the video game adaptations.

Almost circles back to the second point regarding how no one said that, and while I COULD do the pithy thing and copy paste that bit, I'll elaborate on said point: it influenced the works those game adaptations were based on, not the games themselves. Nothing in the article insinuates that, because not every subtext is going to be kept in an adaptation, since the people behind it will want to present it in their "own" way, with the alterations to subtext that entails. That's how influence works - in the context of the original works you get "unfortunate implications" to say the least regarding the Deep Ones, while in the context of a majority of adaptations, they're just another form of otherworldly, sense-shattering horror.

>What does saying "he's a racist" add?

Actually circular, see previous responses.

>Blood-mixing with eldritch beings causing mutated offspring doesn't mean it's a reflection of his character.

At face value, no, it doesn't. In the context of his known views, however, very much yes. Refer to third point.

If anything, I feel like the point of contention is that noting the original author's views creates said "unfortunate implications" which shadow the rest of the article by association. Here's the rub, though: This is going to be true of a lot of sufficiently-aged media, especially as society "marches on" (I hate using TVTropisms this much, but sometimes other phrasings aren't as sufficient). The implications are gonna be there whether we personally note them or not, and I'm of the opinion that we may as well just lay it out there and be honest about it - don't harp on about it in the article, but don't try to gloss over it just because it's "inconvenient" in some manner. --LGX-000 (talk) 03:38, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more, you don't have to make a long breakdown on how racist he was, like the was in the past, but pretending it isn't relevant is just foolish. Give it a mention, leave it at that, it's all that's needed. -- Triacom (talk) 03:45, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Basically. With all that mind, I'm not sure there's much more to be done in regards to that passage.

I've edited it to say simply the fact as he himself didn't hide, that he was a racist. No bias, judgement, or commentary given, just fact. I think it looks better. TheBadageBoys (talk) 22:50, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Sufficent compromise. As you were. --LGX-000 (talk) 04:57, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm glad we could get to one. I didn't mean to make a big deal out of it honestly, it's just this stuff irks me when I see it, but I think you made valid points too. TheBadageBoys (talk) 07:05, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

To TheBadageBoys

Do we seriously need to do this again? Do we seriously need to have another discussion on why it's important to mention that he's a racist? How about we go through the cliffnotes and skip to the ending:

Your question: "What does it even add? What relevance does it have?"

The Answer: "It informs the reader because it influenced his writing."

You: "I'm going to pretend this article isn't about him as a person, it's about his influence on tabletop gaming, and I'm not shifting the goalposts."

Article: "I'm about both actually, and his racism is relevant to both because his most popular mythos spawned from it."

You: "I still don't see why we should mention something that influenced him as a person, influenced his writing, and created his most popular mythos which in turn is the only reason this article exists. Please tell me how it contributed to any of those."

Me: "Here's how it contributed to all of those."

You: "Making proxies of various races and demonizing these races by using these proxies doesn't make him racist." Me: "When you're fully aware that they're proxies and you see his remarks on them in other works it absolutely makes it racist."

Your conclusion: "I've edited it to say simply the fact as he himself didn't hide, that he was a racist. No bias, judgement, or commentary given, just fact."

Your conclusion reverted your edit to the exact same edit that existed before you started this editwar, only now you're trying to take credit for it. I let it go last time because I didn't feel like stirring the shit pot, but now I'm going to call you out on it.

There we go, the exact same argument we're going to have followed with the same conclusion. Did I miss anything, or are you going to pretend he wasn't a racist this time? -- Triacom (talk) 07:48, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, holy shit. This is so clearly bad faith it's irritating. --LGX-000 (talk) 08:39, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Ah shit, here we go again

With the new changes to wording, I really don't think we need an added segment saying Lovecraft had early-life racist views. It contributes nothing to the article, nothing to the understanding of who he is or what his books/games are like, and if anything feels like a pointless soapbox. I see this all the time when people discuss Lovecraft, interjecting "Btw he was racist" into everything. It's like, who gives a shit? I don't think readers will give a shit. Saying he's racist does absolutely nothing for the purpose of the article. We aren't writing a biographical piece or a critic's analysis, we're talking about who he is, what he wrote, and what games we got from him. That's all that we need. We don't have an outline of Tolkien's religious beliefs on his page, despite them even having an influence on what he wrote, and clearly no one thinks we need to. Why then do Lovecraft's views on society or race need to play any part at all in his article? Who is this statement for? TheBadageBoys (talk) 22:54, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

All of this is answered if you scroll up. Do you really want us to copy-paste our older answers when you asked these questions? If so then here you go: his racism was integral to his character, it impacted and inspired his writing so it's important the reader is given knowledge of that to understand him as a person. -- Triacom (talk) 23:02, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

That's your opinion, but it's not fact, and either way it's not for us to talk about. The point's clear enough that he wrote about foreign people birthing monsters. Anything more is either pointless clutter or soapboxing, I'd say. Do we need to go across every article on every /tg/-related author on the site and include a section as to their political, religious, and social beliefs? No, because it doesn't add anything. This doesn't add anything but more greens to an article that frankly's already a word salad, myself to blame for part of that. I feel like we've all overedited it with detail. Additionally, even if it's been talked about before, that doesn't mean it can't become an issue again, especially considering several of us seem to want to trim up and clean up the article. If you want to zap pointless filler, that'd be one of the first things to go. TheBadageBoys (talk) 23:05, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Lovecraft being a racist isn't opinion, neither is saying that his racism was incorporated into his works. If the page already had enough on it then you wouldn't have run up against so much opposition time and time again. You are the only one I've seen who so desperately wants to remove any mention of him being a racist and doing so is hiding facts, not cleaning up the page. Furthermore, it doesn't matter what is/isn't on other pages, those aren't relevant to whether or not Lovecraft was a racist, which he was. -- Triacom (talk) 23:11, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

If you scroll up, other people have taken issue with it over time, but you always seem to be the most adamant defender of calling him a racist. To each their own, we're both clearly invested in getting our points on the page. However, I don't contend to remove it because of "hiding facts" or even anyone's opinions on Lovecraft, but that it's pointless clutter and could easily be interpreted as some kind of soapboxing, or virtue-signalling if you will. Again, you see this a ton with Lovecraft. I don't think the vast majority of people trying to get into Cthulhu tabletop games care, at all, if he was a racist or not. It's not relevant to his games, and its relevance in his work is summarized aptly already. Tolkien being a Catholic was never a big part of people playing The One Ring or not. We're trying to limit the overwhelming textwall in the first part of the article, and we could remove nearly half a line of text by taking out a detail that doesn't need to be there. It isn't hiding the facts, period. If you wanna go that route, not summarizing every author's life would be "hiding the facts", which isn't a good accusation to begin with considering this is a site of articles about games and game-relevant content, not a biography or where you should come to write a biography about a certain author. When something ceases having any merit in an article, contributes nothing to the article, and seems poised to only cause conflict, it doesn't belong in the article. Nobody's starting clamors for more descriptions of Lovecraft's racism, but more than a few people have said the descriptions we have already don't belong. TheBadageBoys (talk) 23:16, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

If you scroll up you'll see every other user understood why it was on there after it was explained to them. This includes you until you decided to forget it. Also let's drop any notion of page cleanup or limiting text walls, because that's not what you're doing. Deleting a single small sentence does nothing of the sort and you weren't pretending this was the reason the last several times you tried removing that exact same point, so cut the bullshit, nobody's buying it. I'm also not buying your use of buzzwords, pointing out that he's a racist is not virtue-signaling (it's not even close to what that means) and it's not soapboxing because the page isn't decrying his character, it's giving an overview of it. If being a racist wasn't a part of his character (and pertinent to his work) then we wouldn't have the Cthulhu mythos, so yes it is important to anything and everything that stems from it, games included. You don't have to like it, but we do have to acknowledge it. We've already gone over this twice, so could you bother to re-read what was written above before asking more questions that have already been answered? -- Triacom (talk) 23:32, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

From what I see people came to an agreement that it didn't belong, there was too much emphasis on it, and it had no relevance to the article. Whatever your opinions on Lovecraft may be, it's factually untrue that racism made up the entirety, or even majority, of his writings. "If being a racist wasn't a part of his character then we wouldn't have the Cthulhu mythos" is completely, inarguably untrue, and it leads me to suspect that, for all you accuse me of wanting to "hide the facts", you are wanting to amplify racism as being a bigger part of his character and his writings than it actually was. Racism doesn't help one understand Lovecraft more, outside of a few specific examples, and it certainly has no relevance to his games, character, or writings at large. Cosmic horror is his genre, not demographic and social allegory. We don't have to acknowledge anything, you want to, just as I don't want to. That's the disagreement we find ourselves at. You think it's important, I think it's unimportant, and I'm not sure how to get my point across to you. Likewise I don't get your point at all, but I can at least say you're mistaken as a fact if you think the entirety of his work depends exclusively on racism. We can, and I want to, resolve this without getting angry at each other or taking jabs. I'm sorry for whatever part I played in that, this is just an author article on a 4chan site. It's nothing anyone should get skubbed out over. It's more pertinent to discuss what relevance it has on the article. I've told you why I think it's irrelevant. What relevance do you think it has? TheBadageBoys (talk) 23:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Please show me where people agreed that him being a racist had no relevance and all mention of it should be removed. While you're at it, please show me where I said that racism made up the majority/entirety of his writings, also show me where the page says that. I'm not amplifying anything, and it's laughable that you're trying to go there, if I was trying to amplify anything then I would do a hell of a lot more than make sure It's included that he was a racist in the smallest way possible. Now if we want to stick to facts, you don't have any. You can keep saying that knowing he was a racist doesn't help one understand him more (you argued differently in the past) and you can claim that it has nothing to do with his work, but since this is the third time we're going over this it's easy to see that all you've got are claims. You want to bring in any facts to back up any of your claims, or are you just going to insist that him being a racist played no part in who he was as a person or the Cthulhu mythos? Next, if you want to dial an argument back, don't do it while strawmanning the other person's arguments (I never said that his racism played a part in most/all of his works) and don't do it while accusing the other person of "amplifying" something when you know from the page's edit history they did nothing of the sort. Finally, the article is on Lovecraft as a person. Lovecraft as a person was a racist, therefore if the article omits that it, then it would be omitting who he was as a person. We've already gone over this above, so why the fuck are you insisting on going through the exact same points again? I can copy-paste your previous questions about this point and copy-paste the answers you received if you want to relive the past that badly. -- Triacom (talk) 00:12, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

The Shadow over Innsmouth is a fairly clear allegory to Lovecraft's revulsion over the possibility of the one-drop rule applying to him. It is perfectly possible to understand and enjoy the story without knowing or caring about that, but it isn't like the author's feelings are not there. If he was free from that revulsion, you would get The Shape of Water. I'm not praising his views, but I'm also not going to unilaterally condemn him and his body of work for being tainted.--Namefag (talk) 00:19, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Neither am I and neither is the main page, that's why it's a mention and not the focal point of the article. You point out why it's important to know though (with the shape of water comment) and why it's important to his mythos as a whole because without it, his mythos would not exist, at least not in the form it exists today. -- Triacom (talk) 00:23, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

As you just said, if his racial views didn't exist there'd be no mythos. That's what I'm referring to: you seem to be significantly overplaying Lovecraft's real-world views, particularly racism, and implying that without said racism there'd be no Mythos at all. I'm not praising or condemning Lovecraft or his beliefs myself, and no, I don't think the article is worded in such a way to do so either. However, I still think it doesn't matter. "Foreigners give birth to monsters and probably worship aliens" is more fitting than "He was racist once" to me. The former has more relevance, the latter feels like an unnecessary detail. The former sets up what you can expect, a bizarre world with monster-hybrids running around. The latter tells you nothing. Saying "Tolkien's world has a force of holy good struggling against unholy evil" aptly describes his world and writings, you get an idea of what to expect. "Tolkien was Catholic" tells you nothing about his actual work. This is where the difference lies. What is gained at all by having "Lovecraft was a racist once"? What is lost by removing it? To me, no more is gained by having it and no more is lost by removing it as back when there was a heavier focus on calling him a racist in the article. It all should be removed because it never mattered, not then nor now, to the game-related content of the author at hand, and what relevance it does have, such as the Deep Ones in Innsmouth, is already summarized while providing detail and insight to the Mythos and its game content. Whether you think a sentence is a big deal or not, the current goal lately seems to be shortening the article and trimming it for more relevant detail and less of a textwall. One paragraph or one word, it doesn't matter. If it's not necessary it should be trimmed. TheBadageBoys (talk) 22:39, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

It only seems like that if you don't read the full sentence: "without it, his mythos would not exist, at least not in the form it exists today." That's why it's important to mention. If you think it isn't important then you're ignoring the one of the key parts in how he formed his mythos. If you also think it makes no difference to have it or not (another bullshit argument because you were arguing differently several times in the past, even recently), then you should leave it because not only are you alone in that belief, but removing it would not improve the page either. Removing a single sentence is not removing bloat from the article, it's a pathetic and cowardly attempt to grasp at straws to remove the parts you've been trying to remove every time before, and no matter what argument you try to trot out it won't work because everyone knows once this argument's failed you'll try to make up a new one since your irrelevance/virtue-signaling/soapboxing/page isn't about Lovecraft as a person arguments didn't work either. -- Triacom (talk) 22:58, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Your sentence is still incorrect though, and I'd suggest you read more of Lovecraft's work before you decide racism is the sole factor behind his writings. I'm definitely not alone in the belief that it's irrelevant, though as I said, plenty of actual virtue-signalling reviewers like to throw in "he's racist" for no real reason, as if it makes a point when talking about stories wholly unrelated. I'd say that's not buzz-wording it, but defining it for what it is. I also don't know who you're talking about that "knows this argument's failed". You seem to be the only one who adamantly disagrees with me, and who defended having excessive notes of Lovecraft's racism back in the day. Did you put it there in the first place? You do seem very set on having it be mentioned in the article, but I'm also set on having it removed. Is your claim that racism is the focal point of the Cthulhu Mythos the only argument to keeping it in the article? If so, I think we've both said our piece. How can we resolve this and make this work favorably for both of us? TheBadageBoys (talk) 23:37, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

If you think it's incorrect then you do not understand Lovecraft and shouldn't be editing his page. You're also still trying to strawman, unless you care to point out where I said "racism is the sole factor behind his writings." If you're not interested in looking for something I didn't say, then maybe you should read the other replies you got on why mentioning his racism is important when you asked about it in the past. "You seem to be the only one who adamantly disagrees with me-" if you think that then not only have you not read the edit history of the main page, but you haven't read this talk page. If you were to read the edit history of the page then you'll see I was not the only one undoing your edits, but that I never added any mention of Lovecraft being a racist to any section within the page; all I've done is prevent a single user from hiding that fact because they refuse to admit it's a relevant part of his character. -- Triacom (talk) 23:53, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, I always saw Lovecraft as more classist than racist (Make no mistake, by our standards he is definitely racist, but by the standards of the time he was not). If you read the stories, they often feature lower-class, people (often white) who are depicted as degenerate, inbred, ignorant, or monstrous. You see this in The Dunwich Horror, you see this in Red Hook, and in many of his other works. Furthermore, this meshes with Lovecraft's own worldview. He viewed himself as part of the educated upper-class, due to his family's history, despite the fact that he was broke for most of his life and never went to college. The loss of his family's ancestral home was clearly quite traumatic for him (and is an ongoing theme in many of his works, such as The Rats in the Walls). I could go on, because I am a massive Lovecraft nerd, but I will finish with one last note: For some reason, people go after Lovecraft for his racism. However, Lovecraft is nowhere near as bad as Robert E. Howard, and frankly considering that when he was alive, it was still generally accepted that whites were inherently superior, it seems weird that people label Lovecraft specifically as racist. I mean, even the less racist whites of the time period by today's standards probably be considered extremely racist. --Urist (talk) 03:18, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing that he was a classist, but the less/moderately racist people at the time did not write his "On the Creation of Niggers" poem, nor did they write a story where a proxy of interracial marriage gave birth to literal monsters. Even for the time he was notably racist, and people remember that kind of thing because it's more at odds with us today than some of his other... let's call them "quirks". -- Triacom (talk) 03:26, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't think we're going to be able to work a solution on this. I find all of this to be pointless, adding nothing to the article. You say you find this vital, integral to understanding the games based on the Mythos. We're at an impasse and much as I'd like to find an agreement, any effort of cooperation seems to be met with sarcasm and personal attacks. If we can't reach an agreement and can't discuss towards that in a civil way, I'd like a moderator to look into this and determine what's necessary to resolve this dispute. What do you say Triacom? TheBadageBoys (talk) 02:47, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

We had an agreement twice in the past and you've gone back on it both times. I'm not settling for anything less than what we had, least of all for somebody who has repeatedly misrepresented what I've said on multiple occasions, and who does not understand Lovecraft as a person. Don't pretend as if you've taken the moral high road when you've accused me of being a virtue-signaler who just wants to decry Lovecraft as being some sort of racist because you're pretending I said all of his works were based around his racist beliefs, when I never said anything of the sort. Not once have you ever suggested any form of cooperation, you've demanded the page change to be what you want it to be, and any time there was some form of agreement reached you've gone back on it. If you seriously want a moderator to look into it then they can read this page in full, see that twice now you've agreed to let the mention remain on the page, and then twice you've gone back on that without opening up a new discussion in an attempt to force the page to reflect only what you want it to. That's not going to go over well for you. -- Triacom (talk) 04:44, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

You know what TheBadageBoys? Let's see you back up the claims you just made here: You say you find this vital, integral to understanding the games based on the Mythos. False, I said that it's key to understanding Lovecraft as a person, and the page is about Lovecraft as a person. If you think I said that it's racism was integral in understanding the games based on the mythos, then please quote me, and show me how I said that instead of saying that it was integral to understanding Lovecraft, the person all of these games would not exist without. much as I'd like to find an agreement, any effort of cooperation seems to be met with sarcasm and personal attacks. Find me one instance of a personal attack I made against you inside of this topic. I only want one, that's all and if you've encountered it every time you suggested cooperation then it should be very easy shouldn't it? While you're at it, find me one instance where you asked for my cooperation, where you tried to find a solution where we'd both be satisfied instead of one where only you would get what you want. If you can't find any of those then you're not representing what happened here truthfully. -- Triacom (talk) 05:02, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

You can literally scroll up the Talk page to see where your false claims lie, that the Mythos wouldn't exist if Lovecraft wasn't a racist. It makes me think you haven't read anything about Lovecraft beyond the most vapid of literary overviews, or that you might even be baiting at this point. I can't really tell. Yes, I absolutely am saying you give off the vibe of virtue-signalling, crusading relentlessly to have an unimportant detail front-and-center in the article despite what others say, and as of late, trying to make it even more detailed and accusatory to Lovecraft, claiming I'm unable to undo edits I disagree with while you've got free reign to undo anything you don't agree with. I've seen this behavior from you across the site, on other articles, with other people, "I'm right, you're wrong" with a highly confrontational attitude. Examples? They abound. Half the comments you've made have been accusatory. Did I say you were ignorant of Lovecraft? No, I suggested you read more on him. Did I say you were misinterpreting and being disingenuous? No, I said I disagreed with you. Did I brag about the possibility of you getting banned and people thinking your arguments were nonsense? No, I asked for moderator arbitration. All those things, however, you did to me. And now I'm saying it instead. Your would-be snarky attitude is shit, many people can see that it's shit in the way you interact with them, and you should open up to hearing out other opposing ideas on things instead of saying "no u" and starting edit wars then saying the other side's at fault for the edit fests that you yourself start. I acquiesced twice before on this issue, but I've changed my mind on it. That I was even open to cooperation with you is more than I can say of your behavior in any way, shape or form on this article so far or in the issue we've been having. Our fundamental understandings of Lovecraft and what this article should entail are so far away and detached at this point that I don't think we're going to meet a conclusion together. You haven't provided a single argument why it's important to keep a section saying "hey Lovecraft's racist" besides this completely untrue notion that if Lovecraft wasn't a racist he'd have never written any Mythos stories.

I've tried to be civil and I've tried to be cooperative. I'm not backing down on my edits and you're obviously not backing down on yours. TheBadageBoys (talk) 15:06, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Except the mythos was created when he wrote a story to demonize interracial marriage. Without that, the mythos as a whole would either not exist, or would be vastly different from what we know today. If you don't know that then you've got no business editing his page. You also seem to have missed the fact that I wasn't the one who added more to the sentence, and to say it has more detail is laughable, it's the same thing as before, only now it tells people not to add more because of you. claiming I'm unable to undo edits I disagree with while you've got free reign to undo anything you don't agree with. Not true at all, the anon is correct in that if you want to change something that's causing an argument on the main page, you need to argue your case on the talk page first. You don't get to change it to what you want and then demand other people argue from there, and the only reason I'd let your edit stand before the anon reversed it was because I knew somebody else would revert it. I've seen this behavior from you across the site, on other articles, with other people, "I'm right, you're wrong" with a highly confrontational attitude. And yet I've also created and participated in more discussions than anyone else on the site, bar none. I've revamped massive pages that have taken days just to go through everything, and I've collaborated on many talk pages to try and make them better. Any time I undo an edit outright it's for one of two reasons: A) the edit says or does something that's easily disproven, or B) they're arguing on the main page. Examples? They abound. Half the comments you've made have been accusatory. Then quote one. If they really abound then it should be very easy to find one single instance of a personal attack from me in this topic. Your questions past this bit that I quote are also odd, you say I need to read more on Lovecraft while thinking one of his most notable characteristics that inspired one of his most notable works is completely unimportant, you claim you didn't say I was misinterpreting something and being disingenuous, while you were being completely disingenuous with my arguments and trying to put words in my mouth, and bragging about being banned has nothing to do with this at all, you said you wanted to go to a moderator, I pointed out that was a bad idea. Your would-be snarky attitude is shit, many people can see that it's shit in the way you interact with them, and you should open up to hearing out other opposing ideas on things instead of saying "no u" and starting edit wars then saying the other side's at fault for the edit fests that you yourself start. First of all, you don't visit many talk pages do you? Secondly, I didn't start any edit war here, that was all you. You insisted on removing parts of the page despite several users of the site both undoing your edits and arguing against you. You were the only one arguing this point, and now you're trying to claim somebody else was at fault and you're closing yourself off to any opposing idea while going "No you're the virtue-signaller!" Take your own advice, everything you want me to do I already do, and you're not doing anything that you're suggesting I do. I acquiesced twice before on this issue, but I've changed my mind on it. Then you need to make your case on the talk page before you do anything else on the main page, and you didn't. Nobody's following you, and you come across badly when you just go back on what you've said like that. That I was even open to cooperation with you is more than I can say of your behavior in any way, shape or form on this article so far or in the issue we've been having. Both times previous when you wanted to remove any mention of Lovecraft being a racist, and then settled for only a small mention I agreed with that, and I left it at that. I did not add anything to it at all, and it's only now that you've gone back on your word that you were fine with it twice that I'm no longer having it. You insist the issue's unimportant while ignoring how I and other users have told you multiple times why it's important, and when somebody wants to remove something important from the main page I'm not going to sit there and just let them do it. Our fundamental understandings of Lovecraft- Full stop, you don't get Lovecraft if you think his racism is such an unimportant part of his character. I've tried to be civil and I've tried to be cooperative. Quote me one instance on this topic where you asked to be cooperative, and when you find it, put it right next to the quote of the personal attack I've made against you. You keep making these claims, and everyone can see that just like your claim that Lovecraft's racism is not important in any way shape or form, they simply aren't true. -- Triacom (talk) 19:28, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

And again, you utterly misunderstand or are willfully ignorant of Lovecraft himself, and while I wasn't saying Lovecraft being racist is irrelevant in itself (though yes, it's fairly irrelevant in general since his early views on that took a very minor role in things) I am saying it's irrelevant to the games themselves, which is what this article is about. Feel free to go to Wikipedia and edit in comments on his personal life all you want, but it doesn't mean anything to the /tg/ content relevant to Lovecraft himself. I know that, you know that, and that's why I called your behavior virtue-signalling. It's behavior I very frequently witness when some people talk about Lovecraft, and it's usually done by the types who virtue signal, and/or whose knowledge of him is limited to either a Salon or Huffington article about why one of his stories was bad or something. That's fact. Search it and you'll see what I mean, if you don't already do so. It's a pointless detail that adds nothing to the article, and any amount of complaining that racism is the only reason the Mythos existence doesn't make it any more true. It is a flat out false statement, your opinion but not factually true. You think the Shadow over Innsmouth or The Call of Cthulhu were only written because he didn't like interracial marriage? Was Herbert West actually an allegory for immigration? Was The Picture in the House actually about racism? Get real. Your only reason to why it's important in based on this false notion, and it again leads me to suspect you've read very little, if any, of Lovecraft's works firsthand. I was willing to compromise when it was kept as minor and non-judgemental as possible, but with a recent edit now expanding it and adding more emphasis to it - one you defend, which is pretty ironic. Anyone can make a change to anything with no fuss, but the moment I try to make my own, simply because you disagree with it, you'll start an edit war. Excuse it all you want with made-up timeframes, but I suspect had it been an edit you disagreed with in the first place you'd have paid it no mind. I also don't want to undervalue your contributions, there's a lot of them, but it doesn't change your attitude. You act in this shitty way thinking that snarky comments and threatening to have people banned if you don't get your way will fly, that you can justify it with how much you've contributed, but it doesn't justify it. You may have done a lot of good work here, but you're not this site's only editor. I repeatedly said I'd like to work with you on this and be civil, only to be called acting in bad faith, disingenuous, misinterpreting, hiding the facts, and commenting that you'll get me banned. You've done this to me before, you've done it to other people, and it's not gonna work this time. I'm done discussing this with you, and so it's perfectly clear before you try to use that to get me banned - like you did before - it's not that I want to pursue edit wars and be a shit editor, it's that there is no arguing with you. I've never seen any successful arguing with you. You lash out until you get your way and have no interest in listening to the other/my side, and as such, I have no interest in listening to yours, not if this is your only argument. All I wanted was to cut down clutter and solve this in a way that we could both benefit from, but it's not gonna work. I'm as much to blame for that.

Until there's arbitration, I will not discuss this further with you and will maintain my edits. TheBadageBoys (talk) 22:25, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

And again, you utterly misunderstand or are willfully ignorant of Lovecraft himself- You keep saying this, but you've never pointed out how I'm ignorant or done anything to make your point beyond claim that I don't understand him. If you scroll up you'll see that I've already explained how Lovecraft's racism is relevant to both him and his stories, you've never done anything but go "No, you're wrong." I am saying it's irrelevant to the games themselves, which is what this article is about. So not only do you not understand Lovecraft, but you don't understand the page. Just look at the title, does it say "Cthulhu Mythos Games" or does it say "H.P. Lovecraft"? The page is about the person, not the games that are based on his work. In fact, the only thing in the article about his games is a link that links to the page about his games, so to claim that the page isn't about him as a person is to tell a boldfaced lie. any amount of complaining that racism is the only reason the Mythos existence doesn't make it any more true. If you want to prove your point beyond making claims that have nothing backing them up, then please do so, but as of yet you've never done anything beyond claim that you're right. It is a flat out false statement, your opinion but not factually true. Good thing it's not my opinion then, it's a fact that the page is not about the games based off Lovecraft's work, it's a fact that Lovecraft was a racist, and it's a fact that the Shadow over Innsmouth would not exist in its current form if he wasn't a racist. You can even find essays people have written on this subject, yet you're acting as if his racism has nothing to with anything, and is such a small part of his person that it doesn't bear worth mentioning. That's simply not true. You think the Shadow over Innsmouth or The Call of Cthulhu were only written because he didn't like interracial marriage? Quote me where I said that. I've said many times it was one of the inspirations for them, that they wouldn't exist in their current form had it not been for Lovecraft's racism, and the essay I've linked goes into detail on that in particular. Was Herbert West actually an allegory for immigration? Was The Picture in the House actually about racism? Get real. What do those have to do with anything I said? Your only reason to why it's important in based on this false notion- If you want to prove it's a false notion, then please, show evidence to that effect, and bring up why Lovecraft wrote that story and his influences. I guarantee you won't get very far in mentioning his influences before you have to mention the fact that he was racist. I was willing to compromise when it was kept as minor and non-judgemental as possible, but with a recent edit now expanding it and adding more emphasis to it - one you defend, which is pretty ironic. Not only is that not what irony means (just another thing you don't understand) but the edit is just as non-judgemental as before. Anyone can make a change to anything with no fuss, but the moment I try to make my own, simply because you disagree with it, you'll start an edit war. That's a lie, anyone can make any change they want, they just shouldn't whine when that change sparks an argument. I wasn't the only one arguing against you or undoing your edits, and when you've gone back on your word twice now you shouldn't be surprised that your edits are being rejected. Excuse it all you want with made-up timeframes, but I suspect had it been an edit you disagreed with in the first place you'd have paid it no mind. If there's an edit I disagree with for personal reasons I make a topic on the talk page and wait to get feedback before I insist that I'm the only person who understands a person, the page, and that everyone arguing against me is wrong. You act in this shitty way thinking that snarky comments and threatening to have people banned if you don't get your way will fly- If I wanted to bully you then I wouldn't tell you that going to the mods with your current arguments is a bad idea, I would've told you to stop or else you'd be banned from the site. I also never once tried to use how much I've contributed as some form of justification, I brought up what I've done as an example for how I'm not the type of person you insist I am. I repeatedly said I'd like to work with you on this- Cite me one fucking time in this topic where you asked for my cooperation to reach a compromise. At no point have you tried to reach any kind of middle ground, you've repeatedly demanded the page be changed specifically to satisfy you and only you, and you've never asked for my cooperation to make that happen. You can say you've asked for cooperation, but everyone can see that's a bullshit lie. it's not that I want to pursue edit wars and be a shit editor, it's that there is no arguing with you. If you had any facts backing you up, I'd be more than willing to listen to them, but have you cited anything beyond your own opinion? NOPE. I've never seen any successful arguing with you. Then you haven't been to many talk pages have you? If I didn't have interest in listening to what other people had to say then I'd never make or participate in these discussions. All I wanted was to cut down clutter and solve this in a way that we could both benefit from, but it's not gonna work. I'm as much to blame for that. Bullshit, if you wanted to cut down on clutter then you wouldn't be focusing so hard on one sentence that you've used every other possible argument to remove as well. Until there's arbitration, I will not discuss this further with you and will maintain my edits. Then I'm sorry, but I'm going to renew my quest for you to be banned then. A person who has no facts on their side, who refuses to listen to a multitude of users, and who has gone back on their word twice has nothing of value to contribute to the site. -- Triacom (talk) 23:18, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

At least, let's agree on keeping the page as is now, as of the most recent edit adding the edit war thing. Can we? TheBadageBoys (talk) 22:40, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

You're the one causing the edit war, and you've gone back on your word twice now. I'm not stupid enough to trust you again and assume you won't go back on your word for a third time. -- Triacom (talk) 23:18, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

"A person who has no facts on their side, who refuses to listen to a multitude of users." That is irony. I'm requesting moderator arbitration myself. TheBadageBoys (talk) 00:10, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Please show me where you cited a single fact, just one. -- Triacom (talk) 00:11, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Undoing Edits

The difference is that if an edit stands for a while (like a month, in this case) without being contested, it's part of the page. But if your edit was immediately undone, you take it to the talk page instead of starting an edit war. --58.162.223.230 17:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Possibly, but it wasn't there a month. TheBadageBoys (talk) 17:57, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

>It was there for about 3 weeks

Look, mate, I think it's pretty obvious you're doing this in bad faith at this point. --58.162.223.230 19:56, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

That wasn't obvious when they began making false claims about the arguments I was making and pretending I was saying something I never did? -- Triacom (talk) 20:03, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Now that I've actually read through what he's been saying then, yes, it's been obvious for a while. My apologies. --58.162.223.230 20:16, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't be entirely surprised if you're the same person or friends. One ridiculous accusation for another. TheBadageBoys (talk) 22:14, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I'd be surprised if I had, according to their IP, I live in an entirely separate hemisphere from that anon. -- Triacom (talk) 23:18, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

"Multiple people disagree, they must be samefags". Mate, get over yourself. Also, check my talk page, you'll see Triacom and I have had a major disagreement in the past. --58.162.223.230 00:17, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

No, obviously we must be the same person who just had multiple personalities that also flew to Australia any time they wanted to argue against themselves. -- Triacom (talk) 00:20, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Not getting a joke, huh. TheBadageBoys (talk) 00:20, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

>I was only pretending to be retarded

You're really not helping your case. --58.162.223.230 00:21, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

OK. TheBadageBoys (talk) 00:22, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Why are we mentioning if he was racist or not in the first place?

I don't see what either version adds to the page. --Agiletek (talk) 23:50, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

As has been gone over above, Lovecraft's racism had a strong impact on his work. The essay I linked in particular goes over his feelings on the matter, as well as how it impacted his writing of A Shadow Over Innsmouth, and as such it helped form the Cthulhu mythos as a whole. The page is also about him as a person, and his racism was integral to who he was as a person. -- Triacom (talk) 00:10, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

That's exactly what I'm trying to argue for. TheBadageBoys (talk) 00:07, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

You've had it explained to you by more than just me across three separate topics. Don't play ignorant. -- Triacom (talk) 00:10, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Explained to why an older edit could be acceptable, not the new one, and you act like opinions can't change. Especially given this article's one we're trying to trim up, I take the stance that the line should be removed entirely. TheBadageBoys (talk) 00:16, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Bullshit, you tried to remove the new one too, and you've been arguing against its existence in your now topic. Nobody's trying to 'trim up' the article, least of all you, who's used every possible justification they can to get that sentence removed. -- Triacom (talk) 00:21, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

And now you're trying to go to the new one too. Please stop pretending you're trying to go back to the "other times" I acquiesced. It doesn't work when it's blatantly obvious. TheBadageBoys (talk) 00:23, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm keeping the page the way it was before you started fucking with it for the third time, which included a deletion of the sentence you're now trying to leave it at. You haven't made your case, you haven't cited a single fact, the only thing you've got is the opinion that you don't like it. You don't get to change your mind a again on what's acceptable after deciding three times that sentence needs to go. -- Triacom (talk) 00:58, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

"The Mythos wouldn't exist without racism" isn't an argument either. Well, technically it is, but it's completely false by every metric and merit of common sense. TheBadageBoys (talk) 01:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

If you'd like to disprove it, then please show me how the essay and all of its sources are bullshit. I'd love to see you try beyond using arguments such as common sense telling you it's false. -- Triacom (talk) 01:53, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I might be misremembering, but I believe that I had made a similar argument to Triacom a little while ago (without having to go to the talk page because I don't intentionally make an ass of myself, usually), but didn't make many (or any, you can look at the edit history yourself if you wanna fact check, this is all from memory) changes because I'm not a huge Lovecraft fan, partially because cosmic and particularly supernatural horror (or really any fiction) doesn't particularly interest me, but also because his racism is so well documented that even I knew about it, and it bled enough into what little I have read (The Shadow over Innsmouth, The Rats in the Walls, and Facts Concerning the Late Arthur Jermyn, possibly a few others from back in the day but I wouldn't bet on it) that it makes me genuinely uncomfortable. If you're such a scholar on Lovecraft I feel like you would be well aware of the sheer number of personal journals and letters he wrote concerning race and "cultural degradation," largely focused on African Americans and the Irish, which a 3 minute Google search or a $30 book in the sources on his Wikipedia article will yield successfully. --Kracked Mynd (talk) 03:49, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Relax, he already flounced. --Newerfag (talk) 13:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Where Can I find out what his racist beliefs were??

Every time I look for his letters or 1st hand source, I'm barraged with many different contradictions about his racist beliefs, does someone know where I can actually find this shit? -- Phantom in the Distant Seas (talk) 16:04, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

We do have a reference section that has one of his poems copied wholesale, that would be a good place to start. If you really need somebody to break Lovecraft's racism down for you, then you can find that too by clicking this link. It's filled with direct citations you can double check. Not only was he racist in writing, but in his correspondence when he chose to defend his views, though he eventually became less racist later in life (though that doesn't mean he became accepting). -- Triacom (talk) 17:15, 29 August 2020 (UTC)