Cthulhu is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones Date Process Result March 3, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted June 10, 2007 Peer review Reviewed
Current status: Former featured article candidate

Horror B‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Fictional characters C‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

Returned the note on non-universality of Derleth's interpretation, and supplied it with printed source that has ISBN --User:AlexeyTOD 20:55 Jun 28, 2007 (UTC)

This should not be mass deleted without discussion; thanks. I understand that Cthulhu Mythos in popular culture exists, but that is not the same topic; this article's section is scoped specifically to Cthulhu and does not have the dozens of references to other Mythos elements that article features. Also note that the IPC section in this article contains material, the Visual Arts section, that was elsewhere in this article prior to the IPC section being re-created, though clearly actually IPC content, and it in particular shouldn't be indiscriminately blown away because somebody gets angry about the section. We've also mostly managed to keep the section to prose rather than the laundry-list tables of Cthulhu Mythos in popular culture, which is valuable. Lastly, I re-created the section to try to make it so that there was a valid place in this article for the relentless re-additions of arguably valid content that people kept making, instead of petulantly hammering on this attempted banishment to the general Cthulhu Mythos article that clearly wasn't working. All these factors should be taken into account in dealing with the section. —chaos5023 (talk) 23:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The point of having a pop culture article is to avoid overwhelming other articles with trivia. The pop culture article exists, put it there. If you feel it is inappropriate create a Cthulhu in pop culture article and organize the two. An article is not a dumping ground for every piece of useless trivia. Ekwos (talk) 23:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be laboring under a misapprehension that popular culture sections have to be factored into a separate article. This is not correct, and while Cthulhu in popular culture is an idea, I don't really see that it's necessary, and it's definitely not obligatory the way you imply. And no, articles are not dumping grounds for every piece of useless trivia; this is an argument for spending your time cleaning up the IPC section, not edit warring to indiscriminately blow it away, sourced content included. —chaos5023 (talk) 23:52, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm simply of the opinion that there is a more appropriate place for the material, namely the existing popular culture article. And I did clean it up in the way most appropriate to the article. See you in 24 hours. Ekwos (talk) 23:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cthulhu is popular culture, so the latter article is tautological and hence redundant. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between an article about Cthulhu as a pop cultural phenomenon and a list of trivia. Ekwos (talk) 00:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am talking about article definitions and not the subsequent article quality. Shifting deckchairs by creating "in popular article" daughter articles solely for the removal of laundry lists of trivia has been a colossal timesink and headache. I'd much rather the material was just removed and then noted on the talkpage so it can be readded if sourced. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience moving to the talk page usually results in it being returned to the article whereas creating a new page does not have that result. Lists are too easy to add to and invite increasingly marginal material. In addition there seem to be people trying to produce the ultimate "complete" list for a given topic, even though there can never be a complete list. Paragraphs restricted to what might generally be agreed to be the more important and notable examples don't bother me, and are actually interesting. Ekwos (talk) 03:55, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely agree in avoiding lists. This is why some secondary material discussing pop culture influence is good to encapsulate and frame it all. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:09, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about this, and really, the spectacular success of Cthulhu as a memetic virus is much more interesting from an encyclopedic perspective than plot details from the primary sources, which makes excising popular culture influence as a subject for the article highly ridiculous. The sort of framing material you mention is somewhat lacking, though, and listing the individual cases of influence doesn't necessarily communicate the pervasiveness of Cthulhu as a pop culture phenomenon. I don't suppose anybody knows of any particular sources that specifically discuss Cthulhu's pop culture ubiquity, that we could draw on for a better framing discussion without committing SYN? —chaos5023 (talk) 22:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are some books around. I have one, but have been a bit busy IRL. Luckily that should end today or tomorrow and will see what I can dig up...:) Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is somewhat similar to the problem the "ninja" article had for a while (and I followed with amusement). There was a definite conflict between people who wanted to look at ninjas as a historical phenomenon, and those who only cared about them as a pop cultural phenomenon. The article went back and forth and looked like crap until it was agreed that these were essentially entirely different topics and merited different articles. Ekwos (talk) 00:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which for mine is a really concrete way to look at things. part of the fascination I have with pop culture is how an entity evolves over time from reality/folklore to fiction. We covered alot in the vampire article in its evolution from folkloric being through 19thC literature and into stage and film. This can be done with ninja, ghost, werewolf and many other notable topics (discussing how misconceptions come about etc.). Hiving them off completely stonkers opportunities for this and is completely arbitrary. The trouble is the lack of sources online. As I said, I will try and get to this soon. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds nice until people start fighting over the lead image with one group wanting a historical print out of Japan, and another group wanting the cover art of the latest video game involving ninjas, and insisting that it captures the true 'spirit' of the ninja. Ekwos (talk) 06:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. Yeah, that's a bad scene. I think we're safe from that particular problem on this page, though. Not that we don't get people trying to insert assertions about the historical Cthulhu, but we just revert them. :) —chaos5023 (talk) 06:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No contest for mine. I would have gone with historical there. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm sort of jerk. So as my addition was removed because unreferrence (hmmm...guess I need to take a screenshot), the same rule must applies to all of them. L-Zwei (talk) 05:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uh... isn't that textbook WP:POINT? —chaos5023 (talk) 07:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I were partly joking ^_^ . Alright, it's my silly move. They do use direct name and not just name droping either. Sorry. L-Zwei (talk) 11:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Sall good. I was just very confused. :) I poked through the history a little looking for a removed reference you might be talking about, but couldn't find one; what was it? —chaos5023 (talk) 17:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One of the points of requiring secondary references is to establish notability. That is to say, it establishes that someone else outside of wikipedia thought it was something that merited being noted. Just because something is true doesn't make it worthy of inclusion in an article here. Ekwos (talk) 05:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In keeping with the revamp, I'd like to propose a new image that is a tad less surreal and more menacing - specifically, an image that shows intent. I'd like to suggest this - ([1]). Thoughts? Thebladesofchaos (talk) 03:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not my favorite treatment (the intent, as you say, is too stereotypically EEEVUL, where Cthulhu should be alien, and the manipulator is far too hand-like and not claw-like enough). But, I have to say I've always hated the one in the article tremendously and would find almost anything an improvement. I'm under the impression that "Somniturne" would need to contribute it to Commons under CC-SA or release it into the public domain in order for us to use it, though; since there are free replacements available, it's impossible to claim a fair use rationale for using the image otherwise. —chaos5023 (talk) 03:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree re: the image. I will keep looking. Regards Thebladesofchaos (talk) 05:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okeydokey. Keep in mind that the licensing issue is going to apply to pretty much anything that isn't already verifiably in the public domain. —chaos5023 (talk) 17:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure nobody who actually does any of this is going to read the talk page, but on the off chance: if you're going to add irrelevant nonsense to the Legacy section (which you may as well not because you're just going to get reverted), could you at least not tack it on with "also"? This leads to a chain of "alsos" that reads like absolute crap, and is basically an example of what TVTropes calls "Conversation in the Main Page" or "natter" (you can read their fine article on the topic to understand why it's bad, but in essence, the article should read like an encyclopedia article, not a conversation between editors). Thanks in advance. —chaos5023 (talk) 18:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cthulu was starred in a relatively recent episode of South Park. Im too lazy, but edit away.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.64.106.232 (talk • contribs)

Just because that's true doesn't mean that it's worth mentioning. Bring a third-party secondary source (i.e. not a Comedy Central page) that is not just a blog or Wikia page (because anyone can make/edit those). A magazine or newspaper would be appropriate. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Take a close look at the top edge of a dollar bill. Cthulhu sleeps in his submerged prison?

Hey, someone has to start new conspiracy theories! SteveBaker (talk) 13:52, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... *facepalm*

And now we have more material for IP editors to push... Ian.thomson (talk) 15:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Laugh all you want, but there is indeed a legitimate and thousands-member strong modern religion devoted to Cthulhu. This is all 100% verifiable--it is not a crank, or vandalism. Should it be included under the Legacy section on the Cthulhu wiki, even if it's just a very brief mention? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voraxith (talk • contribs) 14:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody's laughing, we're just after reliable sources to support the material you're adding. Wikipedia actually has a very strict definition of "verifiable" - it's whether or not something has been covered by reliable sources, such as newspapers, academic papers or published literature. Can you point to any such coverage of this "thousands-member strong modern religion"? I had a quick look around when you first linked to it, but couldn't find anything. The sources you've provided - Mr Satanis's self-published books - are self-published sources, so we can't use them as sources. --McGeddon (talk) 14:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. There are lots of sites out there purporting to be Cthulu cults ([2] and [3] for example) - but no evidence whatever that these are genuine believers and not 'fake religions' like the flying spaghetti monster or the invisible pink unicorn. We really can't go out and say that these are genuine without some very solid third party evidence of that. It's overwhelmingly likely that what you're seeing is some kind of fan website or other. SteveBaker (talk) 17:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We don't just need evidence that this is real, and that it is beyond a few geeks trying to scare their WASP fundamentalist communities, but that it is worthy of inclusion. Has this group had any effect on society? Does the world care? Doesn't appear so, and that is why we're not including any Cults of Cthulhu. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The prospective Cthulhu cult doesn't even necessarily need to be a notable topic (then it could conceivably have an article about it), but per the current standards on this page, it does need to be documented by a reliable source as discussed in WP:TRIVIA. —chaos5023 (talk) 19:01, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've read what you all had to say on the subject, and as far as it goes I agree with you. I have contacted the leader of the group and requested he supply the legal documentation that recognized this religion in the eyes of the law. As far as other sources go, let's face it--most small, independent religions don't get much reliable coverage. I can point you to their main website [4] as well as suggest that you check out their member's forum and their YouTube channel, The Ichor. As far as the self-published sources go, those are this religion's scripture, so I assumed that they would be considered reliable sources--kind of like the New Testament for Christianity. Most groups like this aren't out there trying to make a name for themselves and get news attention, so finding other reliable sources can be difficult, but this is a real thing, and I believe that it merits at least a minor mention under the Legacy of Cthulhu article. —-Voraxith (talk) 01:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It simply comes down to WP:V: "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source". If zero reliable sources have considered the forum or the ebook to be worth writing about, then an encyclopaedia shouldn't be writing about it either. --McGeddon (talk) 08:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ian.thomson's comments. as this is simply not notable. Those involved might also like to remember that the subject in question is fiction. PurpleHeartEditor (talk) 02:28, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But this is precisely my point in thinking that this is worthy of mention--that something fictional has evolved to the point of being accepted as reality by, albeit a small, minority. Even during Lovecraft's lifetime, he had to deal with individuals who believed he was writing about esoteric truths (notably William Lumley). The Necronomicon is fiction, yet it's real life religious and occult uses have been well documented on Wikipedia. Why not Cthulhu? —-Voraxith (talk) 07:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That question has already been answered: lack of published, reliable, second-party sources. Nobody's denying that it exists. The fact that no RS cover it indicates that nobody outside the group really cares about it. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 13:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone has already covered the lack of reliable sources. As far as we know, the CultofCthulhu site, the forum, the youtube channel, could all just be one guy.

Also, the New testament comparison is completly inaccurate: the Christianity article cites historical and current academic sources describing the religion. If Christianity had somehow managed to avoid any mention in any historical or academic document's work, I'd not object to that article being deleted. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When considering User:Voraxith's comments here, editors might wish to do a search on his name at the CultOfCthulu site. SteveBaker (talk) 15:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! I totally forgot the possibility of a conflict of interest. Good catch. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simply put, it's relevant to the subject. There is a legally-certified religion that worships Cthulhu, it is well known within the Left Hand Path community, and has been referenced in at least one documentary, as well as thousands of YouTube videos, and countless blog/forum posts. Anyone looking to read/learn about Cthulhu would be losing out on significant information, since it may drastically change their perspective on Cthulhu and Lovecraft. Not to mention the vast amount of Cthulhu/Lovecraft information that can be found on the Cult of Cthulhu forums... Really, it's a travesty that this is even an issue. The bibles (Cthulhu Cult and Liber A:O) are on Amazon, with several reviews and many purchases. If you need a source, take a single moment to actually read the main website, or look at the member count on the forums, or search Cult of Cthulhu on YouTube (which is watched MUCH MUCH more than television by the internet community, and is a significant source of information for a vast number of people). If you belonged to a religion and people were telling you that it's not noteworthy, you'd be outraged too. I'll be adding an entry for the Cult of Cthulhu, and I'll make sure it stays up, so, delete it if you want, but I (and a few others) will be re-posting it at least once a day. So, really, the logical thing to do is leave it up and stop trying to keep people ignorant. You're breaking the world, don't you want to try and repair it? Also, your own damn website says it's fine...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NNC (also, a small entry would hardly create "Undue Weight"). I think the real question is; How is anyone inconvenienced or at a loss due to the Cult of Cthulhu's inclusion into the Legacy section? To exclude a mention would be against the entire point of Wikipedia and all Wikiprojects as a whole. CTHULHU_CHILD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.69.17.39 (talk) 10:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:TLDR: learn to be concise.

See WP:EVERYTHING: "relevant" doesn't matter, "legally-certified" doesn't matter.

Fair call, I was unaware of this, and as such, you can imagine my confusion. I now know this is only for mainstream media and information. The truth is irrelevant. CTHULHU_CHILD

See WP:RS: youtube vids and blog posts do not even begin to mean squat diddly. What is the name of the documentary and who published it? If it's some hipster with a camera on youtube, we don't care.

Why? How is YouTube any more or less truthful/legitimate/reliable than any other source? Also, I believe it was called "Lovecraft: Fear of the Unknown", but I'm not sure. It was a decent budget legitimate documentary, and talks a bit about the cults of cthulhu and specifically mentions the current Cult of Cthulhu. It was from this documentary that I discovered the religion in the first place. CTHULHU_CHILD

See WP:NOR: the presence of its religious texts on Amazon means nothing.

In response to your attempts to Wikilawyer, no reliable secondary sources have been provided regarding the cult, and the consensus is that we will not include any mention of it until reliable secondary sources are provided. While WP:NOTE does not automatically limit what can be placed in an article, those standards are still good guideline as to whether or not the cult is more than just some neckbeard in his mom's basement banging on the keyboard for attention.

How is first-hand information worse than second-hand? Lol. There are many pages that mention and talk about the Cult of Cthulhu, including the Satanic International Network. I consider the guidelines here to be too vague, what do you want a source from? Tell me what you personally want, as it's only really you deleting it. Wikipedia as a whole isn't at all handicapped by a couple lines of text on a somewhat obscure page, and it's pretty obvious that the Cult of Cthulhu is legitimate... If it's a legal religion (ie: the government recognises it, yet you don't?), and hundreds if not thousands of people from around the world talk about it, take the time to make video's and books about it, have a radio-show mentioning it often and formerly hosted by the leader of the Cult of Cthulhu. Can't see how something could be more deserving of a mention. How big do you really expect a Cult of Cthulhu to get? It's already being mentioned about as much as it (or any alternate religion) will ever get. Also, tell me more about Zen Baptist, as I have a feeling they are a much smaller and less important (philosophically speaking) than the Cult of Cthulhu. My beliefs are irrelevant, I just think it's really interesting as a HP Lovecraft fan, as anyone who actually cares about the Cthulhu Mythos would want to know there is a real-life organised religion founded on it CTHULHU_CHILD

We don't have an article on Zen Baptist, but I've never complained about that because I hold my beliefs because they satisfy me, I do not hold them just to get attention unlike some people. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for anyone, we do not let anyone promote anything here. If you begin edit warring, we'll just get page protection, meaning that anonymous and new accounts will not be able to edit this page.

Ian.thomson (talk) 18:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree 100%. PurpleHeartEditor (talk) 00:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given yet another attempt to add this information, I think it is time to push for page protection. PurpleHeartEditor (talk) 02:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or block the IP. Or both. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 06:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do what you want, I won't give up till I'm forced to, as I have morals... You might want to read up about them at some point. Morals I'm not oblivious to your ulterior motives as a member of a mainstream religion. Satanism and it's kin have always been ostracized, I did not expect it on Wikipedia, however. Also, if many people are trying to add this information, wouldn't you think it's worth being there? Interesting reverse logic these rules-nazi's have. CTHULHU_CHILD

That was a ridiculous comment. Do what you want, I won't give up till I'm forced to. Unfortunately you will be. The article will be protected and comments like that will have get you blocked. as I have morals... You might want to read up about them at some point. Morals have nothing to do with editing on Wikipedia - here we present factual, objective information. Editors are asked to leave their emotions out of the process. YOU might want to remember this before you make comments such as this, and also decide to pass judgement on your fellow editors: You might want to read up about them at some point. Inappropriate and completely incorrect. As to the remainder : I'm not oblivious to your ulterior motives as a member of a mainstream religion. Satanism and it's kin have always been ostracized, I did not expect it on Wikipedia, however. Also, if many people are trying to add this information, wouldn't you think it's worth being there? Interesting reverse logic these rules-nazi's have. This is once again all inference and poorly judged. Read the discussion presented by your fellow editors, and then read [[5]] and [[6]]. Please do not post such comments again, or re-add the information. Thank you. PurpleHeartEditor (talk) 02:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I give up? If the truth can be out there for even a small time, then my obligation to humanity and myself is fulfilled. I just cannot sit by and watch injustice continue. As Jean-Luc Picard famously said, "The line must be drawn here! This far, no further!". CTHULHU_CHILD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.69.17.39 (talk) 06:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, here we present factual, objective information. It's factually and objectively a legally recognized religion, and has obviously had many references throughout all forms of media, and is known by thousands of people. CTHULHU_CHILD

Calm down, WP:TRUTH-crusader. Nobody is impressed. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 06:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who could I possibly be trying to impress. I honestly don't see how something that obviously exists and is influential doesn't deserve a small mention on a Wikipedia page. CTHULHU_CHILD

Also, I love the irony in WP:TRUTH, as you think it's funny, but with what I am saying, it's actually true/fact. Let's just assume I'm right, in which case, I would have to act completely as I am. If I was wrong, then why would I persist? I have read every article linked to me, and none say that it MUST be deleted, and there is no-one here contesting the factual existence of the 1000-strong Cult of Cthulhu (and it's many mentions in media), so why is it not worth mention? CTHULHU_CHILD

All the relevant information can now be found in greater detail and often with more information and sources at Cthulhu Mythos in popular culture. It took a solid two days to get this into shape but that it is only the truly noteworthy examples, it should serve as a great link. Note that we use such links to avoid repetition, as there is far too much of this already with the Lovecraft articles. Such efforts help keep things concise and easily accessible for readers. Regards PurpleHeartEditor (talk) 02:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine and all, and repetition *should* be avoided, but the examples in the article are few and serve as an example of how the character is used without the reader having to click through to find out. The longer article would be good for people actually interested in specifics, while the brief section in this article is currently at a good length for the casual reader. The section as it stands doesn't need to be completely removed solely for the purpose of removing duplication. -Gohst (talk) 12:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...in thinking about it OK, but with some tweaking. PurpleHeartEditor (talk) 13:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In keeping with this, the prime examples that reflect the Legacy have been retained, while those that are just samples of a larger category can be found at the Cthulhu Mythos in popular culture page. Regards PurpleHeartEditor (talk) 01:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]