Talk:Cthulhu/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Cthulhu. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Is there a widely accepted pronunciation (or variations) for Cthulhu? If so, should the entry feature it/them? --Phil Wolff (talk) 15:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

See Cthulhu#Spelling and pronunciation. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:10, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The links to mythostomes.com (in some of the Notes) are dead.174.111.242.35 (talk) 09:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

'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)

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)

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)

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)

... *facepalm*

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

Odd that this thread hasn't been automatically archived.--~TPW 17:05, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.69.17.39 (talk) 10:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.69.17.39 (talk • contribs)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.69.17.39 (talk • contribs)

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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.69.17.39 (talk • contribs)

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)

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

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)

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

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.69.17.39 (talk • contribs)

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)

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!". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.69.17.39 (talk) 06:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.69.17.39 (talk • contribs)

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

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.69.17.39 (talk • contribs)

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? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.69.17.39 (talk) 07:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:V is simple enough, and has already been quoted in this thread: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." - if your forum has not yet received any press coverage beyond a "mention" in a documentary that you aren't sure you can remember the name of, then we shouldn't be writing about it in an encyclopaedia. All you need to do is bring a reliable source to the table. --McGeddon (talk) 11:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia does tell the truth. We do not lie about the Cult of Cthulu - we simply choose not to mention it. There is a huge difference.

We also choose not to mention the name of Britney Spears grandparents or what company made the concrete for the Oakland Bay Bridge, neither is there an article about what the Queen of England had for breakfast on Jun 23rd 1994. Sometimes facts are simply too obscure to be worth mentioning. WP:NOTE explains why we leave things out that don't seem notable.

Also, when something is considered sufficiently notable, if it is considered even somewhat controversial (which this debate proves that the Cult of Cthulu clearly is), then we also need proof that what we're saying is the truth. Because people (like you) argue about this, we have produced carefully thought-out standards for what constitutes proof ("reliable sources"). So if my great-aunt Agnes mentions it to me over breakfast, that doesn't make it true. If some blogger happens to mention it, or someone makes a YouTube video about it, that isn't proof that it's true either because it's evident that bloggers and YouTubers lie and falsify stuff all the time...they aren't "reliable" sources. We need a disinterested party with a reputation for reasonably solid fact-checking to write about it - and preferably more than one such source - then we can be reasonably confident that it's "The Truth" and write about it in the encyclopedia with appropriate footnotes to say how we know that it's true.

But suppose there was an article in (say) the New York Times describing the activities of the cult - and perhaps some weighty "History Of World Religions" type of book, written by an expert in religious practices and published by a reputable publishing house were to describe the practices of the cult in some detail. Well, THEN we would certainly write about the cult in this article, and probably even write an article about it directly because it would be notable, verifiable and reliably sourced. However, we have none of that evidence for truth - and no evidence that the cult is sufficiently notable even if it is a true thing. Without evidence through reliable sources and evidence of notability - we're not going to do it.

We most certainly do write about new religions - no matter how silly they seem - providing we have references and evidence of notability. Check out the article on the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Invisible Pink Unicorn or even Heaven's Gate (religious group). For more serious examples, check out List of new religious movements for True Buddha School (a religion founded in 1980) or Wicca (founded in 1949).

But this edit warring tactic won't change our minds. Wikipedia is run by WP:Consensus - meaning that when more or less everyone more or less agrees - then that's what happens. There are more than enough people here who are saying that you're wrong and there is nobody backing you up. That means that we have a solid consensus not to mention the cult in this article. If you continually re-add the information in the teeth of an opposing consensus, then this will piss people off and result in one or two things:

1. The article being semi-protected (meaning that only editors who are signed in with Wikipedia accounts can edit it).
2. Your IP address being blocked from editing Wikipedia for some period of time.

Editing Wikipedia is not a right, it is not protected by free speech laws or anything like that. It is a privilege, ultimately granted to you by the site owners. If you abuse that privilege (as you most certainly are right now), then that privilege can very easily be withdrawn by any of our thousands of admins. If you persist, (probably by creating sock-puppet accounts or something) - then those too will be blocked and you'll probably wind up getting a permanent lifetime ban on ever editing Wikipedia again. This may have serious consequences for you, personally, in the future - so you should carefully consider what this means.

I have seen this happen dozens and dozens of times with editors just like you - the outcome is always the same. In the half dozen years I've been working on Wikipedia, I have never, even once, seen information ending up in the encyclopedia against consensus just because an edit-warring individual starts down the path that you have. In every single case the individual either sees reason and gives it up - or they ended up with a lifetime ban from the site.

So: Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass - we're done here.

SteveBaker (talk) 13:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying. I guess my real issue then, is with the guidelines for what is considered noteworthy. I imagine something like that is not really up for discussion, regardless of the individual who wishes to discuss it. Consider for a moment you may have seriously underestimated me, and I don't mean that as a threat in any way, then I'm sure you can understand my position to some degree. I did what I could for what I consider an unbiased relevant truth. Is this a good source? I did WP:Search engine test. Also, there is a social network for memebers and non-members who are interested in the cult... http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/arts/literature/cthulhu3.htm CTHULHU_CHILD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.69.17.39 (talk) 14:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

If you have a problem with what the guidelines say - then you should go to WP:NOTE and voice your concerns on the corresponding talk page. Those guidelines are not static - perhaps you'll persuade the folks who work there that you have a valid concern and the guideline could be changed. Personally, I think that's unlikely because this particular guideline is rather well-established. But here at Cthulhu, we have to abide by whatever the guidelines say - right or wrong - and complaining about them on this talk page is entirely pointless.

Have I seriously underestimated you? I have no idea, and it really doesn't matter. I've seen people at least as determined as you get blocked from editing Wikipedia for the rest of their lives because of this kind of fruitless activity...I hate it when that happens, but it happens alarmingly frequently.

Determination is not a bad trait - but you have to use it with care. In this case, what you want simply isn't going to happen. Hence: Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass.

SteveBaker (talk) 15:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I was under the impression that I did already Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass with my last comment. I haven't made more edits as I see that, regardless of whether I am right or not, this is the wrong place to voice that. I also noticed no comment on the "HowStuffWorks" link (of an article written by a senior staff member of that website, I was hoping you could let me know if that source is good enough, and if not, why not? (I imagine HowStuffWorks may not be verifiable enough for you, but I just thought I'd ask.) Anyway, underestimating me is an important factor when interpreting what I am saying, as I'm sure you'd understand... CTHULHU CHILD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.69.17.39 (talk) 00:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The user "Tylerknightofcadiz" made an obnoxious addition to the page (in the form of a "Recent Sightings" section). I removed it, but I feel like the page could use some protection. Another course of action would be to block the user. Look at revision history for the page to make sure you get the right account. 67.60.26.176 (talk) 07:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Not to worry: I am sure quite a few people watch this page and will take the necessary steps if vandalism is repeated. This sort of vandalism rarely stays up for more than a few minutes. Mezigue (talk) 09:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The initial paragraph only describes Chtulhu as a "fictional cosmic entity". Even just adding an adjective or two, such as "malevolent" or "ancient" would add tremendously to the paragraph's ability to introduce its subject. 184.163.9.163 (talk) 01:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

What I'm more concerned about is that Cthulhu is described as "fictional", while many other cosmic entities (among others, most mainstream gods) are not described as fictional. I think we should have harmony and either remove the word "fictional" here or go ahead and add it to all articles about gods. 62.113.182.248 (talk) 23:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The Cthulhu Mythos is unanimously regarded as a work of fiction, not a religious or mythological text. Cthulhu is just a character in a series of pulp horror stories published in the early 20th century. He can't be classed in the same group as, say, Zeus or Jehovah. —Flax5 18:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm kinda confused about the "bibliography" section and why it's there. My opinion is that it doesn't need to be there, but I don't want to just delete it if it does need to. Ideas?

Takaia (talk) 23:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Seeing as there are quite a few dead links to H. P. Lovecraft stories in this article, I started changing the citations so that they link to the Wikisource versions of each story. Is citing Wikisource in Wikipedia legit? I'm conflicted because it may not be "verifyable" to cite something on one Wiki from another Wiki.

Takaia (talk) 23:08, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

seems someone at google has a nerdy side. type ph-nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn into google and google spellcheck/recomendation will point out the correct method of ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn may be worth a trivia mention — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.91.9.153 (talk) 03:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Not worth a mention without reliable source coverage; see WP:TRIVIA. Also doesn't reflect any manual intervention by any Google employee; it's the normal algorithmic behavior of their "did you mean" engine. —chaos5023 (talk) 14:37, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it might be useful to have a section on the character in popular culture.

It was featured heavily in a two part south park episode and is also used regulalry in memes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.209.206 (talk) 11:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I was going to mention the same thing! Let's add a link to the South Park episode. It also seems that there's a [of Ubuntu linux] by this name.

~ ReubenGarrett (talk) 12:41, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

You want the Cthulhu Mythos in popular culture article for this kind of thing. --McGeddon (talk) 12:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

In response to the "Lead too short" flag, I have inserted a brief description of Cthulhu's anatomy, plus a mention that C. is presented as evil and that human sacrifices are conducted by cultists in his name. Hoping this is enough, I have removed the "Lead too short" flag. Feel free to increase the lead further! Goblinshark17 (talk) 03:25, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Added this image and caption. I know we need to beware of trivia, but I think it's worth having at least one image beside the napkin sketch. I chose this one because: it's outside the normal fiction genres, it's from a non-anglophone country, and it's visually impressive. — kwami (talk) 02:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Is Cthulhu part "man" or is it just anthropomophic? I cannot find this description from the original work, only the imagination of the "human caricature".Gan Ye Hern (talk) 04:06, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Cthulhu predates the evolution of the human species. Pretty sure that he could not himself be part human. 208.91.1.34 (talk) 04:33, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Not human at all...just vague human shape....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:23, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

The character Cthulhu originally appears in the Grimoirium Imperium attributed to Dr. John Dee which he claimed to have received in 1581 from a fraudulent medium named Barnabas Saul. A link to the original work can be found here [7]. The origin story of the entire Cthulhu mythos needs to be completely revamped to reflect the true origin story, but I lack the time to do so myself. The pdf link provided should have sufficient information to go on for anyone else so inclined. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.214.169.69 (talk) 08:56, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Lovecraft wrote on several occasions that Abdul Alhazred was completely fictional. Therefore this source, which says it is derived from the works of Abd Al-Hazred (another version of the same name) is also completely fictional. Removing from the article. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Welfare State ‖ 09:41, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I think having a phonetic pronunciation section would benefit the page, but I don't actually know how to pronounce it. for example, the name joseph has "Pronunciation /ˈdʒoʊzəf/ or /ˈdʒoʊsəf/". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.212.29.90 (talk) 12:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

As the Spelling and Pronunciation section notes, Lovecraft himself was not consistent with the pronunciation, and it gives the pronunciations IPA [ˈχɬʊl.ɬuː] or "Khlûl'-hloo" and /kəˈθuːluː/ kə-THOO-loo. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:06, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

/kəˈθuːluː/?? How the hell is "Ke Bux Lux" anywhere close to "Ka Thoo Loo"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 (talk) 21:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC) — IPA misunderstanding or trolling.

Given the idea that correct pronunciation of the name invokes the presence of the entity, might I suggest something not too close to the actual pronunciation is preferable in casual discussion of the subject? I think the (deliberate) mispronunciation of K'tulu is wise.--Naaman Brown (talk) 19:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Please, could someone who have access to H. P. Lovecraft, Selected Letters V, pp. 10 – 11 confirm that "Kthûl'-hloo", as it appears here, has been correctly transcribed, and isn't "Khlûl’-hloo" as stated in www.hplovecraft.com? I think the 1st one would make sense, but all of the Clu... pronunciations that he supposedly wrote in letters (whose references I haven't seen except this one) would imply an arbitrary spelling by Lovecraft, and that's quite disappointing. How can "Cthu" be read "Clu"?? Red Mordor (talk) 21:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

When I read the pronunciation section I conclude that Lovecraft had no idea on linguistics, but readers are trying to make amends, so I apologise for throwing my tuppence in.

(i) I would argue that [sic.] be placed after the quote as guttural thickness sounds like linguistic gibberish and is therefore ambiguous. Linguistically there are at least three things this could mean. There is a process where consonants are co-articulated with a pharyngeal sound, called pharyngealization, e.g. arabic emphatic consonants (they have dots under them in Latin letters, but the IPA symbol differs). The glottis influences phonation, so you can speak with a modal voice (normal), breathy (murmur), stiff or creaky voice —I would say creaky voice is meant as "guttural thickness" if interpreted as such. Lastly, "guttural" is commonly used to describe something with lots of uvulars and fricatives, such as arabic q (uvular stop) or Scottish loch (velar fricative, /x/, kh in arabic, H in Klingon) and French R (voiced uvular fricative) — amusingly, /qθ/ is a worse sequence than the /qn/ in the Klingon "nuqneH".

(ii) It would be nice to link to a page for impossible sounds. Wiki has an article on phonotactics (allowed sounds), but there isn't an article on universal phonotactical constraints (or therefore impossible sounds).

(iii) kh is the arabic way of writing /x/ and lh is either an unvoiced L or a Welsh LL /ɬ/. So in the text that pops to mind, but isn't mentioned. If there is no evidence that they are pronounced /x/ and /ɬ/ then it might be worth mentioning in passing. --Squidonius (talk) 01:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

@ Red Mordor: A Welsh ll is sometimes approximated as th. Or fl. — kwami (talk) 08:28, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

An approximate IPA transcription, based on this description ("Khlûl’-hloo") and the non-IPA signs, would be [kʟ̝̊ʊlʔ.ɬuː]; also [kʟ̝̊ʊl.ʔuː] for klhul-hoo and [ɬʊʔ.lʊʔ] for tluhlu. --Omnipaedista (talk) 19:36, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cthulhu. 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/20110722043508/http://www.museodizoologia.it/ricerca/aldrovandia/aldrovandia-volume-1-2005-1/an-overview-of-the-genus-speiredonia-with-description-of-seven-new-species-insecta-lepidoptera-noctuidae to http://www.museodizoologia.it/ricerca/aldrovandia/aldrovandia-volume-1-2005-1/an-overview-of-the-genus-speiredonia-with-description-of-seven-new-species-insecta-lepidoptera-noctuidae
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071101063857/http://www.cthulhulives.org/toc.html to http://www.cthulhulives.org/toc.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:09, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cthulhu. 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/20161028093829/http://www.zmangames.com/news/pandemic-roc-the-old-ones-series-hastur to http://www.zmangames.com/news/pandemic-roc-the-old-ones-series-hastur

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:29, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I think I've found some sources to back up some of the missing citations. Are these citation usable as sources?

Cthulhu#Description Cthulhu is consistently depicted as having countless tentacles around its mouth. Source: http://lovecraft.wikia.com/wiki/Cthulhu

There is the assertion in Lovecraft's work that simply looking upon an elder god is enough to drive a human insane. Source: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GoMadFromTheRevelation

In the “Game” subsection of the article. We should consider taking out the mention of Bethesda’s "Call of Cthulhu: Dark Corners of the Earth," As it explicitly does not ever depict Cthulhu in the game. Although the mythos is heavily alluded to throughout.

World of Warcraft has included numerous allusions to Cthulhu and the Lovecraft mythos. Source: http://wowwiki.wikia.com/wiki/Old_Gods

The popular tv show South Park has also included Cthulhu in a number of episodes. Source: http://southpark.wikia.com/wiki/Cthulhu

TrueNeutral14 (talk) 21:18, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

The section of Film/TV is pretty bad. It's just a list of references in media, which are unsourced and since Cthulhu is such a popular character, said list has no standards for what is on it and what isn't. Furthermore, several of the listed TV shows the character being referenced isn't Cthulhu but simply similar looking monsters. As well, one of the listed shows is just a link to that movie's wiki page. It should be deleted. 98.190.223.50 (talk) 15:15, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Thu Thu. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hog Farm (talk) 21:16, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Claw and the Vipers. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hog Farm (talk) 15:00, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Mglw'nafh. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hog Farm (talk) 15:03, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Is there any source/reference for those IPA transcriptions or are they just someone's original research? How on earth do you transcribe something like "tluhluh" written by some game just for the sake of the lore into IPA? How do you know "h" represents a glottal stop, for example? I'm deleting those pronunciations until someone can provide a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.146.129.240 (talk) 12:17, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I've actually heard a pronunciation that simply sounded like Choo-Loo. --46.93.158.170 (talk) 14:15, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

It would be nice to have a citable source that tries to render Lovecraft's instructions in IPA. Maybe something like [χ͡θɬu:ɬu]?--2.247.246.196 (talk) 14:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Going by L's description in our article, and assuming <hl> means the same thing in both syllables, then it should be [ˈkɬʊl.ɬu]. Given how vague the word 'gutteral' is, especially when dealing with perception rather than articulation, that could be what he meant. <kh> might have been intended to be [x] or [χ], but then I'd think he'd've say something about sounding like German or Scots <ch>, which would be a simpler explanation. So presumably ~ [̍kɬʊl.ɬu], at least when he wrote that passage. — kwami (talk) 05:09, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I've added a link to the Quora response by Andrew Bayles to the external links. It's as well thought out as any. — kwami (talk) 21:58, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Could it be Lovecraft got inspired by the name of the Lord Dunsany's spider-idol Hlo-hlo?--Manfariel (talk) 22:33, 1 May 2020 (UTC)