Talk:Lothrop Stoddard

message: I added a useful contribution listing two more books by Stoddard. Why was my entry deleted without comment? I am reverting. Lindosland 11:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The only thing I can say in favour of  is that I do think a bibliography simply listing his books in date order would be beneficial.  Otherwise I agree with FF. — Dunc|☺ 20:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New books added - why the revert? 

message: FastFission asks that I think about the above. It seems to me that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia without space limit. Yes, individual articles have a maximum desirable size, but then they brach into sub-articles. Look at Genetics, or Electronics for example, and you will find enormous branching detail.
I for one, am interested to see that Stoddard wrote so much, and yes, I want the whole list here please. So does Dunc - good. Then, if possible, let there be other pages for each and every one of those books, and lets list the Chapter Headings as a way of letting Stoddard speak for himself. There are precedents for this on Wikipedia.
So can we please put up the full list of works now?  And can we agree that there is no need to choose what is important or try to give equal weight, because that is a form of POV. I can only comment on certain books, so its not for me to put comment on everything, that has to happen in stages   Lindosland 20:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I said you could add a bibliography (i.e. a full list of works).  Whether or not those individual works are deserving of an article depends on their individual historical importance.  Clearly some books are more important than others; e.g. The Origin of Species is far more important than The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals. The way to judge them is, as FF said, by looking at who cites them.  But be warned: every page must follow NPOV, and NPOV means allowing the mainstream POV to take precedence, however much you agree with Stoddard, most academics do not. — Dunc|☺ 20:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too much or too little? 

message: Rather than a simple list of links, it might be better to have a short paragraph summarizing contemporary views of Stoddard. I think it would be accurate and NPOV to summarize the three links there now as having a positive view of Stoddard's analysis, and we might go into some more detail. Likewise, there are probably some unsympathetic modern views of his work, and it'd be great if we could summarize their critiques as well. Do you all think there's enough modern scholarship on Stoddard to make that worthwhile? -Willmcw 08:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Modern reviews

message: The Great Gatsby cites "Goddard," not Grant or Stoddard. 
The more likely candidate is Henry Goddard, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_H._Goddard
especially known for his 1912 book on The Kallikak Family: A Study in the Heredity of Feeble-Mindedness, but whose IQ testing results at Ellis Island showed that "40 percent of recent immigrants were feeble minded" (Diane Paul, Controlling Human Heredity, 1995, pages 108-109. Paul mentions the similarity of Tom's dinner conversation with Stoddard's racialist ideas (109), but doesn't make a guess who "Goddard" may be. I suggest deleting this "guess" until we have confirmation one way or the other.Gsmcghee (talk) 02:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The book that "Goddard" was supposed to have written, in Gatsby, was called The Rise of the Colored Empires. It's hard not to see that being a reference to The Rising Tide of Color Against White World-Supremacy. It has little to do with what was in the Kallikak family (which had nothing to do with empires or race). --Mr.98 (talk) 21:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Henry Goddard? 

message: I removed the link to the article "Uphold The President" since that was written by the editor of the North American Review and not Lothrop Stoddard.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justin.M.Stoddard (talk • contribs) 15:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Edit 

message: This article is clearly biased against Stoddard. For example, the word "racialist" links not to the article "racialism," but to the article "racism," which is clearly ad hominem against the subject of the article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.101.57.183 (talk) 12:05, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That link is supported by the sources. (I didn't put the link there, but I have read the sources on Stoddard's life.) -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 22:44, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias against the subject 

message: As I check the sources listed for this article, there is a huge weight of sources by the person described in the article (who died some time ago, so that the article is not the biography of a living person) but remarkably few sources about him and the context of his life and work in his era. I will try to fix that. Meanwhile, I'll suggest for any Wikipedian looking on that my  Anthropology and Human Biology Citations source list may be of help for updating the biography of any anthropologist mentioned on Wikipedia. The source list will be even more helpful, to be sure, if any of you who have other sources to suggest suggest those here or on the talk page for that user bibliography. Even a biography of a living person is not meant to be a hagiography, by Wikipedia policy, but a balanced, sourced account of someone's life and work. More reading of the sources will improve this article and many other articles about writers active a century ago. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:36, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  I see the article needs new sources.  

message: "Some predictions made in The Rising Tide of Color were accurate; others were not."
The page goes on to list some of the accurate predictions.  I suggest listing some of the inaccurate predictions too, so we get a better understanding of the book.
212.159.102.166 (talk) 16:09, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for a little more detail from a knowledgeable person 

message: This article puts Stoddard in the Anti-Jewish category in its category listings. I have read Stoddard was Anti-Jewish, but Judaism, Jewry and Jews were not a major focus of his writings, so I'm not sure that category is appropriate. He never wrote anything specifically about Judaism as far as I am aware, in contrast to Henry Ford, who wrote The International Jew. In fact Stoddard seems to have been more Anti-African and Anti-Islamic than Anti-Jewish from what I know about him. RandomScholar30 (talk) 06:56, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: From looking at this article by Stoddard, , it seems he probably was Anti-Jewish. But even that article was written in a more neutral tone than, say, Henry Ford's The International Jew was, and like I said, Judaism was not a major focus of Stoddard's work. Helena Blavatsky, Carl Jung, Friedrich Nietzsche and Henry Ford are much better known for their Anti-Jewish views than Stoddard is, but they are not included in any Anti-Judaism categories, so I'm still not sure Stoddard belongs in the "Anti-Judaism in America" category either, because his Anti-Jewish views are not what he is known for, he is much better known for his anti-immigrant, anti-African and Anti-Muslim views. RandomScholar30 (talk) 14:37, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: As someone who just completed reading The New World of Islam, I find absolutely nothing within it that would indicate Stoddard was "anti-Muslim" or "anti-Islamic"; if anything he seems awed at the religion's power to spur on the Arabs, who in his view were hitherto unremarkable, into bursting from Arabia and conquering their way into the history books and creating a new civilization. 206.188.40.128 (talk) 00:00, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  American critics of Judaism category 

message: I removed Stoetzler as a source for the Anti-Judaism claim against Stoddard because Stoetzler's book did not support the claim, and depending on how you read it, possibly contradicted the claim. "Still, historian Hasia Diner has suggested that there was perhaps less antipathy to Jews among sociologists than among the patricians of the English and history departments of American universities. The market for racially inflected master narratives of decline was more often supplied by gentlemen historians such as Madison Grant. His The Passing of the Great Race (1915) was vastly influential, as was the work of Lothrop Stoddard, who was similarly involved in the eugenics movement and offered a racialized and Aryanized vision of history in The Rising Tide of Color Against White World Supremacy(1920). The absence of a special concern with the Jewish question among academic sociologists contrasts with the case of Germany"  So it appears that Stoetzler was saying the exact opposite of what the editor who used him as a source was claiming, he was saying that Anti-Judaism was not a particular focus of Stoddard's. At the very least, Stoetzler should be removed as a source for the claim of Stoddard's being focused on Anti-Judaism because Stoetzler was saying the exact opposite of that. RandomScholar30 (talk) 03:59, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Dont remove the source which is clearly pertinent, make the statement more accurate. I have mentioned that Stoddard was not overtly antimsemitic.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:32, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Stoetzler as source for Anti-Judaism claim 

message: Dinnerstein only mentions Stoddard once from the amazon preview  "Stoddard, a disciple of [Madison] Grant's, dubbed most immigrant Jews 'Asiatics' and a threat to the 'nordics'; he later supported Nazi racial laws." That is on page 94. Most is not the same thing as all, so its not clear even from the source that he favored banning all Jewish immigration. RandomScholar30 (talk) 04:26, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dinnerstein did not say Stoddard favored a blanket ban on Jewish immigration 

message: Kevin MacDonald wrote "he [Stoddard] stopped referring to Jews completely in his lectures to the Army War College in the late 1930s." MacDonald is WP:Fringe, but for what its worth I don't see a reason to doubt his account in this case. Obviously we cannot use MacDonald as a source in the article itself, but we could search google scholar and google books to see if other more reliable sources agree with MacDonald's description that Stoddard stopped being actively Anti-Jewish in the 1930s. If they do then we should change the article to reflect that change in Stoddard's attitude. RandomScholar30 (talk) 00:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  It appears Stoddard stopped being actively Anti-Jewish during the 1930s 

message: :Is there anything in particular I can change Beyond My Ken? it could it reduced to say 
::Stoddard helped found the American Birth Control League with Margaret Sanger. He held leadership positions in the organisation. His main concern regarding birth control was based on race (or racism), he wrote many articles for Margaret Sanger’s Birth Control Review, in one he claimed that “It is the lower elements of the population, the negroid aboriginal tribes and the Pariahs or Outcasts, who are gaining the fastest.”
: Original ===Birth control movement===
:Stoddard helped found the American Birth Control League with Margaret Sanger and other prominent eugenicists on its board.  He held the position on the Board of Directors of the American Birth Control League (later Planned Parenthood), which he held from March 1922 to December 1925, followed by membership in its National Council from January 1926 to March 1929.Gordon, L., Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America , Penguin, Harmondsworth, 1976, p.283. His main concern regarding birth control was racist, he wrote many articles for Margaret Sanger’s Birth Control Review, in one he claimed that “It is the lower elements of the population, the negroid aboriginal tribes and the Pariahs or Outcasts, who are gaining the fastest.”
Skinnytony1 (talk) 08:14, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the value in your reduction?  What is its purpose? Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:41, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Stoddard's role in the eugenics movement is worthy of some coverage, and this source notes that Stoddard was one of several eugenicists on the board of the ABCL when it was founded. That said, I don't see neutral reliable sources that mention him as a particularly important figure in the organizations that would later become Planned Parenthood - that's really more of an anti-abortion talking point than an encyclopedic way to frame Stoddard's bio. Nblund talk 01:11, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I was intending to remove the planned parenthood part in my original edit because like you say its an "anti-abortion talking point" Skinnytony1 (talk) 11:39, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: But the section you're proposing still relies heavily on citations to anti-abortion websites and authors. There's a paragraph in the article that mentions his role in the eugenics movement, so it might be worth briefly mentioning there that he was on the board of the ABCL, but the level of emphasis implied by a separate subsection seems undue.Nblund talk 16:20, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

text: This article is about the life of Lothrop Stoddard, not Margaret Sanger or the ABCL. I think you could justify a single sentence, in the paragraph on his other eugenics views, that says he was on the American Birth Control League, but that's about it. I haven't seen anything to indicate that it is an important aspect of his own bio. Nblund talk 15:31, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth control movement/views on eugenics 

message: As Stoddard’s book “Into the Darkness” tells a very different story from what was alleged in this article, I have out of fairness added exact quotes so that they can’t be taken out of context, and readers can decide for themselves.  They do not reflect favorably on the nazis and I hope they remain19:45, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes from “into the darkness”