Talk:Lothrop Stoddard

New books added - why the revert?

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)

• The edit didn't add anything. One of the books was new but not a major work; the other one was not. All you added besides that was a note about how it had "great relevance" currently which is highly POV and questionable at best. Additionally, you put it in the wrong place -- in the middle of a discussion about his racial theories in a particular book. --Fastfission 15:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Taking out a book that the man wrote (unless you claim he didn't) is censorship, a serious case of POV. I was not happy with your emphasis on 'his most important work'. That too is serious POV. I happen to consider 'Revolt against Civilisation his most important work. I've re-arreanged things to allow sections on each book. Also corrected a date. There are too many shouts of 'racist' on Wikipedia, and noting that you reverted to this before, I've modified it. Lindosland 17:47, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what you're accusing me of, but let me lay a few things out for you:

1. The only book I removed reference to was New World of Islam. This is a book you provided no information on and is not one of his prominent books.
2. Rising Tide of Color is certainly his most famous book. Proof of this can be found anywhere you choose to measure it. Google results between the two show a 2:1 ratio for this. Almost identical ratios can be found in searching JSTOR with the same terms (73:31). Even more stark results searching ProQuest Historical Databases (50:15). So I don't think this is a case of "POV towards one book".
3. Revolt Against Civilization was mentioned in the article before you came along. Your previous "summary" provided very little information and most of it was POV about how you thought it was extremely relevant for our current age. I find this a bit suspicious to say the least since Stoddard was one of the most unabashed racists of our age, a definite Nazi sympathizer and a fellow with more than a few unpleasant ideas. It is not a coincidence that most of his works are available through "Aryan power" websites today.
4. You've removed all references to his racism even though it is explicit in both his writings and it is what all scholarly information written about him describes. This is not my POV here, this is simply that is in his work. Have you read it? It is about how white world supremacy is the best thing for the world and about how "colored" people are going to undermine it and destroy civilization. I'm not sure how else to describe that. He's a white supremacist and he puts as much in the titles of his books. He was indeed a racialist, but he was indisputably a racist (all racists are racialists, but not all racialists are racists). The line " He published many books examining the workings of society from a racialist (as distinct from racist) point of view." reflects either ignorance or a purposeful whitewashing.

• I'm not going to let somebody with a pet favorite and apparent ignorance over the subject of the article decide how it should be written. I hope that makes sense to you. --Fastfission 18:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

So, the 'only' book you removed reference to was 'New World of Islam'. On what grounds? If he wrote it I'm entitled to list it. If it's 'not prominent', then it may be because of bias in the present age regarding what is promoted, as you are demonstrating. Even your claim of 'most famous' is not the same as 'most important' (POV) and I would argue that fame is dependent on 'visibility' and promotion, while 'importance' is purely POV. You tried to justify leaving out reference to a book on the grounds that it is 'not a major work' but that is clearly your POV. I agree that 'extremely relevant for the current age' was POV, and I took it out. I would like to go on and add more though, and might justify that statement with references to recent writers if you would give me a chance. Yes, I have read Rising Tide of Colour, Revolt against Civilisation, and New World of Islam, though some years ago, so I would like to re-read them before going much further on this page.

As it happens, I see the statement you make above re undermining and destroying civilisation, as just plain interesting and worthy of consideration. I don't make a quick value judgement like 'racist', which is currently accepted as a term of abuse, implying hatred or stupidity. I'm sure the man was many things, and it is best to let him speak for himself through his books. I might agree that he was a 'white supremicist' though I dislike such terms as they carry assumed derogatory meaning in the modern world. And who are you to 'not let .....'! Wikipedia is for all to work on, without censor, as I understand it. Please leave my changes, and discuss them one by one if you must, or let others comment. 86.135.181.147 19:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Sigh, okay, one more time:

1. On New World of Islam: I gave the grounds. We could put a list of all of his books if you want. But I reverted it originally since it didn't add anything, and as a consequence you accused me of "censorship". It's not a major work. You don't seem to be familiar with it either, or at least don't seem to be able to offer up any good reason for including it in an entry on him except that "he wrote it". He also wrote Europe and our money (1932), Clashing Tides of Color (1935), Master of Manhattan, the life of Richard Croker (1931), and Luck, your silent partner (1929). Should we include those as well, without any information about them? A total of maybe five of this guy's works are notable. The other 30 or so are not.
2. Here's an important point: you are not "entitled" to add anything to this article. You do not own this article. This is an encyclopedia. It is a balance between too-much information and too-little information. Think about that a bit.
3. "Most importance" is POV because "importance" cannot be measured. "Most famous" is easily measured. If notable other writers have said Stoddard's work is "important for our current age", then sure, we can add attributed opinions in this respect if the opinions come from a "notable" person. But that isn't what you have done.
4. There is no "quick value judgment" of "racist" here. He did hate other races and the idea of them having any active role in governance, society, or reproduction. It is clear from his writing and he did nothing to mask it. The discussions of Stoddard's views on race can be easily cited; for example, see the Guterl book referenced here.
5. The term "white supremacist" carried a derogatory meaning not just in the modern world. His works were seen as extreme in their time as well.

• Your arguments are based on nothing. The fact that you are continually claiming you are being "censored" is a nice reflection of that. When you don't have anything else to say, blame it on political correctness and censorship. Right. --Fastfission 19:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

The only thing I can say in favour of Lindosland (talk · contribs) 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)

• • Well I of course have no substantive problem with that (I suggested it myself as an alternative). One is either nonselective or selective -- if the latter, then the selection needs to be intelligent. The text itself should still only reference his most important works. --Fastfission 02:48, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

What is the distinction being made here between 'racist' and 'racialist'? I always understood they were that same thing in US and UK English, respectively. 69.228.222.44 (talk) 06:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Too much or too little?

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)

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)

Actually, I could quote many recent writers who think that Origin of Species has taken attention off Darwins other, arguably even more important works. Sexual selection is a hot topic now. Lindosland 21:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• You're apparently missing the point. Also, is there a reason you are inserting reviews of his book by a well-known Holocaust denial organizations into this article? I'm not sure I get your problem with POV -- on the one hand, you don't want Stoddard listed as "racist", on the other hand, you're happy to insert favorable links from the Institute for Historical Review. That's a stronger POV about his beliefs that I even was planning to express. --Fastfission 02:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

There's a simple diffent between us, I suggest. You seem to judge things by association and a sort of PC value system - IHR=bad, racist=bad, hitler=bad (I guess). I search for facts and opinions and then try to integrate them into my understanding. I have put up links to pages I found that I found to have interesting content. They also happen to be on the first page of Google search, so they meet you criterion of 'famous'! Stoddard is complicated, as the IHR page explains very eloquently. He visited Germany in war, as a journalist, talked to Hitlerand all his leaders, as well as the public, and then wrote Into the Darkness. Thats a bit of real history as far as I am concerned - not modern value-judged 'history written by the victors' but something straight from another time unadulterated. I'm surprised you say 'stronger POV than even I was planning'. Choice of links is not dictated by no POV. Links provide the choice of POV surely, only the article should be NPOV. --Lindosland 12:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• • Well, you got me: I guess I do think that Holocaust denial, Nazism, and white supremacy are bad. I'm fine with the pages as long as the reader can tell that they are not representative of mainstream scholarly or social opinion (hence the little notes). --Fastfission 15:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Fastfission: I actually think we have a much better page now than two days ago, between us we do seem to be getting there! A photo of the man would fit nicely, but how to get one copyright free? This seems to be a general Wiki problem. Looking at the comment under the map, I suggest there is a bit of bias here. Stoddards books contain five or six beautifully coloured maps, showing population by colour, by 'rule', and by religion (Islam) etc. How Stoddard saw the world is more complicated than the caption suggests (which hints at just plain racist). --Lindosland 12:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The caption suggests he broke the people of the world down into those primary categories, which is 100% true. Of course, within those categories he also had some other categories, but those essential working categories were his base and reflect his approach to the world well. I was unable to find a picture of Stoddard that was expired copyright — if you can find one (anything published pre-1923 is copyright expired for sure), feel free to add one or direct me to it. --Fastfission 15:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Modern reviews

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)

• Attempting to summarize controvertial topics like this is perhaps too difficult. Unless you write a lot you oversimplify. That said, I'd be happy to go along with it. Doing this in order to remove the links though is POV by sensorship. I consider the links I put up to be well written and balanced, and they are not so much pro-Stoddard as anti-censorship. The challenge for you is to find anti-Stoddard links of equal quality. If you can't, then mine must be considered mainstream. I'm puzzled by your reference to 'modern'. All the links are modern, much as you might like them not to be. They also appear in the top ten Google page, making them mainstream, like it or not. --Lindosland 10:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

• Stoddard comes up a lot in modern history of racial theory. To sum them up in a nutshell, they usually have no problem saying that he was a vociferous and rather nasty racist guy, and that his views are proto-fascististic. I can get some more specific and academic sounding quotes though. And Lindosland, "mainstream" isn't determined by the presence or lack of online reviews of historical people, nor in their Google rankings (which are about linkbacks, not cultural relevance. Not surprising Stoddard's primary presence on the web is through anti-immigration and white power websites, most of the world has no idea who he is anymore). The Institute for Historical Review is not mainstream no matter how you dice it up, and neither are the other sources you link to. They are all decidedly fringe, do not represent the primary scholarly or popular opinion, which you as much implicitly acknowledge by alleging that mainstream opinion would "censor" him and you and that "liberal establishment" is responsible for his decline. You can believe the mainstream is bunk all you want, but you can't just arbitrarily decide what is or is not mainstream. --Fastfission 00:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

The Folly of the 'Mainstream' Approach

Fastfission: I'm happy to engage in debate over your above points, but would consider it more polite to do so before making comments like 'unnatributed POV rant'. What I said may border on POV but only by using [weasel words] in exactly the same way as you did. The point about weasel words is not whether they are true, or whether you can argue here that they are patently true, but simply that they are to be avoided as much as possible in Wikipedia. Putting them back repeatedly is not good. Unable to get you to leave them out, and not wanting a Wikiwar, I simply tried the tactic of balancing them with my own, on the principle (put forward by you I believe) of achieving balance (though I don't think I really agree with doing this). I'd rather try to procede on a completely POV and Weasel-word free basis - that seams the fair way on a controversial site like this. One way seems to be to use quotes. Not your acedemic sounding quotes, just well-argued quotes, or else quotes from Stoddard himself.

You say Stoddard comes up a lot in modern history of racial theory. I'm sure he does. Then To sum them up in a nutshell, they usually have no problem saying that he was a vociferous and rather nasty racist guy, and that his views are proto-fascististic. Again, I agree, but would point out that this means nothing; as your grammar falls down with no subject for 'them' (easily done)! Nevertheless, I essentially agree - a 'lot of people' take that view of Stoddard, but I think that may turn out to be more a comment on the present age than on Stoddard, so lets leave it out of this page unless you are prepared to tolerate other views which look as biased to you as yours do to me.

Then you say, Lindosland, "mainstream" isn't determined by the presence or lack of online reviews of historical people, nor in their Google rankings (which are about linkbacks, not cultural relevance. Yes I agree, though I make no claim to be mainstream! I thought that earlier, when you said Google results] between the two show a 2:1 ratio for this. Almost identical ratios can be found in searching JSTOR with the same terms (73:31). Even more stark results searching ProQuest Historical Databases (50:15). So I don't think this is a case of "POV towards one book". I would add that I don't consider Historical Databases more valid than others. All historians know you go to original sources in preference to commentary or scores. As another controversial figure (Henry Ford) said, 'History is bunk', and others have said that history is 'the story told by the current victors).

The Institute for Historical Review is not mainstream no matter how you dice it up, and neither are the other sources you link to. They are all decidedly fringe. Well I think that's definitely a matter of opinion, and not really important. The world changes. It's changed since Stoddards day, and it will change again. The HRH claim to have brought back a supressed work, and provided its not fake we can only say 'good for them'. You studied the history of science. Can you imagine what a Wikipedia page on Gallileo in his own day would have said. He was locked up and despised. How long before Wikipedia would have said anything good about him, before the 'enlightement' got to that point? Would you want to have written that stuff about how 'non-mainstream' he was? This page may still be here in four hundred years time; lets try to remember that and take care!! --Lindosland 15:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• Your original statement on what is mainstream ("They also appear in the top ten Google page, making them mainstream, like it or not.") was simply incorrect. The difference between my generalized and potentially weasel word quotes is that all of mine are attributable to mainstream POVs, while yours are only attributable to a few fringe blogs and websites. There's a difference there and it might do you well to read over our policy on WP:NPOV before continuing. Like many people who come here arguing for equal time for fringe POVs, you seem to not be aware of its actual content. If I may draw your attention to one section:

If we're going to represent the sum total of human knowledge, then we must concede that we will be describing views repugnant to us without asserting that they are false. Things are not, however, as bad as that sounds. The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly.

• And one more section:

Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them qua encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the pseudoscientific theory; from describing the strong moral repugnance that many people feel toward some morally repugnant views; and so forth.

• And finally, pay attention to the section entitled "Undue weight", which provides these short rules of thumb:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

• Your current objections seem to be that you don't like the mainstream and you don't consider it a valid source of truth. That's fine -- I didn't say it was truth. I said it was mainstream. You are welcome to suspect that it is part of a massive liberal conspiracy, you are welcome to think that someday you will win out, you are welcome to think that the Institute for Historical Review will someday become a mainstream historical organization. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
• But that isn't what Wikipedia content is about, everyone's own opinion. It is about properly representing the intellectual field in an honest way. And, like it or not, the current intellectual climate, both academic and popular, is that Stoddard's ideas represent the worst of 1920s American racism. There is indeed a fringe element today which considers his policies on immigration and race to be sound, and I'm happy to give it a little attention here, which the article does and did before you came along.
• If you think any of the statements I have put into the article need specific sourcing, feel free to let me know. I'm happy to provide a good, mainstream, scholarly reference for any of them. The article does not say Stoddard was a bad man, or even an incorrect man. It describes his views, that's all. It could have a little more on the reception of his work, then and now, but it would be within the parameters of the above. The mainstream opinion would be favored, and minority opinions would be labeled as such. Such is how things work around here, so there's really no point in trying to change it. --Fastfission 16:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll do a quick reply to the above, though I will give it more thought. This is at the core of what Wikipedia is. My first response, as before is, yes, I agree with just about everything you say here! But I don't agree that that the page reflects the policy you claim to support. I had of course read the policy on POV etc that you refer me to, and I feel I am acting in support of it. I'm not trying to change 'how things work around here', though I do have the same right as everyone else to try to refine them - they are not set in stone as I'm sure you'd agree.

I think we'd agree that both sides can be put fully, with care. You, with some support from the guidance you quote, probably think that 'mainstream' opinion should always get the bigger part, but that ,I suggest, is dangerous.

You try to link mainstream with 'intellectual' opinion (I note your 'Prestigeous University'!), and there I challenge you, because in the view of many, intellectual movements, perhaps especially as they exist in Universities, tend to have political influences; to be PC for their time. This is even true in areas of hard science, where the influence tends to be from business.

Take for example the field of noise weighting, in which I can fairly claim to be an acknowledged expert (I have published, and an organisation I created manufactures much of the noise measurement equipment, which I designed, which is used in the field by studios and (most) broadcasters worldwide.) I happen to think (know even) that mainstream ideas have drifted away from truth, under commercial pressures (in favour of methods that give big numbers, that sound good). Ask an Audiophile what he thinks and he will make me out to be stupid - he thinks he is mainstream. I can't talk to a salesman in a shop without being thought stupid! Yet ask any BBC engineer or any broadcast engineer worldwide, and you will get a very different view - they generally use the methods I favour and they despair of the Audiophile world and its myths. Now ask a University - are they the ones with the truth? No, because even audio departments are not funded on a scale necessary to do much of the research, nor do they have particular motivation - the BBC did much of it! So many University departments are keen to use material by me, and they listen to me. Who did the editor of 'The Audio Engineers Reference Book' ask to write the section on this topic - me.

My point is that 'mainstream' is a suspect term, and even if I concede, as I do, that your mainstream is biggest, or 'favoured by intellectuals' or even 'less morally distasteful', these things are all pretty meaningless in the end. All I ask is a fair bit of space for what I want to see (not 'my views') subject to the guidelines, and fairplay over weasel words. --Lindosland 19:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• "I think we'd agree that both sides can be put fully, with care. You, with some support from the guidance you quote, probably think that 'mainstream' opinion should always get the bigger part, but that ,I suggest, is dangerous." Look at the policy bits I quoted above. There is no "equal time" here. There is mainstream and then notable other interpretations properly attributed. It is pretty simple and written pretty clearly.
• "You try to link mainstream with 'intellectual' opinion" — it's not "me" making these decisions about what is mainstream and what is not. In any event, whether you buy the definition of mainstream, it is certainly easy to demonstrate that the organizations you are citing are notably not mainstream. In fact they all primarily define themselves in ways which express a conscious desire to be different than the mainstream.
• Whether or not you agree with the mainstream or think it is biased or whathaveyou is of no issue here. I'm not saying the mainstream is "right". I'm saying what the mainstream opinion is and that happens to be what Wikipedia is orientated around primarily. This is not negotiable, neither in this article nor anywhere else.
• You are welcome to edit the article however you want, however I (and other editors) will endeavor to make sure it follows all of our guidelines, the same as we do the contributions of anybody else. It is really as simple as that. If you have problems with any of my edits please feel free to ask and I will clarify them. If you think anything I say needs citation please let me know and I'll be happy to cite it. --Fastfission 00:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Henry Goddard?

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)

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)

Article Edit

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)

Bias against the subject

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)

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)

I see the article needs new sources.

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)

Request for a little more detail from a knowledgeable person

"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) KJN

American critics of Judaism category

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)

From looking at this article by Stoddard, [2], 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)

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)

Removed Stoetzler as source for Anti-Judaism claim

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" [http://www.amazon.com/Antisemitism-Constitution-Sociology-Marcel-Stoetzler/dp/0803248644/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1464579740&sr=8-1&keywords=Marcel+Stoetzler+.+2014.+Antisemitism+and+the+Constitution+of+Sociology] 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)

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)

Dinnerstein did not say Stoddard favored a blanket ban on Jewish immigration

Dinnerstein only mentions Stoddard once from the amazon preview [http://www.amazon.com/Antisemitism-America-Leonard-Dinnerstein/dp/019510112X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1464579372&sr=8-1&keywords=Leonard+Dinnerstein+Antisemitism+in+America.] "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)

• The same statement is also made in Karabel's "the chosen ones", which states that "in Stoddards scheme the Jew was perhaps the most menacing figure".·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:37, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

It appears Stoddard stopped being actively Anti-Jewish during the 1930s

Kevin MacDonald wrote "he [Stoddard] stopped referring to Jews completely in his lectures to the Army War College in the late 1930s."[3] 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)

Birth control movement/views on eugenics

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. 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.”

References

Skinnytony1 (talk) 08:14, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

What is the value in your reduction? What is its purpose? Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:41, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Hey, Nblund yes that's a trash website, I've found a link to the original source of the quote which was a contribution to the "First American Birth Control Conference", “It is the lower elements of the population, the negroid aboriginal tribes and the Pariahs or Outcasts, who are gaining the fastest” acadmeic collaborative library initiative Is it possible to cite that or just cite “Lothrop Stoddard.  “Population Problems in Asia.”  Birth Control Review, December 1921, page 11.” ? Or chose a different quote. The article is amazingly racist and there's many to chose from, if any. Then everything else can be attributed to the journal article this source .

And re purpose Beyond My Ken. My intention is accuracy. Jane Carey (2012) The Racial Imperatives of Sex: birth control and eugenics in Britain, the United States and Australia in the interwar years, Women's History Review, 21:5, 733-752:

In the United Sates, dire eugenic warnings about ‘miscegenation’ and ‘race suicide’ reached their apogee in Madison Grant's, The Passing of the Great Race; or The Racial Basis of European History, which appeared in 1916, and Lothrop Stoddard's 1921 publication The Rising Tide of Color Against White World-Supremacy.

It is against this background of strong racial prescriptions that eugenics must be understood. Eugenics was certainly equally concerned with ‘internal’ threats of racial degeneration posed by the unchecked breeding of the ‘unfit’. ‘Mental deficiency’ and the working classes became key areas of concern as the major sources of racial decay. But, as discussed further below, even where eugenicists apparently spoke in purely classist terms, they did so in a context in which racial hierarchy and difference were assumed. Race and class were inseparable in eugenic rhetoric, as they were in eugenic birth control campaigns.

Sanger also promoted this vision through the organisations she formed, beginning with The Birth Control Review, which she founded and edited from 1917. The overwhelming majority of this journal's contents promoted eugenic ideals, as the almost annual special issue on the topic of ‘sterilization’ reflected. Although only two issues in 1921 carried the motto ‘To Breed a Race of Thoroughbreds’ on its front cover, many proclaimed ‘Fewer but Better Babies’ or ‘Voluntary Motherhood’, which, as we have seen, had definite eugenic significance. The journal did not limit itself to artificial contraception as we understand it. It was quite literally concerned with all means of controlling births and broader population questions. It discussed issues ranging from immigration to sterilisation, mental deficiency to genius, slums and poverty to maternal and infant health. Articles in 1919 included ‘Birth Control, Morality and Eugenics’, by Havelock Ellis, in 1920 ‘Birth Control or Racial Degeneration, Which?’, by Anna Martin and ‘The World's Racial Problem’, a glowing review of Lothrop Stoddard's The Rising Tide of Color, again by Havelock Ellis. Stoddard himself wrote on ‘Population Problems in Asia’ in 1922, while in 1920–21 Sanger produced a series of six articles on ‘Racial Quotas in Immigration’. Less than 5% of articles in the Review in the 1920s contained any discussion of women's right to self-determination.43

In 1921 Sanger founded the American Birth Control League, with Lothrop Stoddard and other prominent eugenicists on its board. Like Stopes's Society for Constructive Birth Control, the League's aims reflected Sanger's desire to reformulate eugenics through the lens of birth control.

Bold added. I've got no barrow to push here I'm not from US. The reason I find this interesting because of the parallels with the population debate in the 60's and beyond, which I wrote about here. I think it should be expanded to show some context beyond, "Stoddard helped found the American Birth Control League." Thanks both of you for pushing me to read the source material. Skinnytony1 (talk) 12:12, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

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)

Quotes from “into the darkness”

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)