Talk:Edgar Rice Burroughs

I believe the correct name for this series is "Barsoom", not "John Carter of Mars Series", just as the other series are titled after Pellucidar and Caspak.

The books need dates of publication. I started, but didn't have time to finish. It'd also be nice to have a more extensive biography and a photo, but I guess I should do the work on this instead of just asking for it. :-S —Frecklefoot 14:07, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Why was the link: A brief biography and works of Burroughs removed? I thought it was pretty good. —Frecklefoot 16:58, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

In the article, there are a couple of books with dates occurring after Burroughs died (1950). Were these published from his original manuscripts, or were they partially complete works that were then completed by a ghost writer and subsequently published? Anyone know? -Tony

A fair number of Burroughs' books were first issued posthumously, beginning with the revival of interest in his works in the early 1960s. I believe the only one of these that was collaborative was Tarzan: the Lost Adventure, which was completed by Joe R. Lansdale. -BPK2, 12/16/05.

Warlord of Mars is listed as being written in 1914 on this page, but on the Barsoom page it says 1919. Anyone know the correct date? megaversal

Like many of Burroughs' works, this title was published as a magazine serial before being issued in book form. The 1914 date is that for the original serial; the 1919 date is that of book publication. -BPK2, 12/16/05.

@24.63.255.76 and Sid rumpo: the summary re eugenics views recently added to the lede is certianly factual and well sourced in the body (which means they don't need to be sourced in the lede). So there is no call to remove on that basis. However, I would agree that this added paragraph is unduly long - his eugenics views are not the most important, or even one of the most important, things about Burroughs, so they shouldn't take up 1/3 the text up there. I suggest condensing that into one sentence and omitting both the Tarzan example and the qualifying trailer. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:43, 27 April 2022 (UTC) Reply

I have removed the lines on eugenics and scientific racism in the lead. They contained weasel worded statements without obvious references anywhere in the article (that "Tarzan was meant to reflect these concepts"). This is covered later in the page and is not significant enough to be included in the lead at all. Burroughs was not a notable thinker on eugenics and scientific racism- he is not mentioned in any of the wikipedia articles on the subject for example, and I believe he has no published non-fiction writing on the subject and no apparent influence in the field then or now. The existence of separate races in his fictional work such as Barsoom is no more or less notable than that of any other planetary romance and does not appear to be didactic. In the historical context, Burroughs was not unusually racist or a prominent racist.

Personally, I believe there are obvious political question marks over his work from our perspective today (such as the decision to make John Carter a Confederate veteran etc), but I do not see the logic for addressing these questions in the lead for what is ultimately a rather short bio entry anyway. Silverwood (talk) 16:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC) Reply

Just to add that my removal of these lines on eugenics at the end of the leader has been immediately reverted by another User without any summary or note.

My apologies for not making the reason for my revert clear. My understanding is that the inclusion in the lead is to reflect the article itself, not his overall notability in the field of eugenics, since a lead is meant to reflect the article itself. Harryhenry1 (talk) 04:09, 20 February 2024 (UTC) Reply

Agree with revert. This is a facet of Burroughs' modern reception, treated and referenced as such in the body, and a single sentence in the lede is therefore not WP:UNDUE.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:24, 20 February 2024 (UTC) Reply

Thanks Elmidae and Harryhenry1 for your contributions. Can we do anything to improve the body on this in that case? The section on eugenics under the "criticism" heading makes up about a third of that section but only two points are referenced. One is an unreliable source (unedited personal blog). The other is a peer-reviewed journal (at the time of publication was known as "Mental Retardation" which seems anachronistic to say the least) but I can't access the content to verify anything. The majority of the text is unreferenced and appears to be original research. Thanks in advance. Silverwood (talk) 15:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC) Reply

This link doesn't work for you for the Smith & Mitchell article? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:49, 20 February 2024 (UTC) Reply

Here is a Researchgate link. Maybe we should substitute that. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:59, 20 February 2024 (UTC) Reply

Expansions could certainly be made. A quick skim of available material throws up this article and this book (see page 9+) on the topic of Burroughs and eugenics and (more widely) racism. As a counterpoint, there's this article that suggests that the Mars novels are specifically propounding racial toleration. As always, a certain amount of work will be required to get at the gist here. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC) Reply

...one might think that there is nothing else to do with regard to this author, but seemingly all recent additions try to soften that facet of the author's reception, provide "counterpoints", or similar. The latest is The Nineteenth Century's attempts to add notes on Burrough's views of Nazism and Communism to the "Reception" section. The declared intention here is to offset the unflattering modern reception of the author's views of eugenics - essentially, "this makes him look bad, so we need to add something that makes him look good."

No, we do not. We have no obligation to create any specific view of the person, in fact we have to strenuously avoid following our own inclinations as to what overall image appears. That means that when summarizing the work's reception, we follow published commentary on how the work is received. Regarding the eugenics angle, there are high-quality sources that provide a critical assessment, so we can use them in the article. Is there a reliable critical source that states "although Burroughs seems to be in favour of eugenics remniscent of Nazi Germany, he was actually highly critical of the Nazis themselves"? Excellent, put it in. Does it come down to an editor thinking that the eugenics make Burroughs look like a Nazi, so we need to point out that he is mocking Hitler in some book? Nope, not within our ambit. More specifically, something like In "Carson of Venus", Burroughs satirizes Hitler is a non sequitur when dropped into the reception section. It does not summarize reception, it is merely what the editor thinks should drive the reader's impression. But we don't synthesize our own criticism, nor do we insinuate some specific interpretation by juxtaposition.

I get how annoying it can be if strictly following the sources leads to what one personally considers a misrepresentation. For example, I am of the opinion that our article on Pope Alexander VI is currently peddling a load of bullshit, by perpetuating the "Borgia myth" (debased personal habits, illegitimate children, etc.) that recent scholarship shows to have been pretty much the result of a Rennaissance smear campaign. But there are 400 years of commentary swinging the one way, and about two modern scholars swinging the other, and so we follow the mass of scholarship, grating as it may be, until the field itself produces diverging material that we can summarize. Sorry, but that's how this place rolls. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:58, 30 August 2024 (UTC) Reply

That may be the case, but I cannot passively accept the distortion of Wikipedia's policy of being unbiased. My sole aim in editing this article is and has been to prevent the undue and biased association of Burroughs with Nazism, a system he clearly opposed. You say that you would be willing to accept "a reliable critical source that states 'although Burroughs seems to be in favour of eugenics rem[i]niscent of Nazi Germany, he was actually highly critical of the Nazis themselves'". I have now procured such a source. If I were to add this, the text would run something along the following lines -- "Despite Burroughs' eugenicist views being compared to those espoused by Nazism, it has been noted that he was strongly opposed to the Nazis themselves. Richard A. Lupoff writes that Burroughs lampooned Hitler and the Nazis in Carson of Venus," &c. Would this then be appropriate, or would you still have an issue with it? The Nineteenth Century (talk) 10:26, 30 August 2024 (UTC) Reply

• @Harryhenry1: apologies - I am so used to uncommented removals in this article being whitewash attempts that I didn't get the direction here. It appears that the bit you removed is what the user above intended to add, and I must have missed the point when they actually did add it. As a private blog, it's rather a weak source; in balance I probably would have left it in rather than commit to a fight against its inclusion, but I certainly don't object to it not being included. -- Please do keep in mind that just re-reverting back is not what is expected when your edit is challenged. It shouldn't have had to be me who came to the talk page in this instance. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:56, 20 October 2025 (UTC) Reply