:No need to be so aggressive. Whoever put in the reference did not necessarily make any other contribution to the article. Personally, I would remove it, because who cares what Scruton thought. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 23:06, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
:No need to be so aggressive. Whoever put in the reference did not necessarily make any other contribution to the article. Personally, I would remove it, because who cares what Scruton thought. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 23:06, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
I’m removing that reference. Scruton is undoubtedly not a productive or representative view to overshadow adornos influence. That section reads rather jarringly. [[User:WesPhil|WesPhil]] ([[User talk:WesPhil|talk]]) 14:21, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Revision as of 14:21, 14 May 2022
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Frankfurt School article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Frankfurt School is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Capitalism, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.CapitalismWikipedia:WikiProject CapitalismTemplate:WikiProject CapitalismCapitalism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative ViewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative ViewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative ViewsAlternative Views articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
A warning about certain sources: There are two sources on the subject of "Cultural Marxism" that represent a citogenesis or circular reporting risk to Wikipedia as they plagiarize verbatim directly from an outdated draft that came from Wikipedia, which can be found here (2006 revision here). The sources are N.D. Arora's Political Science for Civil Services Main Examination (2013) and A.S. Kharbe's English Language And Literary Criticism (2009); both are from publishers located in New Delhi and should be avoided to prevent a citogenesis incident.
Please note that the phenomenon I predicted here has already happened in the first day of the split: editors have arrived to demonstrated that treating Cultural Marxism as a conspiracy theory violates NPOV and that the "conservative narrative" of Cultural Marxism is not a conspiracy theory. Sigh. Newimpartial (talk) 18:49, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A reply in support
I concur with you. This is happening because of the paid editor who runs these people of the right wing. Perhaps Wikipedia might append a warning label indicating that Right-wing Bullshit Has Rights, especially the lies of anti-Semites and crypto-Nazis that are the substance of U.S.-made Cultural Marxism. Fascinating, is it not? These fanboys are anti-intellectuals who insist that the truth of Cultural Marxism is in the gut, not the mind. This is so choice for debate!
In the essay On Bullshit (2005), the philosopher Harry Frankfurt said that the liar knows and cares about the truth, but deliberately sets out to mislead instead of telling the truth, whereas the bullshitter only seeks to impress, that: “It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction. A person who lies is thereby responding to the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it. When an honest man speaks, he says only what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly indispensable that he considers his statements to be false. For the bullshitter, however, all these bets are off: he is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and of the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose.”[1]
This Dominic Green [1]. I don't think I am edit-warring, I planned to create a talk page before I saw this. I added this cause is Green mentioned on the cultural marxist page as a conservative critic of the term. In his article, while arguing aganist the conspiracy angle, voice criticism of the school and its influence in modern academia, so I though this could be added. Also mentioning rs for Specator made little sense since their is no agreement on it as reliable or not. 3Kingdoms (talk) 20:00, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So I don't see how "this Dominic Green" has any relevant expertise - he seems to have published only concerning the former British Empire and in music history, and his comments about Marxism don't relate to either topic. This seems like a generic op-ed, TBH.
Green's knowledge "Dominic Green, PhD, FRHistS is a critic, historian and the deputy editor of The Spectator’s US edition. The author of four books, he writes widely on the arts and current affairs, and contributes regularly to the Wall Street Journal and the New Criterion." One of his degrees is in Jewish Studies, since so much of the talk regarding the School deals with anti-Semitism, and that it is mentioned on the Cultural marxist page I don't really see why this article can't be used, maybe he quote can be shortened but I don't see the problem. Also I do understand that rule, which is why I planned to stop after it was undone the third time. Sorry if you feel I went too far reverting for a second time. 3Kingdoms (talk) 20:12, 12 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]
A Jewish Studies degree might be relevant to the specific question of whether the Cultural Marxism CT is antisemitic, but that isn't the way you were proposing to use the Op-ed, AFAICT. Newimpartial (talk) 20:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
3Kingdoms, Greene is not a historian, he has a PhD and had a post doctoral position - but as far as I can see he never taught anywhere, or is published in this field. And frankly, the quoted opinion piece is little more than a short polemic with embarrassingly little academic merit. Mvbaron (talk) 20:52, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He is an historian he has published books on history, look at his wiki page. Criticism by its nature are opinions, so I don't really see the problem being put here. He is also a "adjunct lecturer in politics at Boston College, a fellow of the Royal Historical Society and the Royal Society of Arts" [2]3Kingdoms (talk) 21:38, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He has published two popular history books, and has taught one class at boston college in 2017, and is not listed as staff at Boston College. His opinion (and a polemic at that) is really not WP:DUE on a topic such as the Frankfurt School with a massive academic literature. Mvbaron (talk) 23:21, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I disagree, I think I have provided enough evidence that he can reasonable be considered someone who has enough knowledge of Politics, history, etc that his view criticism of the School can be added to the criticism section. 3Kingdoms (talk) 00:05, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How so? The only thing I can see going for him is that he’s a fellow of the RHS - but he has no academic record in the field. And secondly, the content of his polemic is also not DUE: this is nothing is or will be taken seriously by anyone working on critical theory; it is not something that is fit for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Like is said in my initial edit comment: it is non-notable. Mvbaron (talk) 06:30, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
His writing and studies are in politics, history, Jewish studies, etc all of which connect to the Franksfurt school. Being "polemical" I really don't see as a problem for a criticism section. His comment on the negative legacy of the school in regards to academia and the New Left are fine to have in a criticism section. 3Kingdoms (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If we took the quote at face value, he's pressing elements of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, which would plainly make his position WP:FRINGE here - we would need a much better source than an opinion piece for statements like these. But I also disagree with the way it's being used; given his past statements, I'm skeptical that Green is being entirely serious, especially given that he goes on to note that the views he just stated are those of Nazis. Even if we were to use it (which I definitely don't think we should), it is plainly misusing the source to cut that part off. --Aquillion (talk) 20:57, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You have misread what he wrote, from some reason the article is cut out, but his point is that the school had influence on the New Left that was negative for the humanities. He then goes on to say his issue with the term "cultural marxism" due to said links with the Nazis, instead saying Neo-Marxism and Maoist third-worldism is a more accurate term with less historical issues.3Kingdoms (talk) 21:38, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is dishonest that Scruton's dismissal of Adorno is the only thing that appears in the philosophy of music section, as though Scruton's view represents the sum of what people think of Adorno and his influence. Adorno's views on capitalist pop music have had a larger influence beyond a mere mention by Scruton. There are others who believe Adorno's criticisms of capitalist pop culture are relevant such as Alex Ross. They should be cited as well to give a difference of opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:D96F:4801:85DB:77CD:CF16:1B64 (talk) 22:39, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No need to be so aggressive. Whoever put in the reference did not necessarily make any other contribution to the article. Personally, I would remove it, because who cares what Scruton thought. TFD (talk) 23:06, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I’m removing that reference. Scruton is undoubtedly not a productive or representative view to overshadow adornos influence. That section reads rather jarringly. WesPhil (talk) 14:21, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
