Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory

"Post-modern neo-Marxism" is not a thing

Some editors are mentioning this name a lot, so let me state it at once and clearly:

"post-modern neo-Marxism" is not a thing. It's not an organic ideology that anybody subscribes to or would subscribe to. It's not a coherent ideology, it's not even a coherent concept, and everyone who is not subscribed to this theory at best thinks it's a joke, and at worst recognizes it as the obvious dog-whistling that it is.

It's a Frankenstein term whose constituent terms are contradictory (meaning it is in fact self-contradictory). It's a term Jordan Peterson et al. invented to describe anything they don't like in modern society (and especially modern academic/university discourse), a precursor to contemporary right-wing panics about "wokeness" or "critical race theory" (the right-wing distortion of "CRT", not the actual academic theory).

No serious political researcher has picked it up. No one, not even philosophers, take it seriously, and they are inclined to take a lot of things seriously. It's someone's pet theory they use to explain the world, and it's not even a good pet theory. The reason it is discussed here, in an article about a conspiracy theory, is that it amounts to a conspiracy theory. It's not a serious topic, and that's why, despite the fact that some editors constantly talk about it in circles, they can't provide reliable sources discussing it neutrally to back up their various claims.

Some editors might feel compelled to respond to this post, to point out that these terms are indeed very real, and that they do have "sources" to back it up. To those editors, I can only say: I'm sorry. Reality doesn't care about your fallacies or propaganda chambers.

Also, read the d*mn FAQ. TucanHolmes (talk) 12:48, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

The article doesn't mention "post-modern neo-Marxism"; and nobody seems to be trying to add the phrase. I can't figure out what you're trying to do or what you want to see happen? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 14:28, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Editors – often IP editors – are bringing it up repeatedly in discussions. A lot. Over and over again. At least since I started watching this page. Which is why I tried to state my point most generally.

(Usually brought up because people want to have mentions of Jordan Peterson removed from the article. That seems to be the most common context in which this happens.)

(That is also why I started this section with Some editors are bringing this name up a lot, so let me state it at once and clearly:) TucanHolmes (talk) 16:47, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

You should add some of this to a FAQ Dronebogus (talk) 22:27, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

The closest thing I could point at is something like Standpoint theory, it's got a bunch of literature and a bunch of people seem to subscribe to it. I would suggest that editors interested in "post modern neo-marxism" look at this piece rather than engaging with the rather niche literature surrounding this term. Perhaps we could link to it in the FAQ

If you look at the page you'll see that there is discussion of a "dominant culture" which in my opinion is likely dervied from Marxist ideas, and also has postmodern ideas about epistemic privilege. This plot shows the number of uses of "lived experience" in UK Parliament and shows a rapid uptick from the term basically not being used in 2015, it is now used multiple times a week weekly Talpedia 09:32, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I think the whole "lived experience" thing is a big part of "woke"/"critical theory"/whatever that you and I were both saying is sometimes (non-conspiratorially) labelled as "cultural marxism". But what is the upshot of your comment? Are you replying Tucan? Are you suggesting a change to the article? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 15:54, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

It is... But its also a big part of liberalism, libertarianism, charismatic religion etc... Its not in any way a unique of defining feature. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:00, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Sure... I'm not certain that the influence is out of standpoint theory, or how much the concept has transmogrified from its original morning. But the uptick in 2015 is suggestive of a more recent source ideas. Anyway yeah, I should probably stop talking pending an actual FAQ suggestion. Talpedia 16:26, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm mostly replying to Tucan. I'm a little worried about "scope creep" beyond this article, so I'm adding some context of "hey this is quite close". I'm also suggesting that if we change the FAQ we might like to sign post people to standpoint theory. I would prefer that we just don't change the FAQ - but if other people are keen this is an argument against these change and a suggestion for contextualization. Talpedia 16:30, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I've added an additional source to the article, and a note listing the actual terms Peterson uses (somewhat interchangeably). Until now, the article has just mentioned his use of "postmodernism", which I found to be quite thin, since it obscures the connection to "Cultural Marxism. That is why I added a note. TucanHolmes (talk) 20:45, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

If you want to propose something to be added to the FAQ, go right ahead. But at the moment, this appears to be an off-topic speech, rather than a proposal to improve the article. I was tempted to just close it per WP:FORUM, but there's some merit to proposing an addition to the FAQ. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:11, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

You're right, it probably was off-topic. I have seen the pattern repeat over the years (and again in more recent discussions), which is why I felt like an intervention was warranted. I ended up adding a note to the article, and will consider proposing an addition to the FAQ if the pattern continues in future discussions. TucanHolmes (talk) 20:52, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Post-modern neo-marxism is not real according to a deconstruction of the individual terms. However, by those who use it, Post-modern neo-marxism is a description of the collection of beliefs held by those who expound post-structuralist philosophy and conventionally left-wing political theory and is real to the extent that it is describable and has critics. This is really the bare minimum to be discussed on Wikipdia, who cares if it's "not a coherent ideology," that's never been a prerequisite for inclusion on Wikipedia.

This "Frankenstein theory," is real enough to be described in the article. Likewise, anybody who self-identifies as a post-modernist, or who identifies with post-modernism is "not real." To say that your totalizing meta-narrative is the rejection of totalizing meta-narrative is performative contradiction. Despite it being performative contradiction, it exists and has critics, which is sufficient to be described on Wikipedia and would likely be relevant on this page. I am a Leaf (talk) 19:40, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Without reliable sources to back any of those statements, the policy-compliant answer to the question "What is to be done?" must be "nothing". Newimpartial (talk) 14:53, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Agreed I am a Leaf (talk) 17:52, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent I am a Leaf (talk) 17:52, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Topic sentence is unencyclopedic and should be changed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The term "Cultural Marxism" refers to a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory which misrepresents the Frankfurt School as being responsible for modern progressive movements, identity politics, and political correctness.

"Misrepresents" should be changed to "represents" for several reasons:

1. There is no correct representation, "misrepresentation" is both a nonfalsifiable assertion and a statement about the veracity of the conspiracy theory. "Representation" in this context would state the view of the conspiracy theory in a disinterested, encyclopedic manner. The use of "representation" also does not make a statement on the veracity of the conspiracy theory, and is more encyclopedic.

2. No sources linked to the topic sentence indicate anything about this theory being a "misrepresentation" of the Frankfurt School, the only usable source on the internet here indicates that it is critical of the Frankfurt School, not that it is a "misrepresentation" of it's beliefs.

3. The title of the article is "conspiracy theory," in the context of the title being "conspiracy theory," the assertion that this theory is a "misrepresentation" is completely tautologous. Of course it's a misrepresentation! It's a conspiracy theory for god's sake!

It's not that I disagree that Cultural Marxism is a misrepresentation of the Frankfurt School, it's that I disagree with putting assertive, emotionally charged language in the topic sentence of a Wikipedia article of something of significance in contemporary life. There are some who may be predisposed to those who believe in this conspiracy, who would stop at the topic sentence of this article and say "this was written by the other side, it is biased." It would be in both Wikipedia's and the public's interest for a more disinterested topic sentence. I simply believe one word should be changed. I am a Leaf (talk) 20:41, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I suppose that any misrepresentation is tautologically a representation. But in this case, as abundant citations throughout the article attest, the claims of Cultural Marxism falsely represent the actual influence of the Frankfurt School. So we should use the more precise word, "misrepresent", which is perfectly neutral.

I am, however, going to change one word myself; namely, "which" to "that" because it is better English.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 20:57, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

It's a bogus factual claim, so 'misrepresents' is fine. There's nothing 'nonfalsifiable' about it. Since we don't do WP:FALSEBALANCE on Wikipedia, believers in this conspiracy theory are going to think that any fact-based article is biased. There's nothing we can do about that. MrOllie (talk) 21:00, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Misrepresentation indicates there is a correct representation and an incorrect representation. The word represent says nothing of veracity, misrepresentation does.

There is something we can do about conspiracy theory believers thinking a fact-based article is biased. Namely, we can remove the biased language in the topic sentence.

The change does nothing to the meaning of the topic sentence, or the article as a whole, it simply makes it more encyclopedic, which, if you've made it to this point of the talk page, you probably scrolled past a banner which says "Content must be written from a neutral point of view." We should try and adhere to that with this article.

In any event, if the statement "misrepresentation" is going to be used in the topic sentence, at least a source stating such should be in the topic sentence. I am a Leaf (talk) 21:04, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

"The word represent says nothing of veracity, misrepresentation does." isn't that an argument to use misrepresent (and a strong one at that)? The claimed representation is not veracious, it is in fact false. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:07, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

While I don't agree with the edits suggested here, the first sentence is deeply flawed, owing to the way it is less concerned with defining the topic than it is with applying prejudicial labels. Sennalen (talk) 21:08, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

This is really what i'm getting at. The topic sentence for 'Moon landing conspiracy theories' would be a good model for an article about conspiracy theories, especially when "conspiracy theory" is used in the article's title.

"Moon landing conspiracy theories claim that some or all elements of the Apollo program and the associated Moon landings were hoaxes staged by NASA, possibly with the aid of other organizations."

Consider, however, if this sentence was

"Moon landing conspiracy theories falsely claim that some or all elements of the Apollo program and the associated Moon landings were hoaxes staged by NASA, possibly with the aid of other organizations."

In terms of meaning, these sentences represent the same exact thing. Falsity can be inferred by the use of "conspiracy theory." However, the sentence without "falsely" represents this meaning with a more neutral tone. This neutrality should be the goal of this article on the Cultural Marxist conspiracy theory. I am a Leaf (talk) 21:17, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

For another model, to which the Cultural Marxism is explicitly linked in the article, please see Jewish Bolshevism.

Also, since the only two people who have problems with the lead both have histories of POV-pushing and disruptive editing on similar articles, I'm at least temporarily checking out of this conversation.

In no way, however, should this be mistaken as an indication of consensus. I remain strongly opposed to the sort of tinkering with the lead along the lines you are proposing.

If anyone has a knock-down argument that they have for some reason been holding back, please just tag me.

Peace out, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 21:47, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

1. It is outrageous to claim I have "histories of POV-pushing and disruptive editing" as a way to discredit my edits and suggestions.

2. My suggestion has no relation to the connection between cultural marxism, or the description of this conspiracy theory as "antisemitic," I merely want to change 3 letters of one word. This proposed change does not change the meaning of the lead sentence at all, it would merely change one redundant word to one which is neutral and no longer redundant. I am a Leaf (talk) 22:06, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Thats not neutrality its WP:FALSEBALANCE, please do not confuse them in the future. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:49, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

This is not an issue of false balance whatsoever, this is an issue of biased writing. Using "represent" does not legitimize the conspiracy theory (the issue in False Balance), using "represent" just eliminates a redundancy. I am a Leaf (talk) 22:00, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

That is contradictory. Is the issue biased writing or is it just about eliminating a redundancy? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:09, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Both. "Represent" and "misrepresent" would convey the same thing in this sentence because the sentence is describing a "conspiracy theory," which, by its name, is already a misrepresentation of consensus. That is one redundancy.

"Mis" in "misrepresent" is also where the bias comes in, because it makes a factual assertion which is not sourced in the lead sentence.

False balance is not an issue of merely of biased writing, it is an issue in delegitimizing an overwhelmingly consensus view. Using "represent" instead of "misrepresent" would not delegitimize the consensus that Cultural Marxism is a conspiracy theory because the plain meaning of conspiracy theory indicates the consensus already. This change (of three letters) would not create an issue of false balance. It would simply be more neutral. I am a Leaf (talk) 22:55, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

How would it be more neutral? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:02, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Mate please read any of my above comments (you have replied to several of them), it has been the subject of practically all of them. However, I will explain again.

"Represents" is more neutral because represents is used descriptively. It does not assert anything about the truth of the representation being made.

"Misrepresents" is less neutral (more partial) because it makes a statement which is no longer descriptive, but one which is "positive" or "normative." "Misrepresents," as used in this article, evaluates the conspiracy theory before even telling you what the conspiracy theory believes.

If you need a clearer example of why this article's lead shows bias, imagine the article for Christianity with the lead sentence:

"Christianity is a religion which misrepresents the universe as having one god."

Now imagine if the article said:

"Christianity is a religion which represents the universe as having one god."

Both of these are true, depending on what your religious beliefs are, but the sentence which uses "misrepresents" clearly indicates a position is being taken on the claim (bias). While the sentence which uses "represents" says the same thing while being more descriptive than normative. I am a Leaf (talk) 06:29, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

But thats not what neutral/neutrality means on wiki, its a term of art... See WP:NPOV. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:52, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

If you'd really like me to go through this with you

WP:NPOV "means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."

Also, "Prefer nonjudgmental language."

Also, "A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject"

I do not understand what your objection is anymore. You clearly do not want to change the lead, but until it is clear why you prefer the current version to one which uses nonjudgemental language, and otherwise satisfies WP:NPOV, I will continue to advocate for this minor change. I am a Leaf (talk) 07:25, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Saying something is a misrepresentation is a truth claim, it's not an attempt at emotionally disparaging anyone, or morally judging anyone. We're not saying the Conspiracy Theory is idiotic, or immoral. We're just reporting the academic findings as being representations of The Frankfurt School, and Conspiracy Theory findings (which are demonstrably false) as being misrepresentations of The Frankfurt School. 203.214.52.43 (talk) 09:24, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

The academic findings and the consensus that this theory is demonstrably false is already represented by the designation of this theory as a "conspiracy theory." I am a Leaf (talk) 17:35, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Then is the designation of this theory as a conspiracy theory also an issue vis-a-vis nonjudgmental language for you? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:03, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

No, because the designation of something as a conspiracy theory says more about the consensus around the theory than it says something about the facts which the theory misrepesents. Conspiracy theory is an accurate description, but to describe the conspiracy theory (at least in the topic sentence) in terms of what the theory misrepresents, rather than what it alleges, is what I have an issue with. I am a Leaf (talk) 20:11, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

This is why I believe the flat earth theory conspiracy theory page and the moon landing conspiracy theory pages are better models for the topic sentence. They describe the theories in terms of what those theories allege, and after they do that, the articles describe the overwhelming consensus that these theories are factually bogus. I am a Leaf (talk) 20:14, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Your attempts to change the moon landing conspiracy theory page appear to have been rejected by the community, surely you are aware of this? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

That is also false, the current language is the language I argued for. MrOllie's changes (which would have included the redundant "falsely" in the topic sentence) were rejected by the community. I am a Leaf (talk) 20:36, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

You are correct, the current language has changed since the last time I saw the page, but you still don't appear to have consensus for your edits. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:40, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure how any of this relates to the changes i've proposed on this article. I am a Leaf (talk) 20:41, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

But what it alleges is a misrepresentation, those two are one and the same. It doesn't just allege them it falsely alleges them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Misrepresents is neither judgmental nor does it disparage its subject. Where is the judgement and where is the disparagement? Note that you've spent a lot of time arguing that its redundant... Well if its redundant than it doesn't say anything different in terms of judgmental or disparagement than the other option does... So the two option we have no are either you're wrong it isn't redundant or you're wrong it isn't judgmental/disparaging. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:03, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Misrepresents is judgmental. It takes a stance which is already indicated by the fact that this theory is designated a conspiracy theory by the title of the article. I am a Leaf (talk) 17:37, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

If the stance is already indicated how is it any less judgmental for removing Misrepresents? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:24, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, because "represents" does not engage with the argument, it describes the argument, whereas "misrepresents" engages with the argument. Engaging in the argument is explicitly discouraged in the first sentence of WP:IMPARTIAL. I am a Leaf (talk) 18:28, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

If your reading of WP:IMPARTIAL were correct Flat earth theory would be a very different article. MrOllie (talk) 18:35, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

"Archaic and scientifically disproven" are verifiable, factual statements cited to in the lead paragraph. The Flat earth theory page has a good topic sentence!

"Misrepresents" is a value judgement, it engages with the dispute and tries to falsify it without a source or without an explanation of why it is false (unlike the Flat earth theory article, which neutrally states "scientifically disproven") and this conspiracy theory article makes a statement which is not cited in the main sentence, this is different from the Flat earth theory article.

At this point you are just throwing out spurious arguments against my request to change three letters because you feel like it shouldn't change, not because the change would be problematic. This is frustrating, but I understand, Wikipedia is run by people after all. There have been many intelligent, good-faith responses on this talk page, you have not been responsible for any of them. I am a Leaf (talk) 18:44, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

That you happen to disagree does not mean an argument is 'spurious'. Your claim that 'misrepresents' is a value judgement rather than a factual statement is backed only by your repeated, unevidenced assertions, and commenters here think it is simply incorrect You're starting from a faulty premise, so it is unsurprising that your arguments aren't convincing anyone to come around to your point of view. Making personal attacks about intelligence and assuming bad faith is not going to help with that. MrOllie (talk) 18:50, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

It is not "repeated, unevidenced assertions" I have cited to WP:IMPARTIAL and WP:NPOV.

Misrepresents "engages with the argument" (explicitly prohibited by WP:IMPARTIAL sentence 1);

Misrepresents does not "prefer nonjudgmental language" as demanded by WP:NPOV and WP:VOICE;

I argue that Misrepresents is a value judgement rather than a factual statement 1. because philosophical/historical positions cannot be proved or disproved, and 2. because the sources linked do not even indicate the assertion that the topic sentence makes (the assertion that the conspiracy theory is a misrepresentation of the Frankfurt School's beliefs)

I have asked for a minor stylistic change and I really must thank all the detractors of this view, as it's given me an opportunity to read the style guide more thoroughly.

See WP:FRINGENOT "WP:FRINGE is a content guideline which prohibits unwarranted promotion of theories which are not supported by mainstream scholarship and science in the theory's field. Issues unrelated to scholarship and science, then, cannot be fringe despite being minor viewpoints or widely opposed. In those cases, WP:UNDUE in the appropriate policy."

See also WP:UNDUE ". For instance, articles on historical views such as flat Earth, with few or no modern proponents, may briefly state the modern position and then discuss the history of the idea in great detail, neutrally presenting the history of a now-discredited belief."

See also MOS:NOTE "Simply present sourced facts neutrally and allow readers to draw their own conclusions"

I do have a solution though, I think first paragraph should simply be flipped. I would rewrite it as such:

The term "Cultural Marxism" refers to a conspiracy theory that posits that there is an ongoing and intentional academic and intellectual effort to subvert Western society via a planned culture war that undermines the Christian values of traditionalist conservatism and seeks to replace them with culturally liberal values.[sources 1-4]. The theory is widely criticized as a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory that misrepresents the Frankfurt School as being responsible for modern progressive movements, identity politics, and political correctness.

This would be far more acceptable, more in line with the Wiki's style guide, and I would no longer object to the use of the word misrepresentation in the first paragraph if this change were made. I am a Leaf (talk) 19:32, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Inserting WP:WEASEL words is not 'more in line with the Wiki's style guide'. MrOllie (talk) 19:36, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

What are you talking about weasel words? I only added the words "widely criticized", which, according to nearly everybody here, is in fact the case. I am a Leaf (talk) 19:38, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

See WP:WEASEL "The examples above are not automatically weasel words. They may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, and the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution. Likewise, views that are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions, if those expressions accurately represent the opinions of the source."

Is this not what the topic paragraph already states? I am a Leaf (talk) 19:42, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

No. The paragraph as is makes plain statements of fact. Your proposed changes turn that into a statement of opinion by critics, which is not at all equivalent. MrOllie (talk) 19:46, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

The conspiracy theory is a socio-historical one, not a scientific one. You seem to be making a WP:FRINGE argument, but as I have said above, this is WP:FRINGENOT. The phrase "conspiracy theory" already makes a statement of facts (namely, that the theory is already factually bogus).

The topic I proposed is organized as

(name) > (modern beliefs) > (criticisms),

you would prefer

(name) > (criticisms) > (modern beliefs)

This is a stylistic argument. I do not dispute the fact that the conspiracy theory misrepresents the Frankfurt School, but the topic sentence should reflect what the subject of the article is, rather than beginning with its criticisms and what the subject is not.

For more on WP:FRINGENOT, here is an exerpt: "the matter of our FRINGE guideline deals directly with what can be proven or demonstrated using the scientific method by academics, scholars, and scientists. Political opinions about recent history, future predictions, social opinion, and popular culture cannot be fringe because the basis of the opinion is not scientific or academic." I am a Leaf (talk) 19:55, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:FRINGENOT is a WP:ESSAY which has not been endorsed by the community. It has no standing or weight. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:58, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

If WP:FRINGENOT were policy it would certainly make pages like New World Order (conspiracy theory) and Great Replacement huge problems for Wikipedia to deal with. 203.214.52.43 (talk) 06:33, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

It would make them more difficult to write, that's fair, but the difficulty of writing in an impartial and neutral POV for socio-historical topics is no reason to simply abandon those goals. This is something that can be addressed on an article to article basis.

Academia has squarely rejected the ideas set forth in this article, and I do not argue that people should be disallowed from describing the widespread rejection of conspiracy theories, I disagree with doing so in the topic sentence, and in describing the conspiracy theory in terms of what it is misclaiming rather than what it is claiming.

Notice how other, more scientific, more definitively false conspiracy theories have topic sentences which describe claims directly in terms of what those claims allege. Is this due to those authors' fears of being interpreted as biased? I think not. The authors of those pages genuinely believes the facts speak for themselves. Likely, those authors do not fear people will read the content of the article and adopt the minority view. That does not seem to be the case with this article, as you have indicated.

If something really has academic consensus around it, there is no reason to have fear that it will be construed otherwise. For those who disagree and adopt the conspiratorial view, academic consensus would not change their mind anyways, we are not writing wikipedia for those people.

In terms of convincing people of the truth of your claims, attempts at neutrality is far more compelling than the deliberate avoidance of neutrality because it would be a "huge problem to deal with."

Judges sometimes write like this article's topic sentence and and it is highly annoying. (e.g., "First, we will begin by describing what the liberty interest protected by the 14th Amendment is not. . .").

But as I have said, the consensus seems clear by the high priests of this page and others, so there is not much of a reason to continue arguing my point. Reasonable minds differ, and recognizing that is an important part of being a member an open society like this. Take care. I am a Leaf (talk) 13:13, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

we are not writing wikipedia for those people. We write Wikipedia for everyone, and we do so to express the content found in reliable sources. It's as simple as that. Your saying that there are high priests for this page, or that we're only writing for some people, or even that we should just adopt how other pages describe other topics - I think reveals a misunderstanding of the purpose of Wikipedia.

We're here to summarize and report the content and findings of reliable sources, in order to explain and explore a topic area. We're not here to target some groups, or convince anyone of anything. We simply explain topics using high quality sources, and readily understandable language. If you adopt that mindset, you too can become a "high priest" of any page you wish to. It's just that simple. 84.247.101.29 (talk) 08:20, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

You appear to be arguing that one contains a value judgement and the other doesn't but that they're also functionally the same. How can that be the case? If its redundant than both sentences must contain the same value judgement. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:59, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Before this article used misrepresents in the lead sentence[1], it used claims there and misrepresents much later in the lead section. I for one have no clear preference one way or the other, but the lead must not be "neutral" about whether the conspiracy theory is based on reality, or not, because the reliable sources on the topic uniformly state that it isn't. Newimpartial (talk) 20:51, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea to me, I added it to Moon landing conspiracy theories. MrOllie (talk) 21:51, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Pls. review MOS:LEADCITE. Wikipedia's Frankfurt School article could use some TLC, but it would be an easy place to start. A more complete history can be found in Martin Jay's The Dialectical Imagination, should anyone be interested.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 21:09, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

The Frankfurt School is not responsible for modern progressive movements - ergo claiming it is, is a misrepresentation of what The Frankfurt School is responsible for. I mean, Marcuse out and out says he had very little to do with the 1960s student radicals in this interview here, and it's a quite well known fact that Adorno called the police on student protesters performing a sit-in at his campus. [2]. Ergo it seems accurate to say the claim is a misrepresentation.

What's more; conspiracy theories generally mix accurate representations with misrepresentations/falsehoods. The Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory for instance often gets the names of the theorists correct, often gets their locations and job positions correct... so it's fine for Wikipedia to point out a specific misrepresentation in the lead because it's the main thrust of the misrepresentations the various versions of the conspiracy theory make. It's a somewhat uniting misrepresentation that defines the conspiracy theory. The function of which is to reduce the various progressive struggles of the past half century into being "Frankfurt School Marxism"... which obviously misrepresents large areas of progressive politics and history (areas such as The Black Civil Rights movement, Stonewall and The Gay Rights movements, and modern Feminism). So I think the current language is fine: "The term "Cultural Marxism" refers to a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory that misrepresents the Frankfurt School as being responsible for modern progressive movements, identity politics, and political correctness." 203.214.52.43 (talk) 03:42, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

What's more this is not a double negative, or a tautology, as we're not speaking from within the conspiracy theory (we're speaking from Wikivoice)... and as stated above, conspiracy theories generally mix truth and falsehood, so it's fine to mark off one of the major arguments of the conspiracy theory as being a misrepresentation. 203.214.52.43 (talk) 03:45, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

The idea Marcuse had "very little to do" with student radicals is risible. He led sit ins. They marched with his name on flags. He was a confidante of Rudi Dutschke. The incident with Adorno caused a personal schism between the two of them. You cannot mount an effective crusade against misinformation, if you don't know what is correct to start with. Sennalen (talk) 03:53, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Marcuse and Dutschke having some interaction in Germany focused on opposing the Vietnam war, and later via a letter or two is not the same thing as Marcuse organizing and being responsible for the 1960s Student Radicals... and no, he wasn't Dutschke's confidant. They had very limited interactions (Marcuse only had one last book in him at that time, and of course Dutschke was shot in the head)... what's more Marcuse is just one member of the Frankfurt School, and when the conspiracy theory speaks of "progressives" it tends to be referring to modern American progressives. 203.214.52.43 (talk) 09:03, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

"It's fine for Wikipedia to point out a specific misrepresentation in the lead because it's the main thrust of the misrepresentations the various versions of the conspiracy theory make. It's a somewhat uniting misrepresentation that defines the conspiracy theory"

I agree with you and this is precisely why "misrepresent" is redundant. The article is about a conspiracy theory. Of course the conspiracy theory misrepresents, misrepresentation of facts is a unifying aspect of conspiracy theories.

If "misrepresents" and "represents" would have the same meaning if used the lead sentence, but one of those words was more likely to suggest bias, rather than impartiality, wouldn't it be better to use the word which best reflects impartiality?

Certainly it would be a better sentence if meaning is unchanged despite greater impartiality, right? This is an encyclopedia after all.

If you think it would be better to reflect impartiality, the proper word in the topic sentence is "represents."

I do not think "misrepresents" is wholly wrong as used here, I simply think this article could be better and was curious for input. Thank you for your contribution. I am a Leaf (talk) 06:07, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I think you're under the mistaken impression that Wikipedia aims to be impartial. It doesn't. It aims to be neutral. These are not the same thing. For instance, the statement; Anthropocentric Climate change exists. Is neutral, but it's not impartial.

Wikipedia does have a bias, its bias is towards reliable academic sources. Wikipedia is biased towards the facts. It is bias towards the truth of what can be said. It attempts to convey an academic, truth based bias, in a neutral fashion. It won't ever say "Climate change denial is wrong, and hence the people who deny climate change are very bad people." - but it will say "The current rise in global average temperature is more rapid than previous changes, and is primarily caused by humans burning fossil fuels."... neutral, but not impartial.

So your argument that "represents" is impartial, is not valid here. Which is why people above are bringing up "false balance"... Wikipedia doesn't aim to show that all representations of The Frankfurt School are equal, and so should all be counted as "representations". No, Wikipedia is here to say; The academic and reliable sources are the accurate representations, and statements which are discussed by academic sources as being false or misleading, are misrepresentations of The Frankfurt School. We're just here to echo the academic consensus. The idea that The Frankfurt School was a group of German Socialists is thus a representation. The idea that they were a group of German Socialists who are responsible for the modern progressive agenda which aims to destroy America, is a misrepresentation. This is so, because it's what's found in, and coheres with the reliable sources.

Wikipedians have gone through those sources in a fairly arduous copy writing process to find the relevant areas of academic texts, to say what's said. We cite sources, and either quote the authors, or rephrase what they've said, because that's what we're here to do. We're not here to treat all viewpoints as equal. 203.214.52.43 (talk) 08:49, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Well said. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:01, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. 203.214.52.43 (talk) 10:52, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:IMPARTIAL would like a word. Sennalen (talk) 15:04, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

This is patently false, Wikipedia aims to be impartial and neutral. See WP:IMPARTIAL and WP:NPOV I am a Leaf (talk) 17:38, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Impartial tone, yes. But in this case it is WP:1AM Andre🚐 19:57, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for teaching me about WP:1AM Andre. I have heard "The worst mistake a person can make is not admitting the mistake was made." Perhaps my pedantry was mistaken. I am a Leaf (talk) 20:04, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

What you should recognize is that there have been several rounds of folks coming to the article trying to legitimize or somehow cast doubt on this being a conspiracy theory, and lend credence to the idea that that Frankfurt school are actually insidious Marxists secretly subverting society, or alternately, that it's just generally that left activists have a secret plan to subvert society, which could also be considered to be "cultural Marxism." I get what you're saying, though. You're saying that the article should introduce the delusional universe of the conspiracy and then inhabit it for a while as a rhetorical or argument device. Which is a thing that some articles do and it reads in a certain sort of way. I submit though, that doing so on the flat earth or moon landing article is different because the average reader knows that those are completely bullshit conspiracy theories (i.e., you can easily disprove flat earth in your living room or experience the effects of the horizon/a curved earth trivially in everyday life, and most people see the footage and space rocks etc and accept them at face value) and the "cultural Marxism conspiracy theory" is an active canard pushed by radical right wing fundamentalists who want to dismantle the administrative state, defund the EPA, and other insane stuff because they think it's all a communist conspiracy and they're coming for our bodily fluids. Andre🚐 20:53, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

"You're saying that the article should introduce the delusional universe of the conspiracy and then inhabit it for a while as a rhetorical or argument device."

Yes, I think at least for the lead sentence, although, I agree with your genuine concern that there are those who want to cast doubt on the conspiracy theory. To that, my personal preference is to really engage with people on their own terms.

On a related note, I attended a Jesuit university. Priests were also professors of theology, theology was a general education requirement. I found the most admirable priests were the ones who engaged with agnostics/athiests/antitheists with the rhetoric that those arguers presented. I am not even a Christian, I just found the capacity to engage with arguments in such a way admirable. I admit, this is probably not the best way to eliminate doubt surrounding a conspiracy theory, especially one which isn't exactly falsifiable by science. All I can really say is that this I propose a personal stylistic preference because of my admiration for those who engage with critics by those critics' terms, and to dismantle that criticism by the criticism's own terms. That is what impartiality is to me. Even if it doesn't perfectly comport with WP:IMPARTIAL.

However when dealing with unreasonable people, I admit, sometimes you must be a bit more absolutist in your stance on truth. You (and others) have raised interesting points, and you have addressed me unpretentiously. So I thank you, and will defer to the consensus on this one. I am a Leaf (talk) 21:07, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

One thing to keep in mind is that third party services like Alexa and Siri often use wikipedia as the source of information (for example to answer the question "Alexa what is the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory") but will only read the first sentence or first few sentences making it really key that we focus on being descriptive not on a larger page narrative because they're likely not going to read the page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:03, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I. Antisemitism insinuations, II. Contemporary use

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Association fallacy

There have been instances of antisemitic insinuations in at least one BLP of a notable person who has used the term but is not known to hold antisemitic views. Currently, the term 'Cultural Marxism' does not have its own page but redirects to this one, creating a strong implication that any person using the term is an antisemite. This implication is further emphasized by the Antisemitism sidebar. The association fallacy is dangerous and goes against WP:BLP, especially with such a highly charged label as antisemitism. I am including a well-sourced and carefully crafted statement in the lede to delineate the contemporary linguistic use of the term that is not antisemitic. This addition does not negate historical instances or potential occurrences of antisemitic use.

If there are concerns about WP:DUE, please consider the OED source as a primary authority on the English language. Their entry was last updated in July 2023, presumably reflecting contemporary usage better than any other listed source of our page. Given the politically charged nature of the term, and with many people with strong viewpoints likely watching, do not reverse the lede before discussing it here.

Additionally, we could set up the Cultural Marxism (disambiguation) page and link it to this page, considering that the contemporary use and the meaning of the term have grown and changed. I will support this move if there is backing from other editors. Currently, a false equivalency is being made between the terms Cultural Marxism and Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. Clearly, the terms are linked, but what is being described in the OED is VERY different from the focus of this page. Here's another source that speaks to contemporary usage: How ‘cultural Marxism’ and ‘critical race theory’ became dangerously misunderstood. XMcan (talk) 22:04, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

We cannot use a dictionary and a newspaper opinion article to under cut the higher quality sources we are currently citing, particularly not when the OED is waffling about its own definition by including stuff like Owing to the term's history, such use is often regarded as controversial. MrOllie (talk) 22:15, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

PS: WP:CANVASSING ([3], [4], [5] and at Talk:Ben Shapiro) is always a bad idea. MrOllie (talk) 22:21, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

You reverted my lede edit. Let's also note that you opposed my changes on the Lindsay page until other senior editors became involved. XMcan (talk) 22:44, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Not sure why you’re lecturing a respected editor who’s been contributing continuously since 2008 about “seniority”. Dronebogus (talk) 23:06, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

While existing sources include Socialist and Marxist journals, I am not attempting to minimize their authority in discussions on the 'Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory.' I do assert that the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) is a higher quality source for understanding the current linguistic use of the term 'Cultural Marxism.' Since the Cultural Marxism redirects to this page, and the introduction specifically defines the use of the CM as a term, the OED remains a highly relevant source (despite my edit being reversed and thus OED removed as a source). XMcan (talk) 23:30, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

A dictionary is not a quality source on political science. It’s at the same tertiary non-specialist level as another encyclopedia. The relevance of linguistics to this article is negligible and making it about the meaning of a term, rather than the idea the term usually describes is arguing semantics and WP:UNDUE weight. Dronebogus (talk) 23:41, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

What other article would even be linked to at this proposed disambiguation page? CAVincent (talk) 22:34, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

That's open to debate, but the disambiguation page should provide a definition closer to the current use of the term CM, and the OED is an authority in that regard. Currently, we are equating everyone using the term CM with CM conspiracy theorists, who are conflated with CM conspiracy theorists that are antisemitic. This is a double association fallacy and is being used as a political weapon. XMcan (talk) 22:56, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

“The dictionary definition” is itself a fallacy. The OED is one of the leading authorities on the use of the English Language, not the one and only world authority on political science like you’re seemingly suggesting. You’re essentially suggesting a Wikipedia:POV fork based on your claimed definition that’s sourced to a dictionary definition and an op-ed. Dronebogus (talk) 23:02, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

This was at the bottom of the lede before MrOllie reverted it:

While the term "Cultural Marxism" has origins in anti-Semitic belief, nowadays it is also used in a broader context to criticize perceived left-wing bias, including by Ben Shapiro, David Horowitz, and other Jewish right-wing commentators.

XMcan (talk) 23:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Ben Shapiro, a right-wing talking head with no expertise on anything, who promotes non-issues like gender-neutral bathrooms or Shakira and J Lo shaking their butts at the Super Bowl as controversies, is not a reliable source on cultural marxism and an even worse source than the others. Do you have expert academic sources for your claims? Dronebogus (talk) 23:16, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I won’t even begin to explain why Horowitz is a joke, but creating academic hit-lists seems like a good place to start. Tl;dr some Jews being crazy enough to fall for antisemitic conspiracy theories is not evidence they aren’t antisemitic. Dronebogus (talk) 23:26, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

It must take quite a bit of mental gymnastics to accuse a Jewish person of being antisemitic. XMcan (talk) 00:20, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

It happens so much there's a term for it: Self-hating Jew. MrOllie (talk) 00:25, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Are you saying that Ben Shapiro are David Horowitz are antisemites? XMcan (talk) 00:39, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

«It must take quite a bit of mental gymnastics to accuse a Jewish person of being antisemitic» => No cf.

• Association of German National Jews
• Yair Netanyahu relayed an antisemite drawing in 2017
• Nephew of Shoah denier Robert Faurisson rejoin the political campaign team of Éric Zemmour who is jewish
• famous jewish historian Robert S. Wistrich endorsed [6] a far-right conspiracytheory very similar to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion [7] wikidata:Q55653370
• American Far-right conspiracy theorist ostracised by followers after they found out he was Jewish
• Jewish collaboration with Nazi Germany
• Ben Shapiro having a same-sex spouse while helping homophobia
• r/LeopardsAteMyFace
• House Negro
• wikidata:Q111207308

Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 07:29, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Let's not be feeding the troll here. If there is anything productive we can glean from this nonsense it is that maybe this article should have a FAQ in order to pre-empt such timewasting threads. It would be nice to just be able to tap the sign and move on whenever this happens. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:37, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Agreeing with DanielRigal, both on the likely usefulness of a FAQ, and the lack of productivity in this thread at this point. CAVincent (talk) 01:00, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

a false equivalency is being made between the terms Cultural Marxism and Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. That is a concise summary of what is wrong with the lede. Sennalen (talk) 02:14, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

There is a page for Marxist analysis of culture, it is the Marxist cultural analysis page. This is the page for the conspiracy theory; The Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory... and as explained above, people of any race can either knowingly or unknowingly use conspiracy theorist thinking and language, even if their particular ethnicity or race is negatively targeted by the prevalent usage.

This diff [8] provides a variety of sources which explain the ties to antisemitism, using various academic sources and quotes.

The term "Cultural Marxism" in reference to the conspiracy theory about The Frankfurt School has a lot of white nationalist baggage because a conservative think tank in 2002 paid to have it be promoted at a holocaust denial conference. Lind wrote in 2000;

"Paul Weyrich has several times referred to “cultural Marxism.” He asked me, as Free Congress Foundation’s resident historian, to write this column explaining what cultural Marxism is..."

William S. Lind came up with "Cultural Marxism" as a conspiracy theory narrative about The Frankfurt School, and in 2002 was paid by The Free Congress Foundation (a conservative think tank) to give a lecture about his theory at a Holocaust Denial conference. The Free Congress Foundation claims this was a form of outreach to many different groups on an issue by issue basis. In the lecture Lind made sure to mention that The Frankfurt School "were all Jewish" ...and part of the lecture was about them working for Hollywood (which is misinformation), as well as being the source of America's supposed degeneration.

Subsequently by 2010 The Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory was a common topic on the White Nationalist forum StormFront.org, and by 2014 had spread to 4chan's neo-Nazi threads. Which is how it became part of alt-right doctrine. This was its pathway to being mainstream right wing and conservative ideology. Hitler had a similar idea he called Cultural Bolshevism. The Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory is essentially about a small group of foreign Jews coming to America with a plan to destroy western civilization (and in some versions, Christianity) by taking over the media, academia and politics. The Frankfurt School had no such plan, and in fact, were warning against mass media, which they considered to be a type of commercial propaganda, they called it The Culture Industry (today known as mainstream media). Frankfurt theorist Theodor W. Adorno writes more about this in his essay here. They were also Jewish refugees, fleeing from the social collapse of WW2 (rather than seeking to destroy their host country).

What's more identity politics was NOT created by The Frankfurt School, and is instead a home grown American theory. It was created by two black American women, Barbara Smith, and Kimberle Crenshaw.

The same person who founded The Free Congress Foundation, and paid William S. Lind to come up with his theory and spread it at a holocaust denial conference (Paul Weyrich), also founded The Heritage Foundation (another conservative think tank), which today still spreads the conspiracy theory.

There's a myriad of antisemitic imagery on the conspiracy theory's Know Your Meme page here. Some versions of the conspiracy theory go as far as to suggest The Frankfurt School were Satanists, as per this essay, others merely claim they were doing 'the work' of Satanists (note, that link is from The National Review, one of the most influential conservative magazines). There's a very strange claim that one theorist (Adorno) was trained by The Tavistock Institute to write music for The Beatles, in order to create mass environmental social turbulences, the conservative website Breitbart put their own spin on this claim saying "Theodor Adorno promoted degenerate atonal music to induce mental illness, including necrophilia, on a large scale."... and of course Lind has his previously mentioned claims that The Frankfurt School had sway over Hollywood, and used that sway to put gays on Television.

This all reads a bit like Hitler's degenerate art theory (the idea that Jews and Communists were ruining Germany by purposefully ruining Germany's culture), or Cultural Bolshevism, and Lind has indeed stated that he believes the conspiracy has its origins in 1918 Germany.

So - the claim that Cultural Marxists are somehow in charge of - or ruining culture, has it's antisemitic side, and there is no evidence that any recent progressive political movements in the areas of trans rights, gay rights, feminism, or black civil rights are part of a plot to destroy America or Christianity. Likewise, the conspiracy theory at its base, and via its method of spread and usage has antisemitic meanings, tone, context, and aspects written into it.

Wikipedia is not responsible for the fact that the conspiracy theory spread falsehoods about Jewish theorists controlling Hollywood. Nor are we responsible for the fact it was initially spread at a holocaust denial conference (in 2002), or that it made its way to Stormfront (2010) and 4chan (2014). Nor is Wikipedia responsible for the antisemitic imagery associated with the conspiracy theory, or the claims that these German-Jewish theorists were Satanists or working for Satan. Or that they could somehow induce necrophilia. These claims are all historical, and part of the events that spread the conspiracy theory. Nor are we responsible for the obvious parallels with Hitlerian thought.... but these things do exist as part of the terms current usage and historical development, and so academics have described these things, and so Wikipedia uses those sources and adopts that viewpoint (aka the prevalent usage in reliable academic sources, see the diff mentioned earlier for details). Also see WP:NOTDICT. 14.202.44.246 (talk) 05:50, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

It should be noted that a) some conservative forums still carry a "lite" version of this conspiracy, targeted now only at "liberal jews" [9], and b) that the previous version of the "Cultural Marxism" wikipedia page (prior to its correction) only used 3 sources that were actually found to contain the term explicitly, and 2 of those 3 sources were from a single author. Wikipedia will sometimes find pages which are predominantly WP:OR or poorly sourced, and it just so happens that one was tied into a rapidly popularizing conspiracy theory. That said OP is welcome to attempt an RfC on creating a disambig. between Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory and Marxist cultural analysis. 14.202.44.246 (talk) 06:15, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

The appropriate disambiguation target would be Western Marxism, which is a synonym for cultural Marxism.[10] Sennalen (talk) 06:34, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

That suggestion has already been knocked down by consensus because it includes SO MANY people who either aren't seen as Marxist, or aren't considered to be culturally Marxist, or changed their philosophies over time, or aren't from The Frankfurt School and don't adhere to any academic source's mention of "cultural Marxism". So it's obviously not a candidate for a disambig ABOUT "cultural Marxism" - you can't just use this to further muddy the waters. No, the appropriate disambig (should the consensus go that way) would be between Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, and Marxist cultural analysis. 14.202.44.246 (talk) 08:44, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Removed the idea of an RfC as other editors have noted that there's canvassing going on. 14.202.44.246 (talk) 22:50, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

«Currently, the term 'Cultural Marxism' does not have its own page but redirects to this one, creating a strong implication that any person using the term is an antisemite.» => The Cultural Marxism narrative is labelled as antisemite since no later than 2003 cf. https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2003/cultural-marxism-catching so if those persons do not want to be associated with antisemitism, then they can just not endorse the Cultural Marxism narrative. This is their problem/duty/responsability, not Wikipedia's problem/duty/responsability. Also WP:BLP is already limiting the level of criticism toward those persons in the Wikipedia's articles about them. But if a reader of Wikipedia's articles about Engelbert Dollfuss move to linked pages such Category:Far-right politics in Austria, Category:Far-right politics in Europe, end at The Holocaust, receive the false impression that Engelbert Dollfuss was somewhat involved in the The Holocaust (which is not the case since he was murdered by the Nazis many years before) thus is a bad man, then it is not Wikipedia's responsability. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 07:29, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

From this article you linked

"Not everyone who uses the cultural Marxism construct sees Jews in general at the center of the plot. But a 1998 book by California State University-Long Beach evolutionary biologist Kevin MacDonald — one of just two witnesses to testify on behalf of Holocaust denier David Irving in a famous 2000 libel trial — makes plain that Jews in general are implicated in what is seen as an attack on the West.

In The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Social Movements, MacDonald says that while all Jews are not guilty, the movements he attacks are indeed "Jewishly motivated.""

It is easy to make the conclude from (rhetoric suggesting antisemitic trope) + (rhetoric implicating Jewish academics) that belief in the conspiracy is always antisemitic.

However, by what you linked, not all instances of belief in the cultural Marxism conspiracy theory were antisemitic, certainly not overtly. However, many who do believe the conspiracy theory seem to link it to other conspiracies which have implicated Jews in the past.

Antisemitism/Jews are implicated enough to be noteworthy. I do, however, think the sidebar is overdoing it given that the association of the conspiracy theory and antisemitism are debated and this debate is rather documented. I am a Leaf (talk) 08:43, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Returning to the main point, which is that Wikipedia’s definition of “Cultural Marxism” differs significantly from the OED’s definition, in both tone and substance. Let’s compare the two definitions, side by side:

Wikipedia: The term "Cultural Marxism" refers to a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory that misrepresents the Frankfurt School as being responsible for modern progressive movements, identity politics, and political correctness.

Oxford English Dictionary: Used depreciatively, chiefly among right-wing commentators: a political agenda advocating radical social reform, said to be promoted within western cultural institutions by liberal or left-wing ideologues intent on eroding traditional social values and imposing a dogmatic form of progressivism on society. Later also more generally: a perceived left-wing bias in social or cultural institutions, characterized as doctrinaire and pernicious.

Wikipedia definition characterizes "Cultural Marxism" as a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory, whereas the OED definition focuses more on its usage and perception by right-wing commentators. This is a significant difference in how the term is framed. Are we going to ignore this completely? XMcan (talk) 10:45, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes. We do not use the dictionary as a reliable source. Drop that argument, it's not going to get you anywhere. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:21, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:RS doesn't say anything about dictionaries except links to WP:DICTS. The latter page clearly states OED is not only allowed but is one of few preferred sources for English language use. XMcan (talk) 14:00, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

There is no such policy. There are limitations to tertiary sources, but it is highly context dependent. Sennalen (talk) 14:35, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

It was already addressed earlier by MrOllie; "We cannot use a dictionary and a newspaper opinion article to under cut the higher quality sources we are currently citing". We can't just assume a source is reliable or knows what it's on about, that's the whole point of Academic sources being so high in the WP:RS pyramid. 14.202.44.246 (talk) 14.202.44.246 (talk) 14:48, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

None of the high quality sources make the fundamental error of equivocating between "cultural Marxism" and "cultural Marxism conspiracy theory" Sennalen (talk) 16:13, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

It is interesting that Woke mentions the 'Oxford English Dictionary' by its full name three times, including in the lede, and references it as a source 10 other times in the article text. Yet you would deny it as a source here, even a single reference? XMcan (talk) 15:26, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Because much better references already cover the topic. A dictionary quote does nothing to improve the article. You keep acting like a dictionary overrides everything else, when dictionaries are not the authoritative sources on a topic such as this. If you keep flogging this topic against consensus, you're just going to be wasting everyone's time. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:43, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

The works of The Frankfurt School philosophers, Social Studies, Marxism, Critical Theory, and where The Conspiracy Theory gets their elements wrong enough to call it a conspiracy theory are specialty topics in comparison to the general usage of "woke". Woke doesn't directly refer to specific areas of study/academia/knowledge in the same way. Which is probably why the page for woke has a picture of someone holding a T-shirt with the term on it, and we have the sidebar for antisemitism 14.202.44.246 (talk) 16:01, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

In fact, the terms 'woke' and 'cultural Marxism' have a lot in common linguistically. Both terms have been co-opted by political movements and were relatively recently added to the OED, with 'woke' making its entry in 2017 and 'cultural Marxism' in 2021. XMcan (talk) 17:22, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

From the OED's usage:

"said to be promoted within western cultural institutions by liberal or left-wing ideologues intent on eroding traditional social values and imposing a dogmatic form of progressivism on society." [emphasis added]

Much like the moonlandings are said to be fake, and the earth is said to be flat. It looks a lot like they wanted to call it a conspiracy theory without saying so directly - and so they sat on the fence in terms of language. At any rate, it's a flimsy source that doesn't warrant making any changes to the article. 14.202.44.246 (talk) 14:39, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

The OED excerpt is an excellent example of a neutral point of view framing, something that we should all aspire to as encyclopedia editors. Thank you for the emphasis. XMcan (talk) 17:38, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

You’re completely missing the point of IP’s statement— that we are not using the damned OED source now or ever because it is not a good source for whatever you’re trying to use it for, and twisting it into some weird argument for the ever-popular “NPOV means you have to whitewash controversial articles” myth. Drop this argument, please. There’s a huge consensus against it. Dronebogus (talk) 19:08, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Also, enough with the canvassing already. Trying to drag uninvolved users into a debate you’re clearly losing in order to bolster your legitimacy/get better arguments is unacceptable. Dronebogus (talk) 19:20, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure that we want to dignify this thread by calling it a "debate" or to encourage adversarial thinking by suggesting that anybody can "win" or "lose". All I see here is a disruptive thread rehashing long settled issues and wasting everybody's time. There are no winners and the loser is Wikipedia itself.

As I see it, there are two options here. Somebody can roll the thread up as a disruptive rehash of previous discussions and we can all just stop, or those advocating for a change can start an RfC on whatever specific change they are actually advocating for.

I'm not suggesting for a moment that such an RfC is necessary to decide any actual undecided issues. It sounds like it covers no new ground and would have a 0% chance of success given the strong existing consensus. Nonetheless, it would impose a time limited, structured framework for bringing this matter to a definitive close with a clearly documented outcome which would discourage future attempts to relitigate the same issue. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:54, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I really don’t understand the need for an RfC for a single user’s disruption. I suggest the disruptive user is blocked, at least from this page (but a general block is likely necessary due to jumping around canvassing and targeting other users). Dronebogus (talk) 21:46, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Break

XMcan brings a useful and timely observation, Currently, a false equivalency is being made between the terms Cultural Marxism and Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. That is the problem to be solved. The limits of OED as a tertiary source are a tangential matter. Fortunately, there are lots of other sources in the article establishing that "cultural Marxism" historically was a value-neutral phrase denoting Western Marxism or the Frankfurt School, and still can be.

There is a curious phenomenon where some editors will readily acknowledge that there is a legitimate use of "cultural Marxism" when it comes to the disambiguation hatnote, but suddenly act like this is an unprecedented pro-fringe idea when it comes to text. Editors will from one side of their mouth decry that we are not following the best academic sources, and from the other side of the mouth, FORUM at length about something a Vox columnist read on Stormfront. It is time for that to end, and to bring the lede into alignment with the WP:BESTSOURCES and the body text.

MOS:OPEN says:

• The first sentence should introduce the topic, and tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where.
• If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence
• If its subject is definable, then the first sentence should give a concise definition
• Avoid constructions like "[Subject] refers to..." or "...is a word for..." – the article is about the subject, not a term for the subject.
• Do not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject; instead, spread the relevant information out over the entire lead.

The current first sentence, The term "Cultural Marxism" refers to a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory that misrepresents the Frankfurt School as being responsible for modern progressive movements, identity politics, and political correctness. falls afoul of all these recommendations. It is possible to ignore the guidance with good reasons, but no reasons have been provided.

As a replacement, I suggest that the first sentence becomes Cultural Marxism conspiracy theories are unfounded claims about the Frankfurt School and Western Marxism, particularly among United States political conservatives since the 1990s.

This conforms to all of the listed recommendations of MOS:OPEN. The details of exactly what those claims are, and the extent to which they are antisemitic, should be left to follow-on sentences. This framing is derived from the "Background" and "Conspiracy theories" article sections, as should be the case for lede text. There is an abundance of citations from which to choose representative examples, for those who feel the lede needs them. Sennalen (talk) 22:32, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

• I reiterate my concern that you should start a new thread. Maybe Xmcan makes a legitimate point here but you shouldn’t give them too much credit considering they want to use Ben Shapiro and a dictionary definition with near-equal weight to, like, actual sources by academic experts (not to mention “broken clocks being right twice a day”), and has used both canvassing and bludgeoning to push this extremely ill-informed viewpoint. Dronebogus (talk) 23:43, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Let's not worry about that. At least we have a sensible proposal to discuss now so let's put all the other stuff behind us and just do that. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:12, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

• Editors will from one side of their mouth decry that we are not following the best academic sources, and from the other side of the mouth, FORUM at length about something a Vox columnist read on Stormfront. Probably because the Vox columnist is discussing the CONSPIRACY THEORY usage, where as you're intent on inserting your own undue original research and claiming it's "academic" because you have a single entry in an online dictionary as your source. Well no, that's not a due source for your manufactured claims.

This goes back to the reason the page's content was moved and the previous title salted in the first place, which you can find confirmation of in the 2nd AfD on the matter - namely that the "academic" usage wasn't unified, notable, or specific enough to manufacture a page out of it. It was a generalized term; cultural Marxism (only appearing capitalized in the titles of some works). It's two ideas put together, as in "What would the culture of Marxism" look like, or "can we discuss what a culture of Marxism is?" - but never "This is Academic Cultural Marxism, this definition is widely understood and notable". It was a niche and seldom used or understood term, which came up in a general sense, not a technical or widely established sense. Which is why the Marxist Cultural Analysis page focuses on Marxist cultural analysis rather than any specifically defined term or widely discussed school of Marxism.

MOS, or Manual of Style, is - as the name suggests - a STYLE guide. It is not a policy recommendation beyond being a style guide... but still, lines like "If its subject is definable", and "If possible", back up my above arguments.

This is a question of CONTENT, not STYLE... and on that point, your continual efforts to combine the conspiracy theory usage and the more general/rare usage, have already been noted. You have a specific philosophical approach you're attempting to push here as expressed in your "write the infinite article" essay. It's pro-merging topics. Your essay is thus tagged with a warning because it is not policy, and is very permissive to Original Research (the kind you're attempting to insert).

You may repeatedly raise Western Marxism as an appropriate target for disambiguation; but we've already discussed that, it's already been rejected by consensus, and I've mentioned this to you above. Western Marxism is a page that includes STRUCTURAL MARXISTS here's a quote from the page:

..."the structural Marxism of Louis Althusser, which attempts to purge Marxism of Hegelianism and humanism, also belongs to Western Marxism, as does the anti-Hegelianism of Galvano Della Volpe. Althusser holds that Marx's primary philosophical antecedent is not Hegel or Feuerbach but Baruch Spinoza..." [emphasis added]

To recap; style is not content, structural Marxism is not cultural Marxism, your essay is not policy, and this page will not allow Original Research that has the aim of muddying the waters. Nor will its disambig if there ever is one.

On that last point, it's been raised that editors have been canvassing opinions on talk pages favorable to their (apparently right of center) position, so an RfC seems unlikely at this point... having an RfC, or even changing the lead based on a single short entry in an online dictionary, and backed up by the style guide... is ridiculous. What's more even that single short entry can be read as supporting the current wording. There's simply no real case for pursuing this further. Your complaints about editors discussing the conspiracy theory usage, on this page, which is about the conspiracy theory usage, don't make a lot of sense. Nor does your desire to manufacture an academic definition from an online dictionary in order to merge that newly manufactured WP:OR with the article's content. Please WP:LISTEN, cease, and back away from the WP:deadhorse.

The consensus is that there's the conspiracy theory usage (which this page concerns), and then there's two words put together, to mean something along the lines of "Marxist cultural analysis" (which has its own page). Please listen to the consensus, and understand which topic each talk page aims to address. These two concepts are kept separate for a reason. We're no more aiming to "inhabit the conspiracy theory" here, than we are to merge it with some general concept of Marxism. 14.202.44.246 (talk) 23:56, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

• I don't see a big problem with the current wording. If somebody says "Cultural Marxism" in the 21st century then they are >98% likely to be talking about the subject of this article. The other uses are minor and well in the past. I also don't think that the proposed change is going to stop all the kvetching either. Nothing short of deleting the article, or replacing it with content affirming the conspiracy theory, will appease the kvetchers.

That said, if the new wording is an improvement in terms of clarity, and if it solves some perceived problems, then that's a good thing independent of anything else. I'm in favour of the general shape of the proposal. My specific concerns with the proposed wording are as follows:

1. Should we name the United States explicitly when the most influential proponent of the term, with all its conspiratorial implications, who to springs to my (British) mind is Canadian? Maybe "North American" or "English speaking" would be better?
2. Do we really want to pluralise "theories"? Are there really a set of distinct conspiracy theories or just minor variants on a single conspiracy theory? Qanon, for example, is described as singular despite being a far more disparate collection of nutty beliefs than "Cultural Marxism", which has a more stable core.

So, maybe we might need to tweak the proposal a little bit to get it exactly right but I'm sure that is doable. I think that we are finally heading in the right direction. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:08, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Is Cultural Marxism really a centralized thing or is it just “everything conservatives don’t like”, grown out of a core conspiracy theory about Jewish intelligentsia undermining society from within or whatever? Dronebogus (talk) 00:34, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Maybe it really is plural then? I'm not sure which is the better way to describe it. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:37, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed change to first sentence

MOS:OPEN says:

• The first sentence should introduce the topic, and tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where.
• If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence
• If its subject is definable, then the first sentence should give a concise definition
• Avoid constructions like "[Subject] refers to..." or "...is a word for..." – the article is about the subject, not a term for the subject.
• Do not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject; instead, spread the relevant information out over the entire lead.

The current first sentence, The term "Cultural Marxism" refers to a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory that misrepresents the Frankfurt School as being responsible for modern progressive movements, identity politics, and political correctness. falls afoul of all these recommendations. It is possible to ignore the guidance with good reasons, but no reasons have been provided.

As a replacement, I suggest that the first sentence becomes Cultural Marxism conspiracy theories are unfounded claims about the Frankfurt School and Western Marxism, particularly among United States political conservatives since the 1990s.

This conforms to all of the listed recommendations of MOS:OPEN. The details of exactly what those claims are, and the extent to which they are antisemitic, should be left to follow-on sentences. This framing is derived from the "Background" and "Conspiracy theories" article sections, as should be the case for lede text. There is an abundance of citations from which to choose representative examples, for those who feel the lede needs them.

In the prior thread there was some support and some opposition to this. The opposition was of a very general character, so take this new thread as an opportunity to be specific. Sennalen (talk) 01:19, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

It is possible to ignore the guidance with good reasons, but no reasons have been provided.

Yes they have, you just weren't present for them. Which is fine. One of those reasons is that the page is for a WP:FRINGE theory (see that policy page for details).

The first sentence should introduce the topic, and tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where.

The current lead actually already does this. The page is about a term which refers to a conspiracy theory. This is because "Cultural Marxism" is not a common phrase or area of thought, and so it having been turned into a pronoun to encapsulate a conspiracy theory makes it a new term (rendered in specifics by the conspiracy theory usage, FROM a more generalized pair of words). We are literally telling the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is. This Wikipedia page aims to describe the new term for what it is; a conspiracy theory.

If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence.

Again, as I mentioned in the prior discussion; MOS is a style guide. It's not a policy page. So we can assume policy pages outrank it. WP:NEOLOGISM is the reason the title of the page is not "Cultural Marxism" (which I assume is what you're getting at). However, I put it to you (as I have many times before) - that this page is about the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, and ergo, the current title does match the subject of the page.

If its subject is definable, then the first sentence should give a concise definition

Again, this page is about the birth of the conspiracy theory as a neologism (fun fact, it used to be called "The Frankfurt School Conspiracy Theory" - and that's still one of the redirects to this page [11]), and so the current lead aims to give a concise definition. It's a complicated topic. The article Marxist cultural analysis is also a complicated topic by the way, yet its lead also attempts a concise definition.... and those two definitions are on two different pages for specific policy based reasons.

Avoid constructions like "[Subject] refers to..." or "...is a word for..." – the article is about the subject, not a term for the subject.

As stated above, this article is about a term, which refers to a conspiracy theory. It's a term because it's a type of neologism, where a paired set of general terms "cultural" and "Marxism" have been combined and capitalized to mean something specific (a conspiracy theory about a Marxist take over)... and YES these two general words ("cultural" next to "Marxism") have been found within a couple of academic texts. I'm sure we could find lots of words that appear next to each other in a repeated fashion in lots of academic texts, that doesn't make them notable enough for a Wikipedia article. In this case our understanding of the term "Cultural Marxism" is based on what the reliable sources say... and if it is to mean "what Marxists think about culture" - well, we have a page for that at Marxist cultural analysis.

Do not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject; instead, spread the relevant information out over the entire lead.

Again, the rest of the lead does contain relevant information. Is there something in particular you're wanting to remove?

In closing; content policies outrank the style guidelines, and there's still no reliable source being presented that warrants any changes. Your not being familiar with the policy justifications surrounding this WP:FRINGE term, does not invalidate them. These previous discussions are available both in the extensive archives of this talk page, as well as in the AfD discussion (linked in the previous section), which I'll add, was closed by 3 WP:uninvolved administrators, as well as elsewhere. 14.202.44.246 (talk) 02:09, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

The idea that the topic is the phrase "cultural Marxism" rather than the actual phenomenon of the cultural Marxism conspiracy theory is a total non-starter. WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Many of the figures who are said to support the conspiracy don't use the phrase at all, including the original Minnicino essay. A group of Norwegian teenagers was not murdered by a phrase. The subject of the article is a sociopolitical phenomenon and a set of contested truth claims. None of your other objections that are built on that interpretation can survive.

If there's something in FRINGE that supports deviating from standard practice on the lede, link or quote the exact section. Sennalen (talk) 02:48, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

It's both. It's both the conspiracy theory and the neologism used to label the conspiracy theory, hence why the article both tracks the development of the term (starting in the 1990s) and why the term's usage is constantly referred to through out.

Many of the figures who are said to support the conspiracy don't use the phrase at all, including the original Minnicino essay. I've never argued that the Minnicino essay was the origin, and actually - the article doesn't either. It says it's been described as the starting point of the conspiracy theory - and in my view, should really be put in the context of the one person who has described it that way. Chip Berlet. I believe he's been given the weight of Wikivoice because he's both an accepted expert in conspiracy theories, as well as an accepted expert and researcher on extremist right wing movements.

But no, I have no fealty to that particular claim sorry, I believe in only using sources which explicitly include the term. So on that much I'd agree with you... further to this point, I believe the term's right wing usage originates with Lind and Weyrich, as reflected in Weyrich's 1999 letter to conservatives [12] (which even targets Disney, just as alt-right figures do today), and the corroborating evidence of Lind writing that Weyrich asked him to come up with a history for the term [13], [14]. Of course combined with all the reliable sources who cite the two as early proponents.

What's more, and as background furthering my opinion it's well known that William S. Lind is friends with Paul Gottfried (a student of Marcuse)... the two actually have an article somewhere together about Wikipedia's treatment of this topic. Gottfried himself has rejected the conspiracy theory in this article here: [15]. However Weyrich (in that 1999 letter) expresses his belief that Marcuse' Repressive Tolerance essay[16] can be taken as PROOF of the conspiracy theory... and stuck in the middle, their mutual friend: William S. Lind.

...I believe Weyrich is misinterpreting Marcuse who in that essay has some recommendations for occasions when democratic rights "are blocked by organized repression and indoctrination". Weyrich (I assume) takes this brief statement from a refugee of the Nazis discussing situations in which democracy is blocked as a permanent position of the entire leftwing of politics (that they are at root and by definition; Marxist subversives. A viewpoint which erases all liberal or libertarian thought in one conservative swoop). But that's my own original research. What is NOT original research however, is the fact that Paul Weyrich did use the term Cultural Marxism in a way that aligns with the conspiracy theory, and that he asked William S. Lind to come up with an article detailing their believed history of the conspiracy.

Perhaps Lind even asked Gottfried for his input, and a little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing. I think these sources (along with Willis Carto inviting Lind to the Barnes Review holocaust denial conference a few years after Weyrich's letter) makes more sense as a starting point, and I think it's an origin that focuses on explicit usages and spread of the term.

I reference fringe to reaffirm that we a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight, and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner. - although I suppose I could have also mentioned WP:Due, or WP:Notable, or WP:RS. All these policies apply in their own way. I think if you want the first sentence changed, you might have to mock up a couple of paragraphs capable of replacing the lead section entirely. I'm not saying you'll be successful, but it's hard to tell whether one or two sentences are an improvement when they're presented out of context, and piggy-backing on a discussion about antisemitism. A messy start with a perceived lack of clarity or purpose, will often lead to a messy end to a discussion. I think that's what we encountered above. 14.202.44.246 (talk) 03:36, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

It's Martin Jay who identifies Minnicino as the origin, although Woods revealed that that Minnicino only surfaced something from LaRouche ideology into the mainstream. It started with LaRouche in his Marxist guru phase thinking of Marcuse as a personal rival for student recruits.

It's possible, like you suggest, that LaRouche and Lind are a case of accidental convergence. After all they both read, understood, and described the actual philisophical output of Western Marxism, including Marcuse's apologia for political censorship. There's simply no RS for that theory, though.

The content of Western Marxism is in fact broadly supported by scholarship in its field and so when we affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea that includes detailing what the conspiracy theorists invented but also where they simply echo accepted knowledge. Some of our best sources, including Jamin, Lynn, Lütticken, and Tuters do exactly that. This is covered in the body text, so the lede should reflect it.

There is still no convincing reason to deviate from the MOS. Sennalen (talk) 14:38, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe we are deviating from the MOS. As 14.202.44.246 says, the current lead ticks all the required boxes. By selective quoting, it might seem that If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence applies, but it doesn't. That has exceptions. Notably If the article title is merely descriptive—such as Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers—the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text which applies here. Also, just in case anyone happens to be thinking this, rewriting the opening sentence would not be ammunition for trying to change any of the redirects that happen to point to this article. MrOllie (talk) 15:00, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I think I've already mentioned to you that Western Marxism includes structural marxists, who are NOT cultural Marxists. I've mentioned it 3 times in the past two days. 14.202.44.246 (talk) 02:19, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

an aside on Paul Gottfried

You have misread the link where you say Paul Gottfried rejected the conspiracy theory. What he rejected was attaching the name of Marx to it. In other respects, such as the idea there is widespread entryism in academia and that Marcuse was instrumental to the idea of political correctness, he is basically in agreement with Lind. They key to understanding Gottfried is that he is a Deutschaboo. In a clear example of the aestheticization of politics, he romanticized Europe by the time he was a college student encountering Marcuse. He hated Marcuse and student radicals because they seemed to him a corrupting American influence on beloved Europe. For Gottfried, distancing Marx from Marcuse is about distancing American culture wars from a refined European Marxist tradition. Sennalen (talk) 19:21, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't love the "refers to" phrasing, but it's possible to rewrite that out without so many changes to the current lead line. We could go with "Proponents of a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory use the term "Cultural Marxism" to misrepresent the Frankfurt School as being responsible for modern progressive movements, identity politics, and political correctness. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I like this suggestion. While I agree with others here that there is nothing wrong with the current opening sentence, this one strikes me as a marginal improvement. Generalrelative (talk) 16:55, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I would not stand in the way of that particular change going on the page, but it only solves one of the several problems, so deliberations will continue. Sennalen (talk) 19:08, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and make the change. Does anyone besides Sennalen think that further "deliberations" are needed here? Generalrelative (talk) 20:41, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

No, Sennalen has made mountains out of a molehill here. And it's not the first time. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:13, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Resurrecting a subthread here: this lead rewrite proposal got some support and was implemented by Generalrelative. It was then reverted by I am a leaf, who said

"With all due respect, the lead already not good and was made even worse by the previous edit. This article (and the topic sentence) is about the theory, not the proponents of the theory. The talk page suggests this change is even less representative of wiki's style guide. I don't entirely agree with the sentence I'm reverting to, but this revert is far better than the edit"

I agree the lead sentence should be about the theory, but the status quo is that it seems to be about the term. I would think an emphasis on proponents is better than on emphasis on terminology. I'm also not sure which style guide the proposal falls afoul of, but it was aimed at moving as away from a MOS:REFERS style issue, which is present in the status quo. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I was referring to the excerpts from MOS:OPEN as mentioned by Sennalen at the top of this thread. I found your edit to be more cumbersome while not really being more informative, although if consensus is there regarding your edit it doesn't really matter what I find cumbersome. I wholeheartedly agree that an emphases on proponents would be better than an emphasis on terminology. I am a Leaf (talk) 19:37, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Noting here that some related discussion is also happening at Talk:Western_Marxism#Removal_of_pertinent_cited_information. - MrOllie (talk) 15:52, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Since that is in a context completely outside of conspiracy theories, it would be helpful for people to participate there more than here when it comes to establishing a groundwork of certain facts. Sennalen (talk) 19:09, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Why don't you just preen off whatever Western Marxists you feel are cultural Marxists, and discuss that terms usage in a section of Marxist cultural analysis? That's the foundation you should be working on, then you can include the section you construct as a link on Western Marxism.

That seems easier (and like a stronger tactical foothold) than trying to erase the structural Marxists included in Western Marxist discourse by smearing an inappropriate and generally critical label on them (or attempting to at least). 14.202.44.246 (talk) 03:09, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Apparently I missed a great flurry of discussions while I was preoccupied with (small) professional development opportunities. Notably I missed this restatement of Sennalen's position (in particular, Fortunately, there are lots of other sources in the article establishing that "cultural Marxism" historically was a value-neutral phrase denoting Western Marxism or the Frankfurt School, and still can be). This is one of the things Sennalen believes fervently to be true but which the facts do not support - see the closed discussion above, but see also the discussion at Talk:Western Marxism#Removal of pertinent cited information of Sennalen's proposed insertion of the "synonym" claim (in this edit). Unfortunately, neither the Oxford Reference source Sennalen added initially, nor the multiple citations they added later, actually back up the "neutral term of art"/"synonym" claim on which much of Sennalen's argument - including the present lede proposal here - ultimately rests. Many of the citations given by Sennalen (in the second linked edit to Western Marxism) don't refer to cultural Marxism at all, or do so only to designate an activity. Meanwhile, the only source in Sennalen's list referring to a "term of art" isn't talking about a "neutral" term at all, but rather a term of art used to disparage the canon of Western Marxist thought as propagating a conspiracy to undermine presumably traditional Western values. This is the conspiracy theory once again, folks, just as the OED's said to be promoted by left-wing ideologues intent on eroding traditional social values and imposing a dogmatic form of progressivism on society is a reference to the conspiracy theory and is not some newer and more "evolved" meaning of the term. Newimpartial (talk) 16:09, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the wording the "conspiracy theories are...claims" is grammatical. Wouldn't we instead say that advocates of theories make claims?

Also, the fact that the theory predates its name isn't relevant. Most belief systems acquire their names after they originate.

TFD (talk) 21:14, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

• I think the longstanding lead is superior to any of the ones suggested here, and strongly oppose any change - no valid issues have been raised with the current lead, which is perfect as it stands; it's concise and easily conveys a complicated topic. In comparison, "proponents of" is really weird phrasing. This article covers both the conspiracy theory and the neologism that its proponents use for it, which is a phrase or term. The current lead is appropriate in that regard and changing it (especially for one so much more clunky) would be inappropriate. And, of course, the description of it as a ...far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory that misrepresents the Frankfurt School as being responsible for modern progressive movements, identity politics, and political correctness is the core definition of the topic, concisely summarizing the key points of the article, and clearly cannot be removed or substantially trimmed. The proposal above doesn't even seem to provide an actual rationale for that part of the proposed change. Additionally, I'll point out that several of the key points of the longstanding lead were affirmed in discussions above - while of course WP:CCC, I'm not really seeing much indication that it has. --Aquillion (talk) 08:24, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

  I disagree with this characterization. Does any other editor agree with Aquillion that the lede is "perfect as it stands" and "superior to any of the ones suggested"? In just the past few days, Mathglot, Generalrelative, I am a Leaf, Firefangledfeathers, Senelan, and I have proposed different changes to the lede. There is no consensus that the current lead is "perfect." Moreover, your argument does not address the specific MOS:OPEN points that Senelan has raised; instead, it attempts to sidestep the issue through a dogmatic appeal to perfection. XMcan (talk) 11:33, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

  Let's not overstate things please. FFF's suggestion above (and Mathglot's below) are small tweaks to the existing language. I am perfectly happy with the opening statement as-is, and agree with The Hand That Feeds You that Sennalen's points are without merit. Generalrelative (talk) 14:52, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think it is quite as bad as that but I do agree that the existing text is fine. That doesn't mean that improvement is impossible but it does mean that change is not necessary unless the change is demonstrably better. As it is, I'm not greatly keen on the proposal because it pluralises "theories" and because it names the United States (letting Lobster Boy off the hook). I think a reworked version could have a chance but I'm also not sure that it is worth it given that the existing text is fine. DanielRigal (talk) 20:02, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Limiting the scope of my comment to just the "refers to" issue, I think it's easier than meets the eye. What's wrong with just "refers to" ⟶ "is a", as in the following:

The term "Cultural Marxism" refers to is a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory that misrepresents the Frankfurt School as being responsible for modern progressive movements, identity politics, and political correctness.

Or am I missing something? Mathglot (talk) 09:37, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't mind this change, although as I have mentioned in prior talk threads, this unfortunately defines the conspiracy theory in terms of it's common grievances, rather than defining the conspiracy theory in terms of its claims.

I would probably change the lead to "Cultural Marxism" is a term so amorphous that it's critics and proponents cannot seem to agree on what the term even refers to.

Just kidding. In all seriousness, mentioning William Lind would be a good idea in the lead. It seems this theory is almost wholly his brainchild, as the article elaborates on. I know some on this talk page have issues with describing the theory at arms-length, such as saying "the theory is criticized as x, y and z" and would rather say "the theory is x, y and z." I think describing the theory as being posited by a human makes the theory seem less credible facially, while also maintaining neutrality. The mention the laundry list of criticisms could remain. I think everyone would be happy with this sort of change, although I might be wrong.

Practically everyone here agrees that the theory is academically dubious and widely criticized (as it is a conspiracy theory after all). We should be forthright that the theory was developed and propagated by an American man who self-describes as a paleo-conservative and who has said overtly antisemitic things and has engaged in holocaust denial.

I think a great lead would be "Cultural Marxism refers to a conspiracy theory first advanced by [conservative antisemite] William Lind, and now includes a loose variety of conspiracy theories generally linking the Frankfurt School to modern progressive movements. . ." I am a Leaf (talk) 15:07, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I'd split the difference:

The term "Cultural Marxism" is a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory first advanced by William S. Lind. It misrepresents the Frankfurt School as being responsible for modern progressive movements, identity politics, and political correctness.

That seems the most concise way of summarizing things. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:20, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I personally like this a lot. It largely addresses my issues with this article's adherence to WP:NPOV while keeping the content which many argue is WP:DUE. I would change it now, but i'd prefer consensus. The only thing i'd change is

The term "Cultural Marxism" is a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory first advanced by William S. Lind. It misrepresents the Frankfurt School's influence on modern progressive movements, identity politics, and political correctness.

Based on this article, the biggest issue that critics of this theory have (in terms of misrepresentation) is that the Frankfurt School was not nearly as influential as the proponents of this conspiracy theory claim. The misrepresented influence I think is really where the assertion of antisemitism is most visible, as generally this claim of undue influence on progressive politics is where this conspiracy theory seems to overlap most with common antisemitic canards.

That being said, I would accept the sentence as you proposed it. I am a Leaf (talk) 15:50, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I think adding influence is softballing it too much & would leave it out. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:03, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think a change has actually been justified, and I don't think we should weaken the lead. 60.241.181.126 (talk) 12:03, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

The term is not a conspiracy theory; a term is not its referent, just as a picture of a pipe is not a pipe. William Avery (talk) 12:22, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Sennalen rightly raised earlier that it was in fact Martin Jay's viewpoint that the concept of "Cultural Marxism" without the name started in the LaRouche/Minnicino article (I accidentally thought it was Chip Berlet's opinion, but it's Martin Jay) - so you guys have inadvertently disregarded the chief and foremost historian of The Frankfurt School Martin Jay.

Of course, Martin Jay was kinda scrambling after after having been misled into a documentary made by the Free Congress Foundation. So by name, yes William S. Lind is the originator of the theory. But according to Martin Jay, it's LaRouche/Minnicino. Personally I'm fine with this change, because I go by the name, and the fact that the theory focuses on The Frankfurt School as the origin of "Cultural Marxism". Just thought it was worth noting here. 04:59, 22 November 2023 (UTC) 60.241.181.126 (talk) 04:59, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Looking into the Martin Jay source, which can be found here [17] and is linked to from the bio of Martin Jay found on Marcuse.org here [18] - it states:

Patrick Buchanan's 2001 best-selling screed against the nefarious impact of immigration, The Death of the West, was one major source, stigmatizing as it did the Frankfurt School for promoting "cultural Marxism" (a recycling of the old Weimar conservative charge of "cultural Bolshevism" aimed at aesthetic modernists). But the opening salvo had, in fact, been fired a decade earlier in a lengthy essay by one Michael Minnicino called "New Dark Age: Frankfurt School and 'Political Correctness'," published in 1992 in the obscure journal Fidelio.[4] Its provenance is particularly telling: it was an organ of the Lyndon Larouche movement cum cult, one of the less savory curiosities of nightmare fringe politics.

...and references his involvement with Lind's documentary. As the topic of antisemitism has come up on this page, I'll also include a paragraph from that Martin Jay source about antisemitism in the conspiracy theory (it states that an actual WW2 Nazi Lazlo Pasztor was used in Lind's documentary).

There is a transparent subtext in the original CFC program, which is not hard to discern and has become more explicit with each telling of the narrative. Although there is scarcely any direct reference to the ethnic origins of the School's members, subtle hints allow the listener to draw his own conclusions about the provenance of foreigners who tried to combine Marx and Freud, those giants of critical Jewish intelligence. At one point, William Lind asserts that "once in America they shifted the focus of their work from destroying German society to attacking the society and culture of its new place of refuge,"[7] as if the very people who had to flee the Nazis had been responsible for what they were fleeing![8] Airtime is also given to another of Weyrich's colleagues at the FCF, Lazlo Pasztor, who is innocently identified as a "leader of the Hungarian resistance against Communism," but had already been discredited a decade earlier as a former member of the pro-Nazi "Arrow Cross," who had to leave the Bush campaign in 1988 when he was outed.

60.241.181.126 (talk) 07:04, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Sennalen's proposal is a reasonable start. If the article lead with "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theories are unfounded claims about the Frankfurt School and Western Marxism, particularly among United States political conservatives since the 1990s." The very next sentence should make it crystal clear that some of the promoters of CMCTs are known anti-Semites.

If the lede was structured like that, I would 100% support it. We can discuss the exact wording, but leading with CMCTs would address many concerns and prevent repeated discussions about whether CM means exactly CMCT, and whether CMCTs are always used for anti-Semitic purposes (as discussed in other open threads).

XMcan (talk) 15:27, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Better justification needed for why this is part of the "antisemitism" series

The article does a fine job of explaining its stated topic: Cultural Marxism. But the body of the article does not justify why this qualifies as an antisemitic conspiracy theory specifically.

To my reading, the closest it gets to justifying it as antisemitic is to say "some people who have said things deemed antisemitic in the past have also espoused this conspiracy theory" (but the pitfalls in this logic are obvious. I'd assume those people have also "espoused the theory of gravity", which does not make gravity antisemitic).

Further, simply stating that this conspiracy theory is similar to Jewish Bolshevism does not justify its inclusion in the antisemitism series.

Suggestions to improve the justification: Cite sources where proponents of the Cultural Marxism theory directly connect it to Jews or antisemitism. Vinney (talk) 16:23, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I think perhaps you missed the section in the body of the article titled 'Antisemitism'. MrOllie (talk) 16:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

OP raises the issue that has been brought up over and over again. If editors think they can bury their heads in the sand and ignore it, they are going to be rudely awakened over and over again. XMcan (talk) 18:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't really know how we can do more to help people find the text, it already has a giant section header that says Antisemitism. MrOllie (talk) 18:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

@XMcan: Since you undid my close, I'm going to call this out:

This issue has never been adjudicated is just flatly untrue. Read through the Archives. Read the damn article. It is clearly spelled out that this has been documented. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I think we need a FAQ. These "questions" get asked over and over, and not always by the same person. It would be nice to have a big sign at the top of the page so we can just tap the sign and move on. Otherwise people will never stop demanding that we WP:SATISFY them. DanielRigal (talk) 21:08, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

We already have one. It's even in the headers. Maybe we need to make it more prominent, but yes, this section should have remained closed as it's well documented & discussed already. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:10, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

The FAQ wasn't present on the talk page. I've added it. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:45, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, thank you for that then. I thought it was already there, but at least it is now. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:56, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I didn't realise we already had one. That's an easier fix than I expected. DanielRigal (talk) 23:33, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

The answers in the "FAQ" are without exception wrong or oversimplified. The reliable sources that we use in the article describe instances of the conspiracy theory that are anti-Semitic, some that are not, and some whose antisemitism is a matter of dispute. I think Jamin says the most on that question. Jay certainly touches on it as well. There's no question that anti-Semitism is a significant part of this topic, but there's no excuse for being sloppy with the accusation. Sennalen (talk) 23:16, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

It's somewhat well known that antisemites will obscure the fact that they are antisemitic... it's often "The Globalists" or "The Illuminati" or "Banking Cartels" that are used as placeholders. But Lind giving a lecture on the topic to a Holocaust denial conference for The Barnes Review is fairly overt. Even if he does say he himself that he's not there to deny the Holocaust, it's still the case that he's there - at an obviously questionable conference (one full of people who are likely not to respect Jewish ethnic groups) - in order to say a small crack team of Jewish theorists - The Frankfurt School - have plotted and carried out the destruction of Western Christian Traditional lifestyles on behalf of Karl Marx.

I think here we have license to say the theory is antisemitic, but we don't have license to say that any of the proponents are antisemitic unless it's made fairly obvious by them. The theory thus has its own history, in which it was INTENTIONALLY popularized among antisemitic groups and communities. So that would be my view, that we respect WP:BLP and focus on the ties to antisemitism that the theory has, not anyone named as a proponent or progenitor of the theory, but more the usages, history, imagery, spread, and associations of the theory. 60.241.181.126 (talk) 05:33, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

There should be universal agreement that the conspiracy theory has been promoted by anti-Semites for anti-Semitic ends. That's a more responsible statement than saying it is an anti-Semitic theory, per se - especially since it is not just one canonical theory but a range of different views. Sennalen (talk) 05:52, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree that that's the more responsible statement. 60.241.181.126 (talk) 08:26, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the IP on this one. See my proposal in the lede thread. XMcan (talk) 15:45, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

The assertion that CMCTs are always employed for anti-Semitic purposes carries adverse implications for all BLPs associated with a CMCT. This is a problem. XMcan (talk) 15:49, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

CopyPasta - I choose you!

This talk page diff [19] provides a variety of Academic sources which explain the ties to antisemitism, using various academic sources and quotes (go there for references).

The term "Cultural Marxism" in reference to the conspiracy theory about The Frankfurt School has a lot of white nationalist baggage because a conservative think tank in 2002 paid to have it be promoted at a holocaust denial conference. Lind wrote in 2000;

"Paul Weyrich has several times referred to “cultural Marxism.” He asked me, as Free Congress Foundation’s resident historian, to write this column explaining what cultural Marxism is..."

William S. Lind came up with "Cultural Marxism" as a conspiracy theory narrative about The Frankfurt School, and in 2002 was paid by The Free Congress Foundation (a conservative think tank) to give a lecture about his theory at a Holocaust Denial conference for the Barnes Review. The Free Congress Foundation claims this was a form of outreach to many different groups on an issue by issue basis. In the lecture Lind made sure to mention that The Frankfurt School "were all Jewish" ...and part of the lecture was about them working for Hollywood (which is misinformation), as well as being the source of America's supposed degeneration.

Subsequently by 2010 The Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory was a common topic on the White Nationalist forum StormFront.org, and by 2014 had spread to 4chan's neo-Nazi threads. Which is how it became part of alt-right doctrine. This was its pathway to being mainstream right wing and conservative ideology.

Hitler had a similar idea he called Cultural Bolshevism. The Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory is essentially about a small group of foreign Jews coming to America with a plan to destroy western civilization (and in some versions, Christianity) by taking over the media, academia and politics. The Frankfurt School had no such plan, and in fact, were warning against mass media, which they considered to be a type of commercial propaganda, they called it The Culture Industry (today known as mainstream media). Frankfurt theorist Theodor W. Adorno writes more about this in his essay here. They were also Jewish refugees, fleeing from the social collapse of WW2 (rather than seeking to destroy their host country).

What's more identity politics was NOT created by The Frankfurt School, and is instead a home grown American theory. It was created by two black American women, Barbara Smith, and Kimberle Crenshaw.

The same person who founded The Free Congress Foundation, and paid William S. Lind to come up with his theory and spread it at a holocaust denial conference (Paul Weyrich), also founded The Heritage Foundation (another conservative think tank), which today still spreads the conspiracy theory.

There's a myriad of antisemitic imagery on the conspiracy theory's Know Your Meme page here. Some versions of the conspiracy theory go as far as to suggest The Frankfurt School were Jewish "Kabbalah" Satanists, as per this essay, others merely claim they were doing 'the work' of Satanists (note, that link is from The National Review, one of the most influential conservative magazines). There's a very strange claim that one theorist (Adorno) was trained by The Tavistock Institute to write music for The Beatles, in order to create mass environmental social turbulences, the conservative website Breitbart put their own spin on this claim saying "Theodor Adorno promoted degenerate atonal music to induce mental illness, including necrophilia, on a large scale."... and of course Lind has his previously mentioned claims that The Frankfurt School had sway over Hollywood, and used that sway to put gays on Television.

This all reads a bit like Hitler's degenerate art theory (the idea that Jews and Communists were ruining Germany by purposefully ruining Germany's culture), or Cultural Bolshevism, and Lind has indeed stated that he believes the conspiracy has its origins in 1918 Germany.

So - the claim that Cultural Marxists are somehow in charge of - or ruining culture, has it's antisemitic side, and there is no evidence that any recent progressive political movements in the areas of trans rights, gay rights, feminism, or black civil rights are part of a plot to destroy America or Christianity. Likewise, the conspiracy theory at its base, and via its method of spread and usage has antisemitic meanings, tone, context, and aspects written into it.

Wikipedia is not responsible for the fact that the conspiracy theory spread falsehoods about Jewish theorists controlling Hollywood. Nor are we responsible for the fact it was initially spread at a holocaust denial conference (in 2002), or that it made its way to Stormfront (2010) and 4chan (2014). Nor is Wikipedia responsible for the antisemitic imagery associated with the conspiracy theory, or the claims that these German-Jewish theorists were Satanists or working for Satan. Or that they could somehow induce necrophilia. These claims are all historical, and part of the events that spread the conspiracy theory. Nor are we responsible for the obvious parallels with Hitlerian thought.... but these things do exist as part of the terms current usage and historical development, and so academics have described these things, and so Wikipedia uses those sources and adopts that viewpoint (aka the prevalent usage in reliable academic sources, see the diff mentioned earlier for specific references). 60.241.181.126 (talk) 05:08, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Image removal

A stray keystroke cut off my edit summary. I was saying: Generalrelative, if you have a theory of how a historical photograph can be SYNTH, let's talk about it on the talk page. Sennalen (talk) 23:19, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

For reference, here is the image and caption I removed.

German students occupy a classroom during the Protests of 1968. Student protest movements drew on the scholars of the Frankfurt School, especially Herbert Marcuse. The blackboard reads, "Study is Opium" and "Only fascists study today."

The caption is WP:SYNTH, stringing together three separate statements in an apparent effort to tie the subject of the image to the topic. But of course the image (German students standing around at a classroom protest in 1968 with inane slogans on the board) does not illustrate the topic, neither the overall topic of the article nor the topic of the subsection: "Background". Passing mention of the "culture wars of the 1960s" does not justify inclusion of this image either. There is no indication that these German students are what the paleo-conservatives who created the conspiracy theory had in mind.

I see that the image was first added by you as part of a large series of edits last year (10–15 August), and I do not see any discussion in the archives indicating a positive consensus for inclusion. It should therefore remain out of the article pending consensus for inclusion, per WP:ONUS. Generalrelative (talk) 23:41, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

The fact there are three statements does not mean anything is synthesized from the combination of the three. There is not.

I added this as part of my long-term effort to turn this, improbably, into a good article. German student occupations of classrooms were a very significant event for the Frankfurt School, and the Frankfurt School is the essential background to conspiracy theories about the Frankfurt School. It's more engaging than the picture of old men standing around that graces the Frankfurt School page. A photo of Adorno's own classroom would obviously be better, but we work with what we have. Sennalen (talk) 00:11, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

The picture is implicit synthesis because it implies that the statements were inspired by Marcuse et al. In fact the students in Berlin were hostile to Adorno and Marcuse and Marcuse complained about their actions.[20] The fact that these slogans do not reflect what Marcuse taught is obvious.

In order to establish the relevancy of the picture to the article, you would have to show that the conspiracists make a link and explain it in the text of the article, providing a reliable secondary source.

TFD (talk) 00:26, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

The students were hostile to Adorno because Adorno's reaction was along the lines of "sir, this is a Wendy's" rather than singing songs of the revolution. Students and Marcuse were mutually quite enthusiastic for each other, though. Marcuse was actually quite hard on Adorno about it as well. I relied on Stuart Jeffries as a one-stop source for a lot of this, but it can certainly be found in many places. I scanned the link you provided and didn't see anything that hinted of disapproval. The translations of the slogans were provided merely as a courtesy, so if "Study is Opium" is what gives people pause, there's no need to hold onto that. Sennalen (talk) 00:46, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

This photograph removal was without consensus. If for nothing else, Sennalen's edits are undoubtably scrutinized by those who frequent this page. The fact that this photograph (and the caption) have remained on the page for so long is an indication that those who are scrutinizing it found it acceptable and relevant to the paragraph (which the photo is).

The removal of this photo was done without consensus and it seems that the issue you have with it is the fact Sennalen posted it, rather than the fact that it's WP:SYNTH, or as it's been called here "implicit synth."

If the acquiescence of those who frequently edit this page is worth anything, the photograph was valuable, relevant, and should be restored. I am a Leaf (talk) 05:35, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

That seems like a bad faith accusation/assumption. Sennalen has made plenty of positive contributions to the topic area in general, even if we do at times disagree on some points of what can or can't be said and where. 60.241.181.126 (talk) 05:56, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I only mention it because Sennalen's addition of the picture is mentioned explicitly by the Genrelative, I would not have mentioned another user had they not been mentioned. I do not want to engage in any ad hominem.

The picture is at least illustrative of the social and political conditions which would've been experienced by Frankfurt School scholars. To rebut the complaint of the issue with the 1968 Student Protests article containing no mention of the Frankfurt School, read further in the background section “ Through his writing on Repressive Tolerance and advising students such as Angela Davis and Rudi Dutschke, Marcuse played a dramatic role in the civil rights movement and West German student movement.”

It is easy to make the connection from (conventionally-leftist Students protest and use Marxian rhetoric) with (Marcuse, by this article’s text, played a dramatic role in the student protests) to conclude that (Frankfurt Scholars want to the West into gay communists). That is the logic of this conspiracy theory, it doesn’t need to be explicated by William Lind for that to be obvious.

The background section is not merely a background on the Frankfurt School, but a background on how the Frankfurt School was bastardized into a conspiracy theory. The photo and caption can be construed as illustrative of both and is therefore appropriate.

I also disagree that the caption or photo “implies that the statements were inspired by Marcuse et al.," the statements are clearly Marxian.

Sennalen has given compelling reason for inclusion, this thread contains reasons which are uncompelling for such a swift removal, especially of a photograph which has been in here for >1 year. If for nothing else, consensus was not reached before this change was made. I am a Leaf (talk) 06:36, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

This article is about the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory not the international Communist conspiracy theory. It's not enough for the slogans to be related to some form of Marxism (probably Maoism), but they must relate to Marcuse et al. TFD (talk) 00:23, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I think it could be worthwhile to include that student radicals in fact protested The Frankfurt School. It's well known that Adorno called the police on Students performing a sit-in in his office, here's a source for that statement [21]. That source also includes some pictures from the "Planned Tenderness" protest, in which (a year before his death) several female students interrupted a lecture by exposing their breasts to Adorno and showering him with rose petals (which upset him greatly as he felt a strong faithfulness to his wife).

...this is also the event in which the phrase "If Adorno is left in peace, capitalism will never cease" originated. The information here [22] mentions that the students were demanding Adorno perform some sort of self-criticism for ruining their sit in (going as far as yelling "Down with the informer"). Adorno decided to leave the room and allow the students time to decide whether they wanted him to continue with his lecture.

I think it would be worthwhile to include this sort of thing (under such a picture) to show that The Frankfurt School weren't calling for a Marxist revolution as the conspiracy theory claims. In fact, there's a whole article here about how they were somewhat anti-communist and anti-revolutionary. [23]

A picture (such as those from the first link) could be used to mention some of this information. 60.241.181.126 (talk) 05:52, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

As if a testimony to Adorno's non-revolutionary tendencies, German Wikipedia [24] mentions that in the year of his death he was in the middle of campaigning to have a traffic light installed outside his campus. Truly a threat to Western Civilization. 60.241.181.126 (talk) 06:29, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

The Rockhill source you linked is arguing (from the left) that Adorno and Horkheimer were working for the CIA to undermine communism. It may be important for the conspiracy theory article, but probably not in the way you meant.

A more qualified view would be from Douglas Kellner, who wrote The crucial theoretical and political question to be raised concerns the reception of the School's theory by a generation of radical students in the late 1960s. These students used earlier critical theory and Marcuse's later version of it as a legitimation of their own radical politics, which so shocked Adorno, Horkheimer and Habermas that they devoted much time and energy to criticizing it. Marcuse on the other hand defended and declared his solidarity with the student movement, both in Europe and the United States. Sennalen (talk) 17:50, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

The image does not illustrate the topic of this article. Its inclusion is unjustified. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:21, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

It illustrates the topic of the section it is in, just like the picture of a nazi art gallery (also not the topic of the article) illustrates its section. Sennalen (talk) 15:10, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree. If we're just trying to illustrate the Frankfurt school, an image of one or more of its prominent proponents would be better. We mention the student protests very briefly, saying that it was influenced by Marcuse but avoided by the majority of the school. The image is under-explained and there are better options. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:13, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Sennalen, although as you say students and Marcuse were mutually enthusiastic for each other, that did not extend to the Berlin students, viz., the one's in the picture. That's abundantly clear from the link I provided. Even without that it should be clear that the messages did not reflect his thinking.

While not shown in the picture, one of the messages was "Professoren sind Papiertiger" (All professors are paper tigers). The use of the term paper tiger comes from Mao, not Marcuse.

If you believe that Marcuse and the students in the picture were enthusiastic for each other, you need a reliable secondary source that says that.

Your assumption seems to be since anyone who protested in 1968 was part of a conspiracy, Marcuse and the Berlin students must have been co-conspirators. But that's synthesis which requires sourcing.

TFD (talk) 15:08, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

"Your assumption seems to be since anyone who protested in 1968 was part of a conspiracy, Marcuse and the Berlin students must have been co-conspirators. But that's synthesis which requires sourcing."

No, I think you assumed this, the photo and caption do not suggest such a thing. If this were true, you'd be right, it would be a synthesis which requires sourcing. But, this image makes sense in a background on both the Frankfurt School (necessary to understand the conspiracy theory's allegations) and the Conspiracy theory itself. The photo is relevant if you actually read the whole background section and see how the Frankfurt School/New Left was involved with and was influential to (and at least related to) student movements. I am a Leaf (talk) 15:35, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

That's like saying both Trump supporters and antifa protested the Democrats, so lets have a big picture of antifa in an article about Trump supporters implying that Trump works with antifa. TFD (talk) 17:20, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

That is a stretch.

Marcuse was dramatically involved with the Student movement according to the article, the student movement was unashamedly marxist according to every source mentioning them in the article, and the conspiracy theory misrepresents both marxism and the Frankfurt School's teachings.

There is an obviously greater connection between the ideology of the student movement and the ideology of members of the Frankfurt School (and thus the picture and the background section) then there is in this Trump-antifa analogy. That is by this article's own content. I am a Leaf (talk) 17:46, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Let me rephrase what I said above in case I did not make myself clear. Marcuse influenced the student movement and was involved with them. HOWEVER he had no influence on the students in Berlin at the Free University, who are shown in the picture. For anyone with a passing knowledge of Marcuse, that should be blatantly obvious.

Conspiracists of course usually conflate various movements of the Left, even including Clinton/Obama/Biden Democrats. However, there is no evidence for this and no support in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 21:03, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Incidentally, many observers see antifa and Trump's more militant supporters as basically the same and some even see them as cooperating together as Russian assets set to destroy U.S. democracy. TFD (talk) 21:22, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the actual specific individuals in the photo of course. It is easy to find non-CC pictures of Marcuse surrounded by adoring students in Germany as well as many other countries. His contacts with Rudi Dutschke, effectively the avatar of the West german student movement, are well known. It should further be recalled that the occupation of Adorno's room was led by Hans-Jürgen Krahl, who was effectively also a member of the Frankfurt School. It was a complicated affair, and the complete texts of the letters between Adorno and Marcuse about it are worth a read[25] Sennalen (talk) 16:14, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Exploring the relation between the students movement and the Frankfurt school sounds like an interesting topic - for some other article. This photo isn't all that related to this topic of /this/ article. Sure, the students were influenced by the school, but so were many, many other events and fields of study. We might as well throw up stills from Cinéma vérité because they were influenced by Siegfried Kracauer and conspiracists think marxists run Hollywood. If we must have an image at all something directly related would be a better choice. MrOllie (talk) 15:54, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

This image – and especially its caption – appears to have been selected to undermine the content of the article by suggesting that the Frankfurt School is responsible for riotous forms of social disruption, i.e., to promote the conspiracy theory. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 16:23, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Is that part of the conspiracy theory? Or is that true? That is the perennial question, and it is always better to answer it with sources rather than innuendo. That goes equally for innuendo towards an answer of yes or no. If anyone can identify where anything actually seems to be synthesized, then yes, let's source it explicitly or else delete it. "Responsible for" is loaded phrasing, but "inspired and encouraged" would be verifiable. Sennalen (talk) 17:58, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

What is and isn't part of this bonkers conspiracy theory is in no context a "perennial question."

If I seem to have been relying upon innuendo, my apologies. Let me here explicitly state that the image and its caption function to promote what the article extensively documents to be a conspiracy theory.

And also, yes, I'm a big fan of high-quality sources when cited in support of claims supported by their contents. Obviously.

Otherwise, the neutral thing to do is simply not include an image that multiple editors find misleading. It is bewildering to me that anyone would contest such a decision. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 18:23, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

You're begging the question — assuming something is promoting the conspiracy theory, when it remains to be proven that the statement is anything other than ordinary fact. Has anyone even forwarded the contrary claim that the Frankfurt School was not an influence on 1960s student protests? Sennalen (talk) 18:39, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

My post does not beg the question. And why on Earth would anyone write a piece with the thesis that some niche academic school of thought was not responsible for large-scale social protests? No one would publish that, even if submitted, for the obvious reason that it does not add up to a topic such as might merit attention in either the popular or academic literature.

Seriously, some (IMHO, lightweight) academic in California is somehow responsible for May 68? I mean, huh? Hence, once again: conspiracy theory.

Please see also burden of proof. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 19:19, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

What is your actual position on this, then? Do you actually want to see more sources establishing that Herbert Marcuse was a major influence on student protest movements? Or is something else the matter? Sennalen (talk) 20:34, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

My position is that Marcuse's lectures in California do not have a noteworthy connection to the events of May '68 in France. And that, moreover, even if they did, it is far from clear that a discussion of this would belong in this article, which is about a conspiracy theory that took hold in U.S. politics in the 1990s.

Hence the article should not suggest otherwise. For, as you plainly know, visuals matter (even setting aside text in the caption).

If you have good evidence to the contrary, by all means, please do share.

Also, directing your own question back to you, "what is your actual position on this"? And what can you openly say is "the matter" with this and other related articles that need the sort of corrective changes you have proposed or endorsed? Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 21:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Marcuse was in fact in Paris during the 1968 protests, attending, along with Lucien Goldmann and others, a United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) conference on Marx. Students who had occupied the École des Beaux Arts recognized him as he walked back to his hotel from the conference and invited him to speak to the assembly. When he addressed them, he brought greetings from the developing movement in the United States and, according to Andrew Feenberg, who accompanied him, praised the students for their critiques of capitalist consumerism.

IN MAY 1968, the Paris students took to the streets under the slogan of "the three M's." The "threeM's" are Marx, Mao, and Marcuse. The seventy-year old professor, the author of subtle philosophical works and keen journalistic articles, until a short time ago known only to a narrow circle of specialists, suddenly became a symbolic figure, a sort of prophet of the movement. His views are of great importance for understanding the nature of the student movement in capitalist countries; that movement, it is true, has an abundance of young ideologues who have borrowed more or less consciously from Marcuse but try to maintain the appearance of complete originality. Sennalen (talk) 21:59, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Connection to the conspiracy theory being...what? Genuinely, I have no idea. So please answer directly?

The onus is on you to connect the dots here. Because it would appear to any neutral observer that you want to promote what the article abundantly documents to be once yet again, a conspiracy theory.

If you believe "conspiracy theory" to be an erroneous description, please take that up directly, rather than through an unabashedly bizarre contestation about pictures. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 23:55, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

The connection to the conspiracy theory simply being that Marxists in Europe were both endorsed by the Frankfurt School and that the Frankfurt School was endorsed by Marxists. That is a documented history, the conspiracy theory does not completely misread history, it twists history and makes terribly incorrect inferences.

Flat earthers might argue that the earth is flat because the moon looks flat to the naked eye. They make an incorrect inference, but they are correct that the moon looks flat to the naked eye. You are doing the equivalent of denying that the moon looks flat to the naked eye by avoiding the very explicit connection made here between the Frankfurt School to the student movement.

To ignore any and every connection between the student movements and the Frankfurt School is intellectually dishonest. You can recognize that there are connections which would be relevant to a discussion of the conspiracy theory while still rejecting the conspiracy theory's premises.

I am a Leaf (talk) 00:19, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

In order to be relevant to the article you would need a reliable secondary source that says something like, "CM conspiracy theorists point to Marcuse's inspiration for and support of the 1968 student protests as an example of the conspiracy in operation."

It is not our role to provide evidence in support of (or against) the conspiracy theory, but to report the evidence that the conspiracy theorists have presented as reported in reliable sources.

If the connection between Marcuse and the students is ignored in reliable sources, that is the fault of either the conspiracy theorists or the experts who write about them. We are not here to correct their failings.

We had the same argument in the Jewish Bolshevism conspiracy article. Some editors wanted the article to show the connection between Jews and Communism. You can read the archived talk pages to see arguments why this violates NPOV and SYN. TFD (talk) 01:38, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for saying what should go without saying. (Also, pls. remember to sign your posts!) Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 00:44, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Break

I have been observing this discussion from the sidelines for two main reasons: A) to gauge its direction and B) because I believe other issues take precedence. However, we have reached an impasse, prompting me to articulate the following points:

·      Firstly, if the student protest image has adorned this page for over a year, and considering the scrutiny of numerous editorial eyes, the assertion that the image was stealthily inserted without consensus is unequivocally false.

·      Consequently, the responsibility lies with those advocating for the image's deletion to build a consensus before proceeding. I recommend that they bolster their argument by identifying a more relevant image as a replacement, rather than simply insisting on deletion.

·      In the interim, the original image should be reinstated to its previous position in the Background section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XMcan (talk • contribs) 21:17, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Consensus is not an "impasse". At this point I count 8 editors arguing for removal (myself, TFD, the IP, Andy, FFF, Patrick J. Welsh, Sideswipe9th, and Mathglot). I count 3 arguing for retaining (you, I am a Leaf, Sennalen). Have I missed anyone? It's okay if we're not unanimous. The issue appears to be settled. Generalrelative (talk) 18:26, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Consensus is not an impasse, but there is not yet a consensus. Need I remind you that consensus is based on reasons, WP:NOTVOTE? Now, one of the key objections was that the image is not connected to the topic of the article. I think the discussion up to this point, and especially the greentext quotes I have provided so far, abundantly demonstrate that it actually is. That really ought to put the matter to rest. If it would make a difference to have more in-text sources connecting that period of Frankfurt School history with the conspiracy theory, that can be arranged. I know off the top of my head that Woods and Lütticken have done so. Sennalen (talk) 14:52, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Your quotes have not tied this photo directly to the conspiracy theory. So your argument is moot. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:44, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

If we're agreed that the conspiracy theory is about the Frankfurt School, and the Frankfurt School was deeply involved in the student movement, we can move forward.

There are two themes that are currently under-developed in the article, which should be addressed more thoroughly than just an image, but for the sake of discussion:

• The conspiracy theory originated in the setting of an (imagined) competition between Lyndon LaRouche and Angela Davis for student recruits.
• The intellecutal framework of more erudite forms of the conspiracy theory owes to ideas of Alain de Benoist, which he formulated in reaction to student protests in 1968.

Sennalen (talk) 18:58, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

We can't use the transitive property to establish relevance of the image. The Frankfurt School was also 'deeply involved' in cinematic realism. But I wouldn't expect us to put an image of The Wire on this article. It was an influence on Seduction of the Innocent as well. Can we throw up an image of Batman and Robin on the article? MrOllie (talk) 19:28, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

MrOllie is right. You can't tie topics together like that and then claim a fact based on the connection, that's WP:SYNTH. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Also, as I pointed out above, the students in the picture were not influenced by Marcuse, rejected his views and were not supported by him, according to sources. Their slogans run counter to Marcuse's teachings.

Furthermore, you would have to show that conspiracists make a connection between Marcuse and the Berlin students. TFD (talk) 13:55, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Marcuse's late and tepid hedging about the Red Army Faction has to be put in context.

The ecstatic applause of the counter-culture in the wake of student riots delighted Marcuse. He obliged by promptly dropping his dark views on the march of history. An Essay on Liberation (1969) continued to number the tamed workers lost to capitalism; but it placed high hopes on students and blacks. Marcuse reverted to the libertarian biologism of Eros and Civilization: instinctual urge, once again, takes over from the pseudo-Hegelianism of 'negative thought'. But as soon as the counter-culture threatened to turn into a generalized anti-culture, the philosopher began to fear its wildest militant wings. His last book, The Aesthetic Dimension (1978), distances itself from their new vandalism - the strident violence of what Habermas dared to call ‘the fascism of the Left’.

Alas, Marcuse had him self sponsored much of their silly, dangerous contumely vis-à-vis institutional liberties and humane practices. Had he not, in ‘Repressive Tolerance’ (1965), pleaded for a replacement of liberal tolerance by a systematic bias in favour of ‘enlightened’ libertarianism? Had he not derided the respect for the rule of the law, likened the American police to the SS, and developed an exceedingly specious argument to the effect that while in the past many a social break-through was brought about by revolutionary violence, the conscientious application of democratic tolerance had allowed Hitler to assume power? He just forgot to add that the real issue was not to show that violence was beneficiail or even inevitable in pre-democratic contexts but rather that it remains necessary, and superior in effect, to democratic means, in today’s liberal-democratic systems. But then, authoritarianism as such never frightened Marcuse. ‘From Plato to Rousseau’, he wrote, ‘the only answer is the idea of an educational dictatorship’ - a sentence which surely made the author of the Social Contract spin in his grave. Maybe this was the secret reason why, in Soviet Marxism (1958), for all his criticisms of the Leninist order, he managed to deny that the communist power élite had class interests of its own: were not Lenin’s heirs just a bunch of temporarily strayed ‘educational’ despots? From the start, Marcuse was the most political of the Frankfurtians. That his was a Marxism without either history or a proletariat, and that his mood of revolution without a Daybreak lacked cogency, was of little concern to the new militant radicals. What they required was a rationale for ritual revolt, not a persuasive analysis of largely imaginary evils. The essential thing was to reconnect WM with the thrills of street protest and active establishment-hatred. This Marcuse provided twice over: by way of a cuphoric libidinal utopia (even as late as his Preface to Negations, he was still extolling the eschatological streak in Marx), and by way of a pessimistic Refusal. Both moods suited the revolutionism of affluent society, bound to be far more ‘cultural’ and symbolic than social and real. The myth of widespread psycho-cultural repression was highly convenient: it spared the embarrassment of having to explain the diminution of actual oppression within our liberal, permissive social milieu. Marcuse’s ‘negative thought’, his glorification of Refusal, became the favourite jargon of compulsive repression-bashing. Thus, the spent flame of Lukäcs’s fervour was rekindled, together with the false Hegelianism of the spirit of History and Class Consciousness and Lukäcs’s virulent anti-positivism. If ever there was a classic of vulgar Kulturkritik masquerading as neo-Marxism then it was Herbert Marcuse. José Guilherme Merquior Western Marxism (1986)

As for whether conspiracy theorists paid attention to that page in history, the conspiracy theory originated in that page of history:

In 1973, LaRouche sent his supporters on a violent campaign called “Operation Mop Up” to disrupt the meetings of rival left-wing organizations, such as the CPUSA, using nunchucks, chains, and baseball bats. LaRouche’s assertion that the Frankfurt School trained Davis to become a CIA agent was a kind of intellectual Operation Mop Up, in which he smeared his opponents and claimed that he was the authentic and rightful leader of the American left. Only LaRouche could be trusted to lead the revolution—everyone else was just a brainwashed CIA zombie out to get him.

The theme of the Frankfurt School as a secret brainwashing operation continues in one of LaRouche’s 1977 “Counter-Intelligence” reports, in which he declares that the New Left movement has degenerated into violent fascism. LaRouche alleges that British intelligence services established the Frankfurt School in the 1920s to assemble leading “British-agent intellectuals,” including Marcuse and Adorno. According to LaRouche, “Anglo-American” intelligence agencies wanted the Frankfurt School to develop an ideology that would inspire a “protofascist” New Left across Europe and the United States.

In recent years, fascists and white supremacists have accepted LaRouche’s mission of defending and restoring Western civilization. Breivik’s reference to Minnicino’s essay proves that his attack was motivated by a conspiracy theory that had festered within the LaRouche movement for decades. More recently, Brenton Tarrant—the eco-fascist who carried out a terrorist attack on a mosque in Christchurch, New Zealand—took inspiration from Breivik, and rearticulated this theory in his manifesto to proclaim that the Western education system has “long since fallen to the long march through the institutions committed by the marxists (sic).” (In these conspiracy theories, Rudi Dutschke’s proposal for “the long march through the institutions” is wrongly attributed to Antonio Gramsci, who, in turn, is wrongly associated with the Frankfurt School.) Neither Breivik nor Tarrant obtained their irrational and erroneous opinions on Marxism from interwar Nazi propaganda.

Andrew Woods The American Roots of a Rightwing Conspiracy (2020) [26]

Hopefully that should put to rest any doubt that the student movement was related to the Frankfurt School or cultural Marxism. The image that was removed should be returned. Some picture depicting unrest in the late 60s or early 70s in some form is very pertinent. Additional or better images are welcome in addition, as well as pictures of particular philosophers, but every concrete objection to this particular picture has been answered. Sennalen (talk) 16:00, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Okay, first, those copy/pastes are dangerously close to WP:COPYVIO length. Second, none of those are about the picture or its contents, so you're still applying WP:SYNTH to try and shoehorn it into the article.

This isn't good faith anymore, you're throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks, and I'm sick of it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

The quotations are relatively small fractions of their works, appropriate under fair use and the purposes of a talk page. If anyone feels the need, they may redact them after the conversation is finished.

The picture itself as an artifact, or the people in it, do not need to be the subject of the article in order to be present on the page. The picture illustrates the concept of the West German student movement - no more, no less. It is part of the context in which the ideas discussed in the article developed.

It's strange how the contentions have gone from saying I have not provided enough sourcing to saying I have provided too much sourcing, without ever seriously engaging with what the sources say. If anything indicates bad faith, it is that. Sennalen (talk) 18:28, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh please. Your sources don't say anything about the people pictured, that's the point.

The picture itself as an artifact, or the people in it, do not need to be the subject of the article in order to be present on the page.

This is flatly wrong, and I cannot believe you're making that argument. You're arguing the picture can just be "illustrative" of the subject, which flies in the face of WP:V. This disingenuous bullshit is becoming WP:DISRUPTive, and I will not engage with you further on it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

The picture which replaced the students is much more appropriate to the article. However,

if it is "flatly wrong" that the pictures "do not need to be the subject of the article in order to be present on the page", the picture of the degenerate art exhibition in the Antisemitism section is, by the same standard, totally unwarranted and should also be removed. I am a Leaf (talk) 19:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:IMGCONTENT The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article. Sennalen (talk) 19:50, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Cute, citing policy at me while ignoring it. Nothing in that picture increase[s] reader's understanding of the article's subject matter, in even the slightest capacity, as it does not depict anything to do with the conspiracy theory. Put it in the article about the actual school. That's it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Y'know what, fuck this, I'm done going round in circles with you. The article is coming off my watchlist, someone else can deal with your bullshit. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:30, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I understand the desire not to waste time on pointless discussion but I advise against good editors taking articles off their watchlists out of sheer exhaustion. If too many people do that then those articles are in real trouble. As always, if discussion can't break the deadlock, then let's have an RfC. That breaks the indefinite cycle of discussion and creates a structured and time-limited framework for reaching a documented solution. DanielRigal (talk) 20:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

As I said many times, you have to prove a connection with the protest shown in the picture, i.e., you need a soure that says who those that the people in the picture were influenced by, supportive of or supported by Marcuse. The only sources I have seen show that none of that was true.

Also, this article is about the CM conspiracy theory, not Marcuse. The purpose of the article is not to prove that the theory is true, but to document what the proponents claimed. AFAIK, none of them connected Marcuse to the people shown in the picture.

Furthermore, the student protests were in 1968, while the Red Army Faction was formed in 1970. The conflict between Larouche and Angela Davis you mentioned took place in 1973, a full five years after the protests. TFD (talk) 17:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

1968 was the origin point for the movement and Marcuse's celebrity status. Classroom occupations and Habermas/Adorno's charge of Linksfascismus came to a head in 1969. If editors would rather illustrate similar concepts with a photo from a few years later, that could be explored, but that has not been the tenor of the comments so far. Sennalen (talk) 18:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

The relevance of the student movement of 1968 to the Cultural Marxiam conspiracy theory has not yet been demonstrated - secondary sources about this connection would be needed to establish WP:DUE, and such sources (if they exist) have not been presented in this discussion. This article is not Lyndon LaRouche. (Andrew Woods' comments about Angela Davis certainly do not establish the relevance of the 1968 student movement.) Newimpartial (talk) 19:45, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

In a move sure to satisfy no one, we could use a Communist Party poster of Angela Davis, which is in the time and context Woods discussed. Sennalen (talk) 20:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I think the ideal photo would be Hans-Jürgen Krahl occupying Adorno's classroom. I'm still not sold on the policy basis for objecting to the Berlin students in a classroom, but the idea of a picture of Angela Davis has grown on me. It too depicts an aspect the Vietnam-era portion of the timeline, so I would find it an acceptable compromise. Sennalen (talk) 22:44, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I am skeptical that the relationship between Herbert Marcuse and student movements is a legitimate part of this article, and even more skeptical that the supposed connection should be illustrated by a photo that has nothing to do either with Marcuse or with "Cultural Marxism" - especially since the source for the connection mentions, as far as I know, neither the picture nor "cultural Marxism". There is SYNTH, and then there is just ILIKEIT free association. Newimpartial (talk) 18:02, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

References

Lazlo Pasztor an actual "Nazi" employed by The Free Congress Foundation?

I've found 3 sources claiming that The Free Congress Foundation employed an actual "war criminal" and Nazi (a Hungarian man named Lazlo Pasztor), who appears in their documentary "The Origins of Cultural Marxism". Those sources are Martin Jay (considered to be the main historian of The Frankfurt School), here [27], archived here [28], FAIR, the national media watch group, here [29], archived here [30], and The Huffington Post, here [31], and archived here [32].

Pasztor appears at 2:37 of The Free Congress Foundation's video, here [33].

The Martin Jay source contextualizes Lazlo Pasztor as having been outed as a member of the "Arrow Cross" aka The Arrow Cross Party a short lived Hungarian government (1944-45) that executed between 10,000 and 15,000 Jewish and Romani people. The Huffington Post source confirms this information, both sources say this outing happened in 1988 because quite a few similar individuals were found to be on the Republican National Committee (including Lazlo Pasztor).

Likewise, the source from FAIR, a national media watchdog group, also notes that Paul Weyrich's Heritage Foundation included some seemingly very racist people (such as Roger Pearson, yet another of Weyrich's friends who is said to have run antisemitic conferences). FAIR describes Lazlo Pasztor as a "Convicted Nazi war criminal" (he did spend some of the war years in Germany) who worked in the FCF Washington office. Pasztor has denied any involvement in the antisemtic aspects of the Arrow Cross Party. [34], Lazlo Pasztor died in 2015, still claiming the Arrow Cross Party was a revolutionary organization focused on fighting for freedom and universal justice, despite the organizations focus on racial purity, and their related atrocities being well documented. 08:03, 22 November 2023 (UTC) 60.241.181.126 (talk) 08:03, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

This Encyclopedia Britannica article on the head of the Arrow Cross Party, Ferenc Szálasi, [35] notes his long standing participation in racial organizations and programs, at times aided by Germany. It also notes the Arrow Cross Party's cooperation with the Nazi's campaign of genocide. 60.241.181.126 (talk) 08:50, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

That sounds like it would be due a mention in the paragraph about the FCF video. Sennalen (talk) 16:22, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Background section focuses on the wrong topic.

The Background section is basically (from the 2nd paragraph on wards) a background of The Frankfurt School, and seems to pass off the phrase "cultural Marxism" as definitely another term for The Frankfurt School. I've seen cultural Marxism refer to early Cultural Studies, The Birmingham School, E.P. Thompson, and just plain, Marxist ideas around culture in general. [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42].

Ideally, the background section of this page about the conspiracy theory - would provide background focused on the conspiracy theory, mentioning the main targets where relevant - rather than focusing on painting the fairly vague academic phrase "cultural Marxism" as definitely the same thing as the main target of the conspiracy theory.

To be clear, I think it's far more accurate to say that "cultural Marxism" has been used within Cultural Studies to reference The Frankfurt School, The Birmingham School, and E.P. Thompson. Omitting mention of Cultural studies as the intended meaning, as well as avoiding mention of these other groups to which the academic usage refers (as the current section does) - gives far too much credence to the Conspiracy Theory. Writing out a history of The Frankfurt School as if their history somehow caused The Conspiracy Theory, is downright endorsing/priming for believers in the conspiracy (and hence, in terms of the academic usage, fails WP:NPOV).

This, the background section of the page ABOUT the conspiracy theory, should focus on the background FOR the conspiracy theory. Which has its origins in right wing an antisemitic groups. It should not be a place to steel man the idea that the academic usage and conspiracy usage are the same thing, nor that the phrase is just another term for "The Frankfurt School". It's not. The phrase "cultural Marxism" in the academic sense, is closer to being shorthand for "Marxist cultural studies" - which then relates and refers to The Frankfurt School, The Birmingham School, E.P Thompson and others.

It's more than just a history of The Frankfurt School (as the current section makes out) and how they ended up in America (which seems to be a sanitized preamble of the very Conspiracy Theory its self). 60.241.181.126 (talk) 12:46, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

In fact when the cultural Marxism conspiracy theory was created it did not use the term cultural Marxism. The term was later adopted as an update of cultural Bolshevism. It was even later before the conspiracists found that the term was used by some members of the Frankfurt School. TFD (talk) 13:17, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

To my knowledge there is no RS for any causal relationship between "cultural Bolshevism" and the cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. What we have is 20th century opinion columnists saying the two phrases sound a lot alike. Sennalen (talk) 16:26, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

The lead cites to three academic sources. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 16:47, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

It cites:

Jay: The Death of the West, was one major source, stigmatizing as it did the Frankfurt School for promoting "cultural Marxism" (a recycling of the old Weimar conservative charge of "cultural Bolshevism" aimed at aesthetic modernists). But the opening salvo had, in fact, been fired a decade earlier in a lengthy essay by one Michael Minnicino

Busbridge: The term Cultural Marxism is indeed reminiscent of Kulturbolshewismus (Cultural Bolshevism)

Woods: Several commentaries on the Frankfurt School conspiracy focus on the anti-Semitic implications of these narratives. Most of them claim that the paleoconservative myth of cultural Marxism is simply an updated version of NAZI propaganda about “cultural Bolshevism” and “Weimar degeneracy” (both tropes depended on obscene and offensive anti-Semitic caricatures). While the Frankfurt School conspiracy has anti-Semitic components, it is inaccurate to call it nothing more than a modernization of cultural Bolshevism propaganda. Such an explanation merely repeats the paleoconservative logic, because it intimates that anti-Semitism is just as foreign to America as cultural Marxism or political correctness. On the contrary, the latent anti-Semitism of Lind’s documentary is profoundly American.

The verdict is mixed at best. Jay says the phrases are linked, but explicitly disconnects it from the origin of the conspiracy theory. Busbridge just says they look similar. Woods says the conspiracy theory is anti-Semitic but explicitly rejects a causal chain from "cultural Bolshevism". Sennalen (talk) 16:58, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

The last paragraph of the background section provides background for the conspiracy theory. Perhaps someone might like to expand it. 194.60.136.6 (talk) 14:30, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

This is a good criticism, however, an understanding of what the Frankfurt School was, who its adherents and teachers were, what its goals were etc., is valuable for an understanding of at least what the conspiracy theory alleges. If for nothing else, it is difficult to understand how the teachings of the Frankfurt School became twisted without an understanding of what the Frankfurt School taught in the first place. I am a Leaf (talk) 14:55, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

What is valuable for inclusion is determined by policy, not our personal judgment. For example, tertiary says, "Reliable tertiary sources can help provide broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources and may help evaluate due weight." Since experts writing about the conspiracy do not go into depth about the Frankfurt School, neither should this article.

I do not see the relevance anyway. It's not as if the conspiracists knew anything about the Frankfurt School (or Marxism) other than they were Jewish Marxists teaching in the U.S. They are not twisting their teachings so much as inventing them. TFD (talk) 16:48, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the Frankfurt School's actual teachings are irrelevant to this article? I think their teachings would be pertinent in the same way that the heliocentric model would be pertinent to the article on geocentrism.

Also, this grievance that "it's not as if the conspiracists knew anything…" suggests you haven't read the article in its entirety. Every unacademic maniac mentioned in the article has a bigger contention with the Frankfurt School than "they were Jewish Marxists teaching in the U.S." Experts writing about the conspiracy theory clearly do go into depth about the Frankfurt School, which is evidenced by the sources within the background section and the Conspiracy Theory section. E.g.,

Michael Minnicino and the LaRouche Movement:

"Minnicino asserted there were two aspects of the Frankfurt School plan to destroy Western culture. Firstly, a cultural critique, by Theodor Adorno and Walter Benjamin, to use art and culture to promote alienation and replace Christianity with socialism. This included the development of opinion polling and advertising techniques to brainwash the populace and control political campaigning. Secondly, the plan supposedly included attacks on the traditional family structure by Herbert Marcuse and Erich Fromm to promote women's rights, sexual liberation, and polymorphous perversity to subvert patriarchal authority."

Paul Weyrich & William Lind:

"[Lind] characterized Herbert Marcuse as saying that left victim-groups should be allowed to speak while groups on the right were silenced.[6] Lind said that Marcuse considered a coalition of "Blacks, students, feminist women, and homosexuals" as a feasible vanguard of cultural revolution in the 1960s.[44] Lind also wrote that Cultural Marxism was an example of fourth-generation warfare.[37]"

The 'conspiracy theory' section would be much harder to read if this article's background was just a history of William Lind and Pat Buchanan's publishing careers and their misunderstandings of the Frankfurt School. It is helpful at least to clarify who allegations are being made against, especially for a group like the Frankfurt School, which many first-time readers might be unfamiliar with who they are and what their concerns were. That is what the current background section does.

Although it might sound ridiculous, perhaps this article would be more clear if (the current content) was organized 'conspiracy theory' and then 'background.' If the contention is that the article should focus more on the background ABOUT the conspiracy theory, that is what the 'Conspiracy Theory' section accomplishes. I am a Leaf (talk) 11:25, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Marcuse et al did not write about destroying Western culture, replacing Christianity with socialism, brainwashing the populace, political campaigning, or attacking the traditional family structure.

The CM conspiracy theory is merely an updating of Jewish Bolshevism now centered on aa group of Jews living in America. The claims are the same as those made about Bolshevism before the emergence of the Frankfurt School applied to a new target. What this new target actually stood for is incidental.

For example, Lind's statement about Marcuse saying that gays etc. would lead the revolution is unsourced. How can we tell what Marcuse actually said (if anything) about it? My guess is he never said anything about it, but that's OR and cannot go into the article. It's not that they "misunderstood" the school's teachings, it's that they invented them.

Compare this article with another other anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, such as Blood libel. It doesn't have a section explaining the Jewish religion. TFD (talk) 16:57, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree that Marcuse did not write about destroying Western culture etc., but the beliefs of conspiracy theorists are clearly inferences from what Marcuse et. al. wrote about, rather than being a trope applied blindly to some niche Jewish academics because they were Jewish.

As for Lind's statement on Marcuse, the article attributes the quote to Lind, that's not OR, that's what the conspiracy theorists say. Lind said that Marcuse considered a coalition of "Blacks, students, feminist women, and homosexuals" as a feasible vanguard of cultural revolution in the 1960s," in 'What is Cultural Marxism' [source 42 in the article]. While Lind doesn't attribute this to any particular writing, he was talking about Marcuse in the 50s, so my guess is he's talking about Eros and Civilization. Who knows.

In any event, i'm not adding anything to the article regarding this. I think you should read the article if you haven't. Read the sources too, there is a wealth of information suggesting this theory is more than merely a rehashing of antisemitic tropes.

I also don't think the Blood libel page needs to explain Judaism. The teachings of Judaism are wholly irrelevant to the idea of Blood Libel. However, the beliefs of conspiracy theorists are 100% relevant to an article on a conspiracy theory. I am a Leaf (talk) 17:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

That being said, I agree that the Background section could be improved and naturally, this should be according to wikipedia's policies. I only comment to say I see the relevance of such a discussion in the background section. Also, I hope you and all who read this enjoyed the holiday. I am a Leaf (talk) 11:53, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

If anyone actually doubts that the conspiracy theory is about the Frankfurt School, I invite them to consider that Minnicino wrote The single, most important organizational component of this conspiracy was a Communist thinktank called the Institute for Social Research (I.S.R.), but popularly known as the Frankfurt School. Lind's speech is 75% just a chronology of the founding of the ISR. The Birmingham group does not appear to have been on the conspiracy theorists radar, but if that's a line of interest I can bring some scholarship on how the Frankfurt School and British cultural Marxism were coterminous.

What makes the conspiracy theory wrong, or dangerous, or just worth paying attention to has nothing to do with the phrase "cultural Marxism". It's because the ideas are false, descriminatory, and used to foment violence. It's a fun house mirror version of the Frankfurt School where some parts are perfectly normal and others are distorted or made up.

I don't know how people got stuck on the idea that everything turns on this phrase, "cultural Marxism". So what we have is people constantly showing up at the article itching to fight nazis without understanding a single thing about the topic. So we are constantly getting bogged down arguing about "Were they really Marxist?", "Were they really feminist?", "Were they really involved with the student movement?" because people have no idea which parts are actually true or false. That is the reason it is so important to have a background section that is thorough and free of distractions — so that readers have a frame of reference for what is true, in order to better understand what is false. Sennalen (talk) 16:48, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure all of us here are concerned with what is true and what is false.

Also, do not assume that no one involved in this discussion is not broadly familiar with the primary and major secondary sources on the actual academic work being misrepresented with respect to both its content and real-world influence.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 17:11, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

It seems to me that a lot of the heat on this topic has arisen from debating whether the conspiracy theory is based on some underlying reality - including by a distortion of that reality - or not. This is of course a continuum rather than a binary, but when some editors argue that "Cultural Marxism" designated a particular group of thinkers and set of ideas prior to, and outside of, the conspiracy theory, that doesn’t only raise the hackles of those concerned about "fighting the NAZIs". It will also provoke opposition for those who have never seen the term used in this supposedly "neutral" way, and who see the few sources typically proposed to support this as obvious (and usually motivated) misreadings.

It also seems to me that the fun house mirror paradigm is actually quite revealing in this context. Would we interpret the Rothschild or Soros conspiracy theories as holding up a "fun house mirror" to the actual activities of those historical actors? I don't think we would - especially in Wikivoice - and I haven't seen any evidence that the CM conspiracy theory cuts any closer to its supposed basis than the others do to actual Soros or the Rothschilds. Attempts to discern what the "truth behind the" CM conspiracy theory might be, on this page, seem to me always to involve WP:OR and specific, often personal, interpretations by editors of what is assumed to be "actually true". This isn't what editors are supposed to be doing, IMO.

So in relation to the lead sentence, I am resistant to any formulation that presents "Cultural Marxism" as something that could relate to the conspiracy theory but might have some meaning elsewhere as a value-neutral "term of art". I don't think any quality sources for that latter claim exist, and editors should certainly not be fostering any citogenesis that would bring it into being. Newimpartial (talk) 14:30, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Saying that the Frankfurt School is the "most important organizational component," is not the same as saying it is about them. Various other individuals are claimed to be part of the conspiracy. Do we need to explain their views as well? TFD (talk) 17:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Like whom? The conspiracy theory is concerned with a Marxist plot to subvert western civilization and the Frankfurt School is the most common scapegoat for this plot. I don't think this page could even say what's wrong with the conspiracy theory without introducing the Frankfurt School and their actual teachings. I am a Leaf (talk) 18:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Like Rudi Dutschke, Angela Davis, the Students for a Democratic Society, David Riesman, C. Wilbur Mills, Gramsci and Camus, as well as Marxist-Leninist leaders including Stalin, Castro and Mao. And of course they count as advocates mainstream Democrats such as the Clintons, Obama and Biden. Also civil rights movements are described as agents of the conspiracy. Basically anyone who isn't a fellow conspiracist could be included as part of the conspiracy.

There is an article about the Frankfort School should anyone want to read about it. The theory centers on them because they were left-wing New York Jews. It has nothing to do with what they actually wrote about. The conspiracists did not misinterpret them: they took an existing conspiracy theory and moved the blame from Jewish Bolsheviks to the Frankfurt School. TFD (talk) 21:13, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

If that's your contention, find some sources indicating what you claim. Plenty of sources in the article indicate the theory is bigger than that, and I'd think the Jewish people who believe in 'cultural marxism' would be able to discern the theory for what it is, if that is actually the case.

I think you're doing yourself a disservice for reducing this conspiracy theory to merely an antisemitic trope. I agree that there are similarities in the rhetoric used by proponents of "cultural bolshevism" and proponents of "cultural marxism," but to take this reductionist attitude almost suggests you haven't bothered reading the article or any of its sources. Anyway, if there is no recommendation for changes to the article, this conversation need not continue. I am a Leaf (talk) 21:22, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Of course I have read the article. Have you ever read anything by a member of the Frankfurt School other than in texts pushing the conspiracy theory?

I don't know what you want sources for. There are no sources that say what this article should say about the Frankfurt School. However, policy says that we should say as much or as little as rs about CM do. The SPLC article, "Cultural Marxism", for example says nothing about the school.

Even if your suggestion is against policy, I still don't understand your reasoning. Why would we for example explain Judaism in an article about blood libel? Doing so would only provide credence to the theory.

TFD (talk) 23:17, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

The SPLC source mentions William Lind as a proponent of the theory, and if you read anything by William Lind (which you can do while categorically rejecting what he says), you would see his thesis regarding "Cultural Marxism" is that it's completely the fault of the Frankfurt School.

I really do not mean to disparage you, despite the fact you seem to think i'm a conspiracy theorist, (i'm just someone who likes to read primary sources). But in all honesty, it seems like willful ignorance of the topic or disingenuousness if you think it's possible to discuss the conspiracy theory without mentioning the Frankfurt School. It's like you want to talk about a conspiracy theory about moon landings without talking about the moon.

Here, for example is Lind's "Political Correctness: A Short History of an Ideology"

[43]

in which Lind mentions the Frankfurt School on page 5 (really, page 2 since the first 3 are a title page and introduction). This article, and the SPLC article you linked, correctly identifies William Lind as the originator of this theory, if that is the case (it is) than it is also the case that understanding at least who the Frankfurt School is is necessary to understand what this conspiracy theory alleges by its proponents. I am a Leaf (talk) 23:35, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Chiming in in favor of TFD's interpretation of policy here. There is a difference between discussing and mentioning. The present article needs to mention the Frankfurt School, with an appropriately placed Wikilink which readers can follow if they're interested in learning more, and it needs to mention that the conspiracy theory misrepresents the Frankfurt School according to the consensus of mainstream scholars (per WP:FRINGE). But discussing the Frankfurt school in depth would be UNDUE, and possibly WP:COATRACK. Honestly I think the SPLC piece TFD just linked to does a great job threading this needle. Our article should follow the balance of WP:ASPECTs given there. Generalrelative (talk) 23:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

By the way, regarding Blood Libel, I said "I also don't think the Blood libel page needs to explain Judaism. The teachings of Judaism are wholly irrelevant to the idea of Blood Libel. However, the beliefs of conspiracy theorists are 100% relevant to an article on a conspiracy theory."

So I kindly ask you please read my comments before making suggestions about them/my reasoning. I am a Leaf (talk) 23:41, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

The teachings of the Frankfurt School are similarly wholly irrelevant to the CM conspiracy theory. What's the difference? According to the Blood libel theory, it was a conspiracy motivated by Jewish teachings. According to these teachings, drinking the blood of Christian children during Passover or using it to make matzo would enable the Jews to return to the Holy Land. TFD (talk) 01:29, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

You don't need to know anything about Judaism to say that Jews killed Jesus, all you need is a loose understanding of what the gospels say. You do need to know something about the Frankfurt School to allege the Frankfurt School is responsible for modern progressive movements, pc, etc. Especially when the lede claims that the Frankfurt School's teachings are "misrepresented" by the theory. It is only fair that we describe what the proper representation, at least in a cursory way. I am a Leaf (talk) 01:55, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Also, did you argue that you don't understand "my reasoning" of why i'd include teachings of Judaism in the Blood Libel article, then (after learning you misrepresented my comment) you gave your reasoning as to why the teachings of Judaism are relevant to the article? Do you believe what you say or are you just being pointlessly contrarian?

Regardless of your answer, this discussion has gone too off topic.

As far as the original topic, I think the background section is appropriate as is, and if anything should be expanded as to better display to readers why this conspiracy theory misrepresents the Frankfurt School's teachings, as the Frankfurt School is the central scapegoat of this conspiracy theory, and understanding what they actually teach is necessary to understand what the conspiracy theorists misinterpreted, without knowing both, readers will not have a complete understanding of this conspiracy theory, what it alleges, and why it is incorrect. Have a good day. I am a Leaf (talk) 02:17, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Blood libel is not the theory that the Jews killed Jesus, but that Jewish doctrine leads Jews to kill Christian children. If I understand you correctly, your view is that everyone knows that's a lie so there is no reason to explain the Jewish religion. But maybe you think it is credible that these New York Jews are trying to destroy Western civilization, so a full explanation of their views is required. Otherwise, what is the difference? TFD (talk) 03:27, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

This has gone far too off topic, and you no longer seem interested in addressing any arguments pertaining to this article.

My view is if we allege that something is misrepresented, we should show the proper representation, and then show how the misrepresentation deviates from that. For this article, that would require an explanation of what the Frankfurt School teaches (the proper representation, at least an overview of what is needed to recognize what is misrepresented). This is what the background section does.

You seem to think the people who came up with this conspiracy theory did so solely because the Frankfurt School was made up of Jewish academics, rather than because these conspiracy theorists believed the Frankfurt School taught objectionable material and wanted to twist the Frankfurt School's teachings to appear even more subversive to conservatives/anti-Marxists. I do believe this conspiracy theory is, to its proponents, more of the latter than it is an objection of the religion of the academics.

I disagree with your characterization of this conspiracy theory, and if we cannot agree on that point, it makes perfect sense we would be unable to discuss what would be relevant in the background section. I am a Leaf (talk) 04:07, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Also, it seems I mixed up Blood libel and Jewish deicide. My mistake. Blood libel as an antisemitic conspiracy theory seems to have originated from a flawed historicity, there is no need to go over the teachings of Judaism, except to say that the religion rejects human sacrifice. This conspiracy (this is where we seem to disagree), has a flawed reading of cultural critique, and those who allege the conspiracy theory as true do not seem to be concerned as much with the members of the Frankfurt School as much as it is with the School's teachings (which is why I disagree with the characterization of this conspiracy as merely a rehashing of an antisemitic trope). This is why I believe the School's teachings in this article are more relevant than Judaism's teachings are relevant to the blood libel accusations. I came to this conclusion after reading the current background section (and sources), which is why I have suggested it repeatedly. I am a Leaf (talk) 05:39, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

But there is nothing in the Frankfurt School's teachings about overthrowing Western civilization any more than there is anything in the Jewish religion about killing children. In both cases, Jews are scapegoated without regard to facts.

Also, do you think we should explain the entire teachings of the Frankfurt School? Do readers need to know that Adorno thought Fascists had psychological abnormalities, that homosexuality resulted from hyper-masculinization or that pornography resulted from capitalism? What specifically do you think the article should explain? TFD (talk) 06:10, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I think the article already does a good job and focuses on the correct topic. Mentioning what/who the Frankfurt School is, giving a broad overview of the commonly distorted ideas of the school (e.g., the school's relationship with totalitarianism being perhaps the most often distorted, at least by Lind, repressive tolerance, critical pedagogy and its relation to political correctness, Eros and Civilization as it's often connected to sexual liberation). And concluding with the origin of the "New Right." Perhaps the section could be slightly less biographical, but otherwise is in solid shape with all the links. I am a Leaf (talk) 06:27, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Ahistorical approach to Cultural Marxism that is both too broad and too narrow

This article is flawed in many ways but probably the least debatable is that it is an ahistorical understanding of the intellectual or pseudo-intellectual development of the right.

The idea that Marxist ideas were penetrating American institutions and undermining traditional american cultural values is a relatively consistent theme in the American conservative tradition (and most conservative traditions) going back at least as far as the first red scare and probably as far back past the 1890s and shares a great deal of political, cultural and intellectual continuity with itself and should be considered the same phenomena. Cultural Marxism like the Red Scare is not primarily an anti-semitic conspiracy theory as much as its motivated by ideological anti-communism which united and still unites a relatively diverse range of ideological actors who hold substantially different views from one and another some of which are anti-semitic. This is true in the same sense that criticism of Wall Street brings together an ideologically diverse coalition some of which is avowedly anti-semitic, some of which is conspiratorial and some of which is neither. The specific formulation of cultural Marxism being related to the Frankfurt school should be understood either as a separate conspiracy to cultural marxism or as an element or specific hypothesis to a larger theory. It should also be noted that the Frankfurt School theory since about 2018-2020 has exited the fringe-right and is now a widespread belief among American conservatives and even prior to that it had some play with non-marginal conservative intellectuals that in some cases pre-dates its adoption by fringe-right groups.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_blacklist

https://www.jstor.org/stable/41035372

9876andoP (talk) 22:18, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

The Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory was copied from Nazi ideology, rather than earlier U.S. red scares. Incidentally, the First Red Scare and similar events were also anti-Semitic. Palmer for example blamed a "small clique of outcasts from the East Side of New York" (i.e., Jews) for attempting to overthrow the U.S. government. TFD (talk) 22:54, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Compilation of Proposed Lead Changes

This is not a suggestion for any particular lede, but the lede is clearly a contentious topic, so I thought it'd be helpful to compile several of the suggested changes into a singular thread for convenience/discussion, as there are a variety of suggestions across several threads and it was getting rather unwieldy.

The organization is merely the order which I gathered the proposals. I hope for this to be referential and perhaps there is a way to converge the best of these suggestions into a lede that makes everyone happy while maintaining academic rigor and neutrality. The first bracketed name is the user who suggested the lede. If there is anything I missed, or any new suggestions for the lede, please add it.

Current lede:

The term "Cultural Marxism" refers to a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory that misrepresents the Frankfurt School as being responsible for modern progressive movements, identity politics, and political correctness.

Proposed ledes:

1. The term "Cultural Marxism" refers to a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory which claims that proponents of Marxist cultural analysis are the basis of a continuing academic and intellectual effort to subvert Western culture. [21 May 2023 edit by RecardedByzantin, reverted by Tewdar, mentioned by The Hand That Feeds You in the thread ‘Topic sentence is unencyclopedic and should be changed’]

2. The term "Cultural Marxism" refers to a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory which represents the Frankfurt School as being responsible for modern progressive movements, identity politics, and political correctness. [I am a Leaf] [Rejected by a large majority of discussion participators]

3. The term "Cultural Marxism" is a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory first advanced by William S. Lind. It misrepresents the Frankfurt School as being responsible for modern progressive movements, identity politics, and political correctness. [The Hand That Feeds You]

4. The term "Cultural Marxism" is a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory first advanced by William S. Lind. It misrepresents the Frankfurt School's influence on modern progressive movements, identity politics, and political correctness. [I am a Leaf] [rejected by The Hand That Feeds You and IP (60.241. . .)]

5. The term "Cultural Marxism" is a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory that misrepresents the Frankfurt School as being responsible for modern progressive movements, identity politics, and political correctness. [Mathglot]

6. Cultural Marxism conspiracy theories are unfounded claims about the Frankfurt School and Western Marxism, particularly among United States political conservatives since the 1990s. [Sennalen]

7. Proponents of a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory use the term "Cultural Marxism" to misrepresent the Frankfurt School as being responsible for modern progressive movements, identity politics, and political correctness. [Firefangledfeathers] [Seconded by Generalrelative] I am a Leaf (talk) 21:40, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm okay with any of them except #2 Whilst I understand your reasoning that "conspiracy theory" causes the word "misrepresents" to be redundant, I think having redundant mechanisms of explanation is a good thing for complicated topics.

I think #6 would be the biggest change, and cause the most need for further discussion/edits.

I like that #1 would link to Marxist cultural analysis, which I think could help further explain why the conspiracy theory is counted as such, and the rest are fairly consistent in their message (#3 and #4 include William S. Lind as the first to advance the theory, #5 does not, #7 is a somewhat cumbersome rewording from a functionalist POV). Small point, I believe Mathglot's suggestion (#5) had struck out the words "refers to" - indicating it was not part of their suggestion. Mathglot's version (#5) would thus be the closest to the current text of the article, removing only those two words (and replacing them with "is"). 14.200.163.250 (talk) 00:05, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

You are correct, Mathglot did strike out the "refers to." I copy/pasted most of these at plaintext which is probably why that's missing.

I did fix it (I just removed the “refers to” from 5. outright), although i’ve heard you’re not supposed to delete text after someone replies. Hopefully this admission permits the deletion.

I am a Leaf (talk) 00:57, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I think it's fine when you're quoting someone (as per your list of options) - you're just not supposed to go back and edit what someone actually wrote themselves. 14.200.163.250 (talk) 03:20, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Nah you're also not supposed to edit your own comments once they've been replied to without indicating that you've done so. See WP:TALK#REPLIED for suggestions on how to do this properly. In this case, where there was an error transcribing someone else's text and the subsequent revision is discussed in the thread immediately following, it's probably no big deal. So this is just FYI for future discussions. Generalrelative (talk) 19:47, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems to be a spirit-of-the-law, not the letter-of-the-law situation. Like, the purpose of the policy is to preserve any contentious intent (to preserve the arguments being made) - you can probably go back an correct spelling, or basic mistakes that aren't involved in any points of contention. 194.223.61.126 (talk) 04:00, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Copy editing notes:

• We should, if possible, avoid "refers to". It's clunky. See MOS:REFERS
• What is the utility of the quotation marks, and would this utility be better performed by italics? For the first mention, just boldface should suffice. See MOS:SCARE and MOS:WAW

Wracking ^talk! 17:11, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Have you noticed the attempts to remove or discredit any reliable sources that suggest CM is a synonym for anything other than CMCT, including sources indicating that CM can be synonymous with “Western Marxism”? For example, this recent deletion, which I have now reversed, involves removing Buchanan and labeling seven other sources, including Tuters, as “dubious.”

Some editors want to maintain that CM and CMCT are one-to-one equivalents (fully interchangeable terms) and that any deviation from this orthodoxy is subversive. This is also the reason why some editors are bending over backwards to argue against the applicability of MOS:FIRST. XMcan (talk) 19:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

The citations don't actually support the content (as already outlined on the talk pages in question), so yes, using them that way is dubious. - MrOllie (talk) 19:47, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

There was a consensus that defining "cultural Marxism" and "Western Marxism" as exact synonyms is an oversimplification. That doesn't mean that "cultural Marxism" is unrelated to "Western Marxism". It especially can't be further stretched to claim that "cultural Marxism" is exactly equivalent to "cultural Marxism conspiracy theory". Sennalen (talk) 21:28, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

If that's your position, I'm not sure why you reverted, since the text in question does define them as synonyms. MrOllie (talk) 21:39, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

The source entirely was removed with a spurious claim that the source itself was dubious. The source is reliable and respected. It remains the case that "cultural Marxism" is a phrase legitimately and widely used in connection with Western Marxism. Any imprecision in the language can be fixed without trying to delete and evade that. Contextualizing it on this page is less delicate than on Western Marxism, in light of WP:ONEWAY. Sennalen (talk) 21:50, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

No, the sourceing was dubious, and it was, because the cited source did not support the content. This isn't a matter of 'imprecise language', the claim had been recently rejected as incorrect. MrOllie (talk) 22:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Some editors have claimed it was incorrect, but not with substantial reasoning so far. To keep everyone up to speed, the source is an entry on Western Marxism from Oxford Reference's A Dictionary of Critical Theory [44] It also started to focus more on cultural rather than economic problems and it is for this reason also known as cultural Marxism. Sennalen (talk) 22:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Given the source in question (Oxford Reference) - describes its self as "bringing together 2 million digitized entries across Oxford University Press’s Dictionaries, Companions and Encyclopedias." - so it looks a lot like trying to re-litigate a previously rejected source. Perhaps you'd be better off citing the source they use? It lists a 1976 work by Perry Anderson. That work is available here - however I'm unable to locate the term "cultural Marxism" within it. Thus we must conclude that Oxford Reference is speaking on behalf of the earlier Oxford Dictionary source which has already been rejected. 203.219.38.81 (talk) 02:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

new Cruz book

Ted Cruz has recently published a book entitled Unwoke: How to Defeat Cultural Marxism in America. Since he is a sitting US Senator with public aspirations for the presidency, I think this should be mentioned down here at the end of the article. There are also lots of images we could use so that Suella Braverman is not uniquely singled out in this section, which otherwise seems inappropriately arbitrary.

I'm not sure whether to add this now, and then add material from reviews later, or to wait until we have reviews from reliable sources. (A quick search of the Internet did not turn up anything usable, but I did not look very hard.)

The table found at WP:RSP is a good resource for determining reliability and perceptions of bias in our sources on this—as I am sure assessments will diverge quite radically from one publication to the next.

You can find more information about the book, along with an extremely dramatic and alarmist video, on his website[45].

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 22:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Who he is and why he wrote the book are not all that important here. The decision to include or exclude should be based on sourcing. What WP:RS are reporting on it? Not just reviews, but other articles could be useful. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

The answer to all three is actually no, we need more than even your most robust option. Reviews don't carry weight like that because they're opinion pieces, we will need non-opinion coverage of this book in the proper context (which we will likely get, but we can't jump the gun). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Opinions are part of the body of reliable sources that contribute to establishing due weight. I do not have a position on including this book or not, only about this general sourcing principle. Sennalen (talk) 22:48, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

That is almost always the case because almost tautologically a reviewer is a SME but it is not always the case (such as when it is the reviewers only review). Not seeing where we actually disagree, I am not saying that they don't contribute to establishing due weight but that on their own they can not. If just opinion pieces mention it then no it should not be on this page for lack of weight. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:52, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not suggesting that we need reviews in order to give an assessment of the quality of the book as a book. This is obviously not the place for that. What we need is coverage from good sources on probably just what he means by the term. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 22:52, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I.e., neutral third-party sources on basic facts. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 22:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Look, its hard to speculate about what we need or don't need. Its easy to determine what's due when we non-hypothetical sources to review, lets all take a break until we have those. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I posted this here, not editing the article, because I thought is would be something that other editors might want to keep their eyes out for. Yikes! Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 23:02, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

We shall have to wait and see if it has any impact on the overall topic. The fact it was written by a very notable U.S. conservative does not make the book significant. The little coverage it has received is more relevant to Cruz's article than to this one. I'm guessing it will be quickly forgotten. TFD (talk) 23:44, 27 November 2023 (UTC)