Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cultural Marxism (2nd nomination)

Cultural Marxism

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Cultural Marxism (2nd nomination)

Cultural Marxism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This will have been the third time this issue has been brought up for debate under different categories. Before Jimbo’s peace offering to the participants in the Gamergate controversy, the article had been deleted after a discussion ranging a month, far more than befits a fairly obscure term in right-wing circles. Let’s try to have one at least relatively based in the facts.

For previous discussions, see:

Talk:Cultural_Marxism/Archive_2#Merger_proposal and Talk:Cultural_Marxism#Merger_with_.22Frankfurt_School_Conspiracy_Theory.22_.E2.80.93_discussion_2

If it probably wasn't against policy, I’d have to make a bot to comment on all the SPAs and repeatedly disproved sources this discussion will be flooded with the moment it’s linked on Reddit, 8chan or Stormfront. Amitabho Chattopadhyay (talk) 14:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not seeing an argument for deletion in this statement, for that matter reading your comment I can't tell if you are for or against deletion.Coffeepusher (talk) 14:36, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm for turning this page into a disambiguation, but my prior involvement in the issue may colour my judgement. The argument for deletion is summarised succinctly here:

• "Well-sourced"? Where? Where are there any "sources" that posit the existence of a school of thought that spans the entire 20th century and contains people that never met each other, and never defined their theories as belonging to a school of "Cultural Marxism"? There are none. There never were, and there still are not any. A few books have been cited as using the phrase "cultural Marxism", but none of them support the existence of a school of thought called "Cultural Marxism".

As an example, which I and others have refuted numerous times, people like to cite the Dworkin book called "Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain: History, the New Left, and the Origins of Cultural Studies" as supporting the existence of a school called "Cultural Marxism". However, the book does not do this, indicative of the fact those citing it have not read it. First of all, Dworkin, writing in 1997, says "My account is the first intellectual history to study British cultural Marxism conceived as a coherent intellectual discipline" (pg. 3). From the start of the book, Dworkin makes clear that the argument that there has been this long-running school of thought called "cultural Marxism" is totally false. He says that he invented the term in this context. His book's purpose is to establish it, long after the theorists were dead, and after the conspiracy theory had already come to light.

What's more, he specifically says that the Frankfurt School and Gramsci, two people that all these IPs and SPAs claim are part of a school of "Cultural Marxism", are explicitly not part of his "cultural Marxism". In fact, he says he proposes the term "cultural Marxism" as an alternative the more mainstream phrase "cultural studies" for an exclusively British movement that began in the 1960s, with the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies at Birmingham. This is a fringe usage. No one other than Dworkin has proposed this usage, and mainstream academia calls it "cultural studies", which we have an article on. He admits that it doesn't exist outside of his work, and that he is creating term for his own sake to reframe the traditional academic viewpoints on the Birmingham school. He explicitly excludes those who IPs and SPAs say are part of "cultural Marxism". Regardless, his view is not accepted in academia. You will not find any other books referencing this definition. It is exclusively his, and WP:FRINGE. This is just one example of the manipulation occurring here.

Another example is a 2004 essay by Douglas Kellner, called "Cultural Studies and Cultural Marxism", which these SPAs and IPs like to use. These two works are the main sources for the IP and SPA arguments. It was written long after the conspiracy theory had emerged. It is not a peer-reviewed journal article. It was never published anywhere. It is a personal essay of 15 pages long, that only exists on the internet because he has released it personally for free. None of the sources it cites propose the existence of a school of thought called "Cultural Marxism". In fact, Kellner himself does not use "cultural Marxism" to posit the existence of a school of thought, but instead uses it in the purely descriptive sense of meaning "applications of Marxism to culture", which is not a definition that can be used as the basis for an encylopaedia article.

Citation of sources, and WP:V, do not mean that one can just throw a bunch of links in an article and say that it is "well-sourced". WP:V means that the sources must support the text, and that the sources must be reliable, and not WP:FRINGE. None of the sources in the article, especially these two favourites of the IP and SPA crowd, support the idea of a school of thought called "Cultural Marxism". Zero. If people can't read the sources, that's their fault. WP:V is a policy, and to adhere to it, the sources must support the text. All of them have been debunked repeatedly by me, and other editors. RGloucester — ☎ 02:36, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

and, as far as I'm aware, has never been addressed satisfactorily by anything other than the repetition of already disproved claims. Amitabho Chattopadhyay (talk) 14:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• Smerge to Frankfurt School conspiracy theory or Turn into Disambiguation or Delete, in order of preference. Hipocrite (talk) 15:33, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep per WP:SK, "fails to advance an argument for deletion...making nominations of the same article with the same arguments..." Also the nominator's complaints about SPAs seem saucy when he himself has only made 216 edits and most of his activity in the last 6 months was in this dispute. Andrew D. (talk) 17:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment - SK not applicable, as I support Deletion over the current status quo. Hipocrite (talk) 17:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• This is an attempt at an end-run around the (lack of) consensus at the merge proposal. Editors considering participating in the debate on this article should please read the talk page history carefully. —S Marshall T/C 19:27, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
• Delete (as far as I can tell, there is no substantive content to merge). Ordinarily I'd object to this nomination on DEADHORSE grounds. But this isn't ordinarily, and the process to date has been so beset by irregularity that editors who are dissatisfied with the state of play have every reason to be. The bottom line here is that there is a complete lack of sourcing to establish "Cultural Marxism" as a topic distinct from "Frankfurt School". Given that, it doesn't really matter how many editors feel it should be treated as a district topic. We just can't have article on Wikipedia about things for which we have no specific sourcing. Formerip (talk) 19:32, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
• See also User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 178 and User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 179
• Merge and Disambiguate - delete this POV fringe hijacking of a common usage to describe Marxist theory of culture and which is normally used in the precise context of criticising Structural Marxism as well as more generally, and which doesn't qualify for an article at this precise title despite being widely recognised and qualifying for a hatnote upon redirection. Merge this article elsewhere, and disambiguate between the real Cultural studies-Critical theory and the fringe conspiracy page or a separate article. Or if you can't do that, delete this article. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
• Keep and improve with reliable sources representing varied perspectives on the subject in proportion to their mainstream acceptance, as per the standard NPOV process that we use for everything else. Covering contested subjects and representing conflicting viewpoints is part of our job as an encyclopedia. JimmyGuano (talk) 20:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment - We already have an article on every topic this term can encompass: Frankfurt School, Frankfurt School conspiracy theory and Cultural studies. Regarding your second sentence, see WP:DUE; I will presume you meant 'present', not 'represent'. We don't have an article on 'Jews and communism', which this article might as well be. অমিত talk 21:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not quite clear on the distinction you're trying to draw between "present" and "represent", however I certainly didn't mean "support", if that's the meaning you are trying to steer me away from? As far as I can tell from the sources the whole point about "Cultural Marxism" as a concept is that it is seen by those that posit its existence as a wider phenomenon enveloping all of those things you mention and more. That is precisely why it can't be replaced by any of them. You may well argue that this makes it a paranoid delusion and you may well be right (though similar usage by non-right wing sources though rare doesn't seem to be completely unheard of). Even if it is a paranoid delusion, though, it is a notable paranoid delusion, as it is discussed in reliable sources who are not themselves trying to promote it. JimmyGuano (talk) 21:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Specifically, Jimmy, what sources are you refering to when you say "as far as I can tell from the sources"? Can you give an example of a fact about "Cultural Marxism" that can be cited and is unambiguously something Wikipedia should mention, but for some reason could not be incorporated into the Frankfurt School article? If you can, I might think about changing my vote. But if you can't, I think you should think about changing yours. Formerip (talk) 22:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

That's a fair challenge. For me the Frankfurt School article should focus on the actions, writings and documented thought of a defined group of German academics largely from the 1930s to the 1950s and their followers, including well-sourced criticism of their (actual) thought, as it largely does already. Critical theory and similar articles should focus similarly on the wider scholarly disciplines. The Frankfurt School conspiracy theory article should focus on the specific historical allegations about the behavior and motivations of those individuals in the US in the mid 20th century, as covered in sources such as this[1]. The Cultural Marxism article should focus on the perception - largely on the right, largely since the 1990s - of the existence of a variously-defined but supposedly widespread intellectual theme running probably from Gramsci through to the current day, including but by no means limited to the Frankfurt School. It should include coverage of issues at best tangentially related to whether a group of mid 20th century German philophers wanted to bring down American society, including the perception that "Cultural Marxism" underlies supposedly pervasive modern phenomena such as multiculturalism,[2], its role as a rallying cry for the homicidal far right [3], its relationship to the role of "common sense" in the ideology of UKIP,[4] the representation of homosexuality on American television,[5] the extent to which the Birmingham School represents continuity or change with respect to its intellectual predecessors,[6] and the fear of Muslim immigration in early 21st century Europe.[7].

The two subjects are obviously related and are often connected but that doesn't mean that they're the same thing. Here [8] for example, is a respected commentator in Britain's highest circulation broadsheet national newspaper, openly mocking the Frankfurt School conspiracy theory as anti-Semitic paranoid madness, while simultaneously arguing that "Cultural Marxism" exists and is a legitimate object of criticism. It isn't our job to say whether he's right or wrong, but we should represent the fact that such arguments at least exist. JimmyGuano (talk) 09:44, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

You were asked for sources that could be cited unambiguously as sources suitable for Wikipedia that identify Cultural Marxism as warranting an article of its own (ie. separate from the academic meaning). The book you've cited is specifically about distorted (ambiguous) views of reality (as it's Amazon page describes it [9]), and the website you've cited is a blog[10] (albeit a blog from a daily telly journo). Just because a journalist writes something on their blog (particularly if as in this case, it's unevidenced), doesn't substantiate that blog entry as evidence any more than it would if it appeared on any other blog (to claim so is an Argument from authority). On top of this West's specific words are "The ideas of Antonio Gramsci and Herbert Marcuse, to name just two prominent Cultural Marxists, were very influential in creating the New Left of the 1960s and the radical campus politics of the 1970s." which solidifies these thinkers (and more specifically the frankfurt school) as the source for the legitimate (albeit rare) academic meaning for the term Cultural Marxism (and ergo, is only an argument for the destination of a merger, not for keeping a page dedicated to a rarefied academic use that refers to other things [things that have their own pages already]) as has been stated time and time again. What this blog entry DOES NOT DO - is provide evidence that the highly contextualized academic meaning of the term, can be extended as proof positive that Cultural Studies, Critical Theory, Multiculturalism, Gay Rights, Feminism, Political Correctness and Atheism are innately Marxist in their teachings and agenda. It's not good enough to just claim (or cite someone who claims) "Cultural Marxism influenced this and that" (or even worse, as is being done in this case: This and that ARE Cultural Marxism) - you have to also show evidence for the new meaning of the term, evidence for this connection, and as far as I can tell there is no such evidence. What you're being asked for is the source of your belief that the term is notable enough to warrant it's own page. The source of your belief to vote to keep the article intact rather than to merge it to a more appropriate location (as all the sources seem to suggest doing) such as happened with the Rothschild Conspiracy Theory (a much much much more famous Conspiracy Theory) when it was listed as a section of that page. The "extension" of the academic meaning - SHOWS NO EVIDENCE for it's CLAIMS. This is the problem. This is what makes the theory an unevidenced, and hence conspiratorial theory (not worth it's own page). So can you show sources or reason to justify your vote? Yes, it is an acknowledged rarefied academic term (bookended into a very specific time period) used to refer to the Frankfurt School (and hence that's the appropriate destination), and it is ALSO a conspiracy about the extension of Marxist influences (and their agenda) in society. The former of which should be merged because it's a rarefied and completely referential term (referential to existing pages). The other of which (the latter) should be merged because though widely believed (as with the Rothschild Conspiracy Theory) it is COMPLETELY unevidenced, unsubstantiated, and unverified. Where one stops the other starts - so there is no gap for arguing that the article should be kept. --Jobrot (talk) 02:23, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to prove anything other than that this is a subject with a significant secondary literature, the scope of which goes beyond a specific set of allegations about the Frankfurt School. Whether that secondary literature does or does prove anything is irrelevant - for the purposes of an AfD on Wikipedia it just has to exist. As you observe, quite a few of the works I cited are actively critical of the term. However a subject with a significant secondary literature is notable, and a notable subject should have a Wikipedia article. It's no more complicated than that. JimmyGuano (talk) 08:30, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

So how do you get around the fact that secondary "literature" or as policy has it secondary SOURCES are still subject to reliability criteria? Why do you think there's no article for The Rothschild Conspiracy Theory? There's plenty of "secondary literature" for that too - but none of it is reliable enough to base a Wikipedia article on... and unless you can prove otherwise, then this article is no different. But besides that (and more importantly), this article hasn't been nominated on the grounds of WP:NN (non notability)! It's been nominated on the grounds that it has irreconcilable WP:V, WP:FRINGE issues (see the above links to previous discussions or the current talk section on Current Editorial Issues for details). So again, you are given the space in between the academic term (which should obviously be merged elsewhere) and the conspiracy/pundit term. So the options are: Argue against it being merged with a page more in line with the (internally consistent albeit rarefied) academic usage (which uses PRIMARY sources) - or find some verifiable sources to substantiate the conspiracy (WP:V, WP:FRINGE) claims (ie explain what you mean by "the scope of the subject [cultural marxism]... ...goes beyond a specific set of allegations about the Frankfurt School", for as mentioned the deletion proposal is NOT based on any WP:NN issues. Notability doesn't equate to having an article all of it's own, the subject can be just as notable in a CONSPIRACY section on the Frankfurt School page (just as the Rothschild Conspiracy is on its relevant page) - unless you can state a reason otherwise - then I cannot understand WHY you've voted the way you have. Please take the time to explain it to me in good faith, and Thank you in advance for your patience in doing so. --Jobrot (talk) 09:40, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

That's OK, I appreciate this is a highly-charged subject. WP:FRINGE is not itself a reason for deleting an article - notable fringe theories should have articles, non-notable ones shouldn't. As per WP:NFRINGE: "A fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, by major publications that are independent of their promulgators and popularizers. References that debunk or disparage the fringe view can be adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents. References that are employed because of the notability of a related subject – such as the creator of a theory – should be given far less weight when deciding on notability." I agree that the article as it currently stands has some severe verifiability issues, and these certainly need to be addressed. JimmyGuano (talk) 09:59, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

It's also going to need longer-term protection if it stays where it is (due to the edit warring which looks to increase). It's going to require protection and attention that it may better receive if couched as a section of the less controversial pages from which the theory extends. I understand that WP:Fringe is not necessarily an argument for deletion on it's own (assuming enough non-pro-generative and suitable sources can be found [which would mean not using Lind nor Berivik as they seem to be the primary originators of the theory]), but that assumption against the argument for deletion made still doesn't explain why you're against a merger? I understand that the conspiracy claims start Cultural Marxism off in the Frankfurt School and extend from there (the extent of Marxist influence as explicitly Marxist being the fiction the conspiracy rides on) - so I'm just not sure why you believe that extension is worthy of anything else other than merging (grounding) with reality. --Jobrot (talk) 10:30, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Merging a wider subject into an article that covers a narrower one looks like deletion by stealth. To take an analogy from a subject whose existential status is a bit less contentious - it would be like merging the World War I article into the Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria - you'd effectively be removing (or at least hiding) any coverage of all of the subject apart from one specific aspect. The argument against merging the narrower topic into the wider one is not quite as strong, I grant you, but this isn't an AfD for the Frankfurt School conspiracy theory article. JimmyGuano (talk) 13:10, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I would agree with your analogy if WW1 were a conspiracy theory with no evidence to back it up. But it's not. So this is not a case of merging a "wider" article into a "narrower" one. This is a case of merging a conspiracy theory into the an article representative of the terms that conspiracy theory is borrowing. So unless you can justify your claims with evidence then your comparison (and hence your vote) is bunk. --Jobrot (talk) 13:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

• Delete or Merge with Cultural studies or Critical Theory. Merging this article with Frankfurt School conspiracy theory was already tried and was met with immediate backlash. I believe there would be more consensus if it was moved to one of the aforementioned articles instead. HessmixD (talk) 23:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
• Keep - the article is currently not in good shape, partly as a result of recent content disputes, though there are better versions in its history that can be used in the process of improvement. It's under discussion on its talk page, with wider community involvement than before, thanks to intervention by Jimbo a few weeks ago. There are various suggestions for improvement or for possible renaming or merging elsewhere. It may ultimately be merged into a new article on Marxist cultural theory (or something similar)... or perhaps, though I wouldn't currently support this, into the existing article called Cultural materialism (cultural studies) or one of the other articles on related topics such as Critical theory or Cultural hegemony. But the options should be sorted out on its talk page by people who are now reading the relevant scholarly books, peer-reviewed articles, etc. An AfD discussion is not the best way to choose between options, but it would be good if the AfD brought some more community involvement to the talk page. Meanwhile, cultural Marxism as understood by intellectual historians, etc., is a real and important phenomenon that has attracted reputable academic research. Cultural Marxism is wider than just Antonio Gramsci (probably its main inspiration), the Frankfurt School, critical theory, or any of the other existing articles that cover related areas. Vesa Oittinen, a professor of intellectual history at the University of Helsinki, defines it succinctly as: "an attempt to apply basic ideas of historical materialism on the analyses of culture". That's a legitimate and important topic, and there are good sources. The main question IMHO is whether it should be dealt with under some other broad heading, such as "Marxist cultural theory", but again that needs to be worked out on the talk page by people who are reading the scholarly literature. Meanwhile the article should be improved, not deleted. Metamagician3000 (talk) 00:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

To be clear what's being discussed on the talkpage is a proposal to create an article titled something like "Marxist theory of culture" with entirely different content to this one. Don't get me wrong, that may be a great idea. But if you are proposing different content and a different title, how does that equate to "keep"? You might just as well vote keep on the basis that all that's wrong with the article article should be about Mount Kilimanjaro and titled "Mount Kilimanjaro". No need to delete it, just change the content and title instead! No, what you're talking about is clicking here and starting to type. This doesn't amount to any sort of valid keep rationale. Formerip (talk) 00:46, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Many subjects "attracted reputable academic research" - that's the basis for the Ig Nobel Prize, but this particular subject isn't covered or defined in any sense other than as directly synonymous and interchangeable with the views of The Frankfurt School and Antonio Gramsci. So I think your vote is poorly explained. Can you expand on what you mean by cultural Marxism beyond those, the associated pages in order to establish it as a separate phenomena independent of them? --Jobrot (talk) 06:08, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Since atleast in the previous discussion on the article's talk page some editors proposed merging the two articles, which way they should be merged if they should be? The article 'Cultural Marxism' has existed since 1 June 2006, whereas Frankfurt School conspiracy theory was created by Fuzzy mongoose (talk · contribs) in May 2013 as a split from Cultural Marxism. At that time, no one suggested deleting Cultural Marxism. It is important to consider because merging all contents to either article could partly be a WP:COATRACK. --Pudeo' 03:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
• Comment The quite limited and extremely historically bookended academic use of the term cultural Marxism invariably refers to the early philosophies of Gramsci and The Frankfurt School which influenced discourses like Cultural Studies and Critical Theory. The academic consensus is that these influences ended in the late 70s and early 80s (when Post-Modern thought took over).

Right-wing pundits however build on this now rarefied academic use to claim that Feminism, Gay Rights, Multiculturalism, Atheism, and Political Correctness are all stalwart Marxist attempts to weaken western Christian society and replace it with Marxism. This is undeniably a conspiracy theory. So I believe good Wikipedia policy would be to do something akin to what's been done with the Rothschild conspiracy theory - incorporate the conspiracy theory as a section of one of the legitimate articles to which the academic term refers. I'd suggest the Frankfurt School is the most appropriate target destination for this merger as it contains both Gramsci and Lukàcs who are often referred to by name in the conspiracy (as is the Frankfurt School in general) and the pages on Cultural Studies and Critical Theory both directly link to the Frankfurt School. Allowing people to still find the material in question, and more importantly allowing Wikipedia to be used properly for it's intended purpose - as an Encyclopedia (some digging required). If the merger doesn't occur, Cultural Marxism will need semi-permanent protection due to the this theory garnering the support/attentions of both StormFront and GamerGate. --Jobrot (talk) 05:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• Delete or Merge The academic use refers to Gramsci and The Frankfurt School. The unevidenced conspiratorial claims about modern cultural phenomena (Multiculturalism/Athesism/Political Correctness) suffer from extreme WP:V, WP:OR and WP:NPOV issues - which are unsurmountable due to the nature of the claims as invalid. As stated above, the Rothschild family approach is most appropriate for such a niche (non-notable) conspiracy theory. --Jobrot (talk) 05:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
• Redirect to anything that's not "conspiracy theory" It is probably too much work for some editor to have to merge this mess. Let the SPAs try their luck with a more well-written article like cultural studies, which is acknowledged in its article to have a Marxist core. Just don't redirect it to a conspiracy theory page; this is an insult to readers. Shii (tock) 07:39, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
• Keep The fact that this article has received so many views prior to all these attempts to delete is reason enough to leave it. It's alright to define communism and any number of other concepts on Wikipedia, what's your real problem with this: you don't want to give legitimacy to the term? Many people use the term, lets define it and stop beating a dead horse. Raquel Baranow (talk) 17:39, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

  Comment - 'So many views' has to be one of the silliest keep rationales I've heard this year. অমিত talk 19:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

  Comment - Go on, define it as something separate from the academic meaning, ie. the early stages of Critical Theory Cultural Studies The Frankfurt School or the views of Antonio Gramsci (of which all of those pages already acknowledge their Marxist influences) - define it as something separate from THAT and yet have it STILL NOT BE just a minor level conspiracy theory that would be more suitably merged as a section of one of those pages (most probably the Frankfurt School). I don't believe you can, so I don't believe your vote to keep the article is reasonable. But feel free to prove me wrong by providing such a definition (seeing as you clearly believe there is a legitimate one, I assume in good faith that you have reason for your vote, all I'm asking is for you to show it). --Jobrot (talk) 21:54, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

  Comment Cultural Marxists are politically correct people who believe in multiculturalism, feminism, gay rights, they're ultra liberal, hence the epithet "Marxist." Raquel Baranow (talk) 02:02, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

  Nope. Your definition is rather quickly made null and void by pointing out the multitude of CONSERVATIVE and/or RIGHT LEANING believers in feminism [11], gay rights[12], advocates for multiculturalism [13] and right-wing institutions that practice Political Correctness in their policy guidelines [14] who EXIST and yet, are not ultra liberal nor Marxist. These counter-examples to your definition are numerous and endless. So currently you've failed to justify your vote to keep the article (as your definition for the term has been demonstrably shown to be incoherent).--Jobrot (talk) 03:28, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

  Cultural Marxists are ultra liberal, didn't you read my entire definition? Raquel Baranow (talk) 17:19, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

  Yes, but definitions are ESSENTIALIST in nature (they mean something). You can't just grab two words or two categories and just simply say they're a third thing (if that were the case "green cars" would hold a different place in the dictionary than "red cars"). You have to be able to extract the essence of the combination in order to convert it into something definitive (it is after all a definition you're trying to come up with). Which is why I went to the bother of showing you counter examples, of conservatives who push for the same strains of thought and do so CULTURALLY utilizing cultural elements such as videos [15], articles [16] and having whole organizations [17][18] dedicated to pushing those same political and philosophical positions using our CULTURE. So I'm asking for the essence of the combination - why when conservatives push those ideas is it NOT Cultural Marxism? Yet when someone from the left pushes the same ideas using the exact same means, why is that any different? What MAKES that become Cultural Marxism? What is the essence of the combination (and hence the definition)? What is your definition beyond the mere combination of two categories? Show me that it is MEANINGFUL. Show me that it is MEANINGFULLY pointing somewhere and that it's NOT reducible to just being the latest tribalist political slur. --Jobrot (talk) 03:55, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

  Ha, ha, so I googled "John McCain" and "Cultural Marxism" and came up with a few links like this one: "McCain, the Republican cultural Marxist, who is only too anxious to sell the US out." (I'm from Arizona so it didn't surprise me.) It's more than a tribalist political slur. The term is very popular and deserves to be defined here. Raquel Baranow (talk) 16:33, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

  Perhaps it's a very popular tribalist political slur? At any rate you'll need a reasonable definition if you are to convince people of your position on the matter. Good luck. --Jobrot (talk) 02:33, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

  (ec, reply to Raquel). But don't you see, that undermines your argument. If the label can be applied to just about anyone by their opponents, it means nothing. So we have an article about a label, with no real substance to it. I have heard Marxists - actual Marxists, who apply that word to themselves - do something similar. Some of them call everybody to the right of them a "fascist." The difference, as far as I know, is that Wikipedia does not have articles using that label in that way. Which is good, but the same should apply here. Neutron (talk) 02:45, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep Per Saucy--TMD Talk Page. 23:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

  Comment I'd like it if people on the Keep side of things could give reasons please, as I don't understand their position on this matter. --Jobrot (talk) 01:12, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

  I'm honestly trying to think up what to put in the summary when this inevitably grows into the months and years. So far I've got 'we should make an entirely new article to substitute this but keep this one', 'it's worth covering as a term', 'I don't like you' and 'it's got tons of views'. I can understand the second, but so far it just seems like Frankfurt School conspiracy theory covers most of it - and honestly, it's just an oddly condensed slur. We don't have an article titled Things I Don't Quite Like, Such as Jews, Communists and Jewish Communists. অমিত talk 03:46, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

  Then we should delete the Frankfurt article instead. This article is much older. I would suspect that the Frankfurt article was an attempt to POV fork the issues surrounding Cultural Marxism, so that Cultural Marxism could be re-labeled a conspiracy theory by right-wing cranks.--TMD Talk Page. 01:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

  It's indeed a POV fork, but unlike Cultural Marxism it's an article written using "reliable sources," under Wikipedia's surprising but understandable decision that humanity's consensus reality is partially defined by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Shii (tock) 03:21, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the age of an article is a point for or against that article. Personally I'd be fine if both the page on Cultural Marxism, and the one on The Frankfurt School conspiracy theory were merged with the general page for The Frankfurt School. Which would seems logical to me. --Jobrot (talk) 04:37, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

• Delete This term is so silly and awkward that it does not even deserve a redirect. People who really want to learn about "cultural Marxism" can read about it at Metapedia, which is the appropriate Mediawiki-based site for treatment of this subject. – Herzen (talk) 00:50, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:NEO; this is a neologism which has all relevant content related to it covered more than adequately elsewhere. --Aquillion (talk) 06:14, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
• Delete The article tries to argue that modern U.S. liberalism is controlled by Marxist ideology. There already is an article about that conspiracy theory. TFD (talk) 07:48, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep - The term "cultural Marxism" has significant historical cachet; for example, Here's an academic work from 1997 with the phrase right in its title.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 07:13, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment The book to which you refer states in it's own pages that it is "the FIRST intellectual history to study 'BRITISH cultural Marxism' conceived as a coherent intellectual tradition" and hence is a poorly chosen source if you're trying to prove significant historical cachet. Issues with this source are also discussed at the top of the deletion discussion (as quoted from the talk page). Not only is it the first book of it's kind (noting it's own attempt to present something coherent, with the obvious implication being that this perception of a coherent movement is an uncommon stance to take), but it's also singularly limited to Post War Britain. Further more this self-confessed attempt at presenting something as coherent only ever uses the phrase British Cultural Marxism (never using the term Cultural Marxism as a stand alone concept of common language). More importantly it uses this string to refer to British cultural Studies and the term should hence be merged with the appropriately relevant page Cultural Studies or to initiate a new page British Cultural Studies. I say this because British Cultural Studies (to which the author refers) is the common name for the subject and has a far wider usage with a far greater weighting both in the public [19] and academic sphere [20] out numbering the alternate British Cultural Marxism by a complete order of magnitude. One authors use of a POV term, should not warrant a WP:CFORK. Ergo I do not understand your vote, given how the author is using the term. --Jobrot (talk) 09:31, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - Given that the title of the 1997 work was Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain, I would hardly consider it surprising that its author dwelt upon British instance.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 16:28, 25 December 2014 (UTC) The same title also occurs in a 1991 book (in Chinese, no less), so now we're looking at a quarter-century of phrase use. Going back even farther, here's a 1981 title, for a third-century of phrase usage.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 16:40, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

• So what you're telling us is that we should keep a totally unrelated article referring to something else entirely because some people referred to it by the same name a handful of times in the last century? I somehow doubt your good faith here. অমিত talk 21:16, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

• Here's another book with Cultural Marxism in the title (namely; Jameson on Jameson: Conversations on Cultural Marxism), the problem being that it doesn't contain the words Cultural Marxism anywhere within its 296 pages. I mention this as I like to think Wikipedia is about more than just judging books by their covers. I like to think we go a bit deeper than that. Your linked synopsis does mention that in this case it's a book about Political Sociology, and I assume if there was a significant movement within that discourse (a discourse thus far not been mentioned on the proposed page for Cultural Marxism), it would best appear on the relevant Wikipedia page Political sociology. Instead on that page Marxism is mentioned only as a subset of class analysis (one of Political sociology's 3 major categories of analysis) - and of course class analysis isn't innately Marxist in nature (see the Caste system in India for instance). Further more the link cites a number of Critical Theorists (that's more like it) yet states that they are specifically NOT Marxists - which goes against the idea of Cultural Marxism as holding the (conspiratorial) opinion that to be a practitioner in either Cultural Studies, or Critical Theory, you must therefore be Marxist (with a devious Marxist plan). However, I can understand that you yourself, may not be arguing for having a page on the conspiracy theory causing all the edit warring - in which case, you're free to change your vote to a vote to Merge with the page for Political sociology in line with the reference material you have provided (the stuff that's not in Chinese)... and I must now ask why that isn't your vote? Surely if it's a legitimate and significant movement in that area of discourse those monitoring the Political sociology page will whole heartedly agree with your addition?

P.S Do you speak Chinese? --Jobrot (talk) 02:24, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

The Chinese book is just a translation of Dworkin 1997 :I Shii (tock) 02:56, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep I don't see how anyone with an objective view can seriously consider this article for deletion. It may have some issues that need to be addressed, but the subject/term itself is legitimate without question. Google indisputably confirms this, with academic articles on the first page of results. I'm a centrist myself, but there is no question in my mind that this is an overt attempt at censorship, especially considering the shady recent merge attempt that Wales himself had to step in and put a stop to. LokiiT (talk) 22:07, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you might want to actually read what you're citing, before you cite it. That's not an "academic article", but a personal essay written by Kellner and released by him. It is the equivalent of a blog post, not reviewed by anyone else or published anywhere. It is not RS. What's more, it does not define "cultural Marxism" as a subject, anyway. Please see what a quote of my writing at the top of this request says. No censorship is involved. Perhaps you ought read WP:V? RGloucester — ☎ 22:18, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I do consider a well sourced essay written by a prominent academic figure to give academic legitimacy to the topic (and so does google). It is in no way shape or form equivalent to a blog post. Considering that you took only 10 minutes to reply, you're either an extreme speed-reader, or you should perhaps take your own advice and read it before dismissing it. LokiiT (talk) 22:35, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

None of the sources he cites, nor his own work, supports the idea of "cultural Marxism". The essay is equivalent to a blog post, because it is not peer-reviewed, it was not published, it did not appear anywhere than on his own personal website. It is merely his own personal work, and no publication found it fit to publish. That makes it not a WP:RS. Please see WP:SELFSOURCED. Otherwise, every university student's term paper could be considered "RS". Again, the principle of WP:V means that citations must support the text. A few scattered uses of the phrase "cultural Marxism" in a Google Scholar search does not mean there is a school of thought called "Cultural Marxism", nor does the term's appearance in a personal essay that has not been fact-checked by anyone. You'll note that that search is full of false hits. Anyone can throw the words "cultural" and "Marxism" together in the same work. Merely because two separate words appears does not support your position. RGloucester — ☎ 22:43, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

You're arguing a strawman. I never said that his article was peer reviewed. However, note that Douglas Kellner is a prominent expert in the topic and has numerous related published books. That makes him a little more of an authority than some unknown university student. Have you considered that your own understanding of Cultural Marxism is incomplete? LokiiT (talk) 22:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I've read the Kellner essay, and it does not support the idea of a school of thought called "cultural Marxism", for one thing, and for another, who is calling him "prominent"? Regardless, it doesn't matter if he has "published books". This is not an RS. It is an essay. It is WP:SELFSOURCED. It has no fact-checking. No credibility. No nothing. It is a blog post, unless someone publishes it. Please find one of these "numerous related books", and then show me where it says that there is a school of thought called "cultural Marxism". RGloucester — ☎ 22:55, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

• Delete or merge – For all of the reasons I've previously stated, namely that no reliable sources posit the existence of a school of thought called "cultural Marxism", and that the conspiracy theory already has an article. The term itself fails WP:NEO. RGloucester — ☎ 22:21, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand why it fails WP:NEO, there are many political neologisms recognized on WP. Raquel Baranow (talk) 23:31, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep There are academic articles written discussing "Cultural Marxism" dating way back into the 1990's , tracking a social political trend back to the 1950's. I've already posted links and excerpts for review on the 'talk' page, as have others. The content is not all "blogs" and political labeling, as is asserted here and the talk page. Read the referenced articles, especially concerning Cultural Marxism in Britain post-WW2. Certainly strip the article of all political content, or fork the article into two, one for a partisan political slur and another for academic study, but this is definitely an article that Wikipedia should keep, one way or another. Voodooengineer (talk) 23:06, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

We are already have an article on cultural studies. RGloucester — ☎ 23:10, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, RGloucester, an article that references two sources using the term "Cultural Marxism" yet conspicuously neglecting to include the term "Cultural Marxism" within the text of the Wikipedia article. Just so we're clear about what's being omitted, here's more sources: and and .

The term is out there; I've now found it dating back to at least the 1980's. Cut the article to ribbons, fine, I can support that, but the notion that deletion is justified just doesn't pass any test of cursory research. Strip it down to bare bones, call it a stub, and monitor its editing, but Cultural Marxism is a thing with decades of academic discussion.

Finally, playing devil's advocate, it may be plausible to merge into cultural studies, but that merge would require, for clarity, a redirect from Cultural Marxism and explanations within the cultural studies article explaining that the two terms are synonymous.

Also, calling a term dating to the 1980's a neologism doesn't seem applicable. Voodooengineer (talk) 23:40, 26 December 2014 (UTC)