Talk:Frankfurt School

Older versions of Cultural Marxim

Somehow I am unable to locate the older versions. I want to compare what was written in them vs. what's here now. Can someone link me?

PS: It's disconcerting that in the current form, I learn nothing about the theory itself, but it now resembles this rant-wiki (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism). It's kind of pathetic that Wikipedia is now about opinions and not facts. Nshuks7 (talk) 07:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Which version? The article had existed since 2006 and had gone through various iterations, you can check it here. This was the case till a self-identified Cultural Marxist decided that "Cultural Marxism" doesn't actually exist and is a "Conspiracy Theory" and wanted the article deleted a few months ago. He even put together the panel of "uninvolved" Administrators for the close. It's sad, but this is basically the state of Wikipedia right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.157.62.204 (talk) 09:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

But the Thory of cultural Marxism has existed since at least 1960. It's not a right wing conspiracy theory it's been academically discussed in universities as followed :- The work of the Frankfurt School and of Marxist thinker Antonio Gramsci was particularly influential in the 1960s, and had a major impact on the development of cultural studies, especially in Britain. As Douglas Kellner writes:

Cultural Marxism was highly influential throughout Europe and the Western world, especially in the 1960s when Marxian thought was at its most prestigious and procreative. Theorists like Roland Barthes and the Tel Quel group in France, Galvano Della Volpe, Lucio Colletti, and others in Italy, Fredric Jameson, Terry Eagleton, and cohort of 1960s cultural radicals in the English-speaking world, and a large number of theorists throughout the globe used cultural Marxism to develop modes of cultural studies that analyzed the production, interpretation, and reception of cultural artifacts within concrete socio-historical conditions that had contested political and ideological effects and uses. One of the most famous and influential forms of cultural studies, initially under the influence of cultural Marxism, emerged within the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies in Birmingham, England within a group often referred to as the Birmingham School.

That sounds more like an philosophical discussion than any " conspiracy theory "

But it can be traced to:- Theodor W. Adorno and Max Horkheimer "Enlightment as mass deception" Dialectic of Enlightenment. London: Verso, 1979, 120-167 (originally published as: Dialektik der Aufklärung. Amsterdam: Querido, 1947)

That's even available online to read if your so inclined. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sistersin (talk • contribs) 09:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

The academic usage of the term "Cultural Marxism" is poorly defined, and the essay that you're citing was self-published so does not meet WP:RS (in fact most of the sources on the old "Cultural Marxism" page fail Wikipedia's WP:RS policy upon inspection). Academics are comfortable referring to The Frankfurt School as The Frankfurt School, and the term Cultural Marxism is not common or well defined enough in academic writings to warrant its own page. Hence the page "Cultural Marxism" failed WP:DUE and WP:NOTABILITY (as well as other policies) so no longer has it's own page. The Frankfurt School has it's own page, and the more prevalent conspiratorial usage of "Cultural Marxism" has been reduced to a section of that page. You can refer to the Articles for deletion editorial discussion on the topic for further details of why this was done. --Jobrot (talk) 10:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

The deletion of the Cultural Marxism article is left-wing hysteria at its finest. The term has existed since at least the 1960s, the page has been around 2006, and now it is being expunged from the record because it offends certain people who don't like the label used on them. Wikipedia, folks! Solntsa90 (talk) 06:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how that is different to my explanation above (which does acknowledge the existence of the academic use, as did the AfD on the topic). Of course your explanation contains much more WP:SOAPBOXING. So I hope you've got it out of your system. --Jobrot (talk) 08:37, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

You guys arbcomm'd a widely known political science and sociology term out of existence is what you did. Solntsa90 (talk) 09:03, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I have no knowledge of the article going through an arbitration committee. --Jobrot (talk) 12:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Is this even a serious statement? You were heavily involved every time this article has come under arbitration, have camped out here FOR YEARS, threaten people who want to change it, and now have had the page locked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.122.169.204 (talk) 16:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:DIFFs or bust. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

-

I think your errant usage of a Wikipedia technical term is confusing the situation. An Arbitration Committee or arb-com is a specific apparatus of Wikipedia's bureaucratic structure. I think what you're talking about is the fact that the topic (and previous page) "Cultural Marxism" (now reduced to a section of the Frankfurt School page) went through an Articles for Deletion discussion contained in this link. What you might not realize is that as with the rest of Wikipedia this process too was guided by Wikipedia's sense of editorial consensus. Namely that the admins said to be judging the outcome - were merely REPORTING the consensus they perceived. A consensus brought about through argumentation.

It's like this, if you argue I'm actually a dog (On_the_Internet,_nobody_knows_you're_a_dog), and I say, "No! That's a ridiculous argument! We all know dog's can't type yet here I am typing!" - and your response is to simply reittrate "No that user is actually a dog" - then you can't be said to have progressed your argument at all. So the discussion hasn't moved past my refutation of your statement. This is essentially what happened during the Articles for Deletion discussion. Editorial consensus requires that arguments and refutations be addressed. The admins were only in charge of working out how far the argument had got, and where it ended. If you read their statement this is made clear at the end of the second paragraph. I hope that clarifies some things for you: 1) That no arbitration committee was involved, and 2) that editorial consensus was the focus of that decision making process. --Jobrot (talk) 09:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I've been gone the past few months because I've moved and have a different job. I see things haven't changed much. At this point the section needs a NPOV tag. Enough editors have come hear with differing opinions that it's completely warranted by Wikipedia's rules. I've put one there but the page is locked. I don't see any real way to improve this page short of arbitration. I'm perfectly comfortable with that, so if we can't at least get a tag I'll inform the admins that this is necessary. You still don't seem all that interested in discussion from what I've reviewed on the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Second Dark (talk • contribs) 22:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh feel free to "inform the admins", and no, I'm not interested in your type of discussion. I'm only interested in discussion about editorial changes to the article. I'll probably just delete any NPOV tag you apply if it doesn't meet NPOV requirements:

Main page: Wikipedia:NPOV dispute

"Drive-by tagging is discouraged. The editor who adds the tag should address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag."

"...clearly and exactly explain which part of the article does not seem to have a NPOV and why."

"POV-pushing is a term used on Wikipedia to describe the aggressive presentation of a particular point of view in an article, particularly when used to denote the undue presentation of minor or fringe ideas." --Jobrot (talk) 03:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Pov-pushing is exactly what you're guilty of. I've tried to work with you. You've refused. You've refused everyone who has had a different point of view for the last six months, and have just threatened edit warring. It's going to have to go to arbitration. If you'd like to inform them yourself, do so. If not I'll just do it in a few day.sSecond Dark (talk) 18:54, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Cultural Marxism is a WP:FRINGE theory, and the current section meets the requirements of Wikipedia policy. However there are various places you can take your complaints and content-objections (whatever they may be, as secretive as they are), and I'd encourage any third party interest in the matter. I'm not interested in having yet another political discussion with you. Until then I'm removing the tag for the reason stated above: "Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag." - Thank you, and good luck! --Jobrot (talk) 03:30, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Having tried to resolve this issue here by explaining the relevant policies, and re-affirmed to you on many past occasions that this talk page is for EDITORIAL discussions, and not merely for posting your political opinions, I must now report you for edit warring. --Jobrot (talk) 06:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

...and now you've gone and violated WP:3RR. I'm going to revert one more time (approaching 3RR myself), if you revert again I'll leave it in the hands of the admins. This does not improve your situation, I suggest you stop and follow an alternate course of action. Perhaps look into which notice board you want to raise the NPOV issues with (perhaps the NPOV notice board, or as you say arb com - or you could have the decision to review the previous article deletion reviewed if you like. You could try all 3 if you like). --Jobrot (talk) 06:49, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh the irony of you claiming I won't discuss things on the talk page (as you can see, I've made various comments to you above). So, did you want to have an editorial discussion? --Jobrot (talk) 07:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Cultural Marxism

Some time ago I read about Cultural Marxism on Wikipedia and wanted to read that page again. However Cultural Marxism is now redirected to this article which does not introduce any of the (multiple and conflicting as they may be) commonly used definitions or meanings of Cultural Marxism and essentially gives no information about Cultural Marxism at all. Anyone searching for information about Cultural Marxism and/or the contentious issues will have to find it elsewhere and will remember that they couldn't find anything sensible or relevant about it on Wikipedia. If they in addition read the bulk of comments on this page they will likely consider the entire topic hijacked or destroyed by PoV. Not everyone loses but Wikipedia and Wikipedia editors and contributers certainly all do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.203.102.57 (talk) 07:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

What you read was poorly sourced to the point of being fabrication. The links drawn together and claiming to be definitive on the previous page were so tenuous as to be considered a fiction. You can still read the articles on Cultural materialism (cultural studies) Western Marxism and of course pages for the Frankfurt School, cultural studies and critical theory if you want to know more about modern day leftist interpretations of culture and society. --Jobrot (talk) 12:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't explain why a search for cultural marxism jumps directly to criticism of the Frankfurt school. Surely a search for a theory should take the reader to the closest article about that theory (which will then have a criticism section). To link directly to criticism appears as heavily POV.--05:00, 2 February 2015 (UTC)~

Unless the term is predominately used to refer to a criticism. Which in this case it is. Hope that clears things up for you Camipco --Jobrot (talk) 04:50, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. I see there's been no shortage of ink lost on this, I'll leave it be --Camipco (talk) 05:00, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

This certainly should add to this conversation: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/misadventuring-on-wikipedia/ it is painfully obvious to academics that it is absurd to hand wave away 'cultural marxism' as some obscure conspiracy idea. This is simply embarrassing to Wikipedia. Just read the academic papers that routinely use the term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.131.220.34 (talk) 06:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I have read them, have you? and with their usages varying in meaning, being interchanged with other Schools and concepts, sometimes appearing in the title but not in the body of a work, being used to describe cultures within Marxism, and not actually referring to a movement, and in fact, not even being considered Marxist (a statement made by members of the left as well as the right) - the academic usage (especially post-1980s) is anything other than routine. This irregularity of usage is compounded by the far wider spread of the conspiracy version of the term hence why modern academic usage is now changing to refer to the conspiracy version (see the works of Jérome Jamin). So I disagree with your description of it as 'routine' (as events on Wikipedia have shown, it is most definitely a term important to a conservative culture war). --Jobrot (talk) 20:15, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Term "Fascism" also has plenty of usages and meanings and contexts, yet nobody disputes its page existence on that grounds. Your reasoning is nothing else than biased excuse.89.142.240.13 (talk) 09:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Your analogy might be accurate if we were discussing 'Anarchism' or one of the other wide and generalist political attitudes, but we're discussing claims which seek to create the illusion of a specific and narrow unified movement. Also, if you want more reasons for the article not existing, I suggest you read through the AfD on the topic. --Jobrot (talk) 13:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

This argument does not hold ground. There was never an assertion that Cultural Marxism was a unified movement. The phrase is an apt description of the Frankfurt School's influence on the political left and the counter culture.

Washing your hands of the indirect and direct influence of the Frankfurt School on today's political and intellectual environment and shouting "conspiracy theory" doesn't change that.

And is Jay Martin, who is a Marxist intellectual who writes panegyrics of the Frankfurt School and was friends with several of them a reliable source?

None of this holds up to Wikipedia's standards for objectivity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.254.192.122 (talk) 07:16, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

The phrase is certainly aimed at the frankfurt school which is why the term re-directs here. I've also responded to you at the bottom of the page, which is generally where new areas of discussion on talk pages should be created. Thank you --Jobrot (talk) 14:44, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I used that link because you provided it as evidence for your definition of Cultural Marxism. Are you saying the link you provided as evidence is invalid?

Still not addressing my points. Still have not explained why this is a "conspiracy theory." Still haven't addressed why your sources are unbiased when they have direct connections to the Frankfurt School and Critical Theory. Still haven't addressed the fact that all of the pioneers and major political thinkers of criticism of Cultural Marxism are not fringe and many have academic and journalistic credentials. Still have not accepted that not one person who uses the phrase "Cultural Marxism" uses it as a conspiracy theory. Still haven't addressed that Cultural Marxism is a description of what the left believes and is a term used by critics and describes a tendency, not a unified movement. Still haven't explained why a rewriting of the article from a neutral point of view wouldn't add to Wikipedia's quality. Still haven't explained why Jay Martin, a man directly associated with the Frankfurt School and works toward their ideals, is a remotely reliable source

I think you're showing your true colors here. I'm beginning to wonder whether or not there might actually be a conspiracy...(joke). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Second Dark (talk • contribs) 05:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Wow, I spent the better part of a graduate course titled "Critical Theory" reading the likes of Benjamin, Adorno, Habermas, and others, who were talked about explicitly under the banner of "Cultural Marxism," and now I come to find from Wikipedia that this is all just a right-wing conspiracy. Someone really ought to inform the very left-wing, self-identifying Cultural Marxists who occupy professorships all over the Humanities in top research universities all around the U.S. I can't speak for other countries, but "Cultural Marxism" is a normal term for discussion in American universities. To call it a "conspiracy" makes Wikipedia into a joke. blert (talk) 09:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

So you're suggesting we don't bother with WP:RS and just re-write the article, or perhaps even the whole of Wikipedia (the joke) without any sources? --Jobrot (talk) 12:21, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

This is really a missed opportunity to redirect to Political Censorship, it would be a prime example for a contemporary use of the practice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.157.62.204 (talk) 10:40, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

What are you proposing is being censored here? --Jobrot (talk) 13:40, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I actually don't know what the IP is referring to, but I have advocated that the term "Cultural Marxism" should direct to a disambig page. With one link to the Frankfurt School(to explain the conspiracy theory), one link to Political Correctness and another link to SJW portion of this article, to explain how some have co-opted(Wikipedias article on the term leaves much to be desired, someone should fix that) the term in modern usage, and not actually referring to having anything to do with Marxism. That may divert some of the seemingly well meaning intellectuals here trying to use 6 degrees of separation to connect Cultural studies, Critical theory and a bevy of other scarcely related terms into a hodgepodge of synthesis. Dave Dial (talk) 15:05, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree that a better solution needs to be reached, it's just a question of what that may entail. I find it interesting that even within the article on The Frankfurt School proper it's stated repeatedly that what constitutes it's members (ie. whose in, whose out) "may vary among different scholars" and that "the title of "school" can often be misleading, as the Institute's members did not always form a series of tightly woven, complementary projects." - even Richard R. Weiner (a source often cited for the existence of "Cultural Marxism" ends up writing about theorists who admittedly "fall ideologically outside the cultural Marxism movement" - so to go from a group THAT loosely nit, and apply an even more loosely nit ill defined "grouping" ontop! - ie Cultural Marxism - it seems almost like a second order level of vagueness and ambiguity. I like the idea of having a solid mechanism, a solid separation of meanings in order to take some of the pressure off of Wikipedia and its editors (we are not the thought police, we're the fact police). That said: I don't think Political Correctness should play a part in the disambig. I'm of the view that the modern usage of Political Correctness comes from Michelle Foucault who explicitly denied the influence of The Frankfurt School on his thinking, and was also highly critical of Marxism. So to my mind at least that SJW section looks like a good target... and as for whatever's left here, it would be good to do some tweaking of it and make sure that it's clear for those who haven't bothered to read about the actual Frankfurt School proper that they most definitely weren't unified in their views/intentions. As the article puts it: "it is not the title of any specific position or institution per se, and few of these theorists used the term themselves." Hopefully creating that division (via disambiguation) will inspire some of the agitators to look into what the Frankfurt School ACTUALLY said. On a side note, it's incredibly nice to be having an actual editorial discussion on here for once! --Jobrot (talk) 03:32, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Deleting the Cultural Marxism page and redirecting the link to a "conspiracy theory" subsection? George Orwell would be proud. 71.58.1.48 (talk) 01:55, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Taking a relatively obscure academic term (which was focused in on reading and analyzing culture as a means of liberation from indoctrination), and converting it into a "red-menace" scare campaign about "the enemies within" - yes, George Orwell would be proud, wouldn't he? --Jobrot (talk) 02:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of whatever notions you, or Anders Breivik, or anyone else associates with the term, it refers to the same ideological concept as social constructivism. You could at least attempt to appear less biased by having it redirect to that page instead. 71.58.1.48 (talk) 04:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, the origins of the prior academic usage are somewhere during the separation between sociology and critical theory (where sociology was more interested in describing and critical theory was more interested in explaining) - and constructivism may play a part in those tensions. But there's great difficulty in locating the exact position of the academic term as its history has been somewhat wiped out by it's new found mass usage in the right side of politics. I am attempting to research it - but writing a solid wikipedia article that you know will be attacked by a bunch of right-wing thugs, internet trolls and detractors is more difficult than you'd think. --Jobrot (talk) 05:11, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theory?

I propose that the heading "Conspiracy Theory" be changed to simply "Cultural Marxism" since "conspiracy" is emotionally charged language and proponents and critics of the idea of Cultural Marxism don't consider it a conspiracy by any reasonable definition of the word, including Wikipedia's.

The left wing notion that Cultural Marxism is a conspiracy theory can be addressed in the body of the section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Second Dark (talk • contribs) 09:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

The evidence for it being a conspiracy theory can be found here and here, it is well referenced as well as fairly self evident from the quotes given in those pages that key proponents believe Jewish Marxists do any number of things from running Hollywood to running Academia. Please don't feign to seek editorial consensus only to go ahead an act unilaterally when you get impatient. It shows a lack of good faith editing. We are not lapdogs here to run on your schedule. As I stated earlier, gaining consensus can take quite some time. Please give others time to respond to your inquiries. Wikipedia is a community based editing platform, not a personal WP:SOAPBOX for individual users acting on their own as judge and juror of facts. All changes to pages have to be well referenced. We're not here to add our own personal opinions to the page off the tops of our heads. We're here to quote people from the hierarchy of sources (with academia being at the top of that hierarchy). So make sure to find sources for any more changes you unilaterally undertake or else I will be forced to report you. It has to be SOMEONE ELSES words, cited in a reference. NOT YOUR OWN SPIN ON THINGS. For the last time: WP:RS WP:V and WP:OR or else it will just be a matter of ideological WP:SOAPBOX WP:BATTLEGROUND vandalism. --Jobrot (talk) 13:30, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Your sources do not justify your argument.

For one thing, who decides who gets to be a "key proponent"? Is Rush Limbaugh a "key proponent" of the term "sound bite" just because he originated the term? (it is now a commonly used term in media circles)

From your own page, to be a systemic conspiracy theory, it must involve, "a single, evil organization implements a plan to infiltrate and subvert existing institutions." There is no single organization and no plan. Cultural Marxism refers a set of ideas: it is synonymous with the ideas of the Frankfurt School and it's derivatives. There are no secret meetings. Cultural Marxism is not planned or joined: it is taught. In a public classroom. It is simply a descriptor (albeit one meant pejoratively) of the sorts of ideas taught in Gender Studies courses.

Also, your page is filled with weasel words/phrases like "can be seen as". Your sources only, at best, show somebody sees A as B, but really, that tells us nothing of relevance, since anything can be seen as anything by anybody. The question is: what is it really?

I think you start to get to the heart of the matter though, in your final paragraph:

The term's emphasis on Culture, is in direct conflict with the view that Marxism focuses on Historical Materialism as it's mode of analysis. Making a "Cultural" Marxism, an oxymoron.

I think conservative intellectuals who use this term would agree with you that Karl Marx would be absolutely appalled at the nonsense spouted by these so-called Marxists. But Marxists they are, because they called themselves Marxists, not because we could prove that they embody any sort of "true spirit of Marxism" in any sense. --BenMcLean (talk) 03:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

It has become abundantly clear that you've turned this page into a personal project to express your own views.

I'll go through this one question at a time and one edit at a time.

Question 1: Why is adding an edit clarifying that a left wing source is left wing vandalism?

69.254.192.122 (talk) 14:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of facts, and it's not up to you to decide someone else's political viewpoint for them. It's up to them, you just report it. Likewise it's up to the reader if they so find themselves interested in a particular quote reported within a wikipedia page they should be allowed to come to their own conclusions, we're just here to report. Hence my continually pointing you towards WP:SOAPBOX. We're not here to decide what people's viewpoints are, we're here to report what they declare themselves to be. This is going to be a crucial point for you, as you'll need to find sources for "Cultural Marxists believe X" or "Y is a Cultural Marxist". SOURCES. SOURCES. SOURCES. Get it drilled in. SOURCES. --Jobrot (talk) 14:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Question two: Are you disputing that the source I've called left-wing is not left-wing and does not self-identify as left wing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Second Dark (talk • contribs) 15:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Seeing as I've JUST finished taking the time to explain to you ONCE AGAIN that yes - yes you do need to find sources that state your opinion, rather than simply unilaterally adding your own opinion to articles without any care for editorial consensus (which is currently against you) - then yes, yes I AM going to dispute that. I'm going to dispute that because I just finished telling you in good faith that wikipedia is an ENCYCLOPEDIA OF FACTS - and FACTS NEED SOURCES... and YOUR OPINION IS NOT A SOURCE FOR WIKIPEDIA. WP:BATTLEGROUND WP:SOAPBOX WP:RS. Nothing personal, this is just how Wikipedia works - hence my backing up my opinion with WIKIPEDIA POLICY. I've explained this to you multiple times, and told you to have some patients but you just keep eschewing my help. I may have to report you for nuisance editing if you continue to ignore Wikipedia policy and process. I feel I'm being very fair to you, and have taken A LOT of my time to explain this to you. I've given you a fair chance now over several days. What happens next is up to you. --Jobrot (talk) 01:15, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

What you say here is very telling, and I think demonstrates why some people have a problem with your comments. You are suggesting that they "... find sources that state your opinion, rather that simply unilaterally adding your own opinion ..." Shouldn't they just be finding sources and reporting on them? Aren't you suggesting cherry-picking to those that disagree with you, with the implication that you are doing this yourself? You are using a lot of your time for this, and while you might have some decent arguments and facts on your side, it's clear that your point of view is not neutral. I would recommend spending time on something more productive, and recommending that a more neutral editor take their time to monitor this and related pages. Otherwise you're going to upset a lot of people and go grey early. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.252.14.210 (talk) 01:02, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I am suggesting people have sources if they want to add to Wikipedia. No I've not "cherry picked" any sources, as MOST (almost all in fact) of the section was NOT written by me (yep, so far I've only added/included one source). All I've done to the section in question was to add the Jérôme Jamin quote at the end, and change the title from "Conspiracy Theory" to "Cultural Marxism Conspiracy Theory"... the entire rest of the section was written by other Wikipedians. My main work here has been on the talk page, making sure those adding to the section do so in a way that meets Wikipedia's policies, particularly WP:RS and WP:FRINGE. --Jobrot (talk) 03:02, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

You provide no evidence here that Cultural Marxism is a conspiracy theory. All the sources you cite are from left-wing outlets, frequently from critical theorists themselves (ex. Jason Wilson, Martin Jay) or discredited conspiracy theorists like Chip Berlet. This section is merely propaganda intended to silence critics of the left.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.63.111.46 (talk • contribs)

Even if that were true (and you weren't just labeling anyone you disagree with as "left-wing"), that's like saying we can't cite Jewish authors in the Blood libel article. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

-

Chip Berlet writes ABOUT conspiracy theorists (descriptive), which is diffferent from BEING a conspiracy theorist (prescriptive). A sample of his work (which is very reasonable) can be found here: [3]. As for Lind declaring himself a conspiracy theorist, this is not likely to happen as he actually believes in what he's written. However there are plenty of secondary sources describing Lind's ideas as conspiracy theories (from both the media and academia [See Jérôme Jamin]) and they are included in the section in question. I've also made the case on this very talk page that Lind DOES talk about Cultural Marxism as a conspiracy. I'll paste some direct quotes from him, and highlight what I believe shows that he is intending to convey the notion of a conspiracy (and obviously others have continued this idea with talk of a "hidden agenda"):

"The next conservatism should unmask multiculturalism and Political Correctness and tell the American people what they really are: cultural Marxism" -William S. Lind

"Its goal remains what Lukacs and Gramsci set in 1919: destroying Western culture and the Christian religion. -William S. Lind (strange that Lukacs would attempt to destroy his own society)

"The next conservatism needs to reveal the man behind the curtain - - old Karl Marx himself." -William S. Lind

"Today, when the cultural Marxists want to do something like “normalize” homosexuality, they do not argue the point philosophically. They just beam television show after television show into every American home where the only normal-seeming white male is a homosexual (the Frankfurt School’s key people spent the war years in Hollywood)" -William S. Lind (living in Hollywood isn't the same as being a part of the movie industry, and nothing of the sort is mentioned in any bio of any member of the Frankfurt School.)

This all fits into Michael Barkun's "second type" of conspiracy theory - the "Global Systemic" type:

Main article: Conspiracy theory

Systemic conspiracy theories. The conspiracy is believed to have broad goals, usually conceived as securing control of a country, a region, or even the entire world. While the goals are sweeping, the conspiratorial machinery is generally simple: a single, evil organization implements a plan to infiltrate and subvert existing institutions. This is a common scenario in conspiracy theories that focus on the alleged machinations of Jews, Freemasons, or the Catholic Church, as well as theories centered on Communism or international capitalists.

So that the relevance of Barkun's description is more clear for you, I'll just insert Lind's ideas and words into Barkun's description - as to make it more apparent:

Systemic conspiracy theories. The conspiracy is believed to have broad goals, usually conceived as securing control of a country, a region, or even the entire world [The Media, Academia, Hollywood and ultimately America]. While the goals are sweeping ["destroying Western culture and the Christian religion"], the conspiratorial machinery is generally simple: a single, evil organization [The Frankfurt School] implements a plan to infiltrate and subvert existing institutions [Academia, the media and Hollywood]. This is a common scenario in conspiracy theories that focus on the alleged machinations of Jews, Freemasons, or the Catholic Church, as well as theories centered on Communism or international capitalists.

I hope that clears it up for you. --Jobrot (talk) 05:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

But the Frankfurt School isn't an organization! It is a school of thought! And conservative intellectuals are quite aware of this. They aren't stupid, despite your fantasies.

The Institute for Social Research is an organization, but nobody maintains that it is a powerful conspiracy organized to covertly influence public policy! Certainly not any of the people you've cited IMO. This is a total straw man you've made up! --BenMcLean (talk) 03:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I've used Lind's own words to make my case (which you can read in multiple threads on this page), and there are only quality WP:RS references within the section in question. --Jobrot (talk) 05:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

You've taken all kinds of random stuff out of context and sewed it together. --BenMcLean (talk) 07:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe I have. --Jobrot (talk) 08:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

As for your other complaint - this is from the current article:

"Which "theorists" to include in what is now called the "Frankfurt School" may vary among different scholars. Indeed, the title of "school" can often be misleading, as the Institute's members did not always form a series of tightly woven, complementary projects."

Also from the current article:-

"The term "Frankfurt School" arose informally to describe the thinkers affiliated or merely associated with the Frankfurt Institute for Social Research; it is not the title of any specific position or institution per se, and few of these theorists used the term themselves."

So get a grip and look at the actual data in front of you before accusing your fellow editors of bias. --Jobrot (talk) 05:15, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

It follows from what you quoted that Cultural Marxism does not fit the definition of a systemic conspiracy theory, because, "it is not the title of any specific position or institution" and a systemic conspiracy theory needs a single organization to fit the definition. --BenMcLean (talk) 07:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

No it doesn't, as I was quoting from the Wikipedia page about The Frankfurt School which concerns the facts of the matter and not some conspiratorial conception of "Cultural Marxism" that seeks to paint The Frankfurt School as a unified force to blame for the downfall of western civilization. Thus MY conception of the Frankfurt School and Wikipedia's conception of the Frankfurt School and Academia's conception of the Frankfurt School all disagree with the conspiracy version of it. This is what I'm trying to show you (the massive consensus AGAINST deeming "Cultural Marxism" an existing/unified "ideology". I'm trying to show this disparity in your understanding by using the facts of the matter as they are presented on The Frankfurt School page. If you wish to try to construe these facts into some kind of unified and ongoing social movement or ideology - that's your error to make, but I will not help you make it, and will do everything I can to prevent you from making that error. Social change just isn't that simple. --Jobrot (talk) 08:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

NPOV Tag

What exactly is being claimed as in dispute. All the statements are well sourced. --Jobrot (talk) 03:17, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

If it is in fact the title descriptor "Conspiracy Theory" I would point out that yes, this (in the eyes of key proponents quoted earlier on this talk page);- a theory about a school of philosophers subversively tricking or "brainwashing" (either the public or academia or the media or all three) and then taking over academia and the media in order to introduce (brainwash or trick) "dangerous" ideas into our society in general that will "destroy western culture" can in fact accurately be described as a Conspiracy theory (specifically a Systemic conspiracy theory as defined by Michael Barkun, on the Conspiracy Theory page, and in this specific instance; as studied by Chip Berlet (a journalist interested in studying the nature of conspiracy theories). I posted several links yesterday [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] to illustrate that ,yes, this is the common and currently widest use and understanding of the term 'Cultural Marxism'. I think there was some mistake yesterday with people thinking I was suggesting these links constitute reasonable references for the article. They don't. I was using them merely to illustrate that a cursory Google search reveals this as the commonly understood usage for the term "Cultural Marxism". I believe this, combined with the references that are already in place from the academics Jerome Jamin, J. E. Richardson as well as The Southern Poverty Law center (and associated academics such as Heidi Beririch), as well as direct quotes from the key proponents of the theory themselves (given earlier on this talk page, as well as the ones currently referenced in the section in question) constitute a valid justification for the continued and reasonable use of this title as a descriptor of the section (it also works as a firewall between what the Frankfurt School actually espoused and what the conspiracy theory is claiming). However, if the disputed NPOV tag is in place for other reasons, I'm certainly open to discussing them, and working through whatever aspects are considered non-neutral. --Jobrot (talk) 07:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I believe I've proven that the wide spread common usage (in line with Lind's usage, and the AfD) "that the Frankfurt School originated Political Correctness, Gay rights" (what Lind calls "normalizing homosexuality") "Feminism" (see gamergate), "Multiculturalism, Atheism and Civil Rights" (all of which is disproved by these movements predating the Frankfurt school) - and the fact this section has not been addressed, indicates that for the time being the dispute tag can be removed (for now). The fact that Gottfried's (a single individual's) less common, more moderate viewpoint exists, does not invalidate that the wide spread usage is more in line with Lind's conspiratorial usage (as argued above and elsewhere). Whilst the question of whether Gottfried is to be quoted in the section is still up for debate, this is not the same as debating the valid references that are already present. That is to say, the section is not in dispute, the title has no dispute that can be attached to it (the AfD decided the common usage was WP:FRINGE and that isn't likely to change)... so unless anything other than the section's heading was being questioned, I'd like to remove the dispute tag for now. Please respond here with the subject matter and reason you believe the section to be WP:NPOV if you intend on re-instating the tag. --Jobrot (talk) 13:59, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Reading this article for the first time, and knowing nothing of the subject matter, I also thought it quite inappropriate that 'conspiracy theory' is used as if a fact rather than reported as a claim made by opponents. I don't doubt that there are sources that use the term, but (as the article Conspiracy theory spells out) 'the term "conspiracy theory" has acquired a derogatory meaning over time and is often used to dismiss or ridicule beliefs in conspiracies'; so Wikipedia should not be using an abusive term as a statement of fact. As an analogy, you may well find sources saying George Bush is an idiot, but describing him as such as a matter of fact (e.g. 'During his presidency it became clear that Bush was an idiot', or the heading 'President and idiot') rather than reporting someone else's description of him as an idiot is to say the least unencyclopedic. Ben Finn (talk) 18:41, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

George Bush being an idiot would go against Wikipedia's policies on Biographies of Living Persons, that can be read here if you're interested: WP:BLP - however this subject deals with ideas. The main idea behind the claim of "Cultural Marxism" the one that is repeated most thoroughly is that the Frankfurt school is the source of Political Correctness and Multiculturalism. This can be shown to be demonstrably false. A theory involving a party conspiring (in this case "to destroy western culture") which can be shown to be demonstrably false - is by definition a conspiracy theory. These points have been expanded upon multiple times on this very talk page that you're adding to, but namely in the exchange directly above this section. You're welcome to read through this page and the explanations there in, for a reference point I suggest you search this talk page for mention of 'Michael Barkun' and 'Michel Foucault'. Cultural Marxism is a theory about a conspiracy, and is demonstrably false. Hence the title Conspiracy Theory. It is only derogatory in so much as being incorrect is derogatory. --Jobrot (talk) 04:47, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Further more the current redirect was the result of the AfD on this subject, and so has administrative approval. If the term "Conspiracy Theory" is to be avoided on wikipedia then numerous pages would have to be changed, including pages on the Judeo-Masonic conspiracy theory, the Jewish World Conspiracy (which 'Cultural Marxism' often overlaps with), the New World Order (conspiracy theory), all the 9/11 conspiracy theories and all the Moon landing conspiracy theories. Just because a theory starts with a degree of fact, doesn't excuse it from the label. Yes the Frankfurt School existed, but no they are not responsible for Political Correctness or Multiculturalism. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of FACT. That is exactly what makes it encyclopedic. --Jobrot (talk) 04:58, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Your assertion that opponents of cultural Marxism believe in a plot to "destroy Western civilization" is pure rhetoric that only serves to cloud the issue. You need only reverse the situation to see how much ideology factors into this. Think of progressives, who (rightfully) believe that conservative ideology is harmful to society, that it is wrong to place restrictions on abortion, refuse women rights, engender economic inequality, fail to take proper care of the environment, etc. Liberals may be distressed by the possible consequences of conservative ideology, but whatever language they use to express this fear does not invalidate the underlying idea that conservatives exist who hold these views and actively shape society in their own image. Reversing the coin again now, by the same measure, there are progressives who are just as enthusiastic about their views and make an equally vigorous effort to support them, and however intense the opposition to them may be, it is not demonstrably false that they hold the beliefs they do, and that they go out of their way to promote and support them. I reject your claim that the threat of cultural Marxism can be shown to be wrong, as you are making this claim based on the fact that certain claims made by certain opponents of cultural Marxism are false. By this same line of reasoning, we should add "conspiracy" to the title of all progressive articles because there also exist progressives who make falsifiable claims. Cultural Marxism itself may not warrant its own page, but it is ludicrously misleading to have it redirect to a right-wing conspiracy theory page, this coming from a self-identified progressive. How about a disambiguation page which links to the Frankfurt school, cultural studies, etc., as someone else suggested above me? Ptprs (talk) 16:35, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

It's not my assertion that "opponents of cultural Marxism believe in a plot to "destroy Western civilization" - they state it explicitly themselves. And yes, some progressives believe that conservative ideology is harmful to society but that's not the same as claiming conservativism is an organized foreign plot whose intention is to destroy society (and certainly not the same as slapping a historically academic label on it and going out in public). It's also no where near as reductionistic as the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory which explicitly states that feminism, atheism, anti-racist and anti-homophobic movements are entirely reducible to an organized Marxist effort to destroy society. This is literally the attempt at folding many movements into one and labeling it communism.

Progressives to my view are far more likely to use phrases such as "harmful to women" or "harmful to the community" rather than make these huge hyperbole filled claims about the destruction of society.

So when you say but whatever language they use to express this fear does not invalidate the underlying idea that conservatives exist who hold these views you're only defending the underlying idea. Your phrase: "Whatever language they use" does NOT extend to saying things like "the modern conservative push by the Bush family (aka the Neo Silver Legion of America movement) to ban abortion is an organized effort to destroy western society so that the illuminati can take over" - there is most definitely a point in language from which reality is departed, and conspiracy ensues. Yes there are conservatives who want to ban abortion - this minute part, what you call "the underlying idea" remains true - but that doesn't VALIDATE the idea that the Bush family are part of a "neo Silver Legion" movement who are working for the illuminati.

MOST conspiracies build on basic facts (what you've called "underlying ideas"). The moon landing hoax for instance, starts with the actual effort to get to the moon. 9/11 conspiracies start with the actual world trade towers. The New World Order conspiracy starts with the actual banking system. Just because all these things WERE real, does not validate the parts of those conspiracies that can be proven to be false. No one is claiming that conservatives are pro-abortion, or pro-gay rights, or pro-multiculturalism, they tend to be anti-abortion, anti-gay rights and anti-multiculturalism... and no one is claiming otherwise.

I reject your claim that the threat of cultural Marxism can be shown to be wrong, as you are making this claim based on the fact that certain claims made by certain opponents of cultural Marxism are false. For starters - YOU HAVE NOT shown a definition for Cultural Marxism. If you bother to read the whole Frankfurt School article (or even better, some of their own writings) you'll soon work out that not even the Frankfurt School had a singular solid intent, they were not a unified movement and as mentioned in the article; even who counts as part of the Frankfurt School varies from scholar to scholar (and that's just the Frankfurt School). So don't go telling me that Cultural Marxism is a genuine threat without defining what you mean by Cultural Marxism. This page is not intended for political discussion, it's intended for editorial discussion. If you can find a liberal/progressive concept that makes grand over-arching claims that are falsifiable you're free to go to it and argue it as a conspiracy theory. But it is not my job, or the job of any other editors to back up or construct a page around your assertion that the threat of Cultural marxism is real. --Jobrot (talk) 03:47, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

You are right to point to the lack of a shared definition as one of the key issues here. Looking through the available sources, the meaning of the term appears to vary depending on the political bias of the author, with the left characterizing it as a conspiracy with racist, sexist and paranoid overtones, and the right more likely to use it as a shorthand for a particular brand of liberal critical theory, the influence of which on society is presumed to be pernicious. Unless we can agree that the meaning of the term differs substantially based on who is using it and the context in which it is being used, no consensus on a definition can be reached. The old article did a better job of explaining this than I could (though the fact of its deletion suggests it was contentious in itself), defining the term in the opening paragraph in a way that does not invoke any unnecessary and exaggerated associations with conspiracy theories (even the most ardent progressives would have no problem separating opponents of cultural Marxism from subscribers to the Illuminati conspiracy theory), while also explaining the hostile views of the left in regards to the characterization of them, and concluding with an explanation of the fact that the use of the term by recent conservatives is different to its historical use. For alternative interpretations of the term, I would consult just about any right-wing article on the topic, unless we are considering these perspectives less valid than the equally polemical left-wing articles. The association of the term with opinions that veer into the conspiratorial can be confirmed with a quick Google search, but it is only one of several senses in which the term is used. To tar all opponents of cultural Marxism with the conspiracy brush and attack them on that basis is logically fallacious.

In your defenses of the deletion, you're attributing undue weight to left-wing sources which deliberately seek to discredit the beliefs of the right using rhetoric similar to that which you are employing in our discussion. We would not (for example) use primarily right-wing sources to dictate the tone and content of the article on feminism unless we were Conservapedia (and that is the reason nobody visits Conservapedia), nor would we use the controversial beliefs of the most radical feminists to tar the entire movement. It appears that we are both on the same side of the political fence, and on that basis that we should understand that this is not an ideological disagreement between us, but an argument about the weight that ideology plays and has played in the deletion of this article, as well as the choice of article for the redirection. There are any number of examples I can cite, but the one that leaps to mind is your statement that progressives express their beliefs in less histrionic ways than conservative extremists, which is just as true as it is misleading, in the sense that it is purely a rhetorical device which ignores the fact that a comparison between conservative extremists and progressive extremists would be far more reasonable and fair.

It is already a significant concession for me to agree with the deletion of the article, given that the general use of the term by conservatives obviously does not invoke the paranoid conspiracies you are talking about, and the idea that this kind of schizophrenia underpins conservative thought seems more the consequence of left-wing proselytizing than anything else, but all the same, the broader usage of the term should be reflected in a disambiguation page that includes the Frankfurt school as well as related topics such as cultural studies and critical theory. Ptprs (talk) 13:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

It's a question of sourcing. The term does have a smidgen of an academic background (although not enough to sustain a whole wikipedia page). And in that academic sense, it was limited to Cultural Studies but never well defined (to the point that finding a usable reference from academia is difficult). So when the right side of politics claim to understand the term and use it to mean something that goes beyond the mere analysis of culture, and push the meaning towards being some kind of over-arching political conspiracy aimed at revolution - the original usage separates from the current usage. In particular, the right are fond of saying that Cultural Marxism is the source of Political Correctness and Multiculturalism. However this is demonstrably false. The modern usage of Political Correctness was coined by french philosopher Michel Foucault who wrote: "a political thought can be politically correct ("politiquement correcte") only if it is scientifically painstaking" when writing to Jean Paul Satre in the french fortnightly journal Quinzaine littéraire,[11] he later in Duccio Trombadori's Remarks on Marx wrote that the Frankfurt School was not influential to his thinking [12]... ergo the modern usage of "Political Correctness" does not come from The Frankfurt School nor "Cultural Marxism" (whatever that may be) likewise the concept of Multiculturalism is not innately Marxist, and is more a product of global travel and immigration.

So the right are not particularly good at defining Cultural Marxism as they have so consistently opened by making statements about it which are demonstrably false (not to mention the commonality with which they quote the "long march through the institutions of power" as having been said by Antonio Gramsci rather than Rudi Dutschke to the point that the common misattribution gets mentioned on Dutschke's page).

The right simply do not have a detailed understanding of the theorists they're accusing. The left point out that the theorists in question are complicated, contradictory and may not even be Marxists. But to attempt to construct a "movement" which if you're starting with Gramsci would span almost a century, and yet has only just been noticed and named now - well it's disingenuous and dishonest... especially because it just happens to fold all of what Political Scientist Dr. Heidi Beirich calls "Conservatism's bête noires" (black beasts) "feminists, homosexuals, secular humanists, multiculturalist, sex educators, environmentalist, immigrants, and black nationlists." into one category in order to label it all communism in one easy blow. It's lazy.

The long and short of it is that The Frankfurt School was poorly defined, as is "Cultural Marxism" so basing "Cultural Marxism" off the Frankfurt School is like nailing jelly to jelly. Then to claim all these modern political sub-groups are Marxist purely because the Frankfurt School were associated with Marxism (even though the Frankfurt School veer radically away from our common conception of Marxism)... well it gets kind of ridiculous. It's like saying modern quantum physics is secretly spreading Catholicism because universities were once upon a time emerged from monasteries and the monastic system. It simply does not work that way.

But yes, if there's something in particular you want to include in the article, you'll have to present a source. If you're interested I've constructed and heavily sourced my own views on Cultural Marxism and they can be read in my sand box here --Jobrot (talk) 14:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it is disingenuous to roundly dismiss progressives by placing them all under the poorly defined umbrella of cultural Marxism, but no more or less disingenuous than doing the same thing in reverse, implicitly purporting that self-proclaimed opponents of cultural Marxism are all inseparable and can be roundly dismissed on that basis. What if the subheading was changed to "Cultural Marxism" instead of "Conspiracy theory," considering the accusatory nature of the redirect is what seems to be riling people up? Ptprs (talk) 17:43, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

There frankly aren't enough WP:RS sources of respectable analysts, academics, experts or reporters using "Cultural Marxism" in a more reasonable, limited, well defined way. This is in part due to most users of the term either rallying behind or getting their understanding directly from Lind, or from some reproduction of his work. This effect is described in the current section:

"[Lind's work] spawned a number of condensed textual versions, which were reproduced on a number of radical right-wing sites. These in turn led to a welter of new videos now available on You Tube, which feature an odd cast of pseudo-experts regurgitating exactly the same line."

- that combined with the academic term being informal and never coming to wide usage or clear definition (even whom The Frankfurt School consisted of, let alone Cultural Marxism, is debatable). The result is that you just don't have that many reasonable or well informed people commenting on the topic. So yes, sadly 'conspiracy theory' captures most people's understanding and usage of the term. The informal academic term never got very far.

Mind you, there are interesting clues as to how we got here. This for instance:

"Some of the most suggestive criticisms of the path taken by many followers of the Birmingham School (not of its founders) emphasize that they have let themselves be caught out by a certain textual condition, where the text seems to acquire a self-contained condition, overlooking the connection with social contexts. Therefore, Fredric Jameson emphasizes the need to recover the critical theory of culture that comes from Marx, Freud, the School of Frankfurt, Luckács, Sartre and complex Marxism, and suggests redefining cultural studies as cultural Marxism and as a critique of capitalism. For this, the economic, political and social formations should be considered and the importance of social classes highlighted (Jameson, 1998)." [13]

- which I think is a very far-left alt-left idea (and it remained just an idea)... obviously there is very little in Cultural Studies that can be called innately Marxist - and indeed Cultural Studies it's self is not very ideologically driven. It's mostly just the visual analysis of messages a Culture gives (mostly via advertising). It's a humanities subject, and fairly banal to my mind, and I suspect a fairly banal process/idea to most modern academics. But you get a lone academic like Jameson suggesting reframing the whole subject and saying he wants to re-invigorate it with Marxist theorists (meanwhile The Birmingham School go a completely different direction), then you take a lone crack pot like Lind who (having cut his teeth during the Cold War) can't see past the word "Marxist" (and certainly has no idea about The Birmingham School moving away from The Frankfurt School), and he can't understand that Jameson didn't (nor could he, given The Birmingham School) follow through with his (bad) idea (about re-invigorating and re-naming Cultural Studies) - and things just get a bit silly and out of hand (Lind's misunderstanding flourishes and is repeated ignorant of the way things actually went). Then all of a sudden multiculturalism, atheism, or gay marriage are getting called "Cultural Marxism" for some reason (because we're trapped in Lind/Jameson's backwards viewpoint), and here we are discussing "Cultural Marxism" as if it means something (thanks guys, thanks Culture wars). When in fact it's a prolific conservative's misinterpretation of informal far-leftist rhetoric which was never acted upon. So yeah, I think we're basically at the bottom of a long, post-cold-war-post-culture-war slippery slope, and there's very little solid ground to be found here or held onto to build this term back up (nor do I believe it's useful to try). I think it's best to leave things as they are until someone who meets the requirements of WP:RS says otherwise (and right now all the WP:RS sources seem to agree with keeping the 'Conspiracy Theory' heading. --Jobrot (talk) 15:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that Lind, Buchanan or the others regards cultural marxism as a conspiracy? I have never come across such a statement. Gramsci's theories about the real power in society being in the culture, not in the economy is openly published. That Rudi Dutschke picked up this and helped in create the long march is also an accepted fact. Thats Marcuse from the Frankfurt School is the Father of the "New Left" is also common knowledge and accepted.

You bring up the concept of "to destroy western culture" as a proof of conspiracy. The ultimate goal of Marxism have always been to make the world Marxist, so why should Cultural Marxism be any different? Perhaps You disagree with the argument that communism and Marxism have this ultimate goal. Well, that does not make it a conspiracy theory. Traditionally Marxism wanted an armed revolution to spread marxism unitil it embedded all mankind and cultural Marxist wanted the same result though different means (by subverting the culture from within). Even if You don't agree, it's perfectly valid claims supported by tons of academic material from the Marxists themselves. Kaffeburk (talk) 17:21, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Lind says things like:

"Today, when the cultural Marxists want to do something like “normalize” homosexuality, they do not argue the point philosophically. They just beam television show after television show into every American home where the only normal-seeming white male is a homosexual (the Frankfurt School’s key people spent the war years in Hollywood)." -William S. Lind

Lind is most definitely claiming a small group has taken over and "poisoned" both academia and the mass media. He claims the culture has been "stolen" and says that Karl Marx is "the man behind the curtain".

"The next conservatism should unmask multiculturalism and Political Correctness and tell the American people what they really are: cultural Marxism" -William S. Lind

Lind is most definitely claiming there has been a planned mass deception of the populous with an intentioned outcome. Hence; he's claiming a conspiracy. --Jobrot (talk) 17:41, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Sources for Brievik being included

Just added another source for the inclusion of Brievik in the Conspiracy Theory section. This one is from Qantara.de which is jointly run by the German Federal Agency for Civic Education & the mainstream German news agency Deutsche Welle - so can be assumed to have the editorial oversight required by WP:RS - the other sources there come from The BBC, The New Statesman and The Guardian so all pass WP:RS. --Jobrot (talk) 04:15, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I read your latest source, and it seems to me that the entire Brievik paragraph is full of OR and SYNTH. All you can say, all the sources say, is that Brievik used the term 'Cultural Marxism' in his rant/manifesto, that opposition to multiculturalism was one of his key motivators (alongside resurrecting the Knights Templar and that sort of thing). However, just because someone mentions a term doesn't mean they are noteworthy significant enough to deserve mention in the article or section about that term. Seriously "contributed to the modern appropriation of the term"? What exactly is that supposed to mean, and how exactly is it more substantial than 'he mentioned it and other people talked about his mention of it'? Given that the term Cultural Marxism has been around, according to the article itself, since at least the early 90's, it's hard to see why you want to cite a 2011 manifesto as a major factor in the term's spread and influence. This is not a matter of whether you have enough RS's to confirm that he said it; it's more about whether his mention is notable significant enough enough for inclusion here. PublicolaMinor (talk) 17:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

He's notable as mass murder events are notable, and his in particular garnered more media publicity concerning the term than anyone else. If you look at the google trends data for the phrase "Cultural Marxism" [14] you can clearly see his actions were pivotal to spreading the term.

On a more policy based note, WP:NOTABILITY doesn't actually cover the content of articles, it only covers whether articles should exist or not ("Cultural Marxism" for instance doesn't meet notability requirements). To quote the policy directly: "These guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list." - so if you want to the content removed you'll have to find some other angle. --Jobrot (talk) 03:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Woo, way to wikilawyer. Sometimes words are just words, and don't need to explicitly refer to thousand-word policy documents. I changed the phrasing above in case you're still confused.

I checked your Google trends link, and yes, there was a distinct spike in usage of the term in 2011. However, given that "Cultural Marxism" is a minority viewpoint, it makes sense that there'd be a spike in the data during the period when the term was used by more mainstream news outlets. Once the 'current events' aspect faded away, the graph shows that the number of hits went down to roughly the same level it had been before. The next 'spike' (still ongoing at this point) came in 2014, rather coincidentally the same time frame that the 'Cultural Marxism' article was deleted, redirected, and summarily dismissed as a "conspiracy theory." By your standards, RGloucester should also be included as "pivotal in spreading the term." Either way, it's pretty much the definition of WP:OR to use data directly from Google Trends to support your assertion that Brievik was a key figure in the movement's history. PublicolaMinor (talk) 06:28, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Well this is the talk page (WP:OR doesn't apply here), and I'm not suggesting the google trends data should be included in the article. I believe that second spike wasn't caused by wikipedia deleting the previous Cultural Marxism page. It was caused by GamerGate's interest in the "Cultural Marxism" conspiracy/explanation for the world. This heightened interest in turn lead to the article and its sources being raked over the coals for reliability and verifiability (which brought us to where we are today). Perhaps GamerGate could also be included in the article if there are any WP:RS sources talking about the two concepts together (I know there are plenty of primary sources within their community, not sure about any solid secondary sources).

I'm not sure what you mean about RGloucester, but remember to use WP:GOODFAITH when bringing up other editors, this is not a place for idle gossip.

As you noted yourself the first spike covers "the period when the term was used by more mainstream news outlets" which like I say was caused by Breivik being in the news - and hence his actions lead to the spread of the term (and the articles talk about his prolific use of the concept). WP:OR uses WP:RS in its definition. So unless you're claiming that The BBC, The New Statesman, The Guardian and Qantara.de all fail WP:RS for some reason then I'm not sure how using them constitutes WP:OR (especially considering they're all subject to professional editorial oversight).

I think you've got causality a bit backwards in your understanding of how these events have unfolded. You know, wikipedia didn't cause the second spike, and the media didn't cause the first spike. Events must happen before they are reported either by the media or wikipedia. --Jobrot (talk) 08:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

We seem to be talking past each other. I'm not denying that you have plenty of RS's to confirm that Brievik did mention 'Cultural Marxism' as a conspiracy theory. I am denying -- and you have yet to answer this -- that the RS's speak to your claim that Brievik "contributed to the modern appropriation of the term". When I brought it up, your go-to evidence was not an RS, but a Google Trends graph. That was what I called OR. Not sure how you're not seeing it -- you can pile up source after source that Brievik used the phrase in his manifesto, but where is the RS saying that he was 'pivotal to spreading the term'?

It's ironic you chide me for WP:GOODFAITH immediately before calling my reference to RGloucester 'idle gossip.' You are aware that RGloucester was perhaps the single individual most responsible for ensuring the redirect actually happened? That's not to mention of course that it was his handling of the initial AfD that gave the whole issue as much media attention as it did. For heaven's sake, Jimbo himself got involved in reversing his decision, and RGloucester had it out with him in a debate on Jimbo's own userpage. Given that your only criteria for referencing Brievik in this article was 'his actions led to a brief spike in usage of the phrase,' then by the same logic RGloucester deserves the equal if not greater recognition.

As for Gamergate, they didn't get involved until after RGloucester's initial closure. Search for the term yourself on KotakuinAction -- the first related thread that hit the mainpage was titled "Wikipedia's Cultural Marxism article now redirects to an article called 'Frankfurt School conspiracy theory'". Your timeline confuses the cart and the horse. PublicolaMinor (talk) 21:58, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually the first post on KotakuInAction that mentions Cultural Marxism can be found here and dates back to October 2014, a full 2 months before the article was deleted. So it's you who are putting the cart before the horse. On top of that KotakuInAction is not where GamerGate started (it started with 4chan, 8chan and InternetAristocrat, these then led to the creation of KotakuInAction - so once again you're putting the cart before the horse). You need to separate cause from effect, all the way down.

The sources cited for the line about Brievik, do mention that "The “cultural Marxism” that Breivik blamed for Europe’s Muslim takeover is a conspiracy theory that was born in the US." ie that this is where he "appropriated" the term from. Likewise it's also noted in the sources as well as explicitly included in the section that a document which uses the term: William S. Lind's "Political Correctness: A Short History of an Ideology" was emailed to over a thousand people so that they paid attention to Breivik's next actions (which were to go out and kill a bunch of people). So I'm not sure how you're invalidating him as having popularized the term. These facts are in the sources. As a wikipedian I'm sure you know that we're not allowed to plagiarize - so when we're not quoting a source directly, we must repeat what they've said in our own words. Breivik helped appropriate and popularize the term.

As I've stated before, WP:OR does not apply to talk pages, so stop trying to tell me I'm committing it here. Please keep the discussion editorial and relevant to the wikipedia article. Likewise for your comments on RGloucester. --Jobrot (talk) 04:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

This grows ridiculous. If you look at what I wrote, I referred to the first 'Cultural Marxism' post on KIA "that hit the mainpage." There were plenty of posts that referred to 'Cultural Marxism' prior to the one I named, but none of them were upvoted or discussed to any real extent. (Also: 46 upvotes, really? And this is what inspired Wikipedians to take a harder look at the original article? I didn't realize so many of us were so obsessive.)

Likewise, I thought I was pretty clear when I said you engaged in OR both here and in the article itself. Look at your own post-- source #1 says Breivik used the term, source #2 says he sent out his manifesto and a book about related topics (political correctness, multiculturalism, etc.) to about 1000 addresses. His actions were responsible for a spike in usage of the term -- a spike that started on July 22nd and dropped off almost entirely by the end of the month. And for this you call him "pivotal in spreading the term"? I will ask again, where is your RS for that claim?

Finally, I fail to see how you find my comments on RGloucester irrelevant -- I was drawing a direct analogy between the two cases. Brievik acted, the usage of the term spiked. RGloucester acted, the usage of the term spiked. If the only evidence needed for inclusion in this article is that, then both should be included. But if you agree with me and think it'd be ridiculous to mention RGloucester as a major popularizer of the term, then you need to find a better argument for why the other one should be. Why are you so insistent that 'Cultural Marxism' be defined by association with a mass murderer? PublicolaMinor (talk) 05:28, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

If you want to seek out WP:RS sources to include RGloucester in the article, that is up to you (as inadvisable and inane as that idea is). If you have any that meet WP:RS, you can bring them here for editorial discussion. I'm not insistent that Cultural Marxism be associated with mass murder. Brievik has caused that association, not me. I'm merely telling you that its inclusion meets policy requirements. --Jobrot (talk) 05:44, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

The term goes back to the 80s if not the 50s, as the AfD discussion mentioned there are thousands of articles, books and academic texts where "Cultural Marxism" is specifically mentioned [15], according to Wikipedia apparently the only notable mention of it is in some manifesto from 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.157.62.204 (talk) 09:31, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

If there is something you want added to the article that wasn't addressed during the Articles for deletion discussion] feel free to tell us... and NO, the term does not go back to the 50s (i suspect you're parroting this information from elsewhere without actually knowing). It goes back to 1973 (maximum) and is conjecture all the way. As you can read in The Frankfurt School page - not even "The Frankfurt School" was a set definite thing and who is included in The Frankfurt School "may vary among different scholars" - "it is not the title of any specific position or institution per se, and few of these theorists used the term themselves."... and that's just The Frankfurt School - not even saying anything of this more modern term "Cultural Marxism". --Jobrot (talk) 09:58, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I just revised the paragraph -- moved it down into chronological position (after the Tea Party paragraph), removed the claim that Breivik substantially popularized or 'contributed to the modern appropriation of the term'. I also removed two of the four sources for being explicitly labeled "Viewpoint" and "Opinion"; just because it shows up on a RS's website doesn't make an opinion piece impartial. I did some research and will be replacing the other two sources with a 2011 news article from the BBC summarizing Breivik's manifesto. PublicolaMinor (talk) 05:46, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

You've actually removed all four. So I've put the two that weren't be framed as opinion back in. The others may be re-included at a later date, but don't worry, they'll be framed as opinion. --Jobrot (talk) 06:05, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

You have a tendency to not read what you respond to. I said I had removed two already, and would replace the other two with a more to-the-point BBC news article. You ignored the second half of that notice, just like you ignored my repeated statements above that I don't want to include RGloucester in the article (I specifically called it "ridiculous") and that I had mentioned him by way of analogy. As for the sources themselves, I figured it'd be better to cite a news article about the contents of the manifesto (since that's the subject of the paragraph itself), rather than two articles about Breivik's "fellow travelers" and rising specter of Islamophobia (since that's the subject of the section, but tangential to the paragraph's claim). PublicolaMinor (talk) 06:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I only respond to whatever arguments you're making at the time. If you continue an argument about including RGloucester over multiple comments, then I'm forced to assume that it's something you're considering. The supporting references support Breivik as using the term and advocating for the conspiracy. Your accusations about whether I read what I respond to are completely unnecessary and step over the line (what I read is my concern and unknowable to yourself). You've now attacked two editors, and I'd advise you to follow WP:GOODFAITH more closely lest you be seen as an unconstructive editor working against Wikipedia's intent: Constructing a quality encyclopedia. Please keep this talk page for editorial discussions, and refrain from accusations and personal attacks against your fellow editors. --Jobrot (talk) 07:09, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

You're "forced to assume" an implicit meaning to my words that runs directly contrary to my explicit meaning? Yeesh. Those in glass houses should not throw WP:GOODFAITH stones. I'm also curious to hear why you think I "attacked" RGloucester -- I brought up his name and his role in the AfD and use that as background to draw an analogy, but I'm at a loss to know which of my words you think constituted a personal attack.

I entirely agree when you say "The supporting references support Breivik as using the term and advocating for the conspiracy. That is why I changed the article text, to avoid the earlier statement that Breivik was somehow pivotal in spreading the term or determining its modern usage. We seem to have found a compromise in the article text, and it's clear that we're not going to get very far in persuading each other, so why don't we call it a day? PublicolaMinor (talk) 09:03, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not trying to persuade you of anything. --Jobrot (talk) 10:11, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

"Cultural Marxism" refers to a conspiracy theory?

It's crazy how people are so desperate to pretend that saying the Frankfurt School was influential in forming the current American Left ideology is somehow a "conspiracy theory." "Cultural Marxism" refers to an intellectual movement, composed of specific thinkers and a fairly clear canon of their writings and it's just a term which refers to the ideological current of the Frankfurt School, critical theory, gender studies, etc. Here is a leftish columnist writing for the Telegraph who agrees. There are no secret meetings, no single organization, no initiations, no all-controlling committees, no secret plans, none of that crap. It's just a bunch of groupthink going on in academic circles between left wing social theorists, which then influences how courses are taught in university, which then influences how students think and what they think.

I took courses in philosophy at UMKC which discussed the Frankfurt School at length, although my professor was trying to put them in a positive light (in my opinion) and calling it "cultural Marxism" was no big deal, cause it was Marxism and it was about culture instead of economics. It's only after I left that course that I found a bunch of pol sci majors who have never taken courses in philosophy trying to pretend all this didn't exist. I think the attempt to describe this as a conspiracy theory is just the result of the isolation of philosophy as a discipline from other disciplines in university combined with a desire by left wing ideologues to circle the wagons when something on the Left is talked about as being bad. --BenMcLean (talk) 03:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

You've cited a blog there. If blogs are your standard of evidence, then here are some who use the term in a conspiratorial sense (mostly claiming Cultural marxism is white genocide): [16] [17] [18] --Jobrot (talk) 05:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

You were right the first time, they are violating the Talk page guidelines, as well as meatpuppetry. While I appreciate the lengths you have gone to try and persuade these Reddit-8chan-MRA accounts that have been instructed to flood these pages, answering every off-the-wall charge they make here is a huge waste of time. And won't accomplish anything, other than drive away good editors that will not want to wade through the wall of text being perpetrated here. Dave Dial (talk) 05:31, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. Having just concluded a rather lengthy conversation in which Jobrot was all too willing to throw around accusations that I was acting in bad faith, I wonder if he'll do the same here, or if he'll give you a pass because the two of you agree. Thanks for the laugh, by the way; at what point did Ben reference Reddit, or 8chan? And what the heck does the Men's Rights movement have to do with anything? This sort of nonsense makes it clear that you level such insults as a matter of course, against anyone who has the gall to disagree, no matter the substance of their words.

As for Jobrot: do try to recall that you were the one who established that the same standards for RS's don't apply on the Talk page -- that was one of your excuses when I criticized you for OR, and why you were willing to cite a Google Trends graph in the section above. That's not to mention that you were the one who made blogs an acceptable standard of evidence -- I had to remove two such sources from the Breivik paragraph. Of course, in your own words, those two 'commentary' pieces "may be re-included at a later date, but don't worry, they'll be framed as opinion.". So as long as Ben only uses the blog as a source for the author's own opinion, he should be fine, right?

I should point out that the Telegraph blog itself concedes that 'Cultural Marxism' is popular fodder for right-wing conspiracy nuts, so your parade of conspiracy blogs don't do much to disprove it. The Telegraph blog simply states (and I quote): Nevertheless, just because various wackos believe something, it does not make it untrue, nor does it mean those thoughts are confined to wackos. PublicolaMinor (talk) 06:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Blogs and editorials (aka op-eds) are two different things - you never removed any blog-content from the article, and I never included any. --Jobrot (talk) 07:22, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

By irrelevant coincidence, it just so happens that I'm actually not an MRA. But just for the sake of argument, let's assume I am. I want you to pretend that I am the most hateful misogynistic MRA that you can possibly dream up, and then I want you to evaluate my arguments on their actual merits irrespective of who I am or where I come from, because you obviously need the training in not allowing the ad hominem fallacy to dictate your thinking or blind you to the points other people are making. --BenMcLean (talk) 06:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not here to play games with you. Go somewhere else for your entertainment. --Jobrot (talk) 08:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

A volley of possible new sources

This article is quite simply WP:NPOV and WP:OR of the worst kind imaginable. Please keep in mind what trade literature has to say on the subject and don't develop your own theories or try and portray a very common term in cultural studies as a "conspiracy theory", this is unsuitable for an Encyclopedia.

Here are a few examples via Google Books to this and other variants of the term, I'd like to start with a basic definition and short description of it:

• http://books.google.de/books?id=z8Flb0gZ3ZkC&pg=SA9-PA21 (Political Science for Civil Services Main Examination by N.D. Arora)
• http://books.google.de/books?id=QH91072JCpoC&pg=PA283 (English Language and Literary Criticism by Discovery Publishing House)

"Cultural Marxism is a form of Marxism that adds an analysis of the role of media, art, theatre, film, and other cultural institutions in a society, often with an added emphasis on race and gender in addition to class. As a form of political analysis, cultural Marxism gained strength in the 1920s, and was the model used by the Frankfurt School; and later by another group of intellectuals at the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies in Birmingham, England.″

Here are other examples you can refer to while describing the term:

• Douglas Kellner: Cultural Marxism and Cultural Studies
• Frederic Jameson: Jameson on Jameson: Conversations on Cultural Marxism
• http://books.google.de/books?id=Jg-TjPqkcwEC&pg=PA171 (Cultural Marxism and British Cultural Studies - Entry in Encyclopedia of Social Theory)
• http://books.google.de/books?id=10T4DvMj8c8C&pg=PA390 (Ordering America: Fulfilling the Ideals of Western Civilization by William H. Young)
• http://books.google.de/books?id=oyPgylWklXkC&pg=PA349 (Handbook of Cultural Sociology by John R. Hall, Laura Grindstaff, Ming-cheng Lo)
• http://books.google.de/books?id=ya0OAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA8 (Cultural Studies and Beyond: Fragments of Empire)
• http://books.google.de/books?id=o1VpdrbH3BUC&pg=PA533 (Encyclopedia of Social and Cultural Anthropology by Alan Barnard, Jonathan Spencer)
• http://books.google.de/books?id=Lk3WRvA7_B8C&pg=PA221 (Women and Revolution: A Discusssion of the Unhappy Marriage of Marxism and Feminism by Hicks)
• http://books.google.de/books?id=dY1Cgg8NV64C (Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain: History, the New Left, and the Origins of Cultural Studies by Dennis L. Dworkin)
• http://books.google.de/books?id=FZ2DywUC_c4C&pg=PA43 (Cultural Studies as Critical Theory by Ben Agger citing Lukacs)
• http://books.google.de/books?id=fgCrgyY6d84C&pg=PA94 (Literary Theory and the Claims of History: Postmodernism, Objectivity, Multicultural Politics by Satya P. Mohanty)
• http://books.google.de/books?id=n1crv5TYhtUC&pg=PA125 (Asian Media Studies: Politics of Subjectivities by John Nguyet Erni, Siew Keng Chua)
• http://books.google.de/books?id=uWHoZJ8RzhoC&pg=PA339 (Encyclopedia of Social Theory about Gramsci and Lukacs)

62.157.60.248 (talk) 13:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I've just added a warning about not including Political Science for Civil Services Main Examination by N.D. Arora and English Language and Literary Criticism by Discovery Publishing House to the top of this page as they represent a Citogenesis risk to wikipedia - having been cribbed directly from wikipedia (here) (there were numerous sources brought forth during the AfD which were advertised as "Compiled from quality wikipedia articles" and I feel these two works (both originating with Indian publishers) are an extension of those sort of cheap academic rip offs. The original text on wikipedia pre-dates both sources (with the wikipedia text [19] appearing in 2006, and the two indian sources appearing in 2009 and 2013). Obviously including these would go against WP:Circular - I suspect they were your best chances of getting included (as they deal with the subject directly), and so I'll investigate the other sources at a later date [it's past my bedtime here] - although I can already see some such as the self-published Kellner essay, Jameson's Conversations on Cultural Marxism and Dworkin's Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain which were already debunked during the AfD go there if you're interested in finding out why. --Jobrot (talk) 13:50, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what authority do you have to claim that you "debunked" academic sources and opinions by famous philosophers and critical theorists with their own Wikipedia pages, do you have any credentials that everyone should know of that you aren't sharing here, since you seem to have started editing due to the deletion of this article and have spent most of your time saying you "debunked" sources you don't like while linking to fringe sources [20][21] or singular academic publications like this to support your "claims"? There is far more literature proclaiming and describing "Cultural Marxism" than saying it's a "conspiracy theory", please keep to what the sources say and don't develop your own theories via WP:SYNTH 62.157.60.248 (talk) 14:20, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Lind is a primary source for Lind's own opinion and has been used as a supporting reference to back up a secondary source which described Lind's views. As an originator of the Conspiracy Theory he is relevant and can be sourced in this way. Martin Jay is a credentialed scholar of The Frankfurt School, as well as an Intellectual Historian writing for a long established quarterly journal and is being quoted directly. I'm not sure what your intended complaint is about this reference, but as far as I can tell you its inclusion is perfectly legitimate. --Jobrot (talk) 14:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

What you are saying is that Lind is a primary source for Lind's own opinion which you dub a "Conspiracy Theory", but somehow Jameson and Kellner are not? And all the other academic texts and books explicitly referencing "Cultural Marxism", many of them linked above somehow don't exist or have been "debunked" by you, because presumably you are some sort of authority on this subject while all these other academics are not? 62.157.60.248 (talk) 14:42, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Interesting that you've claimed Jameson explicitly references "Cultural Marxism" because the phrase "Cultural Marxism" does not appear ONCE in the body text of the 296 pages of "Conversations on Cultural Marxism" that you claim explicitly references "Cultural Marxism" [22] - the phrase only and I restate: ONLY appears in THE TITLE. Leaving readers to guess about the conversations relevance to Marxism. So it's fortuitous that you've made the mistake of claiming this book explicitly references "Cultural Marxism" when it does not, as it highlights a simple fact: I am no better than you. I merely look more deeply into the sources, and more deeply into Wikipedia policy. This is why I am able to catch things like N.D. Arora's Political Science for Civil Services Main Examination and A.S. Kharbe's English Language And Literary Criticism as possible citogenesis risks before they are added to the article. This is exactly what makes me a good wikipedian/editor. It doesn't make me better than anyone else, as anyone could do this - I just happen to bother. --Jobrot (talk) 14:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

In reference to Kellner, his essay has been uploaded to his own personal directory on an academic server - this is a privilege that many students also get. Hence there is no evidence for it being peer reviewed, ergo as far as WP:RS goes, it's on the same level as any self-published blog or web document. It's a matter of policy, no special power or authority on my part - I just happen to be familiar with some of Wikipedia's policies (and requiring editorial/peer review of academic documents is one such policy). --Jobrot (talk) 14:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Obviously it goes without saying that second hand Indian rip offs of wikipedia drafts manufactured to pose for sale as genuine academic documents do not count as "trade literature" whatever that terribly "authoritative" sounding term is meant to mean. --Jobrot (talk) 13:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Having had a brief look at the remaining sources, I don't like your chances. Many of them use the term Cultural Anthropology, Cultural Sociology or Social Theory - I'd like to point out to you that merely using the term "Cultural" does not constitute "Cultural Marxism" also Social and Sociology are terms separate from Socialism, and don't infer, suggest or equate to Cultural Marxism in any way - I'm not sure why you've included these references (feel free to enlighten me) - likewise, that second to last link is about Asian Media Studies and from the link I can't see that it has anything to do with the subject at hand. The remaining texts talk about feminism needing to create a 'cultural marxism' but say nothing of the intended meaning of that phrase, whether it means a Culture of Marxism a Culture that mimics aspects of Marxist culture, a Culture that borrows Marxist imagery or whatever. The usage is not definitive, descriptive (and seems to be introducing the term as if brand new) and I see nothing in the writings that can contribute to the article or the subsection (which - as described on this talk page elsewhere - is part of the problem with the yee oldie academic sense of both the term The Frankfurt School and the term Cultural Marxism - they were INFORMAL. Never well defined (different academics claim different people were in, or out of The Frankfurt School), which is why the section is so lacking when it comes to the academic use of Cultural Marxism - because quality sources are difficult to come by. Even in the recent article written by our own MetaMagician3000 [23] only a few sources could be found (and some of those relate more strongly to British Cultural Marxism and The Birmingham School - which are different entirely as they advocate a [decoding_model_of_communication|mixing of classes], so drift even further from economic class based Marxism). I'm not going to pretend this is an easy section to edit or add to. It's not, for various reasons, these are just some of those reasons. --Jobrot (talk) 14:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2015

Change "Conspiracy Theory" to "Cultural Marxism". Remove condemnation of racism and include references to association with racist ideologies. Overall, make the tone significantly more neutral with less of an overwhelming Liberal bias (even the term "Conspiracy Theory" is biased, extremely so, and goes against Wikipedia editing standards.) Include sources from neutral parties rather than pro-Cultural Marxist or anti-Cultural Marxist sources. Wikipedia is not a Liberal nor a Progressive website. It is a neutral encyclopedia and must remain as such.

Ideloctober (talk) 11:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Not done: as that is not a Semi-protected edit request, but a vague wishlist.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 13:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

"include references to association with racist ideologies" I'm happy to oblige there at least. --Jobrot (talk) 14:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Then I'll make it simple. Change "Conspiracy Theory" to "Cultural Marxism". Cultural Marxism is not a conspiracy theory, it's a real ideology that's really mentioned in Frankfurt's educational documents. Whether or not you agree with the ideology itself is irrelevant, but Cultural Marxism exists, and those on the Right who disagree with it are not "Conspiracy Theorists".

Ideloctober (talk) 06:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

"it's a real ideology that's really mentioned in Frankfurt's educational documents" - please provide sources in line with WP:RS. --Jobrot (talk) 06:39, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

This is taken directly from Wikipedia's outdated Google definition.

Cultural Marxism is an ideology which emphasizes culture as a main cause of inequalities. Critics have seen cultural Marxism and its influence as an important cause of political correctness and as an important cause of a perceived decline of humanities, social sciences, culture, and civilization in the Western world.

You, Jobrot, are in no position to debate this issue or decide whether or not content goes into the article. Judging by past posts, edits, and your overall outlook, I'd pen you as a strong liberal who fully believes any decrying of Cultural Marxism is immediately racist and bigoted. In turn, you are far more bigoted and biased than the neutrality necessary for this article and for Wikipedia's quality standards as a whole. Since 2012 Wikipedia has been getting much more Liberal and much less unbiased. Instead of presenting Cultural Marxism as a neutral theory, it's immediately presented as a racist conspiracy theory only perpetrated by racist ideologies. This is absolute nonsense, and I think it's high time Wikipedia becomes less Liberal and more Neutral, as it was founded to be.

10 years ago, Cultural Marxism would never link to "conspiracy theory" or be called a thought process of purely racist individuals. Sad times we live in.

Ideloctober (talk) 00:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, metapedia (the source of the text your quoting) does not count as a valid source under WP:RS, nor does it speak to your claim of 'Cultural Marxism' being "mentioned in Frankfurt's educational documents". Political opinions of individual editors do not matter here, all that matters is that edits are made within Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (they are there to keep Wikipedia accurate to the sources). This talk page is not intended for idle gossip or WP:SOAPBOXING please restrict your comments to discussing editorial improvements to the article and it's sourcing. Also, please indent any further comments as to indicate who you are replying to, for more assistance on how to format your comments on talk pages, click through to the Talk Page Guidelines. Please learn Wikipedia's policies and why they are there (hint; Wikipedia's policies have nothing to do with personal politics or a liberal conspiracy, they are concerned with article quality, accuracy and verifiability). --Jobrot (talk) 04:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Metapedia, I'll tell you what I told Jobrot and DaveDial in the section above: remember to assume good faith. It is undeniably true that there is a conspiracy theory about the Frankfurt School -- as discussed above, the terrorist Breivik was directly influenced by this, even if he was certifiably insane and was influenced to about the same extent by conspiracy theories about the Knights Templar. For Jobrot and others, 'Cultural Marxism' is the conspiracy theory -- they do not distinguish between that and using the term for legitimate criticism of the Frankfurt School. I'm not sure if they deny the reality (that the Frankfurt School did advocate for a Marxist-themed theory of culture, and that this ideology has had an outsized influence on modern academia, especially literature and the humanities) or if they simply deny that this reality is sufficiently verifiable by reliable sources to be included on Wikipedia. Either way, their position is that the only form of 'Cultural Marxism' that can be permitted on Wikipedia is the one proposed by conspiracy nuts. However insulting it may be (and yes, it doesn't get more insulting than "everyone who believes this is an anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist"), I wouldn't call it bigoted. Non-neutral, certainly, but that's par for the course. PublicolaMinor (talk) 04:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Not all versions of the conspiracy come down to antisemitism (I think elsewhere on this page it was brought up that Breivik for instance was pro-israel, although that's probably more in contrast to his being anti-islam than anything else). As for the term "Cultural Marxism" being used for legitimate criticism of The Frankfurt School - no, I've not seen many critics who use the term actually interact with the Frankfurt School material. That is to say, I've never seen them quote or show comprehension of The Frankfurt School theorists (most of whom were interested in pathologising in order to prevent the cultural causes and effects of the rise of Fascism, having in their lifetimes seen it in the German cultural changes of Nazi Fascism)... I've seen plenty reduce The Frankfurt School to Marxism and pretend that's a criticism - but I've never seen anyone do so using The Frankfurt School or Marx's own writings... let alone in a forum that meets WP:RS (and even then The Frankfurt School isn't a singular solid viewpoint). So that said, kudos on playing devils advocate to Ideloctober's bad faith, and also on being aware of the subject matter enough to distinguish "Marxist" (perhaps a more economic viewpoint than anything else) from your creative language choice "Marxist-themed". Of course, even if you could justify calling the many and varied of the Frankfurt School "Marxist themed" (influenced might be a better term, more suggestive of the witch hunt this boils down to) that still wouldn't necessarily extend "Marxist themed" to such large and varied swathes of academic writings and individuals such as Critical Theorists, Students of Cultural Studies, Political Correctness advocates (of all stripes and opinion) Multiculturalists, The Birmingham School, Post-Modernists, Feminists, anti-racist campaigners, anti-homophobia campaigners, atheists and all the other modern political progressives having their views conveniently reduced to 1950s "Marxism" as the "Cultural Marxism" conspiracy theory would have it. As I stated earlier, that would be like claiming all Quantum Physicists are Catholic because at some point Catholic Monasteries became Universities and initiated the modern university system. It may have a Truth in there somewhere, but that smidgen of Truth is not consistent enough to be claimed as true for all categories and all instances from then on. Apart from that, the original albeit informal Academic meaning of "Cultural Marxism" was not intended as an insult or even a criticism. It was intended as an informal description of a group poorly defined to begin with, and hence the term never fully flourished or developed into a solid academic definition or became useful (between the leftism of the 1930s and the leftism of today too many ideas have head in too many directions for that to be a valid reduction) - not that the lack of validity stops Lind and other cold-war era cultural-conservatives getting hold of the term (and thus their red-paranoid could continue)... and now it's very useful to some. But that does not legitimate it to Wikipedia's standards.

It's worth contextualizing Marxism in general, in that Marx was a teenager when The French Revolution occurred (yeah, that long ago), and that revolution, along with the post-revolutionary industrialization that occurred (child labour and workplace deaths and all) was the framework for his era. So he in many ways was among the first to criticize the human effects of capitalism. Hence I am of the opinion that reducing all and any ensuing criticisms of capitalism down to mere Marxism is a reductionistic and ill-advised tactic to begin with. Of course this is just my personal opinion. --Jobrot (talk) 06:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

...and of course, all of this doesn't speak to other editors opinions on the matter (I'm not the only one doing reversions). --Jobrot (talk) 06:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Yet you are allowing your own political agenda to influence everything you edit, and due to your own special privileges you immediately decide to enforce that every edit must come from a Liberal, Leftist, or pro-Marxist standpoint, and that any edit to the contrary is either poorly-sourced, unneeded, soapboxing, or racist and biased. You are a walking pinnacle of bias, and if we're getting political, I think you've got absolutely backwards beliefs in that aspect. However, I'm not arguing for my ideas to be pushed into the article, I'm arguing for neutrality. We don't need an article that says Cultural Marxism is eradicating Western civilization, but we also don't need an article with a silly and infectious love for Marxism written by a silly and misguided Marxist. We can keep it neutral and keep it fair to both sides; do NOT call it a conspiracy theory, state that racist organizations sometimes use it, then state that Conservative groups believe it is causing problems. Fair and balanced, as Wikipedia was always intended to be. This pro-Marxist, pro-Liberal standpoint on this article being enforced is nothing but proof that Wikipedia is becoming increasingly Liberal-biased, and when any encyclopedia becomes biased to any political agenda, its merit and the qualities of free expression and free speech die. Wikipedia has long since been discredited due to unprofessional edits, and soon it will be discredited for its growing bias in favor of Liberalisn, the Progressive Movement, and subtle pro-Marxism, all demonstrated by Mr. Jobrot here. Ideloctober (talk) 19:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

All I argue for is following wikipedia policies... and I have no special privileges around here (although I do have consensus on my side, in line with the AfD on this subject). I argue that some statements are poorly-sourced because some statements are poorly-sourced (ie. they don't meet the requirements of wikipedia policy. Not my political requirements, not my personal requirements, but the requirements of wikipedia policy). Conservatives relevant to the discussion HAVE argued that Cultural Marxism is destroying western society. Here are some quotes from William S. Lind - who with the Free Congress Foundation popularized the conspiracy theory version, the most common version of the term in use today: "it [Cultural Marxism] shifted its focus from destroying traditional Western culture in Germany to destroying it in the United States." -William S. Lind. "Its goal remains what Lukacs and Gramsci set in 1919: destroying Western culture and the Christian religion." -William S. Lind. "He knew that if he could destroy the West’s traditional sexual morals, he would have taken a giant step toward destroying Western culture itself." -William S. Lind. Most conservative groups with any inkling of credibility AVOID the phrase "Cultural Marxism" because they want to keep their credibility. Anyways, before you go critiquing Wikipedia policies further (or compounding your errors as you have below), I suggest you actually learn why Wikipedia's policies are there. They are the backbone of any argument on here. --Jobrot (talk) 03:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

On that point, please familiarize yourself with The Talk Page Guidelines and learn how to format/indent your comments correctly (you'll be taken more seriously). You are new here, and it reflects in how you conduct yourself and what you base your arguments on. This page is for editorial discussions, not for WP:SOAPBOXING please read and familiarize yourself with wikipedia's policies. Particularly Wikipedia's reliable sourcing policies. --Jobrot (talk) 03:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

With all due respect, I am not going to take "format advice" from someone who makes numerous grammatical and spelling errors that even fundamental education rectifies. You began the soapbox and you began the false consensus, openly stating that you wished to pursue a pro-Marxism tone throughout your articles. You are a Liberal and potentially a Marxist, and that was your first and only point as to why to keep the title "Conspiracy theory". A Marxist claiming others won't take someone seriously or telling them they're making errors. Pot, meet kettle. Ideloctober (talk) 04:17, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

See also WP:NPA. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 08:13, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I've shown you where you can read about the consensus formed during the articles for deletion discussion numerous times now. I've also told you that wikipedia is not a place to discuss personal politics and that the content of this page should be kept to discussions of an editorial nature concerning the Frankfurt School article. Please learn to follow wikipedia policy and guidelines including the Talk page formatting guidelines if you want to continue to help improve Wikipedia. Good day. --Jobrot (talk) 08:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Since it seems to attract a lot of discussion, I've added two more academic sources to that section. Jérôme Jamin's Cultural Marxism and the Radical Right provides a particularly detailed account of the conspiracy theory and its origins, and could probably be used for more elaboration if necessary, while John E. Richardson's ‘Cultural-Marxism’ and the British National Party: a transnational discourse, in addition to covering its origins, also touches on how it influenced Breivik and the (neo-Fascist) British National Party in Britain. --Aquillion (talk) 10:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Someone made this change, and I reverted it per my comment above; as far as I can tell, all reliable, non-fringe sources refer to this as a conspiracy theory. If you want to change it, please provide mainstream sources that describe the theory in other terms. As far as I can tell, anyway, there simply aren't any. --Aquillion (talk) 22:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policies are BS. But there are multiple levels of BS going on here. There's Wikipedia's BS and then there's Jobrot's BS, where Jobrot has come along and added an additional layer of BS on top of Wikipedia's BS. Here we are only objecting to Jobrot's BS. So let's keep on topic.

"Most conservative groups with any inkling of credibility AVOID the phrase "Cultural Marxism" because they want to keep their credibility"

Ah, they avoid the phrase, but not the idea. And it's the idea which is the conspiracy theory, not the phrase. So if they all believe in the idea, that makes them all conspiracy theorists. Why aren't you agitating to have the "Conservative" article read, "Conservative groups are composed of conspiracy theorists"? That's what you're making an arbitrary, one-sided selection of sources to build a case for. --BenMcLean (talk) 07:08, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

If you think Wikipedia's policies are BS then go elsewhere. --Jobrot (talk) 08:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

The IDEA of Cultural Marxism is not a conspiracy "theory" as evidenced by the many sources that discuss its creation and intent. Given the existence of non-Marxist Liberals it seems inappropriate that some editors refer to the idea as "Conservative" and "Right Wing" as if that will somehow delegitimize its existence. As Nationalists and Jew-haters co-opt the term for their own political use, it's clearly an idea that is of increasing cultural relevance. It's important to discuss what Cultural Marxism is and isn't. The tag "Conspiracy Theory" minimizes its actual importance and should be removed. Cultural Marxism should have an article all to itself.EyePhoenix (talk) 06:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The original theory as created by William S. Lind during the 1990's Culture Wars fits directly into Michael Barkun's definition of a "Global Systemic" type of Conspiracy Theory. Using Lind's own words makes this apparent:

"The next conservatism should unmask multiculturalism and Political Correctness and tell the American people what they really are: cultural Marxism" -William S. Lind

"Its goal remains what Lukacs and Gramsci set in 1919: destroying Western culture and the Christian religion. -William S. Lind (strange that Lukacs would attempt to destroy his own society)

"The next conservatism needs to reveal the man behind the curtain - - old Karl Marx himself." -William S. Lind

"Today, when the cultural Marxists want to do something like “normalize” homosexuality, they do not argue the point philosophically. They just beam television show after television show into every American home where the only normal-seeming white male is a homosexual (the Frankfurt School’s key people spent the war years in Hollywood)" -William S. Lind (living in Hollywood isn't the same as being a part of the movie industry, and nothing of the sort is mentioned in any bio of any member of the Frankfurt School.)

Here is Michael Barkun's "second type" of conspiracy theory - the "Global Systemic" type:

Main article: Conspiracy theory

Systemic conspiracy theories. The conspiracy is believed to have broad goals, usually conceived as securing control of a country, a region, or even the entire world. While the goals are sweeping, the conspiratorial machinery is generally simple: a single, evil organization implements a plan to infiltrate and subvert existing institutions. This is a common scenario in conspiracy theories that focus on the alleged machinations of Jews, Freemasons, or the Catholic Church, as well as theories centered on Communism or international capitalists.

And here are Lind's words inserted into that defintion:

Systemic conspiracy theories. The conspiracy is believed to have broad goals, usually conceived as securing control of a country, a region, or even the entire world [The Media, Academia, Hollywood and ultimately America]. While the goals are sweeping ["destroying Western culture and the Christian religion"], the conspiratorial machinery is generally simple: a single, evil organization [The Frankfurt School] implements a plan to infiltrate and subvert existing institutions [Academia, the media and Hollywood]. This is a common scenario in conspiracy theories that focus on the alleged machinations of Jews, Freemasons, or the Catholic Church, as well as theories centered on Communism or international capitalists.

Not only that, but many WP:RS authors have written about the theory as being a conspiracy theory, and it fits in with WP:FRINGE. I hope that clears things up for you. --Jobrot (talk) 12:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 August 2015

Please change the title "Conspiracy theory" to "Cultural Marxism" for neutrality. This immediately proves it's a political theory, not a conspiracy theory.

"The theory is associated with American conservative thinkers such as William Lind, Pat Buchanan and Paul Weyrich, and has received institutional support from the Free Congress Foundation." Ideloctober (talk) 00:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

 Duplicate of above request. Stickee (talk) 00:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The above request has turned into a debate. This is a much simpler request for a title change. Ideloctober (talk) 00:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. TrueCRaysball | ^#RaysUp 01:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Its not the sort of issue you will ever reach a consensus on. It should however be obvious that conspiracy theory is POV. Rather frustrating with these articles where a minority blocks common sense and neutrality. Any procedures available to get this sorted out (other than keep waiting for a never occurring consensus).--Batmacumba (talk) 17:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

The original theory as created by William S. Lind during the 1990's Culture Wars fits directly into Michael Barkun's definition of a "Global Systemic" type of Conspiracy Theory. Using Lind's own words makes this apparent:

"The next conservatism should unmask multiculturalism and Political Correctness and tell the American people what they really are: cultural Marxism" -William S. Lind

"Its goal remains what Lukacs and Gramsci set in 1919: destroying Western culture and the Christian religion. -William S. Lind (strange that Lukacs would attempt to destroy his own society)

"The next conservatism needs to reveal the man behind the curtain - - old Karl Marx himself." -William S. Lind

"Today, when the cultural Marxists want to do something like “normalize” homosexuality, they do not argue the point philosophically. They just beam television show after television show into every American home where the only normal-seeming white male is a homosexual (the Frankfurt School’s key people spent the war years in Hollywood)" -William S. Lind (living in Hollywood isn't the same as being a part of the movie industry, and nothing of the sort is mentioned in any bio of any member of the Frankfurt School.)

Here is Michael Barkun's "second type" of conspiracy theory - the "Global Systemic" type:

Main article: Conspiracy theory

Systemic conspiracy theories. The conspiracy is believed to have broad goals, usually conceived as securing control of a country, a region, or even the entire world. While the goals are sweeping, the conspiratorial machinery is generally simple: a single, evil organization implements a plan to infiltrate and subvert existing institutions. This is a common scenario in conspiracy theories that focus on the alleged machinations of Jews, Freemasons, or the Catholic Church, as well as theories centered on Communism or international capitalists.

And here are Lind's words inserted into that defintion:

Systemic conspiracy theories. The conspiracy is believed to have broad goals, usually conceived as securing control of a country, a region, or even the entire world [The Media, Academia, Hollywood and ultimately America]. While the goals are sweeping ["destroying Western culture and the Christian religion"], the conspiratorial machinery is generally simple: a single, evil organization [The Frankfurt School] implements a plan to infiltrate and subvert existing institutions [Academia, the media and Hollywood]. This is a common scenario in conspiracy theories that focus on the alleged machinations of Jews, Freemasons, or the Catholic Church, as well as theories centered on Communism or international capitalists.

Not only that, but many WP:RS authors have written about the theory as being a conspiracy theory, and it fits in with WP:FRINGE. I hope that clears things up for you. --Jobrot (talk) 12:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Please make the section heading CM not CT

I don't care about whatever you guys are all into, but a heading should be as descriptive as possible. It is currently failing. Maybe "Political conspiracy of cultural Marxism" or similar. The current heading is a big fail. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Your proposal would be fine. RGloucester — ☎ 03:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I would prefer "Political conspiracy theory of cultural Marxism" or "Cultural Marxism Conspiracy Theory" or "Frankfurt School Conspiracy Theory" as I believe the inclusion of "Conspiracy Theory" to be a point of accuracy and have been forced by many users, multiple times on this talk page to argue and justify that "Conspiracy Theory" is a valid descriptor (a synopsis of my argument can be found in the comments for the signpost article: [24]) --Jobrot (talk) 04:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I suppose the term "Conspiracy theory" would still be in the body text, so I guess the proposal is fine by me. But we'll need an admin to effect the change, as the redirect page is currently edit protected and can only be changed by admins. --Jobrot (talk) 13:32, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

The current heading came as a result of the merger from the now deleted Frankfurt School Conspiracy Theory page. The phrase Frankfurt School Conspiracy Theory had appeared in various places that pre-date Wikipedia's usage, and so has been given credibility on those grounds. Of course, given that this is The Frankfurt School page, the "Frankfurt School" part was dropped from the heading - leaving only "Conspiracy Theory" (with the rest of the text being inferential from appearing on the Frankfurt School page). Whether that constitutes a 'big fail' as you say, I'm not sure (seems pretty minor to me). Regardless, that's why it is as it is. Perhaps an expansion back to "Frankfurt School Conspiracy Theory" is in order? --Jobrot (talk) 04:06, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd be interested in hearing from other editors on this matter so we can gauge the consensus. --Jobrot (talk) 18:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Any of the more descriptive ones would be fine with me. I guess I like "Cultural Marxism Conspiracy Theory" the best but only by a little bit. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

In accordance with WP:RFP I've put in a request to the appropriate admin for lowering the protection on the redirect page so that we can change the heading (without breaking the redirect). If nothing comes of it I'll put a more general request in at WP:RFP. Thanks for your interest in this topic. In the meanwhile, hopefully some other editors will comment as to clarify consensus. --Jobrot (talk) 05:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I've dropped the protection to semi; can I suggest changes are only made when there's a clear consensus to do so, though? At the moment, there appear to be at least three options on the table. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 09:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I would support "Cultural Marxism (Conspiracy Theory)". It's clear from what Jobrot has said before that this page does not address the common usage of 'Cultural Marxism' among conservatives, but only about the fringe conspiracy theories related to that usage, as attested by RS's. This would be more descriptive and avoid the earlier conflation between the two. PublicolaMinor (talk) 01:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Although I disagree with PublicolaMinor's reading of what I've said, I am fine with "Cultural Marxism (Conspiracy Theory)" being the heading - it seems PublicolaMinor is fine with it too, and Peregrine Fisher seems reluctantly okay with it. User:RGloucester would you have any objections? --Jobrot (talk) 04:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

There is no need for the parenthetical. Just write "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory". RGloucester — ☎ 05:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, agree. Or just leave it as is. Dave Dial (talk) 06:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I've gone ahead and made those changes! Congratulations on helping to come to the first consensus based decision this talk page has seen in a long time! --Jobrot (talk) 14:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Points of View

Having read through this entire talk page, I am extremely disappointed and worried. There are clear agendas on both sides of the argument, and no neutrality has been synthesized. It seems a lot of smaller contributors on one side and JobRot as a major contributor, with small amounts of help on the other side. The former seem to argue a view without being willing to provide the necessary sources. The latter seems to have a large knowledge of wikipedia rules, and has used that knowledge in an arbitrary fashion to minimalize discussion of cultural marxism. My guess is that it can be made to completely remove cultural marxism from wikipedia, so the best option is to have it link to a conspiracy theory here. This is disappointing, embarrassing, and far from any neutral point of view being claimed. I will note that what disturbs me most is that this crap ends up on the pages of The Frankfurt School. I can't imagine seeing something similar on the page of any other academic group (some of which have been accused of far worse.) I expect no change from my comments. I am leaving this here knowing that the network will outlast us all. This here is for when other moderators and editors, or failing that historians, decide to look into the issue. Yes, people with differing points of view saw the clear bias back then, wikipedia has done somewhat of a job cleaning up it's paid editors, but has done little to work on biased editors that are funded through ideological satisfaction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.252.14.210 (talk) 01:32, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Other than reverting vandalism I've only contributed 1 sentence to the article, and changed a heading (from "Conspiracy Theory" to "Cultural Marxism Conspiracy Theory") - and that was done by request of editorial consensus. I will remind you and others who come here that: Wikipedia is NOT a battleground and that talk pages are to be reserved for editorial discussions only (ie. Wikipedia is not a forum). The policies you're complaining about are there for a reason - they're not there to benefit any single side. They're there to insure only quality additions are made to the encyclopedic content that makes up Wikipedia. --Jobrot (talk) 03:17, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I'll also point out that WP:NPOV is not about representing "sides" equally. It very specifically seeks to represent RELIABLE sources: "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject." - and does not seek to represent the consensus of the general public: "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE all relate to (defining what is) WP:RS and are the key factors for determining what goes into Wikipedia, and into this section. If you have any suggestions for what you want added, I'm open to hearing them. --Jobrot (talk) 04:42, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Who founded it?

"The Institute for Social Research (Institut für Sozialforschung) was founded in 1923 by Carl Grünberg, a Marxist legal and political professor at the University of Vienna" --Frankfurt School

"Founder: Felix Weil" --Institute for Social Research —User 000 name 18:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Friedrich Pollock "was one of the founders of the Institute for Social Research in Frankfurt am Main"

I suspect all three are true (and more), as I found a source here (From Max Horkheimer) that sites Friedrich Pollock as cofounder on page 391 - and Felix Weil (an economist whom Germany's Foreign Minister offered to name the institute after) as cofounder on page 396. It also talks about the "Society of Social Research" - which was a club at the University of Frankfurt am Main, and about Carl Grünberg (a Professor, lawyer and sociologist) as being the first appointed director of the Institute of Social Research (page 381). However, this source here (by Martin Jay) says (on page 32) that Germany's Foreign Minister Walter Rathenau was the actual founder, but also talks about the purpose of the Institute from Carl Grünberg's perspective on page 293.

So I suspect it was a University society (The Society for Social Research) which via Felix Weil was funded by Walter Rathenau to become an The Institute of Social Research as directed by Carl Grünberg (a Professor), and with the backing of other members of the society such as Friedrich Pollock. --Jobrot (talk) 05:30, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

"Interwar period"

In the first section, first paragraph, it says the Frankfurt School was formed between the "interwar period" in Germany. I assume this means between the first and second world wars, but there's no information supporting that assumption. Mentioning which year it was formed might be nice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.25.204 (talk) 05:28, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

As the Frankfurt School is an informal post-hoc grouping of a variety of thinkers, it's difficult to define when they "formed"... but the information you're after may well be on the Institute for Social Research page. --Jobrot (talk) 19:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Inspiration from German wiki

Why not do as German wiki and create Cultural Marxism as a disambiguation page with links to Cultural Studies and a page about Cultural Marxism as a right wing catch-phrase/slogan? As the German: Cultural Marxism. That seems to be a fair and pragmatic solution.--Batmacumba (talk) 17:24, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to that. --Jobrot (talk) 19:30, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• There was a separate article, but it was deleted via WP:AFD. If you want to suggest its restoration, you should request that at WP:DRV. --Aquillion (talk) 15:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I think the German wiki carts one half of the audience off to the conspiracy section, and sends the other half off to read about Cultural Studies in general. I think that's appropriate as that's essentially the complaint of the conspiracy theory - that these under paid, liberal arts "Cultural Studies" teachers are actually controlling the world (which is obviously ridiculous). So it may benefit some readers to take the opportunity to read about what Cultural Studies actually entails. --Jobrot (talk) 12:29, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

"the theory originated with Michael Minnicino's 1992 essay..."

Re. Cultural Marxism. This isn't true. The idea that Semites were trying to destroy Christendom via Cultural Marxism is at least as old as Hitler. 112.172.232.217 (talk) 14:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

---"the theory originated with Michael Minnicino's 1992 essay..."--- This is not even close to true and this whole article needs to be changed as it is irrevocably biased. http://www.vdare.com/articles/yes-virginia-there-is-a-cultural-marxism - As we can see in this article the term "kulturmarxist" was already in use by the 1960s to describe Frankfurt schule proponents among the German academic right. It's absolutely not true that the term didn't appear until 1992.

Also where are the criticisms of the Frankfurt schule from the right in the criticism section? Or is Habermas the only critical source you can find?