Talk:James A. Lindsay

Academic label

Having a math degree does not make someone a mathematician. Just because Vox called him a mathematician doesn't make him that. He has no relevant publications in mathematics. He shouldn't have mathematician in his top line bio any more than KSM should be labeled as a prominent engineer. Lesabot (talk) 02:10, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

When in doubt, we go by the what the reliable sources say. The reliable sources call Lindsay a mathematician. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:00, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Here is an article specifically calling Adolf Hitler a painter: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-46991969 Shall I add that to his top line bio or would that be silly because it is not what he was known for? Lesabot (talk) 02:10, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

That article doesn't describe him being a painter as central at all, it doesn't say "painter Adolf Hitler" or something, it says the exact opposite in fact: The watercolours were created in the early 20th Century while Hitler, later guilty of some of the worst crimes in history, worked as a painter in Munich – that being, you know, Hitler, was more important than some paintings he happened to have done.

Regarding Lindsay, the label is very well sourced, e.g: [1] mathematician James Lindsay, [2] James A. Lindsay, a mathematician, [3] Mathematician James Lindsay, [4] mathematician James Lindsay, [5] Author and mathematician James Lindsey, [6] mathematician James Lindsay, etc. Your original research about how Lindsay doesn't qualify as a "mathematician" is irrelevant, Wikipedia follows what is published in reliable sources. It doesn't matter if you think sources are wrong, we are interested in verifiability, not "truth". ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 06:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

It's not independent research. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C22&q=James+a+Lindsay&btnG=&oq=jam There is a perfectly good Scholar search showing that he hasn't published a math paper. He is not a mathematician. I have a tweet from a verified twitter account with 75k followers calling him a "weirdo". Would that be enough provenance to ad "weirdo" to his list? Lesabot (talk) 11:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Twitter accounts are not reliable sources just because 75k people follow them. It is also original research to say that mathematicians are people who show up in that google scholar search. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 11:26, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

So verified twitter accounts aren't good enough, but a Vox article is. Ok. Also Mathematician says that they have to use math in their work. Shall I add to that page that being a mathematician can also be because you were called that in Vox? Lesabot (talk) 11:37, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Vox is considered a reliable source. A verified Twitter account would probably not be considered a reliable source for opinions of others, and it certainly wouldn't trump neutral designations in multiple reliable third-party sources like Vox. No, you should not make that edit to the Mathematician article, because it's not notable and relevant to that subject. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:53, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Seems pretty relevant that being called a Mathematician in Vox is sufficient to get one labeled a Mathematician. It certainly would have helped me out. I mean, I thought that you actually had to do math as part of your work (per the entry). But, if that isn't the case then people should probably know that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lesabot (talk • contribs) 22:08, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

But is that fact—one about Wikipedia's own internal standards for sourcing—sufficiently notable for inclusion in the mathematician article? Can you find a source outside of Vox that discusses this fact about Vox and Wikipedia? The same logic would apply to biologist and a myriad of other articles about human occupations/endeavors/areas of specialty. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:51, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

The way sources describe Lindsay determines how our article describes Lindsay. This isn't that complicated. Schazjmd (talk) 22:56, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Because I think that people looking for mathematicians should actually find people who do math. Signed, a mathematician who actually does math Here, since a tweet from his account was good enough to cite (citation 2), here is another tweet from his account in which he states that he is a "dumbass" https://twitter.com/ConceptualJames/status/1379129802976858128 Can I add that to his list? Lesabot (talk) 23:11, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps the lead should read: "James Stephen Lindsay (born June 8, 1979), known professionally as James A. Lindsay, is an American mathematician, author, cultural critic, and self-professed dumbass." Lol. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:42, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Seems like the reliable sources say Lindsay is a mathemetician. As as outsider looking at this Talk page, it appears that there may be editors in this discussion that are trying to influence how the guy is described in this article because they don't like some aspect of his views. Wikipedia doesn't, or shouldn't, do that. Wikipedia can say that the person is whatever they are, and also explicate their notable/controversial/well-sourced views, just as long as not WP:UNDUE and keeping a neutral point of view. N2e (talk) 11:39, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

My issue is that I think things should both be verifiable AND true (as well as useful) if possible. Just because someone is described as something in a publication doesn't mean that they need that in their bio. Just like I said above, describing Hitler as "a painter" before anything else would be absurd, but even that isn't as absurd as calling Lindsey a mathematician. Or, is the going convention that we should shove every possible descriptor into a person's bio? If that is the case then game on. Lesabot (talk) 21:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Lindsay earned a Phd in Mathematics. According to Oxford dictionary and Merriam webster which are both considered secondary sources in wikipedia a mathematician is either "a person who is an expert in mathematics" (Oxford) or "a specialist or expert in mathematics" (Merriam Webster). Thus there is no arguing whether he is a mathematician. However because he is mainly an author and culture critic and not working in the fields of mathematics one could think about re-arranging the introduction text to author, culture critic and mathematician or similar variants...Mikeschaerer (talk) 00:12, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

People, get real. Regardless of what one may think of Lindsay's politics or his various activities, he is *not* what mathematicians would ever call a mathematician. Having a PhD does not make one a mathematician; one needs to get some original work done afterwards. What Wikipedia policy indicates we should call him is another issue - but hinting (or rather baldly stating) that "editors in this discussion that are trying to influence how the guy is described in this article [do so] because they don't like some aspect of his views" is both factually wrong and non-constructive.

Two (or rather three) cents: (a) stating that he has a PhD in mathematics is, of course, objective - and I do not see who would object to that sort of statement in the appropriate place of the article; (b) having a PhD in mathematics does not make one a specialist or an expert - it is the beginning of a road in that direction; (c) a periodical may be a reliable source on some subjects yet clearly not on the subject of professional qualifications (especially those with fuzzy edges). Garald (talk) 17:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps we can resolve this conflict by using the past tense to describe Lindsay's mathematical endeavors. He certainly has practiced mathematics and has obtained advanced degrees in the subject, but I have been unable to find any evidence that he has done so in the past decade. Stellaathena (talk) 14:42, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

It was in a somewhat off-the-cuff statement but in a recent video Lindsay referred to himself as a "former mathematician." [7] Vox, "reliable sources," etc. are likely to be wrong or at least imprecise about any number of things. Persons unfamiliar with academic professions often apply these labels liberally. Persons familiar with academic professions probably would colloquially call him a mathematician in the sense that this is his area of training or expertise, but probably would not call him a mathematician in the professional sense of continued practice and/or achievement in the area. Stellaathena's suggestion to just talk around it probably makes sense. Few Ingredients (talk) 20:49, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

For the record, Lindsay does not fit Wikipedia's own definition of a Mathematician. After his PhD he opened a massage studio before becoming an author on grievance studies.

Source: https://www.thedailytimes.com/news/maryville-man-walks-path-of-healing-and-combat/article_5ea3c0ca-2e98-5283-9e59-06861b8588cb.html

https://religionnews.com/2021/05/18/james-lindsay-southern-baptists-crt-al-mohler-hoax-new-discourses-beth-moorerace-ofallon/ 47.152.241.22 (talk) 13:21, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Massage and Twisted Roots

Are the reports that he was offered massage and martial arts services legit? I wonder if there are reputable sources on that? -Reagle (talk) 13:57, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I think that's a different guy with the same name. Masterhatch (talk) 15:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

What are you basing that on? The linked article quotes the subject as mentioning his mathematics doctorate in enumerative combinatorics. Lindsay has talked about his experience with martial arts also. Seems like that was his business. Few Ingredients (talk) 20:09, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah that is him -

https://religionnews.com/2021/05/18/james-lindsay-southern-baptists-crt-al-mohler-hoax-new-discourses-beth-moorerace-ofallon/ 47.152.241.22 (talk) 13:20, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Association with Nicki Clyne

Regarding James Lindsay's public association with controversial figure Nicki Clyne, I decided that this information was important to include. I added Lindsay's association with Clyne and explained why Clyne is a controversial figure, given Clyne's affiliation with NXIVM. The statement I added reads:

Lindsay is friends with Nicki Clyne who is affiliated with NXIVM, a multi-level marketing company and cult that engaged in sex trafficking, forced labour and racketeering.

However, this supported factual claim has been repeatedly misinterpreted and removed. Such information regarding associations with controversial figures is relevant and worthwhile including, particularly in the case of James Lindsay who himself is a controversial figure. I am presenting an entirely supported factual claim with evidence: James Lindsay is acquainted and on friendly terms with Clyne. The provided source is entirely adequate for this claim. Despite misinterpretations, I am not claiming Lindsay is directly affiliated with NXIVM. I am happy to edit the claim for those who find the current presentation misleading or feel it easy to misinterpret. The following presentation provides a clearer presentation of the relevant evidence:

Lindsay is friends with Nicki Clyne, who is affiliated with NXIVM, a multi-level marketing company and cult that engaged in sex trafficking, forced labour and racketeering.

For those who still disagree with this presentation, please state how you would like this information to be presented such that it satisfies Wikipedia's recommended editorial guidelines. --MWKwiki (talk) 12:16, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

MWKwiki, are there reliable, third-party sources that discuss the association between Lindsay and Clyne? If not, this isn't notable. Jweiss11 (talk) 12:42, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

You need a better source than simply a picture of them together to show a friendship. Besides that, without Lindsay actually being involved with NXIVM, I don't see the relavancy of mentioning an association with Clyne. Come up with a better reference that also shows why it's relevant. Masterhatch (talk) 12:57, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you both for your constructive criticism. In response to your feedback, I propose moving this to James A. Lindsay § Views and starting a new paragraph from the existing sentence. The new paragraph would read:

Lindsay opposes critical race theory and queer theory, describing them as part of "Woke Marxism", and argues that comprehensive sex education is part of "Cultural Marxism", referring to a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory. Lately, Lindsay has perpetuated the anti-LGBT "groomer" conspiracy, which has recently gained popularity and spread over social media as a result of Florida's "Don't Say Gay" bill. While Lindsay is vocally critical of "groomers" and sexual "grooming" in education, supposedly referring to sexual predators, he is also acquainted and friends with Nicki Clyne, who is affiliated with NXIVM, a multi-level marketing company and cult that engaged in sex trafficking, forced labour and racketeering. Clyne's partner Allison Mack was second-in-command of the secret subgroup within NXIVM called "DOS", known for its sexual slavery and branding.

Regarding Jweiss11 and Masterhatch's criticism of the source used to establish their friendship, I have replaced the primary source with a secondary source from a third-party and which properly illustrates said friendship. However, it would arguably be better to directly cite the tweets in this instance rather than referring to a secondary source, see WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. Regarding Masterhatch's criticism that it is not obviously relevant, I would say that someone being friends with a member of a cult known for sex trafficking and racketeering is already in itself worth mentioning. Most people are not friends with members of sex cults. However, I do understand your criticism and there is indeed a greater context missing in the previous draft. I have prefaced it with Lindsay's vocally critical views regarding "groomers" and sexual predators, which makes it more obvious why Lindsay's acquaintance and friendship with Clyne is relevant. --MWKwiki (talk) 03:19, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

MWKwiki, you're not going to establish the notability and relevance of Lindsay's relationship with Clyne with tweets, particularly from non-notable, unverified accounts. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:45, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I am happy to present the tweets from Lindsay, Clyne and others as a primary source to support this claim. The notability and relevance of their relationship has already been established by the provided context. Furthermore, the evidence provided by the Twitter source is sufficient to establish that Lindsay and Clyne are acquainted and have a friendship; a NYT article or equivalent is unnecessary. You are setting disproportionally and unnecessarily high standards on the evidence required to establish their acquaintance and friendship. MWKwiki (talk) 04:25, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree with some of the pushback to this proposal. Him being seen tweeting with a person or in a photo is not worthy of wikipedia. Please keep wiki straightforwardly unpolitic, non-defamatory, and avoid guilt by association innuendos. Academicskeptic9 (talk) 06:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I question whether @MWKwiki's proposal has been taken down in good faith. James Lindsay's principal "claim to fame" is his popularization of the pejorative term "groomer." Thus, his association with known groomers provides relevant context for a reader seeking to understand the depth and sincerity (or lack thereof) of his anti-groomer activism. 2600:4041:78E4:7B00:68C1:31E0:22E:7C (talk) 00:29, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe any proposal of MWKwiki's has been "taken down". The problem here remains is that we have no reliable sources here talking about Lindsay's relationship with Nicki Clyne. Tweets like https://twitter.com/mattbinder/status/1534237823343251458?lang=en don't establish a notable relationship, much less the editorializing in this edit. Lindsay and Clyne were on the same panel, along with Destiny (streamer) and others, at a conference in Texas earlier this year, see: https://betterdiscourseevent.com/schedule, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMvRx6tKVmM. This does not appear to be notable. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:02, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I thank the anonymous editor for bringing this topic up again. Unfortunately, I have given up pursuing this because it has run into the usual problem with Wikipedia, which is the abuse of Wikipedia's guidelines to establish and maintain one's own editorial authority. In this discussion, rather than recognising the essentially contested nature of journalistic concepts like evidence and sources (and in particular the notions of "reliability" and "objectivity"), it has become a matter of whether the evidence I present is from a "reliable source", rather than judging the quality of the evidence in itself.

In this case, while the evidence I have provided is sufficient to establish Lindsay's affiliations with, e.g. Nicki Clyne and NXIVM, it still does not meet the other editors' standards for "reliability" since it includes primary sources (both from Twitter and other sites) and secondary sources from, e.g. Salon (which they also dispute as "unreliable"). Because the New York Times, or an equivalent authority, will never write up a profile for a small figure like Lindsay, there will never be a citable source investigating Lindsay's own connections with "groomers". The editors maintaining Lindsay's Wikipedia page, who regularly add useful information and who make sure to preserve the dignity of Lindsay's character, clearly have no conflict of interest when it comes to the evidence I have presented here. MWKwiki (talk) 02:03, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

MWKwiki, your last comment here as has no relationship to an honoring of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia found at Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Notability. Should we add mention of Nicki Clyne to Destiny (streamer)? The Salon article you presented, which is cited in the article, does not discuss Nicki Clyne. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:21, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm admittedly new to attempting any Wikipedia edits, but your conception of "notability" does not appear to be consistent with the page you linked to. Wikipedia:Notability speaks to the standard that a topic must be held to in order to justify the creation of a stand-alone article. No one is suggesting the Clyne-Lindsay relationship warrants its own article.

Rather, Wikipedia:Notability states that "[t]he criteria applied to the creation or retention of an article are not the same as those applied to the content inside it. The notability guideline does not apply to the contents of articles."

I'll concede that Wikipedia:Reliable sources does exclude primary sources and user-generated content like Twitter, so per those standards even the original tweet from Nicki Clyne would be insufficiently "reliable". I suppose we will have to wait for that story to be picked up.

Lastly, I will point out that Destiny's page does make reference to his appearances alongside various controversial figures such as Nick Fuentes. I don't believe Destiny's appearance alongside Clyne necessarily warrants inclusion because I don't think it's particularly relevant to his biography.

Granted (and to my surprise), no journalist has written about the Lindsay-Clyne relationship either, but in the event that one does, the situation would obviously be distinct from Destiny given that "grooming" is a large part of Lindsay's brand nowadays. 2600:4041:78E4:7B00:68C1:31E0:22E:7C (talk) 03:39, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

See also WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD though. I note again the disputed nature of Wikipedia's editorial guidelines, which as I mentioned in my last comment, are used largely rhetorically, and referenced as a means to establish and maintain one's own editorial authority. I also played this game when I cited this guideline myself.

I make this point because, by Jweiss11's logic, even if Lindsay were to explicitly say, 'I am friends with Nicki Clyne', it would not be citeable until a "reliable" secondary source were to write an article mentioning it, which is a ridiculous standard to hold to. Jweiss11 has repeatedly downplayed the relationship between Lindsay and Clyne as a passing acquaintance, despite the evidence to the contrary, which shows Lindsay's happy affiliation and friendly relationship with Clyne (e.g. going on the road trip to the panel together, their friendly multi-year correspondence over Twitter, etc.). Jweiss11 has been repeatedly obtuse in understanding the relevance Lindsay's affiliation with Clyne has to the page, which 2600:4041:78E4:7B00:68C1:31E0:22E:7C has yet again pointed out.

At the risk of getting off topic, an example of the contested nature of sources (even those "reliable") would be Jweiss11's abuse of a Vox article to present Lindsay as a mathematician (which is still up despite being rightly contested by Lesabot). Lindsay does not have any published articles in mathematics, let alone hold a faculty position. By this logic, anyone with a PhD in mathematics is a mathematician, which is obviously wrong. Just because the cited Vox article mistakenly claims that Lindsay is a mathematician does not make it true. MWKwiki (talk) 05:09, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Self-published sources are typically acceptable for establishing basic, non-controversial facts, like a date of birth. If Lindsay were to publicly announce that he was engaged or married to Nicki Clyne, that would probably be worth referencing, although corroboration with a third-party sources is always better. But friends? Are we going to list all of Lindsay's friends here with an editorial interpretation of what each friendship says about his work? If anyone here wants to write a personal essay about how James Lindsay is a hypocrite for associating with Clyne, go ahead. Do it on a blog or on social media. But this isn't the place for that. Also, note that the Vox article is hardly the only independent source to refer to Lindsay as a mathematician ([8], [9], [10], [11], [12]). Jweiss11 (talk) 05:51, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

The strawmanning is really infuriating. I do not want to list all of Lindsay's friends. No one wants an editorial discussion of Lindsay's friendships. There is no slippery slope here. I want to mention Lindsay's affiliation with Clyne. I have no interest in writing a personal essay. My intention was/is to add the pertinent information that Lindsay, a public figure who calls everyone who disagrees with him a "groomer", is happy to affiliate with Clyne, a member of a sex-trafficking cult. You keep claiming this is not relevant for Wikipedia because incredibly, "this isn't the place for that". You do not get to unanimously decide what is and is not relevant information here. Why do you think you get to unanimously decide this?

I do not care how many news articles you find calling Lindsay a mathematician. Look up Google Scholar. Find me a mathematics publication by Lindsay. Point to a preprint. There are none. Calling Lindsay a mathematician grants him false authority. All sources claiming such are simply wrong, end of story. He is not a mathematician -- he has only completed a PhD in mathematics. MWKwiki (talk) 09:26, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Now that Lindsay's relationship with Clyne and the ensuing online fallout has been picked up by reliable third-party sources (https://www.dailydot.com/debug/james-lindsay-photo-nicki-clyne-nxivm-sex-cult-groomers/), it's inclusion in this article appears to be appropriate, in order to give a neutral point of view on Lindsay's anti-"groomer" activism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.95.174 (talk) 17:02, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

A simple resolution in the end, it seems. MWKwiki (talk) 23:18, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, now we have a third-party source, so this is a new development. We actually have a debate now. As for Daily Dot, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources states "There is no consensus regarding the general reliability of The Daily Dot, though it is considered fine for citing non-contentious claims of fact. Some editors have objected to its tone or consider it to be biased or opinionated; there is community consensus that attribution should be used in topics where the source is known to be biased or when the source is used to support contentious claims of fact. Consider whether content from this publication constitutes due weight before citing it in an article." Jweiss11 (talk) 23:41, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I stumbled into this while patrolling recent changes. Seems to me that this relationship should be filed under WP:UNDUE until a source more reliable than Daily Dot picks it up.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:19, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Daily Dot is "considered fine for citing non-contentious claims of fact." What is contentious about the claim that "he has attempted to suppress online discussion of his relationship with Nicki Clyne, who is affiliated with NXIVM, a multi-level marketing company and cult that engaged in sex trafficking, forced labour and racketeering."? Is it contended that they fabricated Lindsay's tweets where he asks his followers to report the picture? Or is it contended that NXIVM and Clyne are being unfairly characterized? The former hardly seems plausible, but the latter is no minority viewpoint - NXIVM's page here itself confirms that. Rather than engaging in an edit war (impossible since the page is now locked anyway), I am curious to hear arguments as to how referencing the Daily Dot article somehow gives undue weight. 2603:7000:8D00:1E55:8D76:7725:F1AE:BF73 (talk) 23:17, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I've scanned at what's going on on twitter. Lindsay isn't trying to suppress the fact that he knows Clyne. It's indeed a fact that they were co-panelists at an event on April 23, 2022, in Fort Worth Texas, called "Better Discourse Conference IV", and socialized with one another in around the event. What Lindsay appears to have objected to is mass spamming of the pictures with him and Clyne by activist and troll accounts. In the last few days it seems that any time he tweets anything about any subject, there's a barrage of tweets in response reposting the pictures. The Daily Dot doesn't seem to have done any real investigating—even less than I have here. They failed to provide any context about the pictures—when and where were they taken and under what circumstances. The Daily Dot article is basically just a journalistic extension of what various twitter activists have been trying to accomplish—to paint Lindsay as a hypocrite in order to undermine his activism. And now we see this Twitter activism leaking over here, before and after the publication of the Daily Dot piece. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:02, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

The proposed edit did not claim Lindsay was trying to suppress "the fact that he knows Clyne". Instead, as you apparently concede (and the Daily Dot article states), Lindsay is trying to suppress online discussion of their relationship, insofar as he is seeking to supress the spread of those particular photos, which has occurred on both the political left and the right (e.g., @AnOpenSecret, featured in the Daily Dot article itself). I'm unaware of any reliable sources indicating that the spread of the photos is the result of any disingenuous coordinated activism or trolling (see Wikipedia:No original research). Characterizing the discussion as "mass spamming" thus appears to be contra Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Perhaps the edit can be further rewritten to make mention of the panel, as that context can also be verified via reliable source, if you think that would add balance. However, if it is simply your opinion that Lindsay is justified in such attempts at suppression, then as you suggested earlier in this thread, that would make for a great blog post, but it does not justify censoring his Wikipedia page. 2603:7000:8D00:1E55:8D76:7725:F1AE:BF73 (talk) 00:49, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure if Lindsay is justified in calling for reporting, but he's not doing so to suppress info. Rather's he annoyed by a massive, coordinated spam campaign of scores of different accounts repeatedly posting the same photo over and over again. I'm also unaware of an any reliable sources indicating that the spread of the photos is the result of any disingenuous coordinated activism or trolling. That's my summation of what's going on (in this non-notable event), so it clearly doesn't belong in the article. Similarly, I'm unaware of any quality reporting on this entire episode, thus I don't think it should be included in the article. I would have preferred not to have had to discuss any of this on a Wikipedia talk page—I'm not the one who took content better suited for a personal blog post and put it in Wikipedia's mainspace. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:09, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Fully agree. Lindsay's affiliation with Clyne is (as this point) nothing more than socializing at an event. There is nothing notable about their friendship. Kameejl ^(Talk) 06:48, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Incidentally, if this info is included in the page, I think we should avoid using the phrase "his relationship with Nicki Clyne" (per one previous version). My impression is that the word "relationship" could be misleading to casual readers as it could imply that they are dating which, as far as I can tell, is not the case. They did meet in person at least once and seemed to have a (very) friendly interaction. Until we know more, we should not suggest anything else. Psychloppos (talk) 12:55, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

To foster the integrity of this discussion, I want to point out once more that "notability" is not the standard for whether a particular fact warrants inclusion in an article on a larger topic (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability). I have nothing more to add as neither reply engages with the substance of my earlier post. 2603:7000:8D00:1E55:852E:63FB:66AB:B042 (talk) 01:38, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Actually, I had a look at his Twitter account where this drama is apparently taking place. At first, he laughed at it and did not seem embarrassed at all (though he did not bother to explain why he was taking it so lightly), only to show signs of annoyance when the picture kept showing up multiple times in his Twitter feed.

If this is mentioned in this page, I'd say it should read a bit like "On [insert date here], Lindsay spoke at [insert name of event here] where he was a co-panelist with Nicki Clyne. In 2022, in the context of Lindsay's comments about "groomers", a photograph of Lindsay posing with Clyne was used to troll Lindsay on social media, by referencing Clyne's connexion to the NXIVM sexual abuse case".

I'm not sure that this is very notable or interesting, but if we do mention it I think it should be in this manner so we can keep it neutral. Psychloppos (talk) 19:43, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

"referring to a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory"

On April 20, NorthBySouthBaranof added the phrase "referring to a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory" to the end of the Views section following mention of "Cultural Marxism". On April 24, YechezkelZilber reverted this edit noting "editorialism". NorthBySouthBaranof reverted YechezkelZilber a few hours later to restore the content. A short while ago, I removed this phrase a second time, again noting editorialism. Soon after, MWKwiki reverted my edit with edit summary "you are now unilaterally removing previous changes by NorthBySouthBaranof without any discussion. These views are well known to be a conspiracy theory so there is nothing "neutral" about this change. Please bring NorthBySouthBaranof into the discussion on the talk page."

WP:BRD informs us that this removal of the recently added content, having been challenged, should be upheld pending discussion. The onus is really on those supporting the newly-added content to open the discussion, but I'm happy to do so now.

As for the substance of the matter here, the relevant source is https://www.salon.com/2022/02/17/meet-james-lindsay-the-far-rights-world-level-expert-on-crt-and-race-marxism/. This is a biased, opinion/hit-piece typical of Salon.com. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources notes: "There is no consensus on the reliability of Salon. Editors consider Salon biased or opinionated, and its statements should be attributed." This piece should not be used to impugn a BLP as an anti-Semite in wikivoice. Furthermore, there ought to be ways to discuss cultural application of Marxism or those discussing the cultural application of Marxism without devolving into the label of "antisemitic conspiracy theory". Jweiss11 (talk) 04:43, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

agreed. Lindsay has discussed Marxism and it's offshoots at length, with references etc. right or wrong, it is far from what we usually call conspiracy

ofc, isn't Salon etc with no RS is unacceptable. esp in BLP Jazi Zilber (talk) 07:18, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Well done removing this. This line does not belong on Wikipedia. Manchester18 (talk) 19:42, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

So long as there is no reference in this article to the discredited "Cultural Marxism" conspiracy theory, we need not explain what the conspiracy theory is. We cannot, of course, quote someone alleging that something is part of so-called "Cultural Marxism" without being crystal-clear that it is a conspiracy theory. One is not entitled to their own facts, and it is an impeccably-sourced fact that so-called "Cultural Marxism" is an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory. That has been settled by repeated RFCs and this article is not the place you get to try and relitigate that conclusion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:46, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

The subject freely uses the term "cultural marxism". He has an entire podcast episode titled "Groomer Schools 1: The Long Cultural Marxist History of Sex Education" and the Salon article gives context specifically on how the he uses the term, how his use has evolved, and how it relates to the anti-semitic conspiracy theory. WP:RSP does not say Salon can't be used, but rather: "[the source] is marginally reliable (i.e. neither generally reliable nor generally unreliable), and may be usable depending on context." Given the detail the author provides, to characterize the article as a hit-piece is wrong -- the researcher he cites (for what it's worth) has been published for similar topics in the Washington Post, so this isn't just an opinion piece based off of some tweets. Removing all reference to the subject's use of the term is wrong. Citing (talk) 00:53, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Okay, well this WAPO piece never mentions Lindsay. It's also unclear that Lindsay's use of term "cultural marxism" is the same concept described in Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. Is there any coverage of Lindsay talking about Jews? Does he ever mention Jews in that newdiscourses.com piece? Jweiss11 (talk) 01:53, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

My point is the Salon piece cites a researcher with knowledge of the topic (the WaPo article helps establish some credibility of Hoadley-Brill, the researcher in question) and goes into the antisemitic aspect in detail:

While Lindsay used to acknowledge on his website that "Cultural Marxism," a term embraced a few years ago by the alt-right, was associated with antisemitism and white supremacy, and warned people against using it, nowadays such caution has been thrown to the wind. In Lindsay's new book, Hoadley-Brill notes, he argues that "neo-Marxists" have successfully redefined Cultural Marxism to smear it by association with antisemitism. Last fall, Lindsay published an episode of his podcast entitled "Groomer Schools 1: The Long Cultural Marxist History of Sex Education," which argues that sex-ed classes aren't "just a fluke of our weird and increasingly degenerate times" but "a long-purposed Marxist project reaching back into the early 20th century." On Twitter, he responds to people concerned about the spread of "Don't Say Gay" bills with the pithy, "Ok groomer," effectively accusing anyone who believes children should learn that LGBTQ people are part of the human community of being a pedophile.

He [Lindsay] is well-aware of the antisemitic use of "Cultural Marxism" and is now arguing (speciously, I would say) that neo-Marxists have redefined the term to make it into something antisemitic. Citing (talk) 13:55, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

How is cultural Maxsim a conspiracy theory? Are you saying Gramsci didn't live? Wasn't a Maxest? Wasn't interested in changing the culture? Dosen't have influence in the formation of critical theory? 108.30.185.179 (talk) 18:18, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

«How is cultural Maxsim a conspiracy theory?» => This is explained in those articles:

• Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory
• https://journals.openedition.org/amnis/2004
• Jérôme Jamin, Cultural Marxism and the Radical Right, https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9781137396211_4
• Tanner Mirrlees, The Alt-right's Discourse on "Cultural Marxism": A Political Instrument of Intersectional Hate, https://journals.msvu.ca/index.php/atlantis/article/view/5403
• Martin Jay, Dialectic of Counter-Enlightenment: The Frankfurt School as Scapegoat of the Lunatic Fringe, https://www.jstor.org/stable/41638676
• Andrew Woods, Cultural Marxism and the Cathedral: Two Alt-Right Perspectives on Critical Theory, https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-18753-8_3
• Jérôme Jamin, Cultural Marxism: A survey, https://doi.org/10.1111/rec3.12258
• Rachel Busbridge, Cultural Marxism: far-right conspiracy theory in Australia’s culture wars, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13504630.2020.1787822
• Joan Braune, Who's Afraid of the Frankfurt School? 'Cultural Marxism' as an Antisemitic Conspiracy Theory, http://transformativestudies.org/publications/journal-of-social-justice/past-issues-jsj/journal-of-social-justice-volume-9-2019/
• https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2003/cultural-marxism-catching
• http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9029472
• http://backdoorbroadcasting.net/2012/09/jerome-jamin-cultural-marxism-in-the-anglo-saxon-radical-right-literature/
• https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/13/opinion/cultural-marxism-anti-semitism.html https://web.archive.org/web/20190301000000*/https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/13/opinion/cultural-marxism-anti-semitism.html
• https://www.smh.com.au/world/cultural-marxism--the-ultimate-postfactual-dog-whistle-20171102-gzd7lq.html
• https://www.salon.com/2019/05/05/a-users-guide-to-cultural-marxism-anti-semitic-conspiracy-theory-reloaded/
• https://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2019/08/28/le-marxisme-culturel-fantasme-prefere-de-l-extreme-droite_5503567_3232.html
• https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/78mnny/unwrapping-the-conspiracy-theory-that-drives-the-alt-right
• https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/1/23/1828527/-How-the-cultural-Marxism-hoax-began-and-why-it-s-spreading-into-the-mainstream

Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:25, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Regardless of any speculation about how Lindsay is interpreting this conspiracy theory, the far-right and anti-semitic origins and nature of the theory itself are unchanged. That said, I see no reason to credulously accept Lindsay's denials of espousing far-right and anti-semitic ideas, especially given his current trajectory into the further extremes of American right-wing ideology. Who is best served by removing this important context from the article? It certainly serves the subject's efforts to decouple his extremist views from their historical context, but I see no benefit to a neutral reader. VibrantThumpcake (talk) 22:51, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I removed this bit about the anti-Semitism. It's highly misleading and possibly defamatory. We need better sourcing that one hit piece from Salon. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:21, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree: let's keep wiki just a little bit less defamatory than pieces in Salon--even the writers at Salon would acknowledge they are not writing an encyclopedia. Polular media is driven by controversy and clicks--wiki is not or should not be. I also think the ground truth is useful in deciding to take interpretations from a hit piece--I think the ground truth is that Dr Lindsay has said many things that demonstrate his argument is against Marxist frameworks of seeing the world, not a race of people. He may be wrong about those frameworks, but still. Cultural marxism to non-racist conservatives and classical liberals is taken to mean the change from economic Marxism (poor, rich) to a cultural focus (oppressor races, oppressed races) in the critical theory movement. He clearly objects to Hegel's and Marx's basic theory rather than the race of several of the first few critical theorists. I understand the left argues that the term is secretly anti-semitic (and it might actually be in some right wingers--I've never met one, but still, but certainly not all), and they have the right to propose that hypothesis--but wiki can't decide that that hypothesis is the objective truth. Notice that the idea that the cultural marxism is a dog whistle for anti-semitism is in itself a little bit of a conspiracy theory. Let's reduce conspiracy theories in general on wiki. Academicskeptic9 (talk) 07:13, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Besides his use of the term "cultural marxism", is there any evidence that Linsday is antisemitic ? And is this phrase systematically associated with Jews, and antisemitism ? I may be wrong but I'm under the impression that "cultural marxism" is a relatively ill-defined concept and that lately, it has become a bit of a portmanteau / umbrella term for "everything that is wrong in the Left". It seems to be just a more intellectual way to say "Woke" (which is itself an umbrella term). Psychloppos (talk)

The term "Cultural Bolshevism" was used by the Nazi's. I suspect much of the criticism is a deliberate or useful conflation of the concept, but it is also quite an unfortunate name given this history. It is quite clearly the case that certain conceptions of intersectional social justice were influenced by Marxist theory - it's all over the literature. But then there's revolutionary marxism, and then marxism - a fairly respected school of philosophical thought. Talpedia (talk) 03:26, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Replying to psychloppos: there is precisely zero evidence that Dr Lindsay is anti-semitic. It marks quite a disaster for wiki that left-wing-authoritarian people have figured out they can use wiki to targeted people like this. (I know most of us are agreed on this, and this comment applies not just to Lindsay--many others have been targetted on wiki in this way too). Academicskeptic9 (talk) 19:00, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

A reliable source has characterized the subject as antisemitic, so that is what we do here, follow the sources. As a counter-balance, the subject's denial is included immediately after. There is no issue here. Zaathras (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

There's definitely an issue here. "A reliable source"? We're basing the accusation of Lindsay's anti-semitism largely or entirely on the opinion of Aaron Rabinowitz writing in The Skeptic [13]. What do other other reliable sources say about this? And are there are other sources commenting on this topic that might not be deemed "reliable" here because of systemic biases within Wikipedia? Jweiss11 (talk) 19:32, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

«is there any evidence that Linsday is antisemitic ?» => Not as i know, which is similar case than Jordan Peterson: «Peterson's rabid anti-leftism makes him an easy mark for fascist propaganda. Right-wing anti-Semites in Hitler's day spun elaborate conspiracy theories linking Jews and leftists, and supposedly centrist politicians who hated and feared Communism believed them. Today, right-wing anti-Semites spin elaborate conspiracy theories linking Jews and leftists, and Peterson, gazing at the Soviet-era art on his walls, believes them. If Yair Netanyahu can be dragged into anti-Semitism via anti-leftism, there's no reason to expect Jordan Peterson to resist.» Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:25, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

«is this phrase systematically associated with Jews, and antisemitism ?» => No. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:25, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

«I may be wrong but I'm under the impression that "cultural marxism" is a relatively ill-defined concept and that lately, it has become a bit of a portmanteau / umbrella term for "everything that is wrong in the Left". It seems to be just a more intellectual way to say "Woke" (which is itself an umbrella term).» => You are right. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:25, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Inclusion of content only sourced to a tweet

I wonder what the reason for including "considers the rainbow flag as representing "a hostile enemy"" is. Why include this and not any other of his numerous tweets absent secondary coverage? 129.67.117.15 (talk) 22:14, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Not sure was the reason was by whoever added it, but I just removed it because there's no evidence of notability there. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:19, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Didn't see that this had been opened here prior to the revert. Transposing the bulk of my comment here: "...notability seems self-evident: anti-LGBTQ+ activism is Lindsay's current focus and is a significant source of his current notoriety. Including his own words to this effect adds important context for the preceding text and meets WP:BLPSELFPUB." VibrantThumpcake (talk) 03:36, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Not trying to edit war so I'll leave it for now, but I would like to be pointed to the guidelines that would argue for the removal of the tweet if anyone has the time and inclination. All good if I'm wrong about this, but I've not been able to find it on my own. VibrantThumpcake (talk) 03:55, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

If this was notable, some reliable third-party would report on it. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:36, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok, but that doesn’t necessarily justify removing the material, at least not according to WP:NNC: The criteria applied to the creation or retention of an article are not the same as those applied to the content inside it. The notability guidelines do not apply to contents of articles or lists (with the exception of lists that restrict inclusion to notable items or people). And again, this is a tweet by the subject that supports the preceding text and illustrates the views for which the subject is currently most notable, in the subject’s own words. Secondary sources would be nice, but their absence does not diminish the value of keeping the text in question.VibrantThumpcake (talk) 16:42, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

So, we can build the article with content based on any of Lindsay's tweets as a source? How about any tweet from any other notable person? Jweiss11 (talk) 03:18, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

No, but that's an impressive strawman. I've already cited the guidelines and reasoning that justify including this specific tweet in this specific instance. If you want to argue against those, let's do that instead of hurling fallacies at each other. VibrantThumpcake (talk) 18:11, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

It's not a strawman. You argument is that in your opinion the content of this tweet is so important that should be included in the article even though there is no third-party coverage of it; "notability seems self-evident"—to you. What about someone else's opinion that the same is true for any other Lindsay's other thousands of tweets? Jweiss11 (talk) 18:18, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

"How about any tweet from any other notable person?" is a wildly hyperbolic strawman in the context of this conversation. Now you're trying to say that my only argument is that one of my comments yesterday had the words "notability is self-evident" but in the same comment I went on to provide the reasoning for inclusion and against deletion. So another strawman, and continued refusal to engage with the substance of my argument. VibrantThumpcake (talk) 22:14, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Tweets are often made in jest. They shouldn’t be the basis for describing someone’s personal views, particularly someone controversial like Lindsay, without good third party coverage. Thriley (talk) 22:19, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree: tweets should not be used in wiki articles to interpret the person in negative or positive ways. Like others have noted, they are transitory and sometimes jokes, and difficult to interpret as evidence of long term views. Look to his published text in books perhaps for his more measured positions (or unmeasured). Academicskeptic9 (talk) 07:16, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Possible copyvio

It would appear there may be a copyright issue with turning point usa, but it may be that tpusa copied WP, rather than the other way around.Jacona (talk) 12:29, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Honesty

James Lindsay isn't a conservative but a Classical Liberal. Helen Pluckrose is also a Classical Liberal. Look her up. And so is Peter Boghossian. These three people are Classical Liberals. You don't know what Classical Liberalism is because you have mistaken it for being a conservative. Look it up. 2600:1700:30F0:6E60:5DBF:70BF:8B66:9A0F (talk) 20:07, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

American conservatism is a form of classical liberalistm. You're drawing a distinction without a difference. MrOllie (talk) 18:02, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

References

I tend to agree with 9A0F in that Lindsay has described himself as a liberal, and it is a little unencyclopedic to be naming people into different camps due to the motivated politics of wikipedia editors. In most cases, wiki should reflect facts--for example "Lindsay has described himself as a liberal [sources], has also said .....[sources], and has attended ....[source]). Notice this approach in a sense leads to sentences that are 100% objectively correct. Academicskeptic9 (talk) 03:10, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Many reputable sources have characterized Lindsay as right-wing, conservative, or even far-right. At some point, there should be a recognition that Lindsay's self-description is less pertinent than the content and context of his public output. Whatever his previous work or statements may suggest, he now promotes a broad range of unequivocally right-wing ideas, is funded and promoted exclusively by right-wing donors and organizations like TPUSA and Michael O'Fallon, among others, and has a primarily right-wing audience. There is simply no credible argument that he is not conservative/right-wing, even if he is playing still trying to play the "classical liberal" card. And anyway, Mr.Ollie is correct re: the expression of classical liberalism in modern U.S. politics, so even by that standard, Lindsay is firmly on the right. 2600:1012:A005:A1A0:545A:FB05:D617:8F72 (talk) 12:14, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

wiki is not the place for this. It is supposed to be neutral and state facts. Academicskeptic9 (talk) 09:33, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Updating the lede to reflect Lindsay’s status as a right-wing/far-right commentator

I think that it’s long-past time to update this page to reflect Lindsay’s most notable role in modern discourse. As has been noted in previous sections, he is still referred to as a mathematician despite having no significant contribution to the field of mathematics, and has increasingly been referred to as “conservative”, “right-wing”, “far-right” by RS as prominent as NBC News:

From NBC News: “….James Lindsay, a right-wing media personality...” - [14]https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/elon-musks-twitter-beginning-take-shape-rcna58940

From the ADL: ”… conservative pundits Christopher Rufo and James Lindsay…” - [15]https://www.adl.org/resources/blog/what-grooming-truth-behind-dangerous-bigoted-lie-targeting-lgbtq-community

From Mother Jones: “…James Lindsay, a math Ph.D., former massage therapist, and conservative commentator…” - [16]https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2022/08/the-most-powerful-moms-in-america-are-the-new-face-of-the-republican-party/ VibrantThumpcake (talk) 08:40, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I'd say it would be fair to present him as a conservative. I did my best to show how he identifies politically, and apparently he has no problem with being called a conservative even though he says he does not quite identify as one. "Far right" seems excessive, though time will tell how he evolves. As for him being a right-winger, he certainly does his best to sound like one on social media, although he might do so as a deliberate provocation (which I don't think is very productive, but I digress). For the time being, "conservative" seems to be rather balanced description of his political stance.

However, it would also be useful to mention in the lede that he formerly identified as a liberal (as far as 2018 if I'm not mistaken: it seems that he has gone through a very rapid political shift, which makes his case interesting).

As for him being a mathematician, he is certainly trained as one and from what I saw he worked as a math teacher; so I'm not quite sure what to make of it. Doesn't having a phD in mathematics make one a mathematician ? (I'm honestly asking) I'd say this is at least useful to show that he has academic credentials - no more and no less. Psychloppos (talk) 20:41, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't think far-right is excessive at all: https://www.mediamatters.org/twitter/anti-lgbtq-hate-has-increased-twitter-elon-musk-officially-acquired-company Peleio Aquiles (talk) 21:26, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, even this article from a pretty biased (left-wing) source calls him "right-wing" and not "far-right".

I personally wouldn't disagree with "right-wing" - at least based on the content of Lindsay's social media posts - but if we want to remain prudent we may stick with "conservative".

I really think it would be necessary to mention his rapid political evolution in the lede. As someone who had followed the grievance studies affair in 2018 and came across his social media activity in early 2021, my reaction was "Huh... is that the same guy ?"

What we could write in the lede is that he identified as a left-wing liberal (as far as 2018, unless I'm wrong) then went on to become a conservative (since he accepts that label), and that he is labeled as right-wing by various sources. IMHO that would be a fair description of his political stance. Psychloppos (talk) 21:47, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I think there is merit to both of your arguments re: "far-right" vs. "right-wing". I do agree with Peleio Aquiles that "far-right" is probably more accurate, and I'll note that Lindsay is referred as a "...far-right podcaster" to in this recent article from EducationWeek:

[[17]]

While I can't find any prior discussion about this source on WP, Education Week is given high ratings for reliability and is rated as neutral by the two most prominent "media bias" websites:

[[18]]

[[19]]

However, I'm also inclined to agree with Psychloppos that it may be premature (at least by WP standards) to use "far-right" until, and if, it becomes more widely used in factual reporting. With that, "right-wing" seems like a good compromise and appears to be well-supported as an accurate and increasingly commonly-used descriptor. NBC News, per my original comment, uses "right-wing" and is listed on WP:RS/P as a consensus RS with no other qualifications.

To your suggestion re: Lindsay's rightward shift, I understand the reasoning and agree that it is worth inclusion in the article. However, I think the article as currently written does a sufficient job of stating this point. I'm wary of giving Lindsay's self-description of his past beliefs the same weight as his current views, for the same reason that I agree with previous arguments against including his work as a massage therapist in the lede. He may well have considered himself left-liberal in the past, but I'm not aware of any notable work by Lindsay that reflects or advances the values associated with the modern political left. His atheist writing is the closest thing I can think of, but he wasn't a particularly prominent figure in "New Atheism", a movement which in any case has borne itself out as far from synonymous with any definition of "the left".

I also just want to clarify that I'm not arguing that the "mathematician" title be removed. Folks who pursue academic/research careers tend to have a narrower definition, but most readers probably consider a PhD sufficient to warrant the title. I just wanted to point it out as a baseline for inclusion in the lede.VibrantThumpcake (talk) 08:40, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I've restored the December 14 version with a slight edit of word ordering. I oppose adding "right-wing" to the lead in this manner. Lindsey's political orientation is clearly complex and "right-wing" doesn't do service to explain it an a neutral way. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:43, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

This seems like an argument based on speculation and your own interpretation/synthesis. Numerous reliable sources label Lindsay as “conservative”, “far-right”, or “right-wing”. Can you bring any reliable sources which speak to the complexity of his political orientation? Do you have any RSs which use a different descriptor or negate any of the labels I’ve proposed? I did what I could to identify any such sources prior to proposing this change as I anticipated some pushback, but was unable to find anything.

I can provide more RS in support of my proposed change as well. This article from Colorado Newsline refers to Lindsay as a “right-wing academic”: [20]https://coloradonewsline.com/2021/06/12/ousted-space-force-commander-defended-by-rep-lamborn-advanced-white-genocide-theory-in-book/

Colorado Newsline is part of the States Newsroom network. While this source does not appear to have been discussed on WP:RS/N, several of their affiliates have partnered with ProPublica, a perennial RS with a strong consensus for reliability and accuracy.

He has been described as a “conservative author” by the Seattle Times, an outlet which has been awarded multiple Pulitzer prizes for journalism: [21]https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/idaho-primary-pits-conservative-governor-against-trump-backed-candidate-with-white-nationalist-ties/VibrantThumpcake (talk) 00:36, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

The complexity I'm talking about is already in the article in the "Views" section. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:51, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Based on self-description, not factual reporting from RSs. VibrantThumpcake (talk) 01:02, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

No, based on two third-parties sources, which are cited. And here's another source that describes him as a defender of liberalism. [22]. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:13, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Or, to paraphrase Jweiss11 from an earlier discussion on this page:

“When in doubt, we go by the what the reliable sources say. The reliable sources call Lindsay [conservative/right-wing/far-right].”VibrantThumpcake (talk) 01:08, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

So to recap, you’re citing:

1. A Salon article which labels Lindsay as far-right in the title and which you yourself have previously described as “… a biased, opinion/hit-piece…”.

2. An interview where Lindsay self-describes his own views and concedes that he may in fact be conservative, even if he doesn’t like the label.

3. A book review which states “…you soon learn that Lindsay has a shallow understanding… …of… …the classical liberal tradition he seeks to defend” and also explicitly notes that liberalism has both left- and right- flavors (“… both right- and left-liberal…”), and further describes Lindsay as a conservative in the fourth paragraph.

None of there are factual reporting and two of which appear to more strongly support my proposed labels. VibrantThumpcake (talk) 01:34, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, which all means we have a mess of conflicting judgements about Lindsay's political orientation, which don't suit a simple label in the lead. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:38, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

No, all of these are either based on Lindsay’s judgement of his own view, or acknowledgement of views he may have held in the past. Meanwhile, all recent reliable and factual reporting which does describe his views uses one of the proposed descriptors. VibrantThumpcake (talk) 01:47, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

How is someone's judgement in an opinion piece (even in a designated RS) a fact? Jweiss11 (talk) 02:05, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Which of the NBC News, Ed Week, Colorado Newsline, and Seattle Times citations I’ve used are opinion pieces? VibrantThumpcake (talk) 02:08, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

All of them fall broadly in political feature/opinion. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:18, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Nonsense. They are all political news I guess, but to say they’re opinion pieces strains credulity here. The Seattle Times piece, for example, is filed under “news”. The writers on the NBC News, Ed Week, and Seattle Times pieces all explicitly have “reporter” in their bios. None are labeled as or editorial or opinion. VibrantThumpcake (talk) 02:32, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like potential opinion laundering to me. Nonetheless, even in a cold, AP release-style story, the political orientation of a figure like Lindsay would not be a statement of fact. It would be a judgement. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:42, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

This strikes me as grasping at straws. The fact that you don’t like the coverage doesn’t make it opinion laundering. By your metrics, we can’t label anyone’s politics. That’s a fine metric to have, but it’s your metric, not WP’s. VibrantThumpcake (talk) 02:57, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Have there been any pieces that examine his views and explain how they are right wing? I’m not sure passing mentions are good enough to support such a label in the lead. Thriley (talk) 03:40, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

This seems like setting the bar awfully high, given the long-standing description of Lindsay as a mathematician is not backed up by sources that go in-depth to support the title. I would also point to the references used to support long-standing descriptions of Stefan Molyneux as a white nationalist and white supremacist. These seem roughly on par with the available references to support labeling Lindsay as I have proposed. VibrantThumpcake (talk) 04:27, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I think it is generally understood that someone with a PhD in a certain subject should have that indicated in the first sentence of their biography. Thriley (talk) 04:36, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Molyneux is explicitly partisan and easily categorizable. I don’t think Lindsay is. I think the section on his views does a good job and currently does not indicate he is explicitly right-wing. Thriley (talk) 04:38, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

But again, this is not about what you or I may think of his politics. I consider anyone who uses the type of hysterical and dehumanizng rhetoric which Lindsay employs against LGBTQ+ people to obviously be fairly far to the right. But I’m not basing the descriptors on what I think, otherwise I would be pushing for “far-right”. Instead, I’ve presented citations from high-quality, reliable sources which use one of the three proposed descriptors, all of which should, by WP standards, be weighted more heavily than the citations in the current section on his views. I have not found, and no one has presented, any citations from RSs equal weight to support any other descriptors. Instead, the objections so far seem to be based primarily on subjective assessments of Lindsay’s politics and/or attempts to delegitimize the credibility of citations I’ve presented. VibrantThumpcake (talk) 05:39, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I run the risk of repeating myself, but I really think that highlighting Lindsay's political evolution is essential. "Cynical Theories" passed very well as the work of center-left authors and if memory helps it was an essential part of the book's promotion. The grievance studies hoax also worked from that perspective. Since then, however, Lindsay appears to have shifted rightward at breakneck speed. Being critical of current gender-identity politics does not make one right-wing, or even conservative, per se: but his rethoric on social media goes much further. Even though I think that calling him a far right commentator would be premature, I also think that if he goes on like that, he will probably qualify unequivocally as such in the future (unless he shifts so much to the right that he does a 360° turn and ends up on the left again). I can accept the idea that Lindsay's current political stance is more nuanced than that and that he is just being a provocateur: but if he wants to appear as something else than right-wing he really needs to rethink the way he communicates on social media. To someone who read "Cynical Theories" in 2018 and followed the grievance studies controversy, the evolution is spectacular to say the least. So it really has to be mentioned more than in passing: if not in the lede, at least in the article.

The problem is that Lindsay is a pretty recent public figure: apparently he did qualify as a left-wing commentator back in the day, but the general public only became aware of him in 2018 at the time of the grievance studies hoax. So we don't have that many sources about him, and as far as I know we don't have yet a detailed, in-depth account of what made him change like that and so quickly (my theory is that he spent too much time on Twitter, but that's just me). However, that should not prevent Wikipedia from trying to give a balanced view of his public positions and the way they evolved. Psychloppos (talk) 09:50, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree with much of psychloppos and jweiss11's position. Dr Lindsay's wiki page should not include inaccurate statements or defamation. It should also nto idea-launder opinion pieces as fact. He still appears to be a classical liberal who really beleives that freedoms are under attack. WHether right or wrong, he is essentially opposed to Hegelian/Marxist frameworks, as many classical liberals have been for over a century. He is not anti-gay, but he is anti-critical-gender-studies that has a Marxist framework underlying the theory. He should not be labelled far-right on wiki. Write a piece on Medium if you wish to label him such, instead of vandalising wiki. Academicskeptic9 (talk) 09:43, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I’m not going to engage with most of this word-salad because it’s not relevant to this discussion. I’ll just keep asking: where are all the reliable sources that label him a “classical liberal” and outweigh the references I’ve cited? What can you cite to back up your claims that factual reporting on Lindsay is “opinion laundering”? Because as it stands, we’ve got WP:RS/P vs. a growing chorus of WP:JDL VibrantThumpcake (talk) 10:45, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Psychloppos, there’s definitely truth to this. I’d argue that your point about how Lindsay’s work with Pluckrose and Boghossian was marketed is a good illustration of why Lindsay and others might profess to be liberals or leftists, and why we should be wary of taking them at face-value. But it’s also clear that Lindsay’s trajectory has been radically different than Pluckrose’s, and the speed of his lurch to the right has been wild to see. I guess I’d say that while I’m still opposed in principle to discussing it in the lede, I’ll withdraw my formal objection to including it. VibrantThumpcake (talk) 21:12, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

People should not use wiki to defame a person in/on an encyclopedia--you should do that somewhere else. The way to fairly describe a person's position would be to use their words in context, and describe the events they have attended without commentary. For example, Dr X has described his poistion as " ....". He has written y books, on the subjects of .... He has attended ...., and appeared on .... Keep everything descriptive and do not idea-launder opinion pieces. In addition, do not use Twitter as a source--because it is a highly antagonistic setting without enough context. It would be more encyclopedic to use what he says in his books or online articles. PS: To address the title of this section: I see no evidence that he is right wing or far right. I estimate former left leaning and now either the same or centrist--he is antagonised not by the tradiational left, but by what he sees as neo-marxism. Left wingers can be anti-cultural-marxism. If he ever comes to consistently describe himself as right wing, then put that in as a quote. Eg Dr Lindsay has described himself as "....." Academicskeptic9 (talk) 08:41, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

No, we can absolutely describe someone as conservative or right-wing if that’s how they are labeled by the majority of reliable sources. I don’t think Richard B. Spencer has ever called himself a “neo-nazi”, but he is widely understood to be one, and is referred to as such in most news articles. None of the citations for the proposed change are from Twitter, so not sure why you’re bringing it up. The rest of your comment is just your opinion and a bunch of hyperbolic multi-hyphenate adjectives that have no bearing on this discussion. VibrantThumpcake (talk) 19:52, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm repeating myself again, but we might write something like : "Lindsay says that he originally identified as a left-wing liberal but no longer does so, and considers himself a classical liberal instead. He is strongly critical of "woke" politics: various sources present him as conservative (a label he accepts) or right-wing". Do you think this would be fair and balanced enough ?

At the very least, I'd say his vocal opposition to "wokeism" has to be mentioned in the lede. It is something hardly debatable and IMHO it's one of the most useful infos about his political positions. Psychloppos (talk) 14:57, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory rejected by mainstream scholars

The citations for content are about as good as they get. There is no evidence that they are 'biased marxist sources' as the deleter claims. It is worth noting that assuming these authors are Marxists is the same as assuming the conspiracy theory is true. MrOllie (talk) 03:18, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

No they are not. The citations themselves are from two marxist authors who specifically writing about marxism as a focal point of their writing that is being dismissed or contested by the living person's biography that you are editing. Specifically, it is not an assumption that they are Marxist or Critical Theory supporters, it is written in their university biographies as a primary source. This would be like relying on self-proclaimed oil executive author commenting upon the living biography of a famous environmentalist. Not a single wikipedia editor would allow such a biased source on a living person. I made no comment on the conspiracy theories that James A. Lindsey believes or doesn't believe and I have not changed any citations that were from a credible source. But trying to claim something is "mainstream scholarship" and then citing two biased authors is not called educating people in an encyclopedia, it's called misinformation, bias, and poorly-sourced citations. It should be easy to find a better citation for you, if you claim it is "mainstream scholarship" that everyone rejects a theory. In other words, you are the one making the assumption that mainstream scholarship is a certain way, and then not even bothering to come up with good citations to back it up. — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 03:50, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Specific citations for why you are misinforming readers by claiming that they are not Marxist and "Critical Theorists" would be their own university biographies and their own works:

"Joan Braune works in Frankfurt School Critical Theory, Critical Hate Studies, and intersections of religious experience and the socialist philosophical tradition (specifically the role of Jewish messianic hope in social movements, and Marxist-Christian dialogue). She has published two books on Erich Fromm’s critical theory, Erich Fromm’s Revolutionary Hope: Towards a Critical Theory of the Future (Sense Publishers 2014)"

Citation for Joan Braune Biography

Any honest reader after reading what I wrote, would realize that this is a biased author who specifically writes from a marxist point of view. So using their statements as "mainstream scholarship" would indicate misinforming readers on the biography of a Living Person. It would be like citing only Russian authors on the Ukraine war and then calling those Russian authors "mainstream scholarship." — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 03:58, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

This would be like relying on self-proclaimed oil executive author commenting upon the living biography of a famous environmentalist. This is more like relying on a NASA scientist to comment on flat-earth theory. That mainstream thinking is the target of a nonsense conspiracy theory does not somehow make them too biased to point out that the conspiracy theory is nonsense. MrOllie (talk) 04:12, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Your analogy doesn't make sense. A NASA scientist is an expert in astronomy, in measurements, in observations from space, in satellite imagery. A flat-earther is a layperson advocating for a theory that is very controversial by almost any standard. Additionally, your hyperbolic analogy depicts the most far-fetched, the most unbelievable theory (flat-earthism) to ever be claimed on planet Earth.

To correct your analogy, just your analogy, "This is more like relying on a Trapezoid-earther to comment on flat-earth theory", an equally absurd theorist commenting on another theorist. Or in our analogy, a marxist theorist, commenting on a fascist theorist. Both are equally absurd conspiracy theorists and highly controversial theories mind you (marxism and fascism; or Trapezoid-earthism and Flat-earthism). So why not use a more credible source if it is such "mainstream scholarship"? Why fight so hard to use bad citations and edit-war when it's so easy to find a better citation? — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 04:24, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

This bizarre equating of Critical theory with Marxist politics is a part of the conspiracy theory. It's not what Critical theory actually is. To reject sources on this basis is to accept the conspiracy theory. MrOllie (talk) 04:26, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Differentiating Critical theory from Marxist theory would in fact, be your person opinion. Not what is considered mainstream scholarship.

In mainstream scholarship, and you can even look at Critical Theory and see that several Marxists are mentioned including Antonio Gramsci and György Lukács as the primary supporters of this type of theory. You differentiating them as something other than complementary or like-theories with similar authors would be your own conspiracy theory--not James' conspiracy theory. The mere existence of two labels does not mean that the meanings of those labels are polar opposites. A sphere and a circle are different, but you may need circles to draw spheres and there is a relation between them that cannot be detached. — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 04:34, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't need to be discussed, really. Revert, block, ignore. Zaathras (talk) 03:23, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't need to be discussed? Of course it does. The truth matters most of all. Not using poorly cited sources as a way to smear a living person. At a minimum when you make an extraordinary claim that mainstream scholarship rejects some "theory", then you should provide good citations for it when it comes to biographies of living persons. — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 03:52, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Your fraudulent edit summary ("biased marxist sources") pretty much invalides you from this discussion. The material is not contentious, nor is it poorly sourced. You have a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT-itis. Zaathras (talk) 04:00, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

There is nothing fraudulent here. What invalidates your fraudulent reply is that you replied saying "Doesn't need to be discussed, really. Revert, block, ignore." You are arguing in bad-faith. You have a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT when there is no good citation involved here. What you used are biased sources on a living persons' biography and anyone can see that with their own eyes regardless of the politics of the living person. — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 04:05, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

The fact that someone writes about Marxist theory does not make them "biased." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:07, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes it does. That's like saying that someone who only writes about fascist theory or marxist theory, and using them as a citation for an article about democracy--it wouldn't make sense. Any honest writer or editor would see that as biased. They would prefer unbiased citations that are not of an ideological writer that is directly opposed the the very existence of democracy. It would be unthinkable.

Additionally, the citations used are worse than that: the original writer tried to call the citation "mainstream scholarship" not that "marxist theorists reject Lindsay's theories as a conspiracy theory." They write instead "wholly rejected by mainstream scholarship" and then cite a Marxist, Critical-Theory professor. That would be like saying "(environmentalist author)'s ideas are wholly rejected by mainstream scholarship." And the citation is an Oil Executive's information website. It would showcase bias and misinform the user reading it. Especially the violation is even worse since it is a living persons' biography. — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 04:20, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes it does. No, it really doesn't. Your personal opinion of the author is irrelevant, what matters is the source that has chosen to publish it. If that is deemed a trustworthy source by the Wikipedia, then that is what counts. End of story. Zaathras (talk) 04:23, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I did not state my personal opinion about the author. You appear to not be reading what I write or not understanding me.

"what matters is the source that has chosen to publish it."

Huh?

If that is deemed a trustworthy source by the Wikipedia, then that is what counts.

Again, it is not a credible citation due to author bias, on a living persons' biography. You can simply find a better citation from a credible primary source. An Argumentum Ad Populum isn't good either. And neither is simply what website it appears on but rather what the credibility of the authors are. — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 04:29, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Again, it is not a credible citation due to author bias. Your opinion of the author is irrelevant. We cite sources here, not authors directly. Zaathras (talk) 22:00, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

It's not my opinion of the author. It is a fact that the author is biased from her own biography and thesis papers. Facts are established by strong evidence presented that the author has a heavy political bias, anyone can read the citation and see that. Additionally, the opinion here is your claim of "mainstream scholarship rejects"--that part in that sentence on the article is opinion, not fact. The citation you used does not say "mainstream scholars" reject a theory. In fact, citation 39, says the theory moved from "fringe" to "mainstream" so it in fact says the opposite. The question then becomes why do you insist on this citation? The other citation simply says that a particular scholar, who writes about opposing ideologies when compared to James Lindsay opposes something. The Joane Braune paper is citing Daily Kos, a leftist blog, and it too is saying the opposite of what was written there originally: "Why [Cultural Marxism theory] Spreading Into the Mainstream.” Daily Kos" The [] used to replace "It's". Therefore, it makes perfect sense to delete that sentence. I'd recommend you delete it after re-examining the citations, as I think you respect the truth, I don't want to do it and seem like I am edit-warring or disrespecting you. — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 05:24, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

You're misreading citation 39, which simply says that the theory has been mentioned in 'mainstream' news publications. MrOllie (talk) 14:13, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof, I agree. But the what about a person who subscribes to or promotes Marxist theory? Jweiss11 (talk) 04:22, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

MrOllie the article here on Marxism states: "During the 1940s, the Western Marxist school became accepted within Western academia, subsequently fracturing into several different perspectives, such as the Frankfurt School or critical theory." Jweiss11 (talk) 04:37, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Marx had more than one idea in his life. That someone studies Critical theory doesn't mean they want to stage a communist revolution any more than sharing other noncontroversial ideas of Marx, like opposing child labor or thinking that British colonialism wasn't good for humanity. MrOllie (talk) 04:41, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, Hitler had noncontroversial ideas too, like thinking vanilla ice cream and sunshine were nice. But isn't the central idea of Marxism related to the central idea of critical theory, i.e. bringing light to alleged oppressive "power structures" so as to ultimately overthrow them? Jweiss11 (talk) 04:54, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes but I can find a neutral, reliable source on living person biographies on why "British colonialism" might be bad for certain innocent people in certain regions of the world. However, you are insisting on an unreliable, marxist source, to create the thrust of the argument that "mainstream scholars reject" James Lindsay's theories. By the way, James Lindsay also had multiple ideas in his life too, not just one idea (but for some reason you don't discredit Marx when he has bad ideas, but you do when it's James Lindsay instead of saying "well James has multiple ideas in his life." Sure we may consider James a controversial figure. However, even a broken clock can be right twice a day. Certainly, mainstream scholars do not reject the idea that Critical theory and marxism are linked and intertwined even if not exactly the same idea. So yes, that someone studies Critical theory could indicate that they are interested in marxism because the two are intertwined theories with the same advocates usually in both theories. We can find neutral reliable sources to say "mainstream scholarship" is against child labor-law abuses. However, you also find it difficult to find reliable sources to dismiss every part of James Lindsay's theories and ideas. Why not just delete that sentence for now, and then come up with better citations later? Wouldn't that be how we get closer to the truth without misinforming any readers? — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 05:28, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

That's moving the goalposts. The point of the conspiracy theory is not that Critical theory and marxism have common history, it is that there is a secret conspiracy within academia that wants to destroy western society. MrOllie (talk) 14:15, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

This appears to be an Academic consensus statement. One of the sources is an argument from an individual academic, and is not a reliable source for determining Academic consensus. The other is a wayback machine of an abstract, and what's in the abstract does not support an academic consensus statement. Can anyone provide a passage that meets the requirements called out in WP: RS/AC? --Kyohyi (talk) 13:56, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:PARITY, we don't need to jump through such hoops to say that academia isn't home to a plot to destroy Western civilization. MrOllie (talk) 18:58, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, Parity doesn't override our requirements regarding Academic consensus. If we want to present that academic consensus has formed around a position we need sources that make that claim, not editor's opinions on the subject. --Kyohyi (talk) 19:05, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

You advocated marxist and critical theorists as unreliable sources to then claim that "mainstream scholars" think a certain way about James Lindsay's theories when you can simply find a reliable source. Considering the amount of time you argued with me, it's sort of clear that you're not interested in finding that source or you have been unable to find that reliable source. I myself, have been unable to find reliable sources on this. That means you also encountered the same issue. Then it behooves us to want to understand why you require these unreliable sources to create a conclusion for the reader that "mainstream scholarship" thinks a certain way? Why not just agree to remove it until we can find reliable sources? — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 05:06, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

The sources we already have are reliable, I reject your assertion that they are not. I certainly never advocated marxist and critical theorists as unreliable sources as you claim. It would be quite a backwards world if anyone who had studied critical theory was somehow unreliable to weigh in on a) what critical theory is or b) whether critical theorists want to destroy civilization. MrOllie (talk) 14:16, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Doing a double check of the sources, I don't see any of them mention James Lindsay. Can someone demonstrate that this paragraph isn't just a bunch of WP: OR? --Kyohyi (talk) 14:35, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Added another cite. In his latest book Lindsay wrote that Critical Race Theory is the tip of a one-hundred-year-long spear that is being thrust into the side of Western Civilization. MrOllie (talk) 14:54, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I see the cite, and did a little digging on the publisher. Current Affairs has only been around for 7 years, and was started as a political analysis, satire, and entertainment magazine. This would mean that the pieces published in it are opinion pieces, and fall in WP: RSOPINION, and not usable for factual assertions. --Kyohyi (talk) 15:18, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

That's not what WP:RSOPINION means. It doesn't rule out the use of whole publications. MrOllie (talk) 15:28, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

We aren't ruling out the use of the whole publication. We're applying RSOPINION, which says it can be used as attributed opinion, not for factual assertions. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:41, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

You're attempting to apply it, but the application isn't valid. This isn't simply the author's opinion - it is tempting to rule anything one disagrees with 'opinion', but that isn't how the world works. Is it your position that Linday hasn't actually promoted the conspiracy theory? MrOllie (talk) 18:48, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Your assertion that RSOPINION isn't valid is noted, but you don't provide justification. Editor's opinions on James Lindsay aren't relavant and it's not appropriate to try to solicit them for a content dispute. The problem with the source is that it isn't in any way authoritative on the subject. The magazine is only 7 years old, deals with political analysis (e.g. political comentary), Satire (not reliable), and entertainment (not relavant). I've tried looking up the author, and I find no indication that they are prominent in any field. Simply put, neither the publication, nor the author have the authority required to voice this as a factual statement, and it at best should be attributed as called out in RSOPINION. --Kyohyi (talk) 19:01, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

«I myself, have been unable to find reliable sources on this.» => New year gift:

• https://journals.openedition.org/amnis/2004
• Jérôme Jamin, Cultural Marxism and the Radical Right, https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9781137396211_4
• Tanner Mirrlees, The Alt-right's Discourse on "Cultural Marxism": A Political Instrument of Intersectional Hate, https://journals.msvu.ca/index.php/atlantis/article/view/5403
• Martin Jay, Dialectic of Counter-Enlightenment: The Frankfurt School as Scapegoat of the Lunatic Fringe, https://www.jstor.org/stable/41638676
• Andrew Woods, Cultural Marxism and the Cathedral: Two Alt-Right Perspectives on Critical Theory, https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-18753-8_3
• Jérôme Jamin, Cultural Marxism: A survey, https://doi.org/10.1111/rec3.12258
• Rachel Busbridge, Cultural Marxism: far-right conspiracy theory in Australia’s culture wars, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13504630.2020.1787822
• Joan Braune, Who's Afraid of the Frankfurt School? 'Cultural Marxism' as an Antisemitic Conspiracy Theory, http://transformativestudies.org/publications/journal-of-social-justice/past-issues-jsj/journal-of-social-justice-volume-9-2019/
• https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2003/cultural-marxism-catching
• http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9029472
• http://backdoorbroadcasting.net/2012/09/jerome-jamin-cultural-marxism-in-the-anglo-saxon-radical-right-literature/
• https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/13/opinion/cultural-marxism-anti-semitism.html https://web.archive.org/web/20190301000000*/https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/13/opinion/cultural-marxism-anti-semitism.html
• https://www.smh.com.au/world/cultural-marxism--the-ultimate-postfactual-dog-whistle-20171102-gzd7lq.html
• https://www.salon.com/2019/05/05/a-users-guide-to-cultural-marxism-anti-semitic-conspiracy-theory-reloaded/
• https://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2019/08/28/le-marxisme-culturel-fantasme-prefere-de-l-extreme-droite_5503567_3232.html
• https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/78mnny/unwrapping-the-conspiracy-theory-that-drives-the-alt-right
• https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/1/23/1828527/-How-the-cultural-Marxism-hoax-began-and-why-it-s-spreading-into-the-mainstream

Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:48, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

A follow up comment since I started reading the writers guide it becomes more apparent that this is a source designed to publish opinion pieces. Some examples from the writers guide "A really good article will make its point, in part, by dissecting counterarguments." And "General themes that tend to produce good Current Affairs articles are: ○ Critiques of bad premises and arguments that are infecting current debates. ○ Strategies and suggestions for solving contemporary problems. ○ Discussions of types of human suffering that people ought to care more about than they presently do. ○ Merciless verbal thrashings of bad writers, thinkers, commentators, and other such entities.". It seems pretty apparent that it is a magazine on publishing opinion pieces, and is only reliable for statements of attributed opinion and not statements of fact. --Kyohyi (talk) 15:47, 17 January 2023 (UTC) Seeing as there isn't any comments regarding the problems I've called out with the cultural marxism paragraph, I'm going to be removing it shortly. Here's my justification, should someone want to challenge it. First, The Current Affairs source is at best a RSOPINION source, and is not appropriate for a factual statement. The statement after the current Affairs source is a WP: COATRACK and the source says nothing about James Lindsay. The mainstream scholars statement fails WP:RS/AC as neither source actually covers academic consensus. The SPLC statement is another coatrack, and finally the final statement would make no sense without the SPLC coatrack. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:59, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

The sourcing is fine, as I've already commented. We don't need to meet the bar in WP:RS/AC for this statement, either. Consensus isn't about fillibustering - we don't have to WP:SATISFY you by responding to your every comment. I've returned the text to the article. MrOllie (talk) 15:04, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I see you insist on not addressing concerns raised. An assertion is not an argument, and you haven't provided justification as to why the sourcing is fine. I don't desire to edit war, but if you're just going to stonewall and revert, that is what we'll end up having. Note this is a BLP and higher sourcing standards are required. --Kyohyi (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

You may disagree, but that does not mean that your concerns have not been addressed. For justification, see my responses above. I will reiterate, though - a simple assertion from you that a source is an opinion article does not make it so. MrOllie (talk) 15:28, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

In general I support inclusion of the disputed content, but since it leans heavily on the Current Affairs source and I can't find any discussion thereof at WP:RSN (though my search skills may be lacking), perhaps there would be some mileage in getting thoughts there and proceeding with any consensus that may emerge? Just a thought. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:35, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I couldn't find it through RSN either, plenty of people talking about current affairs, just nothing about the magazine. Which is a bit of a red flag on whether it has a reputation to begin with. --Kyohyi (talk) 15:44, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

You don't provide justifications though, just assertions. And my comments weren't just simple assertions, they were backed up with statements on how the source itself reviews submissions, and how they self-describe themselves. That's an argument, you can disagree, but if aren't going to provide reasoning, this will be a worthless discussion. --Kyohyi (talk) 15:39, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

My justification was and continues to be: You simply cannot rule out an entire publication with an appeal to RSOPINION, and selective quoting of the writers guide is not persuasive at all. Look, I can do that too: Base your arguments on direct quotes, concrete examples, and striking events., Do not theorize about the inner lives of individuals unless you can seriously back up your assertions., MrOllie (talk) 15:59, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I went ahead and added a section over at WP:RSN, just so everyone is aware. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:07, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't really think we need more sourcing, but in the spirit of compromise I added a cite to another book review by Jacobin. There's also this in Salon, but per the RSP entry we'd need to come up with some wording that attributes their statements. Any suggestions? - MrOllie (talk) 16:12, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

The Jacobin piece could be used to source criticism of Lindsay and the book, but it doesn't appear to actually support what it is currently linked to in the article. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:08, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Quotes: Lindsay goes on to accuse critical race theory of working to penetrate and undermine “every school, college, university; every workplace, office, hospital; every magazine, journal, newspaper; every television program, movie, website; every government agency, institution, program; every church, synagogue, mosque; every club, affinity, pastime, and interest” in the United States and beyond. and Lindsay’s conspiratorial claims MrOllie (talk) 17:11, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

This appears to be WP: SYNTH. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:15, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Here from fringe theories noticeboard. I would not consider the discussed sources to be reliable for this context, and I certainly would not consider using them to cite something as "mainstream". I suspect that the prose in question is true, and I have no issue with its inclusion in the article, but I would like to see either author attribution or more authoritative sources. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:09, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

• https://journals.openedition.org/amnis/2004
• Jérôme Jamin, Cultural Marxism and the Radical Right, https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9781137396211_4
• Tanner Mirrlees, The Alt-right's Discourse on "Cultural Marxism": A Political Instrument of Intersectional Hate, https://journals.msvu.ca/index.php/atlantis/article/view/5403
• Martin Jay, Dialectic of Counter-Enlightenment: The Frankfurt School as Scapegoat of the Lunatic Fringe, https://www.jstor.org/stable/41638676
• Andrew Woods, Cultural Marxism and the Cathedral: Two Alt-Right Perspectives on Critical Theory, https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-18753-8_3
• Jérôme Jamin, Cultural Marxism: A survey, https://doi.org/10.1111/rec3.12258
• Rachel Busbridge, Cultural Marxism: far-right conspiracy theory in Australia’s culture wars, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13504630.2020.1787822
• Joan Braune, Who's Afraid of the Frankfurt School? 'Cultural Marxism' as an Antisemitic Conspiracy Theory, http://transformativestudies.org/publications/journal-of-social-justice/past-issues-jsj/journal-of-social-justice-volume-9-2019/
• https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2003/cultural-marxism-catching
• http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9029472
• http://backdoorbroadcasting.net/2012/09/jerome-jamin-cultural-marxism-in-the-anglo-saxon-radical-right-literature/
• https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/13/opinion/cultural-marxism-anti-semitism.html https://web.archive.org/web/20190301000000*/https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/13/opinion/cultural-marxism-anti-semitism.html
• https://www.smh.com.au/world/cultural-marxism--the-ultimate-postfactual-dog-whistle-20171102-gzd7lq.html
• https://www.salon.com/2019/05/05/a-users-guide-to-cultural-marxism-anti-semitic-conspiracy-theory-reloaded/
• https://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2019/08/28/le-marxisme-culturel-fantasme-prefere-de-l-extreme-droite_5503567_3232.html
• https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/78mnny/unwrapping-the-conspiracy-theory-that-drives-the-alt-right
• https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/1/23/1828527/-How-the-cultural-Marxism-hoax-began-and-why-it-s-spreading-into-the-mainstream

Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:48, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

None of those sources refer to James Lindsay specifically. Citing sources that say that other people use the phrase "cultural Marxism" to promote crank conspiracy theories and then assuming Lindsay himself must support them because he has used that term is a blatant violation of WP:SYNTH. In fact, the only cited source in the articles that directly promotes this claim is the socialist magazine Current Affairs. I don't know if this magazine has been discussed at RSN, but it my opinion it should not be used as the only source for controversial claims like this. Partofthemachine (talk) 00:41, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

This comment is out of scope. This section (and the comment i answered) is not about James Lindsay supporting or not the Cultural Marxism thesis, but about the Cultural Marxism thesis being rejected by mainstream scholars or not. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 17:27, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

That's what makes this content a WP:COATRACK. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:59, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

(here from WP:FTN) I replaced these two citations with two unquestionably mainstream ones, from User:Visite fortuitement prolongée. I likewise have no issues with the prose. DFlhb (talk) 07:24, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Also here from WP:FTN, and I see no problems with the sources as they stood. Dismissing the peer-reviewed writings of academics because of the topics they choose to write about is... well, it's just a little silly. I'm not sold on the phrasing (why not just say "falsely alleges"?), but that's a different issue. XOR'easter (talk) 22:38, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Just thought I should officially go on the record -- by agreeing with XOR'easter. Phrasing could always be better, but I was pretty much fine with it as it stood. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 02:08, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Also from FTN the sources look fine, acedic sources writing about the field in which they work are nearly always acceptable. To say they are biased because they write about Marxism or Marxist theory is just baseless. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:47, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

«I'm not sold on the phrasing (why not just say "falsely alleges"?)» => I agree with this change. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:48, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

«Any honest reader after reading what I wrote, would realize that this is a biased author who specifically writes from a marxist point of view.» => No. writing about marxism ≠ being marxist. You know that Friedrich Hayek wrote about marxism, don't you? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:48, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support suggested amendment from 'alleges' to 'falsely alleges' but... why don't we bother to point out that LGBT grooming conspiracy theory and white genocide conspiracy theory have also been wholly rejected by mainstream scholars?  Tewdar  19:34, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I just found that, dated 2023-01-10: https://twitter.com/wil_da_beast630/status/1612830962252976132 . Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 08:34, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Tweet

Mention his tweet of December 16 2022 in which he advocated throwing "communists" (aka left wing journalists who had just been banned by Elon Musk) out of helicopters in the style of fascist dictator Augusto Pinochet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.118.64.227 (talk) 05:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source for it.

Also, English text is written top to bottom. I moved your contribution down here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:48, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

PS I don’t think Pinochet was a fascist, his neoliberal economics would be incompatible with fascism’s economic theories. Dronebogus (talk) 17:06, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the 'School or tradition' section of the infobox

Some people here have already argued about whether Lindsay should be classified as a Conservative or Classical Liberal. Since both of these claims seem to have adequate sources to back them up, I suggest that the school of 'Conservatism' in the infobox should be changed to 'Conservative liberalism' as to be inclusive of both of these claims, as well as to be more accurate, in my opinion. 78.149.86.2 (talk) 13:30, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2023

remove “conspiracy theorist” from this bio. 200.68.167.40 (talk) 03:15, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

No. Zaathras (talk) 03:47, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2023

Suggest you edit "American author, cultural critic, mathematician and conspiracy theorist." to read: "American author, cultural critic, and mathematician." I suggest this because "conspiracy" indicates that the person's essential theory lacks evidence and thus the "theorist" has been irrefutably proven to lack credibility. Mperetin (talk) 20:54, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: see cited sources Cannolis (talk) 21:09, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I did - see the cited sources. I shall read them in detail and their cited sources. but Vox and Skeptic as stand-alone definitive citations is weak. Also I note Wiki's own definition of Conspiracy Theorist is not met. Mperetin (talk) 00:17, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Espousing opinions that LGTBTs are groomers or that persons of color are actively conspiring against white people to bring about their cultural extinction most certainly qualifies Mr. Lindsay as a conspiracy theorist. Zaathras (talk) 00:51, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

citation please. Mperetin (talk) 02:34, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the characterization of Lindsay as a "conspiracy theorist" in the lead is undue as is rests entirely on the opinion of the cited leftist commentators. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:13, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Bias, alleged or otherwise, is not taken into consideration when determining if a source is reliable or not. So, the concerns of you and the SPA are meritless. Zaathras (talk) 03:45, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not challenging the general reliability of Vox or The Skeptic. I'm suggesting there's undue weight and lack of balance. Also, while Wikipedia:Reliable sources may suggest otherwise, in practice bias is certainly taken into consideration when the community determines which sources are reliable and which aren't. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:16, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

It is not taken into account, and attempts to do so to create a false balance will be opposed. Zaathras (talk) 04:22, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2023

Lindsay has promoted the far-right Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory,[41][42][better source needed] which alleges a concerted effort by Marxist critical theorists to infiltrate academic and cultural institutions in order to destroy Western civilization.[43] The theory has been wholly rejected by mainstream scholars,[44][45] and has been characterized as antisemitic by the Southern Poverty Law Center and others.

The line above is completely misleading and factually incorrect.

It is not a theory if it is actually happening. This entire paragraph needs removing. The LGBTQ+ community aka marxists are literally indoctrinating our children in schools whilst the CRT promoters are pushing hatred of white people. I wish wikipedia was not so biased. SORT THIS OUT PLEASE 95.145.45.33 (talk) 10:53, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't why we need protection edit request here. But the IP editor has identified a legitimate bias concern (aside from his blanket condemnation of the "LGBTQ+ community") with the article. Acknowledging that far-left activism exists does not make one a "conspiracy theorist". Jweiss11 (talk) 14:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

No, they haven't. 'The conspriacy theory is TRUE!' is not a legitimate bias concern. Secret marxists are not trying to destroy western society. - MrOllie (talk) 14:31, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

The wise words of Peter Griffin come in to play here. Please go to Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory to continue arguing the merits or lack thereof in the conspiracy itself, please. Zaathras (talk) 01:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There are open marxists who would like to implement marxism in the West. This is not a conspiracy theory. Jweiss11 (talk) 14:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC) And that isn't what Lindsay is talking about. MrOllie (talk) 14:36, 11 July 2023 (UTC) And how do you get from there to "a concerted effort by Marxist critical theorists to infiltrate academic and cultural institutions in order to destroy Western civilization"? Marxists don't want to destroy western civilization, Marxism is part of western civilization. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC) Horse’s Eye Back, it’s quite the non-sequitor to suggest that something can’t be destroyed by an element of itself, i.e “how could nuclear proliferation destroy human civilization? Nuclear proliferation is part of human civilization!” If Marxists in the West had their way and implemented Marxist politics at a scale we’ve seen in the Soviet Union and east Asia, Western civilization and its liberal order would be certainly be heavily damaged. “Destroyed” is only mild hyperbole. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:31, 11 July 2023 (UTC) This edit request you restored is literally a fringe viewpoint. Yes, far-left activism exists, but there's a difference between acknowledging the existence of far-left activists and pushing conspiracy theories about the LGBTQ+ community destroying Western civilization, and the IP above is doing exactly what I described in the latter. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 18:44, 11 July 2023 (UTC) Western civilization wasn't destroyed in the Soviet Union and I'm not sure east Asia works with the argument about western civilization. The liberal world order is not part of western civilization. You appear to be serving us the conspiracy theory and calling it a common sense position. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:51, 11 July 2023 (UTC) HEB, the Russian Empire circa 1917 wasn't exactly a shining example of Western civilization. It was a feudal monarchy, in many ways a latency of the middles ages, while much of Western Europe and the US had made great strides forward while embracing cultural and political features that are the hallmarks of Western civilization (e.g. representative democracy, individual liberties and rights, market economies, scientific exploration, technological advancement, etc.). Russia straddles the East-West divide geographically and it's never clearly been considered a part of "the West", cf. Western world. But this is all beside the point. Ideas can travel as far and as wide as humans endeavor to bring them. You've noted that Marxism is a Western ideology—yes, indeed, it originated with 19th-century Westerners, namely Marx and Engels. But that ideology influenced politics in many places including ones that are clearly not the West, like China and Southeast Asia. The point here is that Lindsay (and countless others) have 1) observed the presence of Marxist activism in the contemporary West, 2) looked at history around the globe to see when and where that ideology has been implemented with political force at scale, 3) taken stock of the horrors and catastrophes of human suffering that have followed (most notably in Stalin's Russia, Mao's China, the Khmer Rouge's Cambodia), and 4) formed a rational concern as to what might happen in the contemporary/future West (i.e. US / Canada / Western Europe) if Western Marxists had their druthers. This is not a conspiracy theory. HEB, you've already made a number of basic errors of logical argumentation. You should clean that stuff up before you cast aspersions of others "serving" a conspiracy theory. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:31, 11 July 2023 (UTC) I think you should take this to cultural marxism, and if they change their mind there, it will probably be changed here. Though i warn you, you have a very poor case that's very reliant on your perspective, so it seems unlikely you will succeed. Bart Terpstra (talk) 23:45, 11 July 2023 (UTC) Yes "cultural Marxism" as a redirect to Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory is certainly a problem as it conflates legitimate criticism of the contemporary hard-to-far left with Nazi conspiracy theories about Jews. I agree with you that's I'm unlikely to make much headway there as I'm likely to run into many editors with a "perspective" that differs from my mainstream liberal one, as I have here. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:54, 11 July 2023 (UTC) Again, what you're writing here is not what Lindsay is writing about. To quote him a combined total Racial Bolshevik Revolution and Antiracist Cultural Revolution led by Critical Race Theorists, presumably mediated through the proximate stage by a Dictatorship of the Antiracists paralleling Marx’s notion of a Dictatorship of the Proletariat.. He's advancing a theory that people who seem to be trying to end racial inequities are secretly marxists, and coordinating to advance a secret goal (that is, a conspiracy) to overthrow society and install a dictatorship run by antiracists. I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here, but it doesn't seem to have a lot to do with the actual subject of this article. MrOllie (talk) 23:56, 11 July 2023 (UTC) Yes, his (and many other's) theory of "cultural Marxism" suggests that many hard-to-far leftist have taken old Marxist ideas about class and reapplied them along other demographic axes, like race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity, etc. This is not a conspiracy theory. It's a substantive critique. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:05, 12 July 2023 (UTC) There's a necessary link in his chain of reasoning - that some people are not who they say they are and are colluding to advance goals different from their claimed goals. That is exactly what a conspiracy theory is. MrOllie (talk) 00:10, 12 July 2023 (UTC) They're not and that's not how they argue what they do believe in (which is not that). Marxism can be best summed up as seeking an end to the private ownership of the means of reproducing society, Houses, land, factories. This clearly has nothing to do with each other. Bart Terpstra (talk) 00:11, 12 July 2023 (UTC) MrOllie, it's not a "conspiracy theory" to note that political actors sometimes lie or engage in doublespeak. This is a banal general observation of human behavior. And sometimes 'antiracists" say the quiet part out loud about their applied (cultural?) Marxism, like when whoever controls the website for Black Lives Matter blamed the Orlando nightclub shooting on "capitalism, which deforms the spirit and fuels interpersonal violence". Jweiss11 (talk) 00:29, 12 July 2023 (UTC) OTOH, some people really just think racism is bad. That doesn't make them secret Marxists. MrOllie (talk) 00:41, 12 July 2023 (UTC) Some might see violence between cultural groups as misdirected anger from the (according to them) true source of their problems: capitalism. It isn't gays or muslims that make you alienated from society, they argue, it's the fact you do not own society, or your time, or your life. It is in service of those that hold capital. And it's convenient that these alienated groups fight each other, rather than address the issue of who has control over what society looks like (capitalists). This is a kind of "class essentialism", but it's not proof of a conspiracy, sorry. Bart Terpstra (talk) 00:54, 12 July 2023 (UTC) Yes, I agree there's no (secret) conspiracy here, but rather an overt admission of Marxist influence. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC) Being anti-capitalist is not immediately Marxist. You could also call these people Neo-luddites :p The connection to Marx is boogieman and a red scare. Bart Terpstra (talk) 01:07, 12 July 2023 (UTC) If you're "anti-capitalist" but not Marxist, what would you be? And whatever that is, would that ideology be less threatening to foundational liberal principles like individual property rights? Jweiss11 (talk) 01:13, 12 July 2023 (UTC) I don't see how how this screed from BLM is neo-luddite, as I don't think it impugns technology in any way, and employs relatively new technology to disseminate it's message. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:16, 12 July 2023 (UTC) The luddites were not against technology, but how the wealth of that technology would be distributed. Bart Terpstra (talk) 01:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC) Maybe a post-capitalist, a anti-capitalist, an anarchist, a Libertarian socialist, or egoist. Marx is a foundational thinker in anti-capitalist, thought, he is not the end all, be all. Bart Terpstra (talk) 01:17, 12 July 2023 (UTC) If Lindsay (or a similar critic) is slightly wrong or incomplete about the flavor of anti-capitalism at play, that still doesn't make him a conspiracy theorist. We can play word games all day. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:21, 12 July 2023 (UTC) It does, because it turns something explainable and normal (people have problems with the current way the economy is structured) into something else (a small minority is influenced by foreign texts to undermine society). The relationship to Cultural Bolshevism is not helping either. Bart Terpstra (talk) 01:28, 12 July 2023 (UTC) Hitler liked painting. Bob Ross also liked painting. This doesn't look good for Bob Ross. :( Jweiss11 (talk) 01:31, 12 July 2023 (UTC) Any evaluation of so-called "cultural marxism" should mention it's roots in Cultural Bolshevism and Jewish Bolshevism. Bart Terpstra (talk) 15:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm unhatting this discussion. This appears to be discussing the content that is used to justify the "conspiracy theorist" LABEL in the lead of a BLP. While the details of this can and should be discussed in the article body, the article lead should not include "conspiracy theorist" in wiki voice in the opening sentence. It's not entirely clear which claims are meant to be supported by VOX and The Skeptic. Vox doesn't support the label. The Skeptic does claim Lindsay has supported some things they view as conspiracies but it's also clear they are not reporting from a disinterested POV on the topic. Springee (talk) 04:05, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

You are not unhatting a trolling, divisive, off-topic section. Move on. Zaathras (talk) 04:38, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

[restoring refactored comment] The hatting is not justified. If you feel it must be hatted please ask a admin to do it. Springee (talk) 04:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

i was going to restore the hat myself after watching this unfold from afar. it seems justified. Springee, find something better to do, this is beneath you. ValarianB (talk) 04:53, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2023

2001:818:C212:B400:D126:C792:E467:323 (talk) 21:46, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Most of the references are opinion articles, it starts with reference 4 which is an opinion article of someone who is against James Lynsday ideas. It can't be considered a reference to prove that he is a conspiracy theorist.

 Not done: see above sections Cannolis (talk) 22:00, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 August 2023

I would like the author to cite his broad claim that James Lindsay is a "conspiracy theorist." It isn't appropriate to state such broad claims without evidence.

"James Lindsay has been associated with a number of controversial opinions and has actively engaged in discussions related to various topics, such as social justice, critical theory, and postmodernism. However, it would be inaccurate to label him solely as a conspiracy theorist.

Lindsay has garnered attention for his criticisms of what he perceives as the influence of certain ideologies in academia and society. He has been involved in discussions related to political correctness, identity politics, and what he sees as the negative impact of social justice scholarship. Some of his viewpoints and analyses have been viewed as controversial, while others have found resonance within certain circles.

While Lindsay has been critical of certain academic disciplines and ideologies, it is important to note that he does not typically engage in conspiracy theories in the traditional sense. However, opinions vary widely, and it is always recommended to seek a diverse range of sources and perspectives to form a well-rounded understanding of any individual's viewpoints and their categorization." 2600:1700:30F0:6E6F:B5BA:C4A4:2202:190D (talk) 02:06, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

The cites are already in the article. Click on the little numbers. MrOllie (talk) 02:12, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Your citations aren't valid dude. Cited something that doesn’t establish him as a conspiracy theorist or shows evidence aren't valid citations. Did you go to college? 2600:1700:30F0:6E6F:B5BA:C4A4:2202:190D (talk) 02:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, they are valid. "Dude". If you have an issue with a particular citation, feel free to challenge it at WP:RSN. Zaathras (talk) 02:43, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

They aren't valid. They are opinions. Not evidence. I guess Mcwhorter, Haidt, Pinker, Sokal, Hicks, Hoff-Sommers, Friedman, Sowell, Arnhart are also conspiracy theorists. 2600:1700:30F0:6E6F:B5BA:C4A4:2202:190D (talk) 02:47, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Again, go make your case at the reliable source noticeboard, not here. The rest of your comment is Whataboutism that will not be responded to. Zaathras (talk) 02:48, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Its also worthy to note that the single reference you did provide for such a broad claim (An article by the Skeptic) doesn't have a single citation in it. Not one. When you provide evidence that James Lindsay is a conspiracy theorist and the evidence you provide doesn't have a single citation in it, it isn't evidence. By adult standards, the article by the Skeptic that you referenced isn't evidence that James Lindsay is a conspiracy theorist. 2600:1700:30F0:6E6F:B5BA:C4A4:2202:190D (talk) 03:13, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

We don't require reliable sources to show their own data, nor do we go by your personal definition of what is and is not 'evidence' MrOllie (talk) 03:16, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Forget it, there's no point. The way Wikipedia works is by relying on "reliable secondary sources", and whatever one of these sources say can be quoted and inserted in articles. It doesn't matter if the point is poorly argued, or has no evidence for it, the idea is that these are "reliable sources" so if what they said was wrong, they would correct the record after complaints, and if they haven't, it's because the point is correct. The problem is that actual "reliable sources" don't really exist anymore, all of them have started mixing political opinions with news, activism with journalism, and if those that are right-leaning are taken off of the "reliable source" list, the same isn't true for left-leaning sources. This means that far-left journalists can produce BS in formerly credible news sources, and then far-left ideologue editors on Wikipedia will rapidly quote that far-left BS in Wikipedia articles, quoting that source, which will then be assumed as true by people checking Wikipedia, unaware of how things work and how things have started to go off the rails.

The only way to get out of this system laundering far-left BS and slander would be to argue for taking out left-leaning sources out of the RS list like has largely been done for right-leaning sources. But since Wikipedia editors lean left, and taking out left-leaning sources would leave the RS list pretty short, it will never be done. We just have to accept on politically sensitive subjects, Wikipedia articles will simply reflect the far-left point of view that has creeped into mainstream media sources. 173.178.144.231 (talk) 02:48, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

There is a website called "Conservapedia" that may be just what you're looking for. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:07, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I think having a neutral, impartial source of knowledge is good. It's a shame we've lost that due to the work of left-leaning editors. At least Conservapedia admits its bias, if only Wikipedia did the same, it would be more honest. 173.178.144.231 (talk) 05:25, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Provide valid sources.

Pro-conspiracy theory POV pushing. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 17:18, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
James Lindsay isn't a conspiracy theorist. If he is, then so is his closest colleagues, Peter Boghossian and Helen Pluckrose (both Classical Liberals), who also wrote his books. Provide valid sources to such broad claims such as "James Lindsay is a conspiracy theorist." Be intellectually honest. Show evidence. There is no "grooming conspiracy." The foundational document of Queer Theory is Gayle Rubin's "Thinking Sex," which confirms this. (147) “Local police, the FBI, and watchdog postal inspectors have joined to build a huge apparatus whose sole aim is to wipe out the community of men who love underaged youth.” Gayle Rubin also defended a photographer for publishing photos of her 7 year-old child masterbating. “An assistant professor of photography at Cornell University, Livingston was fired in 1978 after exhibiting pictures of male nudes which included photographs of her seven-year-old son masturbating. It is easy to see someone like Livingston as a victim of the child porn wars. It is harder for most people to sympathize with actual boy-lovers." 2600:1700:30F0:6E6F:B5BA:C4A4:2202:190D (talk) 02:34, 14 August 2023 (UTC) Good point. The sources do not say he is a "conspiracy theorist", which is a specific term these days and inflammatory and in a BLP, requires impeccable sourcing, not inferral. I have removed it. Miner Editor (talk) 02:43, 14 August 2023 (UTC) And your bad edit has been reverted. The sources are found in the article, and are not hard to find. Zaathras (talk) 02:46, 14 August 2023 (UTC) Remove the misinformation about James Lindsay being a "conspiracy theorist." Or provide substantive evidence. If you know anything about Hitchen's Razor, if you are making a broad serious claim you need to show broad and serious evidence. The citations you provided don't meet the standards of evidence and is borderline slander. 2600:1700:30F0:6E6F:B5BA:C4A4:2202:190D (talk) 02:52, 14 August 2023 (UTC) The citation provided, is sufficient. Zaathras (talk) 02:54, 14 August 2023 (UTC) So you didn't go to college then. The reference you provided (the Skeptic article) doesn't have A SINGLE CITATION. How is something that isn't cited even ONCE something you call evidence in the adult world? Fix yourself. 2600:1700:30F0:6E6F:B5BA:C4A4:2202:190D (talk) 03:17, 14 August 2023 (UTC) We don't require reliable sources to show their own data, nor do we go by your personal definition of what is and is not 'evidence' MrOllie (talk) 03:18, 14 August 2023 (UTC) You don't require reliable sources when making broad and serious claims? Did you really just say that? 2600:1700:30F0:6E6F:B5BA:C4A4:2202:190D (talk) 03:20, 14 August 2023 (UTC) No, no one said anything like that. MrOllie (talk) 03:21, 14 August 2023 (UTC) It's not "my personal definition of evidence" you stupid sod. So you didn't go to college then? There is a standard of evidence that needs to be met if you are going to make serious and broad statements. You can also go to a dictionary and expose yourself to the term "evidence." If you want to also claim that James Lindsay is an antisemite, there is a universal basic standard of evidence that needs to be met for you to do that. Show me VALID sources that James Lindsay is a full-fledged conspiracy theorist. 2600:1700:30F0:6E6F:B5BA:C4A4:2202:190D (talk) 03:24, 14 August 2023 (UTC) The only standard we have to meet is the one set out by Wikipedia's content policies. We don't have to meet one made up on the spot by a single person on a talk page. MrOllie (talk) 03:29, 14 August 2023 (UTC) By design the Wikipedia standard policy would allow you to also make the broad slanderous claim that James Lindsay is a homophobe and an antisemite. Why haven't you done that? It's really about you being an intellectually honest writer and not some Marcusean cotten-candy hippie truth defiler. 2600:1700:30F0:6E6F:B5BA:C4A4:2202:190D (talk) 03:35, 14 August 2023 (UTC) "All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is about a living person." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars 2600:1700:30F0:6E6F:B5BA:C4A4:2202:190D (talk) 04:02, 14 August 2023 (UTC) You can't just spew and spit broad and serious claims without broad and serious evidence. (Hitchen's Razor) If you think your little Skeptics article is evidence, then it is apparent you didn't pass basic English class. That article isn’t evidence because that article doesn't have a single citation, which makes it, BY DEFINITION, NOT evidence for your claim. The FACT that it isn't evidence isn't according to my "personal" standard, but by very basic universal standards. 2600:1700:30F0:6E6F:B5BA:C4A4:2202:190D (talk) 03:30, 14 August 2023 (UTC) Repeating a flawed argument with added insults and random words in all caps doesn't make that argument more convincing. MrOllie (talk) 03:34, 14 August 2023 (UTC) It's a flawed argument to suggest that your evidence (Skeptics articles) doesn't have a single citation or reference in it? How are facts flawed arguments? 2600:1700:30F0:6E6F:B5BA:C4A4:2202:190D (talk) 03:37, 14 August 2023 (UTC) I am waiting for you to provide evidence that would at least pass you 8th-grade English class. I am waiting for this because suggesting that James Lindsay is a bone-fide conspiracy theorist is a very broad and serious accusation. 2600:1700:30F0:6E6F:B5BA:C4A4:2202:190D (talk) 03:39, 14 August 2023 (UTC) If you want to keep me mentioning my ANONYMOUS IP address, my name is Andrushka Burmastrova, you can find me on Facebook. But again, my IP address has nothing to do with incontestable facts. 2600:1700:30F0:6E6F:B5BA:C4A4:2202:190D (talk) 03:43, 14 August 2023 (UTC) Also, there is no "Right Wing Cultural Marxist Conspiracy Theory." "Cultural Marxism" as a Right Wing conspiracy theory is something Wikipedia made up LITERALLY 3 years ago. If you go back on their database it used to be called "Cultural Marxism. Now it's "Cultural Marxism Conspiracy Theory." 😅 Nothing about your shit writing on your arch-nemesis James Lindsay stands up to scrutiny. The father of the Second Generation of the Frankfurt School and of the ENTIRE New Left, Herbert Marcuse, did want to destroy Western Civilisation and Western Judeo-Christian values. That's not a Right Wing Conspiracy Theory. Let me PROVE IT. 2600:1700:30F0:6E6F:B5BA:C4A4:2202:190D (talk) 04:31, 14 August 2023 (UTC) Marcuse demands that we all be taught to think against the predominant framework of Western values (RT 113; ODM 170-199; 15-16, 114-120, 156-158), and that such values and norms in need of being violently subverted and repressed include freedom of speech and assembly (RT 84), because such liberal values normalise and domesticate the status quo into the lives of people, buffering their revolutionary potential and energy (ODM 15; RT 96; Marcuse, 1964: 1). The need to eugenicize the human condition for a Marxist-Leninist political end is apparent in his thesis concerning the "Biological Foundations for Socialism" where he argues the need to induce into the human conscience a Great Refusal by hijacking the human thinking process, which not only invoves "introjecting a new mortality into man so as to make him intolerable of society" (RT 109-111), i.e., brain washing, but that such "introjecting" means to both induce pathologise into the human thinking process (Marcuse:1969 EOL 10), but to indoctrinate the human mind through the process of education (RT 112). All progressive Liberal movements are reactionary and oppressively Right-Wing, because they fuction within the parameters and norms of Western Society that are in need of suppression even at the level of thought (RT 84). And finally those who refuse to resort to violence against the Establishment only perpetuate the status quo and thus join the Establishment (RT 103, 116-117). This education, this "introjecting of a new morality," he declares, must become consciously political, which is to say that education must become indoctrination (RT 112). 2600:1700:30F0:6E6F:B5BA:C4A4:2202:190D (talk) 04:32, 14 August 2023 (UTC) You haven't removed it. 2600:1700:30F0:6E6F:B5BA:C4A4:2202:190D (talk) 03:15, 14 August 2023 (UTC) And it will not be removed, unless there is consensus (by actual editors, not anonymous IP users, or single-purpose accounts) to do so. Zaathras (talk) 03:16, 14 August 2023 (UTC) The facts I am providing are FACTS regardless if my IP is anonymous. And "consensus?" That's rich, lol. A consensus fabricated by the Wikipedia ethos, which is ideologically bent. 2600:1700:30F0:6E6F:B5BA:C4A4:2202:190D (talk) 03:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC) "All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is about a living person." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars I have proven that your source (the Skeptics article) isn't a reliable or authoritative source of information for such a broad and serious claim that James Lindsay is a "conspiracy theorist." Reliable or authoritative sources would include articles that have AT LEAST one citation or reference. Because the Skeptics article doesn't even have one, it is therefore a personal opinion. 2600:1700:30F0:6E6F:B5BA:C4A4:2202:190D (talk) 03:48, 14 August 2023 (UTC) I have proven... You have not. There are plenty of other citations used in the James_A._Lindsay#Conspiracy_theory_promotion section below to firmly establish Lindasy as a noted conspiracy theorist. The Skeptics article is just used for the intro. As far as I am concerned, this discussion is over, until or unless an actual editor raises an objection. Zaathras (talk) 04:00, 14 August 2023 (UTC) What kind of spineless snowflake silences other people's albeit emotionally charged opinions on a public free-exchange platform. I must have you that ad homs are still within the parameters of that Liberal Ethic. Ad homs are also opinions. You must feel so big to have the fascistic power to remove dissenting opinions on the whim. 2600:1700:30F0:6E6F:B5BA:C4A4:2202:190D (talk) 04:36, 14 August 2023 (UTC) Mr, IP, I had hoped you would simply see the futility of your ways and simply slink away. But due to your insistence, we have to blow up your presentation entirely. Alas. You are not here to present an argument opposing the Wikipedia describing Lindasy as a conspiracy theorist. You are here to argue against the labeling of LGBT grooming conspiracy theory as a conspiracy theory. Because if you can cut the legs out from under that, then that means Lindsay is not a conspiracy theorist, but instead a truth teller. That would be like arguing that since Pizzagate is real, the Wikipedia can't label Mike Cernovich a conspiracy theorist. Since this is clearly the angle you're angling for here, I can tell you quite plainly, "ain't gonna happen". Zaathras (talk) 04:35, 14 August 2023 (UTC) I think it is so reflective of you to remove my opinions of Gayle Rubin from the public eyes. I provided FACTS. I provided her own words. Lol. Dude, you are such an autocrat. 2600:1700:30F0:6E6F:B5BA:C4A4:2202:190D (talk) 04:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC) (Redacted) Should I provide the in-text citation for you again? Or are you going to intellectually vahge-out and silence my dissenting opinions? 2600:1700:30F0:6E6F:B5BA:C4A4:2202:190D (talk) 04:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC) Zaathras 2600:1700:30F0:6E6F:B5BA:C4A4:2202:190D (talk) 04:44, 14 August 2023 (UTC) My name is (Redacted) Not 'IP' 2600:1700:30F0:6E6F:B5BA:C4A4:2202:190D (talk) 04:44, 14 August 2023 (UTC)