Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Unsupported claims that Jordan Peterson railed against Cultural Marxism

The current content says " Jordan Peterson, the self-help guru and best-selling author, has railed against it, too, in his YouTube ruminations.[27]" Source 27 leads to an opinion piece that states the same thing linking to this Youtube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLoG9zBvvLQ That video is titled "Postmodernism and Cultural Marxism | Jordan B Peterson" - however it is a reupload of an interview of Peterson with the Epoch times. Peterson never mentions cultural marxism in the video, he actually says that what he is discussing in the video has no conspiratorial aspect ( 19:30 ). The Epoch Times do not title the videos with "Cultural marxism" but do say in the description that Peterson is referring to Cultural Marxism here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4F0TQ8SEE80

So, basically we're taking the opinion of the editor of the youtube channel as to what Peterson was discussing, over what Peterson specifically says.

Is this in accord with Wikipedia's policies ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Accvvm (talk • contribs) 20:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid I am not understanding the question. Like anyone supporting a conspiracy theory, Peterson denies that it is an conspiracy theory. However, to concede to your WP:OR approach for a moment, is there anything in Peterson's reference to "Cultural Marxism" that differs in any way from the tropes of the conspiracy theory? Because Peterson isn't an authority on Marxism or on what is or isn't a conspiracy theory - he is only a RS in this context concerning his own opinions, and those seem to confirm that, as the NYT says, he is subscribing to the conspiracy theory. Newimpartial (talk) 21:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

We are not meant to go pointing out when random people reference "Cultural Marxism" or "Cultural Bolshevism", but follow when RS's say that someone has supported the theory. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:39, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

The WP article cites multiple RS that trace the "Cultural Marxism" CT back to "Cultural Bolshevism", so I'm not sure what your point here is, either. Newimpartial (talk) 15:46, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• To be clear, that's an attributed quote from a NYT opinion piece. We can debate whether it is WP:DUE to quote it at such length, but your wording made it sound like we were using that language in the article text, which would be very different. When citing a secondary source (opinion or otherwise) the author can make connections and interpretations that go beyond what we would make ourselves, including eg. interpreting a video as being about a conspiracy theory even if the precise words aren't used; nor do we require that our sources list all of their sources, so the piece could be relying on additional sourcing. I would be reluctant to mention Peterson based solely on one opinion piece, but we are not actually doing so - if you scroll down, we have extensive non-opinion sources (including a few peer-reviewed papers) stating that Peterson was central to bringing the conspiracy theory into mainstream discussion. That's probably enough to justify a one-sentence note of his involvement in a quote further up, and certainly enough to render the mention unexceptional. --Aquillion (talk) 22:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@Aquillion: I think it is self-obvious. A conspiracy theory requires a conspiracy (definition: a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.). Peterson denounces the idea of a secret plan to do anything. "Like anyone supporting a conspiracy theory, Peterson denies that it is an conspiracy theory." - this is not accurate, people supporting a conspiracy theory deny that it's a conspiracy theory by claiming that the secrets that they are hidden from the public are actually true. Peterson says that there are no secrets, nothing is hidden from the public, it's just an opinion on Marxism in society.

"Is there anything in Peterson's reference to "Cultural Marxism" that differs in any way from the tropes of the conspiracy theory" - this is the key point. "Cultural Marxism" is defined here as the combination of marxism in society + the secret plan behind it. The question is whether it's appropriate to label anyone expressing an opinion on marxism in society as as promoting the conspiracy theory. Imagine this: It's Jan 2020. There are reports of increased respiratory illnesses in Wuhan, China. A conspiracy theory emerges saying that Bill Gates released a Virus on the world in order to create a new pandemic and lock down the world for a year. A doctor from Wuhan makes a video saying that from what he has observed, this is likely a new strain of virus of natural origin that will turn into a global pandemic and will require a one year lock-down. Now, the question is if it is appropriate to label the doctor as the supporter of the Bill Gates conspiracy theory. What he is saying is not at all different than the Bill Gates conspiracy theory ... except for the actual conspiratorial part. If we do label the doctor as supporting / related to the Bill Gates conspiracy theory, it would be very dishonest to any reader, as the reader would automatically assume that the doctor is saying that Bill Gates had a secret plan to release it on to the world. In summary - this page as the title describes is about the combination of marxism AND "conspiracy theory" (secret plan). If you "rail against" marxism, it would not be appropriate to say "has railed against it [Cultural Marxism]" as the article says, since Peterson's talk do not talk about any conspiracy (secret plan). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Accvvm (talk • contribs) 08:33, February 18, 2021 (UTC)

A conspiracy theory requires a conspiracy

This is false. All it requires is the belief that there is a conspiracy. And the entire point of "Cultural Marxism" is the belief that there is a conspiracy to force certain beliefs on society.

Peterson isn't just "railing against Marxism," he's railing against the strawman version espoused by the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory.

Your Wuhan analogy his laughably flawed, as it's not even close to equivalent.

In summary - this page as the title describes is about the combination of marxism AND "conspiracy theory" (secret plan).

And this is a complete misunderstanding that shows you only read the title and not the article. It is not simply about "a conspiracy theory involving Marxism." It's a specific conspiracy theory that uses the term "Marxism" to mask over its anti-semitic roots. And Peterson is absolutely spreading this conspiracy theory. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

"All it requires is the belief that there is a conspiracy." I agree with this and this is basically what I am saying. Peterson says specifically that he believes there is no conspiracy and no plan "behind the scenes". The Wuhan analogy is on-point, the only difference is that now we actually know what the truth is. In Jan 2020 we would be in the same position as we are now as to what Peterson is saying - expressing his opinion on what he sees. We're not in agreement on what is happening as there was no agreement as to what was happening in January. Peterson might be completely wrong, but he's specifically saying that he does not believe there is a conspiracy ('secret plan'). I do understand that the claim of the article and the NY piece is that you don't have to say anything antisemitic to make the claims antisemitic ... but this is not what I am saying. I am saying that there are no claims of secrecy.

<Peterson isn't just "railing against Marxism," he's railing against the strawman version espoused by the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory> - Even if so, let's take another conspiracy theory. Let's say the conspiracy theory is "The jews hate Earth's importance in our culture are engaged in a secret plan to colonize Mars by 2500 in order to destroy the Earth's importance to mankind". If someone says "Given how technology is progressing, we'll probably colonize Mars by 2500. At that point Earth won't play such a central role in the importance of mankind. There is no secret plan to achieve this, it's just what will likely happen." - are they automatically a conspiracy theorist ? This is what I gather from what you're saying - if your arbitrary predictions / beliefs overlap with the claims of a conspiracy theory then you're automatically attributed the secret claims of the conspiracy theory, even if you deny them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Accvvm (talk • contribs) 18:03, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Another example: There are many people concerned that Artificial Intelligence (AI) will destroy mankind. Say I make a conspiracy theory saying "The Jews want to destroy mankind. They plan to have AI be created and released upon the world in order to destroy it". Is everyone who is concerned about AI destroying the world now an antisemitic conspiracy theorist even if they say there is no secret plan behind it ? Would it be appropriate to take videos of Elon Musk concerned about AI destroying the world and say that he is "railing against the antisemitic conspiracy theory" - and thus implying that he's an antisemitic conspiracy theorist ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Accvvm (talk • contribs) 18:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Those analogies do not hold out at all. It isn't a matter of arbitrary predictions that overlap with the claims of a conspiracy theory. Peterson says that the Cultural Marxists are responsible for the things the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory says the Cultural Marxists are responsible for. That means he is invoking the conspiracy theory even though he asserts that it is a real thing and that there is no conspiracy. It is as though I were to say that of course the reptoids are slowing down our colonization of Mars, as anyone can see because of the high failure rate of Mars missions, but it isn't a conspiracy because the reptoids aren't trying to hide anything. That is still a conspiracy theory. Newimpartial (talk) 18:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I see what you are saying, but you are missing my point. The counterargument is a technicality that can be addressed in another example. Conspiracy theory: "The Jews are mind controlling US police in order to have them act systemically racist. They want this in order for the police to loose credibility in order to undermine the USA". Is anyone that claims "the police are systemically racist" an antisemitic conspiracy theorist, even though the person denounces any jewish involvement ? All your conditions are met - a person who says "the police are systemically racist" is claiming that "the police are responsible for what the conspiracy theory says the police are responsible for". Would it be appropriate to label such people as antisemitic conspiracy theorists - or are they merely expressing an opinion on what they perceive, while not claiming (and even denouncing) that there is a conspiracy behind it ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Accvvm (talk • contribs) 18:48, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

This is silly, since you are still conjuring up examples where the "value added" by the conspiracy theory is the actor, in this case "the Jews". Peterson is actually endorsing the actor posited by the conspiracy theory - the "Cultural Marxists" - but is arguing that the so-called Cultural Marxists are acting publicly so it is not a conspiracy. It is as though, in your example, a person were to declare that "the Jews" are publicly using their mind control lasers to promote systemic racism, as anyone can see. That isn't any less of a conspiracy theory than if "the Jews" were hiding their use of mind-control lasers by disguising them as orbital heat rays. SMH. Newimpartial (talk) 18:55, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

<the "value added" by the conspiracy theory is the actor> Isn't this the entire point though ? If someone is making claims that is going against what is defined here as "cultural marxism" (namely the principal actor behind it), then why are you lumping them in together into the conspiracy theory. Why are you minimizing the "value added" by the specifics of the actor when a key point of this page is the specific actor.

<in your example, a person were to declare that "the Jews" are publicly using their mind control lasers to promote systemic racism, as anyone can see.> But in that example there would be an exact match between the claims and the conspiracy theory. This is what I have been pointing out all along, that there are differences between what this page claims and the claims of Peterson. If you want to match the article to Peterson's claims, then fair enough, update the article to say that "Cultural Marxism" is the conspiracy theory that marxists in society by acting out their ideology are subverting western culture, without any central planning or antisemitic aspect. To me it seems that this article is misleading: It wants to define cultural marxism as being conspiratorial in the sense that there is a secret plan, but it also wants to lump into 'cultural marxism' anyone who is making any similar claims even if the similar claims denounce the conspiratorial / secret aspect of it or the involvement of central planning actors. So my systemic racism example stands - this article / Peterson scenario have discrepancies as to what the actor and if there is a secret planning aspect. My systemic racism example has the same discrepancy. Your counter-example has no such discrepancy, there is a 1:1 match between your example and the conspiracy theory. The central problem is the discrepancy, which your example fails to incorporate, so it is not a valid counter-argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Accvvm (talk • contribs) 19:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

No, your example does not stand. The central claim of the Cultural Marxist conspiracy theory is that there are "Cultural Marxists" engaged in undermining Western values, not subsidiary claims about whether they do so openly or in secret, or how many of them are "Jews". Peterson's own musings completely endorse the central claim of the CT, and this article does not allege antisemitism on his part. And before you say there really are Cultural Marxists who do that, please look at User talk:Swood100, where these issues have been hashed out at considerable length. All of the currently available sources have been discussed on this talk page, and the sources that were available as recently as last year have been discussed in multiple RfCs. The consensus is that no RS support the claim that there really are "Cultural Marxists" and that they really do undermine Western values. It would take earth-shattering new RS findings - equivalent to the discovery of actual orbital mind control lasers - before this article would change to concede that, you know, maybe the Cultural Marxism CT is partly right. Newimpartial (talk) 20:24, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

OK, I think you are changing the goal posts now. Now you seem to be claiming that "Cultural Marxism" does not actually have as a key component the antisemitic claims and the central planning aspect, but it is only that marxists are acting out in such a way as to undermine western culture. This is not what the article talks about though. Any reasonable person would read the article as having the central planning aspect and to a lesser extent the antisemitic aspect behind it as crucial. So now you seem to claim that this is not the case. Obviously I can't prove to you that this is what a reasonable person would read it as but it should be obvious to everyone. If you think that the central planning and antisemitic aspects are not crucial, then why not just remove it ? You're happy to attribute the conspiracy theory to anyone missing those aspects but you seem unwilling to leave those aspects out when presenting the conspiracy theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Accvvm (talk • contribs) 21:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

AccvvmYou appear to be attempting to bamboozle us with overly long and complicated comments and analogies and this is now WP:BLUDGEONING the talk page. You raised concerns, they were thoughtfully and thoroughly addressed. You made your point, it recieved short shrift, time to move on. Bacondrum 21:22, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

The current first paragraph of lede reads as follows, Cultural Marxism is a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory which claims Western Marxism as the basis of continuing academic and intellectual efforts to subvert Western culture.[1][2][3] The conspiracists claim that an elite of Marxist theorists and Frankfurt School intellectuals are subverting Western society with a culture war that undermines the Christian values of traditionalist conservatism and promotes the cultural liberal values of the 1960s counterculture and multiculturalism, progressive politics and political correctness, misrepresented as identity politics created by critical theory. That is a good summary of the article AFAICT; note that it does not mention the central planning aspect at all and refers to antisemitism only once in a single word. Reliable sources describe the antisemitic origins and rhetoric of the conspiracy theory, so it is DUE to mention this here in the lede as it is to spell out the RS basis for this interpretation in the article. But your claim that Any reasonable person would read the article as having the central planning aspect and to a lesser extent the antisemitic aspect behind it as crucial seems, err, unsupported by evidence and an extremely tendentious reading of the article IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 21:24, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

OK, I now see what we disagree on - I wasn't trying to bamboozle anyone, this was actually my interpretation of it. I'll move on, hopefully you can keep my suggestions in mind if this article evolves in the futrure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Accvvm (talk • contribs) 21:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for listening. And yes we can return to this, if need be, as the article evolves. Bacondrum 21:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I think I follow your argument. You are saying that claiming society is being destroyed by ideas introduced by cultural Marxists does not necessarily mean claiming that it is a conspiracy. In one of your examples, the Wuhan flu conspiracy theory requires the supposition that people created it. But I suggest that Peterson is being disingenuous. He says that the cultural Marxism was created in order to destroy Western civilization. And modern day academics are working together to promote it. The opinion piece you cited is by Samuel Moyn, who is an expert, hence it is a reliable source. While Moy doesn't explain why he dismisses Peterson's claim that he is not promoting a conspiracy theory, he has the expertise to identify when someone is promoting a conspiracy theory.

Incidentally, the fight for minority rights does not have its origins in Marxism, but predate the American Revolution and have been accelerated by changing social circumstances. Once women became full members of the work force for example, they demanded equal pay and based their demands on America's commitment to equality. They didn't need cultural Marxists to incite them.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by The Four Deuces (talk • contribs)

• Oh good, now we have the Lobsterati agitating for counterfactual whitewashing. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 20 February 2021

Correct the spelling of Theodor Adorno in the "Main Promoters" section. (Change from "Theodore" to "Theodor"). Needmorebookshelves (talk) 21:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Needmorebookshelves Will do, as soon as someone removes the full protection placed on this article. Bacondrum 01:33, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

 Already done @Bacondrum: Please remember to close edit requests after completing them. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 14:56, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

The opening paragraph statements regarding "Cultural Marxism" are not accurate.

While Cultural Marxism has become a contentious subject in current political discourse, its origins predate the references cited in this WIKI. The opening two paragraphs definitively state that Cultural Marxism is a "conspiracy Theory" that originated in the US during the 1990's. Two sources are cited stating "Scholarly analysis of the conspiracy theory has concluded that it has no basis in fact".

Indeed, Cultural Marxism was referenced as a variation of Marxist ideology in post war Brittan circa 1960's. Dennis Dworkin, in his writing "Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain: History, the New Left, and the Origins of Cultural Studies", described the historical evolution of Cultural Marxism in detail, including associations with classical Marxism, Frankfurt School Marxists, and Antonio Gramsci's writings.

This WIKI is factually inaccurate. It is true that "Right Wing" political voices are calling attention to Cultural Marxism in the US, however Cultural Marxism is not a recently contrived conspiracy theory that originated in the United States. Accurate information on the subject including the the full history of this Marxist vector should be included and cited.— Preceding unsigned comment added by BatshtCrazy (talk • contribs) 07:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

gee, this sounds familiar, I wonder why? Acousmana (talk) 11:31, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Also, there is a disambiguation note pointing to Marxist cultural analysis for a reason. That is what so-called "non-conspiracy theory cultural Marxism" refers to, and is the COMMONNAME of that topic. "Cultural Marxism", by contrast, is the COMMONNAME of a conspiracy theory. Newimpartial (talk) 11:49, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Username checks out. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:09, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

As Newimpartial points out, you've confused Marxist analysis with this conspiracy theory. I don't blame you, because the conspiracists intentionally try to conflate the two, in order to add a veneer of respectability to their conspiracy theory. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

You can read the archives where this has been discussed before. There is no evidence that Dworkin and the very few writers who used the expression cultural Marxism were talking about the same thing. TFD (talk) 17:51,

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2021

I'm curious as to why this seems to be dismissed as a conspiracy theory with so many academic papers supporting it? You only listed one paper with a "this originated in the US in the 1990s"...and that's not actually true. This was originally coined against the New Left in Great Britain. See https://www.dukeupress.edu/Cultural-Marxism-in-Postwar-Britain

This article certainly needs editing. 174.107.168.92 (talk) 22:04, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• Not done - for the other topic, please see Marxist cultural analysis, as the disambiguation heading says. But there don't seem to be any academic papers suggesting that what the conspiracy theory talks about is real. Marxist cultural analysis isn't really anything like what gets called "Cultural Marxism" in the conspiracy theory. Newimpartial (talk) 22:39, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

The book you linked to has already been brought up at least five times in previous discussions. Indeed in 1997, an author writing about Marxist cultural analysis in the UK, called it cultural Marxism in his book. I believe the expression also appears in a journal paper published in the 1970s. But in no case were any of these writings about a purported attempt by Marxists to influence society. TFD (talk) 15:18, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Not sure why this section was removed. It highlights that it's a current concept among British Conservatives still.

In November 2020 a letter to the The Telegraph from the "Common Sense Group" of Conservative Parliamentarians accused the National Trust of being "coloured by cultural Marxist dogma, colloquially known as the 'woke agenda'".

Could someone add this back in. Seems perfectly fine. --124.168.203.144 (talk) 05:17, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Why do you think it is important? "Fringe group of backbench Tories have crazy ideas" isn't exactly noteworthy. TFD (talk) 05:59, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Yep, seems undue to me. We can't list every person who says these sorts of stupid things. Bacondrum 08:35, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Avalanche

Will someone please close the "Content (Ausstellung entartete kunst 1937)", "Civitas Institute speech and republication" and "Weyrich quote" rfc's above as per WP:SNOW. Bacondrum 22:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Please remember WP:SNOW says The snowball clause may not always be appropriate if a particular outcome is merely "likely" or "quite likely", and there is a genuine and reasoned basis for disagreement. This is because discussions are not votes; it is important to be reasonably sure that there is little or no chance of accidentally excluding significant input or perspectives, or changing the weight of different views, if closed early. Especially, closers should beware of interpreting "early pile on" as necessarily showing how a discussion will end up. This can sometimes happen when a topic attracts high levels of attention from those engaged (or having a specific view) but slower attention from other less involved editors, perhaps with other points of view. It can sometimes be better to allow a few extra days even if current discussion seems very clearly to hold one opinion, to be sure that it really will be a snowball and as a courtesy to be sure that no significant input will be excluded if closed very soon. Cases like this are more about judgment than rules, however.. There is nothing wrong having an RfC open for longer than a couple of days, especially if the initial discussions leading up to them were five months long. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't know about that - I think the first three are legitimate candidates for SNOW closes. The "less interested" people who are interested have come, they agree with the more interested people, and all that leaving those three RfCs open actually does is discourage people from reading down far enough to get to the fourth and fifth RfCs, which represent actual open questions to be decided. But NOTBURO isn't really a thing with you, is it, Emir? Newimpartial (talk) 22:55, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

There is no harm in waiting for someone who is WP:NOTINVOLVED to close them if you believe they are legitimate candidates for SNOW closes. If you think they do qualify for a snow close then please request at WP:AN/RFC. Also there is nothing saying that we have to close all of them at the same time, so if fourth and the firth have not had adequate discussion we can keep them open for longer if needed. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Emir, I have no doubt as to your good intentions, but you have driven everyone a bit mad here with these frivolous rfc's and they have received an avalanche in terms of responses - the consensus was clear from the outset - your proposals have WP:SNOWed. I think it's safe to say that this is all testing everyone's patience. Bacondrum 23:09, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

It is not safe to say that. It may be safer to say that snide remarks may be testing people's patience here. Teishin (talk) 23:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Did you not just accuse me of disruptive editing, gaming Wikipedia, and being a neo-Nazi in the above section? Now all of a sudden you are saying you have no doubts as to my good intentions, when you want to try and get a SNOW close. This seems suspicious to me. If someone who is WP:NOTINVOLVED closes the RfCs I will have to accept their outcome, but their is no harm in letting them play their course. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I made it clear I was not calling you a neo-Nazi, you were/are being disruptive with this wall of rfc's that are obviously going nowhere fast. I do assume you have good intentions, but I also think you are wasting our time and patience with these frivolous rfc's. Again, sorry if I came off as assuming bad faith - and I most certainly never intended to insinuate you were a neo-Nazi or anything of the sort, that would be ridiculous. Bacondrum 23:23, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

(Summoned by bot) So, having read the threads, and reviewed some the editorial history and updated myself on the article content, I would be happy to provide the relatively modest amount of extra time necessary to summarize their conclusions for a formal close. I have never contributed to the topic area that I can recall, and thus am 'non-involved' in the terms discussed above, and yet I am more than passingly familiar with the topic and have in fact encountered disputes relating to it through process in the past. And for what it's worth, RfC has been one of my main points of contribution on the project for the last decade or so.

All of that said, I'm going to have to tend to agree with Emir on one point here: if I'm going to do a procedural close on SNOW grounds, I'd like to see more than a few days to have passed. The accepted standard minimum for RfCs which do not violate policies and/or good faith is 30 days, and SNOW closes are not determined solely on the basis of numerical advantage at the outset of a discussion, no matter how significant. That said, do I think the writing is on the wall here for these discussions? Probably. But I agree that the pro forma thing to do here is to wait at least a little longer. A week of continuous feedback skewing to one side is, in this instance with these facts, about the earliest I can view as a viable period and extremity of response to establish that the normal consensus-building process has been respected enough to deem it appropriate to abrogate the normal threshold period. There is, afterall, WP:NORUSH here.

I realize that a couple of editors here besides Emir believe they perceive tendentiousness and abuse of process here. With respect, that is an issue that is not best resolved via talk page discussion: if someone thinks they can make a decent argument for bad-faith conduct here, there is always WP:ANI, though I don't know that I would recommend it in this instance. Regardless, there is no formal rule restricting multiple simultaneous RfCs--there is in fact only language expressly saying there is no limit, though we may question the 'legislative intent' of the original policy authors and community members who endorsed it. Furthermore, it is more than plausible that opening these RfCs actually will have saved time, relative to a course of events in which the dispute was the subject of a slow moving edit war.

So any outside closer is likely to find these RfCs as compliant with the letter of our policies--and again, any argument regarding bad-faith motive or abuse from context would need to take place in another space, I feel. Someone else qualified may decide they think there is enough evidence of disruption or intent to disrupt in the way these RfCs have been approached in order to do a SNOW close here: I am afraid I do not. On the face of things, the use of process here is acceptable, though I will add the caveat that the fairly uniform rebuke of the other editors working here to all of the proposals probably should be giving Emir cause to think here, and they will certainly want to consider the extent to which they need to drop the stick in a general sense here, if all discussions are ultimately SNOW closed even after further input.

In short, I'll be back in four days and, if no one else has felt comfortable closing in the interim and responses have continued to be more or less as one-sided, I will do a procedural SNOW close on each. If there is a relevant uptick in views that complicate the consensus, I will leave any affected discussion open for the typical 30 day run. Please feel free to ping me if I do not return promptly. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:48, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Snow Rise thanks, and thanks for the detailed explanation. Bacondrum 23:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: Just a reminder if you want to take a look here. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:17, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

RfC See also Cultural Bolshevism

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
RFC expired, (Vote: 7 Keep - 5 Remove. Slightly in favour of keeping. Closed by Bacondrum (non-admin closure).
Should we remove Cultural Bolshevism from the "see also section" to comply with MOS:SEEALSO? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:50, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Survey (Cultural Bolshevism) Oppose removal - SEEALSO specifies the "See also" section should be relevant and should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic. Both of these criteria are met. Newimpartial (talk) 18:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Remove as per MOS:SEEALSO. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC) (edit conflict) Oppose removal per SEEALSO as explained by Newimpartial above. ezlev.talk 18:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Oppose removal but we should probably rewrite and expand the article's treatment of the connection between Cultural Marxism and Cultural Bolshevism, as I mentioned above. Possible sources: [1][2]. --Aquillion (talk) 19:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Oppose removal. RS appear to link the two as related. It seems natural that something checking the 'See also' section will be interested in related concepts. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:13, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Oppose removal - as per above. Emir, I don't think that it is reasonable to expect people to respond to half a dozen rfc's at a time, especially when these issues have been discussed at length here previously and received short shrift, as they are again now. Bacondrum 20:50, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Remove - it's already linked in the article body. Korny O'Near (talk) 22:49, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Oppose removal: the connections between the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory and the Cultural Bolshevism conspiracy theory are well sourced. Loki (talk) 03:47, 30 March 2021 (UTC) Oppose removal unless the connection is established (and linked to) in the text, which some above RfCs imply should be done. It is difficult to see what the grounds for removal are/would be. Pincrete (talk) 09:28, 30 March 2021 (UTC) Support removal. Since the topic appears to be linked to several times in the article itself, an argument for the need to duplicate needs to be made. It seems overkill to also have a "See also" entry. Pincrete (talk) 09:34, 30 March 2021 (UTC) Oppose removal. The two are very related, which is why a simple link (or even multiple links) in the article body just aren't sufficient. TucanHolmes (talk) 16:57, 30 March 2021 (UTC) Unanswerable because who knows what the topic of this article really is (invited by the bot) This seems to be the article about Cultural Marxism but seems to be misnamed for one minor fringe "comspiracy" aspect of the topic. North8000 (talk) 17:14, 30 March 2021 (UTC) You know, don't you, that there have been three RfCs or RMs establishing the title and scope of this article? Newimpartial (talk) 17:30, 30 March 2021 (UTC) Looks like they all failed. There's little no even alleged "conspiracy" covered in the article.North8000 (talk) 14:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC) All the high-quality RS available say that the phenomenon covered in the article is a conspiracy theory. If you don't like high-quality RS, then you probably don't like Wikipedia. :) Newimpartial (talk) 22:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC) I can't see the first 3 sources we are using in the article calling it a conspiracy theory? Are they not high-quality RS? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:03, 1 April 2021 (UTC) Remove There is already a linkage with the article.Sea Ane (talk) 12:44, 6 April 2021 (UTC) Remove. Already mentioned/linked under § Cultural pessimism. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:56, 14 April 2021 (UTC) Remove per MOS:SEEALSO - Idealigic (talk) 11:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC) Threaded discussion (Cultural Bolshevism) Pinging editors who reverted edits based trying to enforce this. @Newimpartial and Bacondrum: --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:50, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Sorry it was actually Acousmana not Bacondrum. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:58, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Cultural Bolshevism is mentioned 4 times in the article and linked once. MOS:SEEALSO says As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Yes, but note As a general rule. The overriding guidance is Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense - in other words, this is matter for local consensus rather than centralized decision-making. Newimpartial (talk) 19:15, 29 March 2021 (UTC) No one is "trying to enforce" anything. Bacondrum 20:35, 29 March 2021 (UTC) I was, but people reverted me. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:58, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Note to Emir of Wikipedia

If there is a discussion where you hold one view with respect to long-term, stable sourced content, and multiple editors express a different view based on policy, it is your responsibility to establish a new consensus rather than BOLDly edit warring for removal because you DONTLIKEIT. Thanks. Newimpartial (talk) 16:29, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

There was no consensus in those discussions to keep the article in the content. The WP:ONUS is on the one who wants to include the content. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:15, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any lack of consensus in those discussions; one editor's objection to multiple editors' agreement does not make content "disputed". In any event, this is long-term stable content that has received the support of many editors over time, so it should stay in place until consensus changes. Newimpartial (talk) 15:26, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Look at the discussions that took place at Talk:Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory/Archive_6. There was no consensus to include, and even if there was when it was put in Wikipedia:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:27, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

You aren't reading those discussions accurately. For File:Ausstellung entartete kunst 1937.jpg, for example, five editors expressed support in varying degrees and you were the only one objecting. That is consensus to include the image. Newimpartial (talk) 15:32, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

You said keep I said remove for that specific one. If there is a problem with part of my edit then do a Wikipedia:Partial revert, instead of being WP:DISRUPT by acting like a WP:OWNER and not allowing changes from anyone else. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:34, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Why are you acting as though no other editors had participated in that discussion? The fact is, you removed long-term stable content while gesturing at discussions that did not, in fact, support your contention that the material is disputed. When multiple editors have discussed something, you can't make it "disputed" and BOLDLY remove it out of personal conviction. Newimpartial (talk) 15:40, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I am not acting as if no editors participated in any of the discussions, just that there was no consensus for any of the edits to stay in the article before the discussion were archived by HandThatFeeds. The WP:ONUS is on the editor who wants to include content, not the one who wants to remove content that does not have WP:CONSENSUS for inclusion. There is no personal conviction here being used to boldly remove anything, only to reinsert by you. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:23, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Whatever the problem is several editors clearly disagree with you Emir, please stop edit warring, lets talk it out here instead. Bacondrum 00:20, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• At least regarding the part currently cited to Owen Jones and Hussein Kesvani, can we replace that entire block of text with the version I suggested here or some variation on it? I think it would be better to use a non-opinion source, and one does seem to exist. I also feel that the people listed there are probably more relevant than Tim Montgomerie (who I couldn't find many sources relating to this, whereas all of the ones I listed in my proposal were discussed in-depth in that source and come up a lot elsewhere when discussing this.) --Aquillion (talk) 17:08, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree. :) Newimpartial (talk) 17:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

If you are intending to put into this article the para starting: In Alt-Right ‘cultural purity’ ideology and mainstream social policy discourse..., then I strongly object, because it calls 5 named people white supremacists, without any apparent justification. Sweet6970 (talk) 17:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

It's cited to an academic paper published in a WP:RS! That obviously satisfies WP:BLP, and is a far better source than we were using before. But would it help if it said In the UK, proponents of one or more of these elements... to avoid the implication that every named person supports every element? --Aquillion (talk) 17:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

No, I don’t think that would help. Calling someone a white supremacist is an extraordinary, and defamatory, claim. And it appears that it is only this source which makes this extraordinary claim. There is nothing, for instance, in the Wikipedia article on RD to even suggest that he might be a racist. I think you need to be a great deal clearer about what the source actually says about these people. Have you any quotations from the source which would clarify this? Sweet6970 (talk) 17:38, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, previous reply was also addressed to Acousmana. Sweet6970 (talk) 17:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Did you read the extensive discussion linked above, or the multiple links to the source I've provided? (It is also available here. I explained my reasoning in-depth there. To be clear, you will have to explain how the version I proposed calls someone a "white supremacist", because I do not see it at all, and there was an extended discussion among multiple editors, none of whom read it the way you imply. The source says that:

Extended quotation

The added bit summarizes a lengthy section of the paper that begins with: When presented as an overarching narrative, the CMC conspiracy might seem absurd and linkable only to the extreme social ‘fringe’. Yet, we can break it down into its key elements: misogynist anti-feminism, neo-eugenic science (broadly defined as various forms of genetic determinism), genetic and cultural white supremacy, McCarthyist anti-Leftism fixated on postmodernism, radical anti-intellectualism applied to the social sciences, and the idea that a purge is required to restore normality. And, we then find all of these items supported, proselytised and academically buoyed by intellectuals, politicians, and media figures with extremely credible educational backgrounds. ... In the following, we will apply these theoretical and conceptual insights to social policy mostly in the UK. In order to provide more evidence for the role of intellectuals and the CMC conspiracy, we provide specific examples of individuals’ public speech acts like publications or Twitter postings as well as reported statements and interviews that illustrate the prevalence of major elements of CMC among a well-educated and influential group of people. ...and the list of individuals summarizes the most notable people who are prominently discussed there. For Dawkins specifically, it says that: ...as well as other intellectuals, like biologist Richard Dawkins (2013b) who comments that Murray “sees through David Cameron's ingratiating Islamophilia.” Militant atheism, of which Dawkins is the leading figure, has played a preeminent role in promoting and scientising crypto-racist narratives of religious believers as a savage, ignorant threat to white cultural purity ... Both Dawkins (2007) and Steve Harris (2015) explicitly denounce postmodernism, or putative cultural Marxism, as rotting the intellectual culture of the West; as do several other of their key intellectual allies, including Steve Pinker (2018) and Christopher Hitchens (2005), who blames postmodernism for the “abysmal state of mind that prevails in so many of our universities”. ... The claim that welfare states prevent evolution from weeding out “genes for having too many children” appears most famously in Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene (Dawkins, 2006:117). ... The scientisation of misogyny is a primary means of justifying, explaining, and promoting gender inequality. Perkins seeks to control poor women’s alleged genetically pathologised fertility. Dawkins (2006) presents women’s wider social behaviour as driven by genetical impulses towards reproduction and childcare.

There's a lot more (both about Dawkins and the others listed), but that should give you the general gist of it. The point is that they lay out a definition of the arguments underlying Cultural Marxism, then list individuals whose work has brought it into the mainstream along those axes; the summary doesn't imply that every individual named is responsible along every named axis, and the list is necessary to make it clear how these people are connected to Cultural Marxism by that source. --Aquillion (talk) 17:58, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I read the proposed wording, rather than the lengthy discussions about this article, in which I now have very little interest. I am only concerned with the defamatory nature of the addition to the article.

(1) I have read the quotation you have now provided (thank you). I do not agree that the summary now in the article correctly represents this.

(2) The summary in the article can reasonably be read to say that all the named people are misogynists, supporters of eugenics, white supremacists, and anti-intellectual, and I don’t think your suggested change would make any difference to this. Sweet6970 (talk) 18:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

(ec) The propsed text by Aquillion does nowehere identify Dawkins as a white supremasist. The sentence in question: (...) describe a process in which the conspiracy theory is spread and sanitized by public intellectuals who voice support for its key elements --Mvbaron (talk) 18:05, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

It’s not ‘proposed’ now – it was added to the article while I was posting on this page. The article now says that these people are ‘proponents of these elements’. i.e. they support misogyny, eugenics, white supremacy, and anti-intellectualism. Sweet6970 (talk) 18:21, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough, I was confused about the reverting. But anyways, the text right now says only that each of these intellectuals are proponents of one or more of themes also found in the conspiracy theory - which seems correct. It doesn't say that e.g. Dawkins is a proponent of all of these elements, but some: Both Dawkins (2007) and Steve Harris (2015) explicitly denounce postmodernism, or putative cultural Marxism, as rotting the intellectual culture of the West. Mvbaron (talk) 18:32, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Aquillion's proposed changes, academic sources, very well argued case. I can't see what could be objectionable about it Bacondrum 21:00, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

The current text doesn’t say that RD and SH denounce postmodernism, or putative cultural Marxism, it says that they are ‘proponents’ of misogyny, eugenics, white supremacy, and anti-intellectualism. Sweet6970 (talk) 21:35, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

BLP concerns

(Starting a new heading because the subject of the discussion has changed)

The wording in the article I object to is:Sociologists Julia Lux and John David Jordan describe a process in which the conspiracy theory is spread and sanitized by public intellectuals who voice support for its key elements, which they break down into "misogynist anti-feminism, neo-eugenic science (broadly defined as various forms of genetic determinism), genetic and cultural white supremacy, McCarthyist anti-Leftism fixated on postmodernism, radical anti-intellectualism applied to the social sciences, and the idea that a purge is required to restore normality." In the UK, proponents of these elements they identify include Douglas Murray, Richard Dawkins, Steve Harris, Adam Perkins, and Toby Young

(1) It plainly says that the 5 named people are misogynists, supporters of eugenics, white supremacists, and anti-intellectual.

(2) This is not supported by the quotation provided above.

(3) This is in breach of the Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons, which applies whether or not the material appears in a specific biography of the person concerned. WP:BLP. This policy includes (i) Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources.WP:BLPSTYLE and Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of small minorities should not be included at all. WP:BLPBALANCE Only one source has been provided (without a relevant quotation) so there is no evidence that these people are described in this way in other sources, or, in fact, in the Wikipedia articles specifically on them. (Note that accusations of misogyny and support for eugenics are mentioned on the Toby Young page, but it does not label him as a misogynist and supporter of eugenics, as this Cultural Marxism article now does.)

(4) WP:BLP says: Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

I really don’t want to get involved in an edit war over this. @Aquillion: @Acousmana: Please delete the disputed material, and propose an alternative wording. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:13, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

You really don't want to? That's nice of you. I'm good with the wording as it stands, clearly attributed, not wikivoice. I suggest you do the sensible thing and follow the appropriate dispute resolution pathway rather than talking about edit warring as a viable means of pushing content you prefer. Acousmana (talk) 16:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Acousmana: When I said I really don’t want to get involved in an edit war over this. I meant… umm….’I really don’t want to get involved in an edit war over this.’ I was not talking about edit warring as a viable means of pushing content I prefer. The usual method of dispute resolution on Wikipedia is civilised, civil, and rational discussion on the Talk page of the relevant article. Sweet6970 (talk) 17:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• By my count something like six people have commented on the section in question (in this or the previous discussion) and you're the only one who reads it that way. I've proposed at least one change to address your concerns regardless, which you rejected out of hand; beyond that, since with the proposed tweak it absolutely does not state that the five people are misogynists, supporters of eugenics, white supremacists, and anti-intellectual and there seems to be an overwhelming consensus on that point, the BLP concern you see simply isn't there - I can't continuously propose rewordings to fix a nonexistent problem when you're going to shoot down my proposals so bluntly. I suggest you seriously consider how the paragraph would read with In the UK, proponents of one or more of these elements... and explain, in detail, how you feel it would still be a BLP violation even with that excessively cautious wording, because it doesn't seem like you've managed to convince anyone with your arguments so far and as far as I can tell (by making it unambiguous that the list of features doesn't apply to every named person), that change would completely eliminate even the most remote possibility of the reading you're concerned about. If that's still a problem another solution might be to separate the list of features from the list of people and cover them in different parts of the article to reduce the risk of accidental misreadings like yours (from editors reading rapidly who mistakenly believe every point in the list applies to every named person); it might be a better way to structure things overall. But I'm not a huge fan of it because it leaves it unclear how the source connects those individuals to the topic; they are fairly specific, more specific than a lot of the other sources we cite. --Aquillion (talk) 16:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Aquillion: Thank you for the amendment to the article. I see that your amended sentence logically makes sense, but it still leaves the reader not knowing which of the accusations goes with which individual, and I think that, unfortunately, most readers will leave the article with the impression that all of them are guilty of all of the accusations. (I think that most Wikipedia readers do not read things so precisely as Wikipedia editors usually do.) Also, the second sentence can be read as being in Wikipedia voice, which I think may not be the intention (?) I would much prefer it if the different aspects were separated, as you suggest. It would also be more informative for readers. I am still concerned that there is no direct quotation for the allegations against these people. Sweet6970 (talk) 17:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Sweet6970 I think this is fair, we can definitely word this sentence better. I would be interested in doing this (if you don't beat me) - but alas don't have time until tomorrow. Something like The authors identify mainstream intellectuals as perpetuating elements of the conspiracy teheory... or something like this would perhaps help, or work in this quote from the chapter: ... problematised how 'fringe' naratives mask that sexism, patriarchy and racism ... are structurally integarted within and across all of society. ... it is the extreme in the mainstream Mvbaron (talk) 17:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

To all interested editors: Now that the dust is settling on the various RfCs below, I would like to get back to the problem of the BLP violations, which include stating/implying that several named people are white supremacists. I would be interested in Mvbaron’s final draft for covering the material from Lux & Jordan.

(1) Having read the quotations provided above by Aquillion(hatted as ‘Extended quotation’) I would summarise this as:

‘Sociologists Julia Lux and John David Jordan assert that the conspiracy theory can be broken down into: ‘its key elements: misogynist anti-feminism, neo-eugenic science (broadly defined as various forms of genetic determinism), genetic and cultural white supremacy, McCarthyist anti-Leftism fixated on postmodernism, radical anti-intellectualism applied to the social sciences, and the idea that a purge is required to restore normality.’ They go on to say that all of these items are ‘supported, proselytised and academically buoyed by intellectuals, politicians, and media figures with extremely credible educational backgrounds.' They mention Richard Dawkins, Steve Harris, Steven Pinker and Christopher Hitchens as supporting various of the elements previously mentioned.’

This is very different from the current wording in the article.

(2) Note that Lux’s & Jordan’s ideas of what the conspiracy theory consists of differ from the statement made in the lead of this article, which refers to undermining Christian values. These authors treat atheism as a crucial element in the conspiracy theory: ‘Militant atheism, of which Dawkins is the leading figure, has played a preeminent role in promoting and scientising crypto-racist narratives of religious believers as a savage, ignorant threat to white cultural purity ...’

This contradiction should be mentioned in the article.

(3) There is another point regarding this source: it treats post-modernism as equivalent to Cultural Marxism. ‘Both Dawkins (2007) and Steve Harris (2015) explicitly denounce postmodernism, or putative cultural Marxism, as rotting the intellectual culture of the West; as do several other of their key intellectual allies, including Steve Pinker (2018) and Christopher Hitchens (2005), who blames postmodernism for the “abysmal state of mind that prevails in so many of our universities”. ...’.

A while ago, there was some discussion about Jordan Peterson’s views, and that he treated postmodernism and Cultural Marxism as equivalent. This was said to be a mistake by Mr Peterson. Yet this source does the same thing. So is Mr Peterson right about this, or are Lux & Jordan wrong? Sweet6970 (talk) 11:24, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

ad (1): sounds fine to me, BUT

ad (2): I'm sure you know that "Militant atheism ... has played a preeminent role in promoting" the conspiracy theory is different from "the conspiracy theory is militant atheist" ...

ad (3): I'm sure you know that "postmodernism, or putative cultural Marxism" is different from "postmodernism is cultural marxism" ...

So: what are you trying to say here? I'm having a hard time understanding what your point is here. Mvbaron (talk) 12:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

also, I mean, of course post-modernism (a whole school of thought and academic movement) is not the same as "Cultural Marxism", which, you know, doesn't exist but is rather an invented concept to push a certain agenda. So, are you trying to be POINTY here, did you really not read the several discussions on this Talk Page, or (sorry to be so frank) are you just playing stupid? Mvbaron (talk) 12:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Dear Mvbaron I don’t play games on Wikipedia. Any stupidity I exhibit will be genuine.

(1) I’m glad you agree with my proposed amended wording.

(2) I was pointing out that there is a contradiction between the wording of the lead, which characterises the conspiracy theory as (supposedly) defending Christian values, and the attitude of Lux & Jordan, which associates it with militant atheism. So I think the lead should be amended to take this into account.

(3) No, I’m not sure I know what ‘Both Dawkins (2007) and Steve Harris (2015) explicitly denounce postmodernism, or putative cultural Marxism,….’ means. (Perhaps this is where my stupidity kicks in.) Some people use the expression ‘a or b’ to mean ‘a’ is another way of saying ‘b’. If this is the case, then Lux & Jordan are saying that postmodernism is equivalent to Cultural Marxism. This would be surprising, but possible. Otherwise, they may using ‘or’ to mean ‘and’, and be saying that Dawkins and Harris use both postmodernism and Cultural Marxism to explain the rotting of the intellectual culture of the West. What do you think this quotation means?

Sweet6970 (talk) 14:10, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

First, I never said that you are stupid, I said that I feel like you are intentionally playing dumb in order to prove a point. (ad 2) There is no contradiction: all the source says is that "militant atheists" sometimes promote the same goals as the conspiracy theorists. (ad 3) There is no way anyone would identify postmodernism with Cultural Marxism unless they are intentionally being misleading; these two things (CM and PM) are of a completely different category even, and cannot even be compared in a sane manner. With that being said, I will bow out of this discussion, I think this is a waste of time. Mvbaron (talk) 14:32, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I said I bow out, but here is a quote from the article, I hope this lays (2) to rest: Both Dawkins and Murray are atheists, yet both invoke the notion of ‘cultural Christianity’ to underpin their claims that Islam is a threat to progressive ‘European values’, such as lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans (LGBT) and women’s rights, as, indeed, do several European Far Right groups. Obviously A and B can promote C without contradiction, even if A and B are opposed to each other. Mvbaron (talk) 14:36, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Concerning (3), the key word in the quote Sweet provided is putative, which is being used here in the sense of "supposed" rather than the other sense of "commonly regarded as". The source is saying that those subscribing to the CT refer to postmodernists as "Cultural Marxists" and not that postmodernists are generally referred to as "Cultural Marxists", which would be ridiculous. Newimpartial (talk) 15:10, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Does anyone have any objection to me changing the wording regarding Lux & Jordan, as I proposed on 12 April at 11:24? Sweet6970 (talk) 14:14, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't see a concise edit proposal from you on that date (times don't match, I'm assuming that's due to time zone differences). — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:14, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

This one:

To all interested editors: Now that the dust is settling on the various RfCs below, I would like to get back to the problem of the BLP violations, which include stating/implying that several named people are white supremacists. I would be interested in Mvbaron’s final draft for covering the material from Lux & Jordan.

(1) Having read the quotations provided above by Aquillion(hatted as ‘Extended quotation’) I would summarise this as:

‘Sociologists Julia Lux and John David Jordan assert that the conspiracy theory can be broken down into: ‘its key elements: misogynist anti-feminism, neo-eugenic science (broadly defined as various forms of genetic determinism), genetic and cultural white supremacy, McCarthyist anti-Leftism fixated on postmodernism, radical anti-intellectualism applied to the social sciences, and the idea that a purge is required to restore normality.’ They go on to say that all of these items are ‘supported, proselytised and academically buoyed by intellectuals, politicians, and media figures with extremely credible educational backgrounds.' They mention Richard Dawkins, Steve Harris, Steven Pinker and Christopher Hitchens as supporting various of the elements previously mentioned.’

This is very different from the current wording in the article.

…….. etc. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:22, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I have now made this change. Sweet6970 (talk) 09:41, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Query to Emir

Re: this tag, what of the massive and complex edit here represents a dispute regarding the factual accuracy of the article? I am at something of a loss here. Newimpartial (talk) 22:53, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, that tag is unwarranted. Bacondrum 00:22, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

RfC File:Ausstellung entartete kunst 1937.jpg

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
RFC expired, consenus to keep quote (Votes: 15 keep - 2 remove), significant number of editors argued for a rewrite. Closed by Bacondrum (non-admin closure).
Should this page include the file File:Ausstellung entartete kunst 1937.jpg? with the captioning and sourcing below? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Content (Ausstellung entartete kunst 1937) Extended content The Cultural Marxism conspiracy recycles Joseph Goebbels opinions from the Degenerate Art Exhibition (July–November 1937) which the Nazis said proved that modern art was part of the cultural Bolshevism conspiracy meant to morally weaken German society Sources Survey (Ausstellung entartete kunst 1937) Remove - Off-topic image, that is not even linked to Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, by the sources given. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:57, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Oppose removal - the connection between the exhibit and the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory is made in this source, cited in the photo's caption. Newimpartial (talk) 18:05, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Add the picture, because it is a nice illustration to the following parapgraph in the main article: In Fascism and Culture (2003), professor Matthew Feldman argues that the etymology of the term Cultural Marxism derived from the antisemitic term Kulturbolschewismus (Cultural Bolshevism), with which the Nazis claimed that Jewish cultural influence caused German social degeneration under the liberal régime of the Weimar Republic (1918–1933) and was the cause of social degeneration in the West. Maxime Dafaure makes a similar point in "The 'Great Meme War:' the Alt-Right and its Multifarious Enemies" (2020). In the essay "Cultural Marxism and the Cathedral: Two Alt-Right Perspectives on Critical Theory" (2019), the academic Andrew Woods notes that such comparisons are the most common way to analyze the antisemitic implications of the conspiracy theory... BUT Change the caption to more accurately reflect the main body text here, also remove sources 1 and 3 (they are useless) --Mvbaron (talk) 18:06, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Rewrite (although I'd be fine with replacing it with another images, I think having one image for Cultural Bolshevism is good.) The connection between Cultural Marxism and Cultural Bolshevism is well-established in the sources, so I don't think it's synth or unrelated to have an image for Cultural Bolshevism; however, I would rewrite the caption to make it clear that the image is just to illustrate Cultural Bolshevism and to generally make it more brief. It might be worth a broader rewrite to have an entire section on Cultural Bolshevism in the "history" section, which would be a more appropriate place for this image (or whatever Cultural Bolshevism image we use) - really, we should be discussing Cultural Bolshevism in the history section in the first place, that's the main problem here. --Aquillion (talk) 18:40, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Rewrite caption and include per Mvbaron and Aquillion. The caption should definitely be brief, and the body text near the image should have the majority of the detail. ezlev.talk 18:47, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Keep & Rewrite per above. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Keep and rewrite. The links appear to have been noted in peer-reviewed research (per above). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Rewrite caption and include per Mvbaron and Aquillion. Bacondrum 20:20, 29 March 2021 (UTC)× Keep the photo as the appropriateness is sufficiently sourced in the article text. The caption should be shorter. William Avery (talk) 20:58, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Keep - Definitely relevant. Trim caption, adjust text as appropriate, but do not remove. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Remove - pure guilt by association. You might as well put this photo in the necktie article, with the caption "Many Nazis enjoyed wearing neckties." Korny O'Near (talk) 22:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Keep: as multiple people above have noted the sources are pretty clear on the connection between the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory and the Cultural Bolshevism conspiracy theory. I think the current caption is fine but don't strongly oppose a rewrite. Loki (talk) 03:41, 30 March 2021 (UTC) Keep & Rewrite per Aquillion above. Pincrete (talk) 09:06, 30 March 2021 (UTC) Keep. When I was just a reader, I remember this image having an effect on me in terms of understanding what Cultural Marxism actually means and who were its proponents. JBchrch (talk) 14:40, 30 March 2021 (UTC) Strong Keep. Cultural marxism is strongly connected to Cultural Bolveshism; excellent illustration. Maybe copy edit the current caption a bit. TucanHolmes (talk) 16:49, 30 March 2021 (UTC) Keep and rewrite. per AquillionSea Ane (talk) 15:38, 31 March 2021 (UTC) Rewrite and include per the above. It's not that the picture is off-topic, but that it's relevance is unclear. And citations belong in the text not buried in captions.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC) Threaded discussion (Ausstellung entartete kunst 1937) The previous discussion took place at Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory/Archive 6#File:Ausstellung entartete kunst 1937.jpg. Pinging discussion participants and archiver. @Davide King, Mvbaron, Bacondrum, Newimpartial, and HandThatFeeds: --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC) What about something like this for a caption? Goebbels views the Degenerate Art exhibition. The cultural marxism conspiracy theory is often compared to the antisemitic Nazi propaganda about "cultural Bolshevism" and "degenerate art". I'm unsure about where (if at all) to put the actual description of the picture. --Mvbaron (talk) 21:49, 29 March 2021 (UTC) I went ahead and BOLDly added this caption. I hope this is allowed in an ongoing RFC, if not, I will self-revert. EDIT: was reverted, too early Mvbaron (talk) 07:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)