Talk:Frankfurt School

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Socialism (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Economics (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Germany (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Frankfurt.
 
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Sociology (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Conservatism  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
Former featured article Frankfurt School is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 8, 2004.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
February 27, 2004 Featured article candidate Promoted
April 6, 2006 Featured article review Demoted
Current status: Former featured article

Breach of NPOV policy[edit]

Cultural Marxism is a legitimate term to describe a certain political view. It is commonly used in Western countries. It is a highly controversial term among the left. Among the right it is commonly accepted as true. For example the way the matter has been presented here as "conspiracy theory" is the type of opinion to be accepted from left wing media such as the guardian, independent, huffington post and so on. Wikipedia is presenting a purely left wing pseudo-interpretation of the matter. It appears as though a rogue (politically biased) admin has blocked any normal users from restoring the cultural marxism page. This admin and his supporters is breaching a fundamental rule of Wikipedia of NPOV. Neutral point of view is a MUST for an encyclopaedia. Ask yourself not that you are left and want to destroy the right, ask yourself whether your duty is to write an accurate encyclopaedia. Thank you and respect due to all people that use or work for wikipedia. I don't mean disrespect to anyone. Zikasmallheads (talk) 13:38, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

"NPOV means presenting the right and left side of the argument." no it doesn't, that would be an example of a false balance argument. You should perhaps go read WP:NPOV before you make claims about it.
"Cultural Marxism is a legitimate term to describe a certain political view." no it isn't, it's a series of false claims concerning The Frankfurt School - legitimating these claims violates Wikipedia's adherence to factual content.
"For example the way the matter has been presented here as "conspiracy theory" is the type of opinion to be accepted from left wing media such as the guardian, independent, huffington post and so on." - nope none of the media outlets you've listed are currently being used as sources for the Cultural Marxism section. There are however several academics and doctors of the social sciences being cited as declaring the theory to be a conspiracy theory these include Jérome Jamin, Dr. Heidi Beirich, Matthew Feldman and John E Richardson - all of whom are credentialed academics in appropriate fields (philosophy, civics and the social sciences) and all of whom have been vetted as sources in line with Wikipedia's policies (particularly the reliable sourcing policy; WP:RS).
"It appears as though a rogue (politically biased) admin has blocked any normal users from restoring the cultural marxism page." Nope - the previous page on the topic (which only used 9 sources, with only 3 of those 9 actually containing the term "Cultural Marxism" - and two of those 3 coming from a single author) was deleted by community consensus as confirmed by a panel of 3 randomly selected WP:uninvolved admins. You can read their discussion here and part of that decision was to take up the community suggestion to WP:SALT the previous page (in order that poorly sourced content wouldn't be replicated in this section). It is common on controversial pages to have some page protection, this is not the work of a rogue admin, and doesn't even block MOST Wikipedians from editing the page. It only blocks the newest and least experienced editors from editing the page.
On that note, I suggest if you wish to persist in this discussion you learn how to use a talk page; and particularly how to indent comments rather than addressing users by name and hoping they see. The talk page guidelines including how to indent can be read here WP:TPG, thank you and welcome to Wikipedia. --Jobrot (talk) 16:31, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

-

To clarify how False balance relates here, no scholars of The Frankfurt School claim the Frankfurt School were trying to "destroy the west" or to push Political Correctness or Multiculturalism or Radical Feminism or any of the other claims made by this conspiracy theory. None. Zero. No one of any credentials supports these claims. So to give over any of the section to that viewpoint under the guise that Wikipedia has to "tell both sides of the argument" would be to give a false impression, or a "false balance". Wikipedia aims to show the highest quality of research, there is no policy or obligation for Wikipedia to cover both sides if one side is incorrect. --Jobrot (talk) 16:42, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Who is making the determination of what is or is not incorrect in this case. It appears to just be you. The way that you talk you seem to be saying that even the term 'cultural marxism' is ludicrous on the face of it and that even trying to define that term (which for better or worse is a term that has entered the modern lexicon) in a neutral manner will be stating that there is a cultural Illuminati trying to destroy the west. This is a false dichotomy. It is undoubtedly true that much of the use of cultural marxism is hyperbolic but refusing to describe what that term means is by itself biased. No-one sees a problem with writing detailed pages on the philosophy of Aristotle even though his ideas are laughable by today's standards. Writing about his beliefs is not the same as supporting his beliefs. We have pages here about holocaust denial too; because describing the arguments of holocaust deniers is not the same as denying the holocaust. In both cases they are handled the same; with criticism of their ideas being presented along side definitions of them. But by your logic because these ideas are 'incorrect' there is no need to even describe what those beliefs are or why adherents believed them. If we can manage to be neutral about these issues then we can manage to do so here. Simply allowing a page to exist does not imply an idea is being giving credence. We have pages on perpetual motion and homeopathy (ideas that are ludicrous with no basis in fact); why doesn't cultural marxism receive the same thing? Posting this page down the memory hole instead of allowing it to be presented and refuted as wikipedia does on every other contentious issue is simply wrong. It is a breach of balance, it is a breach of neutrality and an active attempt by you to prevent facts being presented. Just reading through this page it is very clear that you don't want that; you don't even want the chance to refute cultural marxism as an idea in it's own terms and allow readers to make their own minds up. You are not working in good faith here and that is a complete breach of the wikipedia guidelines.109.153.3.240 (talk) 12:34, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
The issue is that what we write about it has to come from reliable sources; and what the reliable sources on the theory say (Jérôme, Richardson, Wodak, and Beirich, to name just a few, all of whom are respected mainstream academics and, in some cases, experts on this subject in particular) is that it's a conspiracy theory used as a recruiting tool by far-right movements. WP:NPOV doesn't mean giving everyone a false balance; what it means is covering topics according to what the highest-quality reliable sources say about them. --Aquillion (talk) 12:41, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

-

The page hasn't gone down the memory hole - it has been reduced to a section within the topic to which it refers (ie. The Frankfurt School). If you can point to anything I've done or said which you believe to not be in WP:GOODFAITH feel free to bring it to the attention of the Administrative Notice Board. I believe the topic is covered in the current section adequately. Proponents of the term believe "Cultural Marxism" to be an organized effort to destroy western culture using feminism, gay rights, civil rights and atheism, and that conception of it IS described in the current section. As mentioned above, every statement in the section is well sourced - and as per your inquiry the right wing conception is covered and described as well. I'm not sure as to what you believe is lacking. Sorry you feel I've used bad faith here, but perhaps you could explain to me what you believe is lacking from The Frankfurt School page overall? --Jobrot (talk) 16:49, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Sources are sociologists (left wing academics). D'oh. How can left wing academics be experts on the right wing? There's your bias right there, in how the sources are chosen and falsely portrayed as experts. William Lind and Pat Buchanan can't be used as sources? They're published journalists that have worked in government. Usually your reasoning would be sound, but in the case of left wing academics, sociology is at its heart a left wing discipline. So the act of only choosing left wing academics as sources is where the bias lies. It's not a deliberate bias. Left wingers perhaps can't see the bias. To any right winger the bias is as clear as day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.92.213 (talk) 12:20, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

The sociological sources are experts on The Frankfurt School, and can hence tell when false claims are being made about The Frankfurt School. By the way, The Frankfurt School were left wing, and this page is the talk page for The Frankfurt School article. I hope that's clear enough for you. --Jobrot (talk) 14:16, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
If all sociologists or even academics are "left wing," that indicates a bias either a right-wing bias on the part of the complainer, or else a left-wing bias on the part of reality. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:58, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Saying Wikipedia has no obligation to show both sides is pretty much an admission that you know the debate would not go in your favor if actual facts were used in fullness. Anyone who can follow history knows that intellectuals influence each other. Cherry-picking academics who make claims dismissing the influence of the Frankfurt School or painting Cultural Marxism as a conspiracy theory is just outright dishonest and is a good example of the many reasons why intelligent people no longer trust what they read on Wwikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.16.193.48 (talk) 23:17, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia reports the contents of Reliable Sources WP:RS combined with generally agreed upon knowledge (the kind that isn't commonly debated due to being observable fact). Beyond that it has no obligation to cover anything; this is in line with the "What Wikipedia Is Not" policy: WP:WWIN. What the "influences" of The Frankfurt School were from a modern day perspective is subjective (and not really relevant to this section - you're getting the content of the conspiracy confused with us covering the conspiracy theory.... see WP:FRINGE and WP:DUE if you need clarification). But to cover an entirely subjective argument that the conspiracy theory is real would be WP:OR and false, as well as reducing Wikipedia to an opinion piece. A blog. Which it is not. It is an encyclopedia of the facts of matters as authoritative sources see them. What is in the "Cultural Marxism" section currently is all reflected by what the sources say. This is how Wikipedia does its job. --Jobrot (talk) 18:53, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Split proposal[edit]

Having carefully read the above comments, I propose splitting the article per WP:WHENSPLIT. "Cultural Marxism" deserves its own page, and it needs to be described as it is explicitly proved to be here: a canard popular among some in the far-right that the left wants to destroy Western society by advocating progressive ideas. This idea is occasionally linked with homophobia and racism. This procedure would be in line with similar article titles that can refer to other things but are nearly always used for one purpose, such as Cultural Bolshevism and Jewish Bolshevism. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 20:31, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment - A split via disambiguation has been suggested before, as has a simple disambiguation which wouldn't require a new page to be created. A consensus wasn't reached for either suggestion (I was making the proposal in one case and felt I shouldn't have the deciding vote). I'll be interested to see what happens this time, but I suppose if you felt the need you could put in an edit request. There might be some questions about the WP:NOTABILITY of a new article however; and establishing that may require academic sources as well as primary and secondary examples of the conspiracy theory version of the term (which we have an abundance of in the section already, as it's far more common). Looking forwards to reading other editors ideas on the pros and cons of disambig/split. --Jobrot (talk) 13:01, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
@Jobrot: Its notability in American politics (and through that, the internet) is abundant, but I very much agree that academic sources are scarce. Ideally such an article would partially detail the origin and meaning of the conspiracy theory and subsequent popularity among in certain conservative/right-wing circles, while also covering its usage by said figures and instances of it being mentioned or discussed (notable ones, that is). What we will definitely avoid is having it slide towards becoming an advocacy page that quotes pundits on how real the concept of "cultural marxism" is. I completely understand the reason many had to not give it its own article (as having one could promote its supposed legitimacy), but again I feel that we handled that pretty well with Cultural Bolshevism and Jewish Bolshevism. Vigilance and potential semi-protection would allow us to keep it clean. I would be willing to make a case of this but I am unsure as to what consensus we could reach. Perhaps an RfC is in order? That would simultaneously assure the editors involved are neutral. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 12:50, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Well if it ever does get that far, I've been collecting usages in relation to modern media and political events; it's appeared in relation to an exchange between Jason Wilson of the Guardian and an Australian Politician, then separately in reference to the Safe Schools Program, it's been used by some members of the far right Greek political group Golden Dawn, and Al-Jazera have an op-ed about it "Cultural Marxism" as a positive thing, and then there was the whole #BoycottStarwars push that happened centered around the term. Sort of a 'Current Events', or 'Usage in Politics and Popular Media' section - Breivik might even fit in such a section. But as far as I can tell the term is in decline. --Jobrot (talk) 04:58, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Wasn't there a RfC in 2013 against a "Cultural Marxism" article?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:09, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
I believe there was; the namespace also had WP:SALT poured on it by admins after the AfD (to hinder it reappearing), and the term is narrow, outdated and niche which presents problems for giving it a whole article. So it's quite unlikely such a title would ever resurrect. Not entirely impossible; just highly unlikely. --Jobrot (talk) 11:25, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 July 2016[edit]

There is no proof that cultural marxism is a conspiracy theory. Please edit that careles error.

Thank you.

Aztharot2000 (talk) 16:03, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done the section "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory" has 38 references - your opinion, stated above, has none - Arjayay (talk) 16:46, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Cultural Marxism: The Frankfurt School connection straw-man[edit]

Cultural Marxism is a term that is used in many different ways (https://theconversation.com/cultural-marxism-and-our-current-culture-wars-part-2-45562). One of its uses is as a reference to the activities of a certain section of the left which is more concerned with the race/color/sex/gender/politics of the creator/actor/character/protagonist in a certain medium (book/film/comic/tv series/game) than the actual subject matter. There are others as well.

Killing the Cultural Marxism page (of which the "conspiracy theory" section could have been a part, like the article on Political Correctness) and redirecting it to an article on some obscure school reeks of bad faith and rabid left-wing activity. It is also an act of poisoning the well: "Cultural Marxism? It's a conspiracy theory which means all your criticism, and your political views, are WRONG!!!" Last Contrarian (talk) 13:32, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

The very article you posted links the term to the Frankfurt School. clpo13(talk) 16:38, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
It sure does. Obviously, then, the article on Marxism should be redirected to a small section in the article on Marx?
The point is that the term "Cultural Marxism" has multiple uses. Some refer to the Frankfurt School. Others simply use it as a synonym for the politically correct activities of busybodies on the left with too much time on their hands and too little sense.
Basically, it needs to be its own article and we can have these discussions on its own talk page.
Last Contrarian (talk) 18:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Please be careful to make sure your arguments are based in ([WP:RS] provable) facts and policy, and don't stray too much away from editorial discussion or too far into political debate/opinion. Keep WP:NOTFORUM and WP:TPG in mind, and keep any discussion editorial in nature. --Jobrot (talk) 02:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Your reply is content-less and unmerited. If you have any complaints, be specific. Last Contrarian (talk) 10:57, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Extreme Bias[edit]

1. The 'Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory' section is a case of extreme bias and the lede is a case of WP:SYNTHESIS:

'Cultural Marxism' in modern political parlance commonly refers to a conspiracy theory

The implication is that all uses of the term "Cultural Marxism" are considered to be a reference to a so-called conspiracy theory by the political and cultural mainstream.

2. This ignores the fact that the term Cultural Marxism has many uses (https://theconversation.com/cultural-marxism-and-our-current-culture-wars-part-2-45562).

3. Wikipedia editors with an axe to grind (http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2014/12/wikipedia_editing_disputes_the_crowdsourced_encyclopedia_has_become_a_rancorous.html) have taken an article like this (https://archive.is/YzkIS) to this (https://archive.is/JJBgx) to the current state almost entirely based on a left-wing view with an inflammatory title, thus associating a somewhat right-wing political position—which considers Cultural Marxism, political correctness and multiculturalism as many sides of the same issue—with a full blown conspiracy theory.

4. As Cultural Marxism redirects to this section which excludes the many different uses of the term "Cultural Marxism" (some of which have no direct relation to the Frankfurt School) in favor of something described as a conspiracy theory, it fails WP:NPOV.

Last Contrarian (talk) 12:44, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

1. Pointing to something having a common usage is not synthesis. From the SPLC source:
"Television commentator Pat Buchanan says it is being used to "de-Christianize" America. Washington heavyweight William Lind claims it is turning U.S. college campuses into "ivy-covered North Koreas." Retired naval commander Gerald Atkinson fears it has invaded the nation's military academies. Immigration activist John Vinson suggests it aims "to distort and destroy" our country."
"'Cultural Marxism,' described as a conspiratorial attempt to wreck American culture and morality, is the newest intellectual bugaboo on the radical right. Surprisingly, there are signs that this bizarre theory is catching on in the mainstream."
So as you can see the source is making a claim on the modern political meaning; and hence the lead is not WP:SYNTH.
2. I fail to see your point; yes there are two usages - the academic usage and the right wing conspiracy usage; this is covered in the current section.
3. Wikipedia describes the world; it does not control it. The right wing have associated the right wing with the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory (and have been doing so for 20 some years now); hence the abundance of right wing sources spanning that time period and using the term as you can see in the sources for this section. Wikipedia did not make them do it; it is merely reporting that they've been doing it.
Further more the previous page you're linking to (https://archive.is/YzkIS); only has 3 sources which use the term by name (and two of them are from the same author). The current section has 38 unique sources; the majority of which are using the term "Cultural Marxism" explicitly and by name. So you're claiming the old page with just 9 sources in total, and only 3 of which are using the term is somehow better than the current section with 38 sources most of which use the term explicitly.
4. To my knowledge there are 2 main meanings of Cultural Marxism; and both are described in the current section.
So unless you have any further points; there's no case for claiming the section is not neutral, hence I've removed the tag. --Jobrot (talk) 16:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
(I'm reverting your revert. I'd like you to follow the guidelines specified in Template:POV and avoid unilaterally removing the tag till one of the conditions in "WHEN TO REMOVE" is met.)
1. What does "common usage" mean in this context? Who, exactly, "commonly refers" to Cultural Marxism as a conspiracy theory? If it's the SPLC, then reword the sentence so that it states so explicitly. If it is left-wing academics, X, Y & Z who research right-wing movements, then use their names there. What we have here is the use of weasel words (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Weasel_word) to make a claim appear larger than it actually is.
Of the three sources used to back up the lede, one is an obscure academic who writes books, articles and papers on right-wing movements and the other is the SPLC. I am perfectly willing to acknowledge that they might consider "Cultural Marxism" to be a conspiracy theory. But that doesn't in any way make it "common usage" nor does it support the claim that the term "commonly refers" to a conspiracy theory. The lede (and the title) is a case of WP:SYNTHESIS because it ascribes the view of two individuals/organizations to the entire mainstream.
2. My point is that if there are multiple usages of a particular term, XYZ, you cannot club them all together under a section called XYZ conspiracy theory when the view is not universally shared and is based on a couple of handpicked sources. You could have an article for XYZ with sections where you can address the "conspiracy theorist" aspect by quoting the relevant sources.
3. In this particular instance, the article wantonly disregards popular use of the term and is an attempt at advancing a claim that anyone using the term Cultural Marxism anywhere (even as a synonym for political correctness and multiculturalism run amok) must surely be a right-wing conspiracy theorist and a nut-job. This is pure WP:OR and you cannot finish reading the article and still end up with a positive interpretation of "Cultural Marxism." If that were not the case, one should be able to resurrect the article on Cultural Marxism easily without being attacked by rabid left-wing editors.
My claim is that the mere act of redirecting the article on the term is an act of bias. It's like redirecting Marxism to a small section in the article on Economics entitled Marxist Delusion and Genocidal Marxism and claiming that it is nothing but the delusions of a sad, old man which was blown up into a genocidal cult by the left.
4. Then I guess we could just as well rename the section to "The mating habits of the African bullfrog?" The section title is a creation of wikipedia editors and screams of bias. I wish people would stop trying to pretend that the title is "neutral." The only way to rectify the situation is to resurrect the original article and edit that one. As long as "Cultural Marxism" redirects to "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory" any claim that the article complies with WP:NPOV is a bad joke. No sane person on the right considers "Cultural Marxism" to be a reference to conspiracy theory. It's primarily left-wing writers, organizations, rags and newspapers which hold this view. This section reflects that bias.
That this fiasco is in the news should give people pause. That it doesn't would normally surprise me. In this case, it doesn't. Last Contrarian (talk) 18:06, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
1. AS PER MY PREVIOUS REPLY: "Who, exactly, 'commonly refers' to Cultural Marxism as a conspiracy theory?" is helpfully listed by me in the quote from the SPLC I pasted above. The SPLC is already an accepted source for the article; and those listed in the quote have been confirmed as using the term; as have the many right wing sources discussed in my previous reply and the section in question; as have the left wing sources discussed in your previous reply and the section in question - ergo this constitutes common usage. Further more simply googling the term will return even more usages that fall below Wikipedia's sourcing thresholds; so much so that it may appear to a lay person to be the ONLY usage. This again constitutes common usage. This point has now been proven, and further objections will require a different line of argumentation on your part.
2. "My point is that if there are multiple usages of a particular term..." There are not multiple usages; there are two broad definitions. 1) The most common usage; that the left are using progressive politics stemming from the Frankfurt School to destroy western culture (ie. The conspiracy theory version, as discussed elsewhere on talk and in the archives; search for the term 'Barkun' for details) and 2) the niche and informal 1970s Cultural studies usage. BOTH of which are already included in the section as per my previous reply.
3. "rabid left-wing editors" - please use more WP:GOODFAITH and consider retracting this statement - being attacked for being incorrect does not equate to proof of a left-wing conspiracy. It is your viewpoint and arguments being attacked; not you as a person.
"This is pure WP:OR" if you wish to point to a part of the writing you believe to be WP:OR then do so; but claiming that accurately defining the use and history of the term means that you personally "cannot finish reading the article and still end up with a positive interpretation of 'Cultural Marxism.'" is just your opinion and does not constitute a conspiracy theory nor prove that there's WP:Original Research in the section - it is simply your opinion of the well researched information given in the section. It is not up to Wikipedia or individual Wikipedians to decide how the information is judged; we simply report the information. It is up to us as Wikipedia editors to separate our personal opinions from the content given in order to report it in line with Wikipedia's policies. We're not here to give it a positive or negative interpretation or spin as per WP:NPOV and WP:DUE; if your aim here is to impose your opinion onto the section in order to give it a "positive interpretation" as per your statements - then you're intentionally aiming to violate these Wikipedia policies and I must give you this stern warning: You will not succeed and should stand down from this attempt.
"If that were not the case, one should be able to resurrect the article on Cultural Marxism easily without being attacked by rabid left-wing editors." again this does not prove that Wikipedia is part of some conspiracy, and again please use more WP:GOODFAITH as this is a fairly insulting accusation to make of the administrators involved in closing and salting the previous article WP:SALT. Your statements are an act of bad-faith on your part. The decision to WP:SALT the article is why it can't be resurrected; not because of some rabid left-wing conspiracy you believe Wikipedia is involved in. You can read the reasons for their actions here and if you take umbrage with any of the three WP:uninvolved admins I suggest you talk to them directly.
If you wish to resurrect the article on Cultural Marxism I suggest you take the usual means of doing so, rather than wasting your time here.
4. The title is neutral to the common usage, as detailed above. Such a title is common and accurate to Wikipedia articles that fit the requirements of WP:Fringe and Conspiracy Theory (search either of those in the talk archives for more details); see Moon landing conspiracy theories, John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories and New World Order (conspiracy_theory) for other examples of similar titles.
Please don't participate in edit warring, further reverts will be seen as disruptive editing. WP:Wikipedia is not a personal WP:SOAPBOX for your political views or agenda. This topic has already been sifted with a fine tooth comb (see talk archives for details); and just because you have a personal viewpoint here does not entitle you the right to be disruptive without merit. This is a WP:DEADHORSE and WP:FRINGE issue and due to the high quality of sourcing and care taken with the current Cultural Marxism section this viewpoint will most likely be the stance of any Wikipedia noticeboard you wish to further post your objections to. Thank you --Jobrot (talk) 00:45, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
1. My original question was: Who, exactly, "commonly refers" to Cultural Marxism as a conspiracy theory?
Meaning, who believes that: "Cultural Marxism IS A conspiracy theory." Obviously, the SPLC and Jamin do.
BUT no right wing source, to my knowledge, believes that: "Cultural Marxism IS A conspiracy theory."
Hence, the lede is a case of taking left-wing categorizations, applying them to right-wing beliefs and claiming that both left-wing and right-wing sources believe in the categorization. Which is WP:SYNTHESIS.
Essentially, what is happening is:
* Left-wingers like SPLC and Jamin believe THAT Cultural Marxism IS A conspiracy theory.
* Right-wingers like Buchanan and Lind believe IN Cultural Marxism.
* THEREFORE, both left-wingers and right-wingers believe THAT Cultural Marxism IS A conspiracy theory.
This is a false syllogism, thus your statement that "ergo this constitutes common usage" has no basis in fact. So, contrary to your assertion, this point has NOT been proven.
2. BOTH of which are already included in the section as per my previous reply. Yes, under the editorialized title "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory." Let's ignore this for now. When the WP:NPOV is fixed, the title should automatically take on a more neutral form.
3. if you wish to point to a part of the writing you believe to be WP:OR then do so; Have already done so. See 1. The title and the lede are pure fiction.
does not constitute a conspiracy theory Did I say it constitutes a conspiracy theory? I find it strange that you keep trying to put words in my mouth to show that I am claiming there there is some cabal secretly indulging in some conspiracy. I do not see any conspiracies. I worry that you constantly do.
it is simply your opinion of the well researched information given in the section. See 1. I challenge your claim that the information is well researched. I have already pointed out the fictitious lede and title. The claims advanced might be the views of a minority or a part of the left. The section entirely discounts popular usage of the term and is not representative of the real world usage of the term.
if your aim here is to impose your opinion onto the section My aim here is to rectify the current case of WP:SYNTHESIS where opinion is being presented as an unchallengeable fact.
I do not spend my days and night on wikipedia poring over every single rule like some editors here seem to do. So unless your aim is to run me out by attacking my supposed intentions and beliefs (as you perceive them to be), perhaps you should concentrate on the meat of my argument rather than assuming malicious intent within every single word and phrase.
I suggest you take the usual means of doing so, rather than wasting your time here. I'll do that, thank you. Once the existing section acquires a neutral form.
4. The title is neutral to the common usage, as detailed above. See 1.
I'm reverting your revert. The edit-war you began by unilaterally removing the POV tag, twice, deliberately ignoring the guidelines specified in Template:POV ("WHEN TO REMOVE") is proof enough.
I'll repeat what you said to me: please don't participate in edit warring. Further reverts will be considered to be disruptive editing. WP:Wikipedia is not a personal WP:SOAPBOX for your political views or agenda.
If you want to dispute the revert, please go ahead. I'm willing to defend my actions and argue against yours. Last Contrarian (talk) 10:56, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
I've reverted your reversion as per the three editor consensus in the section below this one and as per Help:Maintenance_template_removal#Removal which states it's okay to remove the tag if;
"you have made a considered determination that the template is not, or is no longer, applicable?"
Feel free to report me for disruptive editing and/or edit warring, as I'd love to hear more opinions on this issue. --Jobrot (talk) 18:43, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
I've reverted your revert because a majority vote without any critical discussion or attempt to address the point being made is not consensus as per WP:CONSENSUS. Name one editor (other than yourself) who has bothered to tackle my objection.
To repeat what you have beautifully put: feel free to report me for disruptive editing and/or edit warring, as I'd love to hear more opinions on this issue. Last Contrarian (talk) 15:03, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
The below discussion is nigh-unanimous for calling it a conspiracy theory, and it's only a couple of users who have gone "per (user)." It's rather disingenuous to pretend no one else has given further reasons and sources. You have yet to present any counter sources and instead base your argument on an WP:OR false dichotomy (as if there are no such thing as moderates). Ian.thomson (talk) 15:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
The below discussion Perhaps you and I have different things in mind when we refer to a discussion. Here's your supposed "discussion" from the rfc (excluding Jobrot's multiple comments):
  • Orange Mike: "the current lede is clear and adequate and sums up the facts as agreed by all reliable sources. The topic isn't quite up there with chemtrails and moon-landing-hoax, but it's pretty clearly a classic conspiracy theory."
  • 74.70.146.1: "Support User:Jobrot's position. Contrarian, this seems to be mainly a case of your bias clashing with established consensus. Please consider toning down your rhetoric."
  • Jack Upland: "Support calling it a conspiracy theory."
  • DoctorJoeE: "I agree with Orangemike and others that the lede is fine as is."
The only discussion, if any, involved you (Ian.thomson) and Rhododendrites.
  • Your discussion involves demanding proving a negative while a opinion about a right-wing belief based on left-wing sources is allowed to be presented as a fact.
  • Rhododendrites's involves not commenting on the specifics of the RfC but, instead, using his preconceived notions (based on prior debates) to blindly support Jobrot's position. Last Contrarian (talk) 16:11, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
It's actually a minority right-wing (specifically paleoconservative and neoreactionary) opinion (possibly aimed at perpetuating a Culture War, as suggested by Paul Weyrich's Culture War letter, and Pat Buchanan's explicit Culture War rhetoric) which has been created by misinterpreting a left-wing art-theory term that chronologically pre-dates the right-wing belief; as the current section notes. --Jobrot (talk) 18:23, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Also; it's not really up to you to claim that User:Rhododendrites is blindly doing anything; that's up to them to decide. You should practice WP:GOODFAITH when discussing your fellow editors. --Jobrot (talk) 18:36, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Does the lede of the "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory" section follow WP:NPOV and is its claim supported by cited sources?[edit]

I firmly believe that the lede of the "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory" section is a case of WP:SYNTHESIS. User:Jobrot disagrees and has repeatedly reverted my WP:NPOV warning without cause. The lede currently states:

'Cultural Marxism' in modern political parlance commonly refers to a conspiracy theory which sees the Frankfurt School as part of a contemporary movement within the political left to take over and destroy Western society.

If we pare the statement down to its essentials, it states that:

'Cultural Marxism' in modern political parlance commonly refers to a conspiracy theory

The claim being advanced is:

1. It is a conspiracy theory.

2. This "fact" is commonly known and the cultural and political mainstream (all major political and cultural divisions) believes this without a shadow of a doubt.

3. Only a small fringe continues to use the term in a "non-ironic" way.

The sources cited as evidence are:

1. An article by Jerome Jamin, a left-wing academic researching right-wing movements.

2. An article by Bill Berkowitz for the Southern Poverty Law Center, a left-wing organization which maintains large lists of what it believes to be right-wing and religious movements and hate-groups. The article is entitled Reframing the Enemy.

3. American paleo-conservative William S. Lind.

Now, it is no surprise that left-wingers like Jamin and Berkowitz/SPLC believe that "Cultural Marxism" is a conspiracy theory. But Lind does not believe that. Neither do the right-wingers mentioned by Berkowitz in his article.

The conclusion is that only some left-wingers consider "Cultural Marxism" to be a conspiracy theory. And instead of stating things as they are, the section currently uses WP:SYNTHESIS and weasel words like commonly refers to (without mention the subjects who do the referring) to convert an opinion held in some parts of the left to a strong, universal claim.

I formally request comments on the structure of the lede. Last Contrarian (talk) 12:44, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Discussion/Opinions

The title "Reframing the Enemy" refers to how right-wing conspiracy theorists have reframed those left of moderate as puppets of some conspiracy by the Frankfurt school.
You have provided no sources demonstrating that anyone but right-wingers considers the idea of cultural Marxism to be more than a conspiracy theory. If you could provide moderate or even "left-wing" sources which discuss it as reality, then you might have a point. Otherwise, this is just a repeat of the perennial proposals for unsourced WP:GEVAL. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:53, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
You're asking me to prove a negative. The onus is on the person who claims that Cultural Marxism "commonly" refers to a conspiracy theory. If it is widely known to be a conspiracy theory similar to the moon-landing hoax, editors should have no problems finding a few right-wing sources who agree with the left-wingers on this. If every single source is a left-wing source, then what you have here is a case of one side exclusively having the right to label the other side's opinion as a conspiracy theory. WP:GEVAL doesn't apply Last Contrarian (talk) 13:08, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
I am asking you to provide sources that show any moderates or left-wingers who regard cultural Marxism as a reality. The sources fall into two kinds:
Asking for right-wing sources that refer to it as a conspiracy theory is like asking for a young earth creationist source that refers to Intelligent Design as a pseudoscience. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:48, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
I am asking you to provide sources that show any moderates or left-wingers who regard cultural Marxism as a reality. I don't see why the left has to sanction a right-wing belief, or vice versa, for it to become a reality? I am an atheist and believe that religion and belief in fictitious supernatural entities in this day and age is a sign of mental illness, or at least a feeble, non-skeptical mind. I'm quite certain that a bunch of atheists would think the same way. Doesn't mean I go about plastering my opinion on the articles for all major religions (with citations, of course), or require that articles on religious subjects be filtered by an atheist lens.
If you truly have any evidence that "Cultural Marxism" is universally considered to be a conspiracy theory, present the evidence. Or simply re-frame the lede to:

'Cultural Marxism' in modern political parlance commonly refers to a theory which sees the Frankfurt School as part of a contemporary movement within the political left to take over and destroy Western society. This theory is widely considered to be a conspiracy theory by the left.

It has the same effect, content-wise. The main difference is that the claim is accurate in that only the left thinks it is a conspiracy theory. I wonder why it is so hard to do so and why there is an immense push back against the same.
Asking for right-wing sources that refer to it as a conspiracy theory is like asking for a young earth creationist source that refers to Intelligent Design as a pseudoscience. If you truly believe in that analogy, you cannot possibly consider "Cultural Marxism" to be a conspiracy theory. If there is not a single right-wing source willing to call it a conspiracy theory, it means the theory is part of the canon of right-wing beliefs. Which no longer makes it WP:FRINGE, or a conspiracy theory, but rather a belief shared by about one-half of the political and cultural spectrum. Last Contrarian (talk) 18:09, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
a belief shared by about one-half of the political and cultural spectrum. Not true; from the current section [emphasis added]:
"the term "Cultural Marxism" has been hijacked by the paleoconservative movement"
"This conspiracy theory version of the term is associated with American religious paleoconservatives such as William S. Lind, Pat Buchanan, and Paul Weyrich but also holds currency among the alt-right neo-reactionary movement as well as within white nationalist groups."
Paleoconservatives, the alt-right, the neo-reactionary movement and white nationalist groups - don't make up "one-half of the political and cultural spectrum" as you appear to be asserting. Miring your complaints in left-right politics is not helpful. I'm sure there are people on the right who don't subscribe to the conspiracy theory; but there is no onus on them to say so; so why would they? You've mistaken silence on an issue for agreement with a stance; which is a flawed view to take. --Jobrot (talk) 18:29, 16 August 2016 (UTC)


  • Comment - the term is literally a conspiracy theory to the left; and a theory about a conspiracy; ie) a conspiracy theory - to the right.
"editors should have no problems finding a few right-wing sources who agree with the left-wingers on this."
Let's start with sources that are ALREADY in the current section;
Here are some William S. Lind quotes (as you've mentioned him specifically) claiming it's a cover-up [emphasis added]:
"Its [The Frankfurt School's] goal remains what Lukacs and Gramsci set in 1919: destroying Western culture and the Christian religion." -William S. Lind
"the promoters of cultural Marxism have known they could be more effective if they concealed the Marxist nature of their work" -William S. Lind
"The next conservatism needs to reveal the man behind the curtain - - old Karl Marx himself." -William S. Lind
"Today, when the cultural Marxists want to do something like “normalize” homosexuality, they do not argue the point philosophically. They just beam television show after television show into every American home where the only normal-seeming white male is a homosexual (the Frankfurt School’s key people spent the war years in Hollywood)" -William S. Lind
...and just to be clear on that last statement by Lind; no it's not true, whilst members of The Frankfurt School did live in Hollywood as a neighborhood of L.A. for a period of time; none of them were actively involved in the movie industry as Lind is suggesting.
The theory is literally about Marxists "subverting" American sovereignty by inserting themselves and their values into academia and the media. The right talks about Marxists "capturing" areas of society; and believes that Critical Theory has a secret agenda. That's a conspiracy theory; as the right are claiming the left has a hidden, purposefully obscured or secret agenda.
Here's another source from the article; James Jaeger who produced the youtube film "Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America" in his own words from his own website:
"every major Hollywood motion picture is green-lit by the same 21 politically liberal, not-very-religious, Jewish males of European heritage who police the screenplays to make sure 'androgyny' and 'critical theory' are properly implanted in the writing." -James Jaeger
Personally I'm pretty sure I've seen 'Hollywood motion pictures' that weren't pushing androgyny and critical theory. Action films and the Romance genre come to mind.
Here's a youtube video from proponents which claims the "Cultural Marxists" are secretly promoting transgenderism and Islam, when that's not even the left-wing sense of Cultural Marxism at all (as the current section on the topic points out).
Here's Pat Buchanan (another individual cited in the section on Cultural Marxism) claiming Antonio Gramsci planned a "long march through the institutions" even though that phrase wasn't ever used by him, and came along from a different person, through a different thread of culture, in a different country and at a different time (ie. 60 - 70 years later by Rudi Dutschke).
Claiming people were planning things when they weren't - is generally considered a conspiracy theory. Anywhere you have people on the left claiming that there's undeclared plans or an agenda on the right (or vice versa); you have a conspiracy theory.
Anders Breivik claims in his manifesto that the "Sexually transmitted disease (STD) epidemic in Western Europe [is] a result of cultural Marxism" and that "The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Strasbourg is a cultural Marxist controlled political entity"
Here's the Mises Institute claiming that modern feminism is really a Cultural Marxist movement.
That claim; that one thing is actually another thing and it's just that you've been tricked or brainwashed into not seeing it - is a conspiracy theory.
Here's Breitbart claiming that "Theodor Adorno promoted degenerate atonal music to induce mental illness, including necrophilia, on a large scale."
Your complaint that all we have as sources for the conspiracy theory claims are left-wing academics (which is demonstrably false as shown above) only compounds the error. The term originated in left-wing academia; and Wikipedia has a sourcing hierarchy which puts academia from a relevant field, at the top of that hierarchy as the best quality of sourcing. So by pointing out the academic opinion of the conspiracy theory you're actually working against yourself (as having academic sources to say something on Wikipedia is generally considered to be a good thing).
Further more you've openly said that you wish people were able to come away with a "positive interpretation" of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy; and that you want to "resurrect the article" but believe rabid left-wing editors are stopping you (when in fact the previous article was simply salted by the admins WP:SALT as per their AfD discussion); So you have no place claiming to be WP:NPOV here when you're also claiming rabid left-wing editors are opposing you. As I said in an earlier interaction, the objections here are against your arguments and opinions, not against you as a person. They'd be wrong regardless of who was purporting them; and arguing against your views using the facts of the matter doesn't make someone a rabid left-wing editor nor does it make them part of a wide spread conspiracy. --Jobrot (talk) 16:06, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
1. a theory about a conspiracy; ie) a conspiracy theory If you agree with this literal-minded view, perhaps you could edit the lede like so?

'Cultural Marxism' in modern political parlance commonly refers to a theory about a conspiracy which sees the Frankfurt School as part of a contemporary movement within the political left to take over and destroy Western society.

2. That's a conspiracy theory; as the right are claiming the left has a hidden, purposefully obscured or secret agenda. Perhaps. But that is your opinion. it might even be my opinion. However, regardless how how batty a theory sounds, a wiki article on that theory can only be supported by actual, external sources and statements in these articles should reflect the citations. it cannot contain anything that is not in the citations except a summation of a generally accepted position (such as: the Earth revolves around the Sun). What you cannot do is take a belief you disagree with and claim that it is "commonly refers" to conspiracy theory when the only people who commonly refer to it like that are left-wingers.
3. Regarding your links to youtube videos and pieces by Lind and Buchanan, they are primary sources. The only thing they show is that these people have ideas that do not appeal to you. These sources themselves do not prove, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, that they are conspiracy theories. For that, you need actual sources that claim that.
4. I am willing to accept that there might be a thousand irritated people on the left writing books and newspaper articles claiming that CM is a conspiracy theory; that is to be expected: that's why the left-wing is not the right-wing. But the moment you make a strong claim without mentioning the claimants, that claim cannot stand unless you present supporters from most parts of the spectrum. Last Contrarian (talk) 14:30, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
"Regarding your links to youtube videos and pieces by Lind and Buchanan, they are primary sources." - well here's a bunch of secondary sources referring to "Cultural Marxism" as a conspiracy;
 The Guardian [3], Al Jazeera [4], Salon [5], Fair Observer [6], The New Matilda [7], ArtNet [8], Buzzfeed [9], The Huffington Post [10].
Whether you like it or not these are mainstream media outlets, which are "commonly referring to" Cultural Marxism as a conspiracy theory.
So now I've shown you right-wing sources, left-wing sources, primary sources, secondary sources, news sources and academic sources. What else do you need?
Perhaps. But that is your opinion. Yeah well, now it's consensus - and that's how decisions are made on Wikipedia. Without that your opinion has no meaningful effect but on yourself; and that's up to you to deal with. Not us. --Jobrot (talk) 16:46, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - the current lede is clear and adequate and sums up the facts as agreed by all reliable sources. The topic isn't quite up there with chemtrails and moon-landing-hoax, but it's pretty clearly a classic conspiracy theory. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:14, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Can you offer a defense of the lede, particular the claim that "Cultural Marxism" is universally considered to be a conspiracy theory when the only reliable sources lie on the other side of the political spectrum, and all of them are opinions? Last Contrarian (talk) 14:11, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
As you've mentioned WP:SYNTH on the notice board, I'll just re-iterate my statements on the WP:SYNTH accusation:
Pointing to something having a common usage is not synthesis if it's a factual claim. From the SPLC source:
"Television commentator Pat Buchanan says it is being used to "de-Christianize" America. Washington heavyweight William Lind claims it is turning U.S. college campuses into "ivy-covered North Koreas." Retired naval commander Gerald Atkinson fears it has invaded the nation's military academies. Immigration activist John Vinson suggests it aims "to distort and destroy" our country."
"'Cultural Marxism,' described as a conspiratorial attempt to wreck American culture and morality, is the newest intellectual bugaboo on the radical right. Surprisingly, there are signs that this bizarre theory is catching on in the mainstream."
So as you can see the source is making a factual claim with verifiable statements on the modern political meaning going 'mainstream'; and hence the lead is not WP:SYNTH. --Jobrot (talk) 19:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
The two statements:
  • Berkowitz/the SPLC claims that the moon is made of cheese, and
  • The moon is made of cheese.
do not have the same truth value.
"Cultural Marxism is a conspiracy theory that has gone mainstream" is Berkowitz's opinion which is a synthesis of:
1. Pat Buchanan has a theory about Cultural Marxism.
2. That theory is wacky and has no basis in reality, which makes it a conspiracy theory.
3. This conspiracy theory has gone mainstream.
The synthesis is still Berkowitz's opinion. "Cultural Marxism," as a theory, might be mainstream (according to Berkowitz), but the theory that "Cultural Marxism" is a conspiracy theory is definitely not mainstream. If you claim that it is, provide proof from mainstream sources by adjusting for obvious political bias (which means proof from both sides of the aisle). This is not an unreasonable request at all. Last Contrarian (talk) 14:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
I've already dealt with the right wing sources in my first reply to your RfC, so here's the mainstream sources you asked for:
 The Guardian [11], Al Jazeera [12], Salon [13], Fair Observer [14], The New Matilda [15], ArtNet [16], Buzzfeed [17], The Huffington Post [18].
This discussion is quickly becoming repetitive. --Jobrot (talk) 17:11, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
I've already dealt with the right wing sources in my first reply to your RfC Perhaps you could clearly specify which secondary right-wing source specifically claims that "Cultural Marxism IS A conspiracy theory." Last Contrarian (talk) 18:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
So you want secondary paleoconservative and neoreactionary news websites (not a thing that I even believe exist, and even if they did they'd serve a very niche audience/market, considering that William S. Lind's own blog [and he's pretty much the biggest name in the movement] only gets a very small amount of traffic) that are explicitly stating that Cultural Marxism is a conspiracy theory; in order to prove that the mainstream are referring to it that way? That doesn't make ANY sense; you're asking for newsites to exist; for a subset-of-a-subset of a group (right-wing > paleocons > paleocons who believe in Cultural Marxism) in order to prove something about the mainstream common parlance? That is simply; not logical. --Jobrot (talk) 18:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
you want secondary paleoconservative and neoreactionary news websites Not what I said. Any well-known conservative (religious or otherwise) or right-libertarian source will do.
Asking for a far-left source calling one of its pet theories a conspiracy theory would be absurd, no? And it would hardly meet the definition of "mainstream." Obviously, the same principle applies to the right-wing as well. Last Contrarian (talk) 19:19, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
I wouldn't call conservative religious websites, or right-wing libertarian websites "mainstream"; and I think most people would agree with me there. In fact as if to prove this - I can't even think of a single website that falls into those categories. They're just not that common it would seem. --Jobrot (talk) 19:34, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
I mean, there's Breitbart, which I've already mentioned accuses the Frankfurt School of using atonal music to spread mass necrophilia (ie. claims it's a conspiracy to brainwash the masses)... and I found this blog from Reason.com (a libertarian website) that claims the "Cultural Libertarian" viewpoint would in today's political climate/parlance be accused of "Cultural Marxism" due to being open to multiculturalism as long as it doesn't infringe on anyone's rights [19]:
"In other words, cultural libertarians believe in the sort of pro-choice multi-culturalism that today might [be] labeled evidence of 'cultural Marxism.'"
But that's it. I don't think the "mainstream" right-wing websites (as much as such a thing can be said to exist) want to attract attention to the "Cultural Marxism" theory, as it has alt-right and far-right associations (ie. would take their viewers out of the "mainstream"). --Jobrot (talk) 19:46, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
I think (in the interests of WP:GOODFAITH) what you're trying to ask for are "mainstream" right-wing news websites which are criticizing other right-wingers; namely the paleoconservatives who DO believe in the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory (even though they're a smaller subset-of-a-subset). Further more you want these "mainstream" right-wing news websites to explicitly state that "Cultural Marxism is a conspiracy theory" even though they'd risk losing some of their viewership in doing so; and there's no onus on them to do so if they're even aware of the conspiracy theory at all... which disregards the fact that generally the right-wing criticize the left-wing and vice versa; and internal dissent is almost by definition not mainstream... so again; your request is not logical, nor would it prove anything about mainstream common parlance if it were logical. That's not even to mention that "mainstream 'smaller category'" is kind of an oxymoron to begin with. Anyways I've given you some rather large mainstream websites for proof of the mainstream (ie. popular/common) usage. That will have to suffice. --Jobrot (talk) 19:30, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus_can_change Last Contrarian (talk) 13:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
But as you can now see; it hasn't. --Jobrot (talk) 17:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support User:Jobrot's position. Contrarian, this seems to be mainly a case of your bias clashing with established consensus. Please consider toning down your rhetoric.74.70.146.1 (talk) 20:22, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
I was requesting comments on the lede, which would be an obvious case of WP:SYNTHESIS were it not for the politics (and resultant bias) involved. The cited sources do not support the statement that "Cultural Marxism commonly refers to a conspiracy theory." That is a strong claim made by using opinion from purely left-wing sources. That no right-wing source is available to criticize this so-called reference to a conspiracy theory is proof that whether they believe in it or not, the right does not consider this to be a conspiracy theory.
Jobrot is literally performing synthesis and original research in the comments here, linking to tirades and claiming that they seem to be conspiracy theoretic (which may very well be the case; one man's delusion is another man's belief) and hence proof that all sides support the claim in the lede. Any reasonable person who puts his political hat down and puts his logician's hat on would see the lede for what it is, WP:SYNTHESIS. Last Contrarian (talk) 13:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Creationists don't think that their beliefs are fringe theories either, but we don't put them on the same level as scientific theories, now do we?74.70.146.1 (talk) 01:58, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
That's the difference between science and politics. Scientific theories are based on physical evidence. Political name-calling is based on opinions. Lind believes something; Jamin, Berkovitz and left-wing critics believe something about Lind's beliefs. Wikipedia editors have no right to determine whether Lind's views are a conspiracy theory based on primary sources. That's WP:OR. They can use left-wing sources who consider Lind's views to be conspiracy theoretic (which is already being done). But to claim that this somehow makes it a common reference is disingenuous.
"Cultural Marxism" is often used interchangeably with political correctness and multiculturalism on the right (not just the far-right). Calling it a conspiracy theory means that every single right-wing writer and publication that refers to CM is a conspiracy theorist. Which is just plain stupid.
Propositional logic before emotions, please, and WP:SYNTHESIS will reveal itself. Jobrot is on record claiming that the lede is justified because:

the term is literally a conspiracy theory to the left; and a theory about a conspiracy; ie) a conspiracy theory - to the right.

Let's ignore the fact that "conspiracy theory" is a derogatory term whereas "theory about a conspiracy" is not. Now, if "conspiracy theory" = "theory about a conspiracy" then the implication is that when, say, the FBI investigates conspiracies and constructs theories to understand and investigate them, it is indulging in conspiracy theories. That would be an insane argument and only goes to show how bad a WP:SYNTHESIS problem the section faces. Last Contrarian (talk) 17:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Nope, political pundits are capable of making factual errors, just as anyone else is able to (scientists included). For instance when William S. Lind writes claims that The Frankfurt School "just beam television show after television show into every American home where the only normal-seeming white male is a homosexual (the Frankfurt School’s key people spent the war years in Hollywood)." - that is factually incorrect. --Jobrot (talk) 18:58, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
I think people have become so closed-minded over the issue that they are unable to separate a very specific question from the rest of the issue.
  • What does commonly refers to mean?
  • Are opinions from a few left-wingers on an issue enough to be considered a common reference particularly when it comes to a belief on the other side of the spectrum? Last Contrarian (talk) 13:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support calling it a conspiracy theory.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:28, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Not my question. You might very well support it. The question is does the lede stand securely on the sources provided. Look at the language and logic, not the politics. Last Contrarian (talk)
I would have preferred some sort of defense of the lede. How exactly does it derive from the cited sources? Last Contrarian (talk)
  • Comment You've now been shown that paleoconservative primary sources discuss the topic as a conspiracy; that is to say a hidden agenda by the left, that is being covered up. You've also been shown that academic sources explicitly refer to "Cultural Marxism" as a conspiracy theory; and that mainstream media sources are also referring to it as a conspiracy theory; that's enough to say that Cultural Marxism "commonly refers to a conspiracy theory". --Jobrot (talk) 17:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, the lede of the "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory" section follows WP:NPOV, as it summarizes all significant views fairly, proportionally and without editorial bias. Its claim is supported by cited sources. There is no WP:SYNTH. Attempts to discredit so-called "left wing" sources or balance them out with so called "right-wing" sources should be dismissed summarily per WP:GEVAL. Characterizing sources as either left- or right-wing is unacceptable. Mduvekot (talk) 02:51, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
without editorial bias A joke, if I ever heard one. Paul Gottfried is a paleoconservative academic who wrote a book entitled The Strange Death of Marxism: The European Left in the New Millennium. Here's what he says about "Cultural Marxism" (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/misadventuring-on-wikipedia/):

In this case I had to share the spotlight with my friend of many years, Bill Lind, who is introduced in Wikipedia as a one-time spokesman for the Free Congress Foundation and a reviewer of my book 'The Strange Death of European Marxism.' Just about everything ascribed to the two of us in the entry is inexcusably misleading. Neither one of us has argued that there is a Frankfurt School or Cultural Marxist “conspiracy.” Indeed we have stressed the opposite view, namely, that certain Frankfurt School social teachings have become so widespread and deeply ingrained that they have shaped the dominant post-Christian ideology of the Western world.

Perhaps one of the unbiased editors around here would do him (and the article) justice and end the blatant attempts at WP:SYNTHESIS, WP:OR, WP:NPOV with the Cultural Marxism section.
it summarizes all significant views fairly, proportionally and without editorial bias. Please. Opinion pieces and articles by left-wing writers and academics on a right-wing belief without any input from right-wing sources is neither "proportionate" nor a summary of "all significant views."
Its claim is supported by cited sources. Lind is a primary source; treating his article as a conspiracy theory is WP:OR. However, if the views of left-wingers like Jamin's and Bertkowitz's are enough to call something "common," then sure.
Attempts to discredit so-called "left wing" sources or balance them out with so called "right-wing" sources should be dismissed summarily per WP:GEVAL Here's GEVAL, for your benefit:

While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity.

I challenge the lede on the basis that Jamin's and Berkowitz's opinions are neither common nor mainstream. Only a part of the left considers Cultural Marxism to be a conspiracy theory. There is not a single conservative/religous-conservative/right-libertarian secondary source that considers Cultural Marxism to be a conspiracy theory.
So, calling for right-wing sources would only fall foul of WP:GEVAL if you consider the entire right-wing to be a minority. Last Contrarian (talk) 15:22, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
If you hover over the link in that article (which is from two years ago by the way) you'll see that it directs to an older version of a different page, namely the Frankfurt School conspiracy theory page, which no longer exists. Further more Paul Gottfried (who in my view does not represent a significant opinion and is hence WP:UNDUE) also states in his book (The Strange Death of Marxism [20]) that:
"Nothing intrinsically Marxist, that is to say, defines "cultural Marxism," save for the evocation or hope of a postbourgeois society."
Going on to say:
"The mistake of those who see one position segueing into another is to confuse contents with personalities."
Would you therefore conclude that 'Marxism' should ALSO be removed from the section title based on Gottfried's view? No, because that would be WP:UNDUE. Claiming that an individual represents a totality of right-wing agreement or worse; mainstream agreement is obviously beyond individual authority; and I've already given you at least one example of a "right-libertarian" who believes Cultural Marxism to be a good thing; but again the inclusion of this would be WP:UNDUE. More importantly I've given you a swathe of links to mainstream news websites referring to Cultural Marxism as a conspiracy theory. Ontop of this the key paleoconservative viewpoints (Lind and Weyrich) are already covered extensively (as per WP:NPOV and WP:GEVAL), there is no need to include your claim about the supposed "majority of conservative/religous-conservative/right-libertarians" as doing so would be WP:OR on your part.
The current citation for the mainstream viewpoint not only includes verifiable statements from select individuals who are using the term "Cultural Marxism" (proving its popularity), and is not only backed up by the multiplicity of mainstream media outlets I've already catalogued here on talk, but is ALSO explicitly discussing the mainstream viewpoint its self, and is hence not WP:SYNTH (due to being backed up here on talk, and due to making verifiable claims):
"Television commentator Pat Buchanan says it is being used to "de-Christianize" America. Washington heavyweight William Lind claims it is turning U.S. college campuses into "ivy-covered North Koreas." Retired naval commander Gerald Atkinson fears it has invaded the nation's military academies. Immigration activist John Vinson suggests it aims "to distort and destroy" our country."
"'Cultural Marxism,' described as a conspiratorial attempt to wreck American culture and morality, is the newest intellectual bugaboo on the radical right. Surprisingly, there are signs that this bizarre theory is catching on in the mainstream."
Finally and as others have mentioned; conspiracy theorists are unlikely to realize or admit to the nature of their views. Of course they believe their theories; that's why they purport them as fact, even if (as in this case) they are not fact. That is at the core of this matter as well as being why the claim "Cultural Marxism is a conspiracy theory" does not need a citation at all; because Lind and Weyrich's claims about The Frankfurt School are demonstrably false, and Wikipedia must side with the facts of the matter. This is an encyclopedia of facts, Wikipedia is not a storage house for unsourced claims or unverifiable and insignificant beliefs and opinions. Nor is it a witch-hunt for people who have read (and thus been "influenced" by) the writings of Karl Marx. --Jobrot (talk) 18:37, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Jobrot says "I wouldn't call conservative religious websites, or right-wing libertarian websites "mainstream"; and I think most people would agree with me there. In fact as if to prove this - I can't even think of a single website that falls into those categories. They're just not that common it would seem." Hmm... "conservative" and "religious" does seem to describe a significant portion of the US electorate, I would think. And as to a list of "mainstream" conservative publications, as opposed to "paleo", how about National Review [21], American Spectator [22], American Conservative [23]? It's pretty easy to find examples of conservatives using the phrase in its original sense, describing a set of beliefs whose origins are often traced to the Frankfurt school. On the other hand, here's Washington Times describing it as a sort of "Theory About Conspiracy" gone awry, but in an almost pleasant and charming sort of way: [24] "Cultural Marxism, that Conspiracy So Vast interpretation of the Culture War, ignores the phenomenal complexity of non-conservative America." I'm not sure what this RfC is supposed to accomplish, but basically I'm in agreement with User:Last Contrarian that the lede (and the article) could use some work so as to fairly represent 'conservative' views. JerryRussell (talk) 22:25, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
That American Spectator article is a review of The Devil’s Pleasure Palace: The Cult of Critical Theory and the Subversion of the West by Micheal Walsh; over on the National Review (another publication you've cited) they interview Walsh for this book and he repeatedly says that the left are satanic, and that he's in a battle between good and evil:
"Because otherwise it’s just a pointless ant farm, a satanic Matrix in which we’re all just basically batteries. Plus, Hollywood would be out of business without heroes, and the fact that the most commercial business in America absolutely requires heroes ought to tell you something elemental." [25]
"Further, the Left has cast aside much of the mufti it was forced to adopt in the United States — “tolerance” being its principal mask — and can finally be seen for what it is really is: a totalitarianism masquerading as beneficence. If that isn’t satanic, I don’t know what is." [26]
"Because every single one of the issues we are discussing politically today has its roots in the verities of human culture, and in the conflict between what I term the sacred ur-Narrative of man’s individual heroism and the anti-Narrative of man’s meaningless collectivist nature as pushed by the satanic Left. And I mean that in the nicest possible way. The problem is we are discussing symptoms when we should be discussing root causes: the conflict between good and evil." [27]
So sorry; but I can't help but see that as crack-pot nonsense from a conspiracy theory proponent (another guy seeking to "unmask" the left and lift their veil of satanic brainwashing we're all supposedly trapped under). As for the Washington Times - well the Wikipedia page on them notes that outlet is owned by the 'moonies' aka the cult of Sun Myung Moon. So again you'll have to excuse me if I don't accept these sources as examples of mainstream media. --Jobrot (talk) 23:11, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi Jobrot, looking at the Wiki articles for the publications in question, Wiki says that NR "has been described as 'the bible of American conservatism", with its mission to "make conservative ideas respectable." Washington Times is described as a "conservative" newspaper with "close ties to every Republican administration since Reagan". American Spectator has traditional conservative roots (founded 1924) and recently seems to be getting some criticism from more mainstream conservatives for tactics, but not so much for paleo ideology. American Conservative sees itself specifically standing up for 'traditional' conservatism as opposed to paleo or libertarian.
Now, I would be the first to tell Walsh that his characterization of the entire Left as "Satanic" is ridiculous, but the Left tends to see the entire Right as a bunch of fascists and crack-pots. At Wiki, my understanding is that we're all supposed to try to get along. I stand by my point that in the more mainstream conservative publications (and these are as close to mainstream as you're going to find on the 'American Right'), 'Cultural Marxism' is treated first as a simple description of left-wing values, more or less synonymous with multiculturalism, feminism and political correctness; and secondly, as a dubious but somewhat respected 'theory about conspiracy' regarding the Frankfurt School. JerryRussell (talk) 04:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
"more or less synonymous with multiculturalism, feminism and political correctness" three of those areas of political debate are already included in the current section "The Frankfurt School are seen as having engineered the downfall of western society using multiculturalism, progressive politics and political correctness as their methods." so I'd say that viewpoint is covered. I've seldom seen the term explained on the right without the inclusion of The Frankfurt School (as per the sources you've given). However The Frankfurt School did not support feminism as Gottfried notes in his memoirs:
""In my memoirs Encounters: My Life with Nixon, Marcuse, and Other Friends and Teachers, I recall Herbert Marcuse’s perplexed reaction to ardent feminists in his class as they expounded their sexual liberationist views. He may have been a Stalinist but he was not a total maniac. Although chaos had to be unleashed to destroy a repressive capitalist society, Marcuse thought (at least before he went out to California and became dotty) that something would have to be put in the place of what had been subverted, and that something would require social order." -Paul Gottfried
And of course; feminists famously protested Adorno:
"In 1969 female students embarrassed Adorno during a lecture by rushing to the podium in a planned moment and baring their breasts while caressing him and throwing rose petals over his body." [28] [he died of a heart attack a few months later]
So again this idea of The Frankfurt School masterminding modern progressive politics in an attempt to destroy western society is demonstrably false. They were in fact not aligned with much of what they're accused of; and their primary role was in analyzing culture in an anti-fascist context inspired by their experiences of Nazi Germany. Marcuse for instance even worked for the OSS during and after the war, helping establish the Nuremberg trials and the program of Denazification, and writing a critical analysis of the USSR's Soviet mindset in order to aid the US government during the Cold War. Adorno is described in that above linked article as having a "seeming nostalgia for the nineteenth-century ideal of the family as a space of nurturance for the autonomous bourgeois individual" [29]. So these paleoconservative claims about The Frankfurt School are demonstrably false. The Frankfurt School are several academic movements and eras away from modern progressive politics, and not aligned with that section of the left (Nancy Fraser, who is seen as an intellectual descendant of The Franks is still arguing against modern identity politics today [30]).
My understanding of the right-side of American politics is that the Neoconservatives are more center right than the Paleoconservatives (that being the primary division on the right); and of course this means some Paleoconservatives accuse the Neoconservatives of being Trotskists and Leninists as is their want. I'd consider The Weekly Standard and The Atlantic (as run by republican William Kristol) to be examples of Neoconservative media outlets, and the Ricochet podcast is also quite a good center right media outlet I enjoy. But I wouldn't call Neoconservatism on it's own, nor Paleoconservatism on it's own center right. Neither can really be said to constitute "mainstream" right-wing politics (if such a thing can be said to exist). That's just the nature of the division, and Neoconservatives don't really discuss Cultural Marxism as it's a Paleoconservative conspiracy theory - so is not representative of the 'mainstream' right's view. --Jobrot (talk) 06:34, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
--
User:JerryRussell. Lind and Buchanan actually believe that multiculturalism, political correctness and Cultural Marxism are the same thing. Gottfried is on record saying that Lind does not believe in the existence of a conspiracy surrounding the Frankfurt school. I added it these to the article: [31]. Jobrot removed the edits (calling them "disruptive"). Word play is employed to pick and choose sources and craft sentences. Here's some fun stuff [32]:

As shown 2 comments above, WP:FRINGE requires independent reliable sources; I'd hardly call an article from The American Conservative in which the author specifically says he's friends with William S. Lind and is specifically attacking Wikipedia (albeit a 2 year old article on the topic that no longer exists); independent. Apart from that, you should be using Gottfried's book, but even then he is WP:UNDUE and including him in the lead violates WP:CITELEAD (as stated above WP:LISTEN).

There's no reason to include Gottfried's minority opinion, and nowhere in the article does it claim that Lind says Cultural Marxism is a conspiracy theory; it in fact says he's a proponent of the theory. And as I've stated on the talk page Lind repeatedly talks of unmasking the hidden agenda of the left to reveal old Karl Marx himself. Proponents of the moon landing hoax or NWO conspiracy theory ALSO don't state that they're conspiracy theorists. So no; WP:UNDUE opinions will not be included in the lead, and you WILL respect the consensus of your fellow editors.

So, the article all but calls Lind, Buchanan etc conspiracy theorists, uses sources who call them conspiracy theorists, but refuses to use Paul Gottfried's quote or mention him (a philosopher who wrote an academic book on the School) which says Lind is not a conspiracy theorist, because ... reasons. Last Contrarian (talk) 15:00, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
a philosopher who wrote an academic book on the School - no he didn't. 'Cultural Marxism' comes up 4 times in the book; mostly by way of saying it isn't Marxism, as I've ALREADY explained to you with these quotes from the book:
"Nothing intrinsically Marxist, that is to say, defines "cultural Marxism," save for the evocation or hope of a postbourgeois society."
Going on to say:
"The mistake of those who see one position segueing into another is to confuse contents with personalities."
This disagrees with Lind and Buchanan's viewpoint of wanting to "unmask ol' Karl Marx himself" and is proof that you're way out of your element here. Also I gave you reasons for not including the article over on the Administrative Notice Board. We've already had this discussion, learn to WP:LISTEN. --Jobrot (talk) 17:19, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Removed your improper usage of my signature, see WP:TPG if you want to learn how to quote others properly. --Jobrot (talk) 17:29, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

I've been continuing to puzzle over the question "where are the mainstream conservative publications" and realized that 'American Conservative' is definitely not on the list. They're the publisher of both William Lind's review of Gottfried's book 'The Strange Death of Marxism' and Gottfried's comments on Lind's review (as well as Gottfried's complaints about Wikipedia), all of which are cited in the above conversation. I believe Lind is correctly described as paleo-conservative, and Gottfried apparently coined the term. In Gottfried's article, he explicitly mentions that he believes he has been effectively banned from access to mainstream conservative outlets, so that must not include American Standard. He mentions Fox News as an example of the outlets that he's been blacklisted from. Funny, I always thought of Fox News as a bunch of neoconservatives. Well, silly me, I didn't realize that neoconservatives are now considered mainstream, but I guess it's true.
Looking for a list of 'neoconservative' outlets, I found that Sourcewatch [33] has a list, and it includes National Review and Washington Times, but not the others I mentioned. Also, Fox News, Wall Street Journal, and The Atlantic, among many more. Using Google to search for 'cultural marxism' within those websites, I find that they really do tend to avoid the term for the most part. There are a few scattered references, but generally when they want to criticize 'political correctness' or 'multiculturalism', they use those terms directly, rather than using the pejorative 'cultural Marxism'. And then there's that Washington Times quote I came up with above, which does humorously chide CM as a "Conspiracy So Vast".
So I'm really not finding much of any support for the idea that the idea of Cultural Marxism, viewed as a Theory About a Conspiracy, is gaining traction in "mainstream conservative" media. It's more like a skeleton in their closet.
The dominant current use of the term (in left-mainstream critiques and paleo-con advocacy) does seem to be in Lind and Gottfried's framework, which Lind does describe as a theory about conspiracy. Lind refers to Gottfried's 'The Strange Death of Marxism' as a book about Cultural Marxism, and Gottfried doesn't take issue with that. But, Gottfried's denial that the theory is a conspiracy, seems to might fit with Jobrot's argument that advocates of 'theories about conspiracies' prefer to deny that they are advocating 'conspiracy theories'. (On the other hand, Gottfried's view of CM might be very different from Lind's, to the extent that Gottfried's version is not a conspiracy theory.)
Directly addressing the question in this RFC, I think it's a mistake to be too concerned with the distinction between "conspiracy theory" vs. "theory about conspiracy." Readers can evaluate the evidence presented, and reach their own conclusions. So in terms of improving the article for a neutral treatment, I think that Wiki should present the arguments and evidence in support of this particular conspiracy theory, as clearly and accurately as possible. There's a lot of room for improvement in that regard. But, based on all this analysis, I now support describing Cultural Marxism in Wiki voice in the lede as a conspiracy theory.JerryRussell (talk) 22:41, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
User:Rhoark makes an excellent point, that the current structure still has a problem of creating a 'POV Funnel' strongly forcing readers to consider the conspiracy theory first. Other non-conspiratorial uses of the term, though not the most popular, are still very significant. The existing lede is OK since it describes alternate uses in the 2nd sentence, but the section heading does create a funnel. JerryRussell (talk) 16:23, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
@JerryRussell: The National Review piece that you cite does not use Cultural Marxism in the original sense; see Dworkin's book for that Dworkin, Dennis L. (1997). Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain: History, the New Left, and the Origins of Cultural Studies. Duke University Press. ISBN 978-0-8223-1914-6. . Mduvekot (talk) 23:25, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi Mduvedkot, I went to look at the introduction of that book, and I'm still not sure what you mean. Are you saying that 'cultural Marxism' was originally used only to refer to the British school, and not to the earlier Frankfurt school? Or are you protesting that the right-wing caricature of "cultural Marxism" bears little if any resemblance to the actual ideas of the Frankfurt School, British school, or any other variety of Marxist? I would certainly agree that the ideas get distorted through the right-wing lens. JerryRussell (talk) 04:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm not sure this is an issue of synthesis as much as lack of balance and misdirected emphasis. Surely this page should explain in more detail what is meant by Cultural Marxism as originally defined (this Criticism sub-section is the first time the term is mentioned, and only briefly refers to its theoretical origins), and then note that a) the term has since become a pejorative used by many on the right and b) it is viewed by some as part of an anti-western conspiracy? Currently the opening of the section has it back to front historically, and gives too much weight to those writers who (with some justification) talk about conspiracy theories. Should WP itself really be declaring that a) this is the primary use of the term, b) it is, definitively and objectively, a conspiracy theory and c) the term "has been hijacked"? Take a Google Books search for example: most of the early results are about the concept as understood by the left. None mention it as a conspiracy theory of the right. Furthermore, I'd dispute how much all this detail about modern-day right-wing wibbling has to do with the Frankfurt School per se. It all seems a bit of a discursive political debate rather than part of an encyclopedic explanation of what the Frankfurt School is (or was). N-HH talk/edits 08:01, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
All that was decided in the AfD; and unfortunately the Conspiracy Theory version is more common than the original meaning which is fairly hard to find sources for. Take Jameson on Jameson: Conversations on Cultural Marxism which doesn't actually ever use the term in the body of the book. Or Dworkins Cultural Marxism in post war Britain" which is about British Cultural Marxism, and states specifically that it's "the first intellectual history to study British cultural Marxism conceived as a coherent intellectual tradition, not limited to one discipline or one figure within it." - a major part of the problem is that it's always been a niche, uncommon and informal term (as the current section states) and the conservative conspiracy theory version of the term is now far more prominent. That said you're free to try and resurrect the previous article (although it was salted under WP:SALT, and only contained 9 sources, only 3 of which used the term explicitly 2 of which were from a single author; compared to the current 38 sources all using the term explicitly) but this section is primarily dedicated to the conspiracy theory meaning; hence the title. --Jobrot (talk) 12:05, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Ironically this RfC is about the right-wing viewpoint not being covered enough; which is probably why it's been over-included; because people keep complaining there's not enough of it in there. That said the rest of The Frankfurt School page does say a lot about their views; which is basically what the original meaning of Cultural Marxism was briefly (in the 70s) synonymous for. Before the right-side of politics made it synonymous with feminism, multiculturalism and political correctness (none of which The Franks talked about at any length). Hell The Frankfurt School even gets a mention in Metapedia's mission statement; so the right side of politics are pretty obsessed with them (hence the length of the talk archives on here and the outside attention the topic attracts). --Jobrot (talk) 12:11, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Since posting here I have looked into the convoluted WP history of this a bit more and into modern US usage, but stand by my comments regardless: I think that AFD decision was wrong; and however popular it is as a right-wing meme in the US, you rarely hear the term used in the second, pejorative sense in Britain. As for sources, the two you cite provide evidence for the standard, original usage, not evidence against it, however niche or informal it might be. It's the title of both, and the description you quote of the second is simply saying it's the first overview of the tradition, not that the tradition didn't exist under that name before. Plenty of sources I scanned through after picking them up via Google Books use the term to refer to the application of Marxist analysis to cultural issues (which, FWIW, is how I have always taken the term when I've come across it). It may be a widely used pejorative – often attached to what is reasonably called a conspiracy theory – in current US political discourse, but that doesn't override everything, any more than the polemical use of the term fascism overrides its original sense. If anything the content here gives too prominent a platform to right-wing tropes in a page about something only distantly related to them. Either way, I don't see that someone looking for an explanation of "Cultural Marxism", whether they saw it on a right-wing blog moaning about "political correctness" or in a mroe sober discussion of New Left theory, would expect to end up in a subsection of the Frankfurt School page describing a conspiracy theory about said school. That may have been what was agreed, but in these kinds of situations on WP, what was agreed after years of fractious debate is often the worst option. N-HH talk/edits 12:32, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
The problem is that stupid editors took a simple article [34] on "Cultural Marxism" [35] that could have been improved in place, redirected it to one on the "Frankfurt School conspiracy theory" [36] and then finally to the "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory" section in the article. Having a conspiracy theory section in an article on "Cultural Marxism" (which allows for other usages) is very different from claiming that "Cultural Marxism" primarily refers to a conspiracy theory and all other usages are insignificant enough that they can be folded into the section on the conspiracy theory.
What we have here is a screw up of epic proportions. Administrators who don't want to tread into this mess, and biased editors who viciously guard the article and demand (and often obtain) administrative action against those who cross them. Look at the edit history, and the editors involved and you will know what has been going on. Last Contrarian (talk) 14:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, but aren't you the one saying that rabid left-wing editors aren't giving the religious paleoconservative usage of the term enough of a chance; even though the members of the FCF who pioneered the usage of the term on the right literally claim "Cultural Marxism" is a century old plot to destroy western civilization and replace it with Marxism? --Jobrot (talk) 14:46, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

-

Well; whether you like it or not it does always come back to the Frankfurt School; whether by claiming that's where Stuart Hall and Richard Hoggart started out (intellectually speaking) or whether by referring to the Frankfurt School directly (as cultural Marxism broadly did in the 1970s). So I don't know why you think it shouldn't be on The Frankfurt School page considering that's what the term was used to refer to. Personally I believe British Cultural Marxism was a drastic departure from The Frankfurt Schools top-down style of analysis; but hey, that's just me. --Jobrot (talk) 14:40, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
You might find these disambiguation discussions handy [37], [38], [39], and of course there's a split proposal higher up on this very page. I'm not really sure giving an informal and niche term its own page is WP:DUE and I suspect it would need a high degree of ongoing attention and protection should you get enough editors/admins interested. But yeah; if that's what you want to try and do that's totally up to you. My intention here has always been to enforce policy (particularly WP:FRINGE) in regards to the conspiracy theory version of the term, and document its development and usage within the ongoing Culture War. The Frankfurt School were a bunch of distinct and individual anti-fascists (who had seen the rise of Nazism from within the German cultural perspective) and who were interested in Cultural Analysis; they weren't somehow plotting the downfall of the west as is claimed by proponents of the Conspiracy Theory. --Jobrot (talk) 15:37, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Given that the term is used to title serious books and academic papers, and frequently within such sources to describe the more obvious "members" of the Frankfurt School as well as writers who had little to do directly with it (including EP Thompson in a couple I've seen just now), I think it's hard to maintain the "niche" angle. I can't see that it's not notable enough for its own page, and tend to agree that the old, deleted page made a good start at dealing with the topic, focused on its original meaning but including its current prevalence in US culture war debates. The term goes beyond the Frankfurt School, and beyond the modern "conspiracy theory", so it shouldn't be a subsection on this page, or be focused on modern politics wherever it is. It's connected to this page, to US Culture war and to Critical theory, and there are overlaps, but is a discrete and substantive topic in its own right; a disambiguation page might help, but I think it needs more than that. That said, I don't have the time to invest in what would no doubt be an extended rerun of old debates which would probably end anyway with this unhappy compromise outcome all over again, or something similar. Plus this has slightly gone beyond the RfC ambit, so I'll leave it there. N-HH talk/edits 16:21, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
I feel much the same way. Although I still believe the term is somewhat informal making it difficult to get a grip on without A LOT of reading; and the term is also associated with a myriad of other terms it would need to be made distinct from. I find it much easier to talk about The Frankfurt School as there are set facts that can be determined and investigated with them. "Cultural Marxism" not so much (due to its informal nature). Thanks for your input. --Jobrot (talk) 17:01, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes The belief that academics are following Marxist doctrine in order to destroy the United States is a conspiracy theory. Wikipedia policy requires that in order to take a theory beyond the fringe that mainstream sources support it. Of course it could be that the reason no mainstream sources do not support the theory is that the mainstream is controlled by the cultural Marxists. But we cannot say that unless we first change content policy. TFD (talk) 07:05, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Current handling is less than ideal The term "cultural Marxism" is simply a synonym favored by conservatives when referring to the Frankfurt school. Conspiracy ideation may or may not follow from particular instances of this usage. There is certainly enough mainstream labeling to satisfy WP:LABEL but not so much to imply unanimity. Right-wing sources are in the end still part of the "significant views" under WP:NPOV. Ultimately, I think what must be done is that the conspiracy descriptor must be given a lot of prominence, but within a more neutrally titled section, such as "Conservative perspective". This would follow the advice of WP:POVNAMING and avert the current WP:POVFUNNEL that serves to exclude non-conspiratorial criticism. Rhoark (talk) 14:23, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Rhoark, for pointing out the WP:POVFUNNEL issue. The conspiracy theory may be the most predominant usage, but not the only usage. The lede mentions other uses in the 2nd sentence, which helps significantly, but the section label creates the problem. Looking back at the history, there was a consensus process but it didn't involve many editors, there was no officially announced RFC, and the issues in WP:LABEL, WP:POVNAMING and WP:POVFUNNEL were not considered. JerryRussell (talk) 16:33, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Just to respond to this latest comment, I'd dispute this point about the primary/major use. Yes it's an active polemical term in US politics right now, and fairly common across US media and blog-land, but if you look in serious academic and other sources, from an international perspective, the most common usage is as a more objective taxonomical term for certain currents of Marxist thinking in the mid 20th century. You could make comparisons with Fascism, Zionism and even plain Marxism in that regard: all have a more serious use and definition, but have since become used much more loosely and pejoratively in a more casual sense. A serious encyclopedia remains focused on the first (which in this case I would argue also needs a standalone page), while noting the second, related use subsequent to that, without entering into the detail of the political debate around it or making judgments about it. As noted previously, a Google Book search for "cultural Marxism" makes this pretty plain: virtually nothing about right-wing pejorative use or about left-wing critique of that as a conspiracy theory. N-HH talk/edits 17:17, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
@JerryRussell WP:POVNAMING states: "If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased.". --Jobrot (talk) 19:06, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
@Rhoark The term "cultural Marxism" is simply a synonym favored by conservatives - I've seen no evidence that it's treated as a synonym; and Lind explicitly states: "cultural Marxism has become the ruling ideology of America’s elites." as do the conservapedia and metapedia pages for the subject. In regards to what constitutes the 'Conservative viewpoint', I'll paste some comments I made earlier to JerryRussell:
"My understanding of the right-side of American politics is that the Neoconservatives are more center right than the Paleoconservatives (that being the primary division on the right); and of course this means some Paleoconservatives accuse the Neoconservatives of being Trotskists and Leninists as is their want. I'd consider The Weekly Standard and The Atlantic (as run by republican William Kristol) to be examples of Neoconservative media outlets, and the Ricochet podcast is also quite a good center right media outlet I enjoy. But I wouldn't call Neoconservatism on it's own, nor Paleoconservatism on it's own center right. Neither can really be said to constitute "mainstream" right-wing politics (if such a thing can be said to exist). That's just the nature of the division, and Neoconservatives don't really discuss Cultural Marxism as it's a Paleoconservative conspiracy theory - so is not representative of the 'mainstream' right's view."
It's a Paleoconservative conspiracy theory; and isn't widely accepted or seen as a flag that all conservatives bare.
As for your accusation that there is a WP:POVFUNNEL that serves to exclude non-conspiratorial criticism; there are actually already 4 sections for non-conspiratorial criticism. They are [criticisms of] Horkheimer and Adorno's pessimism, Habermas's solutions: critical theory "between past and future", Criticism of psychoanalytic categorizations and Economic and media critiques. --Jobrot (talk) 18:58, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Creating a Cultural Marxism section for contrast[edit]

Hi Jobrot, if a user starts from Google and searches for "Cultural Marxism", then follows the link to the Wikipedia article, it indexes straight to the "Cultural Marxism Conspiracy Theory" section. That is, from outside, this section looks at first glance like a stand-alone Wiki page. All those other sections you mention are bypassed, and might easily be neglected by the casual visitor. That's how the funnel is created. WP:POVNAMING also says neutral terms are generally preferable. In this case, we could have a section heading "Cultural Marxism" for explanation & disambiguation, and a subsection heading "Cultural Marxism Conspiracy Theory" where the conspiracy theory is explained. JerryRussell (talk) 21:04, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea to explore, but I'm still not sure it will be successful due to a couple of factors. One being that the term cultural Marxism has some distinctions that fall outside of The Frankfurt School; namely British Cultural Marxism (which as the current section notes, has a different mode of interpretation of Culture than the Frankfurt Schools. Another being Thompsonian Marxism which N-HH had mentioned earlier. In researching it I found this reference which refers to Thompsonian Marxism as humanist Marxism, saying;
"Instead, the Thompsonian project envisaged a humanist Marxism (sometimes called ‘cultural Marxism’)."
...this leads into the need to make distinctions between Western Marxism, Post-Marxism, Neo-Marxism and possibly Marxist Humanism (although the above quote suggests Cultural Marxism is a form of Marxist Humanism) but also broaches another problem; the term cultural Marxism (particularly with that older sequence of capitalization; cultural Marxism) was often (prior to the 1990s Culture war use of the term) taken as a literalism (Where 'cultural' was used in a non-jargon sense). The two terms hadn't become one yet, they were just two words put together, and it was hence an informal term. That is to say, it was a reference to Marxist ideas one could interpret as reflected within wider culture. Whether that meant the prevalence of unionism, protest, social welfare, internationalism or universal education. However obviously taking over the world and running hollywood and the media aren't Marxist values; so what we'd really be trying to do here is to derivate an informal term into perhaps something more than it was intended to be; whilst also making it distinct from the conspiracy theory version of the term as well as successors from within the left which went on to be far more prominent (up until the right-side of US politics abducted this older informal usage for their own purposes). Marxist humanism being one such successor. As far as I can see; the term cultural Marxism was for the most part abandoned by the majority of the left (for better distinctions and successors listed above) bar a few select people who still use it in reference to historical terms in the teaching of Cultural Studies (perhaps another important point to include).
P.S Hope you don't mind that I've created a new heading on the talk page for further discussion of your idea, feel free to re-title the heading or remove it should you not see it as helpful. --Jobrot (talk) 05:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)


I've also found this minor source here which suggests this whole division between Culture Studies and cultural Marxism was created by Fredric Jameson via his suggesting Culture Studies be re-titled cultural Marxism the thinking being that analysis of Culture in political terms is fundamentally and always - due to the Cultural hegemony of Capitalism - a critique of Capitalism. In the pamphlet (which does not in my view meet WP:RS) it's said:
"Therefore, Fredric Jameson emphasizes the need to recover the critical theory of culture that comes from Marx, Freud, the School of Frankfurt, Luckács, Sartre and complex Marxism, and suggests redefining cultural studies as cultural Marxism and as a critique of capitalism. For this, the economic, political and social formations should be considered and the importance of social classes highlighted (Jameson, 1998)."
On a personal note; I don't think this is a valid viewpoint as non-dominant cultures (ie. anarchist collectives, kibbutz, Stalinist Russia ect.. can all still be criticized via the concepts found within Cultural Studies).
However I'm not sure where Jameson's desires to rename Cultural Studies fits in (and I suspect he uses the term loosely as in his book he avoids defining it, and it in fact doesn't appear within the body text at all - suggesting a very informal usage on the cover) and what's more I'm already aware that the works of Nancy Fraser are critical of identity politics (aka the use of social classes) and that she's seen as a modern descendant of The Frankfurt School [40]. From what I've read in the frankfurt school reddit community, it's not even clear whether the Frankfurt School are Marxist, and it's suggested there that they are more likely Historical Materialists.
Marxist Humanism may be the key, or it maybe that the term Cultural Marxism just never attained a formal usage within it's own era. I'm simply dazzled by how complex this subject is already, and I've been trying to wrap my head around it for a couple of years now. I do suspect The Frankfurt School were to some degree orthodox Marxists; and that the attempt to cast them as the progenitors of modern identity politics has no grounds. The mistake may be in Paleoconservatives assuming Cultural Studies is a reflection of the views of the Frankfurt School rather than a reflection of changing times within the cultural, advertising and media landscape (and hence the political landscape). --Jobrot (talk) 05:43, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for starting a new section. It's a related topic to the RfC, but not exactly the same, and it would be good to get more feedback on editorial views. I would support the idea that 'Cultural Marxism' is notable and widely used enough to deserve a stand-alone Wiki article. Looking back at the old AfD discussion, one aspect of the decision was that the old article was widely viewed as unsatisfactory. In order to re-create the article through deletion review, it's recommended to have a draft for the proposed new article. What better place to create such a draft, than here?
The above discussion is very interesting, but perhaps a simpler reason for the present state of usage of CM, is the extent to which Marxism in general has fallen into disrepute? That is, since the failure of the Soviet Union, hardly anyone on the Left wants to be considered any kind of Marxist or Communist. Whereas their opponents on the Right are all too eager to tar everyone on the Left with that brush, hence the popularity of the conspiracy theory. JerryRussell (talk) 16:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC)